Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

There Is No Central Plan for Winning Liberty, by Richard M. Ebeling

Filed under: Media, Networking, Organizing, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:11 PM (20:11)

There Is No Central Plan for Winning Liberty

by Richard M. Ebeling

Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty — January 2004

People who become enthusiastic supporters of the freedom philosophy often ask how the case for individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited governments can be successfully spread across the land. How can it triumph over the prevailing system of governmental paternalism?

In frustration and despair they point out that the interventionist-welfare state has its advocates and indoctrinators everywhere in society. Whether they are in the government-run schools, or on the television news shows and in the pages of newspapers and mass-circulation magazines, or in the pulpits of too many of our churches, or in armies of special-interest groups feeding at the trough of government spending — no matter where we turn the supporters of intrusive, regulating, redistributive government dominate the arena of ideas and the battlefield of politics.

To defeat these forces of political coercion and control, it is sometimes said, we have to devise a strategy and plan of action to which all friends of freedom must apply themselves. In other words, it is implied that the proponents of limited government and the free-market society must design a central plan for winning liberty in which everyone must find his place, like a cog in the machinery advancing the cause of freedom. In fact, there is not, nor can there be, such a central plan for winning liberty.

We need to remember why socialist central planning was unworkable and inevitably bound to fail. During the heyday of collectivism in the first half of the twentieth century, free-market economists like Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek swam against the intellectual and ideology currents of the time and showed that socialism lacked the ability to solve the most fundamental of economic problems. They explained that no matter how well-intentioned, knowledgeable, and wise we might assume the central planners to be, they could never have sufficient information and insight to know all they’d need to know to plan all the economic activities of all the people in any contemporary society.

Hayek, in particular, emphasized that in any society in which there is a division of labor there is, by necessity, a matching division informed, knowledgeable, and expert about, at most, handful of things, while remaining ignorant about all the other aspects of life on which our social, intellectual, and material well-being depends. The superiority of the free market is that it leaves each individual at liberty to apply his knowledge, abilities, and creativity as he sees fit, yet at the same time succeeds in coordinating all that everyone does through the incentives of profit and loss and the communication network of the competitively generated price system.

How, then, can we ever expect to win liberty through central planning? We would be handicapping all our efforts by subordinating them to the knowledge, wisdom, and insight of those who would construct the blueprint to which the rest of us would be required to more or less conform. The goal of establishing the free society can never be achieved through the application of such collectivist methods.

The methodology of winning freedom was a topic to which Leonard Read, the founder of FEE, devoted a lot of his attention over the decades. He reminded us that the one over whom we each have the most influence is oneself. To succeed in this battle of ideas we must begin with a process of self-education. Each of us, to the best of our abilities, must learn and master the meaning of freedom in its various social, economic, and political aspects. This also requires us to clearly comprehend the meaning of collectivism, regardless of whether it is called socialism, communism, fascism, interventionism, welfare-statism, the “middle way,” or “liberalism.”

Know What You’re Talking About

The more and better educated we are in the philosophies of freedom and collectivism, the more and better we can articulate the case for individual liberty and identify any proposal or policy that promulgates political paternalism. Furthermore, the greater our knowledge and power of articulation in these matters, the more we will seem the type of person that others may be interested in listening to and learning from. No one turns to someone who seems not to know what he is talking about, or who cannot persuasively explain the issues involved in any discussion.

Since none of us can become masters of everything, each of us must find that niche where our interest, inclination, and ability give us the greatest comparative dvantage. And where, precisely, is that niche? Each person must answer that for himself, sometimes discovering it only through trial and error.

We also need to appreciate that the same argument for freedom will not work equally on every person we talk to. There is no single button to push to get others to see the cogency of the freedom philosophy. Some will find persuasive an argument about the “fundamental rights of man.” Others may be more like the man from Missouri, who says “show me.” For such a person, a more “utilitarian” argument about the market’s ability to “deliver the goods” or handle various “social problems” better than any form of state intervention will carry greater persuasive force. Still others might be more easily reasoned with by historical examples of how free markets and free men have successfully operated in the past, compared to government control and regulation in more contemporary times.

In responding to people in discussion or debate, each of us must find that arena of ideas in which we feel most comfortable and knowledgeable. Likewise, each of us must find those people in our circle of friends, family members, co-workers, and associates who seem most likely to be open and receptive to what we have to say. Surely, no one can know this other than each of us as individuals in our respective corners of society.

Leonard Read also reminded us that no one likes it if it seems that something is being pushed down his throat. Our enthusiasm for making the case for freedom should be tempered with patience and appreciation that for many the full implications of freedom and responsibility take time to absorb and accept.

