Opinion

The Camden City Cigarette Party

 



 

 

My arduous, hour-long commute from work this afternoon -- which, I might add, was quite exasperated by the Labor Day thrill-seekers overflowing in minivans filled with an alcoholic’s paranoia at the dire annunciation of ‘last call’ -- was calmed by the soothing, poetic voice of the late Christopher Hitchens reading the book he authored God is Not Great. Filth of this sort upsets the devout, but reminds me -- an unholy, non-believer -- that I am unconditionally free from an omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresent ruler, and unrestricted in living my life according to my own volition. Or am I?

"This cigarette business only confirms my suspicions about god's existence."



With windows down, I cruise past the umpteenth WaWa as Hitch goes in for full penetration: “Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.” Then I notice a sign on the well-groomed grass of the WaWa: “[Cigarettes] Sold at the lowest price allowed by law!”. Well, stop the music. Just what do you mean?

Have we called “the state” off the bench to pinch-hit for our divine, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent ruler in cases of economics? The state, rebuked in the past for their epic failures in the arena of price ceilings, is still playing un-criticized with price hurdles it seems.

As of January 1, 2012, New Jersey imposed a $2.70 per pack tax on cigarettes. PER BLOODY PACK! And this exorbitant amount only lands them at #6 among these united States (gather your children for a fun game of ‘Find Out How Much My State Thinks I Should Be Taxed For Purchasing Unhealthy Products, Although I Have Decided For Myself To Take The Risk When Making The Purchasing Decision’ by clicking here. “But, Mom, I thought America was a free-market?” “Ah, Timmy, so naïve you are. Those public schools will educate you!”). So, a one-pack-a-day kinda’ guy from the Garden State will pay $2.70 per pack per day multiplied by 365 days in a year, which costs him thousand bucks every year.

Why? Is it because cigarettes are unhealthy? Such reasoning would force the state to tax every unhealthy aspect of our lives, which ironically includes the state themselves and their intermingling in the economic affairs of society. The current paternalistic state should offend any rational, reason-minded citizen; the legislation of morality and "healthiness" (subjective a phrase as it is) should not be tolerated by any civilized society.

In conclusion, I want to express my empathy to WaWa as a non-smoking, atheist champion of liberty and free markets. This company is willing, by every indication, to charge lower prices for cigarettes, but the state will not allow it. Consumers pay the price to fill the insatiable gut of Mr. Christie under the guise of morality and health. Do not let the rhetoric beguile you.

Christie hungry.



How can we convince the state that excise taxes are unjust, and that legislating morality is immoral in itself? Who is John Galt?


Well, tonight, under the stars of Camden city, at the foot of the Ben Franklin Bridge, we fill the Delaware River with [even more]: stogies, butts, roaches, cartons, chew, snus, snuff, blunt guts, cigars, doobies & empty cigarette packs. Join me comrades!

Seriously, stop asking me, I haven't the foggiest.



______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Boycott the Registry Racket

My younger brother was short-sighted enough to have conceived a beautiful baby girl a few months back. Now that this angel is living among us, I am reminded of the strange unisex baby shower that preceded her arrival. This awful, feminine-fest was fortunately held at a bar, stocked with enough craft beer to placate the never-thirstier mouths of the men dragged to witness the insanity (What is the deal with the umbrella and goofy chair? This is what happens when women are left alone too long.). My niece is a true miracle, and this article will be limited to an examination of the lunacy known as the Baby Shower Registry.

 

I just shit my pants.

I am perhaps too young to remember when this phenomenon first hit the scene, and perhaps the registry replaced an even worse process (even though it may seem hard to imagine that a group of excited women would make uneconomical decisions). Regardless, I assert that the process of gift giving via a registry is uneconomical and should, therefore, be eradicated and replaced.

First, let us walk through a high level economic axiom. Consumers in a market economy universally make purchasing decisions through a tradeoff process; this process compares a consumer’s desired ends (i.e., utility) versus the means to acquire the ends (i.e., money). The market accommodates consumers with varying levels of quality & functionality at varying price levels. Consumers survey the market and select the appropriate product that meets their tradeoff between desired ends and available means. This value tradeoff will vary among consumers, because, as Lewis Black will tell you, “…we’re all like snowflakes”.

