Oklahoma attack. 9/26/2014

Regarding the "attack" today in Oklahoma.

Until photo evidence is produced I cannot reasonably believe this man had enough time to behead someone, and attack another. I can believe slitting the throat, cutting a large portion of neck area or even multiple stabs to the neck.

Regarding the claim this man tried to "convert" others. This could be an exaggerated claim. He may have spoken to others of his conversion and how or why they may convert, or it could just be an unsubstantiated claim made out of sensationalism and recklessness.

In any case the events of the day are horrible and should be denounced by all that reject any such acts.

On the James Foley video

I finally watched the Foley "beheading"  video and along with that 3 others from people claiming to be of the same group ISIS, ISIL or any of their other aliases. To note that in every other video these groups or people have never cut away while the victim was being beheaded and the presence of large amounts of blood from the very beginning of the cutting, it is missing from the Foley video and the cutaway that takes place. Along with that there is the higher tech that was used in the Foley video to place a small waving ISIS flag in the upper corner of the video, it is not to say that the groups have not been able to acquire the equipment or knowledge to do this, but that is out of routine for them to do so. I also noticed a part of the Foley video that seems to imply a portion had to be cut away for some unknown reason.

All in all I am not going to say that Foley is still alive and it was all just a rouse, it seems very much like a staged event and one that sets a new precedent for what will happen in those countries as America and the world deals with what is going on.

Video experts have been analyzing this video since it's release and some have noted the very same instances and examples as I have. It is not to say that any of us are correct but that there are others who have the experience to make a judgement call on this video.

In closing I do feel sorry for Foley's parents, his family and friends. It is a sad state of affairs that a man who was in a country for the sole purpose of journalism was captured, tortured and ultimately killed for the actions of others. Time will tell if these instances will continue or if more aggressive means will be used to prevent the groups in those countries from moving forward with their plans.

I will not link the video, as anyone can easily find it themselves and I do not want to advance the viewership of anyone promoting it as an acceptable means of behavior or entertainment in any way.

What I do have to say of the message in the video. The member of ISIS uses the intervention into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other Middle Eastern Nations as their purpose of this act. As a non-interventionist I believe that all  intervention has effects such as this, as does all foreign aid. Both of these policies drive a hatred of America because of an act perpetrated by American Politicians. it is far past time for others to realize this. This can be a lesson for a new direction in foreign policy or it can be used as a propaganda tool for furthering the intervention and increased wartime spending and operations.

Do Philosophies Change Because of Children?

Yesterday my wife and I were at the gym, when a woman interjected herself into our conversation. The conversation we were having ,before this interruption, was on a small bit of success I had that day talking to a co-worker. This woman, who unbeknownst to us had been listening in, asked us if we have any children. We responded with a no, and she told us that our thinking would change if we had kids and it is nice to be idealistic. This caused me to just turn and silently laugh to myself. I honestly do not know where people come up with some of this stuff, but OK, let's address this real quick.

My wife and I do not have kids based on choices we have made to be financially secure enough to not have to struggle if and when we do have children. Our goal is to have a single income home with my wife homeschooling our kids, as it is right now, with debt we had put ourselves into and other very visible issues with the World and US economy it is not feasible at this particular time, that is a decision we live with daily, as both of have a goal to have children.

What this woman had assumed is that with having children our ideology or philosophy would change. That may be true in some cases, but she failed to realize or even acknowledge that she had not the faintest idea of what our philosophy is or what our beliefs are. To understand that what we advocate is freedom for every person and the economic conditions to prosper for everyone, free of state or government control, to rid the world of any semblance of servitude or slavery of any kind. I am not sure how this would change having a child.

This is not the first time I have heard this being said. It is quite a popular expression to tell others that their ideals, their morals, and their values change with the addition of parental roles. I have never understood this concept.

I believe theft is wrong, would this somehow become moral if a child was involved? Taking someone's life is also wrong in my eyes, would this somehow be altered if I had considered the effect it would have on my child. I am not sure what people who use this saying are trying to express or even what they believe how a moral standing, a philosophy would change with having a child.

I did not respond to this woman's claim, though looking back I should have. I could have asked these questions to her, maybe to find she doesn't actually believe in what she just said, or maybe to find her justify what she said with fallacies or even popular myths and excuses.

What needs to be said is this. By changing the dynamics and structure of family units a real philosophical and moral standing should not change but become ever stronger. It should be passed on and expressed to the heirs and inheritors to the spaces we inhabit and the world we leave behind. It should be lived, experienced and taught to those we bring into this world, with no exceptions or justifications for going against these beliefs.

To this woman I say this. Your unfounded accusation and assumption that a belief would change as the family unit count increases was completely unwanted and unwarranted. What you said may be the case with some people, but in those cases I would say that the beliefs or morals of those people were not solid, they were not the philosophical foundation  that these people try to live their lives around and they were not the values that were likely to be taught and carried on to later generations.

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.

