On Socialism

The thing that proponents of any form of Socialism do not understand is that for all their talking points on the system being fair to everyone or that it needs to be fair for everyone, it isn't. 


Did Stalin live in the ghettos that Socialism had created? No.

Did Hitler live among the people in the city and ghettos? No.

Did Mao endure the same lifestyle as the common man? Not even close.


As it is with every political system, those that create the system, lead the system, or are integral to the system live with immunity of the effects of the system. 


Even here in America under our Limited Socialism, leaders live in homes much larger than the normal folks, paid for by those normal folks. They vacation in opulence on the backs of those that pay for it. They travel and dine at the expense of those that are caught in the gears of the system that is imposed upon them.

Florida Sheriffs and the fight against Marijuana

Florida will be the next battleground for the Medical Marijuana issue to surface. In 2014 voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter; this has also given the state’s law enforcement brigades a reason to form an alliance to combat this issue.  Elected Sheriffs from all across the state are teaming up to write articles in local papers, performing community outreach projects and citizen awareness campaigns on what they see as the dangers to society if medical marijuana were to be legalized or at a very least decriminalized.  What I am here to say is “Sheriffs, Shut up already”.

If it is to be said that Law enforcement is the part of any government that’s sole reason for existence is to enforce the laws, ticket, fine or apprehend and incarcerate law breakers, then it should matter not what the laws are. As a collective of elected officials that swear to uphold the states laws and codes there should be no comment from this group as it would be in their special interest that any substance and product be illegal. In line with the most common defense of their actions, “just doing their jobs”, this would mean that groups of elected sheriffs and officers should not try to influence the changing of these laws by activism or advocacy campaigns.

The Florida Sheriffs Association cites multiple reasons why they oppose these reform measures. Most of these reasons are for the belief in the order to protect the common good or public welfare. Other reasons given by law enforcement are the reports of rising crime rates in areas where marijuana is legalized or decriminalized. Some of these reports are false and others unsupported, but that’s no reason to throw out the results say officers. “Florida’s sheriffs believe that legalizing smoking marijuana, which has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, is a dangerous decision for our state and its citizens. Florida’s Sheriffs stand firm in their opposition to the legalization of the use, possession, cultivation, delivery and sale of marijuana”, Says their website.

The Association also puts in a disclaimer, “Florida sheriffs agree that there may be strains of marijuana that can provide relief for children with severe, intractable seizures.  This type of marijuana is high in CBD, a pain relieving and anti-convulsing component of marijuana, and contains minimal amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (the psychoactive ingredient that produces a high).  Sheriffs are concerned about manipulation of families in need if the production, distribution, monitoring and quality control are not well defined and regulated.” This is an example of exclusionary or discretionary liberty. When a group or groups are permitted while others are punished for the same act it does not send a clear message as to the reason for the ban in the first place. If the health risks are too great for recreational use by non-sick people than it stands that the health risk would be the same for sick persons. If the safety and security of the community be the reason it stands that the Association would define all crimes as being committed by those who do not suffer from these diseases. Though no study has been done to find this I would bet there would be at least some crime being committed by those that would be accepted to use medical marijuana.

On another side of this issue is the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). LEAP is a group of law enforcement personnel that oppose not only the prohibition of marijuana but of all recognized drugs and substances. Their statement is, “History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.” This is a different view in that instead of police punishing users, seller, buyers, cooks, growers and producers the riddance of prohibition will lead to more crimes of violence or property theft and damage. LEAP believes in a system of regulation and distribution but doesn’t mention who would have this control. This is an area I would like more details to be released.

One more way to look at this issue is the idea of complete abolition of all laws and regulations on every substance, natural plant or drug that is currently under the control of government. This belief is one that reduces the issue down to the basic aspect of property rights and self-ownership. If every man be respected to own and use his property in any way that does not interfere in the rights of others this issue is resolved under this ultimate idea. We do not live in such a world though. We live in a world where what a man does in his own home to his own body by voluntary means has somehow directed an effect unto the entirety of the public and should be shunned and punished by captivity.

The idea of self-governance and self-ownership is lost on the majority of the public. It is a concept that takes away the power to dictate others actions and set prejudices against things or situations that they morally admonish or oppose and replace it with  responsibility for one’s own self and nothing more.

The War on Drugs is ultimately a war on freedom and choice. It is a war on individual liberty and self-ownership. It is the opposition to the freedom that many people claim they seek and many more claim they support. The War on drugs is in one sentence a War on People.

Do You Hate the State? By Murray Rothbard

Originally published in The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977.

I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.

Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. 

No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.