At the end of the day, if freedom is achieved it will be done by winning over enough people one person at a time through reason, persuasion, and example. It is not an easy task, but it is the only way that is consistent with the principles of freedom we hold so dear.

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.


NOTES

  1. Original article

Advertisements

Saturday, 21 April 2018

Albuquerque Defend the Second Amendment Rally

Today I went to the Defend the Second Amendment Rally at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial (1100 Louisiana Blvd SE).

About 50-60 people attended the rally, which started at about 11:00 AM (we were congregating in the parking lot up to and a bit past 11:00).

Shawn Haufe and Jamie Fraser-Paige

Jamie Fraser-Paige and event organizer Shawn Haufe talked for about 45 minutes about various points of interest to Second Amendment supporters, including —

  • There were only 50-60 people attending today, versus several thousand at the recent victim disarmament rallies in New Mexico.
  • Most rank-and-file law enforcement officers are solid supporters of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.
  • The outspoken Democrats are almost in lockstep unison behind the victim disarmament agenda.
  • Properly secure your weapons when not using them or carrying them.
  • The lamestream snoozemedia is almost in lockstep unison in support of the victim disarmament agenda.
  • We don’t care if you’re black, white, Hispanic, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, whatever, just so long as you support liberty for everyone.

Republican candidate for Secretary of State JoHanna Cox attended. She told the audience that this is her first time running for public office, she’s an attorney by trade, and that one of the things she’s looking to do as Secretary of State is to help people who have completed their terms of parole or probation or been pardoned get their Second Amendment rights to own and carry weapons reinstated.

JoHanna Cox addressing the audience

(In a freer nation, once someone completes their probation and parole terms or is pardoned, THAT’S IT — their pre-existing civil, human, Constitutional right to own and carry weapons, as supposed to be protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment and Art.II Sec.6 of the New Mexico State Constitution, would once again be upheld and respected in full.)

The next rally is tentatively scheduled to be at Veterans Memorial Park in Rio Rancho (950 Pinetree Rd SE) on Saturday, 12 May 2018, at 11:00 AM. Check in with the Gun Owners of New Mexico pages (here and here) and group on Facebook for details and updates!


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs — Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Google Plus / Gab / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. KCUF Media Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    5. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    6. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    7. Vote the Air Facebook page
    8. Duke City Pink Pistols Facebook group
    9. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    10. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    11. Independent Insights Facebook group
    12. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group
    13. New Mexico for Liberty Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    15. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    16. New Mexico Lest We Forget (Voters Remorse) Facebook group
    17. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Thursday, 19 April 2018

Waco: A New Revelation [Video]

Filed under: Media, Politics, Principles, Viewing — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:09 AM (03:09)

On Monday, 19 April 1993, the federal government of the United States sanctioned and executed the murder of 86 people, including 27 children, by CS gas asphyxiation, automatic weapons fire and incineration, all to get at three adults who were wanted on nonsensical tax and paperwork charges related to firearms and explosives.

See also https://youtube.com/results?search_query=waco+a+new+revelation


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.me / Liberty Society / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. KCUF Media Facebook page
    4. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    5. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    6. Wood Chipper 20xx Facebook page
    7. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    8. Independent Insights Facebook group
    9. Living Liberty Study Group Facebook group
    10. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    11. New Mexico Voters Remorse (Lest We Forget) Facebook group
    12. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Sunday, 8 April 2018

Requiring the Callow Performance

Filed under: Dark Side, Humor, Media, Politics, Principles, Viewing — mikewb1971 @ 11:58 PM (23:58)

I would have posted this for publication last week, but Sunday was, well, April Fools Day, and this is serious subject matter to be considered here.

Politicians need to learn their place, and stick to it.

Too often, they see themselves as “shepherds” of the general population, and that same population as “sheep” to be herded, fattened up, slaughtered and sheared as the “shepherds” see fit.

And so we have modern political campaigns, as various factions of “shepherds” compete for the favor and attention of the “flock.”

Thus, my proposal is as follows —

Anyone newly elected or appointed to public office should be required to first complete a performance akin to that of the fictional British Prime Minister Michael Callow in the Black Mirror episode “The National Anthem”.

Specifically — they should be required to have sexual intercourse with a livestock animal on live television before taking office.

Political Classholes of the Muslim and Jewish persuasions should be required to do the deed with pigs, just as Hindu applicants should be required to get their groove on with a bull or cow.

Don’t like it, Classholes?

Fine, then — walk away and decline to be seated as a public official.

Otherwise, if you want a “career path” of screwing over the Great Unwashed, it seems only fair and proper that you should get a taste of what it’s like before you’re enthroned in public office.

