who's your nanny?

Celebrating Evil

Today I will be celebrating friendships at the Fourth of July party I'll be attending. Unlike the vast majority of people, however, I will not be celebrating my country's decision to shed one criminal enterprise for the formation of another, nor will I delude myself into thinking that the United States is in any capacity a free country in terms of libertarian values.

We live in a state that sanctions the theft, assault, and murder of innocent citizens on a daily basis. That, my friends, is nothing to raise a glass to.

Recommended Weekend Reading

I have already warned readers to beware of Constitutionalists this weekend. In addition to my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty, I would highly recommend Jeffrey Hummel's Constitution as Counter Revolution. This short article demolishes the myth that the drafters of the Constitution sought a limited government with enumerated powers.

Download Hummel constitution as counter revolution FL-5-4-3

We're Quickly Becoming a Nation of Criminals

Yesterday I used the example of a drunk-driving incident to briefly illustrate how unjust the American legal structure is. From your county commissioners right on up to the federal government, the state constantly seeks to prosecute us for the mere potential to commit crimes, not simply in response to harm done intentionally to someone else or his property.

The problem with this system of governance is that it is extremely tyrannical. From a moral standpoint, you can't have a criminal without a victim, yet the state increasingly criminalizes nonviolent habits or behaviors that do no harm to anyone, save perhaps the individual who chooses to engage them. And even when the state does prosecute someone who's actually violated the property rights of others, the state doesn't merely force the individual to pay for his own crimes; it compels innocent taxpayers to pay for them as well when it robs us at the point of a gun in order to feed, clothe, and incarcerate the miscreant.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans not only condones but actually encourages this so-called system of "justice," even though granting the state such enormous power means there literally is no limit to the abuses that can be wielded on nonviolent citizens. To illustrate this further, I will reprint some comments I received yesterday at the Examiner in response to my post.

Read the entire article.

"Lawful" Does Not Mean Moral

J.D. Tuccille writes:

Psychologists have put a lot of hard work over the years into mapping our moral development as we grow from childhood, into adolescence and then into adulthood. Part of becoming an adult is getting beyond the idea that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. Adolescents think the law [is] the last word; adults understand that the law is always open to evaluation, and that good laws that respect individual rights should be obeyed, but bad laws that violate our rights should be opposed and defied.

This is a truth I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. It drives me to the point of insanity when I read comments defending police brutality or drug raids simply because it's "lawful." Of course, it's "lawful." The State is a territorial monopolist of law and ultimate decision-making. It can and does write the laws so that its behavior will be "lawful." Thus, the State can steal because it writes laws granting itself the power to tax. It can murder because it writes laws which allow it to declare war. Its agents can invade the homes of peaceful citizens and murder them and/or their pets because it writes laws making certain drugs illegal and then grants itself the right to search people's homes. Its agents also reserve the right to shoot innocent civilians and since the survivors can only come to the State to protest any of this behavior, it will say that its actions are "lawful." 

If Americans would quit worshipping the State, perhaps such common sense would finally penetrate their ossified intellects.

Our Unjust Legal System

Prosecutors in New Jersey are seeking the maximum penalty of nearly three years in prison for a man who initiated a head-on collision with a truck carrying a man and his daughter while he was intoxicated.

Shaun Campbell of East Rutherford told a judge Tuesday that he had been drinking "quite a bit" of beer when he crashed his SUV head-on into a pickup in April. The truck's occupants, a man and his 4-year-old daughter, were not seriously hurt.

The 40-year-old Campbell's blood-alcohol level was .288 percent, more than triple the state's legal limit.

Authorities say Campbell's license has been suspended 78 times in 22 years. He still faces drunken-driving charges in two other New Jersey cities.

First of all, it doesn't matter how many times Campbell's license has been suspended in the past. None of those incidents is relevant to the issue at hand. And if Campbell didn't hurt anyone or cause property damage while he was driving under the influence in any of the previous cases, he never should have been charged for civil or criminal offenses, much less had his license suspended. You can't have an offender without a victim.