The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the “model” of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes “conservatism”), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the “intellectual cowardice” of failing to set forth “feasible” methods of getting “from here to there.” Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a “button pusher” who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous “gradual” programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

Murray Rothbard

Bastiat On Economic Protectionism

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)

Gentlemen:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us ^[1].
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.
First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?
If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.
Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.
The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.
But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.
There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.
It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready:
You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.
Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.
``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.
Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?
But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have onlyhalf as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.
Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.
If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.
Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.
Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.
To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

Progression of ideology is not always a bad thing.

There has been a lot of flak thrown at political leaders, pundits and candidates who have switched positions on issues. For some this is seen as pandering or not sticking to morals or beliefs. What if it is just a new understanding or a new way of thinking of that issue that has brought on a progression or change of ideology? The progression of ideas and ideology could be caused by a very serious revelation on the way a certain issue helps, hurts, or affects people or things. This should not be shunned but embraced as a new education of that matter has taken place. Maybe the new understanding by this person is not the way you see it but that is no reason to denounce the changing of beliefs.

Many of the people I associate with are Libertarians or at the very least have a understanding of the fight for liberty, regardless of political lines. Where most Libertarians get a little off track is to denounce the act of switching stances on issues as they forget that they also have done this in the past. Did you always have the belief that the government was the antithesis of freedom? Did you always believe the current wars in foreign lands were unjustified and immoral? Did you always believe the Federal Reserve to be the biggest threat to the economy? Chances are you didn't, but through reading, researching and gaining new information you came to those beliefs. You changed your beliefs based on new revelations or information.

You see it is not always a bad thing that someone changes their mind on issues. The speed that they move is of little importance also, as if there is a willingness to learn and to progress you now have the opportunity to help them see what you see, help them learn the way you learned. That is a great accomplishment and needs to be praised.

A tale of concealed carry and abuse of power by police.

This is an experience of Eric Faden of Miami, Florida. What follows is his recent  experience with Miami Dade Police Department. This is just a small example of the abuse of power Police Officers and their Departments all across the country perpetrate.

Friday night on the way to a show the red and blues that nobody wants to see flash behind them lit up my rear view mirror like the 4th of July. I veer off the road into a shopping center and abruptly pull over. My friend hands me my registration from the glove compartment so I couple that with my driver’s license and concealed weapons permit to hold all three out of the window.

A man in an ugly brown uniform walks up to my car to grab the bundle of documents and seconds later he draws his gun from his holster and the barrel of a Glock is pointed at my forehead, a flashlight attached to it shining in my eyes making it hard to see.

Cop: WHERE IS IT?! WHERE IS YOUR WEAPON?!
Me: (My hands as high as they can be inside of a Honda) Whoa Whoa relax, it’s on me.
Cop: WHERE
Me: On my body
Cop: KEEP YOUR RIGHT HAND UP, REACH FOR IT WITH YOUR LEFT AND GIVE IT TO ME.
(I do).

He takes the gun and walks back to his car behind me with all my stuff. Shortly after, three more police cars arrive. Two of them park behind me and one parks in front of me. Now he’s coming back and terror doesn't begin to describe the feeling myself and the four others in the car are experiencing. Having a gun pointed at us by someone we can’t legally do anything to in response makes your stomach react all sorts of ways. Helplessness has saturated the air in the car.

Cop: Why did you take a stop sign and why were you speeding back there? (In an obvious attempt to unlock a self-incrimination from me)
Me: ..Silence..
Cop (Louder this time): WHY DID YOU TAKE A STOP SIGN AND SPEED BACK THERE?
Me: ..Silence..
Cop: IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU? ARE YOU MUTE? IM ASKING YOU A QUESTION!
Me: ..Silence..
Cop: OKAY YOU WANNA PLAY THIS GAME? WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS?
Me: Officer, I’m not playing any games but I know my rights and I don’t have to answer those questions.
Cop: OKAY STEP OUT OF THE CAR
-Reaches into my window and unlocks the door and pulls it open- (Illegal)
I step out.

He puts me up against my car and pats me down, allowing him to reach far up enough to feel my nuts (probably his favorite part of the job) “Anything on you I should know about”? No, I respond while thinking to myself that there isn't a damn thing on me or near me or anywhere I have ever been that he needs to know about.

Then all of a sudden he’s yanking my wrists behind my back and putting them in handcuffs.

Me: WHY AM I BEING ARRESTED?
Cop: FOR RECKLESS DRIVING

I should have known better and not expected anything other than this by now but still, I didn't believe what was happening and it was totally surreal to me.

Me: Are you serious, you’re really arresting me for taking a stop sign?
Cop: Yes (While shoving me into the back of the patty wagon).
Me: Why are you giving me a hard time, I’m not a bad guy, we’re just going to a concert and we’re late.
Cop: Oh yeah? Who the fuck goes to concert with a loaded gun? Gimme a fucking break
Me: I’m not at a concert, I’m in my car.
Cop: Where is the concert?
Me: Little Haiti.
Cop: OH so you’re gonna go to a high robbery area and risk someone seeing you take your gun out and putting it in your glove compartment and then breaking into your car to get it?