ALWAYS remember Lord Acton’s postulate from 1887. NO ONE, regardless of partisan affiliation, professed beliefs, office held, whatever, is immune to this —

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, Letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887)

Parts in BOLD type are as found in the Wikiquote article

And who knows? Maybe the Political Classwipes might actually enjoy this particular prerequisite to taking office?


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 968 – 8 April 2018
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Google Plus / MeWe / Minds / Oneway / Twitter
    2. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. KCUF Media Facebook page
    5. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    6. Vote the Air Facebook page
    7. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    8. Wood Chipper 20xx Facebook page
    9. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    10. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    11. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group
    12. , Independent Insights Facebook group

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Well, This Explains a Lot

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , — mikewb1971 @ 5:21 PM (17:21)

Got this gem from last week’s edition of the Alibi

According to county studies, nearly 50 percent of Bernalillo County residents need some level of mental health or substance abuse treatment. These untreated health conditions often intersect with police, increase incarceration rates and cause over use of our hospital emergency rooms.

The Wikipedia page for Bernalillo County says that per the 2010 census, the population of the county is 662,564.

If 300,000 people in the greater Albuquerque area have mental health issues or substance abuse problems, that goes a long way to explaining how Debbie O’Malley and Isaac Benton keep getting re-elected to City and County government.

After all, who in their right mind would vote for these lunatics?

Also, 300,000 people in one area — that’s very likely a stable population. And considering that Bernalillo County has been electing whack-jobs (for example, Jim Baca and Eric Griego) the whole time I’ve been living here, chances are that they’ve been voting.

And to think that New Mexico used to have statutory provisions forbidding idiots and intoxicated people from voting.


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level — 15
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Gab / Google Plus / Minds / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. Darth Mike Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    8. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    9. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    10. New Mexico Lest We Forget (Voters Remorse) Facebook group

Sunday, 28 January 2018

Larry Correia’s Advice to Writers — It’s Also Valid for Liberty Activists

Filed under: entertainment, Media, Politics, Principles — Tags: , — mikewb1971 @ 3:11 PM (15:11)

Fantasy writer Larry Correia offers some advice to other writers in a recent Facebook post

Here is a quick object lesson for writers about why you should never ever give a crap what perpetually offended social justice reviewers say about your stuff.

Back in 2011, Mike Kupari and I released a novel called Dead Six. It’s a great book. A thriller with two competing narrators, trying to kill each other.

Well, one of the main bad guys in D6 is this mysterious crime figure known only as Big Eddie. This dude is so dangerous, and involved in so much organized crime, that at the beginning my main character thinks Big Eddie is just a term for a cabal of powerful string pullers. Eddie is just that connected and terrifying.

Only later on, we actually meet Big Eddie. And it turns out that his public persona is as a spoiled rich guy, heir to a big family fortune, and I based him on Carson from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Only deeply disturbed, incredibly violent, and a criminal genius mastermind.

He’s also gay. (In actuality, Eddie’s sexual orientation is Hurt People) but he hams it up in his public persona, as it helps hide his truly dangerous nature.

One of my favorite villains I ever created, really popular among readers, and he’s so over the top that when Bronson Pinchot narrated the audiobook, he told me it was one of the funnest roles he’d ever taken (keeping in mind, he was Serge in Beverly Hills Cop and stole the show from Eddie Murphy when he was at the top of his game). And it got nominated for the Audie for Best Thriller.

But angry Social Justice reviewers screamed at me anyway. Having a crazy bad guy be gay was deeply offensive. Homophobic. Triggered. Hatemongery. You know, all the usual stuff. HOW DARE YOU HAVE AN EVIL PSYCHO BE GAY! REEEEE!

So fast forward to this week, and there’s a petition floating around to force DC to make the Joker gay . . .

Yes . . . The Joker. So if they don’t make this charismatic psychotic criminal mastermind gay . . . Then they’re homophobic.

But when I wrote a charismatic psychotic criminal mastermind as gay, I was homophobic.

Basically, no matter what you do, they’re going to be pissed off. You will never ever make these people happy for long. If you comply with their demands, that’s just showing weakness, and the first time you cross one of their invisible lines, they’ll just start screaming at you again. So remember, just write whatever you want, and the critics can go back to eating Tide Pods.

I’ve experienced this sort of shrieking directed at myself in the libertarian movement, both inside the Libertarian Party and outside of it, as well.

I’ve witnessed this sort of hysteria levelled at others.

When people harangue me with this sort of nonsense, I find it difficult to stay pissed off at them. They’re mostly annoyances in the long run.