Let us examine a personal example to hammer this concept home. I am wicked frugal and decide to sit in the bleachers in Fenway for a Sox game for $20 as opposed to the much-coveted seat atop the Green Monsta which sell on stubhub.com for $300. There are a dozen choices in between these two, and the alternative remains to stay home altogether. Only I -- as the consumer in this case -- am capable of efficiently determining how much of my efforts (i.e., dollar wages) the product is worth. Only I can choose among the varying strata of options available in the market, and make the tradeoff decision. This is how a market economy works, and every one of us makes these decisions nearly every day whether we are consciously aware or not. Companies then react to the market demand, prices are adjusted accordingly, consumers react to the changes in the market, and the process continues constantly.

Armed with a basic understanding of the market process, let us now explore why the registry racket retards the market process. The final consumer (my brother, and his lovely fiancé in our introductory example) select one or two retail stores, grab a scanner, and march through the store scanning items that they "need" in an effort to "help" family and friends purchase a gift for the baby shower. Already, we can spot some issues: rather than source from many stores, the registry is typically limited to one or two of the big chains who offer everything and incite this racket; the scanning is usually done on the fly, in one trip, with no comparison or market research & the couple is forced to "need" enough things for their full guest list. These issues when translated into economic terms represent: a limited supply, limited information and an artificial spur in demand; this is the Great Nor’Easter of inefficient purchasing.

My biggest gripe with this registry racket may be slightly less obvious. It became apparent to me in this case when I strolled through Babies R Us with the registry in hand and was confronted with a $250 baby stroller with an iPod plug-in and speakers; I violently erupted -- much to the dismay of my life partner by my side and those families in the general area -- "Are you fucking kidding me?!". Ask yourself some questions: Does he need this? Would he make this decision in the market economy with his earned income? Would I? Would anyone? Now repeat the answers with me: No. No. Fuck no. Idiots maybe.

By separating the consumer from the role of purchaser we unleash chaos and inefficiency; the value tradeoff between quality/features and price can not possibly be conducted when it is not your money. But Copperhead, he saw the price and, therefore, made the value tradeoff when he scanned it. “Hey Farva. What's the name of that bar with all the goofy shit on the walls?.. ‘Shenanigans’.”He is unable to make this determination unless it is his money being spent, and I call Shenanigans on anybody asserting otherwise. And, quite frankly, the entire registry process feels like Eric Cartman’s birthday party where everyone was extorted for a gift of his choice in exchange for the invitation (Southpark Episode S01E08, ‘Damien’); the concept was lampooned in this episode, yet accepted in our world. I call for a mass boycott of this madness. Put some cash in a card with kind words and a copy of this blog post -- the world will be better off.

I'll take the Lamborghini Countach.

__________________________________________________________________________

A Real Choice in November?

While on vacation last week in the great state of Capitalism, Freedom, and Liberty—otherwise known as Alabama—I had a lot of time, peace and quiet, and B&B (Bourbon and Beer) to ponder political and economic philosophy. I’ve aptly named Alabama the bastion of capitalism after hearing about an Auto Parts store that also sells guns (obviously the gentleman who owned the auto parts store realized that some of his customers may want to purchase a gun or two with their alternator). At any rate, one morning on my in-laws’ farm, as I was donning my “Who is John Galt” t-shirt and camouflaged cargo-shorts to go down to the garage and have some “bourbon for breakfast” with the boys, I thought about the idea of withdrawing one’s consent from their government. Could this be an effective means of change for the United States?

It is written in The Declaration of Independence that “whenever any government becomes destructive… [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness] it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” To say that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government has tremendous implications. The founders felt that if the people don’t agree with their government then they should change it or get rid of it altogether. Let’s take a look at how our current government may be destructive of those ends…

Life. The current administration has made it blatantly obvious that they have the authority to kill those they deem terrorists, without due process, while withholding the legal reasoning for making that decision

Liberty. Besides the fact that they can take your life without due process; they can also detain you in a military prison indefinitely without it as well. The 2012 Defense Authorization Act allows the government to detain, indefinitely, those deemed to be terrorists. Wire taps, email intercepts, street cameras, drones, etc., are all intrusions on our liberty. 

Pursuit of Happiness. Obviously, the first two objects would really dampen one’s pursuit of happiness.