By this point I had already had enough time to realize from here to the moon why this guy chose to be a police officer as his profession….because he was too stupid and or emotionally unstable to work as anything other than a knuckle-dragging arrest machine and revenue generator for the state. In short, he was a barbarian. An animal.

Arrested again. This time equally if not more ridiculous than the last. Let’s re-examine, shall we? I was driving my vehicle at a rate of miles per hour that which was deemed to be too high by the “authorities” so I was signaled by bright red and blue lights to drive off the road where a gun was pointed at my face, mind you with his finger on the trigger and only a sneeze away from killing me; Then, since I chose not to talk to this person who thought it was fine to point a gun at my face even though I had no legal obligation to do so, he found it in his will to kidnap me using restrictive circular metal devices around my wrists that left welts for days and drive me to a place where I was placed in a cage.

This cage is where crimes such as assault, attempted murder, murder, and rape happen more frequently than anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.

It must have really hurt his feelings that someone didn't feel like talking to him. Now I owe him and the cage facility money. Apparently, it is for the services they provided me. Thank you sir, may I have another?

If you believe this is justice, hang your head.

20 modest hours was not bad. It was less than last time but that’s because I was bailed out. $500 and a 6 hour wait time punishment for the person who just wanted to see their loved one out of barbarian custody. 20 hours without food or temperatures that felt above 60 degrees but plenty of screaming, banging against walls, smells of sewers, being pushed around and barked at by more pathetic souls in dumb uniforms who take pleasure in the anguish of others, sleeplessness, and the company of people you don’t want the company of. Do you doubt that there were better ways I could have spent those 20 hours?

…for taking a stop sign.

Of course the fabricated official affidavit report goes way further than that. Speeding or taking a stop sign aren't close to enough. I also took an additional stop sign, was swerving in and out of lanes, was going 25 mph over the speed limit, and was cutting off not one but two other drivers with clear criminal intent and a blatant disregard for their safety. Right. Glad I remembered that part during the writing of this section, needed the comic relief.

Is it not clear by now that the police are a gang? The police are the biggest gang. The structure is the same, albeit more organized. They engage in: theft, human trafficking, murder, kidnapping, extortion, drug as well as firearms sales, battery, stalking…etc. etc. Like other gangs, they are more prominent in larger cities. Their jurisdiction or turf is limited to a certain geographical area and it runs out when the next gang’s starts. The structure of a police department is completely parallel to that of a gang. There are leaders and lower members.

The latter are forced to pursue the least desirable initiatives, like policing the most dangerous neighborhoods. There are standards that must be held up and examples to be made of people. You will also be laid off or kicked out of the gang if your numbers don’t show up in the form of arrests or tickets handed out (how else can they monitor efficiency if not by the amount of people you make your victim over a certain period of time?) It is in their interest for there to be more crime, more criminals, and more new laws making new criminals. It is job security. We couldn’t let some areas become too docile now could we? Then they wouldn’t be needed and would actually have to find more productive jobs, like dropping potatoes in oil at McDonald’s.

The first myth I want to dispel completely out of the minds of everyone is that they work for us. They don’t. They DO NOT. The Police do not exist to serve and protect anyone, except the state itself and its interests. It’s extremely rare to see someone beat up the person they work for, but in the land of the tooth fairy where cops “work for us” it is the protocol. We are NOT their constituents, customers, the people they look out for, the people who pay them, none of that. We are their subjects.

In fact, the following non-exhaustive list of court cases decided they have no obligation whatsoever to protect you or even respond to your calls for help even in the event of a life-threatening situation: Hartzler v. City of San Jose, Riss v. New York, Warren v. District of Columbia, Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Department. Some of the above cases even guarantee that the police are supposed to provide a higher protection to suspected criminals in custody than to would-be victims of the public.

You are a walking case of naiveté if you believe you have the right to any protection from the police. So if their job is not to protect us then why are we forced to pay them? Why do they even exist?

The cops are law enforcement. They protect the laws, not the people. Do the laws protect the people? Definitely not all of them, probably not the vast majority of them either. One only needs to know what it takes for a bill to become a law to demonstrate how distant the process is from the interests of the mass citizenry and how little their opinions matter. Many laws are bad >> Cops enforce the laws =? You do the math.

Next, I want to address the notion of “but they’re just doing their job”!
So fucking what? So were the gestapo but that defense didn't work out too well in Nuremberg, nor should it have. Most of the people who use this justification would nod their heads in agreement if you asked them whether or not beating people, kicking their doors in, spraying mace on students, asking strangers personal questions, caging people for growing vegetation or downloading songs were wrong or immoral.

