Government according to P.J. Proudhon

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be governed is be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,measured, numbered, assessed,licensed, authorized, admonished,prevented, forbidden, reformed,corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, be placed under contribution,drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, funded, vilified harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned,shot deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality

P.J. Proudhon 1923

Why Can't They Be Independent?

The recent call, referendum and ultimate failure of Independence by the Scottish people has left an important question for the Pro-Independence proponents.

Why Can't We Be Independent From Their Dependence?

In other words, why does an entire country's population remain attached as only a portion of them want to do so? The simple answer is... Democracy!

Thats right Democracy, the idea of governance by the will of the majority, becomes the tyranny that the individuals that were and are still opposed to remaining attached to the UK must now live under.

As the calls for the status quo to remain intact were in essence a call for simple social security programs and safety concerns from the older generations and what we call call the Neo-Liberal individuals of the Scottish people, while the others chose independence and a call for building a new Scotland in their own image.

Plato says it best with, " Tyranny naturally arises out of Democracy"

Here is the tricky, double ender part though...

No matter who won this measure, some portion of the Scottish people were to live under the will of the other. Again, Democratic tyranny cannot be escaped by either choice being victorious. It is the nature of governance by majority that holds individualism and liberty in contempt. It holds the very basic freedom of (and from) association from being realized on an individual level.

While I leave your impression of Democracy in shambles I do offer an alternative. Individual freedom. That freedom to live as you wish and to respect the wishes of all those others around you. Simply stated, do as you will, but do not will another to do as you.

Another proposition.

Since we have a population of people living under the will of the majority, one calling for an independent nation, and the other in opposition, why can they not both live in their own ways? I can think of no greater tyranny to another man than to subjugate him to live as he does not intend. If those that wish to remain a part of the UK are ok with their taxation and legislation then they may live by them and afford them and have every supposed benefit deriving from them. And in turn, if those men wish to not put in nor take out any social, monetary or security measure benefit, and if those men wish to not live under legislation of the UK rule, then they, being free beings have every right to refuse payment or service to another, especially in compulsion.

Now this proposition I know will not sit well with those on the American Left or Right of the political divide, and maybe so with many Minarchist Libertarians, but it is irrefutable that if a man is forced to live under the decision of another man, he, and every other person can never call him free.

The costs of post 9/11

Today is 9/11/ 2014, 13 years since the greatest attack on American citizens since the country's formation. Under President Bush he used the events of the day to not only wage a Global War on an Obscure Definition of Terror but also to give this day a new name of remembrance. Patriot Day as it is now called has moved from a somber remembrance of events to debate and confusion, statism and a subjective view of what constitutes Patriotism.

What have we lost?

9/11/2001 around 3,000 people lost their lives in the World Trade Center buildings and the flights used as guided missiles. In the aftermath of the buildings collapsing, the total deaths were recorded at 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. More would succumb to illness caused by the dust and debris in the months and years afterwards, and we can only speculate on those citizens who died as a result of shock at the unfolding of the atrocities of the day. But these are not the only casualties we can add to this. we can also add in the deaths of service members and civilians from America and those of other nations.

According to the website Journalist's Resource "The Brown University project estimated that together, all countries involved have lost a total of 31,000 uniformed servicemembers and military contractors. In addition, the researchers estimated in 2011 that between 152,280 and 192,550 civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have died as a “result of the fighting at the hands of all parties.” In March 2013, the Brown researchers revised the civilian total estimate to 200,000; and they estimated that 330,000 people had been killed overall as a result of the conflicts, accounting for all soldiers, militants, police, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers and civilians involved."

These numbers should do enough to discourage any more operations in the areas, but sadly it does not deter those war hawkish members of the political atmosphere nor a number of citizens from the demolition and destruction of these countries, these people and these futures. 

Lives cost a lot, no one is denying that, but let's take a second to look at the economical impact the past 13 years have taken. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) Total spent and obligated through FY 2014 is around 4,374.5 billion US dollars. (2014 dollars) with the Additional Cumulative Interest on Past Pentagon and State/USAID War Appropriations FY 2001‐2013 by 2054 reaching over 7,900 billion. If you are having trouble with converting that, it is 4 Trillion 374 Billion, 500 Million dollars since 2001 and an estimated 7 Trillion 900 Billion dollars. 

All of this is taken directly from increased borrowing from the US Central Bank with loans being paid back with interest by the US taxpayer. That money is being created with the future payments being ladled with interest and being sworn to your children and grand-children and so on. 

Another aspect of what has been lost since 2001.

The rights and privacy lost since 2001 have been explained by many, from Judge Andrew Napolitano to Former House Of Representative and 2008 and 2012 Presidential candidate Ron Paul, from the leaked document of the CIA, NSA, DOJ, DOD and a host of other alphabet soup agencies by the work of Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who took personal sacrifice for the American citizens to a new level. 

All the new security you see and experience when traveling, paid for by increased taxation. All the new background checks you go through, paid for by increased taxation. The departments themselves, who have been the subject to their own leaks of inter-office behavior, are entirely funded by the same ones they are spying on. Let there be no mistake about it, the notion that you can be 100% ok with the amount of agencies and securities that have increased since 2001 and also hold a belief in the reduction of taxation is entirely erroneous. Let it also be noted that in any attempt to curb this behavior or increasing security state bubble is met with resistance by those who value their sense of safety over their sense of morality or sensibility. Hell they even used the word Patriot to pass an act of protecting themselves while spying on you; Patriot Act. 

Over the years Patriots have risen, but did you even notice?

We have already gone over Snowden, Manning and Assange, all who have given their freedom for your knowledge of the facts of the government you live under. There are more examples of those who have made a stand for a belief in what is moral and right.

The Burger King Corporation recently set itself into a media firestorm. With the acquisition of a foreign (Canada) company, the BK Corp saw to move its Headquarters to Canada to escape higher corporate taxation. Now the media and those unknowingly ignorant of economic sense call this move unpatriotic. But how so? Wasn't the Boston Tea Party a patriotic act, in the same sense to avoid undue taxation, the hypocrisy is almost deafening. 

Cliven Bundy did his patriotic duty in his defiance of federal officials to turn over parts of his land to federal department control in the name of bogus claims of conservation of a certain species. He, along with other resistors in name and spirit spent days holding off Federal Department of Land Management officers as they took to try and take what they wanted of property that had no right to.

So on this Patriots day let's remember those that gave their lives, their freedoms and their blood, sweat and tears for what is morally right, what can be more patriotic than a man who fights a tyrannous, overbearing, overreaching, overburdening Government? 