As Larry tells writers, don’t worry about your detractors. Any attempt on your part to appease them will fail in the long run — they’ll simply find another reason to stick knives in your back.

When they tell you “YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!” about something you’ve said verbally or written, reply with “What do you mean, I can’t say that? I just did say it.”

When they tell you what sort of rhetorical style to use, respond with “Don’t tell me how to do this — SHOW ME.”

In earlier days (1997-2011), I was producing and hosting a public-access TV show here in Albuquerque titled The Weekly Sedition. Someone told me you can’t be like that on the air.” I replied to that with “Anyone who doesn’t like how we run the show is free to sign up at Channel 27, put their own show on, and show us how it’s done.” I then provided the station’s phone number and physical address, so he would have less of an excuse for non-performance. My detractor backed off almost immediately, saying that he “didn’t intend to offend anyone.”

Ghods, I LOVED doing that show every week.

In short, don’t do a thing to appease the Socialist Just-Us Whiners, because you’ll never appease them for long, and you’ll end up tossing your own soul into the trash bin in the process.

It. Just. Is. Not. Worth. It.

Just do it YOUR WAY, and have fun in the process.


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 958 – 28 January 2018
  2. Approximate reading level – 10.1
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook [page / profile] / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.me / Liberty Society / Minds / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. KCUF Media Facebook page
    4. The Weekly Sedition Facebook page
    5. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    6. The Libertarian Enterprise Facebook group

Sunday, 14 January 2018

Pot Freedom from Ortiz y Pino? Think Again!

Filed under: Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:04 PM (20:04)

Recently, State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino proposed an amendment to the New Mexico State Constitution (SJR4). Ostensibly, the purpose of this amendment is to make marijuana “legal,” so pot smokers will suffer less harassment from State, county and municipal law enforcement agencies here in New Mexico.

The more unscrupulous and gullible of those calling for more freedom on marijuana will say this amendment is a good one.

Ah, but the very title of SJR4 gives away the game —

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4 — PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 20 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEW MEXICO THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR POSSESSION AND PERSONAL USE OF MARIJUANA ONLY IF THE LEGISLATURE REGULATES THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTATION, SALE AND TAXATION OF MARIJUANA AND PROVIDES FOR REVENUES FROM THE TAXATION OF MARIJUANA TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE GENERAL FUND.

In other words, marijuana only becomes “legal” under the NM Statutes Annotated IF the Legislature regulates and taxes the marijuana industry, then Taxation and Revenue puts the funds garnished from those taxes into the general kitty, for the Legislature to play with, hand out as legalized favors or bribes, or whatever.

Come on, folks &#151 doesn’t government at all levels intrude into your lives too much already?

Do you really want to give the politicians and their pet bureaucrats MORE power to put their eyes, noses, fingers, and other appendages into your life?

Do you really want to hand over MORE cash to them so they can have the finer things in life, maybe things that YOU might aspire to have yourself?

Let’s face it — government intrusion into private industry is the legalized version of the plata o plomo (“silver or lead”) offer that the Colombian cocaine cartels would make, meaning “take the money (bribe) or I will take your life.” Basically, “play our way and get rich, or don’t and go to eat out of a dumpster.” Only in this case, the people who are supposed to be stopping criminal activity are the ones making it worse.

In the mean time, the “black” market in unregulated marijuana still continues to operate. Maybe with less profits than before, but it’s still there. Like untaxed cigarettes in New York City.

I can understand the desire for having your favorite stuff becoming less restricted, except it won’t really become less restricted for a large portion of the State — 63 percent of New Mexico’s land area is Federal property of one kind or another (military bases, BLM land, National Parks, Monuments, National Forests, etc.), and marijuana is still illegal at the Federal level of government. Thus you could still get arrested for possession, use, or distribution if you’re on Federal property, even in a state where it’s legal.

Blaze one up by the front doors of the BX at Kirtland, Cannon or Holloman if you think I’m joking. The SPs might not share that sense of humor.

(When the Founders put that clause about “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings” into the U.S. Constitution, did they truly mean 63% of New Mexico, and 89% of Nevada?)

For those of you who are Democrats, did you seriously believe that Hillary Clinton was going to fight to make this better for you?!

I can just hear it now from those insisting that marijuana “must” be regulated by their favorite Political Classholes before it becomes legal again —

“If we don’t regulate it, someone will sell poisoned weed to kids!”

There’s that “we” again — that’s how the There-Oughta-Be-A-Law crazies rope you into signing on to their schemes.

