Saturday, November 9, 2013

Conservative Sacred Cows

Fighting for real liberty is an ever daunting task. One such tasks is taking on sacred cows of various political movements. Besides the bullshit that is organized religion one of the biggest sacred cows of the conservative movement is the military. Thomas DiLorenzo of praises Ken Blackstone's comments in regards to the national anthem being played at various sporting events on ESPN.

Clicking on the YouTube link and you see the predicable and same old comments from conservative military jock sniffers. However it does get better as Mr. DiLorenzo did post one of the responses he got from a conservative statist (is that redundant?):

“Screw you.  Thank GOD you’re in the ignorant minority.  There will always be the ANTHEM at sporting events, ESPN’s 2 foolish so-called sport analysts will pay for their stupid comments.”

If your interested in sending this statist hate mail, his email was posted on the blog post as well. It's amusing when you see reactions from conservatives. Why? Conservatives correctly reject political correctness but whenever someone has a different view in regards to things that they worship they break down and act emotionally to those criticisms. Such as Mr. Amick's letter or rant towards Mr. DiLorenzo. In other words they behave like liberals. Such reactions to criticisms level against the military (along with criticisms against the police for that matter) separate the real liberty lovers from those who only praise liberty in order to control the boots of the state themselves to use for their own statist means.

I also recommend this older article from Laurence Vance when another conservative attacked him for daring challenging the conservative sacred cow.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Matt Drudge the Libertarian?

Activist Post reports on a couple of tweets Drudge Report's own Matt Drudge made on September 3rd.

Tweet #1:

"Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!" 

Tweet #2

"It's now Authoritarian vs Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties..."

One thing Drudge gets right is that the battle for liberty is authoritarian vs libertarian. Republican vs Democrat has been a joke since the days of Bush senior. At least back then it was just which party wants take which rights away from you. However if he really wanted to make an actually believable statement he would replace Republican vs Democrat with Conservative vs Liberal. Republicans and Democrats aren't political ideologies, they're parties that are used as vehicles to advance political ideologies. If he was actually interested in liberty he would reject conservatism by announcing that it's no better than liberalism in addition to quoting my favorite Lew Rockwell quote.

Point being, Drudge and other conservatives like him to claim to "seeing the light" and actually want to support liberty as opposed the false liberty that they've been trumpeting for years on end have to do alot more than a couple of tweets stating what libertarians have been saying for years.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

George Donnelly on doing Jury Activism without Getting Arrested

Shield Mutual and Arm Your Mind for Liberty's own George Donnelly has done a four part video series in regards to jury activism. I would suggest watching the videos in parts.

Monday, September 2, 2013

No Scottie Hughes, Libertarians are not Conservatives

Perhaps I'm wasting my time but Garry Reed of Examiner reports on how conservative Scottie Hughes joins the long list of conservatives who have no actual idea on what libertarianism is. Lets go through the points that she considers what libertarians to be;

Until Libertarians have a serious candidate running on more than just legalization of marijuana, both Republicans and Democrats have an equal chance at recruiting this growing bloc of voters, especially among the younger voters who have recently turned to the Libertarian viewpoint as a result of their mistrust of Government. 

What exactly does Hughes consider a serious candidate? I think if a candidate and their staff (especially third party candidates) spend the time and resources to collect signatures and run a campaign would be considered a serious candidate. Not to mention also fighting challenges to ballot access that come from the liberal and conservative candidates.

Saying that libertarians only care about marijuana legalization is pretty damm dishonest if not out right stupid. Was Hughes not paying any attention to Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns? Other than talking about the statist drug war Ron Paul went into depth about foreign policy, monetary policy, trade, the national security state, the patriot act, personal liberty among others. The top libertarians websites such as, and along with libertarian figures like Judge Andrew Napolitano, Justin Raimondo, Radley Balko and Karen DeCoster advocate issues other than the legalization of marijuana.

For years, GOP grandees have taken it for granted that Libertarians would be with them come Election Day. After all, aren't Libertarians essentially free-market, freedom-loving conservatives who just don't want to be formally affiliated with Republicans?

Well she does get right that the Republican party has taken advantage of libertarian voters during the times that conservatives have power but to say that libertarians are just conservatives who don't want to be associated with the Republican party is just a lie. I can only speak for myself but I rather be lynched by David Duke himself than be associated with conservatives and conservatism.

To quote Lew Rockwell;

"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night. There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism."