Moreover, forget the fact that current drunk-driving laws have apparently put no dent in Campbell's recidivistic behavior. What's most imperative is that the accident that occurred as a result of his intoxication is between him and people in the vehicle he struck, not between him and "society" in general. However, instead of being compelled to compensate his victims in the form of monetary damages, thereby bearing sole responsibility for his offense, Campbell will most likely be sent to a government cage where tax-surrenderers will be forced to house and feed him for the duration of his sentence.

If you're wondering how a system of "punish the innocent in order to punish the guilty" can be even remotely just, congratulations, you're beginning to think like a libertarian.

Conservative Worship of the Constitution Continues

July 4 is nearing and I know that conservatives are itching to write about how Barack Obama is ruining our country and destroying the legacy of 1776 when America seceded from Great Britain. They probably will not use the word "secede" because such is a four-letter word in conservative vernacular. Nevertheless, they love Independence Day as it encourages Americans to worship their idol, the State.

But independence from Great Britain was not enough according to this conservative writer:

What followed the Revolution were the Articles of Confederation that proved a dismal failure. On May 25, 1787, in great secrecy, a group of delegates from seven States, gathered to revise them. Eventually twelve of the thirteen States were represented.

The Constitution they devised was intended to ensure the process of passing legislation was a slow, laborious one, and that the federal government would have only a few, clearly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the States and the People.

The men who wrote the Constitution feared both the mob and the concentration of too much power in the federal government. The States were and are independent, sovereign republics.

The U.S. Constitution officially became the law of the land when New Hampshire ratified it on June 21, 1788, being the ninth State to do so. The vote was 57 Yeas, 47 Nays.

Nonsense like this is why I chose to take the time to live blog Hologram of Liberty. Mr. Caruba provides no details regarding how the US Constitution came into existence. The reason the Articles were a "dismal failure" was because the central government was not strong enough for a certain group of men. That was the complaint and the federalists admitted such. The founding lawyers met in secret because they knew that the American public would not approve of this new government, so they had to move quickly. The Bill of Rights was added two years after the Constitution was ratified. Thus, it makes no sense to argue that the founding lawyers wanted a federal government with "only a few, clearly enumerated powers, with all others reserved to the States and the People." That amendment was not part of the original Constitution and the founding lawyers compromised only after the Constitution had been ratified. Read Hologram of Liberty or read my live-blog or the anti-Federalists writers for a more detailed refutation of this drivel.

I also find it interesting that Mr. Caruba acknowledges that the drafters met in secret to create the Constitution but glosses over that point completely. Why should Americans think that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government or protect our freedoms when the drafters did not have the audacity to be open about what they were doing? I wonder if Mr. Caruba complains about the lack of transparency in the Federal Government given he has no qualms about the Founders meeting in secret to draft the Constitution. (Oh, wait a minute, no need to wonder.)

But the reason I detest conservative worship of the Constitution most is because they constantly proclaim that the Founders feared a strong central government when the Constitution created a centralized government with more power than that under the Articles of Confederation. How the hell can you argue that the Founders were terrified of a strong central government and wanted to preserve freedom when they intentionally created a government that was stronger than the original government? Even if you are ignorant of the Federalists' and Anti-Federalists' arguments, simply contrast the Articles with the Constitution. It is very clear that the Constitution gave the central government more power than the Articles did. The Constitution permits Congress to collect taxes without consent. The Articles did not allow Congress to collect taxes at all. Congress could request money from the States, but it could not compel the people to pay up. That is all you need to know. Clearly a government that can pay soldiers to kill people who disobey its edicts is exponentially more powerful than a government that cannot. Yet I know this weekend there will be numerous encomia from conservatives praising the Founders for drafting the Constitution and protecting our freedoms. This foolish and puerile myth must end if true liberty is to have any chance in this country.