Never Forget: Your government sets its means to kill you, capture you, and steal from you. 

Rise up Patriots! 

  

Radio Show I did over the Weekend.

I was asked to come onto a radio show by the host and talk about the blog and about other things, current news, a bit into the economics of police and the increasing militarization of police forces across the country as well as subsidies and the alter effects of taxation. It is a short 30 minute show and the host and I were able to get through a lot of topics and issues.

Take a minute to listen to a spot I did with Rakkur Crowley on his radio program Austrian Circle. You can find his entire playlist on the Voluntary Virtues Network Youtube channel.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/AustrianCircle/Podcasts/Austrian+Circle+Travis+Wilson+web.mp3

Remembering Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz was an amazing person. Inspiring and influential. His impact on this generation and future ones can and will be seen in the ways information is shared and the type of digital world we leave to posterity. His voice resonated around the world, with his message that all information should be free, the new education of people can take shape. It was through his mind ideas like Reddit, Think Progress, Creative Commons and a host of government accountability websites were brought into existence or improved upon. He was an incredibly intelligent person and will be missed by millions, some without even a knowledge of who he was or the impact he has made.

This is a copy of the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, though not confirmed to be his lone hand that wrote this, it was signed with his name. It's message is strong, it is needed and it should be heard and carried further.

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto 

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for 
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries 
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of 
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the 
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. 

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought 
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure 
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But 
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. 
Everything up until now will have been lost. 

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their 
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? 
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to 
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable. 

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they 
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — 
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's 
already being done: we can fight back. 

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been 
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world 
is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for 
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords 
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. 



Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been 
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by 
the publishers and sharing them with your friends. 

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or 
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a 
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only 
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. 

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate 
require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they 
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who 
can make copies. 

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the 
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public 
culture. 

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with 
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need 
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific 
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open 
Access. 

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the 
privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us? 

Aaron Swartz 

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

To quote Tim Berners-Lee proclaimed inventor of the world wide web...




"We’ve lost a fighter. We've lost somebody who put huge energy into righting wrongs. There are people around the world who take it on themselves to just try to fix the world but very few of them do it 24/7 like Aaron. Very few of them are as dedicated. So of the people who are fighting for right, and what he was doing up to the end was fighting for right, we have lost one of our own. … We’ve lost a great person. But also, we've lost somebody who needed to be nurtured, who needed to be protected. I didn’t work with Aaron as closely as many people here, but I got the sense that all who have known him realized that he needed to be protected. He needed to be held carefully in our hands. He needed to be nurtured. So nurturers of the world, everyone who tried to make a place safe to work or a home safe to live, anyone who listens to another, looks after another or feeds another, all parents everywhere — we've lost a child. And there’s nothing worse than that."
Aaron was a genius in his own way and a brilliant mind, one that we sorely need. His perseverance in the fight for the uninhibited sharing of information and knowledge was amazing and his passion for doing all he could to release the grips of censorship, especially in academia. His devotion to the idea that ideas and knowledge should not be hidden away in storerooms and servers but instead freely broadcast is a brave goal.  His idea was to change the world and in his own way he did just that. 

There are multiple sites to look at his life, his work, those that knew him and those that benefitted from his work. Wikipedia, being a model of like mind to Aaron's is an excellent starting point.

As I was doing some reading on the life of Aaron and his mission, his message and his influence into todays tech culture I found this, a documentary of his life, as he lived it, with those he shared it with and his brilliance and his untimely death. 

To watch the movie "The Internet's Own Boy" a documentary of Aaron Swartz and his life, his accomplishments and his impact go here... 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/internet-own-boy-story-aaron-swartz/

Discussion on Human Nature

In 1956 C.E. Harris, under Wadsworth Inc, published a book titled Applying Moral Theories. 
I took some notes while reading, they will be in red italicized text.

In this work Harris writes in the chapter The Ethics of Natural Law, " How do we find out what these natural inclinations are? We might first consult psychologists, sociologists, or anthropologists. Some contemporary natural-law theorists use studies from the social sciences to defend their conclusions. However, the natural-law tradition developed before the rise of the social sciences, and a more informal method of observation was used to discover the basic human inclinations. Most natural-law theorists would maintain that these observations are still valid. We can divide the values specified by natural human inclination into two basic groups: (1) biological values, which are strongly linked with our bodies and which we share with other animals, and (2) characteristically human values, which are closely connected with our more specifically human aspects. (We will not call this second group uniquely human values because some of the inclinations that point to these values, such as the tendency to live in societies, are not unique to human beings.) We can summarize the values and the- natural inclinations that point to them as follows:
 1. Biological Values

a.  Life. From the natural inclinations that we and all other animals have to preserve our own existence, we can infer that life is good, that we have an obligation to promote our own health, and that we have the right of self- defense. Negatively, this inclination implies that murder and suicide are wrong.

Who do we owe this obligation to? If our lives are our own then who should we be holden to to determine the value of our own lives? If there is no other will than our own that we must be subjected to, the obligations to promote our own life or health do not exist. If the freedom to do these things exists, obligations to others do not exist on the theory of natural biological values.


b.     Procreation. From the natural inclination that we and all animals have to engage in sexual intercourse and to rear offspring, we can infer that procreation is a value and that we have an obligation to produce and rear children. Negatively, this inclination implies that such practices as sterilization, homosexuality, and artificial contraception are wrong.

The position to say that there is a "natural inclination to engage in sexual intercourse" is to deny the fact that some humans choose not to have children and even more that refuse to have sex, based on social or religious beliefs. Again Harris tries to objectively place value on these actions, when in life these choices would be made from a subjective value by the individuals. What Harris is trying to define is the search for personal satisfaction and pleasure, it may not have anything to do with intercourse or reproduction at all. 

Harris also tries to place an individual moral view on Homosexuality. If under his theory all humans are drawn to seek sexual pleasure he places no definition on from where this pleasure shall come from. 

His point on Sterilization needs to be taken into consideration as well. Some humans are born without the needed faculties to reproduce and other from biological or medicinal reasons are encouraged not to. But if one chooses to believe that sterilization is wrong one must continue to believe that the natural inability to conceive s inherent as well as now made possible by science.


 2. Characteristically Human Values
a.     Knowledge. From the natural tendency we have to know, including the tendency to seek knowledge of God, we can infer that knowledge is a value and that we have an obligation to pursue knowledge of the world and of God. Negatively, this inclination implies that the stifling of intellectual curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge is wrong. It also implies that a lack of religion is wrong.