Conservatives want to fool independents and middle of the road voters that they're the ones who will stop the movement of statism. Sure conservatives are against statist programs such as Obamacare and gun control but even on those issues they're just as hypocritical as any run of the mill liberal. Remember conservatives weren't and still aren't against statist programs like domestic spying, the Patriot Act, the national security state and happily cheer on the military-industrial complex when their guys were in power. Yes some will point to paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Baldwin as being against those things from day one but when reading about paleoconservatism one realizes that the paleoconservatives just want to enforce their own statist ideas onto people. For all the bluster conservatives go on about supporting liberty, their record shows that they do the complete opposite. Compare Ron Paul's congressional record to any of the so-called "real conservatives" that have served in the house alongside with him and Dr. Paul's record still wins out. Another stand out between libertarians and conservatives is the non-aggression principal. How many conservatives actually advocate let alone support the non-aggression principal? The answer is not too many if not zero.

By definition, a Libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility while preserving personal freedom. They oppose the Government interfering with any of their business, family, or personal decisions.

It all sounds like Republican boilerplate until you get to two issues that will cause Libertarians to defect to Democrats in droves, if they haven't already.

If conservatives were actually interested in keeping the state out of business, family and personal issues they would've resolved them during the three separate times they have gotten in power. The Reagan Revolution, the Republican Revolution in the 1990s and the Bush era. If conservatives were actually interested in true liberty;  the welfare state (social security, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, etc), public schools, minimum wage, the militarization of domestic police forces and various gun control laws among other things wouldn't be here. The truth of the matter is they don't and only use it as campaign talking points.

To say that libertarians would all of a sudden flock to liberals is outright stupid and intellectually dishonest. There are as many problems with liberalism and there is with conservatism.

As the Democrats watch the Tea Party and other Conservative groups continue to grow in momentum towards 2014, they know they must appeal to Libertarians. And it is their libertine social views that could be an opening for voter recruitment. Watch as the Democrats start running more emotional campaign commercials focused on issues like equal marriage rights for all, how pot can relieve painful health symptoms, and an oppressive national security apparatus. The Republicans; however, might also tweak their message by focusing on the outrageous spending and new limits and restrictions which this Administration has implemented in volume on small businesses and individual freedoms.

Today's Libertarians are not very organized; however, with over 1 million voting for the official Libertarian Party's nominee in the last Presidential election, these voters will be even more valuable in a non-Presidential election. Let's just hope the majority of Libertarians are more influenced by the words of Reagan and Goldwater then Cheech and Chong.

The only way conservatives are going to appeal to libertarian voters is to reject conservatism. (see the Lew Rockwell quote) To claim that libertarians will be swayed by emotional campaigns by liberals is laughable and outright pathetic. Other than bluster there is nothing that conservatism offers that actually proves to the libertarian voter (the ones who still think that voting may work) that this time it will be different. As much as I hate Pat Buchanan, he was right, fusionism (the merging of libertarianism into the conservative movement) doesn't work and never well. For most libertarians

As for the invoking the conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Murray Rothbard exposed what "the gipper" really was; a statist.

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Adam Kokesh Speaks from Prison

Can Libertarians trust the conservative group Right on Crime?

When it comes to conservatives and crime their standard line is "law and order". Which for most libertarians it translates to making excuses for police abuses, prosecutor misconduct, overzealous judges and so on. Of course whenever someone points out these things, conservatives are quick to call you "soft on crime". However to be fair the only civil liberties that conservatives actually care about is gun rights and religion. Even then they're still hypocritical when it comes to gun rights.

So naturally when a conservative group pops up and bills itself as being for justice reform most if not all libertarians should be skeptical. So one can be the judge of Right on Crime using their priority issues page

Issue One: Overcriminalization

Their Concern:

Thousands of harmless activities are now classified as crimes in the United States. These are not typical common law crimes such as murder, rape, or theft.  Instead they encompass a series of business activities such as importing orchids without the proper paperwork, shipping lobster tails in plastic bags, and even failing to return a library book.  There are over 4,000 existing federal criminal laws.  (The exact number of laws is unknown because the attorneys at Congressional Research Service who were assigned to count them ran out of resources before they could complete the herculean task.)

In addition to the profusion of federal statutory crimes, there are additional state crimes (Texas alone has over 1,700), and federal regulatory offenses (approximately 300,000). The creation of these often unknowable and redundant crimes, the federalization of certain crimes traditionally prosecuted at the state level, and the removal of traditional mens rea requirements all contribute to a relentless trend known as overcriminalization.

