Monday, January 15, 2018

Freedom of Association Works Both Ways

With today being Martin Luther King Day I felt that it would be a good day to rehash on what freedom association really is. One of the biggest negatives on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from a libertarian perspective is that it interferes with freedom of association with it's anti-discrimination laws. Like many laws with "good intentions" it tends to be the direct opposite. People should not be forced to deal with one another via government force nor should that same force be used to keep people from dealing with each other. That was the problem with Jim Crow laws, the state used it's gun to keep people from dealing with each other.

Left-statists basically took Jim Crow, repackaged it and called it something new. That's not reform and it's definitely not liberty. Also the social justice warrior faction of the left-statists whether they realize it or not are re-arguing for Jim Crow type laws. Right-statists (specifically the culture justice warrior faction) argue that government forced separation should come back in the name of society and those who wish to associate with others of different traits are viewed as "degenerates". Both these views are anti-liberty, the only difference is that left-statists don't make the claim that they believe in liberty. Real freedom of association is a two-way street, people have the right to associate and not associate with whoever they want while at the same time people have no right to interfere with the associations or the non-associations with others. If one believes in one and not the other then they don't support liberty no matter what kind of flowery rhetoric one uses.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Things NFL Players Could Do Than Kneeling

I originally wasn't going to waste energy on this episode of conservative political correctness however a tweet from Anarcho-Capitalist rapper Eric July got me thinking.

"It's not about disrespecting, it's about the injustice" The fact that you have to explain this at a massive level, shows it's not working

July is 100% correct here, the whole kneeling thing isn't working for what Kapernick and others are opposing. In general I've never felt that protesting accomplishes much of anything other than making oneself a target for government or political enemies. If Kapernick and other players really want to make an actual difference when it comes to government goon squad abuse here's what they should do.

1. Support Gun Rights and Self Defense

Athletes should know that they're a much higher target for crimes (both government and private) given their high public profiles and wealth. So arming themselves should really be a no-brainer. However it shouldn't be enough to be armed themselves they should go into neighborhoods and teach about gun rights and usage. There is a great guy named Maj Toure who runs the organization Black Guns Matter . Toure's organization is decided to introducing if not reintroducing gun rights to black neighborhoods. Athletes should absolutely be backing Toure's project and if not they should be doing something on their own.

2. Support Self and Community/Neighborhood Defense

Anarcho-Captialists know government security is a joke and harms people more than it helps. Not to mention that it has been ruled that government security has no obligation to protect you. So this is an area that should be promoted.

The Black Panthers while an awful left-socialist and racist group did three things right; they exercised their right to carry firearms, patrolled their neighborhoods and filmed cops. The result of this was that cops were significantly more "civil" when Black Panther patrols were around.

Also reaching out to organizations like CopBlock and Photography is Not A Crime is a must. Given that the media, no matter if it's the local or the national they are stenographers for the police. These two organizations are one of the best when it comes to documenting government security abuse. 

3. Stop caring on what the opposition thinks

Like communists, cop supporters cannot be reasoned with. There is no reason to attempt to win these people over they will always hate you even if you choose to lick the boots. Their criticisms only exist to distract you from the real problem, they have no interest in changing their line of thinking.

There is no guarantee that any of this will work or change anything but it's more productive than taking a knee.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The Pointlessness of Denouncing

So the "battle" between right wing socialist Alt-Right and left wing socialists Anti-Fascist Action (aka AntiFa) in Charlottesville Virginia has come and gone. I sit here and try to make sense of it. The conclusion is that there was no sense to it at all. Just two statist factions who's cornerstone philosophy is socialist identity politics arguing over who gets control of the boots of the state.

Then afterward people come out saying that they denounce the alt-right or denounce anti-fascist action. Personally I see all these denouncing to be pointless. Here is the thing no matter what ideology it, is the people who say that so and so needs to denounce "insert-group/person-here" will still hate them no matter what they do. It doesn't just pertain to the altright and antifa, for example; whenever there is a terrorist attack (or should I say CIA/FBI false flag) the right is quick to squawk "Why won't muslims condemn attacks?" On the surface they say there is a difference between the innocent muslim and the radical one but it's a farce. They've declared years ago that muslims are the enemy and it doesn't matter what they say there is no changing their mind. It's all but a pathetic attempt to get people to jump through hoops for them. It's not just terrorist attacks, it's immigration, mass shootings, guns, taxes, police brutality/bootlicking, war, political/patriot correctness, etc.

My father once said to me; "Not everyone is going to like you but that doesn't matter just live your life" I consider that one of the best pieces of advice he's given me to date. In my view thats how people need to handle things when the left and right start screeching for people to denounce things. Why should I apologize or denounce something that I didn't engage in personally? The answer is that you shouldn't and if you do it doesn't matter to those people anyway.

Monday, September 26, 2016

The Libertarian Solution to Police Brutality?

Getting one's rights abused by the government is awful because in general, people tend to have little chance of getting restitution against their abusers. Government has more financial muscle (by stealing from everyone else) and it's various laws that give agents of said abuse sovereign immunity to prevent accountability. This along with the libertarian understanding of history are why many if not all view government as evil. One can argue that police brutality is one of the worse abuses of government given how much of a presence police have in the general populace.

