"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles"

Although Eugene Debs was an Anti-Capitalistic Union Socialist, rising to run for President of the US many times, he had a certain truth about War. It is never those that declare war that are required to fight it, Why?

This is a quote from a speech in Canton Ohio speech in 1918.

"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell.

They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.

And here let me emphasize the fact — and it cannot be repeated too often — that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.

"Yours not to reason why;

Yours but to do and die."

That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace."


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs.

Ultimately this speech would lead to the imprisonment of Debs for his active opposition of the United States Government's use of conscription to fill ranks and boots during its intervention into World War 1.


"On Sept. 14, 1918, Judge D. C. Westenhauer issued his sentence, sending Debs to prison for ten years. An appeal by Debs to the U.S. Supreme Court failed and in April 1919 he entered the Moundsville, West Virginia, state prison (which housed some federal detainees) to begin serving his jail term. Two months later, he was transferred to the Atlanta federal prison from which he ran his fifth and final presidential campaign. In the 1920 election, Debs captured his highest vote total ever (913,664), but the Socialist party's total vote percentage dropped to three percent.

On Christmas Day in 1921, the man who defeated Debs for president, Warren G. Harding, commuted his sentence to time served and Debs returned home to Terre Haute. Debs continued to speak and write for the socialist cause during the next few years, but was in poor health due to his prison experience and the effects of his grueling work schedule throughout his adult life. He died in Lindlahr sanitarium just outside of Chicago on Oct. 20, 1926." via The Anarchist Encyclopedia.

*NOTE*

I do believe it is in the best interest of people to be aware of those that fought against the issues we are still seeing today. I do not, in any way, agree with Mr. Debs on his notion or belief that Socialism is a better social and/or economic system than Capitalism,but I do acknowledge his work in the Non-Intervention, Anti-Conscription, and Human Rights Causes. We may not agree on everything 100% of the time but we should recognize those that put effort into beliefs that we do hold in common.

Are they Rights or Permissions?

I have heard a few people recently exclaim they do not believe in the theory of "Natural Rights" but more in a theory that we, as humans, can do only what outside persons allow us to do or help us to do. This seems a crazy concept to myself, and probably to quite a few of my readers, so I wanted to take a moment to touch on this idea, and to ask for any feedback on the idea of  "permissible actions rather than explicit natural rights"

The beginning of this theory it is said relates to the young, the newly born, the ones unable to provide for themselves to ensure their safety, security, and prosperity. This part of the theory relies on the fact that as an infant, and what I would supposed to be also the case in a geriatric stage, that these beings need help to perform tasks and actions just for their basic survival. This is said to be the stage at which a person would not have a right to anything but rather a dependency on others to perform actions for it and can choose whether or not to do so.
Question: Under this theory I can conclude these people to say that a child has no "right" to live but only a permission to do so under the care of others, is this to say that even after birth, a child, a human being has no right to life and can be killed by its caretakers on a notion that they did not give permission for its survival and chose not to nurture the child until it was self sufficient?

That is a maddening thought to me; one that takes away the most basic humanity of people and subjects them to a form of barbarity and cruelty I do not want to know or ever allow to exist. I would seriously question the morality of anyone who dares to agree to that.


Under this theory all human action is delegated to permissions from what we can label "society". If this society allows us to own a home, we can, but if they do not than we cannot. This point can be taken with all property, actions, and production. In this theory only that which is allowed, by what I am to assume is a majority, can be be done. What a scary theory indeed. A socialistic, communal, decision can affect the lives of everyone. But let us not think of it only in what can be called negative rights or what is not permitted. Let us take this theory to positive rights or permissions.
If this society were to condone and endorse an act of taking someone's life for a small transgression against another, say you ran over their flower garden (if they are allowed to have one) with your car (if you are allowed to have one) and the result of this would be in the norm for the transgressor to be killed by the victim.
What has been done to justify the taking of life? What has been done to rectify the situation other than to kill the other party? What positive effect can come of this?

If in this self indulgent society where permission is a valid use of force and judgement of others, the idea were to arise that an act in violation of one's morals were to become routine and customary, made to be privy to the permission of the majority vote, would they then regard the notion of permission over rights as invalid?

