by Tessa Rose

I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being belongs to himself, and belongs to others only by choice. I’m an anarchist because I believe that violence is allowable only in defense of life, liberty, or property. I’m an anarchist because I believe that the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed. My political philosophy is probably stated best by this section of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

But you might wonder why, being an anarchist, I would use the words “legitimate government” and refer to a piece of the Declaration that mentions “government.” Isn’t anarchism the opposite, or the absence of government?

Well, yes and no. Anarchism is the absence of government as we know it, or government by a ruling class that claims the exclusive right to use aggressive force to achieve its ends, and claims the right to control everything and everybody within its “jurisdiction.”

But the term “government” can also be used to describe a set of rules and methods of enforcement that regulate some types of social relationships and are agreed upon by everyone to whom they apply. A government instituted by mutual consent to protect everyone’s rights is not a government-as-we-know-it; it is, in fact, well organized anarchy.

If your first thought is: “but the whole purpose of government and law is to force people to do things they don’t want to do and not do things they want to do,” then you have hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly the purpose of government-as-we-know-it, and it is by its very nature nonconsensual.

I reject the common belief that social order, peace, cooperation, organization, and beneficial collective actions are impossible without a ruling class specially endowed with the right to use aggressive violence. In fact, I believe that all these good things are much easier to achieve when aggressive violence is consistently shunned by everyone as a matter of principle.

I am not a starry-eyed utopian, either. I am an anarchist because I see both strength and weakness in human beings. Our strength is our intelligence, ingenuity, compassion, and ability to work together to achieve common goals. Our weakness is our desire to dominate others and promote ourselves at their expense. Given our nature, I believe it’s very dangerous to give one group of humans permission to use aggressive force to control another group of humans: This permission is like the Ring of Power in Lord of the Rings, of which Gandalf says:

“I would take this ring with the intention of doing good, but through me it would wield a power too terrible to imagine.”

Thousands of years of human history is testament to the truth of this, and we have but recently left the bloodiest century in the long, bloody, cruel history of mankind. Despite this, I dare to believe that humans, at heart, are becoming more humane. The horrors of the 20th century were not due to the degeneration of human nature, but to the addition of advanced technologies to the ancient arts of slaughter and domination.

I am an anarchist because I love my fellow man. And how does one express love toward six billion human beings? I cannot hug them all. I cannot feed them all. I can affect only a small fraction of humanity in a positive way. But for everyone else on the planet, the best thing I can do is to respect them and leave them in peace. I can simply refrain from demanding and advocating the enslavement, imprisonment, or death of others for my benefit. I can personally grant everyone their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without any interference from me.

That’s why I’m an anarchist.

Tessa Rose is the wife of tax heretic/anarchist writer Larken Rose, with whom many of you are familiar. Find out more about Tessa at http://tessa-rose.blogspot.com/.

by Mark Hillman

Our ongoing debate about government’s role in health care is proving worthwhile because it forces people to focus on the real tradeoffs in a system mandated - if not directly operated - by government, rather than one selected by individuals or their employers. Today, our system is a dysfunctional hybrid.

To the extent that we cannot choose the health care coverage we want today, those restrictions are almost always the result of previous government interventions - tax incentives that make it easier for employers to buy insurance than for employees to purchase their own or laws requiring us to purchase coverage we may not need or cannot afford.

President Obama says all insurance policies will be required to cover preventive care and early screening for various maladies, as if he can force insurance companies - or doctors - to give us something for nothing.

Well, he can’t do that anymore than he can require restaurants to serve a free lunch every Thursday. Even under Barack Obama, Americans cannot be compelled to do business at a loss; they always have the right to lock the doors and close up shop.

That’s why there’s no free lunch - or free health care. Politicians aren’t “giving” us these services; they are forcing us to buy them - and to pay more than the actual cost.

It never ceases to amaze when politicians who demagogue against “greedy” insurance companies will, in their next breath, require us to buy things through an insurance company that we could purchase less expensively if we simply paid out of pocket.

If both you and your doctor know that you need a colonoscopy, how can it possibly be cheaper for you to send your payment to an insurance company, while the doctor files a claim with that insurance company, and the insurance company processes the claim and issues payment - rather than for you to simply pay the doctor?

Yet ObamaCare would establish a mandatory list of insurable procedures as well as maximum deductibles. For those with money-saving high-deductible plans and health savings accounts - like the one I’ve had for 12 years - the President’s promise that we can keep the plan we have just doesn’t wash.

Americans who are understandably frustrated by health care costs are recognizing that the more control you give to government the more control you give to government.

Today, if you, your doctor and your insurer agree on a procedure, you make an appointment and “get ‘er done.” And if you can’t agree, you are free to pursue other procedures that you can pay for yourself. (After all, what good is an extra $50,000 in your retirement account if you’re dead?)

But if no one practices those alternative procedures because omnipotent health care bureaucrats won’t pay for them, you are out of luck.

The larger point is this: Why is it government’s business how much you pay, what doctor you see, or what treatment you receive, so long as you are paying the bill?

Health care, like any commodity or service, will always be limited by economic reality. Government health care programs are responsible for more cost-shifting than all of the “uninsured.” Yet despite paying below-market prices, Medicare will be insolvent in just seven years and has amassed all by itself a deficit of $37.8 trillion.

If the government is empowered to supervise everyone’s health care, then only two outcomes are possible: either everyone’s health care is rationed to control costs or no one’s health care is rationed and the cost of government health care finally breaks the camel’s back, ushering in a worthless dollar, runaway inflation and skyrocketing interest rates.

In either case, our impoverished children and grandchildren will forever curse our self-centered, shortsighted generation.

There can be no health care utopia any more than everyone can enjoy all they want to eat or live in the home of their dreams. Sooner or later, someone must choose between what we want and what we can afford.

Who do you want to make those tough choices - yourself or someone in government?

Mark Hillman is a Colorado native, farmer, and a “recovering journalist.” He was elected two terms in the Colorado State Senate and served as Majority Leader, as well as Colorado State Treasurer. In 2008, Mark elected to represent Colorado on the Republican National Committee.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org

by Kevin Tuma

by Sean Haugh

The mission of the Libertarian Party is to move public policy in a libertarian direction by electing candidates of the Libertarian Party to public office.

To fulfill our Mission Statement, Libertarians have long debated whether it is better to run as many candidates as possible, or take care to only run good candidates. I have always asserted the obvious answer is “both!” This has been a false dichotomy from the beginning.

Well, now I have rock solid proof that I was right all along. Specifically, the truth is that running as many candidates as possible naturally leads to running candidates of high quality. But that’s only the beginning of the benefits you’ll receive by pursuing a full slate strategy.

Here in North Carolina in May, we had a lobbying day for our Electoral Fairness Act (EFA). The EFA would lower our ballot access signature and retention requirements to a quarter of what they are now, moving NC from one of the three hardest states for ballot access (according to Ballot Access News) to the national median.

Little did I know that I would receive a powerful revelation on this particular trip to Raleigh.

I knew it was a big deal when we ran 145 candidates last year, including 13 of 14 Congressional seats and a majority of seats in both houses of our state legislature. And I knew it was an even bigger deal when we won six races in 2002. But until that Tuesday, I still had no idea just how big all that was.

Our performance last year completely revised how we are perceived by the powers that be. They all know now that we can no longer be dismissed out of hand. They have got it through their heads that we are going to stay on the ballot no matter what, and there’s nothing they can do to stop us. They have grudgingly accepted that we are a permanent player at the table. They hate it, but they can no longer deny it.

One thing that struck me is that damn near everybody in that General Assembly building knows who I am. Not just legislators, but staffers, media, and lobbyists too. People I had never laid eyes on looked at me and greeted me by name - and they even knew how to pronounce it properly.

They all also know our Chair, Barbara Howe, and I think by now most all of them know our Ballot Access Director and chief EFA lobbyist Dave Goree. Our county parties have made themselves well known to their local legislators. Remember, the majority of these people also had to deal with a Libertarian opponent last election. And of course, our Press Secretary Rachel Mills (Ladies of Liberty) is an international superstar. We are now members of the club.

Actually, not all of them hate it. In fact, lots of the legislators and bureaucrats rather like us. We are actively pursuing a number of ways to get EFA in through the back door. The front door was slammed in our faces by the House co-speakers, but that story can be found in Ballot Access News.

Frankly, we are now in the interesting position to negotiate with three or four different factions within state government and make it clear that whomever makes the first deal wins. Part of it is because we have always played nice. Our years of practicing courtesy and respectful is paying dividends.

But another part of it is, they know that can’t beat us, so now they’d rather join us. Both wings of the Demopublican party, and the subfactions within them, are waking up to the fact that working with us helps them beat the other side. And hey, if Demopublican fratricide is the goal, we’re all too happy to help!