 Their Solution:

• Stop creating new criminal offenses as a method of regulating business activities. Regulation is better handled through fines and market forces, not the heavy stigma of criminal sanctions

• Avoid licensing new occupations and revise laws to eliminate criminal penalties that are currently associated with many occupations.

• Ensure that an appropriate culpable mental state is included in the elements of all offenses.

• Return the responsibility for prosecuting and punishing traditional crimes to the states.

• Revise criminal laws to remove ambiguities and consolidate redundant laws to help prevent prosecutorial abuse.

While getting the federal government out of areas where it doesn't belong is certainly a good step, keeping victimless crime laws on the books negates that benefit. State government thuggery is no better than federal government thuggery and if anything thuggery from state governments don't get as much exposure as federal scandals do. Under the Non-Aggression principal their has to be a victim in order for something to be a crime.

Issue Two: Juvenile Justice

The Concern:

 Cost-effective interventions that leverage the strengths of families and communities to reform troubled youths are critical to a successful juvenile justice system. Youths who “slip through the cracks” may remain in the criminal justice system throughout their lives even though some could have been saved by effective policies during pivotal developmental stages.  However, funds should only be spent on programs that are supported by evidence, and risk and needs assessment should be used to ensure that youths who would be most successful in non-residential programs are not placed in costly residential settings.

The Solution: 

• Expand flexibility in funding, so that local jurisdictions may spend funds now used for housing some of their youths in large state youth lockups on less costly community-based programs supported by research.  Effective community-based models include multisystemic therapy, victim-offender mediation, mentoring, vocational programs, and group homes modeled after those in Missouri for youths that require a residential setting.

• Implement evidence-based practices to increase the effectiveness of juvenile probation and parole, such as graduated sanctions that respond to each violation of the rules of supervision with a swift, sure, and commensurate sanction. Graduated incentives should also be employed to reward exemplary conduct. Research has demonstrated graduated responses are far more effective because they send a clear message at the time of the behavior rather than waiting for relatively minor violations to pile up and then applying the ultimate sanction -- revocation to a youth lockup.

• Create policies so that youths are more likely to find employment as adults, reducing the likelihood of recidivating. This may entail, among others, providing additional opportunities for non-violent youth offenders to expunge or decline to disclose records, removing barriers for otherwise qualified applicants with a juvenile record from obtaining occupational licenses, and emphasizing vocational training opportunities for youth offenders.

• Streamline juvenile facilities so that cost savings may be reallocated to other areas of juvenile justice that provide a greater public safety return on the investment. Underutilized facilities, particularly those which are remotely located away from families and qualified treatment personnel, should be closed or consolidated.

• Improve school disciplinary policies so that more misbehavior is corrected at an early stage in school and fewer students drop out or are removed from school and enter the juvenile justice system. Proven approaches include teen courts, community service learning, student behavior contracts, student behavior accounts, and peer mediation.

• Implement policies that require reviews of sentences given to people convicted of crimes committed under age 18 to determine whether, years later, they are fit to return to society.  Victims should be notified about sentencing reviews, which will not guarantee release, but will ensure tax dollars are not wasted on people who have served time in prison for crimes committed as juveniles and no longer pose a threat to society.  This is a fair, cost-effective, age- appropriate way to ensure that juveniles are held accountable for harm they have caused, which offers them an opportunity to redeem themselves.

The only issue that I seem to have here is the lack of criticism of zero-tolerance policies that is rampant in most public schools which certainly doesn't bode with for students who have the occasional mishap. Once cannot deny that zero-tolerance doesn't have affect on students as they get older.

Issue Three: Substance Abuse

The Concern:

In 2006, the United States arrested approximately 1.89 million people for drug-related offenses, up from 581,000 in 1980.  Many of these offenders were incarcerated for non-violent crimes.  They were not immediate threats to public safety, but it was in society’s best interest to ensure that they stopped abusing drugs.  Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether incarceration is accomplishing that goal.

The Solution:

Drug courts are specialty courts with judges who impose supervision, drug testing, treatment, and sanctions upon defendants in lieu of incarceration.  The reduced recidivism rates that result from the use of drug courts benefit public safety, but drug courts can also reduce the burden of incarceration on state budgets because they cost less—between $2,500 and $4,000 annually per offender.  Conservatives favor voluntary drug courts because they provide options for those people who are sincerely committed to taking responsibility to reform their lives.

