The Wall and Borders

I have had a lot of frustration lately around the topic of walls and borders. In the Libertarian spaces I poke around, there is this general idea that having a wall and enforcing borders is against NAP (Non Aggression Policy). It took me a while to formulate why this is a load of shit, so now I'm going to try to explain.

Let us start by evaluating what is meant by aggression. In the context of NAP, it refers to the initiation or threat of force against an individual or their property. This would be like threatening to jail someone if they do not give up money or taking land from someone, forcing a sale, anything where resistance to the act would result in some form of harm or repercussion. Sounds reasonable so far.

The problem arises around property rights. Assume I own a plot of land. I have more land than I currently use. Someone rolls on up and starts setting up a home on the unused land. Since it is my property, I have the right to remove them from the land I own. Of course I have an option to sell or rent the land, but that does not mean I should or have to. I as an individual doing this would be fine. Even if I threaten them, it is fine because they have already violated my rights by trying to take my land without permission.

So now let us assume we have a community of people. This community of people all own various plots in a region of land. They decide they do not want certain people coming into their region without vetting them to their standards. They even go so far as to deny passage through the region without some form of vetting to ensure their own safety. This is the concept of a country having borders. If someone attempts entry or passage by attempting to circumvent these rules the owners of the land put in place, that is a violation of property rights. The only difference right now is it is private citizens doing this rather than elected officials.

Continuing on with the same idea, the people now create a militia to patrol the land and make sure people everyone has agreed need to be vetted before entry are actually either vetted or not within the region. Are we still good? After all, it is people protecting their private property. I still say yes, this is perfectly fine. People have a right to protect their property, even as a group.

So now the militia finds someone their that should not be. They own no property, which means they are on someone else's property. They refuse to leave, so the militia forces them off private property. We still good? If you think we have gone too far, just remember we are assuming everyone is under a unanimous decision and rather than functioning as an individual they are instead just a group with the same idea helping each other out. If an individual can do it, so can a group all working towards the same goal.

Now imagine that someone in the middle with no bordering land decides that they want to let everyone and anyone in. As a result, an individual decides to trespass to get to their destination. This still violates rights of the other landowners who did not consent to that travel across their land. Is it okay to use force to stop their travel? Sure. It is still a violation of rights and people protecting their own rights. What happens if they make it to the individual within who said it was okay? Well, this is the whole sanctuary city conundrum. If the militia goes onto that person's land to extract the violator and throw him out, are they not in turn violating now two people's rights? Well, the trespasser already violated the rights of others. To allow a person that commits a crime to go free so long as where they stay is okay with it is the same as endorsing the crimes themselves. Upon violating the rights of another person, in my opinion you already forfeited your own rights. In the same turn, to violate the rights of someone else who did not do anything wrong in action does not seem right. We could end up with a group imposing their will over the individual. Some may consider trespassing to not be a big deal, so why pursue it. That sets a precedence of there being a certain condition that could be added to make it okay. Perhaps they murder or rape someone along the way. This creates reactionary laws and conditions that messed up a lot of our judiciary system in the first place. Simple black and white, the person committed a crime and those who were wronged have a right to have it made right to them. So my conclusion is it is still okay to extract the person who trespassed.

After all that, the bordering people and majority of internal supported in the region decide, let's build a wall. If we wall off the region, it will be harder for people trying to trespass to actually trespass. Sounds good, right? Since it is their land, they can build whatever they want. Walls, fences, moats, or a billboard that says "Go away, <derogatory term>!" It is their property, so it is their choice.

The US is similar to this. The difference is the border land and points of entry are government owned, so every citizen in a sense owns it. Right now we have people saying open up all the borders, people saying shut it down, and the majority of people saying we need to reform the entry criteria and evaluate border security. As the majority of the country is not for open borders, it makes sense the borders are not open. To impose the will that they need to be open would be to violate all the stakeholders that disagree and under current contract with how the governments work. True, we never actually agreed to it, but there is a little caveat in law people seem to disregard even though it is pretty much common law as well.

Implied Consent is the idea that you clearly see the requirements for something and by continuing or proceeding, you consent. This is why a place like Disney does not need you to sign an agreement to search you before entering their parks, they have police out front and searching equipment while at the same time you are under no obligation to enter. Implied consent is used quite frequently, like when you are in an area with a sign that says there are security cameras, you are consenting to being recorded. Living in a country falls under pretty much the same idea. As you continue to live here and proceed with life, you are implying consent to the laws of the land. While there may be the case made that it is because there is no where else to go for what you want, that would be like complaining you cannot buy land because all the land is already owned. Touch luck.