No matter how hard it may be, we know that ballot access is the necessary first step to accomplish anything as a political party here in NC. We would not be anywhere near this stage in our development if we hadn’t had ballot access and worked it as hard as we possibly could continuously since 1996. This can never be taken for granted.

Filling the ballot with every willing name you can scare up produces dramatic results. If you don’t believe me, look at other rapidly growing state parties like Florida or Indiana where this is also the practice. Or even an example like Alabama, where the reaction from the legislature has been much more negative, but where this tactic definitely snapped the powers that be to attention.

In NC, we have reached the next decision point, of having to make sure that the people we field in winnable races met a higher standard than simple willingness to run - because there are now winnable races in NC.

Yet the problem neatly provides its own solution. By running so many candidates in years past, we have already put most everyone who is at all interested through a naturally rigorous screening process, and have identified dozens of very well qualified future elected Libertarians.

Despite our newfound fame and respect, the prospects for the EFA still appear dim. We’re looking at the real possibility that we’ll have to start the cycle of collecting 95,000 or so signatures once again in 2004-05. The neat thing is that we know we can do it, and furthermore now everybody else knows it too.

And now so do you. If we can consistently beat one of the top three ballot access obstacles in the country, well, what’s stopping your state party? Look at Georgia, they have some really screwy ballot access obstacles, but they are figuring out how to beat them with equally novel solutions. And wouldn’t you know it, Atlanta is beginning to pay attention too.

The LPNC has developed a great wealth of ballot access know how, which we would be very happy to share with any of our fellow state parties who yearn to have their chance to fulfill the Mission Statement.

Changing public policy by electing Libertarians is what we’re all about. Personally, I’m looking forward to finding out just how much more profound our influence becomes when we start winning State House races.

Originally published in Liberty For All June 02, 2003.

Sean Haugh is assistant editor for Liberty For All. Sean is married to longtime Libertarian Pam Adams, and they have a family of three dogs and five cats.  Besides them, Sean loves God, Liberty, and Oklahoma Sooners football.  Write to Sean at seanhaugh@mindspring.com.

by Jessi Winchester, author of From Bordello to Ballot Box and America: The Final Chapter

“A man’s worth is estimated in this world according to his conduct”

- Jean de La Bruyere, French Author; 1645-1696

I stood in awe before our most anticipated vacation destination.  Before me, in massive grandeur, were four presidential faces deemed important enough in our nation’s history to receive a place of honor on Mt. Rushmore … Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln.  All four were, after all, only human beings with all the virtuous as well as flawed traits of any man, yet each of the easily recognized likenesses before me had accomplished something extraordinary that made them stand out from others.  I contemplated the characteristics that made them human but was most interested in the principal achievements each had accomplished to be honored in such an impressive manner.

The somber face of George Washington seemed to convey the heavy burden he shouldered as the first leader of the new Republic.  A celebrated war hero who presided over the Constitutional Convention, he took on the difficult task of forging a blueprint for the Office of President of a new nation.  Despite evidence Washington allowed elitist Alexander Hamilton to have too large an influence on decisions Washington made as president, the mere fact Washington was the first to occupy the top office of the land makes him a natural choice for residency on the mountain.

Thomas Jefferson earned the honor of having his likeness engraved on Mt. Rushmore due to his passionate advocacy on behalf of liberty and the every day citizen for whom the U.S. Constitution was designed.  He drafted the Declaration of Independence and became a staunch defender of states’ rights, fiercely opposing a controlling centralized government which made him a respected patriot and ally of the common citizen.  His professional record is so unblemished that one of the few damaging pieces of information appears to be personal rather than professional.  Jefferson believed slavery was morally wrong, yet DNA research shows he fathered several children by one of his slaves.  By today’s standards, that is a shocking revelation but for that time period it was not so unusual.  Regardless of his personal decisions, Jefferson still remains one of the most ardent defenders of personal freedom and limited federal government and as the author of the Declaration of Independence, he fully deserves his place among the presidents.

Theodore Roosevelt had youth and a zest for life that energized the Presidency and made him a charismatic favorite.  Despite being born into wealth, he was committed to safeguarding the rights of the common American and striking an equal balance between the classes.  Raised in the East, he nevertheless spent a great deal of time on his beloved ranch in the Badlands of the Dakota Territory so his likeness is right at home overlooking the land he worked as a cowboy.  Roosevelt’s appetite to propel the U.S. into a position of world power sometimes took an unorthodox path, however.  One example was his determination to build a strategic waterway to create a shortcut that could quickly transport the American Navy between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.  Achieving that goal meant going to war with Spain in order to secure the Caribbean and establish military control over the region in which he wanted to build the Panama Canal.  Some feel he crossed over the line by promoting the Spanish-American War in order to achieve his own agenda.  Nevertheless, his primary accomplishments as president rest in the areas of strong foreign policy, progressive reform, conservation, construction of the Panama Canal, and promoting American involvement in world politics.

Abraham Lincoln has undoubtedly received the most hype of the four faces etched in granite and was the most controversial inclusion.  He is considered the “Father of the Republican Party” and his humble beginnings inspire those who pursue grand purpose.  As a person, however, Lincoln was complex and little understood.  The Civil War period was the most destructive in American history and Lincoln has been criticized for approving General Sherman’s plan to wipe out southern cities despite civilian casualties which included women and children in an effort to attain victory for his cause.  This forever divided the country rather than uniting it.  Lincoln may have grown up poor but he became an elitist who felt he had the right to circumvent the Constitution by centralizing power within the federal government at the expense of Tenth Amendment states’ rights.  For these reasons there was considerable opposition from the public regarding the inclusion of Lincoln on Mt. Rushmore.  Recent books such as ‘The Real Lincoln,’ by Thomas J. DiLorenzo reveal a dark side of his presidency seldom acknowledged by historians.

Even in stone, the presidents continue to protectively look out over the land for which each had their own unique brand of impact.  Regardless of the positives and negatives associated with the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, one can’t help but be awestruck by the sheer majesty of the monument, the history of what it took to bring it to reality, and the feeling of pride as one looks upon the faces that helped shape America - the land we love.

Copyright © Jessi Winchester 2004 All Rights Reserved

by Lance Newman

The use of public surveillance cameras to fight crime has been a heated topic for quite some time. The issue was reignited last August when the city of Denver used federal funds to purchase an additional fifty High Activity Location Observation (HALO) cameras from the original thirteen cameras at $25,000 a pop to fight crime. Increasing the number of surveillance cameras may create a marginally safer environment, but at a significant cost to civil liberty.

The pervasiveness of security cameras throughout the city of Denver is creating a growing concern for individual liberty. The ACLU has taken up the public surveillance issue, saying that HALO cameras are a violation of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act. The activities recorded by the cameras are used exclusively by public safety and law enforcement officials. Hard working Coloradans contributed their time and money in the form of tax dollars to make the camera installations possible. Therefore, it would only be fair for contributors to have the option of seeing what they paid for. But, that’s the not the view held by many government officials.

In response to a records request made by CBS4 in February, the Denver Department of Safety refused to hand over video recordings of a brawl that erupted in downtown Denver on February 14. A representative for the Department of Safety was quoted as saying “Because you are not affiliated with a public safety or law enforcement agency, your request for access to any videotapes obtained from a HALO camera is accordingly denied.” So HALO recordings can be viewed solely by the government? Because someone does not work for public safety or law enforcement, they somehow don’t have the credentials to view what they diligently worked for? Equal rights? Well, if someone can tell you that you can’t reap the benefits of something that YOU rightfully paid for, contrary to your wishes, then that would make some people “more equal” than others. John Edwards was half correct when he said there are two Americas. Not the Edwards version of the rich and the poor, but rather the governed and those who govern.

What type of message does the Department of Safety’s response send to society? Is the Denver Department of Safety under the assumption that government has the divine authority to watch our every move simply because it MIGHT reduce some crime? Having cameras in private homes might reduce crime as well. Maybe the Denver government can do us all a favor by installing a few cameras in each of our homes so that we’re deterred from playing loud music too late. The ubiquitous surveillance power Denver is pursuing will simply widen the gap between the two classes in society, the government and the citizenry.

If you need any more evidence, you don’t need to look any further than the case of Great Britain. Great Britain has one camera for every seven citizens. Last October several British newspapers reported that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government was working on a plan to monitor every phone call, website visit, text message, and email in the country, entering the information into an enormous database that would be used to catch terrorists, pedophiles, and scam artists.

The Revolutionary War was fought because Americans wanted to break away from a government that trampled civil liberties, not create one. Adding more HALO cameras will undoubtedly transform our nation into a much more regulated one. If we want to preserve what limited civil liberties we have left, the government should seriously consider thinking twice about installing additional cameras. Ensuring that HALO recordings are more readily available to the general public would also be a considerable step toward ensuring that public surveillance is being used only for legitimate public safety reasons, and the preservation of individual freedoms.