Oh but voila! On comes the magic suit with matching hat, tacky boots, cyborg utility belt full of little gadgets to punish people and plastic badge and now all of a sudden all of these actions are somehow okay. They’re more than okay, they are the law! They are a "public service." We obviously owe them for our safety after all.

If someone would commit these acts without the magic suit on they would be considered a psychopath. The blind authority follows next like a cat after a laser pen. People quiver in their presence. They speak differently, drive differently, they do everything differently. This is understandable of course. They don’t want to end up like me and who does?

Kiss the boot that rests upon your neck or pay up, that’s the way to get by. Make sure to kiss it enough so that your saliva makes it shiny, shiny enough to see the person in the reflection responsible for letting that happen to you.

Yes they are just doing their job. I am not contesting that. The question we must ask ourselves though is what kind of person would sign up for a job like this, with these job requirements? And why are we so accepting of the blatant psychopathy present in the list of qualifications needed? Are there not any other fucking jobs they can apply for?

I’m convinced it was those who were picked on growing up, or doing the picking on. The ones who salivate at the opportunity to be the one the teacher appoints to write the names of the students who were talking on the board, the snitches, the tattle-tales, the ones who were always in trouble for putting their hands on other kids, the busy bodies, bullies, the violent ones.

Retract what little respect is left for this horrid profession and this gang of criminals. If your friend wants to become a cop try to talk them out of it. If they don't listen, cease to be their friend. Socially ostracize them. Ridicule them. Make those who think its okay to become one or even support them think twice. If you get stopped by one, film them. Put it on Youtube. Don't be scared. They deserve it. Make them know if they act out that thousands will be able to see their ugly faces spouting lies about the laws they are supposed to uphold.

If you thought my story from the first couple of paragraphs was a nightmare, then take notice. If you thought the Hialeah Harlem shakedown was an outrageous debacle, then take notice. These were nothing in comparison to the other horror stories being reported everyday. I am not a martyr, not even close. But please listen to me when I say they're out of control. Take away all their legitimacy. Speak out, and don't stop. They will hear.

A C A B.

Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty? Part 2

This was not meant to be a 2 part post but thinking more about what I wrote the other day about the ways that people see exclusions in what they consider liberty I wanted to touch on it in a few more ways. It seems to me that while some can claim they oppose something for themselves they would be happy to see the same or worse happening to someone else, or to be done by transferring power to another person or entity.

“Talking of Taxes”

When people talk of taxes there usually isn't too much happiness or joy in what say. Generally taxes are seen as a burden or nuisance on people and a hindrance on businesses. To some they are considered a price for what they consider “freedom” or put as just what we have to do to have a civilized society. There are some though that will defend increased taxation on others.  One recent example is the proposed added increased taxation of Wall Street (a separate post will cover this subject in detail later). Known by the name of The Robin Hood Tax it is being pushed by individuals who are partially involved with the Occupy movement, other group demographics make up its base of supporters. This new Tax scheme comes by way of the European Union (EU) some years ago. EU members proposed taxation on stock trades and income that is derived from them.

Labeled as the Robin Hood Tax gives it a wild chance of being successful even if not comprehended in its economic entirety and its effects would be the same as if a rise in income taxes were raised across the board. Proponents of the measure claim otherwise and say that it is only a tax on the derivatives of stock trading and speculative investing, this is false. Since stocks do not trade themselves and are held by corporations and companies who in turn are owned and operated by individuals, these business owners(individuals) would be liable for the increased tax and would then pass on that tax in the form of higher consumer costs and prices. Individuals also hold stocks and this bill would have the same effect on their trading. This is the exclusionary part of this mindset, which is individual taxation is too high “BUT” we need to raise taxation on businesses and corporations, because obviously these businesses and corporations are not run by individuals who are already taxed at higher rates. If it is too much for one then it is too much for all. Excluding yourself from the effects of increased taxation to pass it on to someone else is hypocritical to the idea of individual freedom. You cannot be against one kind of tax and then endorse another that you think doesn't affect you.

“Legalize it, and then TAX it!”

The push for legalized cannabis is another great example of this. We have all heard the conversation before, “We need to just legalize marijuana, AND then tax it.  There is no reason the government should say what goes in anyone’s body”.  No, No, NO, just stop it! There needs to be no more taxes, and what does it matter if they tell you what you put in your body if they are stealing from your pockets?  I still haven’t figured out why so many are willing to have a tax imposed on marijuana in the first place. As Colorado is seeing right now adding a tax to their legalized recreational use has led to more street purchases outside of the “Pot Shops”. Why? Because buying marijuana was tax exempt from the start, why in the world would you want to give the state any more money than what they already extract by force? But the majority of people would be ok with this, as it is seen as a “voluntary” tax, it is anything but. If it were truly voluntary, the shop owner would say,” Would you like to add tax to this purchase?” You could then say, “Yes” or “No”. That is voluntary Taxation.

