What are you paying for?

The raging wildfires in California brought up a unique point to my wife and she asked me to expound on it here.

When the people of this nation are extorted for billions of their hard earned dollars every year, when they are forced to pay the privilege of subservience, there is some level of belief that the funds they are paying in are going to be used for somewhat basic needs and variable necessities. But what if it doesn't? What happens when everything you thought you were funding is actually a farce? What is to be made of the fact that even for that belief in the priorities of the government your money is not being used in the ways it is advertised to you? What happens when a person is further hurt by the inefficiencies of government and their misuse of money?

Taking the recent wildfires raging in California as an example. The people whose homes are on the edge of destruction are probably expecting some sort of government intervention based on the money they have been forced to pay for services currently held in monopoly by the state and local government. But what is happening? The fire departments are deciding which homes to save and which ones to overlook. So who decides on the triage status of these properties? Who gets to decide if a home is to be saved or allowed to be destroyed? How should those people who have paid for a protectionist service such as a fire department be compensated for the inability of the department to provide the service they are intended for? What recourse do those that have now paid for services, and not received appropriate actions from these mandatory services, really have?

The same can be said of police departments and their "services". If a man is injured or killed and has paid for these protectionary  government agencies, what now happens to reclaim losses or injuries? The agency has obviously not performed a duty right? The police slogan being to protect and serve, the first mentioned duty as protectors has not been provided. In the instance of a man being robbed, the police are in most cases called after the act has taken place, these crimes go mostly unsolved as clues can not or will not (willfully) not be found. A great deal of what police officers do are what is known as reactionary measures. This means that police by and large do not stop crime from happening but merely respond after a crime has been committed. They try to recreate a scene and to collect information to further an investigation of the matter. This leaves people to still be victims and no recourse for the inability of police to "stop" crime from happening. Now this problem could be solved by the hiring of a private security force, to dispel any threats against the life and property of a contracted client. Mostly wealthy individuals choose this route as their preferred choice, knowing that in the instant a threat is made their personal protection agency and its enforcers are there to act. So what happens if a private security firm fails in their actions. The contract, if written to include clauses, could provide all recourse measures, including recuperation of monetary losses.  


It is a failure of government that highlights the free market alternative for fire and police services. In a world where people are free to choose their own protection and not be forced to submit authority or be extorted for money to fund mandatory services, a market of competing and cooperating companies is possible. Think of a service that includes the service of fire suppression and prevention for a fee, by contract and with means to collect losses if they occur. Think of a service that allowed person to hire security forces for themselves and to also collect looses on the occasion of breach of contracts or failure to provide adequate services to the contract holder. This is not so out of the ordinary or far fetched, it is simply a new way to look at the choices, preferences and right of association and contracts of free people and free markets. All the services currently held in monopoly by government can be provided in a market without the use of force or coercion.

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. 

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.

Libertarian Duck Hunting

     With so much media attention and public outcry over the ramblings of a member of A&E's hit television show "Duck Dynasty"
I wanted to take a minute and talk about why as Libertarians this is a great exercise in property rights and natural rights.

Property rights.

     A&E is an entertainment channel, and as such spends a lot of time and resources creating new and exciting shows. Their biggest in recent history undoubtedly is "Duck Dynasty". Now having never watched the show I can only go by its description by my satellite provider. The news of Phil Robertson's GQ interview spread like wildfire and drew quite a bit of attention to the company as well as the family. Under fire for something that was said in that interview, A&E suspended Mr. Robertson indefinitely. This is of course their right of association, they have the right to be associated with whoever they wish and can choose at any time to completely drop the show or to remove persons from it as the show is the property of A&E not the Robertson's. This is standard operating procedure and in no way infringes on Robertson's Right to free speech, A&E simply disassociated themselves from the situation and removed the stage to which Mr. Robertson was accustomed.

Natural rights.

     Mr. Robertson said a great many things that are controversial, and a great many people have either defended his ideology or have denounced it. But in all truthfulness, it doesn't matter if you like what he said, or how he sees the world or those living in it. It is his natural right to say these things and think the way he does. The natural right to speak or even think about things society have deemed unsavory or unpopular is one of the greatest tests of tolerance and real protection of rights there is.

     So while the media spins this as their entertainment piece taking us out of this year and as millions of people either come to his defense or come to protest A&E or any other sponsors or mercantilists peddling the show or the family's wares, we must keep in mind the rights of not only Mr. Robertson but also A&E, it's parent company, sponsors and merchandise sellers. As I said in a previous post the right to free speech cannot be restricted to that which is only positive to everyone and that everyone can agree upon. It has its repercussions, as Mr. Robertson and A&E are feeling now. As Libertarians this is a wonderful exercise in the natural rights of speech as well as the right of association. Do not let either the right or the left attack your stance, this has nothing to do with A&E and as well has nothing to do with the Robertson's family or their beliefs, this is solely an issue of Natural Rights.