Lance Newman attends college at SUNY Buffalo and was a summer intern at The Independence Institute.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536

by Roderick T. Beaman

Over the past few weeks it emerged that Rush Limbaugh was to be part of a group of investors in the St. Louis Rams. The firestorm was as intense as it was predictable.

Weighing in were the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It always amusing to see those two in action. They’re to politics what Nehru Jackets are to fashion. Bell bottoms and platform shoes may come back. Neither Jackson nor Sharpton can get over that their days have passed. Al Sharpton called Limbaugh divisive. This is a man who gave us that Tawana Brawley hoax and never apologized for it. He’s put himself at the center of just about every possible event that could even be remotely considered racial.

Tawana Brawley was the teenager in Wappingers Falls, New York who claimed that she was kidnapped, raped and sodomized by a group of white men, among them a part-time cop who would commit suicide. Investigators found that, at the time of the claimed event, he was in the company of Assistant DA Steven Pagones and State Trooper Scott Patterson. Sharpton then accused Pagones of being one of the participants and that Pagones had murdered cop to silence him and that the report of a suicide was part of a big cover up. Nothing is ever below Al Sharpton.

The case caused a media sensation and the usual suspects lined up to exploit it; Phil Donahue, Louis Farrakhan and Bill Cosby. Despite occasional lapses into reason, Cosby usually resides in the fever swamps of the lunatic left. Sharpton was eventually sued, successfully, by Pagones but he resisted paying anything until he was bailed out but some heavy duty black millionaires.

Jesse is another case. Jesse is a part-time minister, part-time politician and full time publicity seeker. Knowing that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination would leave a leadership void, he embellished his role at that terrible event. Afterwards, I read several accounts that disputed his version, he somehow never got called on it. Nor does Jesse ever get called on anything.

Particularly appalling were the events after the suicidal death of Raynard Johnson, a black teenager in Kokomo, Mississippi in June, 2000. The local and state police ruled it a suicide. The autopsy showed no signs of a struggle that would be expected from a lynching. The despondent parents turned to Jesse for help and he, of course, agreed to go to Mississippi to fund the truth.

It was a majority white town and it turned out that he had been dating a white girl who had just broken up with him hours before he was found hanged with a braided belt that his parents said he didn’t own. A video from a convenience store showed that he was wearing a belt similar to the one he was hanged with.

Jesse arrived to great fanfare and many cameras (I apologize for stating the obvious. Jesse always arrives to great fanfare and many cameras) and announced he’d find who were responsible for the evil deed. Jesse said the boy’s throat had been cut. It wasn’t. Jesse must have left the state in the middle of the night because he has never been heard from again regarding the unfortunate matter. I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh although I have in the past. I used to find him interesting and funny but have come to find him annoying. I rarely listen to him anymore. But these were two of the people lined up to oppose Limbaugh. Sterling credentials, the two of them, don’t you think.

Many liberals have called him racist, bigoted & sexist, saying that he ridicules blacks, minorities and women. I have never found that. He satirizes liberals and that is what has made him such a pariah to the Left.

Bill Raspberry was always one of my favorite columnists. Black and liberal, he was never one to dismiss conservatives as bigots etc. He would always listen.

One time, he referred to Limbaugh as a racist or some such. Someone challenged him and asked if he’d ever listened to Rush Limbaugh. He admitted he hadn’t and then tuned him in for a while. His conclusion, Rush Limbaugh was not a racist.

He wrote that Limbaugh didn’t ridicule blacks, women and minorities. He ridiculed liberals. Raspberry went on to say that it was a reversal of the usual, where liberals would satirize all things conservative but that suddenly, when the shoe was on the other foot, the liberals showed that they could give it but couldn’t take it.

Quite so. I have found that all of my adult life. The most intolerant people I have ever met have been liberals. The most judgmental people I have ever met have been liberals. Further, the most racist and bigoted people I have ever met have been liberals.

When I went to college at New York University, the assumption was that if you even went to college, you had to be liberal. As William Buckley once observed, liberals feel that it is impossible to be simultaneously intelligent and conservative. He also once observed, liberal intolerance was exhibited by the astonishment that there even was another opinion.

Judgmentalism was another matter. If you told a liberal you admired either Barry Goldwater or William Buckley, they just about handed you a set of sheets and a swastika armband to wear. Bigotry may be the most surprising to readers but it was there among liberals, far more than among conservatives. The very same people who were waving the flag for the various civil rights bills of the 1960s were the most upset when blacks moved into their comfy upper middle class enclaves of Great Neck and Manhattanville. 

The misrepresentations of Limbaugh’s statements have been equally appalling. O’Reilly has stated, repeatedly, that his researchers have been unable to find any record that Limbaugh ever said that slavery wasn’t all bad. Yet that persists.

I can assure every reader, that I have seen personally, how things get distorted, in and by the media and by viewers and readers. I have been present when stories were planted and have been quoted with things I never said. (Even though the latter incident was in a college newspaper, it nevertheless is illustrative. For dramatic illustration of the problem, see the excellent first 30 minutes of the otherwise mediocre Paul Newman/Sally Field movie, ‘Absence of Malice’.)

Rush Limbaugh has been a football aficionado for years. His problems really emerged from his remark as a football analyst about the Philadelphia Eagles and Donovan McNabb. He said that it was the defense that had been carrying the team and he wondered whether the accolades that were being heaped on Donovan McNabb were due to the media’s wanting an outstanding black quarterback.

As it’s turning out, McNabb is a very good quarterback. It was a valid question but in these days of political ultra-correctness, such discussions aren’t permitted. Thus, we have now a black president and former President Jimmy Carter and others state that criticism of him arises from the innate racism at the heart of America. (Oh yes, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, Jimmy. In my heart, I know I’m a racist.) And no one is permitted to wonder whether some promotions of minorities are due to their being minorities and that maybe society should examine all of these programs. Somehow, it seems the answer is no.

The Obama Administration is now waxing apoplectic over executive salaries of companies that took TARP money. Why can’t we raise the same questions about Affirmative Action?

Can anyone of us entirely eliminate from ourselves racial awareness? I strongly doubt it. At this late date in my life, the first thing I notice when I meet a black person, is that he is black and it remains an issue throughout any exchange. I hate that about myself. Do blacks have the same problem? I don’t know but think so.

But if we can’t view hold all politicians, sports figures and beneficiaries of public policies up to the light of critical examination, we are the losers.

Dr. Roderick T. Beaman is an osteopathic family physician practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Born in New York City, he attended New York University as an undergraduate. A recipient of a 2003 Ron Paul Liberty in Media Award, he has had dreams (delusions?) of becoming a writer. He has written a novel that he has given up hope of ever getting published and so has made it available for the asking through TheFreedomBeam@comcast.net. Comments on his columns are welcome also.

by George Phillies

Dues-paying National Libertarian Party Member Joe Kennedy is running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. He’s running in our January 19 special election to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy.  You can count on national media attention.

Take a look at Joe’s web site. Read his stands on issues like the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, marijuana, gun control, welfare, and education.  Time after time, you’re going to read sensible libertarian ideas presented effectively to a wide audience.

Joe is a real libertarian, running on our sound libertarian ideas. That’s why the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts endorsed him: Joe is a real Libertarian.  That’s why the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts put $1000 of our treasury into his campaign: Joe is a real Libertarian.

Joe Kennedy writes of his politics:

“In College, I would have considered myself a Democrat. I would not have considered myself active in politics at the time, however, I did work on Tom Harkin’s run for presidency by collecting signatures for him in New Hampshire.

“At different points in my life I have been registered as both a Democrat and as an Independent. Over the past 5 years I have become more and more concerned about spending in Washington and taxation in general. The extensive spending on Wars, Bailouts and Social Programs in both the current and previous administrations have expanded the deficit at speeds we have never before witnessed. These costs will have to be paid by us in the short term through tax increases, or by our children. These concerns have pushed me more and more to a Libertarian way of thinking.”

Libertarians are all too familiar with corrupt ballot access practices shutting our candidates away from the ballot.  Massachusetts is no different.  When I heard that we were having a special election, my reaction was: This year, we have major party status.  We don’t have a candidate who can front the $60,000 or more we will need to get onto the ballot on the Libertarian Party line.

For once, we lucked out.

On August 5, Joe was registered as an independent.  That meant the he could petition for ballot access under our minor party rules.  Instead of $60,000, his campaign can reach ballot access for perhaps $15,000. If Joe can raise the money, and he is almost half way there, we will have a real Libertarian on the ballot speaking up for libertarian issues, speaking up when his is the only election the press can cover.