A Taser Twist

A Pennsylvania student could serve almost two years in jail for using a police officer's Taser against her as she tried to arrest him.

Twenty-year-old Jeremy Spisak, of McDonald, was sentenced Monday after pleading no contest in January to disarming a law enforcement officer and other charges.

I can't comment on Spisak's actions without knowing the specifics of the incident, but there are any number of circumstances under which this kid's actions could have been legitimate -- say, if he was defending himself against an illegal arrest or protecting his person from an officer who simply initiated physical violence for any reason.

Of course, given that the government's goon squads are virtually entitled to operate above the law -- even in plainclothes but especially when fully costumed in state garb -- Spisak would almost certainly have faced jail time even if his actions were morally justified. After all, notice that it's apparently against the law to disarm a law enforcement officer no matter what.

The biggest problem here is that way too many people believe that arrests are legitimate as long as they're made in conformance with the laws. However, this assumes all laws are just when nothing could be further from the truth. Any law that criminalizes nonviolent behavior is unjust, meaning that while it may be legal it certainly is not necessarily moral.

Therefore, if the police officer who was tased was in the processes of detaining Spisak in response to a legitimate crime, Spisak's actions may very well have been criminal. Even in an anarchic society -- i.e., one in which police forces and courts were privatized -- there would likely be some point at which private forces would have to detain suspects who turned out to be innocent of the charges against them. But the difference between that hypothetical environment and that which exists today is that the state's enforcers cannot be held accountable for detaining the wrong people, whereas private law enforcement forces could be.

Now let's assume Spisak was targeted mistakely by the female officer who was attempting to arrest him. Should it be considered a criminal act to use any reasonable means possible to escape this unjustified attack? After all, remember that the state insists Tasers are non-lethal weapons. If I knew I was being forced to submit to the will of someone who really didn't know whether I was innocent or guilty, I may very well choose to put up with the abuse in the hope that the matter would resolve itself without further harm to myself, but certainly I would be under no moral obligation to oblige such violent treatment -- especially considering the state is a criminal gang in the first place, given that it could never exist without first stealing from the innocent to fund its exploits.

An even simpler exercise would be to apply this logic to a situation where a cop initiated an arrest (violence) in response to a nonviolent act that was merely deemed illegal by a legislative mob that enjoyed majority rule. For instance, let's say I refused to put on my seatbelt after being ordered to do so by an officer. I can assure you such spirited opposition to an unjust demand would eventually be met with 50,000 volts of state "justice," and that's probably if I was lucky. However, if the officer so much as laid a threatening finger on me, I would be entirely morally justified in removing it, even though in today's society I would almost certainly be facing the prospect of using a commode in front of perfect strangers immediately henceforth.

Even if we assume Spisak acted illegitimately in tasing the female officer, it doesn't obviate the fact that state abuse is ingrained in our pysche these days; and what's worse, it's actually encouraged by scores of delinquents who put "safety" ahead of their own freedom. The vast acceptance of public police forces proves this point. But in actuality, crimes by the state would almost be bearable in this pitiful reality in which we live if the police could merely be held accountable for their own misuse of their weapons, too.

(Thanks to Wolf, who really needs to blog more often!)

Weekend Roundup

I apologize for being out of blogging commission for the better part of the weekend. I was preoccupied in just about equal parts by a pre-4th of July party and a trip to the emergency room, but it seemed that no matter where I was, I couldn't escape the fact that our society is driven by sheer ignorance and stupidity.

On Saturday I went to my friends' party along the Patuxent River, in the middle of which my buddy Randy set up a barge with about $10,000 worth of real fireworks that he ignited around 9:00 p.m. Interestingly, I waited an entire year to witness this show because Randy's collection was confiscated by Maryland police during last year's party because he didn't have a government permit to discharge fireworks.

