Latest Entries »
After last Christmas I picked up a Lowrance Elite 4 DSI from Cabelas on sale. I got the standard Cabelas 12 volt battery with charger. My wife had gotten me a Scotty Bait Board, camera mount, and fish finder mount. I started installing it all in May, but I didn’t complete it until July.
It took me that long to figure out how I wanted to mount the transducer, and then to get the RAM arm for it. I had decided it would be best to do a removable install, as I intended to get a better kayak at some point and it would be good if everything could transfer from one kayak to the other and back.
I mounted the head unit on the left of the cockpit, the bait board on the right, with the camera mount on it, and I put a flush mount Scotty base in front of the cockpit for the RAM arm. The RAM transducer arm is available with a variety of mounting options and since everything I had was Scotty I decided to stick with it.
Since everything is mounted in standard Scotty mounts it is all interchangeable. I can move any of the accessories to any of the mounts as needed. The battery goes in the front storage compartment.
You can see how the transducer is hung over the side of the kayak. I have not had a chance to use this set up yet. I really haven’t had much time to get out this year, and most of that was before I had this all set up.
Everything is easily removable, and can be transferred to any other kayaks I may get in the future. Since all of the premium kayaks come with some version of track system now I would just need some Scotty gearhead track adapters.
I’m planning to get out a lot more in 2016 and to spend a lot of time next year fishing. So I’ll post a report once I have a chance to thoroughly put it through it’s paces.
I’ve been reading Chris Cantwell off and on for a while. For me he has a big advantage over the rest of what he calls “celebritarians” for two reasons. First he has reached and embraced the conclusion that the only thing that has any chance to change the course of human society today is direct violent resistance against the specific agents of collectivism, and second he writes. He actually still writes. On a blog.
Regarding the first point, he doesn’t advise anyone to go out and engage in violence against government agents now, and neither do I. I like to fish, kayak, read and listen to Austrian School Economics and anarchist philosophy, and make love to my wife. I could not do these things in prison. So I will go on being another sheep on the tax farm. As will Cantwell. But he discusses it in theory.
A lot of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are very pacifist. That’s fine as long as you are honest with yourself. But the truth is that pacifism never accomplishes change. People with power will not stop exerting that power until their victims make it too dangerous. If you think pacifism and education will one day convince everyone to withhold their consent from the state then I invite you to read some old Rothbard; The New Menace of Gandhism which has thankfully been preserved by Mises.org and Lew Rockwell. When it was originally published in 1982 I was in late elementary school or beginning middle school and had not had the foresight to start reading Rothbard. A few choice paragraphs make the point;
At the heart of the Voluntaryist strategy is an unquestionably correct syllogism: If the mass of the people were, at one blow, to withhold their obedience from the State, refuse to pay taxes, stop circulating the State’s paper money, or refuse to obey unjust laws, then the State would be brought down. The major problem, of course, is the likelihood of the If.
There are many successful examples of violent revolution against the State in modern history; the state only two examples of successful non-violent revolution. (Professor Gene Sharp, the current apostle of non-violence, mainly cites marginal examples which have a similar standing to Konkin’s black markets: they ease some of the pain of oppression without doing much to end it. E.g., Danish slowdowns in obeying Nazi orders during the German occupation in World War II). These two examples are instructive, especially in light of the fact that violent revolutions are attacked from all sides as leading to new forms of State oppression. For they are Gandhi’s India, which led to Mrs. Gandhi’s dictatorship and the horrifying experiment in compulsory sterilization; and the Khomeini revolution in Iran, which brought down the Shah’s regime by a series of non-violent actions culminating in a universal general strike. The non-violent Khomeini revolution, of course, has brought forth the monstrous tyranny of Khomeini’s Islamic fundamentalism.
The comparative record of non-violent revolutions is, then, worse than that of violent ones, for the violence of the American Revolution after all brought forth a pretty good result, while non-violence has accomplished nothing fruitful at all.