For example, the HOPE (Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) program, started by a former federal prosecutor in Hawaii, conducts frequent drug tests backed-up by swift and certain sanctions for violations, usually a few days in jail.  They have cut drug use by more than 70% and arrests for new crimes fell by more than 50%. Moreover, when offenders are participating in HOPE, they are taking up far fewer prison beds, and Hawaii can prioritize the space for violent offenders.
The HOPE program recognizes that a drug court should not be a free pass.  Offenders in drug courts should remain under regular monitoring to ensure that they hold jobs, receive treatment, and pay restitution if they have been convicted of a property crime.  As defendants complete the rigorous program of the drug court, they remain outside of prison, and therefore, they should be encouraged to hold a job and support their families.  There are many benefits to this system.  Families stay together more often.  Children are provided for more often.  Burdens on social services systems such as foster care are alleviated.    In some cases, if offenders complete the drug court program to the satisfaction of the judge and the person is not a threat to public safety and was not involved in dealing drugs, the underlying offense can be removed from their record, and thus does not harm their future employment prospects.

There are nearly 2,000 drug courts nationally, and the evidence indicates that they work.  The national recidivism rate of those who complete drug court programs is between 4 and 29 percent.  The control group incarceration rate is 48 percent.  Even those who enter drug courts but do not complete their programs appear to have lower recidivism rates.  In the state of Texas, for example, where approximately 100 drug courts are operating, the re-arrest rate for those who begin but do not complete the drug court program is 40.5 percent, as compared to the 58.5 percent rate in the Texas control group.

In drug courts, America has found not only a solution to an important public policy problem, it has hit yet again upon an essential conservative truth – the power of personal responsibility and accountability. Drugs courts are not suitable for every convicted defendant, but neither is imprisonment.

The answer to any type of drug abuse crimes is to get rid of them completely. People should not be punished for ingesting whatever substance they want into their own bodies. The drug war is nothing but a colossal failure, a waste of money and a contributor to the militarization of domestic police forces. Drug courts is just a shuffling of resources which should be used in the prosecution of crimes with actual victims. As for the drain of social services, the solution to that is to get the state out of the social service business.

Issue Four: Adult Probation

The Concern:

When spending taxpayer money on criminal justice, it is counterproductive and wasteful to enact policies that create more criminals, rather than enacting policies that reduce the incidence of crime. Taxpayers do not always benefit from sending low-risk offenders, especially first-time nonviolent felons, to prison. In prison, the offender is surrounded by other felons and removed from his family and community. Because the offender is unable to work and earn income, he may be unable to pay adequate restitution to the victim of the crime. Moreover, when he is released, he will be forced to transition back to life outside of prison, with the additional stigma of having been sent to prison. If he does not transition effectively, the state will quite possibly have transformed a low-risk nonviolent offender into a career criminal.  In effect, taxpayers will have spent more money to become less safe.

As Mark Earley and Newt Gingrich have noted, “[j]ust as a student’s success isn’t measured by his entry into high school but by his graduation…celebrating taking criminals off the street with little thought to their imminent return to society is foolhardy."

The Solution:

• For low-level drug offenders with no violent prior crimes or sex offenses, in lieu of incarceration consider requiring probation with drug or psychiatric treatment.

• Research and utilize evidence-based best practices, such as risk assessments, to determine which offenders are low-risk for recidivism and thus better served by conditional probation.

• Enhance the use of problem-solving courts, such as drug courts, DWI courts, etc. These courts can provide specialized oversight and victim-offender mediation that present a low-cost alternative to incarceration.

• Give victims the right, upon request, to be informed of relevant proceedings, attend those proceedings, and express a preference to the prosecutor on the type of sentence.

• Institute performance-based funding for probation departments. Local probation departments that are successful should receive additional funds in order to further develop their methods. Other departments will adopt proven successful methods in order to qualify for enhanced funding.

As stated above, eliminating the drug war eliminates alot of return offenders. 

Issue Five: Parole and Re-Entry

The Concern:

"Reentry” is the term used to describe the process of reintegrating criminal offenders back into their communities. A proper parole system must include effective reentry programs. If not, a state will have spent money to incarcerate and release an offender without making any effort to limit his or her potential to re-offend. This would not serve public safety interests, and it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The Solution:

• Use evidence-based methods, such as risk assessments, to determine who would benefit from parole and who would not benefit.

• Allow parole only for certain non-violent offenders, and encourage the use of intermediate sanctions facilities, rather than prisons, for these parolees when they commit technical violations rather than new crimes.

• Utilize GPS technology to monitor those on parole, which is more efficient and effective than phone check-in.

• Expand the use of ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders who are on parole.

