Category: Liberty

The Only Tool of The State is Violence

I’ve said it many times but it bears repeating; the only tool available to the state is violence. Every rule, regulation, and law passed by the state is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Even blowing a stop sign can ultimately lead to violence being brought against you as explained so well by Jeffery Trucker in the video posted here earlier today. This is why libertarians are so wary about passing new laws, doing so necessarily means the people will be subjected to more force. A man in Austin, Texas named John Bush explains this fact all too well:

Mr. Bush was prohibited from to the Austin City Council for one year. Think about the implications of that for one moment. In our country you’re supposedly able to address your government and take your grievances to them yet they hold the power to prevent you from doing so. Any number of excuses can be used to prohibit you from addressing state agents meaning you really have no right of redress.

What one organization is given a monopoly on creating and enforcing the rules you can’t be truly free.

The Morality of Capitalism

I came across an excellent speech by Jeffrey Tucker where he talks about the morality of capitalism. As usual Tucker makes some excellent points that anybody but the most brainwashed statist could understand.

The best point Tucker made in his speech was the fact free markets are the only economic system that doesn’t require coercion. Other economics systems such as socialism, fascism, and mercantilism all require the use of force to ensure everybody plays by the established rules whereas free market capitalism holds no such requirements.

Capitalism at Work

Capitalism is a great system as it makes consumers the ultimate decision makers of company actions (unless the government gets involved of course). If you’re outraged by the actions of a private company you can let them know but taking your money elsewhere. It’s really a case of rational self-interest as companies who fail to meet the demands of consumers can only find themselves in a state of insolvency. GoDaddy recently came out in support of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the current piece of legislation being worked on to censor the Internet:

Website hosting company GoDaddy has officially voiced its support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Bill in 2012, which is designed to thwart movie and music piracy on the Internet by empowering copyright holders to effectively shut down websites or online services found with infringing material. If passed, the U.S. government could blacklist any website it deems in violation of copyright, which could range from a few posts in a Web forum to a few links sent in an e-mail.

As you can guess many of GoDaddy’s customers were pissed. In response to GoDaddy’s support of SOPA many customers transfered their domains and hosted websites to other providers. Seeing this loss of money GoDaddy finally yielded and listened to their customers:

Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” currently working its way through U.S. Congress.

“Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation – but we can clearly do better,” Warren Adelman, Go Daddy’s newly appointed CEO, said. “It’s very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it.”

This is the beauty of capitalism, the decisions of companies can be changed without the need for violence. Instead consumers can voice their concern and take their business elsewhere. Unlike the state companies can’t initiate violence in order to force their customers to continue paying.

Judge Unable to Find Jurors to Convict Man of Marijuana Possession

This news report is a perfect example of the powers juries have:

For those who don’t want to watch the video a Montana judge was unable to convict a man of marijuana possession because he couldn’t actually create a jury. The reason for this is because nobody in the jury selection pool was even willing to sit in on the case. Many people don’t understand that being unable to create a jury results in a de factor innocent ruling because without a jury to judge no trial can take place.

I wish more people would have the guts to refuse sitting on a jury for a non-violent crime. In a way this is a form of jury nullification although slightly different than usual. Instead of nullifying the law by ruling innocence on grounds the violate law is unjust potential jurors simply refused to hear the case at all.

Jury Nullification Becoming More Mainstream

When Julian Heicklen was arrested for informing jurors of their rights I gave a brief overview of jury nullification. Nullification is a power juries have that the government has been trying to keep secret because not doing so would allow the people to effectively reign in government power. Information regarding jury nullification has been creeping out after the arrest of Mr. Heicklen and is now hitting the New York Times:

IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.

One thing to note is the right of jury nullification doesn’t come from the Bill of Rights but from the fact juries aren’t punished for their verdict. If you’re a juror and find somebody not guilty you are not required to justify your ruling nor can you be punished for voting “the wrong way.” Besides that point the article is a good read. Unfortunately if you don’t inform yourself about jury powers you’ll never hear about them thanks to the Supreme Court:

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out.

When the Supreme Court said judges were not required to inform juries of their rights it was interpreted as judges being able to make up any line of bullshit they want while never informing jurors what they can and can’t do. Judges usually inform juries that they’re required to uphold the letter of the law, an idea that’s entirely false. This is irrelevant because judges, like police officers, can legally lie to you all they want (but it’s a crime if you lie to them).