Of course no such discussion would be complete without mention of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the obligatory quote, always one of my favorites;
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
To the second point, Cantwell writes. I work 4 jobs. At most of those I do not have time to watch videos, and when I do have time I do not have wifi or computer access. Our cellular data plan is not sufficient to support streaming videos using data. I would burn up all our data in a couple of days and my wife would kill me. So the only time I can watch videos is when I am home, and on those rare occasions I have too many other things to do. Important things. More important than watching Josie the Outlaw shake her stuff, or even watching or listening to Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods surgically dissect current events. I sure as hell don’t have time for hour and half Stephan Molynuex feature films (though he has gone down the tubes anyway), or equally long freedom feens podcasts. I do listen to audio books and other audio from Mises.org on my drives to and from work. But since Cantwell writes I can still sit down when I have a moment in the middle of the night at work and read his stuff. Some I agree with and some I don’t, but I can read it. If you are exclusively making videos or doing podcasts, you lost me.
Side note on that, Daily Anarchist, if you’re reading this for some unfathomable reason, post some shit! You guys haven’t had a blog post since July. That’s as bad as me. But for me this is a minor hobby, and I’ve been beset with technical difficulties for a couple of years. You guys are pros. Step up your game.
So that’s the background. Now we’ll get to the criticism. There is a lot I agree with Cantwell on, and a lot I disagree with him on. Getting anarchists to agree on anything is like herding cats. But he really took a turn in my opinion on September 28. And it provide a wonderful opportunity to illustrate some of the errors and mistakes common to movements throughout human history. I posted about it in another venue, but now I am going to repost it starting here.
Well Cantwell is off the cliff now with everyone else.
There are 3 or 4 good paragraphs in there. One is positively brilliant in it’s explanation of the problem and manipulation cycle. And then he goes over the edge.
All of the baby anarchists are turning into either social justice idiots or nationalists.
Lets analyze this in more detail. My comments after his paragraphs.
Open Borders, or Market Immigration?
September 28, 2015 Chris 56 Comments
With Donald Trump at the forefront of the Republican presidential primary, and “refugees” pouring into Europe in record breaking numbers, immigration is a hot topic as of late. Reactions range from advocating giant walls be built, to amnesty, subsidy, citizenship, and voting rights. Whenever that great a chasm exists, there must be great controversy, and wherever such controversy exists, I must wade.
For a libertarian, the answer may at first seem quite obvious, open borders. Governments have this nasty habit of building walls to keep people in, far more than to keep them out. Arbitrary geopolitical boundaries seem quite senseless, when drawn by criminal enterprises calling themselves nation States. Governments obtain everything they have from coercive violence, and thus have no legitimate claim to control what are commonly considered public spaces. We will decide for ourselves who comes onto our property, thank you very much.
So far, so good. The last line sums it all up nicely “We will decide for ourselves who comes onto our property, thank you very much.” This is an argument FOR open borders. I do not care if a person currently residing in another geopolitical area moves to a different geopolitical area as long as he doesn’t use initiatory force to make that move. IE; if immigrants use roads and other travel methods that do not belong to any particular person or LEGITIMATE group of persons there is no problem (remember this line. It will be important again later.). We’ll call stuff that belongs to a particular person or LEGITIMATE group of persons private property. If the immigrant gets permission to cross private property there is no problem. If the Immigrant crosses private property without permission, that’s trespass, trespass is a form of aggression, and if the owners want to they can shoot trespassers.
A practical and strategic problem then presents itself. If one is working toward building a more libertarian society, the importation of millions of communists, socialists, and religious fanatics – many of whom think the State should impose the will of their deity on the society – does not advance their purposes. Increased burdens on welfare rolls mean higher taxes. Increased crime means a greater police presence. Depressed wages means more people looking to government for solutions. Changing demographics in the age of political correctness means racial tension.
That was the wind up. And it shows us the error Cantwell is about to make. Rothbard informs us that the Socialists identified two traps for the aspiring revolutionary; sectarianism and opportunism. Cantwell is beginning to contrast the two errors, as illustrated by Rothbard in The Case for Radical Idealism. He is about to choose between two mistakes, with no illustration whatsoever of the correct ideological path. It’s a lot like an election.