Then we lucked out again.

Like any honest man, Joe is running under his own name.  He happens to have been born with a fine Irish name, a name that many Massachusetts voters will find comfortable rather than unfamiliar.  In Massachusetts politics, that’s a real plus, the sort of thing that will help voters hear his ideas and decide this is a man they can trust.

Libertarians across America have a choice:  You can support a real libertarian.  Or you can close your checkbook, skip donating through PayPal, and wonder why there’s no libertarian in the race.  If you want another political campaign in which the voice of liberty remains silent, you have but to do nothing.  If you want a political campaign in which the silver song of freedom rings gloriously from coast to coast, go to http://JoeKennedyForSenate.com and give generously. (I already have!)

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.

by Larken Rose

It’s inefficient, it’s corrupt, it’s horrendously expensive, and it’s bad at almost everything it does, not only failing to solve problems, but constantly making them worse, and making new problems at the same time. Yet so many people still insist that this thing called “government” is needed, even if only for a few particular tasks.

So what, exactly, does “government” add to society? What can it add? If we start with lots and lots of people, living on a big piece of dirt, what does “government” have to contribute to the equation? Well, it contributes no talent or skill, no knowledge or ingenuity–things which come only from individual human beings. “Government” is merely an organization of people, imagined to have the right to rule everyone else. It can’t have any abilities or productivity to offer that could not already be found in the people of whom it consists. Calling a group of people something different (i.e., “government”) can’t possibly add any talents or qualities that the people in the group didn’t already possess.

Every “law” and “program” administered by “government” is administered by people. Since organization, cooperation, ingenuity and creativity are all possible without “government”–since those all come from people–how could we possibly need “government” for anything? Since it’s just a group of people, how could there be anything which people could do as “government,” which those same people, with all the same talents and know-how, couldn’t do without it?

There is one thing, and only one thing, that “government” adds to society: immoral violence. Because people imagine it to have the RIGHT to rule, and the right to use force in situations where you and I would have no such right, all it does is add UNJUST VIOLENCE to society. (And how many people, looking around, say, “Ya know, what this country needs is more unjust violence!”)

Yes, some things are more convenient if you are allowed to ignore morality. For example, a supermarket would have an easier time if it could COERCE its customers to show up and pay whatever the store wants them to pay, instead of having to compete for voluntary customers. (The result, of course, would be really expensive, worthless products and services–which is what “government” specializes in.) It’s easier to get your way if everyone thinks you have the right to send men with guns to make everyone else behave the way you want. But is that ADDING something to society, or taking something away?

Every time someone initiates force against someone else, whether they do it on their own or in the name of “government,” they are SUBTRACTING something from society. They are REMOVING options and choices from people who should be free. They are LIMITING what people can do, what they can create, and what they can accomplish.

We can easily see this with a common crook. The guy who steals the old lady’s purse adds nothing of value to society, and deprives the lady of all the possibilities of what she could have done with that money. In the case of a kidnapper or a murderer, the example is even more significant: to steal some or all of a person’s life is to deprive not only that person, but the rest of the world, of whatever that person could have created or produced, whether in terms of physical wealth, emotional support, or anything else.

The same is true of the state. Every “law” is a threat of violence, and the vast majority of them target people who have committed no force or fraud. As a result, the vast majority of “laws” do nothing but LIMIT what people can accomplish and REMOVE options and choices. How can drastically LIMITING possibilities, with the use of force, contribute to society?

(Before you try to use the example of police stopping a murderer, think carefully. Defensive force is justified without any “law” or special “authority,” so the protection of the innocent requires no “government.” What makes them “police” is that people imagine them to have the right to use violence in situations where “normal” people don’t. What “law enforcement” adds to society is, therefore, not safety, but robbery, assault, kidnapping and murder, all done in the name of the “law.” In other words, by definition “government” does NOT add any right or ability to PROTECT rights– which the people already had; it adds only the ability to VIOLATE rights.)

To put it bluntly, the reason statists really want “government” is because they aren’t content to allow people to solve problems through voluntary interaction and cooperation; they want to FORCE everyone to do things their way. If the statists are scared of foreign invaders, they want to FORCE everyone else to pay for an army (even those who don’t think it’s necessary, or who morally oppose it). If statists think the poor might go hungry, they want to FORCE everyone to be “charitable.” If they are concerned about kids not being educated, they want to FORCE everyone to pay for schools, whether the people want them or not.

“Government” is always a cop-out, advocated by people who don’t want to let people be free, but want to COERCE them into making the “right” choices and funding the “right” things. Then, not surprisingly, it turns into a giant political free-for-all, fighting over the question of WHO gets to decide what everyone else should pay for and how everyone else should behave. An honest statist would have to sum up his position thusly: “We need government because otherwise some people wouldn’t support what I want them to support, and wouldn’t make the choices I want them to make.” That is the ONLY reason anyone ever advocates “government,” and that’s why the ONLY thing that “government” “adds” to society is limited choices, fewer possibilities, and lots of unjust violence.

Allow me to be blunt to the point of rudeness: It’s true that, if the whole world isn’t forced to do things the way YOU think it should, you might not always get your way. But don’t pretend you have some noble, altruistic motive for wanting “government.” You want it so it can do what you know that YOU have no right to do: FORCE all your neighbors to conform to YOUR beliefs and ideas. Don’t pretend you want “government” to “protect” people, or to contribute something to society that free people couldn’t create– you want it because you want CONTROL over everyone and everything else; you want to FORCE your ideas and “solutions” upon everyone else.

Well, the rest of the world has no obligation to think what you think, or to fund your ideas (whether they’re brilliant or stupid), or to bow to your will. You own yourself, but you don’t own anyone else. If that’s not enough for you, go jump in a lake. Stop advocating violence in the name of humanity.

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com

by Randall G. Holcombe

TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, is a year old now. On Sept. 19, 2008, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced the need for a $700 billion program to purchase toxic assets held by banks to prevent a financial meltdown, and after some modification Congress rapidly approved TARP on Oct. 3. Looking back after a year, was TARP necessary? Did it work?

The answers are No, and No.

To look at the first question, consider what TARP was designed to do. Secretary Paulson said interbank lending had dried up because banks had toxic assets (mortgage-backed securities) clogging their portfolios. Because nobody knew what they were worth, banks were uncertain of the financial security of other banks. This uncertainty caused a reluctance to lend and prompted the financial markets to lock up.

The solution, Paulson argued, was to approve TARP and use $700 billion to buy the toxic assets. Replacing the assets with Treasury securities would fortify bank balance sheets and interbank lending would resume.

It is easy to say the program wasn’t necessary, despite Paulson’s arguments, because the TARP money wasn’t used to buy toxic assets. TARP money was instead used to buy preferred stock in banks, shoring up their balance sheets by giving the federal government part ownership of the banks.

Nine of the largest banks were forced to issue stock to the Treasury, paid for with TARP money, even though several of the banks tried to opt out. Secretary Paulson said that if some of the big banks participated and others didn’t, it would identify their varying levels of weakness, which Paulson believed was undesirable.

Instead of buying up toxic assets, the TARP money was used to partially nationalize the banking industry. It was also used for a federal takeover of AIG (after it was initially rescued by the Fed) and the bailout of Chrysler and General Motors.

When the auto companies initially approached Secretary Paulson for a share of the money, he said it was only to be used for the purchase of toxic assets from financial institutions. But when Congress wouldn’t bail out the auto industry, Paulson changed his tune.

Was it necessary to appropriate $700 billion to buy toxic assets? In hindsight, we can see the answer is No, because the money wasn’t used that way. Are we any better off for having used it instead to partially nationalize financial institutions and manufacturing firms? All TARP did for Chrysler and GM was delay their bankruptcies for six months and buy the government its ownership interest.

As for the banks, it may be that some of them would have failed without the money, but that is not a bad thing. When firms take risks, they must balance the potential profits from success against the potential losses from failure, and the TARP support removes the last part of that balancing act. There may have been some dislocations in the short run from bank failures, but in the long run allowing them to go under preserves the incentive structure that fuels a market economy.

Banks are financial intermediaries that match up borrowers and lenders. When a bank goes under, it does not reduce the amount of money available to borrowers, or prevent savers from providing money that can be lent. Other financial intermediaries are available to borrowers and lenders to replace the activities that failed banks would have performed.

Ultimately, what TARP did was provide funds for the government to take an ownership interest in private firms. Nationalizing our financial and industrial firms is not in the public interest. The federal government now owns 80 percent of AIG and 61 percent of GM. TARP was not necessary. It didn’t work. And what it actually did was undesirable.