The other discrepancy in the legalization argument is that of legalizing certain strains of cannabis to help with medical conditions, BUT to exclude the recreational use of all forms of cannabis. This is the case for Charlotte’s Web Medical strain of Marijuana being discussed in Sates across the nation. This is clearly an exclusionary liberty issue and falls under a hard line of hypocrisy.  The ability to discriminate the use of a plant is outrageous in itself, and then to make it illegal for those that use it outside of an authorized or accepted medical use is preposterous. This is the very essence of the individual liberty issue, “Can one do what others are prohibited from doing?”

“The Marriage Gap”

The arguments against same sex marriages are usually based on the simple premise that the federal government should allow it, or at least allow the state governments should decide for themselves. Where the contradiction on this issue comes into play is when you mention that if it were allowed that same sex couples be “legally” married, why not also allow marriages consisting of multiple people, or polygamy.  Here comes the “BUT” for most people. “I believe these two people can get married even though they are the same sex, BUT these 5 people cannot.”  Why is that? How can excluding any group of people or their beliefs from the same right to be married be considered liberty for all? Now personally I am all for the government not being included in contracts between individuals, and marriage as a contract would be included in my belief.  The idea is that these contracts need no government endorsement or approval and would not require intervention in cases of separation or breaches of contracts; private arbitration proves to be a substantially superior alternative. That’s just my view though; I don’t force its acceptance on anyone.

“The Government is overbearing, but it is needed in some cases.”

There has been a rise in the belief that our current government is overbearing, intrusive, and working outside of its designated powers, and it is in my opinion; at least on two of those charges. The current government is that of an empire run by revolving dictators and feared by its serfs. So how can people belief there is anything it is needed for? The mindset of minarchy or “limited government” as both the Republicans and Democrats will call it, is that no matter how bad things get, how intrusive it becomes, how much it impedes on the daily lives and restricts the natural rights of the people, it is needed in some way. This is possibly one of the biggest misconceptions for them to get over and many refuse to even try to understand the true meaning of anarchy. No Rulers, No Masters. 

The idea that government is needed for certain roles is a lack of understanding of how things can work and work more efficiently with no theft of wealth through taxation if ALL roles of government were replaced by market alternatives.

Again this is just a few more examples of what can be called exclusionary liberty. Can you think of anymore issues where this is a relevant discussion?

11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites

Stefan Molyneux Answers The 11 questions to ask Libertarians to see if they are hypocritical in response to this article posted on Salon.com

Taxing Voluntary Trade. It's what the government does best.

Did you know that businesses and individuals that use bartering to acquire products and services are held to rules from the IRS? The simple act of mutual trade between people is subject to oversight and increased taxation by the Federal Extortion Agency. So what are the rules and what are the penalties for not complying? Is there a way around the hand of government?

Just another way for the Government to steal wealth.

The IRS lays out a few things businesses should know before they mutually trade with others.

Barter exchanges.  A barter exchange is an organized marketplace where members barter products or services. Some exchanges operate out of an office and others over the Internet. All barter exchanges are required to issue Form 1099-B, Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions, annually. The exchange must give a copy of the form to its members and file a copy with the IRS.

Bartering income.  Barter and trade dollars are the same as real dollars for tax reporting purposes. If you barter, you must report on your tax return the fair market value of the products or services you received.

Tax implications.  Bartering is taxable in the year it occurs. The tax rules may vary based on the type of bartering that takes place. Barterers may owe income taxes, self-employment taxes, employment taxes or excise taxes on their bartering income.

Reporting rules.  How you report bartering varies depending on which form of bartering takes place. Generally, if you are in a trade or business you report bartering income on Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business. You may be able to deduct certain costs you incurred to perform the bartering.

*According to the IRS website

All of this is a clear indication that the IRS thinks that whether currency is exchanged or not, the transfer of products and services is subject to taxation.

“In 1982, the IRS recognized barter as legal tender and barter exchanges as third-party record keepers, like accountants and banks. The exchanges must report barter income to the IRS on form 1099B”, says Karen E. Klein in a 2012 article for Bloomberg Businessweek.

Even though the government has taken this stance against voluntary exchange a free market system has come about. In an article posted to LewRockwell.com, writer Karen De Coster gives an explanation of a localized system of community barter. The Roanoke Valley Time Bank is a website devoted to help local individuals find help, services and other things on a system of barter and what the system calls “Time Dollars”. These dollars are obtained by helping or bartering some time, products or services to other members, time dollars can then be used on personal wants or needs, simply posting the job or product details of what is wanted and others barter their time dollars to help you. What a fantastic idea! What beautiful Anarchy this is!