Well, not one to suffer fools, Randy decided to beat these guys at their own game and obtain a license several months ago to become a certified pyro in the People's Republik of Maryland. I know that I for one felt a whole lot safer knowing Randy was forced to jump through any number of bureaucratic hoops just to put on a show for his friends and family. In fact, I hear that when you whip out your almighty fireworks permit the wind stops blowing and fire stops burning!

Interestingly, one of the fire marshals told Randy that although this year's display was in full compliance with the government's rules and regulations, his display last July was actually configured in a safer manner. But I just don't believe it given that he was operating outside the purview of our masters last year. Everyone knows you're not safe until the state says you are.

Then there was Sunday. My son had had a low-grade fever for a couple days, but yesterday his temperature spiked to almost 103 early in the afternoon. Sadly, my wife and I know of two young families who've lost children two or younger in the past year due to sudden illness, so considering my son appeared to be lethargic we figured we'd leave nothing to chance and just take him to the emergency room.

But of course, as soon as you get to the ER you realize you're still rolling the dice. We waited for more than two and a half hours before we were even seen, and I'm sure most people have had a similar experience. All I kept thinking was that when Barack the Beneficent's health care "reforms" are pushed through, wait times will only increase. To make matters worse, I had to listen to a Fareed Zakaria interview on CNN with Paul Krugman and John Taylor on the community tv that seemed to go on for infinity.

Because I was trying to avoid gouging my eyes out with my thumbs I really don't remember any specifics, save for Krugman assuring us that he's the smartest man in the universe and a later segment in which some brain-dead chick argued that further regulating health care would actually account for increased competition and lower costs. It's virtually impossible to find data suggesting this has ever happened, yet the vast majority of Americans will swallow this garbage hook, line, and sinker.

To top everything off, I had to listen to a bunch of reporters on the BET Awards red carpet droning on about the death of Michael Jackson. One guy literally repeated himself about three times following commercial breaks when he said he never thought he'd see the day Jackson died. Riveting journalism there. And some 20-something actress from Benjamin Button actually said the world's most notorious plastic man made the greatest strides for blacks in history. Hey, I'm not saying Jackson wasn't influential, but I guess this girl's too young to remember Jackie Robinson or MLK.

Of course, this was nothing compared to one lady from Idaho (I think) who said Jackson really "touched me." Let's just say I wasn't the only one in the waiting room who laughed at that one.

Another Reason to Not Trust Juries

Last year I wrote an essay arguing that coercive jury duty lowers the quality of justice since many jurors who serve would not do so except that they face fines and jail time for refusal to serve. Another reason why jury duty is a poor method for providing justice is because there is a very good chance that the 12 individuals who compose the jury will be brainwashed, trained monkeys who privilege the State.

William Grigg reports on a jury which acquitted a police officer for felony gross begligent discharge of a firearm and a misdeameanor cout of displaying a firearm in an "angry manner." Writes Grigg:

The charges arose from a March 2008 “road rage” incident in which White shot Rachel Silva and her eight-year-old son. Silva had cut off White and backed into his car. She was shot twice in the arm and her son was hit once in the knee.

White, who was off-duty at the time and accompanied by his wife, initially claimed that he fired in “self-defense.” He later claimed that he fired his gun when Silva refused his demands to get out of her car. White never displayed a badge or identified himself as a police officer; witnesses to the shooting didn’t recognize the incident as a traffic stop or other enforcement action, but thought it was a domestic squabble.

Larry Ludlow, who has covered this case in the past, informs me: “During the trial, [White] lied several times and was caught in these lies, but the military-worshiping jurors didn’t care. They even swallowed the `fear of death’ excuse despite the difference in the size of the two vehicles — with [White's] vehicle being much larger.”

The case was also distorted by a grotesquely lenient charge: White should have been prosecuted for felonious assault with a deadly weapon, rather than “negligence.” In any case, owing to the fact that White was one of the state’s sanctified armed enforcers, he was acquitted of all charges and reinstated on the force.

