News You Need to Know – Page 63

Finally, A Gun Control Group That Makes Sense

Gun control groups usually claim they want to reduce violent crime but then turn around and try to take firearms primarily from peaceful people. But there is finally a group that is targeting a major sources of violence in this country, the New York Police Department (NYPD):

An anti-police activist group calling itself “Disarm NYPD” is aiming to strip officers of their firearms and boot them from certain neighborhoods entirely.

Disarm NYPD writes on its website that its aim is “combatting police violence through direct action in NYC and beyond.”

Instead of cops, the group wants to form what they call “conflict resolution bodies” made up of residents, attempting to make the police force obsolete.

OK, Disarm NYPD isn’t actually a gun control group but if it manages to get the NYPD disbanded it would disarm some of the most violent gang members int he country. Not only do members of the NYPD gang have a history of violence but they are go unpunished in most cases because, well, they’re an officially recognized and endorsed gang by the city government.

Another Positive Aspect of Indiana’s So-Called Religious Freedom Bill

Helping me as a consumer make more informed purchasing decisions isn’t the only positive aspect of Indiana’s so-called religious freedom bill. As it turns out the men in suits in the marble building didn’t fully comprehend what religious freedom means. There are a lot of esoteric religious out there. For example, there are religions where smoking cannabis is a holy ritual:

While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State’s office, reports RTV6.

Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church’s registration has been approved, writing, “Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana – “Congratulations your registration has been approved!” Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health.”

Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.

I’m sure the government will quickly utilize the exemption it left for itself to intervene in these kinds of matters. After all, religious freedom to most of the people involved in passing this bill means Christian freedom. And when they do utilize their exemption I’m going to trot it around like a prize pony because it will be yet more evidence that the state doesn’t care about voluntary association but loves selective discrimination.

As a side note I also want to point out that the stock image used in that article is probably the single greatest stock image I’ve ever seen.

The Positive Side of So-Called Religious Freedom Laws

Now that I’ve spent a couple of posts explaining why libertarians shouldn’t actively support these so-called religious freedom laws it’s time for me to explain their upside. As with anything these laws are not black and white. There are pros and cons to them. One of the pros of these laws is that they encourage bigots to be open about their bigotry and therefore allow me to be a more informed consumer.

Let’s take the quintessential Christian baker asked to make a cake for a gay wedding. Under these so-called religious freedom laws the baker is able to turn down the request due to it violating their religious beliefs. Without these laws they are not able to do so without facing the wrath of the state.

I don’t like to support people who actively work against me or my beliefs. This is why I appreciate those “no guns allowed” signs. With a simple sign I know that the owner discriminates against people who would defend themselves from a violent attacker. As a person who believes self-defense is a right I don’t want to give money to anybody who is actively trying to interfere with people defending themselves. Those signs help me be a more informed consumer so I can take my business elsewhere.

These so-called religious freedom bills can give me more information as a consumer. If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding then I know the owner(s) discriminate against homosexuals. Since I strongly oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation I can avoid doing business with that bakery.

Not only do I believe in the freedom of expression I also encourage people to express themselves loudly. This goes doubly so for business owners. I know, people often say they want business owners to shut their mouths. That is certainly the smart thing. But I really do want to know if a business owner is actively working against my goals so I can choose not to provide them with resources to do so. The more information I have at hand the better my decisions can be.

Ignorance of the Laws is Not an Excuse

As Murray Rothbard once said, “The state is a gang of thieves writ large.” The only purpose of the state is to forcibly transfer wealth from the general population to members of the state and its cronies. People like to argue others, probably because they suffer from Stockholm syndrome. But the United States government long ago lost any right to claim it was anything other than a gang of thieves. That’s because the state’s method of wealth transfer is the law and the law is so expansive that there’s no way of even knowing when you’re violating it:

If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon — if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered). Other examples abound, from getting lost in a storm and snowmobiling on the wrong bit of federal land, to diverting storm sewer water around a building.

