ALERT! Lawful Activity Detected – Page 4

Never Talk to the Police

Although it has probably been covered ad nauseam I don’t think one can emphasis not talking to the police enough. The police are not your friends, they are not there to protect you, and they are not there to uphold the law. Their primary job is to expropriate wealth from the general populace for the state. Most of their time is spent handing out traffic and parking citations and arresting nonviolent individuals who are in possession of a verboten plant or chemical. When you talk to the police you must keep one fact in mind: their job is to put you in a cage. In addition to those facts there is another reason you shouldn’t talk to the police, it may land you in court:

Steve Bohnen wishes he had never called police.

What he says he believed was a good-faith effort to report a possible theft of a campaign sign and possible public safety hazard in the fall of 2010 has turned his world upside down.

He was sued twice by the man whom he reported and, after countersuing, now faces legal bills in excess of $500,000. The demands of the court process have pulled him away from work, and the stress has strained his family life.

[…]

He later filed three lawsuits naming Bohnen, Bohnen’s supporter Keith Mueller, the county, the city of Grant and others. In his lawsuits, he said that he had been unfairly targeted and that his rights were violated. He accused Bohnen and Mueller of conspiring with law enforcement to get him charged.

Mr. Bohnen called the police because he witnessed a possible theft. In return he was sued by the man her reported to the police and neither the police or the courts have offered any form of assistance with the lawsuits. Instead Mr. Bohnen has been left high and dry for doing what we’re all told to do: if you see something, say something. Another risk of talking to the police is the potential of being used for improperly reporting a suspect. If this happens you will receive no help from the police even though there are laws that supposedly protect those who report crimes to the police:

The Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association says that by allowing Bohnen to be sued for reporting an alleged crime, the courts are endangering the important relationship between citizens and law enforcement. The association points to state law that protects people who report potential crimes in good faith and has asked to participate in Bohnen’s appeal as a friend of the court.

When you deal with the state you’re dealing with an entity that wants to take your shit. It may bust into your home and physically take your shit or it may do it through court fees or other such nonsense. Either way you’re going to lose something when you interact with the state.

Asteroid Mining Rights

Popular Mechanics has posted an article asking who has the right to mine asteroids. Those of us in libertarian circles have been passing this article around as a joke. The article points out the fact that states generally maintain monopolies on mining rights and, in addition to those monopolies, implement numerous regulations on the mining industry. What the article appears to be asking is what laws will the lawyers create regarding asteroid mining:

But remember that open question. If you go get an asteroid and bring it back, is it yours? On Earth, of course, no one would open a mine without being sure they owned the land or at least the mineral rights. The same is true in space. But while mining law on Earth is pretty much settled, asteroid-mining law isn’t so clear yet.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prevents nations from making territorial claims beyond Earth: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means,” it states. But what is “national appropriation”? And what is a “celestial body”?

Those are the kinds of issues that lawyers grapple with. Space law used to be mainly an academic pursuit, but no longer—in fact, the American Bar Association just published a guidebook in the field. Most experts—including me—believe that a ban on “national appropriation” doesn’t prohibit private property rights. The Outer Space Treaty was designed to prevent the winner of the 1960s space race from claiming the moon for itself. The United States and the Soviet Union were each worried about what would happen if the other nation beat it there. They were thinking of missile bases and territorial disputes, not mines or lunar tourist resorts. The “celestial bodies” language was added by way of expansiveness, but the Outer Space Treaty doesn’t define the term, except to make it clear that the moon is one.

Who cares what the lawyers think? The question that should be asked is, who can stop non-state entities from mining asteroids? We must remember that the state accomplishes all of its goals through the use of force. When people are outside of a state’s ability to inflict violence on them they are free to act outside of its law. That is the reason people in the United States don’t comply with Saudi Arabia’s laws, the Saudi Arabian state is unable to inflict violence on those of us living in the United States. Therefore we must ask what kind of violence the states of Earth can wield against those in orbit. As it turns out there likely isn’t a lot of violence Earth-based states can inflict on spacefaring individuals. One need only look at the condition of each state’s space program to see how ineffective they are in space. No state, as far as we know, possesses armed spacecraft capable of inflicting its will off of Terra.

What good are state decrees if they cannot be enforced with violence? They’re pointless, just as every unenforceable law. In fact I would say the key to mining asteroids isn’t just getting to the asteroids but is also preventing the states of Earth from inflict their violence off of the planet’s surface. Even if miners aren’t capable of preventing Earth’s states from getting armed craft off of the planet there is still the fact that space is so vast that no entity can patrol even a fraction of it. Once you’ve escaped Earth the only thing you need to do to keep yourself outside of the state’s grasp is to run a little further than it. This fact renders the question of state regulations of asteroid mining irrelevant.

Frontiers have traditionally been refuges from state power. People fled to the American colonies to escape the British Crown’s prejudice. Eventually the American colonies severed their ties entirely with Britain and established their own government. People wanting to flee the United State’s authority began moving into the western frontier. History gives us a numerous examples of individuals fleeing state persecution in frontiers and we are now seeing the beginning of people fleeing Earth to escape the tyranny of its states.