Rachel Silva, on the other hand, admitted to being intoxicated and had the book thrown at her. She pleaded guilty to felony child endangerment and misdemeanor DUI charges. The only potentially positive aspect of this case is that Silva’s son will grow up with a usefully cynical attitude toward our tax-devouring “protectors.”

Another Form of Concealed Carry

My wife took this picture a couple weeks ago while we were up in Baltimore. We were on our way to Hooters in the Inner Harbor when I decided I'd exercise a little civil disobedience and conceal my bourbon and diet in a Starbucks cup I found in my hotel room.

 

I know. I'm a badass. Especially with my son's diaper bag over my shoulder.

Ducks Are Stupid (But Probably Smarter Than We Are)

I'm in a little bit of a funk. I really couldn't care less about Mark Sanford's affair or who his mistress is; or the cause of Michael Jackson's death, or his funeral arrangements; or Kim Jong's "vows" (again) to nuke the U.S.; or a "climate change" bill that would further wreck the economy; or the neverending propaganda from the state insisting there's a swine flu epidemic.

No, what I really thought was interesting this morning was that there were two mallard ducks -- one male, one female -- sitting in the middle of my street who really didn't care one way or the other whether I ran them over or not. Seriously, it wasn't until I drove right up to them and stopped that the male began to think about standing up. But by that time you know I coulda ... ka-blam!

Which got me to thinking. Are these ducks so stupid that they honestly don't know they should move out of the way of two tons of steel? And if so, what's that say about the PETArds who defend such idiocy?

Or, since mallards (like virtually all waterfowl) are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, have these creatures simply come to entrust their safety to the state so completely that they actually believe a stupid treaty will spare them a fate that is all too predictable for anyone who makes a habit of playing in traffic?

Of course, I swerved around these two lovebirds this morning. But I may just have to teach them both a lesson on my way home from work tonight if they're still relying on that silly treaty. After all, according to the state's logic, it'd be for their own good.

Who Polices the Police?

From William Grigg at the LRC blog:

Officer Paul Abel, a veteran of counter-insurgency warfare in the Regime’s illegal occupation of Iraq, was deeply drunk last June 28 when somebody punched him at a stoplight.

Abel, an eight-year veteran of the police force, “drove around the block, until he spotted [21-year-old Kaleb] Miller, whom he knew from the neighborhood,” recounts the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “Witnesses said the officer hit Mr. Miller on the neck with the butt of his Glock and the gun went off, grazing Mr. Miller’s hand.”

Miller strenuously denied that he was the one who struck Abel, and two witnesses to the event confirmed that the victim “looked nothing like” the guy who punched the drunken off-duty cop.

Abel, 35, was put on unpaid suspension (a rarity) and was brought up on charges of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and DUI. He waived a jury trial, which is generally a good idea for the defendant in cases of criminal conduct by police.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning insisted that the case turned on a single question: Was Abel arresting a suspect, or acting in retaliation? The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrated the latter, beginning with the fact that no evidence was presented, other than Abel’s alcohol-distorted recollection, that Miller was the one who threw the first punch.

Abel maintained that the violence he employed was “necessary” because Miller wouldn’t obey commands to lie on the ground. Bear in mind, first of all, that Miller had done nothing wrong, and secondly, that as far as he could tell, Abel was simply a deranged, drunken individual wielding a weapon, rather than a deranged, drunken, armed individual clothed in the supposed majesty of state “authority.”

Predictably, Judge Manning ruled in favor of Abel, insisting that while the off-duty officer’s conduct was “inappropriate, imprudent and ill-advised,” it was still justifiable, since police enjoy broad discretion in the use of force. Apparently that “discretion” extends to driving under the influence of alcohol, in addition to pistol-whipping and shooting a completely innocent bystander.