 The mission statement for the Roanoke Valley time Bank is as follows:

“The mission of the Roanoke Valley TimeBank is to foster the well being of our community by providing a member-driven network of services that strengthens social bonds, encourages reciprocity, enhances our local economy, and builds on a  foundation of respect and equality.  Exchanges among members are recorded, honored, and rewarded through the use of "Time Dollars," a currency of equally valued services that empowers people to utilize their assets and enhance their lives, neighborhoods, and communities.”

Roanoke Valley Time Bank is part of a larger network of nationwide Time Banks.

This subject originally found its way into my brain via an article in a local newspaper by a tax preparer. He makes a point that though businesses and individuals are required to report these mutual trades very few actually do. I suppose others find this kind of theft undue and inhibitive to the creation of wealth or capital. In an age where one could seek out professional help through the internet on a voluntary basis, federal regulators try their hardest to punish cooperative help and to burden the individuals with compliance to unsavory rules and regulations. 

Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty?

I have heard quite frequently people saying that they believe in liberty in all forms and continue in their sentence to use the word “but.”  That “but” leads to an exclusion of some kind, and it is this “but” that I want to address.  Using exclusionary words like “but” negates everything that is said before it. Common English use it is to join two ideas and show that they are not the same.

A good example of this comes from a recent conversation I had with a coworker. He said, “It is sad that people die by being blown up by drones BUT…” This makes the statement preceding the “but “ a false statement. To say that you believe it is sad that people are being killed by drones needs no exclusion after it, at least under a moral philosophy. The exception to the statement would only apply if the philosophy of the individual is that killing people in certain circumstances or conditions is acceptable.

“It’s like they say "I believe in Liberty"* some terms and conditions apply.”

This past weekend I attended a conference in Orlando Florida. A man asked a question of a panel of speakers on the issue of rights to own and carry a gun in public and the addition of those who have been adjudicated or judged by doctors to be “mentally incapable” of owning such weaponry. He said, “I believe in the right to carry guns, but what do we do about those who are mentally unstable? That’s why massive public shootings have been prevalent in the recent past.” (Paraphrased as best as I could from recollection.)  The response from one of the panelists was, “How does anyone have the authority over another to determine their right to own anything?” The other panelist didn't give it the same thought saying instead that the rise in violent public mass shootings is something that should be addressed and that the limiting of one’s right to own a gun should be left to the discretion of a qualified doctor. This leaves the questions of Who are these doctors? and How easily could a large percentage of individuals be “lawfully” disarmed due to such a determination? With a constant change in the definition of what constitutes a mental disorder or disease it could lead to the seizure of guns on a massive scale, just as some forms of government and their representatives encourage.

Another attendee said that she would be scared to be on an airplane and to have a person with an UZI sitting next to her and then asked, "How could we restrict people from doing this?" The answer to this question would be "You can’t." The individual airline businesses could restrict the carrying of weapons onto their property which would allow consumers to make a choice to fly with an airline that allows guns or one that does not. Pretty simple if you ask me, but she scoffed at the idea. That is the exclusionary liberty I am talking, it only allows certain freedoms at certain times in certain places, all at the whim of personal choice and at the expense of the liberty of all others.

Selective or Exclusionary Liberty has been warned against for some time. “To restrict the freedom of one, is to restrict the freedom of all.” Or “If one cannot be free, no others are free.”

The issue even comes up in other topics. I noted in the argument on the decriminalization of cannabis and its various forms, that the idea that we can legalize or at least decriminalize the substance and its uses but then add a tax on it is an attack on the freedom to not have wealth stolen from any one. It is a hypocritical stance to allow people to use something but steal their money in order to do so. The other way this is applicable is the stance to legalize one drug or choice but* to limit the use or cultivation of others. Should Methamphetamine be allowed to be consumed by those that wish to? Absolutely, I say. As with every choice, it should be left to the individual. Though I may disagree with the use of it and I would not want to associate myself with those that do use it (at least while they are under its influence), I would not force my opposition to it on others by trying and limit their choices.  

The idea of true individual liberty is not a complex concept or even some Utopian (how I loathe that word) scheme. Rather t is the very basic belief that all people should be free to make decisions for themselves, and that if I am not allowed to make a bad decision then I am not free at all. Only you own yourself and likewise only you can make decisions for yourself, and in turn this means that every individual is free to make their own decisions in life.

Excluding the freedom and liberty of any person is an oppression of those individuals, down to the smallest degree; one person cannot limit the acts, preferences, choices or decisions of another. Democracy even in its smallest instance is a danger to individual liberty.

A democracy of two is just as dangerous to individual freedom as a democracy made up of millions.

