"Voting won't get you what you want, but you may as well do it."

Editorial by J. Frederick

What you’re about to read is little more than a rant, and stream of conscience diatribe on the 2012 election for POTUS.  Ever since G.W. Bush ran against Al Gore and John Kerry, and Obama vs McCain, I have become increasingly disenfranchised with the American political process.  The republicans, in election after election, have been giving us different version of the same old backwards Christian fundamentalist white guy.  Even now with Mitt Romney, it’s more of the same.  Anyone who argues that Mormonism isn’t a Christian sect doesn’t understand religion.  The democrats have given us the same soft “revolutionary”, guys who talk big, but don’t have the cojones to do anything significant.  Democrats would of course argue that Obama is a revolutionary, with his Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”) supposedly guaranteeing health care for all Americans.  The republicans also think it’s revolutionary, but the kind of revolution that Lenin and Mao had (bad), not the kind that Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington led (good).  Look at it closely, and it’s neither.  It’s a pat on the back to the health care and insurance industries, and more bureaucratic hoops to jump through.  Obama’s only accomplishment is being a minority and getting elected president in a country that is only slightly less racist than South Africa (who elected their first black president in the 1990’s, even though apartheid ended only four short years before Mandela’s election).  I don’t need to get into Kerry or Gore, who together are more boring than a “manila envelope pinned to a beige wall”, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert.

Continued here.

Childhood Never Ends, Episode 1

Childhood Never Ends is a dystopian sci-fi series written by J. Frederick, who is also known as Saparmurat Niyazov on Tumblr.

Gavin woke from his unintended slumber with a start. He had been asleep for only a couple minutes, and he wasn't exactly tired, but train rides were so damn boring. Everywhere one looked, it was the same thing: an endless expanse of dusty scrub-land littered with the dilapidated remains of forgotten towns and farms. Crossing the Midwest was to tempt insanity. What a desolate place it was! Gavin, like every other citizen, was dumbfounded at the stupidity of their ancestors. Who in their right mind would try to farm a barren dessert? When the ancient Europeans arrived in North America 600 years ago, they began staking claim to huge swaths of land, as the history goes, hoping to grow grain and raise cattle in what was, and still is to this day, effectively a desert. Of course they dug canals for irrigation, and when the industrial era began in the 19th century, they built machines that carried water to the fields and developed industrial fertilizers in laboratories that eked out a bit more of a yield from their meager crops, but it was such a useless endeavor. It was hard to believe that it wasn't until the 2050's that hydroponic farming had been adopted wide scale, and ended the problems of world hunger, non-renewable fuel sources, and unsustainable resources for industry: textile, building materials, et cetera. Such was the world of the capital socialists. Their idea of utopia was that of a welfare state that was held up on the backs of the bourgeois. Thankfully for Gavin, and everyone else in the world, the class struggles which created a seemingly endless stream of ideological excrement (capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, democracy, monarchy, and on and on) was finally solved in the 2040's when the greatest man who ever lived, David Golan, created a revolutionary societal system: predictive redistributionism.
Life in what used to be the United States and Europe was perfect, as far as Gavin and practically everyone else was concerned.  David Golan, the first Chancellor, united the old world with the new, and created the Trans-Atlantic Federation, rescuing the United States of America and the European Union from economic and societal collapse, famine, and civil war.  Western civilization, at its zenith, was the greatest society in human history, but then began to spiral downward and collapse in the early 21st century.  With the creation of the T.A.F. and the implementation of predictive redistributionism (often just called Golanism, after its creator), Golan somehow rescued the western world from collapse and made the absolute perfect society.  No one in the T.A.F. ever wanted or needed for anything.  While that was the objective of socialism, which made its best efforts to create a just society worldwide in the 19th and 20th centuries, it failed to address one basic human need:  the desire to achieve, succeed, and the value of merit.  Golanism united the two seemingly opposing problems of creating equal opportunity for every man woman and child while rewarding the achievements of productive individuals by the key component of the term "predictive redistributionism":  prediction.
Through a scientific process of biological and psychological analysis of every man, woman, and child, the Golanist procedure of "predictive analysis" can determine what the best choices for any person are to achieve their personal level of maximum satisfaction in all aspects of their life:  education, occupation, even family and leisure.  Giving everyone a clear path in life to follow has made the most productive society in all of history.
Gavin rather liked his "life path" (the best course of action for one to take as recommended by predictive analysis).  He was steered into a career as an information architect, creating content for the social media outlets used by the Golanist party, which has ran the government of the T.A.F. since its inception.  Politics in the T.A.F. were inclusive, embracing the freedom of speech and expression.  Just because the Golanist party had dominated the T.A.F. about 50 years, it did not mean that other political parties and ideologies were oppressed.  There were still all the archaic political parties:  republicans, democrats, socialists, conservatives, communists, nationalists.  There were new ones, too:  Neo-theocrats, singularitians, anarcho-capitalists, anarchic collectivists, and neo-fascists.  Everyone was given equal say in debates, which were staged constantly on a wide array of media, but the infallible nature of Golanism always won due to it's purity and perfection of reason.  Those who were members of those other political parties were just in a difficult stage in their "life path" and simply needed a little guidance to their final destination:  Golanism.  Everyone went  through this, even Gavin himself.
He mused quite often about those days, as he was doing right now on his transcontinental train ride.  When he graduated preparatory school and began going to university, he was as rebellious as an 18 year old boy could be.  He read about the communist revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries (Marx, Lenin, Mao, Guevarra) and decided that he wanted to be a communist himself.  He didn't like the competitive nature of Golanist education, and just wanted everything to be easy and equal, which was the promise of a communist society.  It wasn't until his professor of Golanist studies had shown him the values of merit and hard work had he finally understood:  Golan's way was the best way.