“It is not the obligation of this court to police the police department,” pronounced Manning as he placed his imprimatur on Abel’s unprovoked assault on an innocent man.

Police union official Dan O’Hara insists that Abel is simply an “aggressive” officer, and insists that his critics are out to “crucify” him.

Those critics include three Pittsburgh residents who have filed official complaints against him for abusive conduct in other incidents: One involved an off-duty fight in which Abel was reportedly the aggressor, but the other antagonist was put on trial (and acquitted of all charges but disorderly conduct); another reports that Abel assaulted a local resident whose grandfather was threatened with a Taser; and the other alleges that Abel pressured his wife into making false claims of sexual abuse against the grandparents of her children.

Nonetheless, Judge Manning’s ruling has cleared the way for this, ahem, hero of both the homefront and the Mesopotamian Campaign to return to the police force.

Apparently, even the most corrupt and sociopathic police have an unqualified right to employ violent or lethal force, and submitizens have an unqualified duty to submit. (emphasis added)

This is yet another consequence of having a monopoly on justice. No one should be surprised that the judge in this case ruled in favor of the police officer. The judge and the police officer work for the same entity; the State acts a a judge in its own case. But I was surprised that Judge Manning would be so candid.

The Non-Issue That Is the Gov. Sanford Affair

The mainstream media and conservative blogosphere are all over South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford for cheating on his wife, even though his personal life is none of our business.

But the fact that he's the top administrator of a state that relentlessly steals from citizens and pulls its guns on nonviolent gamblers and drug users? Eh, whatevs.

Just Another Case of the Government Looking out for You

New tobacco taxes have forced a cigar manufacturer to close down a plant in Tampa, resulting in the termination of 495 employees.

Perhaps Our Holy Savior Barack the Beneficent (hallowed be thy name) has some bailouts in mind for these poor souls.

'Operation Dry Water': A Boatload of Hysteria and Abuse

American pirates who go by the names "Coast Guardsmen" and "Natural Resources Police" will be joining forces this weekend to ramp up their harassment of boaters who might be operating vessels while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

According to its website, "Operation Dry Water" -- be sure to check out the fancy police-state artwork in the logo -- is a government initiative ostensibly "aimed at reducing the number of alcohol-related accidents and fatalities" amongst boaters.

Certainly it has nothing to do with increasing the scope of the state's authority in its attempts to control us and generate revenue. Per one report out of Maryland:

"Nationally, one in five boating deaths are directly caused by operating under the influence of alcohol," said Capt. Mark O'Malley, the Captain of the Port of Baltimore.  "That equates to between five and 15 people who are at risk of being injured or killed this year within Maryland state waters. That's unacceptable. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the NRP, we're going to get ahead of this problem this year," he said.

[...]

"We will be out in force looking for boat operators who are operating a vessel while impaired by alcohol or drugs," said Sgt. Art Windemuth, the public information officer for NRP. "Impaired boaters caught this weekend can expect penalties to be severe. In Maryland, they include one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for the first offense."

Unless death is perceived to be a lesser penalty than a year in jail or a $1,000 fine, I'm not sure how any serious person could feasibly believe that this increased enforcement has anything at all to do with preventing alcohol-related deaths.

Moreover, one wonders how the police are going to detect those who are boating under the influence. Boats generally rock from side to side, so maybe they'll just wait for our vessels to touch one of the yellow or white lines painted on the waterways. Given that marine police need no probable cause to detain boaters, we can expect these floating fascists to conduct even more random inspections than usual.

As I pointed out in an article a few years ago as Maryland was contemplating a statute that would have required all boaters to wear life vests while underway, the percentage of boaters killed in Maryland in 2004 for any reason was virtually zero. I wrote:

According to Boating Statistics 2004, published by the U.S. Coast Guard in September 2005, there were 206,681 motorboats registered in Maryland in 2004 and only 16 boating fatalities.