Unlike conservatives (with very few exceptions) who think police brutality is a myth (or alternatively think certain groups of people deserve it from initial contact), libertarians of all stripes know that abuses from armed agents (along with their unions) of government are a serious problem that needs to be addressed. People that actually see that there is a problem want to know what can be done to stem the abuse and hold abusers accountable.

While filming police (tactics promoted by excellent organizations such as Copblock and Photography is Not a Crime) has increased attention to the issue and exposed lying cops, the actual accountability is far and few in between. Filming also comes with risks, with police confiscating recording devices and deleting the footage along with arresting them on bogus charges. Along with independent citizens filming there have been suggestions that having police wear body cameras would help stem abuse but so far the results are mixed. Some suggest to working within the system to remove bad laws that police use to harass people that cannot fight back. Within the system one has to attack and dismantle police unions (which for some reason anti-union conservatives won't attack) who are very responsible for the little to no punishment police receive when they infringe on the rights of the citizenry. Full and complete end of all victimless crime laws (drug, gun, etc) would also stem much of the harassment of lower income people.

With the continuing of militarization of police there must be a call to limit police interactions and government is not going to help with that. The solution is to use alternatives to relying on government agents. Those solutions would be the following:

1. Cell 411

Cell 411 is a free emergency management mobile service. Create your own personal network with friends and family that you trust in case anyone needs help. In addition it's useful for those who engage in protests and activism with it's option for live broadcasting. Think a more personal version of a neighborhood watch.

2. Asserting Your Right to Bare Arms

A common trope that police worshipers like use against their critics is that without them nobody would protect you. Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Libertarians believe gun rights are an absolute and that everyone has the right to defend themselves and carry arms. Banding together with other gun owners who distrust police to patrol neighborhoods with deter potential criminals who see that they'll get shot. In addition any potential police harassment will shine a light on the conservative lie that police won't confiscate arms.

3. Creating private defense/security companies

The private sector has a significantly better track record than the government (parasite) sector and security is no different. When Detroit went bankrupt many of the government "services" were cut back including the police. In enter Threat Management founded by Dale Brown a private security firm that does the same thing government police do but without violating the rights of people. For more information on Brown here are some interviews with Copblock, Tom Woods and Jeff Berwick.
3. Avoiding the police and Blue Lives Matter when possible

Defense attorney's make their case (Part 1 and Part 2) that one should never talk to police. This should also should apply to people who apart of Blue Lives Matter. Not wanting to associate myself with cops and conservatives are one of the reasons why I personally am not a member of any gun groups. Statists don't like being challenged and sometimes may get violent (either directly or indirectly) when they are. De-associating one self from open authoritarians of all political stripes who may or may not make use of Swatting when these types of people hear of your views can help with preserving your own personal liberty.

Part of the reason for using alternative solutions to government is to deny government revenue. This is why I view protesting as pointless and ineffective. This may different depending on the state but in my state of New York, police are paid overtime when out covering protest gatherings. As we libertarians know, a cop's "paycheck" is in reality a welfare check so by protesting people are in fact increasing the tax (read stolen) money given to the parasite class. Not to mention that government will always try to infiltrate these protests with agitators to get them to turn violent in order to justify more liberty crackdowns.

I'm not going to sit here and say these solutions will put the government monopoly out to pasture overnight. However it's been long overdue to get people to realize that individuals must provide their own self defense.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

The Hillary Clinton Non-Indictment was Predictable

To those of us who have been paying attention for awhile, we saw Hillary Clinton getting left off the hook by the FBI a mile away. Some of us are actually laughing at it. In reality the whole investigation was nothing but a dog and pony show. My question is, did the Hillary non-indictment actually wake more people up to the joke that is the U.S. justice system or is most of the anger just because of Hillary Clinton?

I see all over social media people saying that the "Republic is Dead" and that "Justice does not exist". The truth of the matter is that the republic has been dying a slow death for decades; from Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, Woodrow Wilson arresting and deporting critics of the U.S. entry into World War 1 and the Japanese interment under Roosevelt are examples in U.S. history of politicians flat out abusing the citizenry and never facing punishment. Sure once in a while the people are thrown a bone but overall punishment for the big offenders is far and few in between. I also notice that majority of these people that are saying this are also ones who are against police accountability or label any type of reform to police militarization as "being soft on crime" among other things.The reality of the fact is that if you're against holding one section of the government (the enforcer class) accountable don't freak out when another section of the government (political class) gets the same kid glove treatment.

I've have been saying for awhile that in the U.S. there are three types of laws:

One set for politicians, their cronies and their enforcers,

A second set for celebrities and athletes

and last a third set for the rest of us 

To quote George Carlin: "It's a big club and you ain't in it"

The next question is are the people that are angry actually ready to hate the state or do they just want their brand of socialism in charge at the District of Criminals. If one just wants a leader wearing their colors then they have learned nothing. Most people who just want a different criminal in charge just want the state jackboots to go after their respective outgroups while pretending to be for liberty.