• Implement cost-effective technologies (such as bracelets) which monitor blood-alcohol levels through an offender’s sweat and continuously send the results back to parole officers.  Also, consider requirements that offenders regularly be tested for sobriety in-person (e.g., South Dakota's 24-7 Sobriety Program).  

• Reduce the potential tort liabilities to employers for negligent hiring suits. Reduced tort liability will make employers more likely to hire parolees. Statistics show that parolees with good, steady jobs are less likely to reoffend.

Its good to know that conservatives are consistent with their dislike for the fourth amendment so this isn't all that surprising. If conservatives want to abuse a person's fourth amendment rights, then why let that person out of prison, seems counter-productive.

Issue Six: Law Enforcement

The Concern:

CompSTAT, which stands for Computer Statistics or Comparative Statistics, was launched in New York City and is perhaps the best-known technological innovation in law enforcement. CompSTAT has two components. The first is software-intensive, and it uses real-time crime data to quickly allocate police resources to crime “hot spots” in cities. The second element, which concerns managerial techniques, decentralizes authority to precinct commanders and holds them accountable for changes in the crime rate within their jurisdiction. City police leaders meet with commanders on a frequent basis to discuss data findings and to plan patrol activity. These methods increase the number of criminals apprehended, but perhaps more importantly, studies suggest that the strong and visible police presence has a deterrence effect. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani partly credits CompSTAT with the 62 percent drop in the crime rate in New York from 1993 to 2001.

Another well-known – but not widely enough adopted – technology is Chicago’s Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting (CLEAR). The CLEAR database contains millions of incident reports and other information that officers can query using wireless, touchscreen notebooks in their cars. The data allows officers to instantly check suspects against the database of fugitives, parolees, and offenders who are wanted on warrants. A mug shot, for example, can be accessed in just seconds – rather than four days. Most significantly, CLEAR empowers community policing. Citizens use a website to find out who is policing their neighborhood so that they can efficiently relay leads about criminal activity. Chicago’s murder rate dropped from 22.1 per 100,000 in 2002 to 15.5 in 2004 following the implementation of CLEAR. The number of robberies has also declined nearly 30 percent from 2000 to 2007. Because fewer Chicagoans have been incarcerated since 1999, it is not incarceration that is yielding results. More likely, it is Chicago’s innovations in law enforcement, including CLEAR.

The Solution:

• Increase the utilization of data-driven policing and related performance measures such as CompSTAT and CLEAR.

• Involve private security in data-driven policing to expand the knowledge base and expedite responses.

• Expand the use of GPS monitoring of parolees and probationers.

Until conservatives actually decide to address or at the very least acknowledge the increased militarization of police forces any calls for reform are as empty as an Obama speech. While police smarter would be a significant improvement in general the massive lack of accountability of police officers (and prosecutors for that matter) who abuse their power is still the elephant in the room.

Issue Seven: Prisons

The Concern:

Prisons serve a critical role in society. In many cases – particularly cases of violent crime – the best way to handle criminal behavior is to incapacitate criminals by incarcerating them. Prisons are supremely important, but they are also a supremely expensive government program, and thus prison systems must be held to the highest standards of accountability.

The Solution:

• Understand that to be considered “successful,” a prison must reduce recidivism among inmates.

• Increase the use of custodial supervision alternatives such as probation and parole for nonviolent offenders. In many cases, these programs can also be linked to mandatory drug addiction treatment and mental health counseling that would prevent recidivism. States' daily prison costs average nearly $79.00 per day, compared to less than $3.50 per day for probation.

• Consider geriatric release programs when appropriate. Approximately 200,000 American prisoners are over the age of fifty. The cost of incarcerating them is particularly high because of their increased health care needs in old age, and their presence has turned some prisons into de facto nursing homes for felons – all funded by taxpayer.

• Consider eliminating many mandatory minimum sentencing laws for nonviolent offenses. These laws remove all discretion from judges who are the most intimately familiar with the facts of a case and who are well-positioned to know which defendants need to be in prison because they threaten public safety and which defendants would in fact not benefit from prison time.

• For those instances when prisons are necessary, explore private prison options. A study by The Reason Foundation indicated that private prisons offer cost savings of 10 to 15 percent compared to state-operated facilities. By including an incentive in private corrections contracts for lowering recidivism and the flexibility to innovate, private facilities could potentially not just save money but also compete to develop the most cost-effective recidivism reduction programming.

One of the reasons why prison populations have grown and prisons have become is the drug war among other victimless crimes. In this Reuters article, the author goes into detail on how prison populations are littered with offenders that were charged with having a non-government approved substance with them.