Again Harris insists that there is some obligation to seek  knowledge and religion.But makes no mention of to who this obligation is to. Since the choosing of religion is made after a conscious thought of what religion is and its subjective value to the individual in their own lives, this would discredit the theory of obligatory religion. And since knowledge is obtained by experience or reactions to situations, if one man were to experience a life much different than another which would you call unknowledgable of what he has not experienced? 

b. Sociability. From the natural tendency we have to form bonds of affection and love with other human beings and to associate with others in societies, we can infer that friendship and love are good and that the state is a natural institution and therefore good. We thus have an obligation to pursue close relationships with other human beings and to submit to the legitimate authority of the state. We can also infer that war can be justified under certain conditions if it is necessary to defend the state. Negatively, this inclination implies that activities that interfere with proper human relationships, such as spreading slander and lies, are wrong. Actions that destroy the power of the state are also wrong, so natural law finds a basis for argument against revolution and treason, except when the state is radically unjust.

This case cannot be made more clear, under the theory set forth in this passage Harris has subjected every human to the will and rule of others. He has offered the natural state of liberty to the rulers and rule makers. Harris tries to make the case that everyone that is not part of "the state" is to be mastered by it. This goes against the idea of personal responsibility, sovereignty, and freedom itself. The Natural state of man does not call for a subservient class led by those who feel the need for power and control. The sociability of man is not concrete, it is not a set parameter or level, each person chooses the levels of sociability they are comfortable with, while some choose no social interaction with others and become hermits and shut ins, this natural social obligation is thrust aside by personal value of interaction with others.

In any state where a man is not allowed to leave on a voluntary basis, the state is unjust. It is tyranny of man to not allow his departure from the state and its control and influence. Harris here tries again to apply his personal view of such acts and situations, ignoring the ability and will of the individual over the mandate of the collective state.

  These natural inclinations are reflections of human nature, and the pursuit of the goods they specify is the way to individual fulfillment. Aquinas himself makes it clear that the list of values, which in most respects follows his account, is incomplete; other natural-law theorists have expanded the list to include such things as play and aesthetic experience. However the list given here has had the greatest historical influence, and we shall assume it is basically complete.

  The more important issue raised by this list is the potential for conflict between the various values. What should we do when our need to defend ourselves requires that we kill someone else?
Defense of life is a primitive drive of survivability, it would be under the natural law theory a subjective value according to the individuals value of his own life over that of another. For some this seems a ridiculous statement, Of course one would want to live, but what then do we say of those that commit suicide, they did not value the life they had and chose to end it by their own means, 

What should we do when sterilization is necessary to prevent a life-threatening pregnancy?
Who is "we"? This imaginary collective, state or society has no bearing on the choices and outcomes of the individual, at least not when one recognizes that each individual is a sovereign being and his alive in them own selves. 

What should be done when contraception seems necessary in order to limit family size so that families can properly educate the children they already have?
This again implies action or will of an outside source or governance takes precedence over the sensibilities and actions of the individual. This places the value of the education of children outside of those to whom they are in the care of or have given birth to.

In each of these examples, one aspect of natural law seems to conflict with another, and the question arises whether these values have a hierarchy on which a decision can be based. The answer to this question brings into focus one of the most important and controversial aspects of natural law—moral absolutism.
While I do  not agree with Mr. Harris on moral absolutism, he is correct that these examples conflict with one another in the basic sense that they exist in a subjective view. 
While Mr. Harris and many other may feel that what he has stated here and what is perceived in the world as right or wrong, there exist others who differ on these points. Whether either be wrong or right on their beliefs remains based on experiences and resolutions made of conscious control.

Independence Day has become In Dependence Day

Another favorite Nationalist holiday is here. Independence Day or the day America officially broke away from the hold of England and its King. This day is one of the most celebrated inaccuracies in American History. To be sure, this day will continue as long as the lie of American Government remains in the place of power over people, and so long as people allow Government the power over them. Those that formed this new form of sluttish slavery in disguise of freedom, and those that seek to reinstate the old ways of republics and democracies have no more authority to write, sign, and decide the futures of people other than themselves.


The present state of affairs is not much different than it was in 1776, and as the Declaration of Independence was drafted and approved by those wishing to form a new government, a new form of subservience, it is now that we, in our time, must thrust the chains of servitude from our backs and necks, we must secede from the tyranny of Government. Though much smaller and contained to what we are under now, the King of England and his henchmen reminded the citizens of the 13 original colonies of their servitude to the crown and its dictates, decrees, laws and taxation. And today the American King is in the despotic attitude of the Kings before him.

  

The many counts against the King set forth in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 can be seen today, not just in the sitting president but in all aspects of American Politics. The same acts that led to the separation of ties between England and the Colonies are in full view and full practice as it was then. Trade restrictions, overreach and subverting laws, holding large militaries and protecting them from prosecution of actions deemed criminal to the citizen populace.

To set ourselves differently from our predecessors we do not enact to bring new government from the old, we do not hold that any government would in fact be a good or moral government; we do not believe that a small government would remain small and their powers concentrated. From the past we work for the future; that future is freedom and no amount of government can give you or even allow you unconstrained and absolute freedom. 

Americans are dependent on their belief in government. They are unable to see the ways which every action of government can be accomplished in peaceful and voluntary ways. They are dependent on a system of theft and redistribution. They are dependent on a system of forced security and compulsory welfare. They are dependent on the destruction of foreign lands and the brutality and empire spreading. They are dependent on regulations and restrictions, licencing and fees. They are dependent on drugs while criminalizing the very nature that they come from. They are dependent on the new form of government they have allowed to run rampant over them. They are dependent on Corporatism and blame the effects on Capitalism. They are dependent on the altar of Government, sacrifices to Government, and unrelenting subservience to Government. 

You are NOT free.

They are slaves to their own Ignorance, their own Apathy, and their own Complacency. They are subjects to their own Confliction in Ideology; a slave to their own Indifference, Statism, Nationalism, and Sensationalism.

They are more interested in the latest Celebrity Wedding, or Sports Star Baby, Dancing with the Stars, and Tabloid gossip. They let the media dictate what they think; the church what they believe; the corporations what they buy and what they eat.

Allowing their own self to be bound to the edicts of central planners and a superiority complex has shackled them in chains far greater than they realize. They have locked the chains on every generation to come after them and have denounced their right to prosperity and the exercise of their natural rights.

You are a slave to the belief that you are free.

“When in the course of Human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which Laws of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”

Your Declaration of True Independence is yet to be written.


Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers
Find me at Liberty.me @BeardedLibertyGuy

What Can They Do To Make You Say "No More"?

