An example of a private police company

Posted on August 28th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment »

http://www.sfspecialneighborhoodpolicing.org/

The Patrol Special Police and Who They Are

Patrol Special Police are the only private neighborhood policing service screened by background checks conducted by the San Francisco Police Department, annually trained at the San Francisco Police Academy, and regulated by the Police Commission. Patrol Special Police provide the only safety service that is legally permitted to patrol the City’s streets, and is on police radio frequencies.

Supported by the Community, for the Community

Patrol Special Police do more than keep City neighborhoods and streets safe. Officers:

1. familiarize themselves with neighborhood patterns and lifestyles,

2. quickly become trusted members of the communities they serve,

3. attend resident community meetings, and neighborhood and merchant associations,

4. listen to the needs of both their clients and other community members,

5. provide up-to-date personal and property safety education,

6. encourage and assist citizens to report incidents,

7. build trust in all law enforcement, and

8. alert the community about possible patterns or incidents that require precautions.

Let me guess the criticisms from statists and minarchists… “They are kept in line by the government police… that’s the only reason this works.” Even if true, which it’s not quantifiable either way at this point, it does not legitimize the use of coercion to pay for the government defense force and is logically inconsistent with their reason for existing.

How Richard Stallman’s GPL Platform Backfires on the Free Software Movement

Posted on August 5th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments »

http://www.gnu.org/…

http://arstechnica.com/…

The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the launch of the first political party whose platform is to reduce copyright restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of noncommercial sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright for commercial use to a five-year period. Five years after publication, any published work would go into the public domain.

I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special case of free software. I’m sure that they did not intend to hurt free software, but that’s what would happen.

The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license. Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license. And all redistributors must give users access to the software’s source code.

The highlighted statement is incorrect. As the Ars Technica states: “Copyleft is an important part of Stallman’s vision because it compels companies that use copyleft code to open their own source code when they might not have otherwise been willing to do so voluntarily.” A right, freedom, comes from within. It is negative. It can not place an obligation on another which has not been voluntarily entered into. There can not be a right to education or healthcare in that it is someone’s obligation to provide you with them. To claim such a thing is to claim to have the right over another’s labor meaning they are your slave. In the same way copyright, and therefore copyleft, are an affront to the liberty not only for the publisher but the user. Copyright makes the customer the slave to the producer and copyleft the producer the slave of another in the name of the consumer. Rather then advocating co-slavery, where the real master are those in positions within the government and their fascistic friends, let us advocate the emancipation of all those held under the thumb of organized violent institutions.

How would the Swedish Pirate Party’s platform affect copylefted free software? After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?

Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don’t have the source code. Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.

One can not surrender one’s freedom except in that case were they have aggressed against another. And then only to the extent to which is necessary to stop the aggression. The user gives up no freedom when voluntarily using closed source software. Stallman is looking to actually restrict user’s freedom by attempting to use copyright to force companies to work within his free software paradigm and restricting the marketplace. If FOSS is indeed a better way for all involved it will naturally become the dominant method of software development and distribution in the market naturally. There is no need to force it into being through threats and violence.

We also use copyright to partially deflect the danger of software patents.

More artificial monopoly privileges will not fix artificial monopoly privileges. Approach this problem from a true freedom oriented perspective and all these contradictions will disappear as will this endless tug of war for power over the State.

I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software’s source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software’s source code. After all, copyleft is a means to an end (users’ freedom), not an end in itself. And I’d rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright.

Fundamentally there is no difference between what Stallman advocates and what the stricter copyright people advocate. It is an argument over degrees and not kind. It is an argument that will never be resolved so long as the conversation is held within this intellectual property box. As long as Stallman and those who agree with him can do sue companies for GPL violation (and win)… the RIAA can restrict individual’s access to things they purchase and the game console companies the same. Freedom on all sides would allow the market place to find the best solutions for all those involved without all the unproductive fighting for control and as Eric S. Raymond pointed out… the fear it creates.

A real analysis of the FOSS community I believe would show that FOSS works without copyright. Through voluntary means software stays more or less open as the original author desired. Projects which are slow to change or allow outside participation are forked or replaced and the best method for the community wins out. Those companies which fail to release modifications to the source which they’ve used in their products are ostracized often leading to the code’s publication. If the general customers of their products are displeased with the lack of openness or product flexibility they will take their business elsewhere. They will succeed or fail in the market as everyone else. Artificially sustaining FOSS through monopoly privileges is economically and therefore socially regressive and destructive. It has no place in a free society.