“Regulatory crimes” of this sort are incredibly numerous and a category that is growing quickly. They are the ones likely to trap unwary individuals into being felons without knowing it. That is why Michael Cottone, in a just-published Tennessee Law Review article, suggests that maybe the old presumption that individuals know the law is outdated, unfair and maybe even unconstitutional. “Tellingly,” he writes, “no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last 15 years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500.” Meanwhile, according to recent congressional testimony, the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000.

That’s not all. The vast number of laws alone wouldn’t be so bad if you had to knowingly be violating them to be charged but that too as gone by the wayside:

And it gets worse. While the old-fashioned common law crimes typically required a culpable mental state — you had to realize you were doing something wrong — the regulatory crimes generally don’t require any knowledge that you’re breaking the law. This seems quite unfair. As Cottone asks, “How can people be expected to know all the laws governing their conduct when no one even knows exactly how many criminal laws exist?”

There might be some legitimacy to the claim that the state exists to preserve order if the common law practice of culpable mental state still existed. After all, if you unknowingly violate a law and are then informed of that law’s existence you can take action to avoid continuing to violate it and order would be preserved. But that’s not how the system works. Once you’ve violated a law, it doesn’t matter if you know of the laws existence, the state gets to transfer wealth from you to itself. And since there are so many laws on the books it’s impossible to not do something the state can use to justify a forcible wealth transfer.

Privacy Policies Mean Nothing

You know those privacy statements websites post? Some people actually read them! And they’re sometimes convinced to do business with companies that have decent privacy polices. While this isn’t a bad idea since decent privacy policies are nice they’re also useless when it comes to protecting your privacy. Why that? Because your personal information is a valuable asset so if the company goes out of business they will auction it off to somebody else who isn’t bound by the privacy agreement:

RadioShack is trying to auction off its customer data on some 117 million customers as part of its court-supervised bankruptcy.

The data in question, according to a legal challenge (PDF) launched by Texas regulators on Friday and joined by the state of Tennessee on Monday, includes “consumer names, phone numbers, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and, where allowed, activity data.”

The states say the sale breaches the 94-year-old chain’s promises to its in-store and online customers that it would not sell their personal identifying information (PII) data.

“The Debtors have affirmatively stated in multiple privacy policies currently in effect that consumer PII will never be sold. Yet the Debtors come before this Court with a Motion which seeks to do precisely that,” according to the challenge.

It would be nice to see this lawsuit stop the sale of the data but I’m doubting that will be the case as other companies have gotten away with doing this in the past. But the moral of this story is that protecting your privacy cannot be accomplished by a simple privacy agreement. At any point the company can go under and then it is no longer bound to the agreement but it still has your data and creditors will demand it gets sold off.

The key to privacy is only giving out personal information you’re willing to have go public. Otherwise you need to maintain your anonymity. It’s up to you to protect your privacy.

How the State Manipulates Statistics

Any Internet argument that goes on for more than a few comments will inevitably result in all sides throwing statistics at one another. Statistics are the Internet argument equivalent of artillery fire and no form of statistics is as effective as government statistics. Government statistics, for some bizarre reason, are considered the most impartial by most people. However government statistics are usually skewed to favor, well, the government. From removing entire groups of people from unemployment statistics to conveniently ignoring the difference between full-time and part-time employment the state likes to cook the books to make its story sound good.

But governments don’t just manipulate statistics to pain a rosy picture. Sometimes they manipulate statistics to create a crisis. I’m fairly certain that’s what’s going on in Britain as its National Health Service (NHS) redefines female genital mutilation (FGM) to include voluntary vaginal piercings:

The NHS compulsory reporting regulations are intended to protect women and girls from the sometimes fatal practice of intentionally altering or causing injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, though recent studies suggest some 170,000 women and girls have undergone the procedure, while the NSPCC says 70 women a month seek treatment for the crime.

