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.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Libertarians who don't like Ron Paul?
I stumbled onto this weird piece and for the life of me can't really find any reason to agree with the author. There are some reasons in which I personally sympathize (but don't agree fully) with fellow libertarians on why electoral politics doesn't work which Dr. Paul attempted to bring about change. That I get as someone who doesn't vote. However even with small disagreements in the tactics to bring about liberty I really see no reason not to support Ron Paul.
However it seems that this author is just repeating all the same talking points neocons are using against Paul. No where has Ron made any excuses for Vladimir Putin. Putin is as much of an authoritarian as any of the other despots in the world, no libertarian denies that fact. To say that Paul's arguments in regards to Russia and Ukraine are nothing but "blaming America" are lazy which you would expect from a neocon or a "humanitarian" liberal not from someone who claims to believe in libertarianism. Perhaps this author comes from the Eric Dondero brand of "libertarian" in which they support foreign intervention and that the US is supposed to be a global police force, we may never know but it wouldn't surprise me.
However it seems that this author is just repeating all the same talking points neocons are using against Paul. No where has Ron made any excuses for Vladimir Putin. Putin is as much of an authoritarian as any of the other despots in the world, no libertarian denies that fact. To say that Paul's arguments in regards to Russia and Ukraine are nothing but "blaming America" are lazy which you would expect from a neocon or a "humanitarian" liberal not from someone who claims to believe in libertarianism. Perhaps this author comes from the Eric Dondero brand of "libertarian" in which they support foreign intervention and that the US is supposed to be a global police force, we may never know but it wouldn't surprise me.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Conservative Hypocrisy and Why Liberals Should Dump Gun Control
A few days ago Vice did an article on the Huey P. Newton Gun club and their patrolling of black Dallas neighborhoods. Based on the article the group acts in way what libertarians have been envisioning in a world without government provided law enforcement. A band of people uniting under a guise of protecting their community, openly carrying their firearms which is their right and educating others about gun rights.
One would think that those who are for the right to self defense would actually be in support of what the club is doing right?
Wrong.
Being that the club is liberal it has obviously ruffled some conservative feathers like those at Conservative Tribune describing them as a band of thugs.
Now for the record as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, I'm pretty open about my hatred for liberals and conservatives (that includes the branches of neoconservatism and paleoconservatism). However that hatred doesn't blind me to the fact that they don't deserve to have the same rights as me, they do. Despite that they want to take my rights away via the guns of the state in one way or another. Also I will note that while I'm a gun owner I do not belong to any groups. Reasons being that; 1. I don't want to associate with conservatives as I hate them and 2. That majority of gun groups don't see (or choose to ignore) that foreign policy affects domestic policy which includes gun ownership. It should be also noted that the NRA technically has a branch in New York state but it's called the New York Rifle and Pistol Association.
Some of the quotes from the statist writer that stick out to me:
"Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect."
"Of course, said flag represents the Constitution that allows them to demonstrate with weapons to intimidate people, but shh."
"It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention."
"Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to stand up to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club’s intimidation."
If the website wasn't named Conservative Tribune you almost think that this would be coming out of a anti-gun liberal. It seems that this statist and others who share his "concern" want the guns and boots of the state to keep a special eye on the gun club if not outright stop their right to assemble peacefully. However this wouldn't be the first time that conservatives had demonstrated a double standard for non-conservative gun owners and it won't be the last. It also shows that liberals really need to kick the gun control habit because it helps no one. While the gun club most likely supports liberal economic policies they at least recognize that the police are not your friend, despite all the programming that we are put through in public school and the individual is responsible for their own self defense. However I highly doubt liberals will dump gun control anytime soon.
One would think that those who are for the right to self defense would actually be in support of what the club is doing right?
Wrong.
Being that the club is liberal it has obviously ruffled some conservative feathers like those at Conservative Tribune describing them as a band of thugs.
Now for the record as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, I'm pretty open about my hatred for liberals and conservatives (that includes the branches of neoconservatism and paleoconservatism). However that hatred doesn't blind me to the fact that they don't deserve to have the same rights as me, they do. Despite that they want to take my rights away via the guns of the state in one way or another. Also I will note that while I'm a gun owner I do not belong to any groups. Reasons being that; 1. I don't want to associate with conservatives as I hate them and 2. That majority of gun groups don't see (or choose to ignore) that foreign policy affects domestic policy which includes gun ownership. It should be also noted that the NRA technically has a branch in New York state but it's called the New York Rifle and Pistol Association.
Some of the quotes from the statist writer that stick out to me:
"Given its frontier reputation, Texas is surprisingly one of the few states that doesn’t allow concealed carry. However, it does allow the open carry of firearms, which the group uses to an alarming effect."
"Of course, said flag represents the Constitution that allows them to demonstrate with weapons to intimidate people, but shh."
"It’s good to see that while the gun rights of average Americans are under assault from the Obama administration, these guys don’t even get the slightest bit of attention."
"Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to stand up to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club’s intimidation."
If the website wasn't named Conservative Tribune you almost think that this would be coming out of a anti-gun liberal. It seems that this statist and others who share his "concern" want the guns and boots of the state to keep a special eye on the gun club if not outright stop their right to assemble peacefully. However this wouldn't be the first time that conservatives had demonstrated a double standard for non-conservative gun owners and it won't be the last. It also shows that liberals really need to kick the gun control habit because it helps no one. While the gun club most likely supports liberal economic policies they at least recognize that the police are not your friend, despite all the programming that we are put through in public school and the individual is responsible for their own self defense. However I highly doubt liberals will dump gun control anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)