An inoffensive, yet obstreperous tone notified Gavin that the train was reaching its next stop.  Although the train had been zipping across the Midwest as 600 kilometers per hour, thanks to magnetic levitation propulsion, the ride from Chicago to Denver had seemed to take two and a half weeks rather than two and a half hours.  Gavin wished that he could have taken a sub-orbital plane, which could have covered the same distance in less than half the time, but was a type of transport that was only used for extremely long distances because it was simply inefficient for shorter jaunts.  There were only a few routes, such as Los Angeles to New York, Washington to London, or San Francisco to Tokyo, and sub-orbital flights were also prohibitively expensive.

"Denver, E.T.A. 15 minutes.  Please prepare for departure, and thank you for riding Intertrack." said the synthesized voice of a computer generated hologram of an attractive, yet completely average looking woman.  Her projected form looked gently from passenger to passenger, nodding slightly, and meeting everyone's gaze with a pleasing smile.  Her form evaporated into a series of commercials, acted out by three dimensional holograms of people, mostly computer generated, for products ranging from toothpaste to underwear to automobiles.  All the passengers began the routine of gathering their carry on luggage and then having a seat and fasting their seat belts.

Everything seemed perfectly normal, except Gavin had noticed a woman across the aisle from him behaving strangely.  Her stringy black hair hung over her pale face, but could not conceal the bags under her eyes and the quivering of her bottom lip.  Her piercing green eyes darted about the passenger cabin, and she wrung her hands about nervously in her lap.  He thought she seemed to be an odd contrast:  she had looked disheveled and perhaps a bit crazy, but she was dressed in highly fashionable clothing and wore tasteful jewelry denoting a successful person of high status.  Gavin looked away and decided to think nothing of it, until everyone in the cabin was shocked when she bolted upright from her seat a couple minutes later and began screaming.

To be continued in Episode 2...

Social Credit Theory: Money Grows in Trees! by Overwatch

Social Credit Theory: Money grows in trees!