For more information regarding intellectual property monopoly:

Obama is Right

Posted on August 5th, 2009 by bosco
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
We need to change how we look at health care in this nation. Health care is way too expensive and lower income people do not have good access to health care.
The most logical solution would be to lower the cost of health care. If we could do that, then lower income people would have more access. An easy fix would be allowing neighborhood clinics to be established that can treat common ailments. Personnel at these clinics should be able to identify basic illnesses and treat injuries such as broken bones and lacerations. Your average emergency room visits are for chest pain, fevers and coughs. All of which are symptoms of typically minor problems. If neighborhood clinics could be established with personnel who can diagnose and prescribe treatment for these basic issues you could take a lot of pressure off of the hospitals.
So why don’t many of these places exist? Most people don’t want to spend the massive amount of money and time it takes to become a certified doctor only to work at a small clinic and not make much money. The solution is to allow people to practice medicine without government intervention. A person’s diplomas and their patient testimonies should be all consumers need to judge them. If I have a minor cut that needs a few stitches, someone who has taken a one semester course in emergency medicine should be able to help me just fine. It saves me money and it gives someone a job. Bingo, the cost of health care just went down.
I’m not ignorant of the fact that 80% of current health care expenses are for major treatments. Treating cancer, cardiovascular disease and severe injuries make up this category. By moving the minor stuff out of the hospitals we free up people who have the skills necessary to treat these problems. We can also move continuing and preventative care out of the hospital and into the clinic, freeing up even more doctors. Also with these clinics in the neighborhoods preventative care becomes cheaper and more accessible therefore lowing the chance that someone will need major treatments later on.
So how do we implement this? The government could print up a bunch of money and dump it into building, staffing and regulating these clinics. The problem with that is there a certain people who have a vested interest in keeping heath care expensive. These people will either strive to keep health care the way it is, or inject themselves into the money stream going to the clinics. Either way it doesn’t work. The solution is to compete with the current established institutions to force them to change. All you need to do to cause this competition is remove the regulations currently preventing entrepreneurs from building community clinics. The solution would actually save the government money since they won’t need as many regulators.
But won’t people get hurt or receive shoddy treatment? Not if the clinic wants to stay in business. If they do a poor job, people will stop going and another clinic will open up. I trust my life to the mechanic who works on the brakes on my car. I do this because I go to a reputable shop and use mechanics who are ASE certified. Likewise I would trust my life to a Doctor who has a good reputation and credentials that I find acceptable.
So, less government interference yields more market choice which causes cheaper health care and a higher standard of living for all. Sounds good to me.

We need to change how we look at health care in this nation. Health care is way too expensive and lower income people do not have good access to health care.

The most logical solution would be to lower the cost of health care. If we could do that, then lower income people would have more access. An easy fix would be allowing neighborhood clinics to be established that can treat common ailments. Personnel at these clinics should be able to identify basic illnesses and treat injuries such as broken bones and lacerations. Your average emergency room visits are for chest pain, fevers and coughs. All of which are symptoms of typically minor problems. If neighborhood clinics could be established with personnel who can diagnose and prescribe treatment for these basic issues you could take a lot of pressure off of the hospitals.

So why don’t many of these places exist? Most people don’t want to spend the massive amount of money and time it takes to become a certified doctor only to work at a small clinic and not make much money. The solution is to allow people to practice medicine without government intervention. A person’s diplomas and their patient testimonies should be all consumers need to judge them. If I have a minor cut that needs a few stitches, someone who has taken a one semester course in emergency medicine should be able to help me just fine. It saves me money and it gives someone a job. Bingo, the cost of health care just went down.

I’m not ignorant of the fact that 80% of current health care expenses are for major treatments. Treating cancer, cardiovascular disease and severe injuries make up this category. By moving the minor stuff out of the hospitals we free up people who have the skills necessary to treat these problems. We can also move continuing and preventative care out of the hospital and into the clinic, freeing up even more doctors. Also with these clinics in the neighborhoods preventative care becomes cheaper and more accessible therefore lowing the chance that someone will need major treatments later on.

So how do we implement this? The government could print up a bunch of money and dump it into building, staffing and regulating these clinics. The problem with that is there a certain people who have a vested interest in keeping heath care expensive. These people will either strive to keep health care the way it is, or inject themselves into the money stream going to the clinics. Either way it doesn’t work. The solution is to compete with the current established institutions to force them to change. All you need to do to cause this competition is remove the regulations currently preventing entrepreneurs from building community clinics. The solution would actually save the government money since they won’t need as many regulators.