The argument against this thought is the right to self-defense and the right of association. The defense of one’s body or property can be applied in cases where the actions or effects of another’s decision directly threatens your own; the same can be said of your property. It is an inherent right to defend what is yours and that includes your own body.  

The second point is the right of and to association. The decision lies with each individual on which associations they make in their lives. If one’s own moral belief or philosophy is offended by the actions of others there is the inherent right of association and likewise disassociation with any other individuals. Everything Voluntary is a phrase that can be applied to this.

The idea that liberty can be separated or restricted by any person is a dangerous notion. It leads to the degradation of the entirety of the philosophy of that liberty. It is by this thought that liberty can be seen as exclusionary and can be lost by the will of the majority. The smallest threat to the individual grows to be a threat to every single person in the end.

There can be no exclusions in the case for liberty and freedom.

Just a little update.

Just wanted to give a little update on how things have been going.

     I set a year end viewer goal at the start of this year, I set it at 15,000 viewers. As of right now we have             8,104. So thank you to everyone who has viewed the blog, shared it, retweeted, facebook liked it or                  shared it on other forms of social media.
               Thank you to the comments I have had on various posts, that is what I want to get more of, some                       feedback, agree disagree, Why, Why not, just want to say Hi, whatever the case may be.
                              So again THANK EVERY ONE OF YOU. You are the reason I keep doing this.


Just to give everyone here a chance to connect with me outside of this format.
       So if you are on Facebook find the blogs page at https://www.facebook.com/TheJeffersonPapersBlog 
                   Find my Personal Page for all the other things I don't post here, Friend Request me Here
              Twitter: @PatriotPapers
                   I have been slowly adding all of this content to a WordPress blog as well, you can find that here.



On another note, I just came back from the Florida Liberty Summit in Orlando. Had a great time. I got to hang out with Ben Swann and Jordan Page. Heard some great speeches from Dr. Ron Paul, Jack Hunter, Ben Swann and Lawerence Vance and a few more. Was a great weekend with old friends and some new ones. Now Back to the grind of daily life.....

Florida Liberty Summit - Ben Swann

Starting his speech with a 7^th inning stretch of sorts, a rain storm exercise with the audience, loosening them up and getting them energized again, he starts with his newest mantra Humanity is greater than Politics.  

Pointing to his hashtag #LibertyIsRising, he explains how is coming to this fact that the more people experiencing the pains of failed administration after another, they are being drawn to the idea that true liberty is not only possible but essential to us as human beings.

His topic today is The future of Liberty in Media, and he explains that the rise of libertarian ideals has come into media eye with the greatest contempt being shown by the establishment.  Showing this with the almost war in Syria, where 89% of the population said they were not interested in a new war in another country. For the first time in this administration the President deferred the choice from himself to congress and they decided it would not be in THEIR interest to do this against the will of the voting populace.

The ever expanding War on Drugs, The militarization of police in this country, Drone Strike or Signature Strike Programs and The Patriot Act and its effects on our everyday lives are the biggest areas of concern according to Swann. Expanding on these issues he says on Drone strikes, “The signature strike program used by our nation’s government and military has an effective rate of 2%, think about that for a second, what does that mean? It means that 98% of the time innocent people are being killed.” This is backed by reports by Former US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told AFP  who said that of the 5000 drone strikes in Yemen in 2011, less than 2% were confirmed as being valuable targets, Al Qaeda or Taliban forces.

Let’s Talk About Socialism

“All Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto are alive in America”

Ben asks the crowd if they believe we are headed towards socialism, and with quick response a person yells, “We’re already there man!” and Ben agrees.  It is true that all ten planks are manifested in the United States and it is true that they are just as dangerous to the cause of individual liberty in this country as in any other country at any other time in history.

Ben gives a strong recommendation and endorsement for the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. “It is in my opinion the strongest case for Free Market Capitalism.” This leads to a talk about Capitalism over corporatism and the symptoms and effects in both forms. The need to educate the people of the differences in the two is of utmost importance.

I am glad to see his opposition to the Con-Con or Constitutional Convention by states. Under the idea that “how many of these Red-States that are calling for this convention to open up the constitution to added amendments have rejected any of what is going on, how many have completely rallied against the PPACA?”  None and that is one reason why to not open the constitution to debate or added amendments, because it won’t achieve anything.

#LibertyIsRising

“Freedom of Association, Exchange and behavior, without coercion.”

“Liberty is dangerous to government.”

“Don’t tell this to CNN but how you feel has no bearing on the truth of the story.”

Florida Liberty Summit Ron Paul

Ron Paul walks to the stage with the same fire and energy that he showed during both his 2008 and 2012 Presidential Campaigns. As he received his well deserved admiration and applause, he remained humble and grounded. The crowd's noise continues into the beginning of his speech.