Randall G. Holcombe is co-editor of the book Housing America: Building Out of a Crisis (Independent Institute, 2009) and DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics at Florida State University.

by R. Lee Wrights

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

- George Washington

Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows of my great respect and genuine affection for the founding fathers of this country. I not only admire the men and women of the American Revolution as individuals; but moreover, I admire what they stood for and what they were willing to sacrifice in order to become free individuals governing themselves. I am loathe to criticize them at all because I honestly believe they did the very best they could with what they had, even to the point of risking fortune and life to achieve what they coveted most - precious Liberty. However, in my opinion there is one glaring mistake that the framers of the Constitution made when they collective ratified the first ten amendments in a document that would come to be known to all Americans as the Bill of Rights. They put the wrong amendment first.

Now, I understand why the founders of our country made the right to free speech the First Amendment to their newly-penned Constitution. After all, for as primitive as they lived by today’s standards the founding fathers considered themselves to be some of the most civilized men in the world. And as far as they were concerned, civilized men talked out their disagreements and only resorted to violence under the most extreme necessity. They looked upon themselves as enlightened individuals, as they certainly were indeed. Reason and logic were their preferred weapons of battle, and the gun was only to be used if both of those failed and life, liberty and freedom were at stake. So, it only seems natural that the right to free speech became the first amendment of ten included in the Bill of Rights.

Although I can certainly understand and even respect their reasoning, I still disagree with founders’ choice for the First Amendment. Even 250 years ago being first meant it was the most important, and while I agree that the individual’s ability to speak his/her mind is essential to a society dedicated to those precious siblings Liberty and Freedom, no rights at all can be guaranteed, much less preserved perpetually, without the Second Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms.

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed–unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

- James Madison, the Federalist Papers No. 46

If you cannot protect your life and property you cannot be free, for surely some tyrant will come along, with an army to support him, and strip your birthrights from you. If you do not have the means by which to defend yourself from oppression, someone will always be around who wants to “shut you up” and will stop at nothing to make sure you are silenced. History has taught us this sad reality - at some point the right to keep and bear arms is the “only” thing that will perpetually preserve individual freedom. It is clearly, at least in my mind, the most important right we have and therefore should have been number one in the Bill of Rights.

While we can only speculate as to exactly how freedom of speech got top billing over the right to keep and bear arms, there can be no doubt that each and every one of the framers of the Constitution knew of the importance of the Second Amendment. They themselves were a living example of how important being well-armed is to any individual who wishes to remain free. After all, the various states had been petitioning the king for years trying to get their concerns addressed over taxes, trade agreements, land boundaries, etc. only to face even further transgressions upon their rights. 

Even when words would not work, they tried words again and again and again hoping beyond all hope to avoid an all-out war. They tolerated more and more taxes while being forced to open their homes to quarter the king’s men as they resisted armed revolt. No real fighting occurred until British forces marched on Lexington and Concord to take the towns’ arsenals. When the king’s army came to take away their weapons the people rose up and America’s Revolutionary War began. As I said, there can be no doubt that the framers of the Constitution knew all too well how important the right to keep and bear arms is to a nation of sovereign individuals yearning to be free.

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright [1824]

Now don’t get me wrong. There is no bigger First Amendment advocate than I. I believe, as the founders believed, that reason and logic are preferable to violence when it comes to settling differences of opinions. Dispassionate debate, charged with facts not emotions, should be the rules of engagement among civilized individuals. However, we need look no further than our history books or the daily headlines to see that words alone will not make freemen out of slaves. The only deterrent to tyranny is a well-armed citizenry. The founders knew this and still they made freedom of speech first in the Bill of Rights. Was it a deliberate attempt to solidify, and even codify, the enlightened belief that words are preferable to bullets? I cannot imagine it was anything else. A noble and honorable attempt indeed.

No matter how much I admire a noble attempt by the founders of this country to emphasize and reinforce the notion that words are indeed preferable to war, my own life experiences have shown me the greater importance of being able to defend myself properly. When I was a youngster, growing up in the turbulent ’60’s, I learned quickly that self-defense was the most basic instinct instilled in mankind. I discovered, mostly out of necessity, that there is nothing stronger in human nature than the drive for self-preservation. I also learned defense of self cannot be trusted to the hands of others who share the same natural disposition of self first. I learned that rarely was anyone in a position of authority around when I really needed them. In other words, those who were charged with my safety proved incapable of rendering the service. In every instance of my life when I needed protection I have taken the initiative of self-defense because without it there would have been no defense at all. It has been from necessity not desire that, at times, I have had to abandon words and physically defend my person, my property and my rights. If life is indeed its own best teacher, then the right to keep and bear arms must be recognized as the number one naturally-endowed right of the whole human race.

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

- George Mason

Originally published at Liberty For All April 29, 2007.

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.”

Smedley Butler died in 1940. Many believe he was assassinated while in the hospital. Smedley Butler was the most popular military figure in America when he was asked to carry out a military junta on behalf of wealthy businessmen. The planned coup d’état failed because Butler exposed them. Variously known as the “Business Plot,” the “Plot Against FDR” and the “White House Putsch” took place in parallel with Hitler’s move towards power in Germany.

Imagine a group of the corporate greedy, many of whom like the Bushes, have investments there, seized with the excitement of emulation. Greed begets more greed, as we have learned to our sorrow.

The corporates have not changed, but they have become more efficient, skilled and organized in planning their disinformation campaigns and in their abuse of power.

Today you see Newt Gingrich posturing. Standing with the woman he finally married, seeing their happy smiles remember the woman Newt abandoned to die of cancer, the mother of his children who made his career possible. They want to tell you how to be a Christian. Does this seem odd? Samuel Adams was not the last of the Puritans, those who saw the real vision of Christianity, the coming together as one people. Descendants of the Puritans brought you the Abolitionist Movement, the Suffrage Movement, and today continue to work for peace, justice and care of the Earth. I know, my family was there, not selling supplies to the British.

The list of those employed by the corporations to pull the wool over your eyes is long. How they spin the world into cotton candy by Monsanto to destroy your health, steal the power of the people, and convert our institutions into tools of oppression is both complex and simple. But once you see it, you are immunized against their lies.

Read this site before you consider having a vaccination. Think about the motives and methods of those who would force you to comply. Read the book, visit the links, your survival depends on it.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather. Melinda is an associate editor for Liberty For All and can be reached at the.melinda@yahoo.com.

by Jessica Peck Corry

Dr. Keith Smith is a proud capitalist. The anesthesiologist often helps poor patients obtain surgeries at no cost while managing to keep his Oklahoma-based practice afloat.

Speaking recently to a roomful of American reporters at a Vancouver hotel, Smith could have easily relied on lazy clichés to point out how Canada’s system fails its critically ill. Instead, he talked about something much more important to most Americans: how our system is failing us.

“The Canadian system is a Ponzi scheme that is just a little further along than ours,” he said, condemning what he called a “cartel” between U.S. hospitals and insurance companies, and condemning the lack of consumer choice present in both countries.

While speaking ill of the health care establishment, one of America’s most powerful political lobbies, might be enough to spell the demise for most medical professionals, Smith remains undeterred, accusing the two industries of often exaggerating each other’s expenses to generate greater public sympathy and more taxpayer funding.

“In the hands of a good surgeon, a tonsillectomy can take 10 to 15 minutes,” he said. “It’s criminal that this is billed out at $9,000.” He also expressed outrage that not-for-profit hospitals in his hometown made profits of up to $100 million in the last year alone and that more than 50 cents of every dollar spent on U.S. health care comes from taxpayers.

Smith is taking his campaign to lower medical costs directly to the public. As one of 40 doctors who together own and manage a successful outpatient surgery center that performs up to 60 procedures a day, he diligently works to keep costs low, providing savings to patients of up to 80 percent. His center is also the first in the nation to post prices for surgery packages directly on its website. “If we’re wrong on the total cost, the patient doesn’t eat the difference,” he said. “We do.”

Smith’s center succeeds without ever accepting any federal money. While his model is frequently attacked as one that can only benefit the wealthy, Smith disagrees, saying that more competition in the system will drive down costs for everyone.

A handful of Canadian patients benefiting from Smith’s services also took to the podium in Vancouver to share their firsthand accounts of participating in a cross-border experiment that is improving health care not only for Canadians, but also for a growing number of Americans willing to travel to other states to receive more timely and less expensive treatment.

“My hope is that Americans will start asking important questions,” said Smith. “They’ll start wondering, ‘Why did my insurance company send me down the street to that competitor, where the same procedure costs five times as much?’ ”

Partnering up with Smith is Rick Baker, a Canadian entrepreneur. The duo helps match Canadian patients with American surgeons, and to raise funds to cover the costs of travel. The partnership has been so successful it now includes similar centers in 13 other states.

Together, Smith and Baker send 450 Canadians to treatment every year. According to their estimates, meanwhile, at least 1 million Canadians currently linger on waiting lists for essential medical treatments.

