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.

Governor Rick Scott and Half the Truth

Governor Rick Scott of Florida released this statement via email earlier today.

 

Breaking News From Governor

Good Morning from Orlando!

It’s official - Florida’s unemployment rate dropped from 6.7 percent in October to 6.4 percent in November.

We haven’t experienced an unemployment rate this low in over five years (July 2008).

At 6.4 percent, we’re well below America’s 7 percent unemployment rate, and we added 6,000 new private sector jobs.

We’ve cut taxes, made government more effective and provided for a brighter future for Florida families. The result: an opportunity economy that created more than 446,000 private sector jobs since December 2010.

To learn more about Florida's incredible turnaround story, click HERE.

Today’s news is great, but we’re not finished. We’re proposing to cut your automobile taxes and fees by $401 million in our next budget. In 2009 those fees were raised, and we’re going to undo that 54 percent increase.

As we continue into the holiday season, Ann and I wish you and your family a healthy and prosperous 2014.

Rick Scott

Governor

 

While this is a great piece of campaign material it of course has its half-truths and full lies. Lets take a look.

1.       Florida’s unemployment rate dropped from 6.7 percent in October to 6.4 percent in November.

Historically employments rates rise beginning in the end of the month of October and will continue until the beginning of January. This sleight of hand trickery is used in almost every political advertisement in an effort to catch reactions on the state of the economy. This is what I would label as the half- truth. It was not the actions of Rick Scott or his administration that led to this rise in employment, but merely out of necessity of the private sector business owners in response to increased shopping during the holiday months. In these months (Oct-Jan) the semblance of an economic recovery or increase will always attract politicians willing to take that easy half-truth and label it their own handiwork

2.       At 6.4 percent, we’re well below America’s 7 percent unemployment rate, and we added 6,000 new private sector jobs.

This statement has multiple falsities in it. Number one is the assumption, though generally wrong, that the national unemployment numbers are at a much lower rate than what they are in fact. The Federal Government uses a few different ways to fudge these numbers, such as not taking into account people who had completely exhausted all unemployment benefits and have decided not to look for work. This miscalculation can lead to an annual increase of 2% on average. Another way to hide the unemployed is to give them a new status, the new term for 2013? Disabled.  The rate of increase of person applying for disability insurance in the State of Florida has risen somewhat proportionately to the decline in unemployed persons receiving benefits.  

The second folly of this statement is the private sector job creation claim. First and foremost, Government does not in any way, shape, or form, have the ability to create a private sector job. ALL jobs created by any government fall under GOVERNMENT JOBS. This CANNOT be stressed enough.  Government is the antithesis to a free market and its increasing regulation a hindrance on business. The numbers put forth in this letter are also in error; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://bls.gov/eag/eag.fl.htm) the State of Florida gained 9,395 private sector jobs in November of 2013 which is where Governor Scott’s office would have gotten their numbers. This is a lie on their part, but why? Why would they purposely alter the numbers to show less private sector job growth? One has to look at the other sectors to find this out. In November of 2013 the State of Florida’s Government grew by 1,070 employees, this 1 to 9 rate is about equal to the 5 previous months average increase of newly hired government workers. While Government increases so does the tax required to keep it running.

 

3.       We’re proposing to cut your automobile taxes and fees by $401 million in our next budget.

The truth about this one is that while Rick Scott may be taking the glory for this one it was not his idea at all. In 2013 two bills were presented in the Florida House and Senate

HB 61 - Motor Vehicle License Taxes

Sponsored by: Hill (CO-SPONSORS) Eagle; Hood; Santiago; Stewart

Filed Sept 18th

 

SB 156 - Motor Vehicle License Taxes

Sponsored by: Negron (CO-SPONSORS) Benacquisto; Clemens; Evers; Brandes; Hukill

Filed: Sept 12th

 

Both of these bills were for lowering the auto registration fee and this bill was talked about LAST session by BOTH Negron and Hill. So how convenient coming up on an election year that Rick Scott can now wave this as his idea and watch the GOP panties drop….. Oh but I forgot to mention this is all after the fee was raised under the GOP congress in 2009.

