Category: Liberty

If This is Our Family I Want a Divorce

It appears as through the Obama administration is really ramping up the use of the phrase “federal family.” Everybody’s favorite federal agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), has decided that we’re now all part of one big fucked up federal family:

“Under the direction of President Obama and Secretary Janet Napolitano, the entire federal family is leaning forward to support our state, tribal and territorial partners along the East Coast,” a FEMA news release declared Friday as Irene churned toward landfall.

The G-word — “government” — has been nearly banished, with FEMA instead referring to federal, state and local “partners” as well as “offices” and “personnel.”

“’Government’ is such a dirty word right now,” says Florida State University communication professor Davis Houck. “Part of what the federal government does and any elected official does is change the terms of the language game into terms that are favorable to them.”

“Family” can evoke favorable thoughts of motherhood and security.

Although I’m glad that government is starting to get such a bad image attached to it I don’t think renaming it “family” is going to help improve that image. The government’s image is poor because what they’ve done has been nothing but an endless series of bad decisions.

Honestly if my family was forcefully stealing from other people, killing neighbors outside of self-defense, making life difficult for productive members of the family to alleviate the pain of unproductive members, and constantly trying to control family members by enacting new rules regulating every form of behavior and thought I’d want a divorce. Of course the last time members of the federal family tried to file for divorce they were subjected to constant physical beatings until they finally submitted and withdrew their filings.

Court Rules Massachusetts’s Prohibition Against Recording Police in Public Unconstitutional

Getting good news out of Massachusetts is rare but certainly welcome. For a while Massachusetts has been enforcing its law against filming police in public much to the dismay of everybody but the police. Thankfully the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston have ruled that Massachusetts’s law is unconstitutional:

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim “qualified immunity” because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

The entire ruling can be read here [PDF]. It would be nice to get the Supreme Court to take up one of these cases and rule the prohibition against recording police unconstitutional so we would no longer have to deal with these egregious laws.

Watch Police Arrest People for “Illegally” Selling Lemonade

Do you want to see some of Washington D.C.’s finest working hard to ensure you remain safe from illegal lemonade sales? If so here you go:

It’s nice to know your tax dollars go to ensure such rebellious and obviously dangerous people are kidnapped and thrown in a cage. The last thing you would want is people thinking they could partake in voluntary transactions without government permission in the form of a permit or license.

On a side note one thing I never understood is when cops walk up and put their hand over a camera. At the 1:35 mark one douche bag officer pulls off this maneuver which effectively… accomplishes nothing. Here’s a pro tip for our boys and girls in blue who are working diligently to ensure no lemonade dares be sold without government permission, putting your hand over the camera only prevents the camera from recording video for the span of time that your hand in obstructing the lens. This is going to come as a shock but after you remove your hand from the lens the camera can still record video of you being a complete fucking prick. To make matters worse the camera recorded your face when you walked up to obstruct the lens meaning you’ve already been captured on video.

When the State Fails to Provide Protection

Most gun bloggers spend a great deal of time talking about the fact that the police are not only under zero obligation to protect you but that they’re also completely ineffective in the task of protection. In general the police arrive to the scene of a crime far too late to perform the service of protection. This is why the right to self-defense is so important, you must be able to take the protection of your life into your own hands because nobody else will. Sadly protection is a market the state likes to claim a monopoly over and then dole out authorization to the populace as deemed appropriate (by the state of course).

Another market the state generally claims a monopoly over is that of delivering justice. This is rather interesting since the state doesn’t usually deliver justice, they deliver punishment. Justice would require that just compensation be provided to the victim by the criminal whereas punishment generally leaves the victim in no better shape then they were before the punishment was enacted (for example most victims of theft never get their property back nor receive compensation from the thief).

Those who seek to provide their own protection and seek justice are labeled vigilantes, which has an unnecessary negative connotation attached to it. I came across a very good article on Mises Daily talking about the American history of vigilantism, it’s benefits, and why people should rid themselves of their prejudice against vigilantes.

Although I urge you to read the article I’ll give a brief synopsis. The state claims a monopoly on both the protection and justice markets. History has proven that the state is incapable of providing either service leaving people without defense and justice. A vigilante is nothing more than a person who has taken responsibility to either defend themselves, their neighbors, or to seek justice for those who have been wronged. The key word being justice, this doesn’t mean seeking out the suspected criminal and murdering him but instead ensuring just compensation can be granted to the victim. Even though the state tries to tie the image of vigilantes to the likes of lynch mobs the comparison isn’t at all accurate as lynch mobs are just gangs of murderers seeking a desired target.