But the (good) libertarian will tend to put principle first, no doubt. If welfare rolls are burdened, abolish welfare. If a police presence is repressive, restrain or privatize the police. If wages are low, hire people. If racial tensions flare, abolish anti-discrimination laws. Met with the political realization that none of these things are going to happen, he may choose to allow the suffering and self righteously blame the State, or he may try to find a more practical solution to a problem that is happening immediately.
And now he has told us that he will choose opportunism. He also left out any attempt to address the real problem he identified in the earlier paragraph; ” the importation of millions of communists, socialists, and religious fanatics – many of whom think the State should impose the will of their deity on the society “. That clearly indicates that his fear and primary concern is that the area will be flooded with people who will change the ideology and the culture of the area. This is not an illegitimate concern. And there is a lot of evidence that it is being done intentionally by those in power as a form of social engineering. That in itself is a whole other discussion so I won’t explore it deeply here. Suffice to say the answer to ” the importation of millions of communists, socialists, and religious fanatics – many of whom think the State should impose the will of their deity on the society” is education, assimilation, and elimination of any compulsory systems that these people could use to effect state imposition of these ideologies, IE the correct solution is elimination of the state. Not of the immigrants.
OK, now this shit below here is golden for four paragraphs.
But let’s rewind a bit and analyze why people migrate in the first place. Growing up under the boot of the modern State, this can be difficult, but try to picture a free market world. People tend to be grouped together in various places throughout the globe. They have varying cultures, practices, and ethnic backgrounds much like they do now. Those cultures and practices lead to certain outcomes, some of which are more prosperous than others.
In one particular area, wages are very high. Even the lowest skilled worker is able to feed a family by working only 40 hours a week. In a market economy, this is a market signal that workers are in high demand in that area. With that signal sent, workers migrate to the area to fill the void. Wages fall until it no longer makes economic sense to travel to the area. Wages then stabilize. This is what healthy immigration looks like. Migration only occurs to meet a legitimate market demand, and once the demand is met, it ceases. There is no massive shift in demographics, the migrants integrate with the culture of the society, and everybody is happy.
But what if wages are very high, and (real) unemployment in the area is at 15%? This phenomenon can only occur under the boot of the State. This happens because of minimum wage laws, welfare subsidies, and other perverse economic incentives. Migrants respond to the market signal of high wages. They migrate, and some find jobs, and others do not. Those who do not find jobs end up on welfare rolls. Wages do not fall, and the market signal telling migrants to keep coming remains broadcasted to the world. More and more migrants come, the job market is saturated, they end up on the welfare rolls, and or involved in crime, and still the signal is broadcast to the world “Come here! Come here! Come here!” The welfare and crime burden increase in perpetuity. To meet the increased burden on public resources, money is printed. Money being printed causes prices to increase, but the steady supply of willing workers means wages do not rise with the prices of scarcer resources. Everybody in the society becomes increasingly miserable, and in their ignorance of economics they do not blame the minimum wage and welfare system, but rather demand their expansion. At this point, the misery of the society suggests to smart and productive people that this is not a good place to live, and the only migrants who continue to flow into the place are the lowest of the low. They breed, not only with each other, but with the natives – thereby irreparably lowering the genetic quality of the people in the society. The migrants, readily identified by their skin color, language, and culture, rightly become seen as a scourge on the society. If the natives refuse to do business with the migrants, they are branded as racists, and even sued or imprisoned for being so bigoted. This can result in nothing other than racially motivated violence.
At some point, we realize this cannot increase in perpetuity. It must hit a hard limit. Be it by a change in policy, a currency collapse, or riots in the street and a complete breakdown of the social order, the economics of the situation will bring a correction to that market. Depending on the form in which the correction comes, it could be cataclysmic, and with every moment the situation is allowed to continue the likelihood of that outcome increases.
Now those 4 paragraphs are worth reading again and again. Here we see that Cantwell WAS at one time a libertarian and anarchist. He has studied. He knows his shit.
So while the libertarian theorist may comfortably sit back from a distance and wag his finger at the government, the libertarian who actually wants to stop the suffering has no such option. There is an immediate problem, not in some dystopian future, or some Ayn Rand novel, or some economics text book, but in the real world right now. His list of options do not consist of principled or unprincipled behavior, but of policy changes or racial warfare.