 

Cartoon from mises.org

Now, I’m not advocating the overthrow of the US government; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution created one of the greatest nations the world has ever known. But, maybe there is room for a constitutional amendment to change things up. The Framers’ added the amendment process to ensure that change is possible. So, what happens if we no longer consent ? Should we take a serious look at altering this form to be more appropriate for our needs? Perhaps weakening the powers of the Executive Branch, or even possibly using proportional representation in Congress so voters from the minority party aren’t disenfranchised.

I offer an interesting discussion.

Every year allow the country to vote their consent. Permit the electorate to vote their consent to being governed by the political system under which they live. On Election Day, the people should be given the chance to vote on whether or not to keep or abolish their government. This idea is not too far-fetched. In the British Parliament, the members of parliament can vote out the government with a no-confidence motion and the prime minister has the power to request that the queen dissolve parliament completely. Perhaps this power should be given to the people. If the people are dissatisfied with their government, and a majority of the population votes the government down, they should be given real choices about the makeup of the next government. If we do withdraw our consent let us vote people in who are willing to make the changes we really want. We don’t have to give up our system completely, but we can give up on the politicians who are running it into the ground to serve their own interests.

I visited the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and while I was there I picked up a copy of Bruce Benson’s pioneering book, “The Enterprise of Law.” So far, the book hasn’t touched the topic of withdrawal of consent; however, Benson’s main thesis rests on the idea that society is still possible without the coercive nature of government. He presents the idea that, “the attributes of customary legal systems include an emphasis on individual rights because recognition of legal duty requires voluntary cooperation of individuals through reciprocal arrangements” (Benson, p.36, 2011). He defines customary laws as those that are developed “’from the ground’ as customs and practices evolve” (P. 11). So, what if the people of the United States wanted to arrange their society in this fashion? No government at all; is this a realistic option? When I finish his book I will have more to say about the topic. Nevertheless, Benson has made a compelling argument thus far.

What makes this conversation more thought provoking is the lackluster support for both candidates in the upcoming presidential election and the low approval ratings of Congress and the Supreme Court. The fact is neither political party is offering up good candidates; so does that say something about this political system or the people running for the positions? We only have two candidates, from the two governing parties, and the electorate will set out in November to choose the lesser of two evils. The people are dissatisfied with their elected officials and they aren’t given a real third option. The Declaration of Independence says that government “derives its powers from the consent of the governed.”  Perhaps the governed should have more of a say.

Benson, B. (2011). The enterprise of law. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.

-An American
_________________________________________________________________________________

Ban on Assault Rifles and Automatic Weapons

Following the tragic events of Aurora, CO last week it appears the nation, or the people on television rather, are not ready to talk about gun control. But I praise Jon Stewart for coming out and saying it, there needs to be a very public discussion about this. I happen to agree with our forefathers, as per the second amendment we have the right to bare arms. Whether it is for piece of mind/protection, hunting, or just in case some shit goes down the American people deserve the right to bare arms, if they choose to exercise that right is up to them. However, our forefathers could not have foreseen the invention of the automatic weapon. The Federal government was right in 1994 with their ban on assault weapons, but they needed to broaden definition on assault weapons. Any gun that can go fully automatic needs to be banned from being manufactured for civilian use and sold to civilians, or better yet any weapon that can be used to slaughter mass groups of people, plain and simple. Now, I realize that this is really a state issue, but as our government as shown us in the past with drug and gambling laws(which are healthcare and mental health issues not criminal), they don't give a fuck how things 'should work'. Those types of things should be legalized and regulated to drive out the criminal elements that run them and perpetuate more violence. So our federal government could very well bring back the ban of 94, and hopefully improve it with a broader definition and heavier regulations. But, we need the discussion first, no more waiting until the government gets around to it. I would go even one step further and ban everything but rifles and six shooters, and maybe we won't have to see such horrific numbers of dead and wounded when some loose cannon finally snaps. It's a horrible thing that's happening in America but unfortunately I do not see an end in sight if no one will even join the discussion.

In case you didn't recognize the training facility...that's Blackwater USA/Academi. Not government, private EX military, with access to this type of weaponry. Yea, oh shit.

-Blackfyre

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

RE: Ban on Assault Rifles and Automatic Weapons

The author of this post, along with Jon Stewart, is correct when he encourages discussion on the topic of gun control; it can never be ‘too soon for discussion’ as the parade of right-wingers chant in the opening minutes of the linked episode. Let us discuss.