I’m not asking that you agree with this article but providing it primarily as food for thought. It’s a very interesting read and, I believe, deserving of your time.

I Love the Personal Electronics Market

I absolutely love the personal electronics market. The market has few regulations requiring expensive compliance with idiotic mandates compared to most other markets. Having fewer regulations in place means companies are free to spend a majority of their capital on making electronics cheaper, more powerful, and overall more effective. Case in point, there is an $80.00 Android phone in Kenya that seems to be selling very well:

It seems like just yesterday when only the slickest kid on the block had a smartphone, but now, this revolutionary gadget is selling like hotcakes in the developing world. Earlier this year, the Chinese firm Huawei unveiled IDEOS through Kenya’s telecom titan, Safaricom. So far, this $80 smartphone has found its way into the hands of 350,000+ Kenyans, an impressive sales number in a country where 40% of the population lives on less than two dollars a day.

Cellular phone technology has been taking off very well in much of Africa. In fact in many African countries cell phone minutes are being used as a form of currency. This is possible because cell phone technology across the board has only become more capable and less expensive through the years. The smartphone you hold in your pocket right now is far more powerful than many computers made available only a few years ago. Manufacturers exist in the market to fill every need form cheap burner phones to high end satellite phones. Most of this is thanks to the fact the governments of the world have mostly kept their noses out of the personal electronics market (once again, compare to most other markets where the government regulates everything).

Galt’s Gulch

It looks like crazy uncle Peter is off of his meds again. That’s what the mass media and statists (but I repeat myself) have been saying about Peter Thiel’s (you may have heard of him, he founded that shitty service called Pay Pal) newest endeavor which is the creation of a libertarian island out in international waters:

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch–free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be “a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.”

Sounds great, sign me up! As nice as this idea sounds it’ll never fly (I was going to say float but alas that was just to easy of a pun to make). Why? Because the primary failure is relying on the law of the sea treaties. Like it or not the United Nations (UN) administers the current rules regarding international waters through their Convention on the Law of the Sea. The UN is basically the biggest big government advocate group on the planet. According to the UN you’re not a sovereign nations unless they recognize you as such and if you’re not a sovereign nation they don’t recognize you as having any rights. On top of that the UN doesn’t exactly recognize private property rights which is needed in order to use homesteading.

You’re probably saying to yourself right now, “But Chris you hate the UN! Why are you concerned with what they want?” My concern stems from the same source as my hatred, the UN is more than willing to use guns to stomp down anybody they don’t like. Do you think the UN will be thrilled with the idea of a group of libertarian staring their own nations on the UN’s “property” (they view the oceans as their property)? Probably not. If construction started on this hypothetical island I wouldn’t be surprised if the UN showed up and arrested everybody for violating some stupid treaty that the islanders never signed.

With that said I would like nothing more than this project to get off of the ground. Having an island of liberty in a sea of tyranny would at least give those of us who care about freedom a place to run to. Currently the closest thing we have to that is the Free State Project (which I think has far better odds of success) but they’re still in the process of getting a critical number of liberty minded people to New Hampshire.

There is an interesting observation I have made in regards to libertarian projects like the Free State Project and the Seasteading Institute. Almost every libertarian project involves liberty oriented people running away from the statist societies that have developed all over the globe. This says a lot about libertarians, we’re willing to pick up everything and get the fuck out of your hair but the only thing that stands in our way are people who want to control our actions. Libertarian philosophy leaves no room for any person to have control over any other which means our tactics are restricted, we won’t use coercion and force to achieve our goals. So ask yourself who the selfish people really are; those willing to pick up and leave letting everybody to continue their existence as they see fit or those who will use violence to force others to obey their desires?

Penn Jillette Sums Up Wealth Redistribution Perfectly

CNN has an opinion piece written by none other than Penn Jillette. In the piece he explains his reasoning for being an atheist and libertarian. I’m ignoring the first part because I’ve made it a point on this site to not discuss religious topics (it’s not because I’m worried about offending anybody, it’s simply because I don’t care to argue about it and religious topics always lead to arguments), but I wanted to point out a piece in the article that perfectly explains why most libertarians are against the idea of wealth redistribution (social security, welfare, Medicare, and every other government social welfare program):

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment — suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I’m a nut, but I’m not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force — literally, not figuratively.