But under a directive which follows the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) definition of FGM, the term also applies to any women who has consented to having her clitoris or labia pierced for fashion or sexual reasons, meaning medical professionals will be obliged to record such adornments as such.

What does this do to the FGM statistic? It makes it appear to be a much larger problem than it is. Mind you FGM is a horrendous practice but manipulating the statistic to make it appear more common than it really is doesn’t help anybody. Except the state, of course. No crisis goes to waste when a government is around and a sudden “increase” (i.e. change in how the statistic is recorded) in FGM makes a good argument for the government to pass legislation that grants it more investigative and enforcement powers.

Keep this story in mind when you’re looking for a statistic to make your point or somebody throws a government statistic at you as a counterargument. If it’s a government statistic that doesn’t automatically make it impartial or accurate. The statistic very well may have been manipulated for any number of reasons. Furthermore any major changes noted in a statistic could be methodology related and have no bearing on a problem actually being discussed.

Where Libertarianism and Social Justice Share a Common Foe

It’s time for me to earn my dirty anti-libertarian leftist social justice warrior creds. Except I’m actually going to discuss a situation where libertarianism and so-called social justice warriors have a common cause (in reality what libertarians often disparagingly refer to as social justice has a lot in common with libertarianism).

Libertarianism and property rights tend to go hand in hand. In fact the biggest gripe many libertarians have with the state is its constant violation of individual property rights through taxation, confiscation, eminent domain, and other powers it has granted itself. Of all the ways the state violates property rights though the most egregious is probably the issuance of decrees that either prohibit property owners from performing or require property owners to perform certain actions with their property.

The social justice movement tends to fight against discrimination in any form. Recently many members of the social justice movement have been working to fight discrimination against transgender individuals. Although they oftentimes clash with libertarians over the property rights issue, as some social justice advocates want the state to prohibit individuals from discriminating even on their private property, they actually share a common enemy. The most egregious violator of property rights and the most dangerous discriminator happens to be the state.

Florida has become a battleground where violation of property rights and discrimination will be one and the same if HB 583 passes. The bill would make it a first degree misdemeanor for a transgender individual to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. Likewise the bill would also open any property owner who allows transgender individuals to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as to civil lawsuits in the state’s monopolized courts.

In other words the bill, which has passed out of committee, would require property owners to enforce bathroom usage in the manner decreed by the state and that manner happens to be discriminatory.

Libertarians often have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything the social justice movement advocates and vice versa. These knee-jerk reactions often cause each side to refuse to work with the other side even when they share a common foe. It’s stupid and allows the state to use divide and conquer tactics to stomp on all of us. Both groups should be able to put aside their labels, declare a truce, and work together when they face a common enemy. Who knows, maybe both sides can learn a little bit from each other and create a longer lasting alliance.

The True Nature of Sanctions

For decades the United States government has been utilizing sanctions against nations that it doesn’t like. We’re told that sanctions are a humane alternative to war. The thinking goes that the lives of the people of the target nation will be made so miserable that they will rise up and overthrow their government.

First it must be pointed out that sanctions are an attack against the people of a nation, not the government. It must also be pointed out that sanctions assume the population of a nation or complete fucking idiots.

I believe the first point doesn’t receive enough acknowledgement. Sanctions prohibit the people of a nation from accessing goods and services. These goods and services can range from medical and sanitation supplies to banking services. Prohibiting access to medical and sanitation supplies results in a predictable outcome. But even prohibiting access to foreign banking services has a major toll. Notable funds kept outside of a target nation often aren’t taxed by that nation. When sanctions are placed on banking services that forces people of a target nation to keep their money inside of the country and that allows the target government to collect taxes and further enrich itself.

Sanctions also assume that the people of a target nation are idiots. Imagine you’re living in a small nation that has recently had sanctions placed on it that prohibit the importation of medical supplies. Your child becomes severely ill and dies because you cannot access the medical supplies necessary to cure them. Are you more likely to be pissed off at your government or the foreign government that prevented you from accessing the medical supplies your child needed? If you’re capable of any critical thinking whatsoever your anger will be directed at the foreign nation. And therein lies the problem with sanctions, they tend to further strengthen the target nation’s government because it gives them an enemy to point at and blame all of their nation’s problems on.