What would your government have to do to make you fight back? What would they have to do that caused the population to dissent? What act would one agency have to commit for you to stand up and say “NO, I am not taking this anymore!” Not merely voting to change what is being done but to completely abolish those doing it. Question yourself this.

Distrust in the government is nothing new. It is not a new era thing or even something only the younger generations are starting; in fact dissent to control has been taking place since men formed any sort of governance over others. This dissent has seen every age and every reason. It has lived throughout centuries and all over the globe. It fueled The American Revolution and The Civil War. Dissent can be seen as different actions. Maybe it is just the questioning of government, seeking accountability, exposure of immoral acts perpetrated against innocents. It could be the actual physical actions against the state. Either aggressing against the state or not recognizing the State's self-appropriated power. It could be the act of non-compliance, agorism, or removing one’s self from the situations and going “off the grid”.

But the question is What Would Make Someone to Do This? What could be the final straw for YOU that absolutely break any sincere reverence for the state or its offices and officials? For most this isn't even a question they would attempt to answer. For most, the blind allegiance has been ingrained since birth that compliance is fate and resistance is futile. The “Statists” as they are called, see themselves as the masters of the government power and those officials as employees and representatives to their will. This is clearly not the case in American Politics, but let’s let them keep their fantasy. They seek power over others and to form a moral civilization by force, those morals being their own. In their belief of these powers and representation it may be easier for them to answer “Nothing” to this question at first. But could there be something suppressed in them that would cause them to answer? Could there be a line that cannot be crossed? Can there be that unforgivable event that occurs and is the catalyst to a real level of dissent?

Ask yourself these questions.

Is there anything that the TSA could do to me that would make me say “I am not going to let this continue”?

Is there any amount of spying that the NSA can do to me that I will reject their ability and power to do so? 

How much does the IRS have to take before you say it is too much? How much of a slave are you willing to be?

Is there any place that in the world that the military could start a war that would incense me enough to demand them to cease? Is there any amount of people they could target  that would raise a question in your mind about the morality of what they do?

Is there any amount of regulation or mandates that I am uncomfortable enough with that I will resist or simply not comply? 

When is Enough Enough?

This is a question that everyone should try and answer. Everyone should at least attempt to come up with their last straw, their red line in the sand, their own final event.

Why is this so important a question?

The level of intervention into the personal and business lives of all people is of concern to me. It is not a question of how much, but that there is any interjection of government mandates, regulations, restrictions, licensure, theft, murder, coercion and incarceration in the private affairs of citizens. This question gives your self the very definition of what you are willing to put up with, what you will subscribe to, what you will allow to happen, before you finally realize the intrusion into your freedom, the violation of your natural liberty.

So now I leave it to you to answer this for yourself. These answers will be different for everyone.

Is there anything that would make you resist the control of the state?

Is there anything they can do to you that you would fight back?

Is there anything that any department can do to you that you will say “NO”?

Follow me on Twitter @PatriotPapers

Find me on Liberty.me @TheBeardedLibertyGuy

Like the Jefferson Papers Facebook Page

On Constitutional Rights

Of the many different arguments on where rights come from I find the Constitutional Case the most far-fetched. It is a long held and deeply rooted belief that the United States Constitution is where the country’s citizens obtain their rights. The argument of Constitutional Rights is fallacious and easily the most wide spread and enduring myth among Americans. This argument supposes that a document signed by and ordained by people long since dead have somehow bestowed upon the subsequent generations certain acts or protections under a system of governance. The myth of Constitutional Rights is a touchy subject for most, but I will try to explain the case against the Constitutional Rights Theory. 

A piece of paper has no inherent rights. It is a product of labor mixed with resources, by humans. Lacking any inherent rights it also has no rights to bestow upon others. It does not offer any protection, as it has no means of protection, except by outside forces, notably human beings. And since men cannot endow rights to others it stands that it has no means to give those rights away. It has no voice, and is subjective to the capabilities and thoughts of those who read it. It, being paper can be destroyed by many different means and can be reproduced with almost no limit. It carries no means to hold precedence over man, and cannot be asked to define its power or even source of power.

As a document it was a contract between those that agreed to partake in its formation, contracting themselves to its supposed limits by signature. There is no reference to it being forced upon following generations, there is no clause that leads us to be ruled by others opinions and writings of a time we did not live or respect and follow a document, a contract we did not sign. This is the error in the Social Contract Theory, the basis of which is that as I did not sign into any contract I do not have to subject myself to that contract. The Social Contract Theory is dependent on the thought that one must be obligated to endure the social rules in a place he was placed at birth or else leave. This theory is particularly used when a person is found to dissent to the idea of the social rules in that area of birth. The “if you don’t like it here  you can leave” attitude in other words.

Of the many errors of those that hold a belief in Constitutionally Granted Rights is the interference in the logic of American History.

 “The members of the Constitutional Convention signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Constitutional Convention convened in response to dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government. After four months of secret debate and many compromises, the proposed Constitution was submitted to the states for approval. Although the vote was close in some states, the Constitution was eventually ratified and the new Federal government came into existence in 1789. The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.” Excerpt from the Library of Congress Website

The first thing to look at in this excerpt is the phrase, “secret debate and many compromises”. If this were to be the founding form of contract for every generation hereafter its signing why then would these debates and meeting need to be held in secret?  Why would this sort of thing be kept from those that it intended to subject? 

The next point to be taken is the phrase, “dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government”. The dissatisfaction of the current form of governance grew from the inability to control the free and sovereign states and its lack of control over industry, trade and the funding of federal exploitation of other nations. The Articles of Confederation were partially successful in their ability to maximize personal freedom while offering some semblance of protection of the natural rights of the people. They were not successful in retaining power as the march of men and their power hungry ways consumed it and disregarded it.

The last point in this small quote is the last line. “The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.” This is exactly the problem with the idea of limited government touted by the Republican Party, Constitutionalists, and the various tea party groups. The limit that is imposed is not by the citizenry but by the same government that gives it power. Small government is likely to grow out of this relative smallness and into the beast it is today.

The very Idea that this contract gives any person rights is easy to prove otherwise. Since the beginning of non-native conquest and inhabitation in the Americas began well before the drafting and ratification of the Constitution the question is posed; where did these Pre-Constitution people derive their rights from?  Were they privy to the Magna Carta? Hard to be since the Magna Carta did not grant rights to people but rather limited power of King John of England and stood to protect their natural rights in the year 1215. Did they derive their rights from the Articles of Confederation? The articles were an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. Again these articles did not propose to grant rights to people and would in effect limit the freedom of people inside the confines of territory of what would become the United States.