My copy of the Constitution is bit dusty and perhaps outdated (my frugality does not permit me to procure the ‘Progressive’ edition), but Amendment II is quite clear in my version, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The author acknowledges and agrees with the spirit of this Amendment, but maintains that “assault weapons” should be banned. Let us examine this claim, and the second video in greater detail.

The second video link, featuring a pugnacious AA-12, was a not-so-subtle scare tactic; here we see a terrifying automatic shotgun in the hands of the United States Government (in the case of this video it is the major defense contractor, Blackwater). Rather than strengthening the author’s argument, this video merely reveals the ugly face of the number one enemy of the people: the state. State violence, also known as Democide (a phrase coined by Professor Rummel in “Death by Government”), is a much greater threat than the occasional psychopath. I shall now provide a scare tactic of my own which when taken in conjunction with this AA-12 video will illustrate the threat we face; here is a list of all the states which killed more than one million people during the 20th century:

U.S.S.R. (1917-1987), 61,911,000; Communist China (1949-1987), 35,236,000; Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 20,946,000; and Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949), 10,076,000; Japan (1936-1945), 5,964,000; Cambodia (1975-1979), 2,035,000; Turkey (1909-1918), 1,883,000; Vietnam (1945-1987), 1,678,000; North Korea (1948-1987), 1,663,000; Poland (1945-1948), 1,585,000; Pakistan (1958-1987), 1,503,000; Mexico (1900-1920), 1,417,000; Yugoslavia (1944-1987), 1,072,000; Czarist Russia (1900-1917), 1,066,000. (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094f.asp)

Banning “assault weapons” to prevent the “slaughter [of] mass groups of people”, as recommended by the author, is self-defeating. As the list makes clear, the state is the leading culprit of mass slaughter, and acquiescing its thirst for superior weaponry above the citizenry will only placate its desire. If citizens are to retain their liberty in the long term it is essential that the second amendment be safeguarded from the erosion of regulations, laws and controls promulgated by the state. As Noah Webster noted in the Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787):

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. (http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm#37)

Notes: I agree with the author’s comments on drug & gambling laws; my libertarian approach encourages individual choice in these matters with no interference from John Law. Also, this response is limited in scope to merely rejecting the author’s call to ban “assault weaponry”. A multitude of arguments could have been put forth in a more general argument on the right to bear arms, and I stand by with the trigger cocked.

--Copperhead

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RE: Ban on Assault Rifles and Automatic Weapons

Though Mr. Copperhead was quiet eloquent in pointing our that state endorsed genocides, and infantry/officers that fail to exert sympathy, empathy, or self control, I am well aware of there existence. The numbers are staggering even though most of these events took place over years under violent regimes. However what Mr. Copperhead failed to recognize is that I am not talking about military murdering civilians, that has been done before the invention of the assault rifle, hell before the invention of the gun. So while I appreciate all the international statistics and found the link very interesting, let's stick to America who is typically near the top of the list every year, sitting pretty with countries that are either virtual war zones or are suffering from out of control drug cartels. So most of what he addresses I cannot speak too, though it seems like a rather simplistic and cold take on the issue. If Mr. Copperhead his reading this I would like him to take moment and reread my article, because I was not pushing to have assault weapons banned, simply banned from civilian use and distribution. To claim that not allowing our citizens access to weapons made for war, is self defeating and that the 'occassional psychopath' getting his hands on an AA-12 and going berserk in a mall is acceptable..because governments have done it on a larger scale? I'm sorry, I find that logic offensive and disgusting considering how easy it is to procure automatic firearms in some states. In summation, though I respect your views and appreciate your take on the larger scale of things, I hope you can understand these are separate issues and one does not excuse the other. Speaking on the issue of state violence against it's on people. Well, even with the assault rifles, we are outgunned by the states bombs, missiles, and nukes. There is no reason to clutch your AK so the government won't violate your rights. If they want you violated, it's going to happen. So please Mr. Copperhead, uncock the trigger, remove the clip, empty the chamber, and PUT THE GUN DOWN!

Note: For further reading on the issue, one of the guys at Cracked.com wrote a funny but ultimately pointless article that can be read here.

-Blackfyre