Privatization of prisons is an interesting topic in libertarian circles. While most will agree that government run prisons are not run efficiently if not out right poorly that doesn't mean private prisons should be given the green light. While tax payers might be saving money if a private company where to run prisons there is the danger of seeing a repeat of the Kids for Cash scandal of Pennsylvania.

George Donnelly goes into further detail about private vs government prisons. While I disagree with him on that prisons should exist. I believe there needs to be a place to hold violent criminals, he does make some good points.

Issue Eight: Victim

The Concern:

When a property crime or a violent crime occurs, the primary aggrieved party is the individual victim, not the government, and thus the compensation should go primarily to the individual victim, not the government.  This idea has been around for centuries, and the concept is found in the sacred texts of nearly every major religion.  In the modern world, however, we have drifted away from this essential truth.  A telling example is the “style” of criminal cases, which are written as ‘Defendant v. [The State],’ rather than ‘Defendant v. [Victim.]’  The case styles reveal that our system now focuses more on prosecuting defendants for the harm they have done to society at large, rather than the harm they have done to their victim.  It is important to pay attention to the effect crime has on society, but we must not neglect the victim’s rights.

In the investigation and prosecution of crimes, victims must be included at every stage and meaningfully empowered. Opportunities for more informal restorative practices should also be considered for non-violent first time offenses.

Informal restorative practices are not likely to displace the modern criminal justice system, due to factors such as population growth, urbanization, and the transient nature of many modern communities.  Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence indicates the benefit – to victims, taxpayers, and offenders – of integrating practices designed to empower and restore victims into today’s criminal justice process.

The Solution:

• The criminal justice system should be structured to ensure that victims are treated with dignity and respect and with the choice to participate, recieve restitution, and even be reconciled with first time non-violent offenders.

• In appropriate cases, enable crime victims to choose pretrial victim-offender mediation.

• Expand victims’ access to offenders’ funds by lowering exemption thresholds that apply to restitution orders when they are converted into civil judgments.

• Use amount and share of restitution actually collected as a performance measure for probation and parole systems.

Not much I can disagree with here. Any type of compensation the criminal has to pay out to the victim should go to the victim alone and not the government. Government shouldn't get a cut of the compensation for just doing it's job in prosecuting justice. 

Overall while Right on Crime has some good ideas on reforming a very broken justice system it leaves holes to be desired and doesn't go far enough.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Darren Wolfe Presentation: The Standing Armies of Yesterday and the Police State Today

Darren Wolfe who writes for The International Libertarian gives a presentation on today's modern police state and how it came to be to the group Citizens for Liberty.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

George Donnelly On Supporting Rand Paul in 2016

George Donnelly of Shield Mutual and Arm Your Mind for Liberty discusses if libertarians and other liberty lovers should support Rand Paul if he runs for president in 2016.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Bankruptcy of Detroit: A Painful Lesson

For years the once automobile capital of the world has been in decline and people have looked on like they were looking at a slow car wreck unfold. During the decline people asked; "What will save Detroit?" Meddling politician after meddling politician tried to stop Detroit's economic decline and all failed. No matter what some slick political opportunist says, the laws and realities of the market will always win the end.

After so many years of trying to delay the inevitable, the motor city finally had to say to the rest of the country "We're broke." While declaring bankruptcy is Detroit manning up and taking it's medicine sort of speak it's not completely doom and gloom.The bankruptcy shows what doesn't work;

1. Increasing taxes
2. Government red tape for starting up businesses
3. Strict laws on gun ownership
4. Crony Capitalism

Oh and for side note which related to Detroit specifically; the blaming of immigration/minorities moving in the cities by Paleoconservatives which serves nothing as a pathetic distraction from the real issues. 

Among other issues

Way before the bankruptcy reports came out that the city couldn't afford to pay their local government thugs to provide "safety" for it's citizens. Some people think that if we don't have a government monopoly on force that pure chaos and anarchy will rule the day. I spit on such notions and so do some citizens of Detroit.

To fill the gap of inadequate (and most likely incompetent) peace officers, people have decided that it's much better to band together to watch each others backs than let the state do it.

In addition not only that, once again the free market has come to also fix this problem. In enter Dale Brown of the Detroit based Threat Management center. The Anti-Police Abuse organization did an interview on Mr. Brown and his organization back in May of this year. I urge you to watch the interview, Brown goes into detail on how his organization handles various situations and what type of people they look for in his organization.

Cop Block's Interview with Dale Brown

Threat Management Center's Website 

Now if only firearm ownership wasn't as strict as it is here and in many other cities and states I would have a feeling people would be in more favor of Mr. Brown's company and others like it.