One could argue that the very basic precept of time in relation to rights clearly defines that the rights of individuals predates even the earliest form of community or government. One could also argue that if one believes in the endowment of rights by written words than the act of destroying this document would insure the decimation of all semblances of rights. If any Constitution would be destroyed today the ability and right to speak as one wishes remains; the act of defense remains the same, the right of being secure in the privacy of your own property and the right to own said property would all still be there.

Secondary questions.

Did people before any written documents not have inherent rights? Were these people somehow less inclined to the abilities of themselves and of freedom from tyranny? How would their lives be defined if not for the rights they had? Were those Native Americans here long before Europeans invaded and settled not in possession of any rights in their lives and property? Do people outside of all Constitutions or documents forming any sort of Government not have rights? Could the destruction of these documents ensure no person would have any rights to themselves or property?

Simply stated, the origin of rights is inherent on a person being alive. They are natural, they are inalienable, they are non- transferable, they are not for sale or rent, they begin the moment of life and cease with death. The idea of any right bestowed from outside forces begets the ability to restrict those rights from outside forces. The Natural ability to do as one sees fit as long as those actions do not interfere with the rights or freedoms of others is not reliant on any form of documentation, any decree, from any person or institution.  

Is Liberty Subjective?

I have seen this more than once and it always perplexes me. How can someone say they would rather be seemingly safe but controlled rather than seemingly safe but free? Can liberty and freedom be subjective? Can someone hold themselves more valuable as a slave to a state or another entity or person than as a free individual? Do some not recognize freedom and all its benefits?

This issue came up the other day in a conversation by a friend. She was expounding on what she sees as a growing problem with home-school parents. She was/ is dismayed by a home-school group member who is telling new home-school parent to refuse to comply with laws. Their unwillingness to sign paperwork or refuse to register  to the state or county in accordance with laws. She further tried to explain the freedoms that home-school advocates and participants currently enjoy because of these laws. "We have worked hard for this freedom." is her closing line. My wife responded in her typical manner, telling her that adherence to law is not freedom, but subservience, in different words.

The misconception and possible delusion that is placed in the idea that law gives freedom is easy to spot and easy to address. Compulsion to follow laws and dictates is hardly free from coercion, it is forced to comply and if permission can be granted it can also be revoked. This is the major issue with the idea that asking permission to do any act is somehow being and remaining free. Any act is free to do or free to not do without punishment is freedom, every act of permission, licensing, and permitting is an infringement on the natural rights of individuals. Every time a government agency requires signatures, fees and compliance it can revoke access, use and recreation. The very idea of freedom is free from compulsion in any way.

Can people not recognize Freedom?

I truly believe that some people cannot recognize the freedom they have or the ways in which it is suppressed by government. Take the same concept of licensing. If a man is free to fish, should he be required by law to obtain permission and a license to do so and if this man refuses to submit to asking for permission should he be punished for not having a license? In the minds of many the question is unequivocally a violation of the mans natural freedom. His state of being and all actions that do not impede on the rights of other should not be hampered or constrained by bureaucrats and their heavy handed state sponsors.

Can we not see what freedom is? Can we not recognize that the state of the world today we, as humans, have enslaved and caged ourselves by the ultimate Utopian idea of government by popular opinion and laws dictated by an immoral central authority? Can we ever gain true independence from outside governance? What does it take for the majority of people to recognize their natural state of freedom is contradicted by the use of force and violence for practicing self rule and self governance?

Is Liberty Subjective?

How can one person claim to be free by following orders? How can one person shout for safety while shrugging personal freedom, casting it aside to the edicts of some higher power made of publicly voiced opinion of moral and value? All men can be responsible for their own choices and in those choices some view liberty, the act and state of being free as less valuable than a state of uniform security and the ability to not be held accountable or responsible for their actions. I believe that Liberty has become regarded as a second hand asset rather than the first rule of nature. It has become so trampled by misinformation, programming and propaganda that people would gladly shackle their own ankles to remain in favor of the omniscient big brother government, their salvation from evil and protector of morals.

Brutalism As A Trend

As many in the Libertarian circles and liberty movement general groups are aware there is a stir growing around an article by Jeffrey Tucker. His article, "Against Libertarian Brutalism",Tucker tried to explain the thought of what he calls the brutalist, or  for me better labeled the coarse libertarian. These coarse and abrasive libertarians, explains Tucker, are drawn to the ability "to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontent with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms."  As I read the article I had my ideas of who this could be directed at or who at least fit the description and the various reasons why I could see a quick and unrelenting response from the person. Sure enough, within an hour of reading the article there was a response, and from none other than who I felt the original post defined well.

While I do not agree with the severing of the small group of libertarians, I can see where Tucker was coming from. The language and demeanor of the now self gratifying and self identifying Brutalists is something I had noticed before, but shrugged it off as just a way for someone to express themselves.Though it is not the way I would do things or even a way I see as beneficial to advancing the case of liberty.  Even if I don't agree with the ways in which someone wishes to be, I have no power to stop them from doing as they see fit.

Jeffrey Tucker compared this nature of people to an architectural style used from the 1950's through the 1970's. "Brutalism asserted that a building should be no more and no less than what it is supposed to be in order to fulfill its function. It asserted the right to be ugly, which is precisely why the style was most popular among governments around the world, and why brutalist forms are today seen as eyesores all over the world."  What Tucker says here is important, and mostly missed by the responses I have read into since its publication. It is seen that the right to be crude or abrasive is inherent in the rights of all men, but it does not do well in the stand of time, what is seen today as form or function will later be seen as an eyesore or impediment to the advancement to an idea. An idea of individual freedom should not hinge on a case to be offensive just for the sake of being offensive and then to justify the behavior by stating you have the freedom to do so. Of course the freedom to say and do things is a natural right of all people, and of course the right to be offended is in there too. One note that I did take from a lot of the responses to this article is the assumption that Tucker would want to somehow limit or restrict the ability to being a brutalist, I could not find one mention of this idea in any of words he has written on the subject. He even says in his article,"Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?" Yes you do have a right to be the way you are and are even encouraged to be this way; for what is freedom but the inner most expressions of oneself to the world without the restrictions or regulations of outside forces?

In order to build a city many styles will be used; some used out of necessity, some out of function, some even for subjective beauty. This is an important idea in the building of any city, while what may seem as an eyesore in the later years, or in the present seen as a style without style, so to speak, still contributes the basis for the idea of that city, it performs a function of being a vessel inside whatever environment it inhabits. The houses and building in any city vary from one another and each has its own value attached by those in and around those structures. Just as in the Humanitarian Vs. Brutalist argument, these two styles will naturally draw and dispel certain people to its respective ranks. As time goes on we will see the effects of what we do and say to other in the progression of this idea of Liberty we all hold dear.