Rights exist regardless of the permission granted by anyone, it is the practice of those rights that is in question of permissibility. In that, a look into private property rights would be more influential.
If a man were to allow or disallow an act in or on their property, it is the act of permission that can be charged as hindering rights.  In that aspect all property owners have a right to refuse or allow whatever actions they feel comfortable with and assume all risks therein in response to those actions. It is still not to say that natural rights do not exist, but that the practice of those rights have been trumped by others natural rights.

This entire argument bases itself on the thought that Natural Rights do not exist when in fact it is a study into the permission of the practice of those rights that is the argument. One can do well to recognize the argument as a fallacious debate on two entirely different aspects of human behavior and interaction.

On Constitutional Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary questions.

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

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

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.

Is Liberty Subjective?

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

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

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

Can people not recognize Freedom?

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

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

Is Liberty Subjective?

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

Right to Life and the Right to Die: Rethinking what that means.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life. What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets of some people I have conversed with recently.

I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.

 Three areas I see in conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated laws restricting them.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?

The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance, odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me. If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not. As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry from a firm stance on that philosophy.

In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit to take life from the Pro-Life believers.  If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted authority you claim to have.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?

The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions. Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means; repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain the protection of their life?

The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.

Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life? Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.  

I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go.  To let the choice be made and to exit in the time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace the act of death for one to live a life worth living.

Right to Life and Pro-Life labels being thrown around leaves a lot to be defined.  Let this be my contribution to the thought of what it can mean to be Pro-Life in all instances, what it means to take a serious, principled stance for the protection of life under all circumstances. 

Do No Harm... Even against Police.

I have been seeing stories lately dealing with persons or groups of people targeting police officers for physical altercations. I am against this as a trend and I wanted to take a moment to explain why. No I do not have a soft spot for the police. No I do not secretly work for a Law Enforcment agency. It is on principle of the axiom of Do No Harm. In essence the Non-Aggression Principle in action. If it is not in self defense or the defense of another it is violence, unjust, uncalled for and equally wrong in comparison to the actions in which police officers often use.

For those stories I have seen or heard lately some have been in response to prior events not dealing with the person or group that is making the attack on the officer(s).
One such case is a story of a woman who was tased by an officer while handcuffed. Other officers looked on and allowed this person to be tased repeatedly by a fellow officer. Weeks after the story was made public a small group of men took it upon themselves to find and physically harm the officer, causing minor injuries. This is against all logical retorts to self preservation or self-defense. This group went out of their way, after the primary event had subsided, to find this officer. To track him down, follow and stalk him until they could attack. This is a lowdown and dirty tactic by thugs and one usually associated with the police themselves. It is not an act that should be taken by those who wish to turn a course on the treatment of individuals by police officers.

The use of force on a person not in the preservation or defense of oneself or another in proximity is unexcusably unjustified and shameful. It leads to no other response from law enforcement officers but to retaliate on another helpless victim, continuing a cycle of violence and breeding a war of sorts between the public and the police.

It has been broadcast on social media sites, websites, personal blogs and Youtube videos, those that endorse this type of behavior, those that willingly admit to beliving this to be a admirable result and glorifying the culprits of the attacks. Some will say that even not in the protection of life or limb while in the presence of an officer one should have the right tot use this force based on the prior experiences and history of police brutality. Wholeheartedly I disagree, this is an unprovoked violation of a principled stance to not cause physical harm to others.

In a world gone mad we have police beating people and people beating police, continuing a cycle that will lead to a head and can usher in a higher police state presence and the ultimate loss of freedoms for even those not involved. Fight the State, not through their Modis Operandi, but through peaceful means. Spread ideas, not violence. Live as an example to a better world, live as an example what what it means to value liberty even in the darkest holes of state control and operation. This is not a plea for passification, it is not a plea to not defend yourself or other from abuse by state thugs. It is the spreading of the idea that even force can be met with non-violence and still win. If your only recourse is to cause violence than your ideas are narrow and your mind is closed.

Live by a standard. Live for something.

Do No Harm
Live the Non-Agression Principle

INVADE THE WORLD By Murray N. Rothbard

When Communism and the Soviet Union collapsed several years ago, it seemed evident that a massive reevaluation of American foreign policy had to get under way. For the duration of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was simply a bipartisan interventionist crusade against the Soviet Union, and the only differences were precisely how far the global intervention should go.