This does not mean I think everything is fine and dandy or that we should not fight back against the things we disagree with. This is purely the reason that I think right now the best option is to be diplomatic about things. As it stands now, it seems like the majority at least leans in my direction of enforcing borders to protect private property to some degree. When it rolls in the opposite direction, I will fight it. I just would not claim someone to not be libertarian just because they don't want to check people entering the land or if they want more screening.

My point is, whether I protect my property as an individual or a group, it is still a protection of private property.

Climate Change, and Global Warming, and Extinction, Oh My

Climate Change and Climate Hysteria always seem rather strange to me. You see when I was growing up, we were told many times by many people that the world was going to end because of one climate crisis or another. I was told the ozone would deplete and we would all die of cancer as solar radiation killed us because of aerosol cans. I was told that because of pollution we would all die from acid rain destroying everything and poisoning the water supplies. I was told there would be an ice age. I was told the polar icecaps would melt and we would all drown. Here we are today and a lot of stuff said just does not get mentioned anymore. Now it is climate change, where the world will be thrown into chaos by ever exaggerating seasons.

So let's start with the basics. What is Climate Change? Climate change is something that happens with or without us. Due to changing balances in the atmosphere, changes in our orbit, and a lot of external causes, the climates change. Even tectonic plate movement changes things.

So what is the big deal? Well, specifically people are arguing over man's impact on the climate. Climate change is real, but the effects people have on it are what is being debated. The biggest debate is over "greenhouse gases." So let's get a little scientific. When we are talking about greenhouse gases, we are taking about certain molecules in the atmosphere that hold heat longer. This is pretty much everything except stuff like O2 (oxygen), N2 (Nitrogen), noble gases (Hydrogen, Helium, Neon, Argon, etc.), basically simple molecules. Greenhouse gases themselves complex molecules like CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (Methane), H2O (water [vapor]), SO2 (sulfur dioxide), and so on. What makes these chemicals greenhouse gases is because of the ability to store heat longer. The idea is that these chemicals can vibrate much more than simple molecules, which is what heat energy is. This would mean that over the cooling cycle of night, the air stays warmer for longer. Thus there is less time to cool off and temperatures rise. On top of that, many of these chemicals have other effects or interactions with the environment. Consider O3 (ozone), a complex molecule that is really good at absorbing radiation. This protects us from a lot of dangerous radiation, but would also be bad to breath in directly.

So how do we know what will happen if the greenhouse gases keep rising? This is where things get a little more interesting. Back in the time of dinosaurs, take for example the Jurassic period, CO2 was much higher than now by about 5 times. About the only thing this amounts to would be animals adjusting to low oxygen environments, something people intentionally do to themselves for things like running marathons, and possibly bigger plants. There is a lot of data we have that is indirect from times when the atmosphere was "worse" than it is now. With the direct data we have now, it would be hard to tell what the effects would be.

So why all the hysteria? Part of it is our reliance on computer models. Remember, I work in IT. Computers are dumb. Computer models are stupid. It amazes me that people take our weather and climate models as being super accurate and at the same time laugh at how unrealistic games are when attempting to re-create simple physics. A computer model is just simply a person putting together an algorithm to calculate a human guess with much faster math. These models are not smarter than people, they are just faster than a person calculating and can often contain really bad errors. One of my favorite errors are floating point errors. Math on computers is not as simple or good as most people like to think. So when it comes to the "models," spare me because I call them out during hurricanes when they are about as good as people speculating and guessing with nothing to go on but their own experience and observations. Not to mention we do not know all the variables involved or the full effects.

Here's the real root of the hysteria part. Hysteria over climate change drives up oil and gas prices. Despite having no effect on the supply at the time, the hysteria drives prices up. The government adds taxes, joining in on the profit. It plays into the hands of big oil companies and the government, meanwhile many think they are fighting against and bringing down the exact same entities. Then as the oil companies get more money, these groups fighting them spring back and push more, gathering more money in donations and the like. It's a self-feeding beast. Now it is massive and has put us where we are today.

I am not saying climate change is fake, or humans have no impact, or that we should not do anything. Here is the reality. Climate change is real, we just do not know the full extent of it yet because we do not have that much directly observed data. Everything has an impact on it, even humans, we just do not know how much of an impact humans have on it. We do not need to panic, nature is good at doing what it needs to keep going.

Now many of the climate hysterical people tell us we need to cut back on fossil fuels. Here is the way I look at it. Countries and people that can should look at cheaper and more reliable sources of energy because that's the smart thing to do even if there was no climate change. However, there are a lot of poor countries that cutting it back now could cause more problems. So let's be smart about it.