According to a Maryland Natural Resources Police report for 2008, there were nine boating fatalities last year throughout the entire state, with only three attributable to alcohol. Three. Out of how many hundreds of thousands of boating expeditions that took place all year?

Furthermore, per page 4 of the same report, only 3 percent of boating accidents can be blamed on alcohol in the first place. Considering that "operator inattention" (9 percent), "operator inexperience" (12 percent), and good ol' "human error" (6 percent) account for 27 percent of all accidents, clearly the state of Maryland needs to just cut to the chase and ban boating altogether!

The only plausible conclusion one can draw when assessing the state's hysteria over "boating under the influence" is that this is an undeniably safe activity -- you don't need to be sober to realize the statistics prove that alcohol consumption on the water is a non-issue.

Indeed, the biggest threat to American boaters is the heavy-handed, civil liberties-trampling state itself.

Hologram of Liberty: Chapter 4-Feds Are On-Line

This is the fifth essay in my live-blog of Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce. You can also read my Introduction, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Chapter 3.

On April 30, 1789, George Washington became president. North Carolina and Rhode Island still had not ratified the Constitution. Royce suggests that one reason the Federalists wanted a much more powerful government was because they would be in charge. Of the 49 living delegates, 39 of them (80%) would hold an office under the Constitution (including 2 Presidents, 1 Vice President, 5 Justices, 11 Senators, and 8 Representatives). Only ten refused or were not appointed. Yet American myth suggests that the drafters of the Constitution wanted a limited government with expressly delegated responsibilities because they feared centralized power.

I should point out that the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution when Washington took office. This is important. When modern Constitutionalists extol the benefits of the Constitution they are wont to point out the Bill of Rights as a protection against the Federal government. Furthermore, they use the Bill of Rights as evidence that the drafters really did fear a strong government. But this story is not accurate. The Bill of Rights was added two years later on December 15, 1791.

After the Constitution was ratified there was still restlessness among the people. They did not trust this new government and the Federalists had to do something to quiet the discontent. Thus, the Bill of Rights was added to give the impression that the Federal Government would have some explicit limits. But the Bill of Rights was written in "alarmingly equivocal language." Royce points out, for example, that the second amendment contains "an unnecessary subordinate clause" which has caused confusion even to this day. The fourth amendment bans "unreasonable" search and seizures, but if the definition of "unreasonable" is left to the federal government, nothing is truly "unreasonable." As we all know today, the Supreme Court consistently interprets the Bill of Rights as broadly as possible. The Bill of Rights, comments Royce, were "ten speed bumps in the road to Tyranny."

If Only the State Had Intervened...

I would not have picked up that first cigarette, so says the Holy One. When I was still a warmongering conservative reading the National Review because I agreed with their writers, I remember an article arguing against drug legalization. The author cited a story of a junkie telling a police officer that he hoped drugs would not be legalized because he did not want more people to end up as he had. But why stop there? Every day people make bad decisions which wreak havoc in their lives. Perhaps we need a marriage czar to prescreen potential couples to minimize divorce. Why the hell is it so hard for so many people to simply accept responsibility for their own lives? 

More Cuts, More Freedom

One significant benefit of economic crises is that they usually force bloated states to cut their budgets and subsequently become more efficient (well, efficient for monopolies, anyway).

In California, Guv-nuh Ah-nuld is faced with the prospect of cutting billions from proposed spending plans in order to balance the budget.

Slammed by an epic housing bust and massive job losses, California faces a $24 billion budget deficit and could run out of cash by late July if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature cannot reach a budget deal.

To balance the budget, the governor has proposed closing more than 200 state parks, releasing prisoners early, selling state property, laying off state workers and cutting health care.

Under the governor's plan, K-12 schools and community colleges would lose $5.3 billion over the coming year - on top of billions of dollars in recent reductions and payment delays.