New York Looking to Prohibit Children from Gun Shows

New York is doing its best to win the Most Tyrannical Fiefdom in the United States award. Unfortunately for its government that award doesn’t exist so all of their efforts are for naught. After prohibiting magazines that hold more than seven rounds, banning rifles that have one esthetic feature from a list of cool esthetic features, and setting up a hotline for people to turn over their gun owning neighbors to the Stasi the politicians are looking to prohibit children from attending gun shows:

A bill just introduced in the state Assembly would bar children younger than 12 from entering a gun show in New York. The bill was put forward by Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who hails from that trackless wilderness and sportsmen’s paradise known as Manhattan.

“Children should be learning to read and write, not to shoot a firearm,” Rosenthal says in a statement, as if the two skills were mutually exclusive. “Today in New York State, however, a child of any age can gain unfettered access to gun shows. We as a society have placed reasonable restrictions on the ages at which children may watch violent films” — clearly, Rosenthal does not have premium cable — “or play video games that involve hyper-real gunplay; however, there are no age limits on gun shows. My bill will change that.”

Children should be learning what they want to learn. When I was a kid (damn I sound old saying that) I was learning to read, write, repair computers, and shoot firearms. You know what? I can do three of those four things very well and my writing is as deplorable as most (although, I admit, it’s pretty shitty). I’m not sure where Rosenthal gets off saying that our society has placed restrictions on the ages at which children can watch violent films, the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) ratings are voluntarily followed by movie theaters, they are not enforced by law. There are also no laws preventing children from playing video games, in fact I played a lot of violent video games when I was a child. Did I mention that I attended a few gun shows? I basically did everything that Rosenthal said I couldn’t.

I can tell Rosenthal one thing, if I ever have a child and want to take him or her to a gun show no bureaucrat sitting in a marble building or costume-clad thug is going to stop me.

Arizona Looking to Make Using the “Wrong” Bathroom a Criminal Offense

I’m not sure what’s going on in Arizona but I’m left believing that they don’t have enough slave laborers in their prisons because there is no justifiable reason to make using the “wrong” bathroom an act that will land you in a cage:

Lawmakers in Arizona are considering a law requiring transgender people to use public toilets of the gender on their birth certificate.

[…]

Penalties could include six months in prison.

Why does the state even care about this? Hell, why does anybody care about this? Is it really that offensive to people that somebody would use the bathroom of the gender they identify with? Considering the number of women I’ve seen use the men’s bathroom when the line at the women’s room was too long I can’t bring myself to believe most people care either way. I’m guessing this law stems from an act of self-hating politicians. That is to say I think one or more politicians in Arizona get hot and bothered when they see a transgendered person. Since many of those individuals were likely brought up to believe transgendered persons are bad they also hate their attraction and want to find a way to remove the temptation. When you combine politicians with unwanted (by them) temptations you get ridiculous laws.

Honestly, that’s the only reason I can fathom for why this law is even being considered.

The Primary Purpose of the Police is to Extort Wealth from the Public

Stories like this still seem to shock people:

Drivers from Arizona and at least nine other states, including Utah, Iowa, Indiana, Delaware and Rhode Island, are going to jail, paying big fines and losing their licenses after having gotten driving-under-the-influence citations when blood tests prove they were not high.

“It makes no sense,” says attorney Michael Alarid III, who is representing a man charged in Arizona. “But this is how prosecutors and the courts are interpreting the law. And the legislature doesn’t appear to want to change it. So we’re hoping we can get the issue before the state Supreme Court.”

How could a person who is not high get busted for DUI? It happens when science meets politics.

Blood tests can detect two important chemical compounds that come from marijuana. One of them, THC, makes a person high and lasts for hours. The other inactive chemical, created as your body neutralizes THC, can linger in a person’s system for up to a month.

In Arizona, state law says if you have either of these compounds in your blood, you are guilty of a DUI.

Why would a state government make somebody pay a fine if they weren’t actually impaired? Why would police officers detain a person who wasn’t demonstrably under the influence of drugs? Because the state exists entirely off of expropriation and the police are one of the state’s primary expropriators. It’s unlikely these laws will be changed anytime soon since they stand to make the state a great deal of wealth.

Bitcoin ATMs

The Free State Project held its annual Liberty Forum this weekend, which means that all sorts of subversive ideas were unveiled and shared. One of the ideas that I found very interesting was an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) that turns cash into Bitcoins:

Zach Harvey has an ambitious plan to accelerate adoption of the Internet’s favorite alternative currency: installing in thousands of bars, restaurants, and grocery stores ATMs that will let you buy Bitcoins anonymously.

It’s the opposite of a traditional automated teller that dispenses currency. Instead, these Bitcoin ATMs will accept dollar bills — using the same validation mechanism as vending machines — and instantly convert the amount to Bitcoins and deposit the result in your account.