By Overwatch

There are several topics that I contemplated writing about this time, but the sudden pervasiveness of this repackaged “Free Lunch” economics insists that I do whatever I can to save the minds of those searching for answers as the current economic system implodes around them.

The most important point has already been made twice, first in the “Money grows in trees” reference and secondly in referencing the theory as a “Free Lunch” theory. The Theory of Social Credit posits that the immutable economic law of scarcity is somehow suspended if people just “believe”. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is; and it definitely is in this case.

For those who may be unfamiliar with what the Social Credit Theory/ Argument is, I will go over the basics very quickly. Social Credit advocates rightly attack the destructive nature of debt based fiat currencies, noting that paying an entity for fiat money creation (in the case of the US, bond holders and/through the Federal Reserve System) , seems like paying for nothing. Why not just print the money, instead of making interest payments on it as well (from taxes or through printing with no debt backing the new money)? Social Credit arguments centered on the US quote excerpts from the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power….. to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”) to point out how the US Government has needlessly abrogated this right to a public-private partnership to the detriment of the taxpayer and national fiscal health. Again, why not just print the money? We could have all the money we want for free! Sounds pretty sweet right? On the contrary, this theory is possibly the only thing worse than the current system.

The first problem with this theory is it focuses on only one aspect of the entire economy (money, or the exchange medium), and then focuses only on one aspect of the exchange medium (debt base). It does not take into account the problems of fiat (“by decree”, or “legal tender laws”, a government supported monopoly of money), central banking (the cartelization and monopoly of the banking sector), fractional reserve banking (the freedom of the banks to keep less reserves than the amount needed to cash out deposits, etc.), or the inflationary aspect of cheaply produced currency (particularly fiat). Social Credit advocates go so far as to say that inflation is good for the economy, while it is deflation that is bad, speaking only in terms of how deflation makes things bad for borrowers. I thought the point was to avoid debt? That is only one example of the cognitive dissonance required to make this Theory fly.

So in this potential land of unicorns and marshmallows, Social Credit Theorists claim that a country may just print all the money it wants, and thereby fund all the social programs, infrastructure projects, etc. that the people of the nation need, while also providing enough money for everyone to live comfortably, while legal tender laws ensure cooperation from everyone. They usually reference prior usage of “free money” in the US in glowing terms, such as “Colonial Scrip” and Lincoln’s “Greenbacks” as examples of success. They even go so far as to suggest that Lincoln was assassinated by the banking establishment for bringing this wonderful economic freedom to the citizens of the country. However, they never spend any time on expounding the full history of those currencies, and for good reason. They must leave out important facts about these currencies, that they were used to fund wars (how noble and helpful), the notes were supposed to be backed by specie (precious metals) but either never were or only partially (lies) , and that after some time they often could only be spent at gunpoint (particularly in the case of the Colonial Scrip, the Continental Army was not above stealing supplies when wagonloads of paper scrip was refused). Why give up real goods and services for paper and ink? This leads into the next argument.

Austrian economists have always held that precious metals will win the currency competition in a free market economy (I will not explain this whole argument here, as there are plenty of free resources online about this position). Social Credit Theorists disagree, positing that in a free market economy, “Social Credit banks” will offer interest free loans of the money-printed-on-demand, and that since any loans in commodities will require interest with repayment, the cheaper loans from the Social Credit institutions will quickly run commodity currencies out of the market. They overlook a key problem with this assertion: Just because you can get a loan, doesn’t mean the seller has to accept the payment. Without legal tender laws, Gresham’s law (bad money will drive out good money) does not work. I have yet to see a social credit theorist explain why someone would sell hard earned real goods or sell their labor for something they could easily print up themselves at home, or notice that when they appeal to Gresham’s law in defense, they are admitting to supporting bad money. This leads us back into the initial contention with “Free money”: If printing as much money as desired is the path to prosperity, why don’t we all just start printing our own money? Why not just start paying for things in literal monopoly money? What makes this different from counterfeiting?