Rights Violations Aren’t The Only Bads

 January 17th, 2014

The following article was written by Sheldon Richman and published at The Future of Freedom Foundation, January 17, 2014.

More than a few libertarians appear to hold the view that only rights violations are wrong, bad, and deserving of moral condemnation. If an act does not entail the initiation of force, so goes this attitude, we can have nothing critical to say about it.

On its face, this is strange. If you observe an adult being rude to his elderly mother, it is surely reasonable for you to be appalled, even though the offender did not use force. And, being appalled, you may be justified under the circumstances in responding, such as by cancelling a social engagement or telling others of his obnoxious behavior. One can reasonably say that this person’s mother is owed better treatment, without the word owed implying legal, that is, coercive, enforceability. (Words can have different senses, of course.) Therefore, the rude son may be judged culpable.

This example may be uncontroversial, but observe the attitude in another context. I recently argued that “intellectual property” (IP) can’t really be property (as can land, cars, and socks) and that it is, rather, a government grant of monopoly power over expressions of ideas, which perforce limits other people in the use of their property, while creating scarcities where there would have been none.

The article brought vigorous critical responses, one of which informed me that if I don’t believe that expressions of ideas can be owned, I would have no right to object if someone were to plagiarize or adulterate my written work.

Before diving in, I’d like to draw attention to the strange habit IP proponents have of bringing up plagiarism (or adulteration) as soon as the legitimacy of copyright is challenged. This is strange because so-called copyright infringement per se differs in a crucial respect from plagiarism. The publishing industry doesn’t strenuously lobby the government for fortified copyright laws because it is worried I will publish Atlas Shrugged with my name on the cover. (Who’d buy it?) On the contrary, it worries that I (or someone else) will publish the novel with Ayn Rand’s nameon the cover. Copyright and plagiarism must be considered apart from each other.
Be that as it may, the premise of my critic’s claim — that I cannot logically object to plagiarism or adulteration because I don’t believe expressions of ideas can be owned — must be that theonly legitimate ground for objection would be that these activities are property violations. So if they are not property violations, there is no basis to complain.

With all due respect, this is ridiculous. One who rejects the legitimacy of intellectual property can still have perfectly good moral grounds for objecting to the plagiarist’s or adulterator’s misconduct. Libertarians ought to think long and hard before buying the idea that rights violations are the only species of wrongful conduct.

If someone attaches his name to something I wrote, the plagiarist’s declaration that he is not a thief (because expressions of ideas cannot be owned) is hardly germane. I would not accuse him of being a thief. Rather, I’d accuse him of being a fake — of pretending to have accomplished something he in fact did not accomplish. Likewise, the adulterator is not a thief, but a fraud who misrepresents what he sells. Both are to be held in contempt for they have violated Kant’s maxim to treat each person “never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” Their assertions that they are not thieves are as relevant as a burglar’s assertion that he is not a murderer.

Slight digression: Metaphor pervades all language. When one says that a copyright infringer “stole” from an author or publisher, one cannot mean this literally (no pun intended), for what was actually stolen? We can easily imagine an “infringement” that entails no physical violation whatsoever. IP has the impossible premise that an author or publisher owns a Platonic form of a work, which is embodied in, yet transcends, every physical instantiation of that work, even those owned by other people. In other words, you can buy a book, but you cannot buy the book. The anti-IP response is that abstractions cannot be owned.

The upshot is that a rejecter of IP may justly take offense at the plagiarism or adulteration of his work and expose the fakes and scoundrels. “The same mechanisms that make copying easy make plagiarism very difficult,” Karl Fogel writes in “The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World.”

I should add that customers may justly claim they are victims of fraud. On what grounds? On the same grounds that any fraud victim has: The buyers were tricked into entering transactions on terms other than those they would have agreed to. The remedy might come through a class-action suit, the award being a refund plus costs. (Context is crucial. Someone who buys a $10 Rolex on the streets of Manhattan probably cannot credibly claim that he thought he was buying a genuine Rolex.)

What I’m arguing for is a commonsense category of noninvasive moral offenses, wrongful acts that do not involve force. Since force plays no part, the remedies must not entail force (state-backed or otherwise) either. But forced-backed remedies are not the only — or even the best — remedies available. Nonviolent responses, including boycotts, shunning, and gossip, can be highly effective.

Libertarians ought to beware of embracing such a narrow view of morality that only forceful invasions of persons and property are deserving of moral outrage and response. Think of all the cruel ways people can treat others without lifting a hand. Are we to remain silent in the face of such abuse?

The erroneous belief that only conduct for which a coercive response is appropriate — that is, rights violations — may be condemned leads too easily to the corollary error that if some conduct is deserving of condemnation, it must somehow be a rights violation. The initiation of force is not the only bad thing in the world.


Also found at Center for a Stateless Society 

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. 

Florida Sheriffs and the fight against Marijuana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Florida Liberty Summit Ron Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                                       "The Revolution is in the Ideas"

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.”