So one is left to wonder why governments use nations. I think the real reason they do is because the politicians of those countries have a psychopathic need to attack people of a target nation for being foreigners. This day and age it’s not acceptable to firebomb a city because it causes civilian casualties. Therefore other tools must be used to attack those civilians and sanctions are that generally accepted tools. This is something we should all consider whenever we hear about the United States government issuing new sanctions against countries it doesn’t like. When it does that it’s not attacking the government it doesn’t like but the people being stomped by that government’s boot. It’s cowardly to say the least.

My Offer to Denizens of Oklahoma

Republicans in Oklahoma, like Republicans in a lot of other states, know the source of this country’s woes. It’s not a dying economy or the perpetual state of war, it’s homosexuals. To fight against this scourge they have been busy trying to get amendments to state constitutions prohibiting same-sex marriages. They’ve also been busy rewriting marriage laws when they fail to prohibit same-sex marriage hard enough. In Oklahoma they are trying to ban the recognition any secular marriage certificates:

House Bill 1125, sponsored by Republican State Representative Todd Russ, is a radical measure that would end secular marriage licenses in the state. In addition, the bill would bar all judges and other secular officials from performing marriages in Oklahoma.

[…]

Under the legislation, atheists and others not wanting to be married by a religious official could file an affidavit through the court clerk’s office claiming a common-law marriage.

But there’s a flaw in this plan. I happen to be a Discordian pope and one of my official pope powers is to create new popes. I hereby offer to make anybody living^* in Oklahoma an official pope so they can issue marriage certificates. Since they would be popes they would also be able to define what sorts of marriages they would be willing to recognized.

* Any Discordian knows this is a unnecessary offer since every man, woman, and child is already a pope.

Your Survival Tip of the Day

This is a survival tip for all of my brothers and sisters who choose to carry a firearm openly. If you want to openly carry a firearm it’s probably not a good idea to antagonize people with a history of violence and a shield against accountability:

Police did not identify the man, who was not arrested, charged, or injured in the encounter – which he recorded on video and posted online.

“While out on an open carry walk, I was followed by the Madison Heights police department,” said the man, who calls himself Nunya Beeswax online. “They followed me from a distance, which was troubling, because they could clearly see that no laws were being broken. After initially declining to speak with the police, I decided to approach them and ask why they were essentially stalking a law abiding citizen. I did not appreciate the fact that one of these trigger happy morons placed his hand on his pistol when he approached me.”

The man approaches officers and asks why they’re following him, and he tells police he won’t answer any of their questions.

He asks one of the officers to remove his hand from his holstered weapon and demands to know whether the officer will shoot him.

“I’m talking now,” the man says, interrupting one of the officers. “That shiny little badge he has on his chest doesn’t give him any more rights than I have. Actually, you all work for me and the taxpayers, right?”

“You come over here with your hand on your gun, that’s reason for me to think that you feel ill will towards me,” the man continues. “If I were to do the same thing, you’d probably pull your gun out and point it at me, am I right? I’m talking to you, tough guy.”

There’s nothing wrong with open carry but being an antagonistic asshole isn’t a good way to make friends and can be dangerous if the people you are antagonizing are members of the largest, move violent gang in the country. In this case the person open carrying admitted that he initiated conversation with the police, which breaks the cardinal rule of never talking to the police.

Not only is being an antagonistic asshole a poor survival tactic but it can also become a legal nightmare down the road. The idiot antagonist filmed his antics and posted them online so that it can never be erased. Should he ever be involved in a self-defense situation this video could be used for a nasty bit of character assassination. If avoiding conflict isn’t reason enough for you to not be an asshat then possible court case is another reason you should consider.

Or you could just choose to not be a dick because being a dick seldom leads to anything positive.