But won’t people get hurt or receive shoddy treatment? Not if the clinic wants to stay in business. If they do a poor job, people will stop going and another clinic will open up. I trust my life to the mechanic who works on the brakes on my car. I do this because I go to a reputable shop and use mechanics who are ASE certified. Likewise I would trust my life to a Doctor who has a good reputation and credentials that I find acceptable.

So, less government interference yields more market choice which causes cheaper health care and a higher standard of living for all. Sounds good to me.


posted originally at Fr33Agents.net

Churches, mosques say offering broadband net access is a moral obligation, advocate forced wealth redistribution

Posted on July 16th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments »

http://arstechnica.com/…

Jesus said that the poor would always be with us—but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to bring them broadband. A coalition of Christian churches and the Islamic Society of North America has launched a new campaign to bring broadband to everyone in the US so that “our poorest communities, our rural areas, our public libraries, our public schools, and community centers” benefit from the communications revolution that the Internet hath wrought.

The “Bring Betty Broadband” campaign casts the broadband debate in moral terms. It’s about the “right to disseminate and receive information,” it’s a “right that helps to define ourselves as human beings and political actors,” and it’s absolutely essential for everyone in a modern society.

In addition, in the modern economy, just distribution of access to communication and information is essential to promote economic justice,” says the group. “Increasingly in the United States, the fundamental right to communicate is meaningless without high speed Internet access.”

The joint effort is part of a media reform project called “So We Might See,” and it’s spearheaded by the United Church of Christ. It has also been endorsed by the National Council of Churches, the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, the United Methodists, the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), the Lutherans (ELCA), and the Islamic Society of North America.

The groups all believe that the government has a role to play in this process, especially with more than $7 billion in broadband stimulus money on the table. “For too long,” they say, “the process of reaching out and educating traditionally disenfranchised communities has been left to volunteer efforts and the philanthropic community alone. Increasing access doesn’t just assist the people who are helped, we all benefit. Just as the value of a telephone increases when we can reach more people by using it, the value of the Internet for all of us increases when we are all connected.”

But, recognizing that many people without broadband don’t currently see its utility, the coalition asks the government “to promote digital inclusion initiatives to stimulate broadband demand and ensure that all US residents have access to the digital skills and equipment necessary to take advantage of the Internet’s enormous potential benefits. For example, establishment of local and national digital inclusion councils could work with other agencies and programs to promote digital inclusion principles in the fulfillment of their missions. Media literacy curriculum for secondary schools should be established, along with technology literacy and digital media production.”

Churchs promoting theft and redistribution of wealth. Fun. It would seem to me the moral question here is whether it’s moral and socially legitimate to steal from Peter to give to Paul. I’d say no… as I’d suspect our Christian anarchist friends would too.

Someone in the comments of the article accused libertarians and freedom advocates of wanting to keep everyone in a third world like situation. I was compelled to leave a snarky comment.

Read More…

Dealing with a thief in libertarian fashion: Beware of Ryan Marvin

Posted on July 10th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 Comments »

‘a’ and ‘b’ rant about their former roommate, ryan marvin.

over the course of many months as roommates, ryan stole nearly $2000 of ‘a’ and ‘b’s money, and he pawned property he stole from them as well. instead of seeking restitution through the corrupt state court system, they have decided to use good old fashion ‘word of mouth’ to ruin ryan’s reputation in the FSP community.

Vote for the post Bureaucrash website name

Posted on June 10th, 2009 by bile
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment »

http://abcaction.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/vote/

Vote on New Site Name

A couple of days ago we solicited names from you and other freedom fighters to potentially use on the new post-Bureaucrash website. And you responded. As you can tell from the comments section there, where name suggestions were left, we received a lot of submissions. We took some time to narrow down that list, removing those that were explicitly anarchist — as we want the site to be welcoming to non-anarchists — and those for which the domains were already held by others.

Also, you’ll see that you’re able to not just choose your favorite name or your top three names but indicate whether you like or dislike each name. That’s because we’re using approval voting, which will allow us a community to decide upon the best name together.

So, please let us know our thoughts on the new sites name and feel free to pass this post to those in your sphere. Note that this poll will close at noon EST this Friday, June 12th.

TAKE THE POLL!!