I don’t have to even add commentary to that, the argument is already perfectly stated.

At Least Somebody Understands “Free” Healthcare Isn’t Free

It’s seldom that I find salvation for my ever dwindling faith in humanity withing the socialist confines of the Red Star but I’ve found at least one individual of intelligence who wrote in:

An Aug. 10 letter refers to the cost to society for the choices made by a helmetless biker or beltless driver if injured. The point was made that the choices of an individual have potential dollar costs for all of us.

The writer then adds that universal health care would make this aspect a moot point. Unfortunately, the cost of care would still need to be paid. With universal health care, it would be paid by the taxpayers. Universal health care isn’t free; the premiums are just in a different form.

DR. RICHARD COCHRANE, VADNAIS HEIGHTS

Notice that the man is a doctor (doing a Google search for his name and Minnesota reveals he’s possibly an anesthesiologist). Why is that important? Honestly it’s not as he topic being discussed is economics, not medical practice, but people seem to think every doctor believes government “privided” healthcare is without reproach. I’ve not actually found a single doctor who supports the idea of government “provided” healthcare because they realize such a system will turn them into government slaves insomuch that they will no longer be allowed to select whether or not they’ll take somebody as a patient, the operations they will be allowed to perform, or what equipment their practice will have available.

A dirty little secret (which isn’t a secret to anybody with a brain) about government “provided” healthcare is that it basically takes doctors and changes them from free individuals into slaves of the state. The government gets to decide what operations will be covered (and rationed), who will go to what doctors, who each doctor will operate on, what medicines will be available (which the government already controls), what equipment each hospital will have available, etc. Nobody wants to be put into a position where they every move is controlled by another but that’s exactly the position government “provided” healthcare will put doctors in.

It’s also nice to see a doctor point out the fact that “free” healthcare isn’t free, the cost is just spread over the entire populace at the point of a gun.

According to The TSA They Have Rights, You Don’t

When I flow to Las Vegas I noticed signs posted talking about the rights of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rights. I didn’t really look at them closely nor think much of them but an anonymous (per their request) e-mailer send me the following picture last night:

After actually taking a minute to read that sign the irony hit me like the hammer of Thor. How ironic is it that the TSA agents who threaten, verbally abuse, and sexual molest air travelers are making statements about rights? Apparently it’s OK for them to violate your rights but it’s not OK for you to violate theirs. Don’t you simply love the government’s double standards?

But the best part is the last line that states, “Please give our officers the respect they deserve.” I believe everybody should follow this request. Agents of the TSA deserve to receive the middle finger, be called fucking assholes, and arrested by the police. If the TSA is requesting we give their agents the respect they deserve we should immediately start being belligerent towards those agents and calling the police when one of their agents sexually molests us. When they yell at us to take our shoes off we should respond with, “Go fuck yourself you statist prick!”

DNA Collection of Arrested Persons Deemed Unconstitutional in California

It’s about time some good news came from that hellhole known as California. A California appeals court has ruled that collecting the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of an arrested person is not constitutional:

A California appeals court is striking down a voter-approved measure requiring every adult arrested on a felony charge to submit a DNA sample.

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Proposition 69 amounted to unconstitutional, warrantless searches of arrestees. More than 1.6 million samples have been taken following the law’s 2009 implementation.

“What the DNA Act authorizes is the warrantless and suspicionless search of individuals, before a judicial determination of probable cause to believe they have committed a crime, for evidence of crime unrelated to that for which they have been arrested,” (.pdf) the court wrote. “The United States Supreme Court has never permitted suspicionless searches aimed at uncovering evidence of crime outside the context of convicted offenders.”

I don’t believe this ruling eliminates the ability of law enforcement to collect DNA but it at least establishes another step in requiring judicial review before the collection is performed. It’s also nice to see the court got it in this case. No, they really got it:

California argued that DNA evidence is an effective crime-solving tool. The court, ruling 3–0, found that argument immaterial.

“But even if DNA testing of arrestees was demonstrably valuable to law enforcement, the effectiveness of a crime fighting technology does not render it constitutional,” the court wrote.

Whether something is effective at assisting law enforcement is completely irrelevant if it’s infringing on the rights of individuals.