Democrats: Don't take LGBT folks for granted: how not to win in 2020

I have a daughter who is 22. She is the most awesome person in the world.

She also questions her gender and orientation, putting her firmly in the LGBT continuum, This is not an issue for us in any sense. When she came out about her questions it was probably the most boring coming out ever.

Perhaps as a result of being raised by two cantankerous freethinkers, my kid also voted third party this year. Her vote was Green Party this year, not Libertarian but she chose a candidate whose views matched hers and I could not be prouder.

Today, my kid's Facebook feed has been lit up with people who feel entitled to decide who people should vote for, scolding and shouting at people who vote third party.

Warning: this kid has never been one to tolerate bullying and vapid browbeating. She is very bright and you can convince her but trying to control her will be like talking to a wall. Taking her vote for granted in future elections is foolish. Trying to manipulate her opinion this crudely only means that you will probably NEVER have her vote.

You have been warned.

I am a libertarian.

I am a libertarian.

People talk about libertarians as if they are selfish, borderline antisocial members of the community. From my perspective, we're not. To me it seems to me that it's other political parties that are selfish, muddled, incoherent. Not examining the implications of their party platforms and actions.

Democrats claim to be pro-choice (at least 1 choice), claim to want unity and freedom. But they don't if you're a gun geek or religious or own property. (On that last point, you know that the DAPL pipeline wouldn't have been forced down peoples throats without eminent domain laws, right?)

Republicans claim to want small government but try to be the morals police, worrying about which consenting adults sleep together.

Both those parties criminalize things they shouldn't, attack countries they shouldn't and are awful on basic civil liberties. Both are essentially for unlimited government which can do whatever it chooses and only complain when it chooses to hinder them.

I'm a straight white guy with a quiet lifestyle and it would be *much* easier for me to be Republican and just protect my rights. But I'm a libertarian instead so I can *also* support the few positive rights Democrats also claim to value, even if they mostly don't.

I'm a libertarian but after this horror show of an election maybe I'll be an anarchist.

Don't try to control me and we'll get along fine. But if you do, we'll have a serious problem. And you will lose.

2016: Time to Withhold The Consent Of The Governed?

A founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence includes these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 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.

Notice two phrases that I highlighted.

Point #1: The purpose of governments is to secure our RIGHTS. Yes it can do other things, when they don't conflict with our rights
Point #2: Governments derive their powers from the CONSENT of the governed

However, it's pretty clear that the government is now as interested in our rights and consent as an inebriated Brock Turner. A government that theoretically serves us actually rules us: it takes on any new power that it wants, denies and curtails our rights at every turn, denies us the information that we need about its functioning. The mainstream media are utterly useless and the only way that we obtain insight into what our government is actually doing is through the bold actions of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Anonymous. Naturally, these people are imprisoned or forced to flee the country that they have served, while the media and politicians argue about how they should be punished, from lengthy jail terms to extrajudicial execution.

If a government whose primary purpose is to protect our rights actually goes rogue and makes it a primary task to attack them, maybe it's time to discuss whether it's time to withhold our consent to their activities and how to do so effectively.

• vote third party - people are obsessed with the choice of  left vs right wing authoritarian and the important question is whether to continue choosing authoritarians or choose a freedom-oriented candidate

• don't vote at all - maybe voting for anyone IS giving consent to an out of control system

• holding up signs and yelling - potentially useful, if the media notices large numbers turning out

• armed revolt - has a number of down sides :)

Or we could just ignore an inconvenient question and continue to post cat pictures, while partisans argue about whether the US should elect Hitler or Stalin as President. Sorry that Franklin Delano Roosevelt isn't a serious contender, his supporters just didn't start campaigning soon enough...

Rambling Third Party Election Thoughts

OK, a thought for my fellow USan voters.

We've gotten too used to a knee-jerk thought process that's a simplistic left vs right paradigm.

Given that the Democrats and Republicans are a giant cluster@#$% of FAIL this year and many people are considering a third party vote, please consider casting that vote in a Libertarian direction.

