There has recently been a war-of-words in the Republican Party between NJ Governor Chris Christie and people he considers to be “libertarian.” During a recent panel discussion at the Aspen Institute, Christie said the strain of liberarianism is a “very dangerous thought.” Someone asked Gov. Christie if he was referring to Rand Paul; he responded, “You can name any number of people and he’s one of them.” Adding that he wanted the people having “esoteric, intellectual debates… to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans” of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Christie added “[t]he next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering –”
Rand Paul responded by telling Sean Hannity, “The Fourth Amendment says it has to be a specific person, a place, and you have to name the items and you have to go to a judge and you have to say there’s probable cause. And here’s the thing, I’m all for getting terrorists. I’m all for — if I were the judge, absolutely, say yes. Get the records. But I’m for spying on terrorists; I’m not for spying on every American.” see more…
The faux trial of Bradley Manning is almost over. Closing arguments ended on Friday July 26, nearly two full months after the trial began on June 3.
Defense lawyer David E. Coombs said in his closing arguments that Bradley Manning is a whistleblower who acted out of conscience and is “willing to accept the price” for it. This was in stark contrast to lead prosecutor Maj. Ashden Fein’s portrayal of Manning as a “gleeful, grinning traitor” who for some reason also hates the American flag.
Fein quotes Manning as having typed, “Hilary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack,” during an online chat with convicted computer hacker Adrian Lamo, to try to show that Manning knew he would harm diplomats by releasing the material.
Before hearing the closing arguments, Judge Col. Lind refused to dismiss theft charges against Manning after the defense said prosecutors hadn’t proven the allegations. She instead revised some of the theft charges to more accurately describe what was allegedly stolen. The defense asked for a mistrial, Lind refused to grant it.
Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com reports, “The extent to which Fein’s rhetoric has gone off the rails is bound to harm the case in the eyes of the average American, though with Judge Col. Lind giving the prosecution literally anything and everything it wants, it is unlikely to change the foregone conclusion of a guilty verdict in the shaky military court system.”
Pentagon Papers leaker, Daniel Ellsberg and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange held a conference call on July 26, with Assange saying Manning is a patriot responsible for “the most influential leak in history.”
Ellsberg said, “If the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge is permitted to stand, this case will forever change the ability of journalists to reveal the most important crimes of the state.” He also pointed out that President Obama has charged twice as many people (8) under the Espionage Act as all previous presidents. Daniel Politi reports, “Prior to Obama’s administration only three people who leaked information had been charged under the 1917 statute that was never really intended for leakers.”
I can’t claim to know President Obama’s intentions, but I can speculate. He wants to make an example out of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden in an attempt to intimidate anyone else from committing the greatest crime of all… disobedience to The State!
I recently received a message from Dave Hollist on my facebook page which reads, “Darryl, thanks for running for office. On your page and website, I could not find your plan to finance government without violating our Libertarian pledge to never force anyone to do anything. Please steer me to that info, or have you considered contract insurance?” He then asked, “How can a government operate without taxation?” and provided his answer, which can be found on his website.
Before offering my opinion on how government would be funded absent taxation, I feel compelled to say that I have only seen a handful of people mention “contract insurance” and based on what I’ve read, I would not oppose such a proposal, nor would I support it.
Now, to answer the question: How can a government operate without taxation? I believe that governments (if they are to continue existing) can operate without taxation in a similar way that your neighborhood grocer operates without taxation. Any proposed government project should be able to be funded through voluntary means. Just as your local grocer doesn’t point (or threaten to point) a gun to your head to force you to purchase his groceries; governments should not use the same tactics to force you to fund its schools, roads, post offices, bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, military conquests, and/or any other government function.
This does not mean that I oppose schools, roads, and post offices. In fact, I like all three of those things, and regularly use two of them. I’m opposed to the use of force to fund them. I’ve been a regular contributor to the arts and libraries, however I’m opposed to the use of force to fund them!
For a quick comparison between the private sector and government monopoly, lets look at the delivery of mail and packages. During the fiscal year ending in September 2012, the United State Post Office had a deficit of $15.9 billion, and a deficit of $1.9 billion in the second quarter of the current fiscal year, while UPS “is projecting to haul in $4.6 to $4.8 billion in after-tax profits” in 2013.
With regards to education, some statistics show that government-funded schools spend one and a half times more per student than their privately run counterparts. Private schools also hire more teachers and spend much less on administration than government-funded schools. Many museums operate almost entirely on private-funding, yet claim they will cease to exist absent the government funds they receive. There are also free-market solutions to policing and roads that currently exist, and operate better than the one-size-fits-all government-controlled solutions.