In all the conversations about this topic there is a clear dividing line, and this is the worst of what is happening in my opinion. Instead of being able to work together for the common goal there has come this divide in sections of the same general groups. Mending this gap, I don't think is possible at this time. But we hold hope that together we can move past the smallest details and work for that common end. Individual Liberty.

A friend of mine on Facebook stated it wonderfully.
Say you are to buy a car. Would you want the sales person to come at you with an attitude, to belittle and offend you? Or would you be more receptive to the offers given if the salesperson has a pleasant attitude and disposition? For me this signifies the greatest belief in the good of people and the good that people can bestow upon others. Just because you have the freedom to be brutal doesn't mean you have to be. Selling the idea of liberty and freedom does far more for those that see it in the most positive ways and can again present it in a most positive way.

I hold no discontent or judgement against those that view themselves as the Brutalists, and I hold no higher esteem or reverence for those who identify as the Humanitarians. I see everyone as the individual they are and the many different things they bring into my life and the surrounding environments we both enjoy.

Are you really being Represented?

Do you feel that those Senators, Representatives and Presidents holding office and making decisions for 317 million people have your best interests in mind?

Do you think they are representing you in the best possible way?

I asked these questions to a co-worker the other day. His response was a shoulder shrug and a somewhat resentful "No, Not really".

So in response I said, "So why do you continue to support a system that you admit is faulty?"

He gave me the greatest response, the most thought out response I could asked for..... Are you ready for it????

"It's the best system we have."


O RLY NOW?!?!

In the call for representation many people lose the fact that the representation they seek should not diminish the accountability and responsibility of those they place in their steed.

In a series of questions I will ask Are you really being represented, Are these the opinions and actions you would have taken had you no person claiming to represent you? Are these all things you would have imposed onto your neighbors and friends, your family and co-workers?


Would you impose the collection of information and communications of the worlds citizens?

Would you impose to extort those you love and those you do not know of the money they have earned?

Would you use that extorted money to send to others, to disperse to others?

Would you imprison others for growing a plant?

Would you restrict the travels of individuals based on regulations, restrictions and rulings that limit and inhibit individual rights?

Would you station your own rule enforcers on other people properties?

Would you use force to extract resources on others properties in order to run monopolies in your own favor?

Would you vow to imprison individuals that spoke out against your will and actions?


More questions to ponder...

As individuals living in a cooperative state, without the central plans and impositions of a government would the limitless and ever expanding regulations and stipulations that hinder and starve out the peaceful lives of others be so extensive?

Would the type of fear filled world, the extensive violations of the natural rights of those individuals be so wide spread?

Would we, as individuals, impose these same rules that the select few of self important leeches of public funding that are reinforced and reconstituted by ignorant and indoctrinated mass of loyal followers?

Can a better world be viable, is it possible without these so called representations of democratic rule, the will of a majority by the silence of the minority?

Do we accept murder?

Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

On any given day people are killed in mass numbers all around the world, in some of these cases the public cries out for justice and some they sit silent, justifying it in their minds as necessary or needed in order to prevent social disorder. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) an average of 2.3 million people die in the United States alone. That equates to less than 1% of the national population. And though the center keeps statistics for various ways in which Americans die, that list does not include some very serious situations. Examples would be those Americans that die at the hands of Police, They do not reflect military deaths abroad, and they do not take into account the homeless population that die as a result of starvation or exposure.

Murder is a strong word, it is meant to differentiate to some degree the intent of the act or the circumstance of the deceased person’s condition.   But can we really differentiate the act of taking someone’s life? Can we make it all comfortable and warm by relabeling it something else? Can we pretend it doesn’t have the same affect when we call it something else? I think this is a point a lot of people miss. The result of taking another’s life is the same if we call it a “Brutal Murder” or “Justifiable Homicide”. It is still the same if committed by a man or a woman, a person of certain heritage or skin color, It is the same if we say it is in self-defense or an act of passion or temporary insanity. It is even the same if committed by a person in the course of their job or duty. This fact cannot be refuted.

There has been a steady rise in the cases of death resulted by various means while in police custody. This is a trend that is not just national but international as the world moves into a more police and military industrial occupation. It seems daily there are stories of people being beaten by police, strangled by police, shot by police, run over by police and on and on. And there seems to be this overwhelming silence to it all. There are very little “news” agencies willing to tackle a story like these, there are no “government leaders” willing to call on the issue, but there is a small tireless minority that is screaming at the top of their suppressed lungs. Organizations like CopBlock.org, who through their online site are facilitating users and subscribers who have recorded police activity and presence to post these interactions to the world. Accountability and oversight being the aims of these users and organization, it has seen an increase in users, subscribers and uploaded video.

But again where is the outcry for the victims of police brutality and the deaths mounting by these officers? How is a man with a certain dress and given a badge and weapon given a right to kill others? Can there be a difference in the actions of these officers that prohibit them from the same shame and disgust of taking another’s life? It seems there is; at least to some.

Along the same lines as Police we have mentioned the actions of military service members. Can they, through granted immunity, not be seen as murderers? Do their actions not leave the same results? How can one differentiate the results as one being beneficial or justified and another being a scourge of mankind and a reprehensible act?

The use of military force is nothing new to this world and it seems there are not many who see any way to change that course. There are the many young people who use joining a military to gain monetary footholds, to enjoy benefits paid for by others or under the impression that they will be providing a service to others and the country of their birth or citizenship. Many see it as just a stepping stone into the world post schooling and pre individual responsibility.

The carnage raised by war and the destruction raised even in times on non-war have been brushed aside and legitimized by a majority of people in the world today. Some wartime actions are seen as horrid and evil (Nazi Concentration camps) others are given a pass in history (United States Internment camps). The bombing at Pearl Harbor is seen as a precursor to war, yet the daily drone bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Mali, Somalia, Algeria are seen as justifiable uses of force. It is a hypocrisy, a pharisaic belief to act as if one act is any more or less of a crime against man as the other, yet this happens daily all around the world. Why? What has happened to the human mind and spirit that we have given false protection to an immoral act in certain circumstances, we ceremoniously give certain people a free pass at murder. No questions asked, no accountability, no judgment, and no recourse.

So as I started this writing I will end it. Do Americans accept the fact that murder is committed on a grand scale every day all around the world? Do we in some way endorse the idea that in order for there to be peace there must be chaos? Do we willingly allow murder to happen in the world for some small piece of false security? Do we accept the right to kill by some while punishing it in others? Is it the belief that to kill a few will save everyone else?