Secession, decentralization and nullification are certainly steps forward, at the bare minimum those who support secession (including myself) recognize that Washington D.C. is beyond reform and other methods must be explored. I'm not going to claim to have the grand answer but an important step is to realize that no matter who is in charge the state is 100% evil.

Monday, July 4, 2016

Secession is a Libertarian Value

While the Brexit has yet to be fully completed, secession has become a hot topic on the political forefront once again. Secession has unfortunately gotten a bad reputation due to being wrongly and exclusively tied to the U.S. Civil War and slavery. This is a tactic is used by statists to discredit the idea of secession. While the Confederate States of America did want to secede from the U.S., that doesn't tell the entire truth about the concept of secession.

What is secession exactly? Well wikipedia defines secession the following way;

the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance. 

Using this definition how can anyone think that secession would be a bad thing? Another way to view secession is that it's a political divorce. Last I checked divorce is a pretty socially acceptable thing now a days. Just how when two married people no longer decide that they can make a union work they agree (or one serves divorce papers to the other) to go their seperate ways, political entities should be allowed to do the same thing when they feel that the relationship no longer is mutual beneficial.

Secession is a libertarian value because libertarians advocate for self rule, self determination and decentralization. Secession is a important step to achieving those three goals. This is why the Brexit vote happened. The British were tired of being ruled by unaccountable people in Brussels, Belgium and decided that they had enough of being involved in the European Union. Despite my own personal view (the Anarcho-Capitalist view) that people don't need a ruler, breaking away from a ruler of a large entity to a smaller one (who in theory is more directly accountable) is still a good idea. It's also why I support the Texas Secession movement despite being from New York. As a matter of fact I support secession of all fifty states from the United States Federal Government. Let Hillary or Trump be left to rule the District of Criminals and that's it.

However libertarians shouldn't just cheer one secession movements, they also should be leading them. Lets be honest winning the White House isn't going to be happening anytime soon, the Libertarian Party having one of the best opportunities in decades essentially blew it when it nominated Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as their 2016 Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
Before that, the original libertarian Tea Party movement (the one that was birthed out of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, not Glenn Beck's crocodile tears) allowed itself to become corrupted and statist after foolishly extending hands to paleoconservatives, warvangelicals and neoconservatives who then in turn kicked libertarians out. Taking advance of the secessionist sentiment along with taking them over and leading them would be a boon for liberty. What I mean by such a take over is to get into high positions in these movements and diminish the statist conservative (sorry for being redundant) voice. History has shown that conservatism isn't about liberty but just a different breed of statism. Just how they pulled the rug out from under us, it's time for payback while advocating for liberty at the same time. Libertarians (yes even the non-politically active ones) should use these movements to spread the ideas of liberty such as ending the fascist Drug War, the welfare state, warfare state, national security state, showing that taxation is theft among others. Such an opportunity to push real liberty can't be overlooked.

Here is a few secessionist movements that exist already:

California National Party

Republic of New England (site) (Facebook)  (Twitter)

Texas Nationalist Movement (Site) (Twitter)

Saturday, June 25, 2016

What I Learned About the Democrats Sit-In

So with currently no action on barring people who are the authoritarian no-fly list from buying guns. Democrats including prominent civil rights figure Jon Lewis have staged a sit-in on the House floor. I personally don't see this sit-in accomplishing anything than getting attention in the media and creating funny internet memes. On one hand a government doing something outside of passing more statist legislation that will continue to erode our rights to me is a good thing. Politicians should sit around and do nothing more often.

The reason for this sit-in should also put to bed the notion that the left is for civil liberties. With some rare exceptions such as Glenn Greenwald who has been consistently against the national security state since 9/11 majority of the left has made it's peace with the national security and warfare states. Alternatively you could say that they were just anti-Bush, anti-conservative (not that I don't disagree with that sentiment) and just were anti-police state out of spite rather than actual interest in defending civil liberties. However it's not just the sit-in that points this out, it's been the entire Obama error, the anti-war left fire more or less died (again some very small exceptions) and the left learned to love the police state. Sure they do a dog and pony show for issues such as police brutality but in reality it's just all bark and no bite. There have maybe a time when the left actually defended civil liberties but that time has lone passed.

Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean I all of a sudden I trust conservatives with civil liberties. No way in hell this current episode in political theater changes that. I've said for years that conservatism (and all three flavors; paleoconservatism, neoconservatism and neoreactionary) and liberalism are just two different flavors of socialism. I still hate conservatives but one can't help but see that the left's latest stunt makes conservatives appear in a better light on the surface. Sadly there are still libertarians of several stripes out there who think that movement can work with conservatives but that's another argument for another day.

In conclusion with very few expections such as Rand Paul, Justin Amash along with Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich (when Feingold and Kucinich were in office) liberalism and conservatism has no interest in protecting our liberties. It's foolish to think otherwise. They'll do their respective songs and dances to show that they are somehow different from their "opposition" but in reality they don't want to roll back the state just be in control of it.