I admit that I do not have all of the answers, though I do offer solutions. My solution to operating a government without taxation is to have said government (if such would even exist in a libertarian society) rely on voluntary contributions, just as privately run businesses and charities do!
The big news today is Colorado Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs is being recalled, along with Senator Angela Giron of Pueblo.
Unfortunately I’m *just* outside his district (literally across the street) and will have to settle for agitating my Colorado Springs neighbors against his gun-grabbing nonsense (and other fun activities).
This is probably the most libertarian city/county/state I’ve ever lived in and there’s so many military vets that Pueblo claims to be the “Home of Heroes”. This “libertarian” assertion may seem odd considering the proximity to military bases (I can see the couple dozen or so NORAD radio towers from my house), but this real demographic shift shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone paying attention. I’ve been here less than a year, but I’m inspired by their determination, and have finally acclimated to living over a mile above sea level.
Anyways, where was I? Some douchebag politicians taking away our guns, so let’s take away their power:
A Denver judge on Thursday ruled petitions submitted to oust a pair of Democratic senators from office are valid, a pivotal ruling that sets in motion Colorado’s first-ever recall election of state lawmakers.
“The petitions here substantially comply with law,” Denver District Court Judge Robert Hyatt said in his oral decision from the bench. “Recalls are a fundamental right of Colorado citizens.”
Shortly after Hyatt handed down the decision Thursday, Democratic Gov. John Hickenloopersigned an executive order to have the recall election date of Senate President John Morse, of Colorado Springs, and Sen. Angela Giron, of Pueblo, be held on Sept. 10.
Both are the targets of recalls by constituents for their support of stricter Colorado gun laws implemented this month.
The best part? Their recall efforts were led by a bunch of nobodies that got fed up and initiated their civic duty.
The recall is just over a month away on September 10th: Go get ‘em, Coloradans!
And keep an eye out for this amendment that wipes it’s ass with what’s left of Morse and Giron’s careers.
Look out kids, the Constitution is back …AND IT HAS A DICK!
And soon, he’s going to fuck those NSA goons in the ass with it.
The Department of Justice has announced they are going to investigate and possibly charge George Zimmerman with hate crimes. The Marxist government keeps on driving more and more wedges between citizens and forcing them to divide into tribes. It is by design so we are all fighting among ourselves and then our tyrannical government can move in to crack down on the “radical right wing gun owning Bible reading extremists” dissidents. Of course the socialists/Marxists will be exempt.
If George Zimmerman is not a racist now and I believe he is not by the time Eric Holder and his Justice Department finishes with him he will be permanently labeled as one at the very least and at the very worst they will manage to convict and jail him. The feeding frenzy is not over. He is going to be pummeled by our Federal Government, Florida State government, various people and organizations who depend on stirring up racial division to thrive and survive and the leech lawyers filing lawsuits on behalf of the Martin family and various groups and organizations.
Click here to see just one attack against Zimmerman by the Federal Government: With Criminal Case Closed, Justice Department Will Restart Hate Crime Inquiry
George Zimmerman’s life is changed forever. The Kangaroo Court murder trial was only the beginning.
At least there were six jurists who figured out the meaning self-defense.
On Friday July 12, Edward Snowden made a statement to human rights groups from inside Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport. Wikileaks reports, “The meeting lasted 45 minutes. The human rights organizations included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and were given the opportunity afterwards to ask Mr. Snowden questions. The Human Rights Watch representative used this opportunity to tell Mr. Snowden that on her way to the airport she had received a call from the US Ambassador to Russia, who asked her to relay to Mr. Snowden that the US Government does not categorise Mr. Snowden as a whistleblower and that he has broken United States law.”
Snowden began his statement by saying, “Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.
It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance.”
Snowden then cited the Nuremberg Principles which state, “Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring,” adding that he did what he believed was right “and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing.”
Despite the financial impact, and attempts by the US government to “make an example” of him, Snowden says he has no regrets.
Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have offered asylum to the whistleblower who said, “I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum.”
Gawker reports the World Service Authority issued a passport to Edward Snowden “in an effort to affirm the right to the freedom of travel and the right to seek refuge from persecution.” But, Gawker says the WSA Passport may not be needed, “Traveling to his permanent place of asylum won’t require a passport under the United Nation’s 1951 Refugee Convention.”
I applaud the WSA for issuing a passport to Edward Snowden, and support the idea of a nation-less world in which individuals have the right to travel freely. I support the idea so much that I founded Individuals Without Borders which recognizes the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
In late June, large scale protests erupted in Egypt, as protesters demanded Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi restructure his cabinet and call early elections. On July 1, CNN reported one supporter said, “the president is staying. We believe in democracy. If people don’t like him, they can vote him out in three years.”