The Wisdom of Dune

Dune is one of the most well known science fiction series in existence. There is good reason for this, the series is incredibly complex and covers numerous ideas including ecology, philosophy, and the dangers of leadership:

How did it evolve? I conceived of a long novel, the whole trilogy as one book about the messianic convulsions that periodically overtake us. Demagogues, fanatics, con-game artists, the innocent and the not-so-innocent bystanders-all were to have a part in the drama. This grows from my theory that superheroes are disastrous for humankind. Even if we find a real hero (whatever-or whoever-that may be), eventually fallible mortals take over the power structure that always comes into being around such a leader.

Personal observation has convinced me that in the power area of politics/economics and in their logical consequence, war, people tend to give over every decision-making capacity to any leader who can wrap himself in the myth fabric of the society. Hitler did it. Churchill did it. Franklin Roosevelt did it. Stalin did it. Mussolini did it.

I would be very interested in reading any political theory paper put out by Frank Herbert (if such papers exist). He really hit the nail on the head with this statement. Our history seems litered with untold examples of powerful leaders reigning death and destruction down upon their subjects. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

One of the main threads running through libertarian philosophy is the idea of self-rulers. That is to say the idea that you are the only person who can rightfully rule yourself. Nobody else has any right to force you into actions you do not wish to follow and nobody else can possibly known what is best for you. Often we forget this fact and rely on others to make decisions for us or demand others force our beliefs onto others.

The Dune series does a great job of demonstrating the evils of power. While Muad’Dib frees the planet of Arrakis from the tyrannical control of House Harkonnen he only manages to replace it with the tyrannical rule of religion. Through control of the spice Maad’Dib is able to take control over the entirety of the Landsraad and is eventually succeeded by his son who ends up being even worse. I think the Dune series can be summarized as a vicious power cycle played out through the ages.

I very much like the conclusion of the article:

Of course there are other themes and fugal interplays in Dune and throughout the trilogy. Dune Messiah performs a classic inversion of the theme. Children of Dune expands the number of themes interplaying. I refuse, however, to provide further answers to this complex mixture. That fits the pattern of the fugue. You find your own solutions. Don’t look to me as your leader.

Caution is indeed indicated, but not the terror that prevents all movement. Hang loose. And when someone asks whether you’re starting a new cult, do what I do: Run like hell.

Power corrupts so it is best to run from people trying to hand you power. Sadly not enough people believe this and instead seek power to wield over fellow humans, often in the name of “the greater good.” Ends do not justify means and the greater good generally isn’t great or good. We all need to step back and realize forcing our beliefs and ideas onto others is a terrible thing.

Making a Watch List and Checking it Twice

Our government appears to be taking a page from Santa Clause, they’re making a list and checking it twice. Unlike Santa who makes a list of children to bestow presents on, the federal government is making a list of people who may post any difficulty in the establishment of a totalitarian America. As Rand Paul explained in a speech people who store more than seven days of food are now considered potential terrorists by the Department of Motherland Homeland Security (DHS):

Some people may consider such accusations crazy but those accusations seem to be constantly reenforced by the actions of federal agents. For instance a recent action but government thugs reenforces Rand Paul’s claim that the DHS considers those who store food potential terrorists:

Oath Keepers, an association of active servicemen devoted to upholding their oath of guarding the republic and protecting individual liberty, has reported that federal agents recently paid a visit to a Latter Day Saints food storage cannery in Tennessee. Though they had no reason to be there, these agents allegedly interrogated the facility’s manager and demanded to see a list of customers that had purchased, and were storing, food there.

[…]

Oath Keepers suggests the government might be trying to gather intelligence on food-storing Americans in order to later come and confiscate that food, or worse — after all, freedom-loving patriots who are preparing for social upheaval are a threat to the power structure that seeks to tighten the noose of tyranny around the neck of society.

When Stalin came to power he implemented agriculture collectivization under the guise of increasing the Union’s food production. Before collectivization the Soviet Union was one of the largest grain exporters in the world, after implementation millions of the Union were starving. It became apparently very quickly to those living in the Soviet Union that collectivization wasn’t about increasing agriculture productivity but control over the food supply. Controlling the necessities of survival means control over the dependent populace.

It is possible that federal agents are trying to obtain a list of people storing food so that food can be confiscated during a declared emergency. On the other hand the government may have no plans of confiscating said food but merely desire a list of people who may be a barrier between the establishment of a totalitarian regime.