Here's my thought process:

- left vs right DOESN'T MATTER so much as an orthogonal axis that charts authoritarian vs libertarian positions. If Trump and Clinton didn't have the power to totally implode our country it isn't just because they're complete idiots...it's because they're complete idiots with TOO MUCH POWER. How much harm could Trump do if he was the King of England? Next to none because the royal family in England are figureheads. Is anyone in England scared of the Queen? I doubt it.

- I grant you that there are some economic issues to be addressed because some people are having trouble getting by, let alone thriving, economically. We can brainstorm solutions for that. I think it would be GREAT to do that instead of deciding whether we'll do that OR keep our civil liberties.

- But I'd argue that the most important single problem in our culture is that it's gone way too far for way to long in an authoritarian direction. And the single most important starting place is REDUCING ITS POWER. Are you tired of hearing about things like Eric Garner being strangled to death by the NYPD over a cigarette tax violation? Vicki weaver being killed by an FBI sniper while holding her baby because her husband cut a shotgun barrel an inch too short? The Branch Davidians being barbecued in Waco or MOVE being bombed in Philadelphia? I am!!!!

- I'm also sick of terrorist attacks and government actions that guarantee that there will be many more (Oops, sorry about killing 100 civilian non-combatants in Syria. Hope none of their family want payback)

- How about ending the War on Drugs, police militarization and asset forfeiture without conviction?

- How about not voting to gut the NRA or Planned Parenthood but supporting both worthy organizations?

- How about being the United States instead of letting two parties stuffed with cretinous narcissists who we wouldn't buy a used car from divide and conquer us???

A Tale of Two Movements

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
- the opening lines of  'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens


Our time also seems simultaneously to combine the worst and the best of times. We have horrible things happening, like the awful terrorist shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. At the same time, in response, many LGBT folks and gun owners have discovered common ground in the right to self defense.

Others disagree. George Takei of Star Trek fame is trying to organize LGBT folks to attack civil liberties saying:

"For if there is one group in this country with more will, more experience, and more tenacity than the NRA, it is the LGBT community.

You don’t want to mess with us."

Here is why I think that their efforts will fail.
  
1. Switching from "extending rights unfairly denied LGBT folks" to "denying commonly appreciated rights"
The LGBT community HAS had remarkable success over the past 20 years and I applaud this. However, that success came about because that community was working to gain equality in rights that were unfairly denied them. LGBT groups who now make it their mission to attack everyone's rights are unlikely to enjoy much success.

2. Many LGBT member support gun rights and intend to defend themselves

Another part of the reason for their failure, as they are likely to fail, will be because they do not speak for the whole LGBT community. Since I became a shooter, I have known lesbian, gay and transgender people who shoot and are determined to retain the ability to keep shooting. I have also been privileged to support their efforts, both as a friend and as a shooting safety instructor.

Indeed, the Seattle area had a Pink Pistols affiliated group around 2000 called Cease Fear (link to an article about us). We offered gun safety and self defense classes at Home Alive and made occasional target shooting excursions. We were also welcomed at Seattle Pride and Tacoma Pride events.

You can get an inkling of the pro and anti self defense breakdown by comparing some social media numbers. On Facebook:

The largest Gays Against Guns Facebook community has 3,742 members. The Pink Pistols Facebook community has over twice that many at 7,931.

Over on Twitter, @GAGNoGuns has 392 followers, while @PnkPistol has 1,391 followers.

 3. Approach, character and attitude

The final reason why I think Pink Pistols will win and GAG fade into obscurity comes down to approach and attitude. Even in this day and age where we have become calloused to the dishonesty and authoritarian creepiness of political "leaders" in both political parties, character counts. People tend to prefer being treated with respect and to be offered the opportunity to judge the facts and make up their own minds, rather than being 'splained.


I have been an active participant on the Pink Pistols Facebook group for a couple weeks now and the approach I have overwhelmingly seen there is one of kindness, community and the open/honest sharing of information. People are presented with information and then given the room to make up their own minds.

In contrast, the Gays Against Guns community as a whole is taking an authoritarian "do what we say" tone. People are banned from the groups (as is typical with gun control "discussion" groups) for presenting different opinions.

This is not too surprising since the gun control community tends to want to seize full control and impose a simplistic narrative onto this complex topic. People, perhaps finding an odd comfort in being told that they are too incompetent and ineffectual to protect themselves from harm, attempt to foist that belief off on others as proven fact. Technical details are brushed aside in an apparent effort to convince people that you can waltz into a gun shop and waltz out with a machine gun in under 10 minutes.