That sentiment was echoed by Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a representative for the Muslim Brotherhood, saying the opposition “failed in the previous five elections we had in Egypt since the revolution, and they don’t want to fail a sixth time. That’s why they’re going to street politics. Street politics is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve democracy.”
On July 3, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El-Haddad, told CNN that Mohamed Morsi and members of his Presidential team had been arrested by presidential guards. The head of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party and the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood also were arrested.
Before the arrests, Dardery claims that Morsi has reached out to opposition leaders many times, but the opposition is “afraid of democracy.” That is an interesting choice of words. Especially when one considers that most Americans believe that “freedom” and “democracy” go hand-in-hand with one another. In the minds of many, “afraid of democracy” is akin to “afraid of freedom,” however the two statements are almost contradictory.
In practical application, democracy is a system in which a plurality of people who show up on voting day attempt to impose their will on everyone else. Allow me to pause for a second to say that I’m not opposed to voting, as I believe one can vote in self-defense; I am however opposed to the system that uses threats of force to make everyone in a geographic area comply with the wishes of a few. If the joint opinion of the plurality changes in the middle of the term, in most cases there is no option for recourse.
Why then should people not have a manner in which they can let it be known that they do not consent to the ideas expressed by the local (or national) government? Why must everyone be obligated to live under the policies chosen by a plurality of people as expressed on a given day?
The idea seems foreign to most people, and they would likely claim “it would never work,” or “it’s never been done before.” Both claims are, in fact, false! Polycentric societies have existed in several places at various times throughout history; in Medina during the time of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, in Gaelic areas during the middle ages, and to a lesser extent in the United States before the New Deal when most people received social services from fraternal organizations or mutual aid societies.
I long for the day when democracy, much like slavery, is viewed, not only, as a thing of the past but also a system that should have never existed. No government or society should be able to claim a monopoly over any geographic area, and every individual should be able to give his consent to and/or withdraw his consent from any “government” at any time. In fact, I recall being taught that governments exist with the consent of the governed. Can someone then choose to not consent? If not, how is “forced consent” different than a contract signed under duress?
On June 26, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decision in the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. In Hollingsworth the court was asked “Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” And in Windsor the court was to decide “Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State.”
In the Hollingsworth decision, the court held that the “[p]etitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court’s order” and “vacated and remanded” the District Court ruling. In other words, since officials in California decided not to defend the case themselves, no one else is able to defend the case.
The decision in Windsor is where the court actually overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Justice Kennedy writes in the majority opinion, “By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage… has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” Kennedy continues, “Yet it is further established that Congress… can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges… Congress decided that although state law would determine in general who qualifies as an applicant’s spouse [for Social Security benefits], common-law marriages also should be recognized, regardless of any particular State’s view on these relationships.”
Kennedy then goes off-track citing court cases upholding the supposed sovereign authority of states to regulate marriage. Kennedy seems to ignore the fact that marriage license laws were first implemented to prevent interracial marriages. I seriously doubt the court would uphold those state regulations as a valid “regulation of domestic relations.” If such regulation of marriage is invalid; why then did the court not rule that any regulation of marriage violates the rights of the couple? Further, should any government should be dictating the domestic arrangements of consenting adults? It seems the court is not willing to answer those questions!
Many people have never experienced an environment in which a free-market can truly exist. I, however, was lucky enough to be part of a week-long event where such an environment did exist. From June 16th – 23rd, I was in Lancaster, New Hampshire at the Free State Project’s Porcupine Freedom Festival, shortened as PorcFest. During PorcFest hundreds of people (this year saw well over 1,000 attendees) join together to meet and mingle as well as live out a freedom lovers paradise. As attendance has risen, the number of vendors at PorcFest has grown as well, thanks in part to the wider range of attendees and most importantly, the lack of government interference.
Most of the vendors in the Agora Valley section of the campground were not “legitimate” businesses in the eyes of any government and many have no store outside the PorcFest event. To the best of my knowledge, no one contracted any food-borne illnesses, even with the lack of any regulation on the food vendors. All of the transactions were voluntarily agreed upon by all parties involved.
Many transactions were barter transactions involving silver, copper, bitcoin and/or other goods for services. During the week, I had a goal of conducting as many transactions as possible using alternative currencies, and was able to conduct all but a handful of my transactions without the need for Federal Reserve Notes. From my conversations with vendors, alternative currencies were not only more widely used this year, but bitcoin was by far the most popular alternative currency of the ones being used.
The free market worked so well that anyone looking for work found a “job” at a rate normally above what would be considered “minimum wage”. Even some children looking to make a few extra dollars were successfully contracted to work, granted at lower rates that would not be allowed in the “real world.” Such voluntary and mutually beneficial contracts would be prohibited outside of PorcFest due to the regulations against such activity. This week-long festival is just one example of the free market in action!