But when the Soviet Union fell apart, a rethinking seemed absolutely necessary, since what could form the basis of U.S. policy now? But among the intellectual pundits and elites, the molders of U.S. and even world opinion, virtually no rethinking has occurred at all. Except for Pat Buchanan and us paleos, U.S. foreign policy had proceeded as usual, as if the Cold War collapse never happened. How? Buchanan and the "neo-isolationists" urged that American intervention be guided strictly by American national interest. But the liberal/neocon alliance, now tighter than ever before (now that Soviet Communism, which the neocons were harder on, has disappeared), pretended to agree, and then simply and cunningly redefined "national interest" to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun. Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That's a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That's our national interest. Is some government not a "democracy" as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest.

And so every grievance everywhere constitutes our national interest, and it becomes the obligation of good old Uncle Sam, as the Only Remaining Superpower and the world's designated Mr. Fixit, to solve each and every one of these problems. For "we cannot stand idly by" while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime.

It should be clear that there is now virtually no foreign policy distinction between the liberals and the neocons, the Tony Lewises and Bill Safires, Commentary and the Washington Post. Wherever the problem is, the liberal-neocon pundits and laptop bombardiers are all invariably whooping it up for U.S. intervention, for outright war, or for the slippery-slope favorite of "sanctions." Sanctions, the step-by-step escalation of intervention, is a favorite policy of the warmongers. Calling for immediate bombing or invading of Country X as soon as a grievance starts would seem excessive and even nutty to most Americans, who don't feel the same sense of deep commitment to the U.S.A. as Global Problem-Solver as do the pundits and elites. And sanctions can temporarily slake the thirst for belligerence. And so it's sanctions: starving the villains, cutting off transportation, trade, confiscating their property in terms of financial assets, and finally, when that doesn't work, bombing, sending troops, etc. Troops are usually sent first as purely "humanitarian" missionaries, to safeguard the "humane" aid of the UN "peacekeepers." But in short order, the benighted natives, irrationally turning against all this help and altruism, begin shooting at their beloved helpers, and the fat is in the fire, and the U.S. must face the prospects of sending troops who are ordered to shoot to kill.

In recent weeks, in addition to humanitarian troops, there had been escalating talk of American "sanctions": against North Korea of course, but also against Japan (for not buying more U.S. exports), against Haiti, against the Bosnian Serbs (always referred to as the "self-styled" Republic of Srpska, – this in contrast to all other governments "styled" by others?). Jesse Jackson wants the U.S. to invade Nigeria pronto, and now we have Senators Kerry (D., Mass.) calling for sanctions against our ancient foe, Canada, for not welcoming New England fishermen in its waters.

OK, the time has come to get tough and to get consistent. Sanctions are simply the coward's and the babbler's halfway house to war. We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of "freedom," "free trade," "multiculturalism," and "expanding democracy."

And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN.

But how will we Look in the Eyes of World Opinion if we invade the world? Not to worry; we can always get the cover of our kept stooges in the UN, NATO, or whatever. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who is already reneging on his agreement to run for only one term as UN secretary-general, is perfect for the job; no more power-hungry UN official has ever existed. But what about the Security Council? That's OK, because we can always buy off the abstention of China or whoever for a few billion. No problem.

And then the whole world will subsist under the U.S. and UN flags, happy, protected, free of crime and poverty and hate. What could be more inspiring?

A few isolationist, narrow-minded, selfish, callous, and probably anti-Semitic gripers, however, are bound to complain. They like to talk about various "lessons," for example, Somalia. They like to say: well sure we can get in and "win" easily, but how do we get out? In order to fix up democracy, genocide, poverty, hate, etc., we the United States, must create the country's infrastructure, set up and train its entire army and police (preferably in the U.S.). We must teach the benighted country about freedom and free elections, create its two Respectable political parties, and begin with a massive multi-billion dollar aid program to make everyone healthy, wealthy, and wise, provide an educational program (replete with dropping huge bags of food by plane so CNN can do handsprings – even if some of the "helped" are killed by the bags), outlaw smoking and junk food, and feed them all with tofu and organically grown mangoes.

