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. 

Fred Phelps is dead, so why are there people rejoicing?

Fred Phelps the founder of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church has died of natural causes at the age of 84.  I have seen a few friends, acquaintances, news agencies and online writers begin to revel in the death of this man and I have to ask why. Why are we rejoicing in the death of any man, no matter their behavior or actions in their lives? Why would we hold a grudge against someone in their death? Quite a few people have even talked of replicating this man’s behavior by picketing his own funeral. So my question to them would be; for what end? What would be the point of continuing the behavior and hate of this man and his “church”? What purpose does it serve to continue the vitriol of the ilk of Westboro Baptist Church?

My thoughts on this topic began well before the passing of Mr. Phelps and could best be traced to the killing of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. 

Many people rejoiced in the news that these two notorious people had been killed, but I sat wondering why? What joy did they get from the death of a man? What had been gained or lost? What does it say about the mindset of those individuals? Some call themselves strong pro-life believers yet here they are rejoicing in death. It is a strange paradox to me. how can one hold the thought that all life is precious and in the same breath say that a man should die for his actions? 

Mr. Phelps spent some years protesting military service member’s funerals, causing great anguish for the families. So what does it say about those that would do the same for this man. Even the father of a fallen US soldier whose funeral was used in the attacks on gays and military members has said do not give him that satisfaction, do not honor him or his message by falling to his level.

A writer for the Washington Post who had been on the receiving end of the Westboro protests years earlier has left this same message, “Instead, what if those on the receiving end of Phelps’s ideology did the opposite, which is to say, let him go quietly — and without protest — into that good night? Imagine the karma lesson that would be to all those who have supported Westboro Baptist.”

I couldn’t have said it better

Addressing Moral Character

I was reading Lawrence Reeds Are We Good Enough For Liberty and something hit me as a profound thought I have been neglecting for some time. He says, “What those Founders were getting at is the notion that liberty is built upon the ability of a society to govern itself, without government intervention. This ability to self-govern is itself built upon – you guessed it- Individual Character.”

I do think this is an important part of self-governance and self-rule, to hold character that would be not harmful to any other man around you, so that no outside governance would be needed. But that is not how our society is, is it? Most would say no, and most would give plenty of reason why they would believe that, but many would also neglect to mention their own fear of what they would do without some sort of governing body telling them what is right and wrong and punishing them for their own transgressions.

Along these line Jeffrey Tuckers recent article in FEE’s (Foundation for Economic Education) publication The Freeman titled “Against Libertarian Brutalism” has caused a giant storm of backlash on what I see as a quite ironic misunderstanding. Mr. Tucker’s words reflected what I think is seen as a negative to the furtherance of the message of liberty. There are those that would use the idea of freedom to pursue name calling, derogatory messages or bullying in their words. When approached as being mean, insensitive or slightly ignorant in their choice they throw out, “I am free to do it” and right they would be in that aspect, but being right and having moral character enough not to do it are two entirely different things.  There are also those that use their freedom to help others, to further a recognition of what freedom can bring, to educate others that the ugliness we see doesn't have to remain, if only those with virtue and character step forward to the light and to do what needs to be done whether someone I watching or not.

I myself have had this run in on local Facebook forums and pages. Recently a “Leader” of a Young Republicans group began insulting those he disagreed with by calling them “retards” and Paultards”. When I pointed it out to him, and the rest of the silent group, I was attacked as if I was trying to silence him, to restrict his speech, but this was not the case. My point was to get him to understand that the words he has effects and to call anyone by those names is absolutely unacceptable in my eyes. He continued to assault me with constant derogatory names and continued to threaten me. I sent the National Group of the Young Republicans a screenshot of the conversation between him and I and simply stated that it may be of some interest to them that their local representation acts like this. No call for removal, no call to silence, no muting him, just that they should be aware. Apparently they contacted him quite quickly and he increased his assault on the online thread we had begun.  To make this shorter I can say I was removed from this group and it is for the best. It was a good lesson for me that even I had used those exact same words in a derogatory manner before, but I have progressed since then.

I think what counts in the end is to be able to look back and say that you have learned from your behavior, both bad and good, and have made amends to those who hurt, helped those you can and to live a life worth mention in some way to someone.