The Social Credit Theory is merely another attempt at a free lunch. Stealing. Getting something for nothing. If one entity can make money as it pleases, why bother with loans from them? Why can’t you do it? Why can’t we all do it? Of course if we all do it, it would be worthless, which is why Social Credit Theorists don’t like this question, or really any questions that don’t involve their anti-bond arguments. When someone counterfeits (creates) money, they get the goods the purchase for free. This is no different than anyone else printing money, whether it’s the US Treasury and Federal Reserve, or a Social Credit institution. There (Still) Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL).

Abuse of police power in Colorado?

In continuation of a theme, presented previously by UVM contributor Overwatch , the Rothbardian blog Capitalism Is Freedom is spreading the word about what seems to be an overzealous reaction on behalf of law enforcement to a bank robbery in Aurora, Colorado.  Denver news outlet, KMGH channel 7 (local ABC affiliate) , reported that "Aurora police stopped dozens of cars and pulled out their drivers at gunpoint looking for a bank robbery suspect Saturday afternoon.".  Is this use of police power justified?  Head over to the Unofficial Version Magazine Facebook page to leave your opinion on this story by commenting on the link to this article.  Also feel free to comment through our Twitter feed and use the hashtag #AbuseOfPower.

Illusions and Cost by Overwatch

Illusions and Cost: A look at the Western State Security Apparatus

by Overwatch

In my last article, I attempted to explain time preferences and to a lesser degree, opportunity cost. As a refresher, opportunity cost is whatever you give up to make the choices that you make. As an example: If you decide to go to a movie instead of going out to eat, your opportunity cost is going out to eat. Opportunity cost applies to both time and money. I want to use this economic principle and address one of the most basic functions of coercive government: The Justice System, to include but not limited to police, courts, prisons, executive administration, etc.

Even the minarchist accepts the need for government to provide these functions, and the legitimacy thereof. To talk disparagingly of policemen, courts, or anything else related to law creation/enforcement/punishment, is to be eyed as a "criminal sympathizer", or possibly a criminal in fact. Why would any "law abiding citizen" have a problem with the boys in blue or the venerable judges? I will attempt to address two objective reasons here: Illusions and Cost.

It is no secret that the domestic security apparatus in the United States is larger than ever. Police departments are purchasing drones and tanks, the Border Patrol has checkpoints all along the border, the TSA inspects everyone boarding a plane, security camera networks abound in midscale and large cities. This apparatus is not free, but the gross expense is justified in the name of "safety". But does the apparatus actually provide safety? If so, safety for and from what?

Let's start with police. The most iconic of all local state functionaries, the propaganda says that cops do the dirty work in the streets of Everytown, USA so that we may sleep safe in our beds. Is this true? Let's take a closer look.

First, we must identify the threat. In this sense, the threats to the individual are murder, rape, theft, and assault. How do police protect you from these attacks? The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you (Castle Rock vs. Gonzales). So what are we paying them for? Glorified cleanup crews, in the case of legitimate crimes. Theft in many cases isn't even followed up on, and the number of violent crimes against the average citizen are startlingly small in a statistical sense.

Police do have their hands full though. With what? The War on Drugs, and crimes against the state. In other words, victimless crimes. Drug laws, speed limits, licenses and regulatory fee enforcement. Are you any safer when there is a drug bust? Potentially, but why was there a "Drug operation" of "thugs" operating to begin with? The consequences of arbitrary state laws. Do you feel any safer when you see the patrol car hiding behind some bushes next to the highway? Of course not.

This does not even begin to cover the cost of prisons, not only monetarily, but on the fabric of society itself. By treating people who commit victimless "crimes" as criminals, the incentive to not participate in actual criminal activity is eroded, families are fractured, and resentment against "society" grows.

So we spend billions on police and prisons, who not only are under no obligation to keep us safe, but actively work to make our lives hell if we so much as step outside of ever shifting, arbitrary lines. This is certainly not freedom, and we receive only the illusion of security in the tradeoff. What is a voluntary alternative approach?