But what about the Getting Out Party? What about our universal experience that when U.S. troops get out, the whole aid, infrastructure, etc. go down the drain? The solution is simple, though it has been far overlooked because some narrow-minded selfish fascist stick-in-the-muds will raise a fuss. The solution: We Don't Get Out! Ever. So we don't have to worry about preparing the natives for transition. We should stay in there and cheerfully Run the World. Permanently for the good of all. A Paradise on Earth. We can call it, the "politics of meaning."

But how will we have the manpower to do the job of occupying? Don't worry about it. In the first place, we can have a 20-million man and woman army, suitably gayized and feminized and Politically Corrected, marching in there with food packages, medicines and hypodermics in one hand, and guns and condoms clutched in the other. We've got plenty of manpower options; we could bring back the draft, we could restore the Peace Corps, and/or we can set up a huge Buckley-Clinton type National Service program, where kids "pay back society" by spending two healthful, fun-filled maturing years setting up infrastructure in Zaire or Haiti or North Korea. With this program, the kids could "pay back" the Earth. What? You say that some of our kids might pick up diseases or get shot along the way? Well, that's OK, because, as they say these days, every failure is a "learning experience."

And then, of course, the U.S.A. will only provide the backbone of the permanent forces of World Occupiers. The rest of the slots will be filled by troops from every other world country, headed by the UN, NATO, etc., providing equally healthful and joyful experiences for other occupiers: Zairians, Ukrainians, Vietnamese, etc. To see Vietnamese troops, for example, occupying Holland, would provide instructive and globally democratic lessons in multiculturalism and mutual love of all peoples. The hardcore narrow-minded will of course have to be dealt with severely, but I am confident that massive educational programs, orientation courses, teachers, books and pamphlets, etc. will change the common climate of ethnic hate to love and understanding. In addition to teachers, hateful and undemocratic attitudes will be stamped out by a legion of shrinks, therapists counselors, etc.

How will all this be financed? Every nation will, of course, contribute its "fair share" of expenses, but since the U.S.A. is the world's Only Superpower, we must face the fact that the U.S. will have to be paying the lion's share – maybe 80 or 90 percent – of the program.

And of course there are always narrow-minded, backward, selfish dogmatists, who will balk at this program, and claim that it is too "costly." There are always a few rotters who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But again: not to worry. There will be a massive transpartisan educational effort, from all parts of the spectrum, from the Clintonian or Jacksonian left to the dozens of self-proclaimed "free-market" think-tanks, who, suitably financed by government and by corporate elites, will pour forth tomes instructing us that the program will "pay for itself," that it is in the best tradition of the Free Market and Democracy; that these expenses are not really costly because they constitute "investment in human capital" and will therefore save the taxpayers money in the long run, etc. Thus, clearing up all the hookworm in the world will so reduce medical costs that we will all be paying less money. Eventually.

Any residue of complaint, any who survive this educational effort – and let's face it, there are a few rotten apples in every barrel – will be sent to "educational retraining centers," where their objections will be put to rest, and, after a few healthful years in these camps, chopping logs and reading the collected works of left, liberal, neocon and Pragmatic Libertarian pundits, I am sure that they will emerge, happily adjusted to the Brave New Global Democracy of tomorrow.

The above presents the consistent implications of our persistent policy of intervention, and it outlines the system toward which this country has been tending.

The question is: How do we derail this trend? How do we Take it Out? How do we prevent "1984"? Unfortunately, the Republican Party, while significantly better than the Democrats on domestic policy, has been, if anything, worse and more interventionist on foreign affairs. Note the Republican take on Slick Willie: they accuse him of bumbling, evasion, continual changes of line (all true), but except on Haiti, they don't really oppose intervention per se. Sure, it would be nice to have a clear-cut, consistent foreign policy, but clear-cut in what direction? A clear-cut Enemy is not exactly an unmixed blessing.

Meanwhile, things are far from hopeless. There is both an anti-war and paleo-grassroots ferment in this country that is heartwarming. There are all sorts of manifestations: Conservative Citizens Councils, county militia movements, sheriffs who refuse to enforce the Brady Bill, rightist radio talk show hosts, lack of enthusiasm for American troops getting killed in Somalia or Haiti, a Buchananite movement, and increasingly good sense on this question from syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Meantime, the least we at Triple R can do is accelerate the Climate of Hate in America, and hope for the best.