On the opposite side of the table, there are people that say there is absolutely no cause for alarm, keep on keeping on. This is dumb. There are plenty of reasons to go "green" even if you don't care about the environment or think there is no threat.

Here is the reason you should go green to benefit you. Switching your light bulbs to LED may be an investment, but they last longer and cut back on the electric bill which could save you money in the long run. Getting a more fuel efficient car will save you money on gas, which means less money from gas taxes feeding the government beast. Walking or taking a bike is free to get around and good for your own health. Planting trees around your house can reduce costs on cooling in the summer with the shade and if they bear fruit, could reduce your food bill. If you are on city water, using less water saves you money. Reusable items can save you money and even time. Consuming less and not being a fatty costs less and is better for you. Recycling certain items saves energy and reduces the need for landfills. Really any reasonable way to save yourself some money here and there is probably going to benefit the environment and reduce the impact we have on the world around us.

I, personally, like keeping things green because I like nature and I like saving money. I have fruit trees scattered about on my yard, LEDs in the house, backyard chickens, a bunch of reusable stuff, I drive a hybrid (I drive around 100 miles a day, so gas can be a major expense for me), and really anything I can to save money or make my yard look better.

The world probably will not break apart at the seams tomorrow. Try not to be hysterical about stuff we are still gathering data on and probably have not identified all the variables yet. Also do not become complacent like everything is all okay. There are plenty of problems with the environment we should keep in mind. Most importantly, stop acting like stupid computer models ran by stupid computers made by people somehow can reveal all the secrets we do not know.

Is a President Impeached if it Does Not Go to The Senate

I have seen a few things arguing back and forth about if Trump is impeached or not. Most of them contain legal terms, metaphors, or references to the British laws around all the house of lords stuff that we got the impeachment stuff from. I notice this more and more, but the real problem in my opinion, stems from language changes. People now do not speak like people from them. Writing is also different than how we speak, and that has changed as well. I am no legal expert or language expert, but I am an IT person who hinges everything on logic. So let us look at things from a logical computer perspective because why not.

The argument seems to stem over whether impeachment is a process or a declaration by vote. It is being compared to the term indicted, but by logic different words are used for a reason. Let's check out the etymology first.

formerly also empeach, late 14c., empechen, "to impede, hinder, prevent;" early 15c., "cause to be stuck, run (a ship) aground," also "prevent (from doing something)," from Anglo-French empecher, Old French empeechier "to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare" (12c., Modern French empêcher), from Late Latin impedicare "to fetter, catch, entangle," from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + Latin pedica "a shackle, fetter," from pes (genitive pedis) "foot" (from PIE root *ped- "foot"). In law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against" from late 14c.; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)" from mid-15c.  The sense of "accuse a public officer of misconduct" had emerged from this by 1560s. The sense shift is perhaps via Medieval Latin confusion of impedicare with Latin impetere "attack, accuse" (see impetus), which is from the Latin verb petere "aim for, rush at" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly"). The Middle English verb apechen, probably from an Anglo-French variant of the source of impeach, was used from early 14c. in the sense "to accuse (someone), to charge (someone with an offense)."

So what does all that mean? Well it says to accuse, bring charges against when talking about law. Specifically, formal charges. This is where the little logic loop is coming from. The president is accused, but since the Senate does not have the stuff, the charges have not been brought. This still is not a definitive answer, as this is the word generically which to me seems like it could be interpreted both ways right now. He is accused, but there are no charges being brought up yet.

In one of the videos I watched, the key piece being brought to say he is impeached is where it states the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment." This is where language is going to get annoying. The law also says that the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. So let's put these side by side and compare with logic.

"SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" and "SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS"

To try an impeachment would, to me, indicate that it is being used in the form of an accusation. This falls in line with the result if the charges go through, that being the point a president would actually be removed from office. If that works well, let's apply it backwards. Sole power of accusation (impeachment). This to me means that the main separation for the "sole power of impeachment" means they are the only ones who can start the ball rolling.

So back to the question, is he impeached after a vote if it has not reached the Senate yet? If I were programming something to give an answer on that, legally, sure? I can see an argument for either direction, but the bigger argument I see is that unless it goes to the senate and has a trial and results in actually going through, it's purely a moot point. The impeachment in a legal sense is nothing more than a formal accusation.

I think another problem we are having is people in our system are doing things that make no sense to drag out the dog and pony show that just frustrates everyone. I blame career politicians.