Personally, I'd argue that if you can't win by telling the truth, winning with arguments that you know are dishonest would be a hollow victory. But that's all irrelevant because the gun control lobby is not going to win this one.

Letter to Suzan DelBene (D-WA1) about gun control she is cosponsoring

Dear Representative DelBene,

I read with dismay, recently, that you have signed on as a co-sponsor of H.R.4269, legislation which bans the manufacture and possession of "assault weapons". Since I have voted for you in the past in the belief that you are a moderate Democrat and would *like* to do so again, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your support and sponsorship of this legislation.

The topic of gun control is one which is rife with misinformation and misunderstanding. As you are the representative for a district which is VERY gun friendly, I sincerely hope that you will take the time and trouble to inform yourself of the actual technical details relevant to legislation that you take up. Ours is a moderate district (my car has NRA *and* PFLAG stickers and I have seen others similarly configured) but, again, it is very gun-friendly. There are numerous shooting ranges and gun shops. Most people that I know either own guns or are moderate on the topic. I recently checked out at the local grocery store and the cashier asked about a gun magazine that I was buying because she is a local shooting instructor.

Perhaps no firearms topic is more misunderstood than the topic of "assault weapons" and the bill you are sponsoring is no exception. Thousands of these guns are undoubtedly owned in your district and you are essentially saying that we cannot be trusted with them. That is a mistake.

Please stop to consider the history and effects of the 1994 ban:

First, it cost Democrats their control of Congress in 1994. (article)

Then, the ban itself did not accomplish anything, as the New York Times (article) and the US National Institute of Justice (article) have said, outright. This is not too surprising, since rifles of all types are used to commit murders very infrequently, much less than knives and only half as much as fists and feet (FBI statistics).

The threat of the ban inspired many people who would not otherwise have been interested in such a rifle to buy one while they could. I wouldn't be surprised if all the artificial fuss about "assault weapons" has made the number in circulation twice what it would be otherwise. I know I bought one originally because I wanted to see what the fuss was about and tried a friend's. Now I occasionally use mine for competition.

And finally, to anybody with any technical knowledge of firearms the ban is rife with arbitrary and even ludicrous internal contradictions. Consider the two rifles in this picture. The top rifle is a Ruger Mini-14: it fires the .223 cartridge loaded from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The bottom rifle is some sort of AR15 variant: it also fires the .223 cartridge from a detachable magazine and its action is semi-automatic. The Mini-14 is specifically exempted from the ban and AR15 variants specifically banned.

These guns are functionally equivalent. Their only differences are in appearance.

Is this a distinction sharp enough that you are willing to turn your constituents into criminals over it? Is this a distinction you are willing to cheer lead in a district that will think you are crazy for doing so?

People talk constantly about modern high-powered weapons. But AR15s have been sold to the public since the 1960s. The AR15 .223 cartridge, on the left below, is dwarfed by the .30-06, the cartridge fired in the M1 Garand rifle...another semi-automatic exempted by the ban.

I hope that you will reconsider your support for H.R. 4269 and start discussing matters related to firearms with your constituents in the future. I don't wish to be hyperbolic but your job is at stake here...along with our civil liberties.

The Consent of the Governed

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Government in theory is bound to be somewhat different than
government as designed. People are generally busy making a living and
so have limited time availability during the hours when government
work is being performed. They may also have an unfortunate
disinterest in how government work is performed or dangerously
simpleminded ideas about how government should work. The work of
government is also done by people trying to make a living, some of
whom are sincerely trying to do a good job, while others are doing
that work out of a desire to gain power or prestige.

In the United States, one of our founding documents is the
Declaration of Independence. It was written by leaders seeking their
freedom from Great Britain to describe their grievances and why those
grievances justified seeking independence from their mother country.
It states that government derives its just powers from the consent of
the governed and that a sufficient train of abuses need only be
tolerated by its citizens for so long before they are justified in
altering or abolishing it.

Once their independence was won, they created a Constitution and its
Bill of Rights to describe the limited powers their new government
had and the rights of its citizens which government could not, in
theory, interfere with.