September 1994

The Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate

My post Anarchist, Libertarian or Voluntarism: Why I Use One Word Over Another was recently published on the ZeroGov.com website. A commenter had this to say," Ken on May 1, 2014 at 20:45 said:When I got to:

“Some will say that certain traits within libertarianism are dangerous to modern life; ………….pro-choice on abortion, ………………..open borders”. I stopped reading. I am a 45 year old lifelong anarchist. I welcome you former state-ists to the party. Libertarians are pro-choice?!?!? Abortion is a tool of the state. It is founded on eugenics, racism, and the force of the state to eliminate undesirables – one child policies. Any pro-abortion “libertarian” is a Progressive stooge for the state. I suggest you go away."

 I wanted to take a second to correct a fallacy that is presented here and also to write out my thoughts on abortion and the pro-life - pro-choice debate.

A common misconception or fallacy is to relate someone who identifies as Pro-Choice as someone who would choose abortion or is an advocate of it. This is false. A defense of life in line with a pro-life stance is to say that all life is precious and that to kill this life at any time is immoral. What isn't included with most pro-life stances is the definition of life. It is seen as somewhat subjective or objective to the individual. In the minds of some it is the beginning of the process of conception, when sperm meets egg and begins the fertilization process. Some would say it is the birth of the being that signifies life while others would argue on times and situations in between these two ends. Myself I see the logical fact that in our world we construct our medical experiences to explain death as the absence of a natural heartbeat (natural heartbeat being defined as the natural or unadulterated heartbeat of a being, medical technological continuation of this process does not qualify as natural), in this definition the logical opposite of this would be used to explain the beginning of life as the occurrence of a natural heartbeat. This takes place somewhere between 15-20 days after conception.

If the idea of conception is used, which is the chemical and biological process of the production and combination of cells, it would be logical to conclude that a human not be considered dead until the production of cells and the biological breakdown of all cells has been completed, or well after the body has been clinically or legally dead by its current definition.

Does this mean that prior to 15-20 days, the entity is not human? No, it is very much human as we decribe the biological makeup of the being as the collection of combined DNA from male and female partners. What this means is that the idea of life is not attached by the fact it is human. The fact that a body is in the ground or in another body does not negate the fact that it is human, but it does not imply it is alive either.

The original intent of this post is to clarify the meaning of Pro-Choice as a philosophical principle. In all cases I believe the individual or individuals involved have the ultimate choice in all matters that affect them. This goes with the ability to abort a fetus. The two individuals involved have the choice whether to complete the pregnancy or to abort it, my personal opinion of whether it be right or wrong is not needed in their case and likewise should remain my opinion and not tried to be put into action against them. The saying, "Public opinion should not impose on personal freedom" goes well here. My opinion or idea of what is right or wrong on this issue can only be applied if I and my partner are currently expecting a child. This is not currently the way our society or the whole of the public thinks of this issue and this is not an attempt to subvert that opinion but rather to give an alternate way of thinking about it.

In any case the choice of the individuals involved should be the only choice that matters. To claim that someone who claims to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion is an advocate of the practice or be in some way accepting of it by others is disingenuous and deceitful.

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? Part 2

This was not meant to be a 2 part post but thinking more about what I wrote the other day about the ways that people see exclusions in what they consider liberty I wanted to touch on it in a few more ways. It seems to me that while some can claim they oppose something for themselves they would be happy to see the same or worse happening to someone else, or to be done by transferring power to another person or entity.

“Talking of Taxes”

When people talk of taxes there usually isn't too much happiness or joy in what say. Generally taxes are seen as a burden or nuisance on people and a hindrance on businesses. To some they are considered a price for what they consider “freedom” or put as just what we have to do to have a civilized society. There are some though that will defend increased taxation on others.  One recent example is the proposed added increased taxation of Wall Street (a separate post will cover this subject in detail later). Known by the name of The Robin Hood Tax it is being pushed by individuals who are partially involved with the Occupy movement, other group demographics make up its base of supporters. This new Tax scheme comes by way of the European Union (EU) some years ago. EU members proposed taxation on stock trades and income that is derived from them.