Let's say 5% of everything you make goes to pay for the law enforcement apparatus. If you make the national average of $41,000 per year, $2,000 goes to this cause. What could you otherwise do with those earnings to actually provide a measure of safety for yourself and/or those around you, without the added assault on your freedom?

Maybe you and your neighbors could pool this saved money and hire an actual night watchman. Maybe you could purchase a firearm and requisite training/accessories. Maybe you could install your own security system. Also, the money and effects thereof would accumulate over time. So this year you purchase the firearm and open and insurance policy against loss by theft/murder/assault. Next year you purchase the security system. The following year you hire a security firm. If the security firm fails to protect you and/or your property, they may be fired, unlike the police, giving them an actual incentive to perform their job. Over time you may be able to boast quite the comprehensive personal safety system.

Let us say that even with all these different steps, a crime is committed. Let's say that someone manages to steal something from your property. Insurance covers the loss, and may or may not review crime statistics in your area to see if rates may need to rise (just as car insurance does in areas prone to carjacking). Your loss is mitigated and you may move on. Why are you concerned about the thief "getting away with it"? If the population has taken general measures of protection and defense, and he continues to attempt to steal, he cannot be eternally "lucky". If he is, it's no worse than the police taking your case and tossing it into the back of a filing cabinet. If, in a popular argument, the thief is stealing because there is no "social safety net" and he is trying to eat, even more reason to let it go.

Let us say something worse occurs, such as murder. In general, the same thing applies. Insurance against murder protects the financial situation of the family, and if you had already taken precautions for physical security, nothing the police could/would have done would have changed the outcome. So now we are left with the problem of "justice". What is the objective difference between the investigation/court/prison process and either "vigilantism" or doing nothing? Certainly little difference from the position of the person assaulted and/or the bereaved family. Conversely, the cost for the former process only adds insult to injury. The total number of homicides in the US in 2007 was 18,361. The conviction rate was only 61% in 2007. So we are willing to spend billions of dollars a year, to ensure that 11,200 people in a country of over 300 million are "put in a timeout" (which costs even more). This doesn't even go into how many of the homicides were related to the "War on Drugs". Also, we have no way of knowing if those 18,361 people may have been able to protect themselves had it not been for the cost and existence of the law enforcement apparatus. It certainly doesn't matter to them after the fact that the boys in blue show up with the chalk.

Contrary to popular belief, the state and it's law enforcement apparatus creates criminals, it does not protect the population from them. Of course, the smarter criminals find ways to work from inside the state instead of against it. Think about that the next time you see a smiling politician, a police cruiser, or a stern military officer.

UVM's New Angle

Changes are coming to Unofficial Version Magazine, and our hiatus will soon come to an end.  First of all, we have a new direct email address:  UnoffcialVersionMagazine@h-and-j-enterprises.com.  Please direct all correspondence to this address from now on, and please feel free to write!  We welcome any input from our readers!
Now, on to the above image.  It displays the new format for UVM:  Unofficial Version Magazine will become an anarchist publication.  Anarchism is a misunderstood, and to the surprise of some, diverse worldview, which we hope to educate all those interested about the facts and nuances of this belief system.  Content will remain basically the same:  UVM will be filled with news summaries, insightful articles, and intelligently written editorials.  Please check back regularly with unofficialverionmagazine.com for details!

Thanks, J. Frederick, editor
J. Frederick on Facebook

Political Divisiveness Has Officially Ruined Everything an editorial by Jeremy Frederick

Political Divisiveness Has Officially Ruined Everything

by Jeremy Frederick

Politics in the United States have become incredibly divisive over the past decade, and to add insult to injury, ubiquitous. There's no avoiding politics. People used to identify themselves by their religion, their ancestry, and even their subculture. Now everyone wears their party affiliation on their sleeve. Of course, with there being only two eligible political parties in our country, it creates a clear and definite line between liberal and conservative, left and right, democrat and republican. All this has done for our society is divide us into two neat little groups: red states and blue states. Nothing else matters, and this became apparent to me when I noticed the one consistent love, indeed passion of my life to be polluted by this asinine pissing contest that is politics. I'm talking about the politicization of heavy metal music.