Canadian patients persuasively spoke of horrors they were subjected to under Canada’s socialist system. All clearly expressed their belief that Canada’s system is great most of the time. It’s just when you’re really sick that things start to fall apart.

Ultimately, both the U.S. and Canada suffer from excessive costs and discouraging access rates. We should take the lead of a handful of innovative medical entrepreneurs, who together are improving health care one patient — and, if all goes as planned, two nations — at a time.

This article originally appeared in The Denver Post, October 8th, 2009.

Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@i2i.org) serves as director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project.

by Mike Krause

Colorado lawmakers’ long-running devotion to the War on Drugs has helped push state prison spending to unsustainable levels. In the meantime, illicit drugs remain readily available throughout the state. This year, the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) has broken down into several sub-groups including a Drug Policy Task Force, to take a hard look at the state’s drug laws and sentencing policies.

This is an excellent opportunity for fiscal conservatives to take the lead in bringing some much needed scrutiny and restraint to corrections spending in Colorado.

In 1992, Colorado lawmakers surrendered their prerogative to write the state’s criminal law and enacted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, written by drug war bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and designed to bring state drug laws in to conformity with federal drug laws. The act, among many other things, created numerous new drug offenses, and sentencing enhancements for those offenses.

And the result?

Over the last several decades, the percentage of inmates whose most serious sentencing offense is a drug offense has quadrupled to around 20 percent of Colorado’s prison population. Drug offenders are by far the single largest category of new admissions to Colorado prisons at around 23 percent of annual admissions.

There are more drug offenders in Colorado prisons today than the entire prison population 25 years ago when the state’s inmate population was around 3,500.

Given this, you might think a drug-free Colorado is close at hand. You would be wrong.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2008 State Fact Sheet for Colorado notes that heroin is not only “available in the major metropolitan areas of Colorado,” but “various law enforcement and treatment indicators suggest that heroin use and availability may be on the rise in Colorado.” As for cocaine, “Enforcement activities reflect a steady supply of cocaine coming into and through Colorado.”

Crack cocaine is “available in the larger metropolitan areas of Colorado, generally in street level amounts.” And marijuana, according to DEA, “is available throughout Colorado.”

One of the main policy goals driving the mass incarceration of drug offenders — the supply-side strategy of disrupting illicit drug availability — is a long-running failure.

It costs around $31,000 per year to keep someone in prison. A June 30, 2008 snapshot of the state’s prison population showed just under 4,500 drug offenders. So Colorado’s failed attempt to incarcerate away the drug issue costs taxpayers roughly $140 million per year just for prison beds.

Colorado’s often irrational drug policies are a major diving force behind decades of run-away prison spending that has pushed Colorado’s corrections budget from less than 3 percent to almost 9 percent of general fund spending, or from around $97 million to over $675 million of general fund appropriation. For years, budget hawks in the legislature have turned a blind eye to one of the most extreme spending sprees in state history. It is well past time to bring prison spending under the same annual fiscal scrutiny as the rest of the budget.

Overuse of criminal sanctions for drug offenses also inflicts huge indirect economic costs on the state, because drug offenders who are given a felony conviction (note that in Colorado, simply being in possession of an amount of illegal drugs weighing less than an American nickel is a felony crime) will have a much harder time getting jobs and becoming productive, tax-paying citizens in the future.

A core problem is the irrationality of treating drug offenses like violent and property crimes.

For instance, incarcerate a serial burglar or strong-arm robber and not only is a string of crimes solved, but untold numbers of future crimes are prevented (at least for as long as that criminal is incarcerated).

But the imprisonment of one drug dealer (or even an entire network) only temporarily disrupts the flow of illegal drugs. As soon as one supplier is gone, another quickly moves in to take his place. Basic economic laws of supply and demand say that as long as there is a demand for a product, a market will make that product available.

Using incarceration to try and halt the availability of drugs can only be achieved by imprisoning every drug user and addict (who constitute the majority of the small-time dealers) and everyone willing to break the law in return for financial reward (dealers in the upper levels of the drug world).

The cost to taxpayers of Colorado’s failed experiment in the mass incarceration of drug offenders has simply become unsustainable. Fiscal conservatives, both Republican and Democrat, should be urging the CCJJ to present legislative recommendations to significantly pare back the War on Drugs in Colorado.

This article originally appeared in the Denver Huffington Post, October 7th, 2009.

Mike Krause directs the Justice Policy Initiative at the Independence Institute. He is a graduate of the University of Nebraska, and served in the United States Coast Guard from 1987-1991, which included search and rescue operations in the North Atlantic Ocean and joint agency drug and immigration patrols in the Caribbean Sea.

© 2009 The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org

by Jessi Winchester, author of From Bordello to Ballot Box and America: The Final Chapter

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until Americans will one day be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”

- Norman Thomas, 6- time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party who retired from politics when Democrat Franklin Roosevelt ran on the same platform and won.

America is under assault and time is running out.  No longer is the enemy “at the gate;” it is in the White House.  Every day there is some new attack from those at the highest levels of our own government.  Attacks that threaten the very structure of our nation and our very freedom.

From so-called ‘health care’ that would cause the demise of millions, to Hitler style brainwashing propaganda on all the major TV networks, the litany of Obama’s meddling into every area of people’s lives is not only terrifying but should not be tolerated by freedom loving citizens.  We no longer have the luxury of debating the tyranny that is becoming so crystal clear to even those with cataracts.  We are in the crosshairs of our own government and time is short.  The Founders had to put their very lives on the line for freedom - and now - so do we.  The time has arrived where each man and woman must take a stand.  We either cave-in and obey unconstitutional orders like sheep being led to the slaughter to become the final victory for a Hitler blueprint revisited, or we band together to face down tyranny and rebuild our great nation in the design for which it was originally intended.  We can no longer afford to remain silent, inactive, or passive.  We must stand strong and take action - or they will bury us.  Decision time is here.

Various strategies are emerging that would ‘take back our country’ and again place the power and decisions in the hands of the people rather than those in Washington who are dedicated to destroying our free and open society.

Secession is one.  The Declaration of Independence clearly states, “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”  It goes on to instruct that, “…when a long train of abuses or usurpations occur…it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government.”  When Communists are appointed to high office by the President and the President himself promotes Socialist policies, then America is simply no longer what the Founders envisioned and the “train of abuses” are so glaring that states feel they can better govern themselves by seceding from the Union.  We have reached that point in time.

Sovereignty resolutions that would empower states to implement their Tenth Amendment rights against unlawful and unconstitutional dictates by the Feds is another.  While they are not lawful orders, enactment by state legislators would put the federal government “on notice” that the Tenth Amendment is alive and well in that state and state officials will not comply with any unlawful or unconstitutional federal dictate.

Along the same line are groups or organizations that advocate the same sovereignty.  Foremost in intent, purpose, and dedication is the Oath Keepers organization.  Comprised of active military, veterans, peace officers, firefighters, and supportive citizens, it was formed to bring together those who desire to reinforce their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic in today’s oppressive political and social climate.  Their allegiance is not to the politicians so with that in mind, they will refuse to obey unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral orders.  They strive to educate those in the military who believe their oath meant they must follow any order issued by the President when, in fact, their oath is to the Constitution first and foremost and to be guardians of the Republic should a president betray that standard.  They simply want a return to a Constitutional Republic - and enforcement of the Constitution as it is written - so they are careful to point out that they do not advocate violence to, or the overthrow of, any government, organization, group, or person.  Additionally, they don’t promote the removal of any elected official and only desire that they live up to their oath of office or leave.  Due to the abhorrent proliferation of the “race card” being bandied about by the current administration’s minions, Oath Keepers makes it crystal clear that their organization is not limited to race … and that Oath Keepers of all race, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation are welcome to join them.

Oath Keepers has ten laws they will NOT obey and that are at the crux of their principles.  Taken directly from their website at www.oathkeepers.org, they are:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order. Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal. In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law - the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law - is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army. The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted. Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty - as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.

Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it. “NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone. Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Orwellian presidential executive orders are in place to turn a Republic into a dictatorship, given the opportune ‘national emergency.’  The Oath Keepers intend to be the wall between tyranny and freedom and deserve our support.  Should the federal government push the envelope of despotism, we could face a civil war that would bring us full circle from the Revolutionary War that gained our freedom from British rule, to a modern civil war to again gain our freedom from oppression - or worse.  Oath Keepers show us that there are still strong patriotic Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line for freedom in the same manner as those brave men so many decades ago.

Copyright © Jessi Winchester 2009 All Rights Reserved

by Kevin Tuma

by Craig Dixon

Lately, I’ve had a few people approach me with the following sentiment, “You write about all of the problems… but you aren’t saying anything about solutions… you’re all talk and no action.”