Labeled as the Robin Hood Tax gives it a wild chance of being successful even if not comprehended in its economic entirety and its effects would be the same as if a rise in income taxes were raised across the board. Proponents of the measure claim otherwise and say that it is only a tax on the derivatives of stock trading and speculative investing, this is false. Since stocks do not trade themselves and are held by corporations and companies who in turn are owned and operated by individuals, these business owners(individuals) would be liable for the increased tax and would then pass on that tax in the form of higher consumer costs and prices. Individuals also hold stocks and this bill would have the same effect on their trading. This is the exclusionary part of this mindset, which is individual taxation is too high “BUT” we need to raise taxation on businesses and corporations, because obviously these businesses and corporations are not run by individuals who are already taxed at higher rates. If it is too much for one then it is too much for all. Excluding yourself from the effects of increased taxation to pass it on to someone else is hypocritical to the idea of individual freedom. You cannot be against one kind of tax and then endorse another that you think doesn't affect you.

“Legalize it, and then TAX it!”

The push for legalized cannabis is another great example of this. We have all heard the conversation before, “We need to just legalize marijuana, AND then tax it.  There is no reason the government should say what goes in anyone’s body”.  No, No, NO, just stop it! There needs to be no more taxes, and what does it matter if they tell you what you put in your body if they are stealing from your pockets?  I still haven’t figured out why so many are willing to have a tax imposed on marijuana in the first place. As Colorado is seeing right now adding a tax to their legalized recreational use has led to more street purchases outside of the “Pot Shops”. Why? Because buying marijuana was tax exempt from the start, why in the world would you want to give the state any more money than what they already extract by force? But the majority of people would be ok with this, as it is seen as a “voluntary” tax, it is anything but. If it were truly voluntary, the shop owner would say,” Would you like to add tax to this purchase?” You could then say, “Yes” or “No”. That is voluntary Taxation.

The other discrepancy in the legalization argument is that of legalizing certain strains of cannabis to help with medical conditions, BUT to exclude the recreational use of all forms of cannabis. This is the case for Charlotte’s Web Medical strain of Marijuana being discussed in Sates across the nation. This is clearly an exclusionary liberty issue and falls under a hard line of hypocrisy.  The ability to discriminate the use of a plant is outrageous in itself, and then to make it illegal for those that use it outside of an authorized or accepted medical use is preposterous. This is the very essence of the individual liberty issue, “Can one do what others are prohibited from doing?”

“The Marriage Gap”

The arguments against same sex marriages are usually based on the simple premise that the federal government should allow it, or at least allow the state governments should decide for themselves. Where the contradiction on this issue comes into play is when you mention that if it were allowed that same sex couples be “legally” married, why not also allow marriages consisting of multiple people, or polygamy.  Here comes the “BUT” for most people. “I believe these two people can get married even though they are the same sex, BUT these 5 people cannot.”  Why is that? How can excluding any group of people or their beliefs from the same right to be married be considered liberty for all? Now personally I am all for the government not being included in contracts between individuals, and marriage as a contract would be included in my belief.  The idea is that these contracts need no government endorsement or approval and would not require intervention in cases of separation or breaches of contracts; private arbitration proves to be a substantially superior alternative. That’s just my view though; I don’t force its acceptance on anyone.

“The Government is overbearing, but it is needed in some cases.”

There has been a rise in the belief that our current government is overbearing, intrusive, and working outside of its designated powers, and it is in my opinion; at least on two of those charges. The current government is that of an empire run by revolving dictators and feared by its serfs. So how can people belief there is anything it is needed for? The mindset of minarchy or “limited government” as both the Republicans and Democrats will call it, is that no matter how bad things get, how intrusive it becomes, how much it impedes on the daily lives and restricts the natural rights of the people, it is needed in some way. This is possibly one of the biggest misconceptions for them to get over and many refuse to even try to understand the true meaning of anarchy. No Rulers, No Masters. 

The idea that government is needed for certain roles is a lack of understanding of how things can work and work more efficiently with no theft of wealth through taxation if ALL roles of government were replaced by market alternatives.

Again this is just a few more examples of what can be called exclusionary liberty. Can you think of anymore issues where this is a relevant discussion?

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.