I think that individual character has a lot to do with individual liberty, and I think that the more people that embrace this idea the better the world can become. Mr. Reed sums it up quite well on the back cover of his book, “Without character, a free society is not just unlikely…. It is impossible.”

And the young will take the mantle of liberty...

This is a letter to the editor of "The Citizen" a newspaper in Peachtree Georgia. It is written by a 15 year old in response to her high schools practice of infringing on inherent rights of individuals. Her understanding of private property rights and the no victim no crime principle is encouraging to me. 

[Editor’s note: The following email is from a 15-year-old freshman girl at McIntosh High School. Although she provided her name and address, we are not printing that information.]

Many students might have and should have signed the “Student Code of Conduct” in the beginning of the year. This “contract” had to be signed for students to attend classes.

Most students, me included, did not read the Code of Conduct. It was just another silly form students had to sign to please the administrators.

As it turns out we should have read the 30-page “rule book.” When I signed my name at the bottom of the green slip of paper, I did not realize I was signing away my basic human and constitutional rights.

I have been told by multiple teachers and upperclassmen, “You’re a freshman, you’ll learn that in high school you have no rights.” I nodded in agreement and thought it was just another made-up stereotype of high school.

Recently I experienced this absolute lack of rights. Only the other day I was out in the hall before school started, showing my friend a picture on my phone. A staff member I didn’t recognize, later identified as [name omitted], approached me and asked for both our phones.

How was I to know she was a teacher? I had never seen her before and she was not wearing a badge, only a name tag.

While my friend handed hers over, I politely declined, stating that it is my private property, which it was. Not only had school not started yet, but she had no valid reason to ask for the phone.

It’s not as if I was showing something explicit (it was my dog) or that my phone was an explosive device. She then asked for my name which I also refused to give. In defense of this, I did not know who she was. When a random stranger approaches you and asks for both your phone and your name, do you just hand it over?

I later find myself with three days of ISS (in-school suspension) for “Insubordination: failure to comply with the directions of a staff member.”

There was no insubordination, only a student acting on the rights she believed she had as not a citizen of the United States but as a human.

In the agenda on the first page it states, “Positive relationships and mutual respect among students and staff enhance student learning.” While I showed respect, I received none from [name omitted]. She behaved as if I had committed a crime when I refused to hand her my phone, when in actuality it was the other way around.

According to [a school official], students are not permitted to have devices out unless supervised by a teacher.

We all know that at least half of the students are always on their phones, yet not all of them are punished. According to administrators this is because there is not a large enough staff to enforce it on every single student.

If you can’t enforce it on all students equally, you should not be picking out certain students. This is a form of bullying, and as I remember McIntosh has an “anti-bullying” policy.

We are also not allowed to have the devices unsupervised since the moment we step foot on campus. I’ll admit, I didn’t know this, but what troubled me most was that McIntosh is the only high school in the county with that rule.

My argument was that I have basic human rights to my own property, and as I was not violating anybody else’s right, there is no room for any type of punishment. [The official] then informs me that as soon as students step foot on campus theoretically they do not have rights.

Again on the first page of the agenda right under the bolded word “Belief Statements,” it states, “Public education is the foundation of a free society.” How is this true if we are treated with no rights whatsoever?

Students are not only bullied by teachers, but also have their rights taken away. Learn from my mistake; logic and human rights will not defend your case against the administration acting like children.

Name withheld at editor’s discretion
Peachtree City, Ga.

Originally published at http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/03-18-2014/freshman-decries-loss-rights

Arizona and the Discrimination Law?

Arizona became a hotspot for news earlier this month due to its highly contested “Religious Freedom Bill” or as the opposition calls it “The Anti-Gay bill” or “The Freedom to Discriminate Bill”. What is Arizona Senate Bill 1062[1]? How does it affect the populace? Is it Constitutional? Is it a way for more people to find an excuse to discriminate? Let’s take a look at it from a view angles and you can make up your own mind.

Is Arizona Senate Bill 1062 Constitutional?