#Hashtag Hypocrisy

This week the newest case of kidnapping for human trafficking and sex trades took place in Nigeria. It seems the world over people are calling for the return of these girls. Even First Lady Michelle Obama has taken to social media to call for the return of these kidnapped Nigerians and to bring notice to the underground world of the child sex trade and human trafficking. Using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls she has contributed her image to this cause.

Now she isn’t the first and she will not be the last to use this tag. Other well-known people (I dare not call her a celebrity) have started their own campaigns and contributed to other for this same issue. This newest campaign hit the internet and the public have used this to turn the images into a campaign calling on the hypocrisy of the First Lady and the Whitehouse. Using this image in particular the results have been a barrage of anti-war and anti-Obama coming from Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites. It is a glaring reminder of the wartime hypocrisy of Washington and of this administration in particular. Thousands die as victims of the United States drone warfare program, yet there are no celebrities speaking out, none would dare make a sign to call on the President to end the careless and immoral killing of Middle eastern men, women and children.

.

Those in Washington and those in Hollywood that are contributing to this campaign are in stark contrast to what the true message should be, in this case, It doesn’t matter if you are a Nigerian school girl or a Middle Eastern Child you should not be subjected to these horrors of man. This is not to say that one be more important than the other but rather to say that they are in my mind the same. We cannot be the moral hero’s in one country while continuing our programs of murder and destruction in another. The moral line is drawn and we wait with baited breath for those that are in power to use that power to truly make a difference. If we are to say that one particular group of people or even one person is more valuable as a human than another, this world is in serious trouble.

Hashtags will not save lives. It takes action and in this case I feel we will see this action, misguided and misused as it will be, we will subject an entire nation to the use of force the United States is known for. Drone strikes, thousands of troops, destroyed towns and cities, rebuilding programs and heaps of financial aid plundered from the people of one country to give to the government of another. This year’s Kony Campaign will end in the same way. The only results will be wasted time, money and resources.

What is Justice?

I was thinking about these few questions today. What is justice?  What is individual justice? Who gets to define public or social justice? These are questions that I often think about when I read comments on news stories. Everyone seems to have their own view of what justice is; what punishment would or should fit the crime. Often times these views are more brutal than the crime in which they are meant to punish, in my personal opinion. And that is exactly where this topic goes; the subjectivity of justice.

Recently a local story came across my news feed in which an adult had sexual relations with a younger person, younger being described as lower than the "legally" stipulated age at which persons can make decisions to have these relations. The comments read as if I was looking into the minds of psychopaths and sociopath's dreams. Murder him, castrate him, were the normal responses, one even read to castrate him, put his castrated member into his mouth, tie him behind a vehicle and drag him until he died. Is that justice? Would those actions be justified as a result of what he and another had conspired to do willingly and voluntarily? At what point does the attempt at justice reach revenge, vengeance or immoral means to an immoral end?

Lysander Spooner had this to say of justice;

"The science of mine and thine --- the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.
The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another."

The combined idea of justice in the public eye seems to be one of three outcomes; Incarceration, death, or monetary punishment and of course a combination of all three. All of these though come from one enforcement monopoly; The State. What moral right does the state have to do these things? Is it the transferred authority of the voting populace? How does one account for the individual preference of justice over the majority? If a man has a moral philosophy to not do harm to another, is it right that a man who has damaged his property be then harmed by the state, not by the victim’s wishes but by mandated "justice"? Does the individual have no say as to what should be seen as just in his eyes, whether that means to let the perpetrator go or to punish them as he wishes? Under our current system the right to exact justice by individuals is made illegal and a monopoly has risen to take control of such matters. The American legal system, in all its dysfunction, has created a way for government to gain off of the misdeeds of others even when no harm has befallen the state in the matter. This is where the question comes in of what moral right does the state have to punish anyone for crimes in which it was not harmed? Why is there mandated minimum sentencing for crimes in which there are no victims? Why is justice taken from the hands of those involved and given to a system that benefit from the results of its own rules and laws?

An eye for an eye, Is that justice?

In an attempt to explain personal views of justice some will say they believe in the old adage of "an eye for an eye". Can equal punishment be considered equal justice? If a person was to kill a man's spouse, and the victimized man believed in equal punishment to the action, would the killing of an innocent person who is married to the aggressor be justice? Could it not be said of the spouse, who has now been killed in response to the death of another, even though they had no knowledge or part in the act is somehow responsible for the act of their spouse in order to avenge justice to the victim, are they now not a victim themselves? Does this circle ever end? 

Can the attempted correction of a wrong be justified by preforming another wrong?
Is it justice for a man guilty only of selling a plant disapproved of by government to be sentenced to a life in a cage? Is it justice for a mother who provides pain reliving medicine to her child to be sentenced to a life in jail, all because the medicine is not approved by a government agency? Is it justice that a man or woman who have engaged in consenual sexual relations be punished, because of an arbitrary age of consent imposed by someone outside that relationship? Is it Justice that any amount of people are barred from being united in marriage by law, punishable by state enforcement?

Can Justice ever really be achieved? Can full restitution for any act of aggression really be made? Is it a subjective view on what would be justified compensation? Can an act performed in the name of justice be an injustice in itself? How can one ensure just compensation is made without further aggressing against another or against the primary aggressor?

There can be no justice in a world of unscrupulous men.

Again Lysander Spooner, 

"If there be such a natural principle as justice, it is necessarily the highest, and consequently the only and universal, law for all those matters to which it is naturally applicable. And, consequently, all human legislation is simply and always an assumption of authority and dominion, where no right of authority or dominion exists. It is, therefore, simply and always an intrusion, an absurdity, an usurpation, and a crime.
On the other hand, if there be no such natural principle as justice, there can be no such thing as dishonesty; and no possible act of either force or fraud, committed by one man against the person or property of another, can be said to be unjust or dishonest; or be complained of, or prohibited, or punished as such. In short, if there be no such principle as justice, there can be no such acts as crimes; and all the professions of governments, so called, that they exist, either in whole or in part, for the punishment or prevention of crimes, are professions that they exist for the punishment or prevention of what never existed, nor ever can exist. Such professions are therefore confessions that, so far as crimes are concerned, governments have no occasion to exist; that there is nothing for them to do, and that there is nothing that they can do. They are confessions that the governments exist for the punishment and prevention of acts that are, in their nature, simple impossibilities."

Kent State - A look back

 May 4th 1970

44 years ago today National Guard troops opened fire on a student protest. Wounding 10 and killing 4, Kent State University became a domestic war zone.