I mentioned Bitcoin as a tool to fight the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) since it allows individuals to make anonymous transactions and thus leave no trail for state agents to trace back to physical individuals. Avoiding having your financial information fall into government hands is very useful. If the state is unable to access your financial information they don’t know what to charge you for taxes and can’t bring criminal charges against you for buying goods it has labeled verboten. The one missing key in the Bitcoin puzzle is turning Federal Reserve notes into Bitcoins anonymously, which is what this ATM could make easier. At Bitcoin continues to gain traction it will be interesting to see what else develops around it.

You Keep Using that Word

Do you find something amiss in this excerpt:

More than 200 women’s rights groups are calling for laws to make paying for sex a crime across the European Union.

More than 200 women’s rights groups openly acknowledge that women have many rights but having sex for money isn’t one of them. This stance seems contradictory to the advancement of women’s rights. Women’s rights groups generally fight against the idea that men own women, which is still prevalent throughout the world. One would think that a rights group fighting the idea that one person can own another would fight that idea that any entity can own a person. By demanding the state use its monopoly on violence to prohibit women from having sex for money these groups are stating that they believe the state owns women. If the state owns women then the state has the right to do with women as it pleases including transferring its ownership to another entity either temporarily or permanently. Supporting the idea that the state can own women also supports the idea that men can own women so long as the state gives its blessing.

Claiming to be a rights group while campaigning to restrict voluntary behavior through coercive force is hypocritical.

Why Nobody Likes the Republican Party

Let’s face it, nobody likes the Republican Party. Even advocates in the Republican Party seems to be dissatisfied with their party as demonstrated by the fact that less people showed up to the polls this year than in 2008. There’s a reason for this. First of all the Republican Party seems to have a big problem with their endorsed candidates publicly saying incredibly offensive statements. If that wasn’t enough now several House Republicans are asking the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to demand Twitter begin censoring content:

Seven House Republicans asked the FBI in September to demand that Twitter take down the accounts of U.S.-designated terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Somalia’s al Shabaab. The letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller was spearheaded by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), who said Wednesday that the recent events vindicated the request.

“Allowing foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas to operate on Twitter is enabling the enemy,” Poe said in an e-mailed statement to The Hill. “Failure to block access arms them with the ability to freely spread their violent propaganda and mobilize in their War on Israel.

Apparently the Republican Party has no interest in even feigning support for free speech anymore and are sicking their dogs on companies that allow individuals to express their beliefs and ideas. How can anybody be surprised the Republican Party has failed to perform in recent elections? Members of that party seem to be working overtime to make sure everybody hates them.

Meet Our Glorious Allies

The number of United States allies in the Middle East is depressingly low. This likely has something to do with the country’s rampant manipulations, assassinations, and outright wars in the region. Often American propaganda likes to point out the supposed human rights violations being performed by countries not on its allies list. One of the most common criticisms brought up by the United States against countries such as Syria, Iran, and Iraq are the way woman are treated in those countries. In general women’s rights have been going backwards in the Middle East for a good part of the last century. However America pointing out these criticisms about its enemies is rather hypocritical since its allies are just as bad, if not worse:

Denied the right to travel without consent from their male guardians and banned from driving, women in Saudi Arabia are now monitored by an electronic system that tracks any cross-border movements.

Since last week, Saudi women’s male guardians began receiving text messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody leave the country, even if they are travelling together.

[…]

Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the “yellow sheet” at the airport or border.

Women in Saudia Arabia, a country America proudly calls its ally, are treated like property. They have almost no rights and the Saudi Arabian government puts a great deal of money, time, and effort into keeping women suppressed. Now male guardians are being informed whenever “their” women leave the country. While this news is likely to surprise few it’s still important to point out because women’s rights is often used as a justification for America’s wars in the Middle East. If violating women’s rights is justification for war then the United States must break off its alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Horologist Beware When flying

Horologists of the world take note that attempting to fly while wearing a watch that looks too odd may land you in jail:

Geoffrey McGann, 49, of Rancho Palos Verdes was taken into custody Thursday night after he tried to pass through airport security with an ornate watch that had switches, wires and fuses, according to Sgt. J.D. Nelson, a spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department.

A bomb squad arrived within five minutes and determined there were no explosive materials in the watch, Nelson said. The checkpoint was closed while officers secured the area.

McGann was taken to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin where he was charged with possessing materials to make an explosive device, sheriff’s officials said. He was still in custody Friday night and could not be reached for comment.

What really gets me about this story is the fact the fucking bomb squad determined there were no explosive materials but the wearer was still arrested for possessing material to make an explosive device. That makes no sense. Scratch that, that makes less than no sense. What we have here is negative sense.

We do live in a world where a man can be held in a secret prison for possessing a very popular model of wristwatch (which I now own) so it shouldn’t surprise me that somebody can be arrested for wearing any other watch. But when the bomb squad says there are no explosive materials you would think the man would have been arrested for something other than possessing materials to make an explosive device. Perhaps he could have been charged for unwarranted lawful behavior or not disturbing the peace.