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.


Sunday, June 19, 2016

I'm a Gun Owner and No I won't Apologize

Sadly another mass shooting has happened and has taken the lives of many innocent people who just trying to have a good time. Predictably, the left had attacked gun rights with some calling for an outright ban on the Second Amendment. Whether these new attacks lead to legislation is unknown at this time but how the left continues to lie about gun owners and pushes another attempt at this collective responsibility bullshit.

One of the principals of libertarianism is individualism; you own yourself, your responsible for yourself and you are your own man. The left thinks as a gun owner I'm some how responsible for the massacre that happened in Orlando. I'm not the one who pulled the trigger so how can left blame me or any other gun owner for what happened? This particular attack has no logic to it, does the left realize that this is the same collectivist blame that conservatives and neoreactionaries like to place on muslims, jews and non whites for when individual members of these groups commit crimes? The left is correct when they decry when these type attacks happen but have no problem using them for their own statist agenda. Then again the left is no stranger to hypocrisy nor do they care about being called out on as such. I refuse to bow down to pressure from any statist to apologize for something that I did not do.

Collective punishment and blame runs counter to a constitutional republic given how in constitutional republics everyone is equal under the eyes of the law. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Greece under the Junta (1967-1974), North Korea, Cuba, Spain under Franco are examples of countries who believed in collective punishment. Those in favor of collective punishment don't care about facts and innocent until proven guilty, all that matters to them is that if one belongs to a group of people, expresses a particular opinion, engages in particular activity etc that person is guilty and is responsible that simple association. Alternatively collective punishment and blame can be viewed as guilty until proven innocent which puts the burden of proof on the accused as opposed to the accuser.

The left says that they just want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. On the surface of this statement isn't evil because who wants thugs and terrorists to have guns to kill innocent people? I would wager not many people. However in reality people who wish to harm others are going to do it anyway whether there is a law on the books or not. Criminals don't care about legitimate laws thats why they're criminals. All gun legislation does is harm innocent people. Background checks, lists, databases, mental health screening, ammunition stamping does nothing to prevent future tragedies but cause more red tape for innocent people to defend themselves. Also not just red tape that such measures create, seeking government approval to exercise one's right it creates a tool in which people can use against political enemies.

Some on the left say that only the government should be armed. The same government that has agents that willingly violate the 4th amendment? The same government agents who openly violate the rights of people knowing full well they'll get away with it if they ever reach a courtroom? This kind of logic is insane.

Historically gun control was started to prevent newly freed slaves from defending themselves from people who wanted to harm them. Today's gun regulations can still do just that. For example lets take someone who is gay, some in this country still think homosexuality is a mental disorder. A state with mental health screenings as a precursor to obtaining a firearm could be used against a gay individual who wishes to arm themselves. Similar gun control measures can be used against other groups of people by those who issue gun licenses such as county clerks and sheriffs. Why should the rights of individual be subjected to the approval of others? When a right is to be determined to be granted by another then it's no longer a right it's a privileged and last time I checked the second amendment is not a privilege but a right.

In a free society there will always be bad events, bad people and bad situations that's the reality. No piece of legislation will ever fully eliminate the horrible elements of society. However it has been proven statistically that the more armed a society the less likely tragic events such as what happened down in Orlando will happen. Criminals like easy targets because an unarmed person is less likely to deliver any serious harm to a criminal. If the left was ever actually serious about protecting the rights of minority groups (they weren't) then they would ditch gun control and allow gays and minority groups to arm themselves to defend themselves from those who wish to harm them. Also not just them but everyone.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Libertarian Infighting Needs to End

There are several different ways to cripple if not outright destroy a movement. Infighting in my opinion has to be the worst among them because it destroys a movement from within. Infighting causes movements to take sight off of the enemy, view themselves as the enemy while the main goal becomes swept under the rug. It's bad enough when one has to worry about their enemies attacking them while not being sure if the ones you call friends won't sucker punch you.

Over the past week or so I noticed on twitter various libertarian anarcho-capitalists I follow attacking each other because some are advocating voting for one of the Libertarian party candidates in the presidential election in November. For the record I don't vote as I like many anarcho-capitalists view voting as a waste of time because the system itself is rigged. However I won't attack a fellow libertarian for voting like I would attack a liberal, a conservative, or a neoreactionary on their brand of statism. In Man vs The Welfare State, Henry Hazlitt said that libertarians need to attack from multiple directions if the movement has any hope of advancing real liberty. Hazlitt is right in that regard, especially in today's world where statism has morphed into several different forms.