Some 240 years later, that Constitution and Bill of Rights are
largely ignored. We have fallen into a situation where two corrupt
parties control our elections and we have acceded to the awful idea
that 51% of the population can enact any law they want attacking the
rights of the entire population. People are being taxed to death,
literally: income, purchases and possessions are taxed and officers
enforcing those taxes are seen as justified in escalating force to
the point of death, even when no threat is presented to their lives.
Recently, in New York, a man named Eric Garner was strangled to death
by a police officer for the crime of selling loose cigarettes without
collecting taxes on them. That death was filmed and yet no bystanders
tried to prevent that police officer from killing him.

However, the person who filmed that homicide WAS arrested for filming
the police at work. The police in the US are generally hostile and
will arrest and assault people filming them, even thought that act of
filming is perfectly legal. At the same time it denies our rights of
oversight, our government claims an unrestricted right to collect
information on us, whether directly or indirectly (collected by an
allied nation or some corporation).

The situation is now arguably direr than it was when King John of
England was forced to sign the Magna Carta or when representatives of
the 13 colonies wrote the Declaration of Independence. Maybe it’s
time to start talking about how a government can be designed with
better and with more built in safeguards so that it can effectively
be kept the servant of the entire populace and not their master?

Here are some ideas for limiting government powers so that they are
back in line with the Constitution and Bill or Rights

- - Limit/right enforcement – attach criminal penalties to violations
of governmental power limits or violations of citizens’ rights.
Penalties for crimes such as excessive use of force NOT to be paid by
taxing citizens but by the perpetrator(s) of the crime.

Examples: When a police officer uses egregiously unnecessary force
and a financial penalty is chosen, his penalty is to be paid by
him…not by the citizens whose rights were infringed

If a legislator enacts a law attacking peoples’ rights and it is
invalidated by the courts, that legislator is to be fined personally
and perhaps serve jail time.

- - Law expiration. Criminal laws can be divided into two categories:

“malum in se” laws regarding acts such as murder, robbery, rape,
which are inherently bad

“malum prohibitum” laws regarding victimless crimes such as drug use,
gambling, weapons possession and prostitution, which are only treated
as bad because some people view them as bad

If "Malum prohibitum" laws automatically sunset and have to be
reconsidered every 1-5 years, a lot of laws which are utterly idiotic
will go away

- - Law quality. Laws are sometimes voted upon by legislators who have
not read or do not understand the contents. Further, these laws are
sometimes attached to an unrelated “must pass” piece of budget
legislation. Require that laws be thoroughly understood and debated
before being passed and by those voting upon them (and with veto
power by the populace)

- - Absolute parity between citizens and government. Any legislation
affecting the populace also applies to the legislators and all levels
of government or it is invalid. If the government can use or threaten
force in a situation, the people can too. If government can intercept
peoples’ communications, people can intercept government
communications.

- - Escalating force or penalties. In some parts of the US, law
enforcement is granted virtual carte blanche is using force in cases
of non-cooperation. This force can be in the form of actual physical
force or financial penalties. Some restrictions on these powers would
make sense so that the rights of individuals or small groups are not
trampled.

These are some ideas which I feel are worth seriously discussing. We
as a society need to have a serious discussion regarding what form of
government will best protect our rights and future.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use

iQEVAwUBVvf27KXnEb3Qli+9AQFBNgf/bIAXTZQJXQ72S/B25wkX1f/opv7tY5kz
RyIp1GaZtOzG/GpwVxZbqkXjKpePToBh6dJqHLyHdjGYq1JnWfBYh4ML8yA4Kuaz
18Sbrjy5tg57qLWfhDEo4RNrhCMPIFxC6ytP5PDdJCc9dETqq57+/2OMC5+N2swm
1Tg3S3Dy8nb+wDnAGJUJnXpI1FtdBqTQb90iwjrm8vXWIqIdFlLPs45r1SRMMblu
JCNkrFGKRG0AKsUSON1Oq7QPf8DqWtcc2IieDmj8brE8MNWO4s3h0jJ6pUPxTQy3
zxR0/PWuaEjZJaZDoiNYtrPX7KXACGapG/uSqmjJ8IanjHG8I+q5bg==
=sJ30
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----