There was a time when I would have thought such ideas to be mere conspiracy theories subscribed to by overly paranoid individuals. Unfortunately with all that has been going on such as Fast and Furious being used to justify enhanced gun control, the authorized murder of American civilians without trial, the almost unhindered passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate, and many other enhancement of government power I can no longer ignore the obvious advancement of tyranny in this country. Our country appears to be following the textbook examples of other countries that moved from relative freedom into complete dictatorships.

If you believe the United States of America is still the land of liberty you’re not paying attention.

The Biggest Threat to America

Ask the average American walking down the street what they believe the biggest threat to America is and you’ll likely get as many answers and interviewees. Some will claim a nuclear armed Iran is the biggest threat, but they fail to understand that simply possessing a nuclear weapon doesn’t make for a threat if you lack a delivery system capable of transporting the weapon to your enemy’s home and bypassing that enemy’s countermeasures. Other people will claim the biggest threat to our county is the faltering education system, against they fail to see that a faltering public education system is a symptom of a much larger problem.

The biggest threat to our country is the tyranny of our government and Henry Hazlitt called it in 1956:

In spite of the obvious ultimate objective of the masters of Russia to communize and conquer the world, and in spite of the frightful power which such weapons as guided missiles and atomic and hydrogen bombs may put in their hands, the greatest threat to American liberty today comes from within. It is the threat of a growing and spreading totalitarian ideology.

Totalitarianism in its final form is the doctrine that the government, the state, must exercise total control over the individual. The American College Dictionary, closely following Webster’s Collegiate, defines totalitarianism as “pertaining to a centralized form of government in which those in control grant neither recognition nor tolerance to parties of different opinion.”

Unlike potential threats from foreign nations, the threat of ever more tyrannical government isn’t hypothetical but an absolute fact. We aren’t playing a guessing game of “what if” when talking about expanding government power but a game of “how much” and “how quickly?” No doubt can exist that the power the federal government commands is much greater now than any other point in our country’s history, and make no mistake our history is ladened with expanding government power.

The United States government has been on an ever expanding power grab since the start but it really began to ramp up after the conclusion of the Civil War. One the federal government realized they successfully prevented any state from seceding they also knew there was no limit to their power. Gone was the possibility of individual states finding federal laws and regulations unacceptable and withdrawing. While this expansion of power was continuous it really began to ramp up during World War II and has only continued to rapidly expand every since.

The article is an excellent read and should serve as a wakeup call to anybody who doesn’t see the constant destruction of liberty taking place in this nation.

McDonald’s Demonstrates the Pointless Nature of Regulations

The city of San Francisco recently passed an ordinance banning the inclusions of toys with meals that don’t mean arbitrarily selected nutritional standards (standards so high that public school meals don’t even meet them). This ordinance was a swipe at fast food joints that provide toys with kids meals and like all such ordinances this one ended up being entirely pointless:

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn’t come with a toy. For that, you’ll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

I’m not usually a big fan of McDonald’s (although I fully admit their fries are fucking awesome) but in this case I just want to find the person who came up with this idea and give them a huge fucking high-five. It fills me with joy to see, what was likely, hours of debate between worthless bureaucrats culminate into absolutely nothing. With a very simple change of policy McDonald’s was able to take this new piece of red tape and render it completely meaningless.

Oh, bonus points for coming up with a solution that does some additional good:

(though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities)

That’s just rubbing salt in the state’s wound and I admire it greatly.

The Need for Decriminalization

I’m sure most people who read the headline assume this post will be about decriminalizing marijuana. That’s not the case specifically, this post is actually about decriminalizing the average American. Wendy McElroy, one of my favorite regular contributors to Mises Daily, wrote a great piece describing the injustice of our so-called justice system. The primary failure of what we call a justice system is the fact that everything today is treated as a criminal offense deserving of jail time:

Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan.

By contrast, in 1970, less than one in 400 Americans was incarcerated. Why has the prison population more than quadrupled over a few decades? Why are you, as an average person and daily felon, more vulnerable to arrest than at any other time?

Between 1970 and 2010 our country somehow leaped from having one in 400 Americans incarcerated to having one in 31 Americans incarcerated. Between those time periods a similar increase in violent crime isn’t noted so what is the cause? The cause is obvious, the government has continued making mundane behavior criminal:

In some cases, the violated laws are so obscure, vague, or complicated in language that even the police are ignorant of them. In other cases, outright innocence is not sufficient to escape the brutality of detention.