University Students amassed in the morning hours to protest President Richard Nixon's decision to expand the Veitnam War into Cambodia.

 This New War on dissentors of the Federal Government and their wars of aggression and intervention was cemented in this and a few other clashes between students and government thugs "Just doing their jobs".

In all 4 students lost their lives standing up for a principled stance of abstaining from the War in Veitnam. Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

Trying to remain peaceful in the face of authoritarianism. Students place small flowers into the bayonets of the Guardmen's rifles.

"They Can't Kill Us All"
A sign made and hung from the campus building after the shootings. It is a sad and sombering feeling to see this sort of thing happen in the past yet feel it may be coming closer to us again.

The Thought Police are out in full force.

I am not that much of a sports fan, in fact I rarely watch TV at all, but the Sterling/Clippers story has exited the sports arena and some people have entered it into the political sphere. The remarks made by a man speaking to his significant other in his own home have somehow made front page and back page news all over the world. It is no wonder to me on why this has taken place and why it has spread like the proverbial wildfire. The Thought Police of America have taken hold of the racial divide and the opinions and preferences of people; they have raised them up into a cloud of emotional conversation and illogical conclusions, all of this swept into their own idea of justice in the name of equality.

What Sterling did is no different than what has happened since the dawn of man and what is done by almost everyone in their daily lives, preferences and choices made by experiences both positive and negative. These experiences give us the ability to choose association with some and choose not to associate with others.  Are we to say that a mother choose to not send her children to a child care facility that employs someone with a criminal past, is somehow wrong in that decision?  Are we to say that any business that refuses to hire a convicted felon is somehow wrong in their choice? Are we to say that a family choosing where to live in a city should not have the ability to discern where they want to raise their young based on prior experiences or information available? Those examples are ridiculous in the eyes of most, but in relation to what Sterling has said it wouldn’t be far from an appropriate response from the public. These cases are not the same thing some will say. But are they not? Is the choice and right of association not the same in these cases as with Mr. Sterling’s comment?

Is racism real?

Yes, not doubt about that, it is a completely real issue. But to say that men not have the reason to decide on whom they wish to associate with is to say that the thoughts and choices of men are best left to public emotion and the will of the majority. Had Sterling said he didn’t want Asians or Mexicans to attend exhibitions held by the basketball team he owns would this had taken off as it has? We don’t know for sure and nothing is left but to speculate, I will leave that with the reader. The fear of being labeled a racist in 2014 is almost as bad as being labeled a Communist in the 1960’s. It has to do with social engineering I believe and to a certain extent social derision caused by the exploitation by the media of cases such as this one. Recently, as an example of this, the story of Cliven Bundy and the fight for the use of land against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took a serious turn when Mr. Bundy’s comments on the struggles and situations of African Americans and people from Mexico were construed by media outlets to taint him with a racial inferiority ideology. Though many of the volunteers who came to the aid of Mr. Bundy were of the mindset of personal liberty, these innocuous comments were skewed to turn supporters into deserters and to turn the tide on the situation.

Free Speech and Property Rights

In defense of all issues you will hear me say that the individual has the right to do as they wish so long as those wishes do not interfere with the rights of others. This case is no different. This as well as most issues really can be reduced to property rights and free speech. Let’s take Property Rights first. Sterling owns a basketball team; he does not own the stadium they play in at home games nor any of the stadiums they play on the road. He does not own any of the players, they are contracted employees. Mr. Sterling’s comment was to say that he did not want certain people to attend games at a home stadium but since he does not own said stadium he has no way to enforce this preference. He has no way to limit the audience to a specific race, gender, faith or any other collective of choice. Thus this issue is dead at the point of the Property Rights of the owner of the stadium. Likewise if those stadium owners see fit to exclude Sterling from entering their premises it would stand as the right of the owners to do so at their discretion. Second point, Sterling owns the team, not the players. They have the choice and right of association just as he does. If they see fit to leave the employment of Sterling on the basis of disagreement and have satisfied the employment contract or both parties mutually agree on the termination of the contract for difference of opinions or hostility in the workplace they may choose to do so. Third point, as Sterling owns the team; it is entered into a league by mutual beneficial gain; the league may revoke access or contract with the team at any time for any reason {if} there is no contract that must be satisfied or enforced. In this case the lifetime ban of Sterling is a consequence of his words and is in line with contractual precedence and private property rights and the right of association on behalf of the NBA.

On a side note, The National Basketball Association (NBA) has ordered Mr. Sterling to pay a fine of $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA Constitution. If this Constitution (contract) was personally signed by Sterling on the admittance of his team into the league or his place being recognized as the team owner by the Board of Directors of the NBA, Sterling would have no recourse but to pay the fine and accept the punishment of the league. Another part of the plan for punishment is the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver’s request to urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team. The sale of private property should never be left to the will of any majority over the rightful owner; this is clearly a case of over stepping boundaries on the part of the Board of Governors, with exceptions to if this clause was drafted into the NBA constitution and personally signed and recognized by Sterling.

“The family had become in effect an extension of the Thought Police. It was a device by means of which everyone could be surrounded night and day by informers who knew him intimately.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Now after stating my view on that, let’s get back to the Thought Police.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is the lack of privacy and the ability and acceptance by the public of a leak of secretly recorded information. This is a violation of the right to privacy of Sterling and leaves me to wonder the ultimate goal of such a leak. Was it a vendetta or was it to be used as a bargaining chip or blackmail of some sort? Was it purely out of distaste of his words and the only recourse the leaker thought of was to make this private conversation public information?

The emotional responses to this story give the impression that most followers of it have a long held disapproval of racial bigotry or intolerance, but is that the truth? It may well be established that a certain amount of this racial intolerance is accepted by a majority of the public through the guise of government laws, regulations and of course American history. It is no small thing to forget that for well over 100 years this country was segregated by this same ideology and it was widely accepted as a matter of fact of life for colonial and pre civil war America.  It is also stated that this same type of collective separation happens every day in the War on Drugs with a high majority of those incarcerated are done so under laws that predominantly target certain demographics and their habits and traits, their choices and preferences. Is this to say that what they do is wrong? Not necessarily. It is through the propagation of morals and values of the majority through government that the choices and inclinations of the single man are reduced to illegal acts punishable by detention, monetary theft, or the ultimate end of death by government forces.

It is a sad state of affairs when the conversation in a private home can be used to cause a wave of social disturbance and outrage. No threat to life or property had or has taken place and the thoughts of the comments were, though not innocent in nature, were not enforceable in the end. The Thought Police will win this one, as they usually do, in part for the fear of the people of being labeled something unsavory.