Of course thats not all, when cities are strapped for funds, public transportation tends to be a victim of either fare hikes or reductions in services sometimes one leads to the other. It was no different for Detroit but once again the free market comes to the rescue. Karen De Coster reports on her blog on a small bus company to go against the government monopoly. Hopefully Mr. Didorosi's company takes off due the government vehicles not being able to pay it's own bills.

While these are only two examples of the market stepping in to fill the gap that the government leaves because of lack of service and if not lack the poor quality of said service it's a start in the right direction. Nothing was going to reverse the course that Detroit went expect bottoming out and starting again. If politicians learned their lesson (I doubt it) they should let more Didorosis and Browns pop up from the populace to raise the city back from the ashes. If not then Detroit will continue to be the state that it's in.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Conservatives and Foot Baths

The funniest thing about the conservative outrage is their cries of "sharia law" engulfing the U.S. It's really a boy who cried wolf act for the conservative movement.

Conservative Michael Haltman of The Political Commentator who I found through Freedoms Phoenix afternoon email.  (What? You think I would waste my time in actually looking for conservative blogs?) Seems to be angry or at the very least annoyed that airports in New York City and San Francisco are installing foot baths for Muslim cab drivers and why aren't Christians accommodated for their religion at airports. He also puts up a video of a rant from some guy in Brooklyn who doesn't address the point (not that I though the said ranter was going to anyway).

Conservatives point to actions such as these as "proof" (along with state court houses removing the 10 Commandments) that sharia is slowly creeping into U.S. society and that "it must be stopped!" The problem conservatives fail to see or choose to ignore is public property. Garry Reed of explained this in regards to the idiotic "War on Christmas". If these airports were actual private and not under the crony capitalist relationship they are currently "issues" like these wouldn't matter. Since then conservatives could then spend their money at airports that have crosses, bibles, banners that say: Support Israel and such. However despite the many times conservatives have had power to clear that they have no problem with public property as long as they're the ones in charge of it.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Anger at Public Schools

Yahoo reports of an Arizona father being pissed that his son had written on a paper that he (the child) was willing to give up his rights for security. For anyone who supports individuals rights the father's anger is fully justified.

However as the cynic that I am, one must wonder if Harvey (who is most likely a conservative) actually is against the national security state as his anger suggests or is he another who just likes to pick and choose on which forms of statism he wants to be against. Conservatives love getting angry (and justifiably so) when the state wants to crack down on gun ownership but when it comes other arms of the state such as the Patriot Act and the Drug War they welcome it with open arms. Of course if a libertarian tells a conservative to look in the mirror when they complain about the overbearing reaches of the state that they helped create the denounce them as Lew Rockwell has pointed out. 

Perhaps Harvey should also ask the question why the government should be providing education in the first place.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Lew Rockwell interviews William Grigg

William Grigg who primarily writes about the many abuses of domestic police forces at Pro Libertate is interviewed by Lew Rockwell. 

348. The Wacoization of Chris Dorner

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Adam Kokesh calls out conservatives on their hypocrisy

For libertarians we've been pointing out the hypocrisy and bullshit from conservatives for years. Adam Kokesh points out that they have no real ground to stand on to oppose gun control while supporting government thuggery in other areas.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

The Republican Party wants your help to learn from it's mistakes

So the Republican Party once again trotting out the predicable line that happens when they lose an election; they're ready to learn from their mistakes. According to this piece they're taking suggestions on how to rebuild the Republican Conservative brand and they have their own website set up for people to leave suggestions. Of course most libertarians know that this is just a dog and pony show that liberals and conservatives run when they lose.

However if someone from the RNC task force stumbles upon my soap box here are my suggestions to get voters to vote for them;

1. Reject statism in all it's forms which includes both Neoconservatism and Paleoconservatism

2. End all foreign alliances and entanglements which would include but not limited to the United Nations, NATO, OAS, etc

2a. Close all US military bases that are on foreign soil and bring all military personnel from said bases back to the US

3. End all foreign aid immediately, no weening period just cut the cord and be done with it

4. End the drug war. History shows that alcohol prohibition failed miserably, the drug war is no different. You can't say that gun control doesn't work while at the same time openly supporting the drug war since they both rely on the same "principals"

5. Repeal, SOPA, the Patriot Act and other arms of the national security state

6. End the federal minimum wage

7. End immunity laws for those in law enforcement who are caught abusing civil liberties of citizens

8. Support the real free market by ending government subsidies, federal licensing mandates, etc

9. End not just cut all taxes across the board

10.  End the TSA, DHS, remove government security from transporation hubs and allow the owners of the various airlines to provide their own security