 

Not as truthful or transparent as anyone would like their politicians to be, Rick Scott has led his campaigns and administrations on half-truths and lies. In 2014 there are multiple reasons to make Rick Scott a one term Governor. 

Paul Walker, Gun Walkers and the other Fast And Furious

     While the internet is ablaze with news of the unfortunate death of actor Paul Walker, best known for his role in the Fast and Furious series of movies, it brings to my mind another story of Fast and Furious.

     In 2010 Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered, that in of itself isn’t much of a breaking news story,  what makes this story any more interesting and why it should be on the forefront of people’s minds is that his murder was committed with weapons sold to Mexican drug cartels by the United States Department of Justice. The department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder has not been held in question of this practice and its result. Though one of the men who was convicted of his murder received a sentence of 57 years. 

     This is just one of the many scandals the current Presidential administration is facing.

     In Operation Fast and Furious, the idea was to sell weapons to drug cartels in Mexico and then trace them back to crimes in the US in hopes of taking down these across the border crimes, and by its stated intentions it worked. Though I’m sure Brian Terry’s loved ones wouldn’t be comforted by this fact. It begs a question of why this is a practice of our government in the first place. To sell weapons to foreign parties in hopes of linking these weapons being used in crimes across our borders seems highly illogical.

      So why is Paul Walker and Fast and Furious more of a news story than Agent Brian Terry and Operation Fast and Furious? Why do the masses care more of a dead movie actor who died because of decisions he made rather than a man who died in a brutal murder assisted by our Government?

Has Free Speech met it's end?

At what point do the natural rights to speak and the right to disagree with something become so volatile that their right must be repressed or obliterated? This is a question that I ask when I hear people lamenting the Westboro Baptist Church's ability to protest.

     Does speech, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant, infringe on the rights of others? Do we have a right to only hear things that we find pleasant or agree with our views? Are we required by some unwritten social rule that we must speak only things that the majority has favored as acceptable?

    

     My opinion would be No that is a ridiculous idea of what we could call our inherent rights. That would be the ultimate example of a Utopian idea. The idea of a list of words and phrases, subjects or topics that can be expressed is frightening but I believe we are inching ever closer to that end.

    

     So why do so many want to limit the free speech of groups such as this? The condemnation of the self-prescribed church is everywhere, and the call for some sort of legislation to limit or abolish the free speech has been drafted. But where will we be when the gavel falls and “Hate speech” has been denounced and criminalized?  The answer is one foot on that slippery slope and the other getting pulled by the “political correctness” crowd.  That next step will be a swift fall down the ever growing cliff of PC. A fall that we will never recover from, for when you restrict the right of one you have set into motion the machine to destroy the rest. As in all cases you cannot legislate morality, or the understanding of right and wrong.

     

     When this country was founded, the thinkers and leaders of the time tried to protect that right as the first in their first organizational rules of order, The Constitution. This natural right now seemingly protected by a piece of paper and the idea that it should in all cases be protected have been ingrained in the people of this country, but as we see now that inherent right is now threatened.

The case against speech coming from the Westboro Church is that is hateful, derogatory or would incite violence against any other being, those being subjective feelings towards he speech I understand that take, but does that feeling mean we can take that right away from people we deem not using it correctly?

     I do not want to be construed as to accept or endorse their behavior or their message. I find it appalling and ignorant personally, but I also understand the individual rights of all human beings and the right to free speech is a foundational one.  While I do not under any circumstances endorse their actions I will under all circumstances remain committed to protect their right to think as they think, speak as they speak and protest in their own way so long as that does not destroy the personal property or life of another. In any instance that property or life is threatened, I will protect that life or property so long as the rightful owner agrees to the outside help.