He begins his speech with congratulating and recognizing the Campaign for Liberty director John Tate and the Florida director Mark Cross. Dr. Paul tells the crowd about his time in Congress and the dangers and pitfalls to seniority in the House and Senate, that seniority does not always to lead to positive results.

As he speaks, the crowd pays close attention and hold on to every word the figure head of the Liberty Movement speaks.

Ron speaks on the issue of Russia and those in Washington who remain committed to attacking, reminding the group that the Neo Conservative war chant is "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb!" Even those on the other side of the proverbial political side continue their silent opposition to opposing this war versus all those committed by President Bush Jr. and his father.

Edward Snowden is mentioned as a hero and the view of Dr. Paul and that of the crowd is that he should be granted amnesty and treated as the teller of truth rather than vilified as he is now by the political powers that be.

He speaks of pulling out of the United Nations and NATO altogether, this goes over quite well with those in the room. As the topic turns to the Ukraine situation and the doctor's view is the same as it has always been. Non-Intervention is the only answer that needs to be considered.

Turning the topic to the economics of the country and the world, he says that wage control, central banking, energy monopoly by government has stifled the economic growth of countries around the world. Talking about the bailouts of General Motors and its affects, He says," People want to say we helped save GM. No we didn't save GM, to save it we should have let it fail naturally without government intervention".

"Where does the Federal Reserve get the money to buy up the treasury securities and bonds? They print it out of thin air!" And this has to be stopped. Most in this room would agree to the simple auditing of the Federal Reserve but that wouldn't serve any purpose but to show the problem. It would then take them years to get the idea to end the Fed and end the monopoly of money creation and its massive manipulation.

He moved quickly from topic to topic, getting applause on each one for his explanations and solutions for the problems that he sees.

   "The worse the problems get the more the people are going to turn away from the Government."

Ron speaks of being hopeful on the ending of the war on Drugs and its detrimental effects on America since it's inception. Bringing to attention that Non-Violent "criminals" are being held longer while violent offenders, Rapists and Murderers are being released.

Not to undermine the message he spreads or the ideals he holds, this was a speech to hit on points of agreement and of relative self education to the crowd assembled.


                                                       "The Revolution is in the Ideas"

Florida Liberty Summit - Jack Hunter.

Florida Liberty Summit

Jack Hunter, known to some as The Southern Avenger, gave a speech breaking down CPAC 2014 and talking about his views on what he calls The Future of Liberty – Part 1.

At CPAC Mike Huckabee gave a statement that the Republican Party is increasingly becoming more Libertarian, and Mr. Hunter says, “Thank God for that!”

Giving notes on The Goldwater Era alongside the Reagan Era, the Philosophy of the Bush Dynasty.

On Goldwater, Jack states there is a thought that America was not ready for the hard hitting and extremely deep cutting ideas of Barry Goldwater in 1965. I would absolutely agree on this fact.

“Those Damn Goldwater people are everywhere.”

Jack is a dedicated supporter of Libertarian ideals and of Ron Paul, the figurative mast head of the liberty and libertarian movement. He gives an idea that as Libertarianism, the philosophy not the party, the more the establishment Republican Party has to fear.

“The old guard of the Republican Party is clueless to the rising of Libertarians.”

Florida Liberty Summit Jordan Page

Orlando Florida April 4th 2014

Jordan Page began the day’s event with his powerful and energetic music. Using the message of freedom and the issues that The Liberty Movement has been promoting and exposing for so long, he gave those in attendance THE show to begin the show. He shared some stories about his path to individual liberty, talking about the inspirations to his music and lyrics and the things that he sees as the most pressing issues of our time. The Military Industrial Complex and the constant state of war and conquest, The Federal Reserve and it’s printing of billions of dollars in worthless currency and it’s mandated use by the  US Federal Government to the loss of individual recognition in society today.
“Why do we sit down when all should be standing?”
The message in his songs reverberates the ideals and frustrations in the hearts and minds of Libertarians and Voluntaryists around the world. Giving those who hear him the musical outlet to release those frustrations and to connect their hopes and ideals to music, Jordan constantly and consistently makes the case for freedom in an exciting and fantastic way with his talent.
To me this is the one artist in the liberty movement that I recommend everyone hear at least once in their lives.

Set List Included:
The Message of Freedom
The Middle
Victory Song
Liberty
NEW SONG!!!  From his not yet released album: Sedition

The Great Dictator's Speech by Charlie Chaplin

This is the speech given by a character played by Charlie Chaplin in his movie The Great Dictator. 

I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be an emperor. That’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone - if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness - not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men - cries out for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people.

To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. .....

Soldiers! don’t give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you - enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate! Only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty!

In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: “the Kingdom of God is within man” - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.

Then - in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill that promise. They never will!

Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!