Metal used to, much like it's unofficial mascot, Satan, stand for rebellion against the status quo, living outside the norm, bucking the system, and whatever cliché you want to throw into the mix. Much like Satan, heavy metal was “the accuser”, the last bastion of rebellion against all that is conformist. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people realize that choosing one of two sides of the same corrupt coin is about as rebellious a child being sent to bed on time, but sitting there in the dark and quietly refusing to sleep. It's a meaningless gesture that just makes the so-called “activist” feel exhausted. I fear that the subculture of heavy metal as a whole has succumbed to left/right rift that is tearing the western world in two.

I'm not saying that heavy metal has been devoid of politicization, in fact politics have always had a presence in heavy metal lyrical themes. Black Sabbath's “War Pigs”, Iron Maiden's “Two Minutes To Midnight”, and a great deal of Metallica and Megadeth's songs are all relatively early examples. The difference then from now, however, is that those songs represented a disdain for authority, and contempt towards the corrupt base of power in our society. Today, metal musicians and journalists who cover the scene are making their allegiances known, and instead of questioning and criticizing those in power, they are making endorsements.

Dave Mustaine's recent unofficial endorsement of Rick Santorum for President of the United States is a prime example. And then there is the inevitable backlash, from the likes of Odorus Urungus of Gwar and metalsucks.net, who believe that heavy metal music is appropriately placed on the left side of politics and needs to stay that way. To say that heavy metal music and culture has anything to do with conservatism is indeed absurd, but heavy metal as a culture is much more nuanced than that. If heavy metal culture was a stalwart liberal constituency, Barrack Obama would surely be scheduling campaign appearances at this year's Maryland Death Feast, a short flight via Marine One from the White House, but so far his administration has not announced any such plans. Heavy metal culture embraces personal liberty and responsibility, the “Do as thou wilt” of Aleistar Crowley, the “virtue of selfishness” professed by Ayn Rand. If heavy metal should be the back drop of any political movement, it would be libertarianism. But metal does not, and should not do this. Metal is a culture unto itself, and it is a culture of resistance against politics and the quest for power over many by the few. Heavy metal embraces the power of the individual; it is the artistic synthesis of anarchism.

Politics does have a place in music, metal or otherwise. Most people are confused and depressed by current events, especially politics, so they escape them through music. Metalheads are no less guilty of this than hip-hop, pop, country, jazz, or even dubstep fans. That dude in leather jacket with the Immortal patch is more interested in the mythical kingdom of Blashyrkh than The Arab Spring or the GOP Convention, and who could blame him? But, it is good for society, and every sub-culture within it, to be aware of the issues of the day. And this awareness can and should be slipped in surreptitiously among songs about demons, orcs, psychopathic serial killers, or loose women wearing little more than leather chaps. But it's best to keep it in the background. That way if the listener wants to delve deeper into the wider concept and enlighten themselves they can, while the rest of us can bang our heads. Unfortunately, in a now perpetual election cycle and worldwide civil unrest, everyone has their opinion and feels obligated to share it. You know the old joke about opinions being like rectums.

I live and breath 2 things: music (especially heavy metal) and knowledge about the world around me. I want to know what's going on at all times. A negative consequence of that, however, is that I think too much (which is what my friends and family always complain to me about). That's why I need heavy metal. I need the dark humor of a Cannibal Corpse song about turning tattooed human skin into wall hangings and the wild fantasy of a Blind Guardian song. Sadly, evidence is mounting that no one cares about escapism anymore. In this age of instant and infinite information, we're beginning to forget how to empty our heads and daydream for a while.