Getting into awful and hateful arguments because some in the movement are pushing others to vote is a waste of time. I was watching a YouTube video between radio host Scott Horton and Jeffery Tucker in which Horton said that he views the Anti-Trump and Pro-Trump groups getting into fights as when red shirts were getting into fights with brown shirts in 1930s Germany. These are the types of groups libertarians as a whole should be fighting with, not with ourselves. There will always be people within the movement that people will or won't like. I'm sure those who are reading this can name three to five writers, podcasters, speakers, etc that they like or have a problem with. Libertarians should be attacking warmongers, protectionists, economic interventionists, anti-government accountability groups, those who hate individual rights and believe the "greater good or the majority" takes precedent, anti-self defense groups, drug warriors, those who support foreign aid, etc. These are the people who are enemies of liberty not ourselves.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Does the Black Lives Matter Movement hurt the Police Accountability Movement?

Police are out of control; the militarization that has gone on since the beginning of the drug war, the complete lack of accountability and their blatant and sometimes open hatred and disregard for the civil liberties of the citizens they claim to protect to name a few. Those who think that this doesn't exist are the same who said "If you're not doing anything bad then you have nothing to be afraid of" when the PATRIOT Act was passed. Whether you're in the camp of Robert Higgs who believes there is no such thing as a good cop or the camp of Radley Balko who believes that there are good cops, the overall issue is that domestic policing in the US is a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm a open supporter of police accountability sites such as Copblock and Photography is Not a Crime. These are two of the best sites out there when it comes to exposing police misconduct no matter who the victim of said misconduct is. In addition they both highlight police officers who cross the thin blue line who get punished by the same corrupt system that they are exposing. Obviously like any group they have their own share of criticism from both those within the movement and it's enemies.

One group within the police accountability movement that I believe is hurting the movement and giving more talking points to government defenders (collectively known as Blue Lives Matter or like some Anarcho-Capitalists say Blue Lives Murder) is the Black Lives Matter movement. The movement that spawned after the death of Michael Brown and trial of Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. When it started on it's face it had a legitimize set of grievances that appealed to the police accountability movement. However this is before the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore and most recently the movement assault on libertarian activist Adam Kokesh. Assault on innocent businesses and innocent people is wrong as is also collective judgement and punishment. Nobody has the right to assault another outside of self defense despite what some on the left and right think it's wrong. More evidence seems to emerge every so often that Black Lives Matter has devolved like most liberal movements into just being against anyone who isn't liberal and unfortunately a racial competent is involved too.

Not only do assaults on innocent people hurt the police accountability movement, their gun control stances hurt it too. Despite US Supreme Court rulings that haven shown that police forces do not have an obligation to protect individuals just enforce laws, government defenders continue to use the argument that any reforms such as actual accountability will prevent the police from protecting you. One of the solutions that should be included in any police reform proposal should be unrestricted civilian access to firearms. To quote Freedoms Phoenix owner Earnest Handcock "The second amendment is for everyone" Gun control laws only hurt innocent people and embolden those who want to commit acts of violence against peaceful people. As the old saying goes; "An armed society is a peaceful one".

With these acts I personally see no reason why any libertarian anarcho-capitalist could in good principal support the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole nor it's faces of the movement such as Cassandra Fairbanks (who many libertarians rightly and openly dislike). Support for the Black Lives Matter movement only give police statists more ammo to use against us which will undo much of the work the police accountability movement has done.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

What Should the Libertarian Response to the Refugee Crisis?

Like immigration and abortion libertarians have a different opinions on what the proper response to accepting refugees from Syria are. Before answering we should look at these factors:

The Welfare State

As far as we know, any refugees that are taken in can receive welfare benefits (housing, medical care, public "education" etc). As libertarians we know that the welfare state in it's current form is evil. It's a system build on theft and force with the threat of being locked in a government cage if one refuses to pay into the system. Adding more people to this system will only result in the state forcibly confiscating more of our hard earned labor in order to keep up with the increased burden on it.

Private Property

While nothing has been state on either the mainstream media or alternative media outlets lets not be fooled that with the state importing people that we have a good chance of seeing private property rights being violated. What if lands and public housing project which are designated to house the refugees all of a sudden become full for whatever reason and then the government starts going after people who have large amounts of land such as farmers? As a rule libertarians don't put anything past government and what they may or may not do. It's completely believable that governments would threaten large land owners into accepting refugees on their land. Also not just farmers, people who own apartment complexes and buildings could be told that they have accept refugees at whatever rate that the government thinks is "fair".