If that be the case, let me rectify that here and now. Dare I say, it could be easier to fix the problems than it would be to coherently explain them all-and how we’ve arrived to this juncture. However, the solution is less complicated than the convoluted labyrinth of problems we face.

The solution is you. You… the activist.

I don’t mean slick lobbying. I don’t mean writing your corrupt, bailout-supporting, traitorous representative an angry letter (No one is going to read it). I don’t mean being that annoying political-science nerd at the front of the classroom (Hi there!). I don’t mean showing up to a politician’s centrally organized rally either (you know the ones, some intern puts you in little colored shirts, they bus you in, they feed you, they stick little buttons on you, plop a sign in your hand and wind the motor up…). I don’t mean those forms of “activism.”

You the activist must be confrontational. You the activist must get mad and then direct that anger. Mad enough to form political action groups in your community and on your campuses. Mad enough to stand on the street and utilize your constitutional rights; not silently, but with thunder and ferocity! You must be loud enough, and mad enough for the corporate media shills to reveal their bias when they ignore you. You must get mad enough to take up arms in the form of pen and pad, and become a citizen journalist. And lastly… you need to be mad enough to run for office.

We need American patriots in office and the media… not politicians.

The only way to take our government back from statists… is to take our government back from statists. Threatening their jobs in the next election is not enough; they’ll only be replaced by another weasel-like ladder-climber. America needs you to take control of our media… and America needs you to run for office.

The statist’s most potent weapon in the war for the American people’s mind is their corporate media. The influence is a power like no other in the history of mankind… the ability to shape public opinion, and ultimately public policy.

As John Stossel, the admittedly libertarian news anchor pointed out, “”Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine.”

-but the majority of reporters hide under a blanket of objectivity and truth, framing an issue in a light they see fit, a light often favoring the state. Such is the case with the stimulus plan, as Stossel writes:

“Most reporting on the “stimulus” package has the same flaw. Just to call it “stimulus” is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can’t be done.”

The kind of editorializing that Stossel is pointing out is wide-spread, and so pervasive, that it would take an absurd amount of space to document every case that I could find in today’s reported content alone.

We are drowning in a sea of lies.

If one does take the time to research the lies so often peddled to us as truth, one will find that they are constant and flowing. The corporate media alone cannot be trusted as a credible source of information in this age.

The media shapes our opinions, and influences policy, enabling the statists to then execute their plans through legislation. It works, in many ways, like a factory. Each part of our modern society constitutes a part of that statist-machine. You are expected to push buttons… and the media wants to tell you which buttons you should be pushing.

When we threaten the statists with their jobs, they may occasionally placate us. They occasionally throw us a bone, do a song and dance for the cameras, and paint an image of patriotism. However, all one has to do is look at the legislation that we have allowed to be passed to know the truth.

They’re killing our dollar, tarnishing our global image, suppressing democracy through ridicule and intimidation, and stealing our natural rights.

They indebt our children and grandchildren with bailouts only to add “incentives” that the media endearingly report as “sweeteners”…. but this just another attempt at placation. The truth is that fascism and economic terror are creeping into our everyday lives.

I for one will not stand for it.

I majored in journalism during my college career, not to become a vessel for the statist media-but to learn how to combat it. I am dedicating my life to this cause.

Around the country, vocal citizens like Tea Party organizer Matthew Ridenhour are stepping into the arena of politics to challenge the indulgent and arrogant politicians that desecrating our nation.

As a response to Tea Party organizations like Ridenhour’s, leftist shills like Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olberman mock the process of democracy– by use of ad-homniem and guilt by association. They will also invite celebrities, such as Janeane Garafalo, to provide insightful commentary on the protests. They will provide rhetorical gems that stand as shining examples of their political adeptness:

“It’s not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House…Their synapses are misfiring. … It is a neurological problem we are dealing with.”

These are the reasons we need you, the individual, reporting. The true watchdogs are on the blogs, not NBC.

The youth are being tapped by projects like Jared Fuller’s Year of Youth inspiring America’s next generation of constitutionalist leaders to take the fight early and challenge the corrupt now, not later.

The resistance to a banana republic is rising. I need you to be activists and join them. America needs you to be activists. We need you to fight.

I believe so passionately in our constitutional republic that I spend everyday fighting for it. Finding and training activists around the country is my full-time job, and I feel honored to have it. I want you to join me in any way that you can.

Many will say “I’m too busy,” “I don’t have time,” “I wish there was more I could do,” but if citizens continue their widespread apathy… things will only continue to deteriorate, perhaps to an irreversible point. If you want to preserve your life that keeps you so busy-you will take a stand for it. You must fight for liberty, or the flames our founding fathers lit will be extinguished forever.

We’re entering the twilight years of this republic. Our slow collapse is the culmination of sins committed throughout the 20th century; inane monetary policy, imperial aspirations, allowance of an all-but-honest subversive media, corporate subsidies, and the welfare state are all to blame. There is very likely to be a sudden, violent, and sobering break-point soon.

A slow collapse may give way to a free-fall; a republic that could no longer bear the onus of the sins placed upon her shoulders by traitors.

Revolution is not too strong of a word. Dare I say, war is not too strong of a word. Lovers of liberty must realize that simple talk will not vanquish the leviathan state that is subverting our economy, our liberty, and our way of life. We are in an ideological war. We are in a war for the nation’s soul and if we lose it… the world will no longer have our light of liberty to guide it.

We can’t solve the problem of statism, by asking statists to solve it… their solution will be more state control. We must look to ourselves and take action ourselves.

by R. Lee Wrights

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

John Stuart Mill  (1806-1873)

Are you really free? That is the question that launched Libertyforall.net more than seven years ago. We challenged Americans, then and now, to question just how free the “freest country in the world” really is. But, how does one determine the amount of freedom enjoyed by individuals? How do we quantify a seemingly abstract concept? With freedom it may be easier than you think. I believe we can effectively evaluate the level of freedom enjoyed by Americans, or anyone else for that matter, by examining the metric of freedom - choices.

Choices are in fact the only metric we can use to measure freedom. Without choices precious freedom ceases to exist. Therefore, the amount of freedom any individual possesses is effected proportionately by the number of choices that person has when contemplating a course of action. In simpler terms, you are only as free as the number of alternatives available to you when it comes time to make a decision. If you only have one choice about something, as in paying taxes, then obviously your freedom is greatly reduced when you consider your personal budget and finances. Conversely, you know you have greater freedom when numerous choices are at your disposal. It is a shame you have more freedom when choosing a restaurant than you do in how your money is taken from you and spent.

Perhaps an even clearer example of how restricting choices diminishes freedom can be found within our very own electoral system. In fact, I would opine that ballot access is one of the areas where the State works to restrict our freedom as much as possible. In most elections the best you are going to get is three choices; and, you only get the third choice because Libertarians work their third-party assess off achieving and maintain ballot access in most of the United States. My question is, in a truly free society shouldn’t we be able to vote for anyone we chose? Are we really free if we are only allowed to vote for individuals who the ruling party/parties say we can?

How much does ballot access law reduce the amount of freedom the freest citizens on the face of the earth enjoy? Nothing restricts the growth of third parties in America more than the scourge of ballot access law. These state statutes are undeniably discriminatory in nature, as they are designed to put restrictions specifically on all third parties by establishing limits that are easily attainable by the two “major” parties, but very difficult for smaller third party organizations. In fact, as a result of the elections of 2000, some if not most state affiliates for the Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States, lost their ballot access before 2004. Huge petition drives will be required in some states just to exercise the right to run candidates for public office and give the citizens more than two choices on Election Day. Why is the government so intent on restricting your choices in some of the most important decisions you will ever have to make?

I mean, the smaller your party is the harder it is to achieve ballot access or “new party status”; thereby, making it nearly impossible for small third parties seeking recognition by the state as a political party. I have found no value in most ballot access laws, other than as an impediment to the rights of the minority political parties, or as a muzzle to try and mute a dissenting minority voice. It can be said that Republicans and Democrats alike have no interest in the freedom of the minority parties to have equal access to our government. They have seized control of a nation and have no intentions of ever relinquishing the reigns to the team that powers the run-away wagon we have come to call bureaucracy.

The greatest threat to the third party movement in America, and the choices that they offer citizens, is the two majority parties that will always stand united on the issue of restricting ballot access to all contenders other than themselves. If you are not a Republican or a Democrat in the United States of America, you are a slave to a government controlled by a majority that forces its will upon you. Are you really free?

Even though ballot access may be one of the most egregious restrictions upon our choices it is by no means the only one. Taxes clearly present us with the most glaring example where the precious flame of freedom has practically been extinguished. What choice do you have when it is time to pay your taxes? You either pay what the State says you owe, or refuse to pay and face prosecution and imprisonment. Is that really a choice at all?