The state would spend $7,806 per K-12 student in 2009-10, almost 10 percent less than two years ago, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

These cuts would only result in more economic and political freedom for California residents. Closing state parks and selling off property is a great way to repudiate debt immediately. Eliminating state programs has the dual benefit of saving taxpayers money in both the short- and long-term -- everyday maintenance costs disappear along with the state workers who would otherwise draw government-funded health and pension benefits. And many of the prisoners likely to qualify for early release would no doubt be those who have committed nonviolent "crimes" and who never should have been locked up in the first place.

Of course, you can never cut state spending without the teachers unions wailing the loudest and hardest. But despite complaints from school officials who argue that less funding will "shortchange" students and result in lower acedemic proficiency, laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and cutting funding for educational fads will force the state to economize, which could allow it to become more productive if it took a few lessons from the private sector.

Generally, schools will weed out teachers beginning with those who don't have tenure, which is a formula for retaining many who are unmotivated and unproductive. However, if the governor instructed the districts to make these decisions based on merit (I know, fat chance), it would allow the state to weed out the worst teachers and keep only the best.

After all, this apparently is indicative of what California schools have been churning out so far:

"I think we won't be able to learn as much [if budgets are cut]," said freshman Andrew Taylor, 15. "They should put more money into schools. If you take money away from schools, you're going to end up with more people going to jail."

Seriously, folks, I'm pretty sure the only direction the state can go is up.

No License, No Fun

Police raided an Ohio bar last Friday night and arrested four nude dancers because the club is not licensed as a "sexually oriented" business.

Thank goodness we can rely on the state to put an end to peaceful behaviors that take place in private establishments.

But that's not all. If you click on the link you'll notice that a topless 14-year-old was among those arrested. According to the story, "The bar's owner and manager have been charged with illegal use of a minor in a nudity performance and with child endangering."

Because there was a minor involved, there's a good chance most people will not only disregard the fact that the state has no moral right to prevent consenting adults from engaging in voluntary association, but that they'll also endorse the raid altogether. However, while it's taboo to suggest that parents actually be responsible for their children or that individuals bear responsibility for their own behavior, the only point of concern should be whether the 14-year-old was coerced or acting on free will.

This is one of those issues that usually gets libertarians accused of being child molesters, but if the girl freely chose to remove her top in front of bar patrons, I'd say that's her deal. If, on the other hand, she was forced to dance against her will, that's another story entirely and the aggressors should be prosecuted -- though I'd guess that the girl's father would have his own sense of justice in mind and have little need for the state anyhow.

But let's proceed under the assumption that the girl knew what she was doing and chose to nude it up, even if only for the purpose of carrying this philosophical discussion a bit further. If a 14-year-old girl is choosing to associate sexually with grown adults, it's pretty likely she's got some issues. Certainly someone in her past could have caused her physical or emotional harm that manifested itself in this type of destructive behavior. Maybe she grew up without the benefit of responsible parents. Who knows? The point is that in this particular instance, the only thing that matters is whether she was the victim of tangible harm at the moment police raided the bar.

By the way, I'm not arguing in defense of the character of the onlookers in the bar if they actually knew the girl was only 14 -- she wouldn't be the first kid to have used a fake I.D. to gain access to a club -- I'm arguing that the girl was probably in no more harm dancing topless in front of arguably seedy drunks than she is right now while in the custody of the state.

More to the point, the state's efforts to collectivize all of us is a direct reflection of its abhorrence of individuality. If it were to admit that there are some 14-year-olds who are more mature than a lot of 30-somethings, it would immediately invalidate its claim to an entire class of human beings.

Police lieutenant Rick Edwards has said that officers on the scene never even witnessed the 14-year-old interacting with customers, an admission that indicates there was probably no harm whatsoever brought to the girl. Of course, like everyone else I can only go by the information present in the brief news account, but this looks like yet another case of the state prosecuting nonviolent individuals merely for the potential to do harm. That is, the government likely has once again initiated violence against people who themselves have done no such thing.