Based on these two issues alone any libertarian in good faith can't be for the state importing massive amounts of people at a fast rate. Even if the state says it's being humanitarian we all know that anything that the state does has an underlining purpose from what they say upfront. However it's not to say that libertarians should be against people who wish to sponsor refugees with their own resources. That's perfectly within libertarian philosophy and should be encouraged instead of a massive all at once importation. It actually somewhat surprises me that even the MSM isn't even suggesting that this is even an option.  

Some may be reading this and say that this is no different than what conservatives are saying. I would say Yes but it's not just against the massive importation that libertarians should be against. In addition to this we as a movement should be highlighting on our blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos that this crisis is the result of years of meddling in the Middle East. It should be highlighted that once again Ron Paul was right. As horrible as it sounds, Iraq, Syria and Libya were much more stable when Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were in charge. Yes all three of these countries were socialist hell holes but the religious and ethnic strife wasn't there as all three leaders stressed nationalism over religion and ethnicity and believe it or not Islamists weren't tolerated in those countries. When Islamists attempt to set up shop they were regularly jailed and executed. With them gone the fringe hate groups took over the country with the regular people fled or got killed. Conservatives don't want to acknowledge this, there solution is just to continue to bomb these countries like the government has been doing since 2003. The warfare state created the instability but it's not going to fix it, only make it worse.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Middle American Radicals?

An interesting article in National Journal goes into discussing the ideological makeup of those who support Trump. For those of us who activitly pay attention to politics one can agree that most of Trump support stems from Pat Buchanan style paleoconservatism. These are considered radical voices in US politics but I have to disagree with that sentiment. Being a radical in regards to politics is supporting positions outside the mainstream. Which from the naked eye yes it appears that those voters are radical but from a liberty perspective they're really not.

When you look at people like Pat Buchanan who is widely considered the face of US paleoconservative thought. The three main tenants of paleoconservative thought are economic nationalism, supporting the drug war and immigration controls. All three of these positions are not voluntary as they require men with badges and guns to enforce. Those who support them don't trust the market to come to these positions or regard the market as to slow to adopt them. For the non-political they would see this as ironic that those who are under the banner of conservative would take an anti-free market stance. However paleoconservatism was never about the free market, just less socialist than the left's economic ideas.

Using men with guns and badges to enforce a particular way of thinking, conducting one's self or business isn't radical. In the US and in pretty much most of the world this is the norm. To consider that way of thinking to be radical is absurd. When you really look at elections what is it really about? It's about getting a politician or group of them to use men with guns and badges to enforce a particular way of life. It's not radical, it's statist and the difference between the supporters of the various presidential candidates is which version of statism that they want to force on everyone else.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

The Indiana Law is about Property Rights

Among the hysteria that has been caused by Indiana's religious liberty law there is sense to be made in all this. First thing, despite it's name, religion was not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law was to reaffirm private property rights. The core was to return control to property owners to regulate their property the way they see fit. Unfortunately some turned this into an anti-gay/lesbian debate.

To start off I think organized religion is full of more bullshit than a politician and being a libertarian anarcho-capitalist I hate conservatives (both the Bill Kristol neoconservatives and Pat Buchanan paleoconseravtives) as much as I hate liberals. My support for this law is the agreement that one has the legal right to run their property. What the left seems to not get that is that if a a conservative christian refuses service to a gay person than the gay person can (and in my opinion should) take their money elsewhere. For one business that refuses service to someone for whatever reason there will always be another business who will be happy to give service to that person. That's the way the free market works. Another way to look at it, is if a business wants to refuse service to someone based on a trait of theirs why should that person give that business money? It's akin to asking someone to punch you in the face. If the left thinks that business owners shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to people then they should consider this:

Jewish businesses having to give service to Neo-Nazi's

Hispanic businesses having to give service to members of the Minutemen or Pat Buchanan supporters

Black businesses having to give service to KKK members

Muslims business having to give service to Conservative Christians and so on.

Under such government involvement these business owners can't legally refuse service to people that obviously don't like them without the threat of a potential lawsuit coming against them which could possibly put them out of business. With a real affirmation of property rights, these owners while could still face a lawsuit would have a much better chance of winning the case or getting it thrown out of court completely. A true free society allows the right to associate with who you wish and not fear government repercussion.