Under English Common Law, which our system was at one time based off of, it was fairly easy for a person to know whether or not they were committing a criminal act. Today you are likely committing three felony level crimes every day and don’t even realize it. Such facts should be disgusting to anybody but the most authoritarian individuals. What kinds of behavior can incite armed government agents kidnapping you and throwing you in a cage? The article gives a couple of downright scary examples:

In 2005, while a passenger in his family car, Anthony W. Florence was mistakenly arrested for a bench warrant on traffic tickets he had already satisfied; the proof of payment he carried was to no avail. During seven days in jail, Florence was strip-searched twice, even though the guards admitted they had no reasonable suspicion of contraband. He was otherwise deprived of rights; for example, guards watched him shower and forced him to undergo a routine delousing.[1]

Eventually released, the attempt to get justice has taken Florence years. On October 12, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Florence v. Burlington, et al., in which the question is “whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.”[2]

Even though Florence had paid his traffic ticket and had proof of the payment he was arrested, detained, and forced to submit to acts supposedly reserved for criminals. In this case the whole idea of being innocent until proven guilty was tossed aside, which is becoming the default instead of the exception (when it should never be the case). Another example is given:

Norris was detained for four hours while they ransacked his home and confiscated 37 boxes of possessions without offering a warrant or an explanation. In March 2004, Norris was indicted under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species for “smuggling” the orchids he had ordered and paid for to run a side business. Norris was thrown into the same cell as a suspected murder and two suspected drug dealers.[3]

Violations of trade conventions should, at most, be considered civil cases. That is to say the violator should be fined and nothing more. Why? Because somebody guilty of smuggling, unless what they’re smuggling are human beings, is a victimless crime. While I find the act of incarceration an improper response to any crime as it doesn’t help return to the victim what was taken, at the very least it should be reserved for offenses where a victim has been inflicted with some form of violence.

Smuggling a plant does not bring harm to another person so why should it inflict violence on the offender? A third example is given to further express the severity of the situation:

In 2000, a poor kid from foster care named T.J. Hill thought he had found a path to success when he received a wrestling scholarship to Cal State Fullerton. School did not work out, and he was arrested in 2006 for possession of psilocybin (mushrooms).

The kid was put on probation but his troubles were not over:

In November 2008, he left the state and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Although the original charge was minor and no further illegal activity occurred, T.J. was jailed on $100,000 bail to prevent flight risk. His family has spent thousands on legal fees. Now well known for his volunteer work with children, even police officers are hoping T.J. escapes more jail time. As one of them said, “He’s a good guy. He’s changed lives.” Whether he will be allowed to continue doing so or will become dehumanized through a senseless, brutal imprisonment waits to be seen.

Even though his offense was victimless he spent time in jail. Why was his right to travel restricted for the mere act of possessing a verboten substance? Why did his parents have to pay thousands in legal fees to defend their child against a crime where no victim existed? Once again the possession of a verboten substance should, at most, be treated as a civil offense punishable by fine (although I firmly believe what you put into your body is your business and possession and/or consumption of a verboten substance shouldn’t be punishable in any regard).

These are only three examples in a sea of such cases. What is needed to a reform of our erroneously labeled justice system. We need to go from a system designed to exact punishment on the average person to a system where victims are properly compensated by their aggressor and crimes without victims no longer be considered crimes:

Libertarianism has evolved sophisticated theories of what constitutes a proper justice system and how to implement it. One of the most popular theories is based on restitution, rather than retribution or punishment. Restitution is the legal system in which a person “makes good” on a harm or wrong done to another individual and does so directly; if you steal $100, then you pay back $100 and reasonable damages directly to the victim of your theft. You do not pay a debt to society or to the state by going to prison. You do not undergo “punishment” other than the damages assessed. You make your victim “whole” — and, perhaps, a bit more for his trouble.

The article describes several steps in the correct direction, one of which I believe needs emphasis:

A sunset provision attached to all new or amended laws. This is a clause that provides an expiration date for a law unless action is taken to renew it. Today most laws are in effect indefinitely.

One of, if not the, biggest problem with our current justice system is the insurmountable number of laws and regulations on the books. Lawmakers have no quarrel with passing new laws or regulations as they never have to deal with the consequences nor concern themselves with the aftermath. If each law had to be revisited periodically (I would say put the span of time at one year or less) and have its continued existence justified by debate after the consequences had been noted I believe the number of laws on the books would be greatly reduced. If for no other reason than the fact lawmakers would have no time to create new laws if they were constantly debating renewal of existing laws.