And what about what is to be taxed and what the collected revenue will be used for? How many choices do you have? Usually none. If you own property the State not only decides how much that property is worth, but also how much tax you must pay for the privilege of owning the property. You are not asked for your input, nor are you given the option of not paying. You pay or you go to jail or worse. Then, the State takes the money raised through forced taxation and gives it to whomever they please for whatever purpose suits the politician’s fancy. How far removed from actually slavery is an existence such as this?

And, what happens if the State decides it needs your property? When it is time to build a new highway, or the city/county/state needs some extra land for a new park or another shopping center, do they come to you and ask if you mind if the government condemns your property? No. The State has eminent domain. This concept is based on the belief that in reality government owns ALL property; and therefore, can condemn (take) your property if the government deems it necessary for the “common good.”  So when the state wants to build a new road, or a shopping center for that matter, all they have to do is declare the project necessary for the preservation and continuance of the common good and they can force you from your home and take your land.  Homeowners have become little more to the various levels of bureaucracy than working drones cranking out the political honey of tax dollars at a steady rate.  As long as the politicians do not want your land for some “special” purpose you are allowed to continue to work the hives under the watchful eye of your masters. You do not have a choice, so, are you really free?

I could literally go on for pages and pages, but hopefully these few paragraphs illustrate my point sufficiently. The next time you wonder about your freedom, use the only metric available to you to help you discern whether you are really free or not. Choices are that metric. When confronted with a decision ask yourself, “How many choices do I have?” If your choices are numerous, you can be fairly certain your personal freedom is still intact in that area of your life. However, when you realize you have only one or two choices, you will know that your freedom has been greatly reduced. And, when you come to the point where you realize you have no choice at all you can be sure that your freedom has been totally removed from you.

More choices mean more freedom every time, all the time. One cannot exist without the other. Without a free will to choose for ourselves what we will or will not do with our money, our property, and our lives, we cannot claim to abide within a society that holds freedom as its most precious possession. The number of choices available to you will always provide the answer to that lingering, haunting question - Are you really free?

Originally published in Liberty For All April 1, 2007.

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

by Richard C. Evey

“Government is the art of keeping people from meddling in their own business.”

- Francoise Giroud

The platform of the Libertarian Party states “We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrong doer.”

To this end, if someone takes, damages, harms or destroys my property, they, the wrong doer, owes me restitution. That restitution would be payment, return of property or making the property whole again, if possible.

That being said: someone takes my life, my property, that person owes me restitution. I may be dead but do I not deserve restitution for loss of my property, my life, my right to live? It will not return me to life but they took my life, should they not give up their life?

People take property or destroy property to the point that it could never be returned to its original state. Restitution must be paid, one way or the other.

If the wrong doer is slam dunk guilty of the crime of depriving me of my property, my life, does not that person owe me restitution, their life? When that form of restitution is made then the guilty should and must suffer the same fate that their victim suffered. To call it state-sanctioned revenge is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. Confusing the issue with double speak is not facing the issue of restitution to the victim.

There are people whose conviction can, should, could and must be looked into for the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The justice system is very flawed. The people who committed the crime and those who facilitate the justice system must be held accountable.

I have always thought that if there is a miscarriage of justice, the person or persons who took part or had dealings in that miscarriage should have to make restitution to the victim and be held accountable. That restitution could be the same fate that the accused faced.

If a person is slam dunk guilty of a crime they must give restitution to their victim. That includes their life if they took a life.

The United States Constitution states in the eighth amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The type of punishment inflicted on people back when our founders set up the constitution was unforgivable. Compared with the criminals of today, they are having a church social. The opinion that the criminal should not have to suffer (prison or death) is bleeding heart CRAP.

Those that preach that criminals should not be in prison, we should not have the death penalty or prison, should be in a place of reeducation/relearning. Are you identifying with the criminal element? Many people in prison are better off than most people on the outside.

People must look inside of themselves and look to the victim. Make themselves the victim. In short, make the crime personal. Would you want the person who killed your spouse/child walking the street, living near your home so you can help them? Would you want a rapist, one who raped you, your spouse, your child, walking the street, living next to you?

These criminals are lower than snake spit. There is little to nothing that can help them. They are just plain evil and they deserve nothing except prison or giving of their life for what they took.

If you are in favor of restitution but against the death penalty than you are very hypocritical.

Restitution must be paid!

REMEMBER: “The dead can never cry out for justice.”

by Larken Rose

I keep wondering, just how stupid are the American people? Pretty dense, apparently, and Massachusetts seems to be well ahead of the curve in boneheadedness.

The Boston fascist brigade is proudly talking about how they’re trying out a massive registry and tracking system of people who have received a vaccine. The stated goal, of course, is to protect the public health. If, however, you believe that to actually be the goal, then maybe you should be forced to live in Massachusetts, as punishment for being such a moron.

Whether you approach the thing from practical terms, or from a question of motivations, the stated goal is just plain idiotic, while a more sinister motive is readily apparent.

For starters, if there were actually a dangerous plague spreading around (not the artificially hyped kind, like the swine flu), don’t you think everyone in the area would know about it? Of course they would. So if someone was in such an area, and hadn’t been vaccinated, it would almost certainly be because he didn’t want to be vaccinated, for whatever reason. The database and tracking system would, therefore, serve only one purpose: to help the fascists forcibly vaccinate people (or forcibly imprison people) who didn’t want to be vaccinated. If you had a bracelet, the control freaks would know that you’re a good little sheep, and would go terrorize someone else.

If people were dropping like flies, from a REAL epidemic, and if there was a vaccine that would prevent the disease, the public would be lining up for miles to get vaccines for it. You wouldn’t need to chase anyone down, or keep massive databases of who had and hadn’t received the shot. (There might be a couple dozen people who, on religious grounds, would still refuse to receive shots, but that would hardly require a state-wide tracking system for the other few million people.)

I recently heard a fascist from the CDC (Collectivist Disease Creators) pitching the vaccine, saying it’s safe, and everyone should go get it. So never mind all the doctors who are saying that the vaccine is not only unnecessary, but very dangerous. Why are our loving “protectors” in government trying so hard to SELL the vaccine to the masses? If it was actually a cure for a serious disease, it would sell itself. (Do you think that if there was a simple, safe, sure-fire cure to cancer, those in “government” would need to ORDER people to take it?) For any who don’t know this (which shouldn’t include any readers of FreedomsPhoenix), your standard, garden-variety flu is statistically MORE lethal than the “swine flu” that we’re all supposed to be terrified of. So if you think the Boston fascists, or the federal fascists, are pushing their agenda for YOUR sake, you’re a buffoon. This is fear- mongering in its purest form, which is always used to increase authoritarian control. (When’s the last time you heard a politician say something like this?: “Wow, this is serious! We’d better let people have more freedom!”)

If there was a benevolent motive behind the scheme, it should be easy to imagine something BENEFICIAL about the plan. So, can you? What good would the proposed system do? You’d have a zillion people, some with “obedient slave” bracelets, some without. Unless they’re either herding everyone through checkpoints, or doing house to house searches, or using some other form of martial law, how would the control freaks FIND all the people who DON’T have the slave bracelets? They couldn’t, and wouldn’t.

And why track the people who HAVE received the shot? They can’t (in theory) get the disease, or give it to anyone else, so who cares where THEY are? Any moron should begin to realize that the plan has nothing to do with protecting the people from anything; it’s about CONTROLLING a whole lot of people, Nazi-style, and NOT for their own good. (As a side not, don’t fall for the bullpoop of, “We have the right to forcibly vaccinate you, because if you get the disease you’ll pose a risk to everyone else.” Nice try, but if they insist that EVERYONE get vaccinated, then no one else could get the disease from an unvaccinated carrier, anyway.)

This is a test of public subservience, to see how easily Americans can be herded around like sheep. If it really got going, you’d have jackboots on every corner, making sure everyone was wearing their little slave bracelet, and arresting anyone who didn’t. (It brings to mind a line from the movie, Idiocracy: “Whycome you don’t have a tattoo?” Warning: Though that movie is hilarious and painfully accurate, it’s also quite rude and vulgar. So kids, you might not want to let your parents watch it.)

When “governments” decide it’s time to “manage” populations, whether in a real crisis, or in a made-up one (which is far more common), the results are never pleasant. I, for one, have no intention of being “managed,” and I know lots of other people who feel the same. By coincidence, most of them have guns. If the tyrants are stupid enough to keep pushing this thing, you may start to see a new game becoming popular: “See if you can stick a needle in my child before I blow your damn head off.” (I have yet to see a hyperdermic needle that has better long-range accuracy than my Savage .308.)

Find out more about Larken Rose at http://www.larkenrose.com