And we’re back to the wind up. And again we are presented two fallacious choices; “policy changes or racial warfare.”. He specifically excludes the correct option; “principled behavior”. He only allows us to choose between state intervention which is to say violent coercion, or racial warfare. A false choice, again just like an election.
Any well read libertarian would surely see market based immigration as a great benefit to any society, just as all market based activity is. But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace. If the situation were such that an infinite amount of time existed to solve the problem, I would agree with the open borders advocate that the answer is to educate the populace, to change the economic incentives, to abolish the State itself and solve the core underlying problem. But the problem is immediate and growing worse with time, and since I abhor the possibility of racial holy wars breaking out on the streets of America and Europe, I find myself inclined to side with those favoring stricter immigration controls – even if only to temporarily stave off inevitable catastrophe.
And his choice is made; opportunism. He will advocate the use coercive force by the state apparatus against a bunch of people who at this point have committed no REAL crime in order to protect the people already here from more coercive use of force by the state in the form of taxes, police presence, etc. Here is his final sales pitch and the crux of the error; “But open borders in the presence of a command economy and welfare state is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace.” Indeed. Anything done in response to incorrect market signals in the presence of a command economy is decidedly anti-market, anti-freedom, and anti-peace because the command economy distorts the market signals. In fact the only way to have incorrect market signals is to have interference from a state. The CORRECT response is abolition of the command economy, the abolition of the state. Nothing else will work, and since nothing else will work any other action will only exacerbate the situation.
NOW, in the comment section of his blog quite an argument broke out with one person making the case that people here who have paid taxes and whose ancestors have paid taxes have some ownership interest in the land, roads, etc. That person opined that while these things may not be any particular persons private property, everyone who paid a tax to the government of this geopolitical area has some percentage ownership and together as a group constitute a LEGITIMATE owner. Not unlike a joint stock company. He further posits that our government is an insurance agency and our participation is somehow voluntary based on a contract established with out ancestors.
As such we, as a group that owns the roads and land, can exclude immigrants if we choose to.
Well, if the part about our government was in any way true he might be right. This is a version of the social contract theory.
Except that it isn’t true in any way, shape, or form.
One cannot impose contractual obligations on others, and that includes one’s descendants. So our ancestors could not impose a contract on us.
Contracts must be explicit, everything must be spelled out and specified, and the social contract in social contract theory is merely implied. If you don’t understand the difference watch a few episodes of Judge Judy. She regularly tries to explain contracts to people.
Social contract theorists claim we somehow agreed to the contract by being here, paying taxes, and obeying laws, all of which we would be shot if we didn’t do, which is actually coercive, not voluntary. Even in the beginning, when the contract (the constitution) was established many people didn’t agree with it. They were forced by the military to play along. Again, coercion.
I was given no choice in where I was born or raised, so how could I be obligated to some contract for being there. I never signed a contract for moving to Pennsylvania either.
Many many cases can be made that if any such contract ever existed it has become null and void because government has repeatedly broken it’s end of the deal.
So this social contract theory is bullshit. We do not own a portion of the roads of the lands in any meaningful way.
A counterargument is that while we don’t own the roads and lands a fictional entity, the government, owns them on our behalf. And as our representative it has LEGITIMATE ownership interest and can legitimately allow or block immigration. Well, government got everything it has by the use of force. GOVERNMENT STOLE EVERYTHING IT HAS AT GUNPOINT! And that is the reason we have all of the problems we have. If government hadn’t stolen land, and stolen money to build roads and claimed all of the unclaimed land in a geographic area then either someone would own that land or it would be un-owned Someone who owned land might have built roads. Then we would know if the immigrants were trespassing or not. It would be really simple and easy. So government is NOT A LEGITIMATE OWNER OF ANYTHING. Government cannot ever be a legitimate owner of anything. And neither I, or anyone else have a contract with it.
This all also, much like the Confederate flag debate, revolves around the tragedy of the commons.
Indeed, social contract theory is nothing more than attempt to justify monopoly coercive use of force (government, state) in the face of the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons can only occur in the presence of a non voluntary collective (government, state).
It cannot occur in a society based on individual private property and contract. An ancap society would never have an immigration problem. Move where you want, just don’t trespass.