The United States Constitution DOES NOT lay out specific stipulations or protections for the lifestyle choices of individuals. Why Not? The US Constitution is a blanket document, meant to encompass every single person regardless of race, creed, nationality, or preference. The only mention of the separation of creeds is the Commerce clauses in regards to Native American Tribes. The Constitution does however lay out some other protections and stipulations. The 10^th amendment spells out that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution shall be retained by each individual state, States Rights, but is this issue of state’s rights. Yes and No in my opinion. The Arizona Government should not in any way interfere in the religious or business practices of any individuals or groups. Do they have the power to? Absolutely, that power has been vested to them by the citizens of the state. Constitutionally speaking the entirety of this bill is admissible by the First Amendment , “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it a discrimination bill?

Kate Kendall [2] of the National Center for Lesbian Rights notes, “It’s a flat out violation of well-established protections against discrimination based on race and gender”.  First let’s define discrimination. Merriam-Webster [3] defines it as: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

The latter 2 definitions sound like decision making or comparative value to me. The first definition is a little more complex. Discrimination due to variances of color, creed, nationality, gender whatever is not new, actually it is very old, and it is part of the human condition. To analyze and value each separate thing or person differently is a matter of unconscious thought and conscious action. The ability to differentiate subjective values is what drives everyday human existence. Red car or blue car? Bagel for breakfast or eggs and toast? This job or that one?  All of these and more are small discriminations or choices based on previous knowledge, experiences or beliefs. Is this to say that actions that lead someone to treat others differently for preferences or uncontrollable circumstances are wrong?  Moral thought is to the individual’s subjective value or relative value; you cannot collect nor legislate morality or popular opinion without discriminating or leaving someone out.

Where does religion come into this?

The bill is being touted by some as “The Religious Freedom Bill” and as it is written it would seem this is the driving force behind its existence.  The bill allows business owners, pastors or any individual to assert religious beliefs when refusing service to gay, lesbian, and transgender people; among others. As written can  this bill can be construed to allow discrimination between faiths, as to say that those of Jewish faith could refuse service to any other practitioners of any opposing religion and vice versa.  Religious Freedom is a cornerstone to this country and to millions of people across it. It has been the foundation for numerous civil cases and appeals since its inauguration into the Constitution. It is an inherent right to be able to practice whichever faith one chooses without hindrance. This bill does not in any way stop that right but furthers the right of refusal based on religious beliefs. As written it would only protect those business owners in court who based on their religious beliefs refused service to someone.

Is this a case of Private Property Rights?

When this story first broke this was my assessment. The right of any property owner to refuse or allow whatever actions to take place on such property is the foundation for private property rights. This bill would allow these business owners to thereby escape from any suit in regards to this refusal of service on the basis of religious right. Is this discrimination? Yes and No. It is the sole decision of the property owners on how to handle their business. If a property owner dislikes tall people and makes a policy to not serve tall people he has reduced his marketable share in the economic sector, this is true of any restriction or regulation placed by business owners, on the other hand government does this without regard to marketable shares to very business with their ever increasing amounts of regulations and red tape politics. Private Property is a key element to a free society and as such should be protected by those who strive for free markets and economic prosperity.

What this bill is not.

In reading this bill and its amendments I have found no reference to gays, lesbians, same sex couples, or any other group of people. I have not seen in its pages any regards to any specific lifestyle choice or even religious choice. It is completely ambiguous in its terminology and meanings and would be highly contested if allowed to pass.

Think about this for a moment.

This bill, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, was a perfect storm of emotion over logic and fear over reason. Any discrimination that could go on with its passing can still go on after its veto, though the property owners run risk of civil suit if they attempt it. In my mind it is simply a case of property rights and owner’s discretion over religious beliefs or any form of discrimination. But I leave it for you to decide.

[1] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/push-behind-arizona-religious-freedom-law-has-long-history-n38611

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Image Link https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=MyaeCqzn8lHymM&tbnid=bcyM1Fv0GRui9M:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuptownmagazine.com%2F2014%2F02%2Farizona-governor-vetoes-sb-1062-transcript-remarks%2F&ei=eQ8VU96CJ82fkAeU4YHACQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFrPthdy52DOPMPN9uPKknaUCaZ1Q&ust=1393975513306556

Other links:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/time-for-everything/transcript-of-arizona-state-bill-1062-20253/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/jan-brewer-veto-speech-in-arizona.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140227arizona-spotlight-swings-new-bill.html