11. End eminent domain. This is nothing but legalized theft and has to stop. If a property owner doesn't want to sell his land than the state has no legal authority to take it

There are plenty more suggestions that the RNC task force can actually use but I figure these 11 would be a nice start. Not that they would actually use them mind you

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Glenn Beck Rips Alex Jones Apart For 'Crazy' Piers Morgan Rant

While many in the libertarian movement have mixed views on Alex Jones there's no denying that Jones fights to exposes the abuses by the state. Glenn Beck however has been exposed for the conservative statist that he is that just uses libertarian rhetoric to appeal to people.

Friday, January 11, 2013

No, The US Federal Government Should NOT Take Over The NHL

Over on the SBNation blog, Battle for California the author Megladon makes the case for the government to take over the National Hockey League. Anyone who believes and supports actual free market economics knows that the state has the reverse midas touch when it comes to running a business, running a sports league wouldn't be much different. I will address several parts of the article;

This kind of action would not be without precedent in U.S. history. In the past, to serve the public interest, the U.S. government has taken over banks, railroads, airport security, and power companies.

Just because the government took over these types of business doesn't mean it's worked well for them. The bank bailout of 2008 has been viewed as a huge failure. One popular phrase coined by those of us who thought the bank bailout was a bad idea was "Privatize the profits while socializing the losses". Amtrak for years has been operation at a loss and are only kept afloat via government subsidies. As for running the power industry, you can ask Sandy hurricane victims how they enjoy having a legalized monopoly being the only ones who control their electricity.

Just think: run properly, by people who actually care about the fans and the product more than short-term profit, the Nationalized Hockey League could actually make a lot of money for the country, in the future. Rather than lining the pockets of plutocrat billionaires, every dime from ticket sales would either go back into making hockey the best it could possibly be or it would be used to pay down the national debt.

This is just silly. If anything a government run sports league would make a great product like the NHL into something much worse. Instead of individual clubs building their teams to compete for a spot in the Stanley Cup Playoffs, you have the potential of winners and losers being picked based on what may be politically popular not on actual athletic ability. With the NHL being 4th in terms of popularity compared to the NFL, MLB and NBA such tainted results does have the potential to turn off casual fans which the league has spent years trying to attract. Losses of fans would result in the tax payer having to subsidize the league even further to keep it afloat.

As for not lining the pockets of billionaires, I can understand the sentiment. There are owners not just in the NHL but also in MLB, NFL and NBA who have no desire to make their teams better, only to pocket the profits from their teams fans. Whos to say that problem would be resolved if the government took over ownership duties? Bad ownership and ownership groups are already more difficult to weed out now a days than in the past via fan boycots.

First, it is important to remember exactly who saved the NHL from this last lockout. It wasn't Wayne Gretzky, or Sidney Crosby, or your fearsome Moose King. It was Scot L. Beckenbaugh, a U.S. federal mediator. Scot is an American. He went to American schools, and his salary is paid by American taxpayers. When the NHL needed a hero, it was an American federal government employee who saved the day. Sure we still lost half the season, but it's thanks to Scot, the government that employs him, and the country that raised him, that we are getting any hockey this year at all.

That's what we do, after all. We're Americans. We may be late to the party, but when we show up we kick ass.

The second reason why it should be the U.S., and not Canada, that runs the NHL is the simple fact that the National Hockey league, as a business, is an American enterprise, not a Canadian one. The vast majority of NHL teams are based in the United States, just as the vast majority of team owners are Americans:
There is no economic or logical basis in this argument other than an appeal to nationalist sentiment. Your average fan cares less where an owner, player, coach is from but only if they produce the results that help their team win. However it should be noted that when the Atlanta Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada the team did turn a profit which is unusual for expansion/relocated teams which typically for the first few years operate at a loss.

In the end Mr. Megladon does not make a very compelling case to prove that a government takeover of the NHL would be a positive for the league and their fans. When in fact there is overwhelming evidence that shows that government takeovers of business never turn out the way they hope for.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Your Absurd Government Policy of the Day

Sometimes when I read about absurd government policies I just have a chuckle but this one in Iceland takes the cake.

A 15-year-old is suing the Icelandic state for the right to legally use the name given to her by her mother. The problem? Blaer, which means "light breeze" in Icelandic, is not on a list approved by the government.
Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don't question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay.

Just another area where government definitely doesn't need to be sticking it's nose in.