And high schoolers across the country have been smoking illegal, unsanctioned weed (and trying all sorts of illegal, unsanctioned substances, too!) for fifty years now. How many of them have been demonstrably harmed by their smoking pot?

H/T to Kyle Bennett for the talky-ball meme!


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 956 – 14 January 2018
  2. Approximate reading level – 13.3

Sunday, 24 December 2017

Santa Claus on “Benevolent Government” — Ron Paul’s 2017 Christmas Message

Filed under: Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:39 PM (22:39)

Ron Paul
Friday, December 22, 2017 at 7:35am

Government is not Mother Teresa.

It’s not “caring,” or “compassionate,” or “humanitarian.”

It doesn’t “help” the poor . . . . It multiplies them.

It doesn’t “run the economy” . . . . It destroys it.

It doesn’t “spread freedom” . . . It squashes it.

Government is violent force.

Either that force is chained down by a Constitution, or like a fire, it’ll spread and burn down everything in its path.

H/T Sam Damewood
https://facebook.com/sam.damewood/posts/10215428210043161


NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseIssue 953 – 24 December 2017

Tuesday, 28 November 2017

Tim Keller’s Mayoral Theme Song?

Filed under: Listening, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:38 PM (20:38)

That song, of course, should be “Breaking The Law” by Judas Priest.

But hey, “he acted in good faith” so it doesn’t really matter, does it?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Albuquerque JournalBoard finds Keller violated ethics code by Martin Salazar

Sunday, 26 November 2017

About Those Self-Driving Cars . . . .

Filed under: Politics, Resistance, Science, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 8:38 PM (20:38)

One question for those reading this —

How many of you remember this commercial from OnStar that aired a few years ago?

There’s plenty more where that came from —

YouTube search: onstar stolen vehicle slowdown

YouTube search: onstar stolen vehicle slowdown commercial

I’m sure that when your car gets stolen or jacked away from you, this sort of thing sounds fantastic.

With that in mind, there is a downside to giving law enforcement this sort of access.

What happens when they have a warrant out for you, for whatever reason (drugs, terrorism, securities, unpaid taxes or fines, bench warrant, use your imagination here)?

If your car has one of these tracking systems built into it, they can go to the dealer, show their paperwork to whoever is working at the service desk, and not only demand a location for your vehicle, but real-time tracking information about it, and have the dealer rep shut it down when they need it shut down.

If you happen to be driving down the road when they give that order and your vehicle “loses” power, it will be your problem, not theirs.

There are ways around this sort of thing — white-hat hackers to the rescue here:

How to disable Onstar without losing bluetooth and without setting error codes

  1. Remove Onstar Module from vehicle.
  2. Remove the 6 T10 screws from the bottom of the Onstar Module.
  3. Pull up on the main board to separate it from the antenna board.
  4. Remove the Male/Male connector that connects the main board to the antenna board.
  5. Drop the main board back in without the Male/Male connector and reinstall the screws.
  6. Reinstall the Onstar Module in the vehicle and enjoy!

No error codes and no Onstar connectivity.

So when self-driving cars and trucks are mass-produced and in use by the general population, what can we expect?

I won’t be surprised if Congress mandates that the manufacturers include a backdoor to the cars’ operating system for law enforcement use. That way when the cops have a warrant for you, they don’t need to swarm (“stack”, in SWAT element parlance) up at your front door and conduct a legalized home invasion[1], they can just hack your car to deliver you to the local station, and lock you inside upon arrival.

And of course, the how-to on that will never, ever get out to the criminal element.

Is there a solution to this?

Yes — insist that you have control over who has access to your vehicle’s operating system and connectivity, so that anyone wanting this level of remote control has to have your explicit, knowing sign-off beforehand.

Or disconnect your car’s autonomous mode, unless that becomes impractical or de facto illegal[2].

Are you going to have that level of control with outfits like OnStar?

And then there’s the issue of operating system vulnerabilities. What sorts of holes will be exploitable by third parties, officially-sanctioned or freelancers?

At least with a cell phone, you can block the signal when you want by putting the phone into a plastic bag, then wrapping the bag with aluminum foil (a Faraday cage). I’m not sure how that would work with a car.

In the mean time, I recommend getting friendly with your local hacker space, 2600 meetup[3], or Linux User Group [LUG].


NOTES

  1. Compare and contrast SWAT “dynamic entry” techniques versus home invasions conducted by the criminal element
  2. I refer to the self-driving cars in Vernor Vinge’s Rainbows End
  3. As of September 2017: Meetup pages / sites, Meetup list
  4. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 950, 26 November 2017
  5. Approximate reading level – 12
  6. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / FetLife / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.me / Liberty Society / Minds / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: