a book review by George Phillies

Mr. Root has published a 368-page campaign book, which in the reviewer’s opinion should substantially eliminate any suspicion that Root is an acceptable Presidential candidate for our party.  It should also substantially eliminate any suspicion that he is a libertarian rather than - as he entirely honestly says on a regular basis - a conservative of a particular sort.  Not a bad sort….if you want a conservative President, Wayne would be a lot better than most of the other conservatives out there.

To give credit where credit is due, Mr. Root successfully transports his vigorous tub-thumping speech patterns from the soap box to print form. If you wonder what he sounds like on stage, you have but to read this volume aloud.  Should you want to find Mr. Root’s positions on particular issues, there is a really excellent index.

If we were the right wing anti-tax party with esoteric undertones, we might agree this is a libertarian book.  We aren’t, and it isn’t.

Let’s start with that Index.  In the real world, the President deals in considerable part with foreign, defense, and trade policy. Foreign policy?  Iraq-not listed.  Iran-not listed.  Afghanistan-not listed. The Bush War on Terror-not listed.  Ending foreign wars is buried in a two-page section on decreasing foreign aid, a section that rapidly segues into cutting defense spending, starting with the time-worn Republican rant about eliminated waste and stealing.

Mr. Root piles up all sorts of right-wing nostrums and assertions. Libertarians advocate reality-based politics.  Root - read Chapter 27 - is a global warming denier.  Libertarians historically come from knowledge-based professions - Root goes into a rant against vaccinating young women for cervical cancer.

While flawed, our Constitution and its Bill of Rights as extended to the states by the 14th amendment have done much to give Americans freedom and prosperity.  Root speaks to ‘…abortion, gay rights, stem cell funding, right to die (think Terry Schiavo), online poker, medical marijuana, and censorship of television…” “I believe it is up to the voters of each state to decide for themselves…”  This is the “States’ Rights” doctrine under which voters decided that African Americans were not allowed to ride at the front of the bus, vote, attend good high schools, or marry white people.  Fortunately, our Federal Constitution put an end to those despicable States’ Rights doctrines.  Curiously, when it comes to gun ownership, Mr. Root is correctly supportive of the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, but only tens of pages after he hands off to the voters the right ‘to decide for themselves’ whether to allow gun ownership in each state.

We have a Constitutional system under which Congress passes bills, the President may veto bills, Congress may over-ride the Presidential veto, and then things come to an end.  The decision has been made.  Root rejects this constitutional system - Chapter 15 - in favor of a Presidential dictatorship ‘impoundment’ under which the President may ignore the law and refuse to spend money if he feels like it.  This is the tyrannical Bush ’signing statement’ doctrine expanded a thousand-fold.

Root blames the difficulties of the Detroit car companies on labor unions.  It was not the labor unions that tried to sell ‘buy American’ rather than ‘our cars have fewer defects’.  It was not the labor unions that won one company President a 100-million-dollar contract.  It was not labor unions that invented planned obsolescence, designing cars to fail after a few years.  It was not labor unions that told company economists to support import quotas or be fired, when they warned quotas would mean billions in extra profits for Japanese carmakers, exactly as happened. It was not the labor unions that agreed to those contracts. Blaming labor unions for bankrupting Detroit is nonsense.

Root does talk about ending prohibition.  For most libertarians, that is a truly fine issue.  Drug prohibition wastes tens and tens of billions of dollars a year, and has blighted the lives of millions of young men and women.  Medical marijuana prohibition is a consummate anti-libertarian doctrine.  Root instead goes on - entirely justly - about gambling prohibition, especially internet gambling.  Drug prohibition…not so much.  Of course, during Root’s nominating campaign he claimed that there were vast numbers of internet gamblers out there just waiting to support this campaign issue, which clearly did not happen to the Libertarian Party in 2008.

Libertarians historically have tended to advocate equality before the law.  Root instead advocates eliminating taxes on capital gains, which he claims is taxing money twice.  People who have honest jobs and work for a living go to the rear of the bus.  The Root tax plan qualifies as class warfare, not in a way that is likely to win the support of many voters.

Readers who actually have capital gains will have noted contrary to Root that the name of the tax is more or less honest … you are taxed on the gains, not on the principal. The same money is not taxed twice. Unfortunately, this Root assertion is somewhat typical of the book, which could have survived some fact-checking.  As anyone who has read the Declaration of Independence will have noted, contrary to Mr. Root the tea tax was only a small part of one cause of the Revolution.

If you are looking for modern issues that the Founding Fathers could have understood, consider warrantless wiretapping of every telephone in the United States.  Root says “If we had heeded Barry Goldwater, the Federal government would not have the right to listen into your phone calls … (without a warrant)…I am today uncomfortable with any administration overriding or ignoring the Constitution for any reasons…”  Real libertarians know that the government already does not have a right to warrantless wiretapping.  Real libertarians are not uncomfortable with trampling our Bill of Rights…they know for a fact that those acts are felony crimes against the Republic, and say loudly in public that the people who committed them need to be relocated to a Federal prison.

Finally, in a country whose constitution and bill of rights create an iron wall between church and state, and in a party many of whose founders were atheists, agnostics, neo-pagans, or uninterested in the topic, opening your book “Let me start with God” is bit surprising. Claiming that our national success is due to divine intervention rather than to capitalism, thrift, and limited government is certainly peculiar and remote from libertarianism.

So, if you were considering Root, go to http://antiwar.com. Click on “amazon.com” so some of your money goes to a good place, namely antiwar.  Buy a book — used copies are not expensive.  See what you are considering buying for our party, or pay the price later.

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

by Jessica Pacholski

“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that — however bloody — can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”

- Lysander Spooner

“Democracy is the system of a free country”, of all the lies ever told this one takes second place only to “The Pope is the infallible emissary of God.” This, though, is the church of good intentions, built on the foundation that mob rule is somehow fair and noble. Yes, this is the reigning and supreme king of all distorted logic, that somehow the strangers that you happen to live amongst have the right, if there are enough of them, to tell you how to live your life.

Honestly, how do we fall for this? Simple, people want to believe that because they go to a public building every few years and cast a ballot that they are somehow in control of their government, they even go so far as to say they are the government. That statement to me shows that they suffer a form of Stockholm Syndrome, they are what Malcolm X so eloquently called out as being the “house Negroes”. They relate more to their masters than with the other slaves, the ones who recognize their situation for what it really is and rebel against it. Interestingly in our 2 party oligarchy, the serfs here only recognize how out of control the government actually is when their party isn’t in power.

We have voted ourselves into tyranny bit by bit and now, with all that is going on, it seems that the brakes are off. We are heading headlong into a police state. I’m not being melodramatic or hysterical, it’s a simple fact, nothing more nor less. We have our own version of the KGB, Homeland Security, children are being tasered by police, our government is militarizing the Boy Scouts, they have broken Posse Comitatus, they have taken over the banks, they have destroyed the Constitution, they torture and detain people without evidence and they now are targeting their own citizens as terrorists. Everyday it seems a new insult is heaped upon the injury, and yet many deny it’s happening. What is sadder, many want it to happen, they are craving the boot to come down on the necks of their enemies.

Who are their enemies? All who don’t agree with them. Why? Because anyone who disagrees with them are bad people and deserve to be punished for their wickedness. It doesn’t matter which party they belong to, both believe their side are the good and the decent, it’s the others who are evil and traitorous. Nonsense! Both parties are corrupt and completely undeserving of any loyalty. Anyone who shows these parties anything but contempt is nothing more than a zealot of the new religion, the religion of the whim of men.

They can do anything they want to you because it’s for the greater good. They can force you to have a baby or to abort it, it’s for the greater good. They can force you pay more for oil or destroy the oil industry, it’s for the greater good. They can force you to suffer or pay to have others suffer, it’s for the greater good. Yes, they spread democracy, the great religion it’s become, by the force of the gun. They spread freedom with bombs and sanctions that kill children, it’s for the greater good. Somehow we believe this, the demagogues have spoken and all those who disagree are enemies. Not only that, we feel that somehow they are doing this for us. That somehow, no matter how insane their policies are, they are working in our best interests.

“Our constitutions purport to be established by ‘the people’ and in theory ‘all the people’ consent to such a government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of the people exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few: and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given.” ~ Lysander Spooner

Call me an enemy, I’m an enemy to the state. I have never given my consent to this or any government to rule over me. I am forced to follow laws made long before I was born and now I have to follow laws made by men and women I never voted for because others did. I’m told there is a class war, a war against the poor, a war against women, a war against minorities, a war against the middle class, a war against the white man, a war against the rich, etc. ad nauseum. Wake up! It’s been the same war from the beginning, liberty vs slavery.

The rulers vs the ruled, no matter what system is in place, that has always been the struggle. Yes, it is a class war, the political class vs the productive class. The fact that people now put their faith in government, and its parasites, the way they once put their faith in God is what frightens me. I put my faith in no man nor God, I am forever doomed to be ruled by mobsters. Why? Because of the bogus sentiment of democracy.

The unwashed masses using the guns of government against all they oppose. Free health care is good! So what if it bankrupts us? The majority wants it. Might makes right and if the majority wants it, it must be good. That is until the majority wants something you don’t, then they are ignorant and its mob mentality. Our rulers love the mob mentality though, they love the fact that you are house slaves and you will tolerate any harebrained evil they can concoct in the name of democracy and the greater good! I for one don’t buy it. The wolves are voting for what’s for lunch and I am the well armed lamb contesting the vote.

Jessica Pacholski is a 36-year-old mother of three beautiful girls who lives in Clayton, NC. She is a full-time mother and part-time writer who enjoys reading, painting and stirring the pot.  You can contact Jessica at jessicapacholski@gmail.com.

by Larken Rose

The media likes to talk about politicians’ “job performance.” So I will, too. However, when the media does it, they start with the ridiculous premise that the politicians are trying to serve the people. (You might as well talk about how well the nation’s carjackers are “serving” America’s drivers.) I, on the other hand, rate aspiring tyrants (politicians) based upon how effectively they extort, control and otherwise oppress the masses. After all, that’s obviously their goal. So let’s see how well Obama is serving his own lust for power and the agenda of the tyrannical puppet-masters who own him.

Overall, I can only give Obama’s megalomaniacal efforts a “C.” It’s obviously not for lack of trying or lack of ambition; the guy makes Stalin look like a moderate. Yes, he’s a psychotic, profoundly dishonest, narcissistic, power-happy, delusional control freak of the highest order, but frankly, he’s been a really ineffective tyrant so far. It’s not that he doesn’t want to rule the world; it’s just that he’s not very good at it (which is a good thing for those of us who like freedom).

A few people who have read my first book, “How To Be a Successful Tyrant,” have jokingly asked whether I think that Bush or Obama has read my book. If they did, they weren’t paying attention. They inherited an almost perfect social and political climate to enact complete tyranny, but, with the help of Clinton and George Bush, Sr., managed to completely botch it up. Personally, I’m thrilled about that. Had they not been so short-sighted, delusional and inept, this country would be in a lot more trouble. Let me give a few illustrations:

1- A successful tyrant doesn’t APPEAR as a tyrant to his victims. He is seen as a protector and savior who is trusted and loved by most, if not all, of his subjects. You can’t remain a tyrant for long if the peasants can SEE that you’re a tyrant. If you want an example of a very successful tyrant, try Abraham Lincoln, and to a lesser extent, FDR. They are still revered by most people (Lincoln more so than Roosevelt), despite having been sadistic, power-happy, homicidal, sociopathic megalomaniacs of the first degree. Clinton and both Bushes, on the other hand, are only revered by the most delusional among us, and Obama is well on his way there, too.

2- A competent tyrant uses propaganda to train his victims to feel adoration and unquestioning loyalty to him, and can keep that going even while severely oppressing them. Obama, during the campaign, did a good job of using empty emotionalism to fire up lots of people to blindly rally behind him. (Considering the gullibility and cluelessness of his target audience, however, that was really no great accomplishment.) But he didn’t seem to have any long-term plan for how to transition his vacant “hope and change” mantra into support for his totalitarian agenda. Instead of continuing carefully crafted, effective mind-control disinformation tactics, he seemed to just charge right into trying to enact all manner of totalitarian, communist “programs,” without first getting public support for them.

3- A successful tyrant is patient, slowly and methodically depriving his victims of their freedom, at a rate that doesn’t make them panic or resist. Obama has no patience, and no tact. For example, his obviously hurried attempt to leap directly to complete socialized medicine scared the heck out of a lot of people, including most doctors. And talking about mandatory “national service” for all young people, which Obama and one of his top tyrant helpers–Rahm Emmanuel–have been openly advocating, is raising a lot of eyebrows, even among leftists usually loyal to the American Socialist Party (commonly known as “Democrats”). The multi- billion-dollar handouts to huge banks and other corporations (by Bush and Obama) also shocked a lot of the peasants out of their usual oblivious complacency, which is not something a smart tyrant would ever do.

4- A successful tyrant, before doing any power-grab, will find something–whether it’s real, exaggerated, or completely fabricated- - -which will scare the people into accepting the latest increase in oppression. But Obama failed to scare the public about anything, but instead just lunged forward and tried to force his totalitarian agenda through the legislature. Without some “crisis” or “emergency” (usually completely made up by the tyrants), the people might actually want to THINK about some new proposed power-grab before supporting it, as we’re seeing with the “swine flu” hoax, the attempt to socialize the medical industry, and so on. Every tyrant worth his salt knows that you first have to deceive the peasants into WANTING to be oppressed, but Obama has utterly failed to do that.

5- A good tyrant looks like he’s on the people’s side, “fighting” for them. While Obama duped a lot of people into thinking that during the campaign, he seems to have all but dropped that charade since he got into power. The huge corporate and bank bailouts, the attempt to nationalize healthcare, the huge proposed tax increases, all make him look like the megalomaniac he is, with only the flimsiest facade of good intentions to try to hide it. A tyrant that does not appear as a savior and protector is not going to accomplish much. And the astounding number of firearm and ammunition purchases which occurred immediate after Obama’s election give a pretty clear indication that a whole lot of people certainly don’t see Obama as being on their “side.”

6- A good tyrant knows how important it is to keep up the charade that he is representing “the people.” Obama did a fairly good job of exploiting the anti-Bush sentiment, but then almost completely dropped the act once in power. By continuing much of the fascist agenda of the prior administration, such as continuing to lock people up indefinitely without charges, continuing to condone torture, continuing all of the other fascist garbage of the “Patriot Act,” and not only continuing the military occupation of Iraq (after pretending to be morally opposed to it), but escalating the conflict in Afghanistan, Obama effectively slapped in the face all of the anti-war protestors (left and right) who thought he was on their side. He seems to be so short-sighted that he really thought that getting elected was all he had to do in order to get away with whatever collectivist oppression he wanted. A smart tyrant knows better.

7- Making and breaking promises is not necessarily a bad thing for a tyrant to do, but it must be done carefully. When infringing on individual freedom, the successful tyrant will make up a really good excuse, and will pretend that it pains him to do so. On the other hand, when a control freak makes dramatic promises to get elected, and then immediately and casually ignores them, without even a half decent excuse, that clearly conveys his contempt for the very people that he is pretending to “represent.” George Bush, Sr., did this with his stupid “Read my lips” promise, and Obama copied him, by promising that not a single kind of tax would be raised, “not one dime,” for anyone who wasn’t making over $150,000 a year–a promise that was flushed down the toilet in a heartbeat once Obama took office.

8- Generally speaking, it doesn’t take much for a tyrant to gain and keep the blind loyalty of the people who get PAID to do his bidding. Both “law enforcement” and military personnel, who are always used to increase and maintain the power of their masters (the politicians), will usually inflict almost any amount of oppression on their neighbors, provided the oppression is first declared to be “legal.” When some of the tyrant’s own mercenaries start to question the wisdom of his commands, as is happening with Obama (and began under Bush), the tyrant is in serious trouble. When, for example, you get even a few cops and soldiers openly declaring ahead of time (as the “Oath Keepers” are doing) that they will REFUSE any order to disarm Americans, or put Americans in detention camps, that spells serious trouble for the control freaks.

9- Obama is a communist. I don’t mean that as a meaningless insult, as most people use the term. I mean it as a perfectly accurate description of his political philosophy. There are two kinds of communist tyrants: the ones who know how utterly idiotic the notion of communism is, but who use the boneheaded philosophy as a tool to gain power for themselves; and the ones who actually think that communism is a good idea. Obama appears to be the latter. Needless to say, being the supreme, all-powerful dictator of a barren wasteland inhabited by a bunch of starving vagrants isn’t much to brag about. That is why a smart tyrant will make sure that he doesn’t “kill the golden goose.” He needs the peasants to be just free enough that they keep producing, so the tyrant has something worth controlling and stealing. Even the most barbaric slave-master wasn’t stupid enough to take 100% of what his slaves produced, or they would either revolt, run away, or starve to death, leaving the “owner” with nothing. And so it is with tyrants: Only the most moronic megalomaniac would do things which would destroy the entire economy of the land over which he rules, and Obama is well on his way to doing just that. Aside from the stupidity of trying to rob people who are destitute, a tyrant also must understand that desperate, impoverished peasants are infinitely more likely to openly rebel than those who have a lot to lose.

10- The single biggest mistake any tyrant can make–and the mistake that eventually brings down every single one–is not knowing when to back off. When the peasants are starting to grumble about losing their freedom, and starting to complain about what the tyrants are doing to them, the stupidest thing a tyrant can possibly do is try to grab MORE power. Yet that is what almost all tyrants do, and it is what Obama is doing, even more dramatically than the prior incompetent tyrant, George W. Bush, did. A smart tyrant would back off a bit, giving significant “tax cuts,” paying lip service to freedom, and loosening the shackles enough for the peasants to notice it. Then, of course, he would go back to very gradually tightening them again. But when the people start showing real signs of discontent, almost every tyrant in history has tried to jump to complete control, which only triggered panic and a vicious backlash from his subjects. And Obama is in the process of doing exactly that, by trying to tax, regulate, and/or nationalize everything in sight, as quickly as he possibly can. Just like every other short- sighted megalomaniac, he seems to think that if he can just quickly slam the door and lock it, he will achieve perpetual, unlimited power. But that’s not how reality works, and, fortunately for those of us who still value freedom, Obama is about to learn that the hard way.

Months before the election, I said that I wanted Obama to win for just this reason: because he would grab for complete power too quickly, and by doing so, would implode the entire Washington control machine. And he is in the process of doing just that (though Clinton and Bush really started that ball rolling). In short, Obama is an incompetent, ignorant tyrant, and that is a very GOOD thing for the long-term future of humanity.

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

by David Goree

Government has the most amazing ability to measure the wrong things. Look at most any set of laws, you will find examples of this problem.

Look at our speed limits, they have not changed appreciably in decades, except for the worse, and no one obeys them. The difference in vehicles alone is enough to make the current speed laws idiotic. How does it make sense for the speed limit to be the same for a 1960 Ford F-100 pickup with bias ply tires and drum brakes as for a 2002 Porsche 911 Turbo with HUGE radial tires and brakes worthy of Le Mans… They measure the wrong things.  

There should be no speed limits, there should be stopping distance limits. The signs we see on city streets should not say  “Speed Limit 25″ they should say “Stopping Distance 60ft”. On open highway they should say “Stopping Distance 350ft”.  Then your speed limit can be read off tables published by the vehicle manufacturer. Examples: 2001 Ferrari Modena 360: (60mph 110ft 80mph 186ft), 2001 Honda Civic SI (60mph 167ft 80mph 266ft) As you can see the Ferrari stops from 80 mph nearly as quickly as the Honda does from 60. Why should their speed limit be the same?  If you have a custom or modified vehicle, and you can show the Court test data, you are the manufacturer. The same idea applies to other laws. Passing zone laws for instance…for the same legally required distance to be available to pass in a Chevette Diesel as a Ducati 998 is insane. The 998 can pass 14 tractor-trailers in the distance it takes the Chevette Diesel to pass a dog.

Equally ridiculous are our age-based laws. At both ends of the spectrum. When I was 18,I raced roadracing motorcycles with a guy out of Arkansas who was 13. He could get a license to go beat the hell out of us on the track, but I couldn’t let him borrow my street bike so he could go get a Coke at the convenience store, because he was only 13. Obviously it would have been safe for John to ride my bike to the store…but illegal…WHY?

Look at the other end of aging, I used to fly with a man that was a Pan-Am 747
Training Captain. He, as all US airline pilots, was forced by Federal Regulation, to retire on his 60th birthday. He is among the handful of best pilots I have ever met. (This list includes 4 of the men to walk on the moon) For him to be forced into retirement because of aging is insane. He runs half-marathons, and is in better shape now at 71 than I am at 37. As long as a pilot can continue to pass the required FAA Class 1 medical exam every 6 months why should they not keep flying?

Government itself agrees that age is a poor measure, as it is possible for the Court to declare a child an adult to prosecute them as such when it suits Government’s purpose. It should be equally easy for a child to present themselves before the Court, and declare themselves to be adult. I know this is “possible” under current law, but it is MUCH easier and more common for children to be charged as an adult in criminal cases than it is for a child to be granted “Emancipated Minor” status.

Another example: Drunk Driving laws… we all know people with dramatically differing tolerance levels for alcohol. I know people that can have 10 drinks and drive safely. My mother, however, can have 1 and I won’t drive with her… The law should measure the degradation of your ability from sober…not how much alcohol you have in your blood.

Our Government supposedly works for us…
We should be able to make them measure the right things…
Let them know we will not stand for idiocy in Government anymore…
Vote Libertarian.

Originally piblished in Liberty For All March 22, 2002.

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

“If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”

- Marcus Cicero, 106-53 BC

Finally ….. a country with a backbone and common sense.  America allows our president to get us into an endless war through outright lies, killing thousands of our young men and women for his own personal cause - and then we reelect him!!  Holland kicks butt and takes care of business.

On November 2, 2004, Muslim terrorists kidnapped and murdered a filmmaker from Holland who was a descendant of Vincent van Gogh.  Theo van Gogh’s movie, “Submission” showcased a Dutch politician who grew up Islamic but renounced her birth faith which triggered Muslim militants to kill van Gogh.  Holland’s response to terrorism upon one of their own citizens on their own soil?  Swift and sure.  They simply deported all Muslims who were not yet citizens and changed their open border policy.  They didn’t invade another country and get into a war they couldn’t win or withdraw from; they simply took care of the problem within their own country.  Simple, logical, and effective.

America is no longer a country to be admired or a country with a spine.  We are hated and disrespected because we invade countries we have no business attacking, impose our way of life on people who don’t want it, and fail to handle the situation properly at home.  We elected a leader who believes he has a mandate from God and whose troubling policies parallel the Dark Ages Inquisition.  He lied to us to get us into a war he was determined to enter even before getting elected and then brainless voters reelected him to continue his ineffective and problematic policies.

There are striking similarities between the Vietnam and Iraqi conflicts, yet despite Bush’s long ago proclamation that the Iraqi conflict was “over,” we continue to lose ground and troops in Iraq and there is a conspicuous lack of outrage or protesters in the U.S.  When it became apparent that the Vietnam War was a conflict we could not win and we were paying too high a price in American lives, the U.S. landscape came alive with protesters.  Young people stepped up to the plate and let their government know in no uncertain terms, their displeasure.  Today’s generation just doesn’t seem to give a rat’s behind that the entire globe hates us or that our young soldiers are dying in vain.

Holland demonstrated how effective it is to take quick and sure action by expelling troublemakers from their own country and then closing the border.  It shows America there is a blueprint we could have followed to make our own country safer.  Holland’s leaders do what they think is right for their fellow countrymen and don’t worry about political fallout.  America’s leaders pander to political “correctness” and leave its citizens vulnerable and unsafe.  The Bush administration looks weak and ineffective in the face of strong and decisive leadership like Holland’s.  Could this be the reason the story completely disappeared from TV news after only an hour or two of airing and never saw newspaper ink?  Is the Bush administration afraid Americans will be pissed off that the president is incapable of nipping problems in the bud so quickly and effectively and had the story quashed?  Why else would such an important and inspiring story disappear?  It’s a disturbing thought.

America is no longer the wise, strong, most respected nation on earth.  Holland just took our place.  Wake up America.

Originally published in Liberty For All in 2004.

by Garry Reed

Definitions:

Practical Magic is a movie.  Magical Logic is a mental impairment of the governmentally afflicted.

Exhibit A

Now we know where all the Hefty Humans came from.  Uncle Shazam created them.  In 1998, the government changed the way they calculated peoples’ weight and POOF! Thirty million normally proportioned people went to bed one night and woke up as Super-Sized Citizens.  Thus, sixteen basketball players in the Final Four playoffs were officially “overweight.”  So is NBA star Michael Jordan.  Actor Tom Cruise is formally “obese.”  Apparently impressed by this legerdemain, the IRS withdrew its collective hand from our wallets long enough to flourish it in the air and, perhaps with a muttered “abracadabra” or “presto change-o,” transmuted the heretofore culturally defined value judgment of  “obesity” into a tax deductible “disease.”

Exhibit B

Judges in two separate cases refused to dismiss inciting-to-riot charges against a pair of alleged humanoids who praised the 9-11 attacks in front of angry citizens with moronic drivel like “It’s good that the World Trade Center was bombed” and “More cops and firemen should have died.”  As odious as these oral cavity droppings are, it’s really no different from American Nutsy Party goofballs goose-stepping through a Jewish community or Klansmen duded out in their January White Sale finery parading down MLK Boulevard.  If everybody always agreed with everybody else we wouldn’t need a Bill of Rights.  So, be careful, libertarians.  Stand up in a city council meeting packed with welfare recipients to protest a taxpayer subsidized day care center and you may be called a baby-hater and charged with inciting a riot.  The judges’ logic, apparently, is that feelings and political correctness trump freedom of speech and assembly.

Exhibit C

Joseph Boomer of Michigan fared better with his Appeals Court judges.  When Boomer’s tippy canoe dumped him in the drink he melted the ear wax of nearby Moms and minors with a copious medley of unhygienic wordplay.  The law under which he was fined, using “indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language” in front of women or children, was ruled unconstitutional on vagueness grounds.  This time, it seems, it was the Magical Logic of the original judge that determined a 105-year-old anti-cussing ordinance trumps our free speech rights.

Exhibit D

Lin Drake of Utah couldn’t find any protected prairie pups on his property so he started building homes.  The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fined him $15,000 for harassing and harming the nonexistent critters.  A federal administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the fine based on the following logic (quoting the FoxNews story verbatim):  “The ALJ ruled that FWS employees had no reason to lie because they were simply doing their jobs.  Also, ruled the ALJ, because those employees testified that prairie dogs were once on the property and are not there now the animals must have been killed; there was no need to prove their death.”  Why bother with hearings and trials?  One bureaucrat vouching for another bureaucrat should satisfy everyone.  So, based on this judge’s logic, I once lived in Minnesota but now I live in Texas so that means I’m dead; no proof is needed.  (Smart-alecky Oklahomans need not comment.)

Exhibit E

Sometimes Ye Grande Elected Ones get swept away by their own hyperbole.  After reports that anti-Semitic and racist leaflets were found tossed into driveways and yards in Southboro MA, State Senator Pamela Resor shrilled that people who distribute hate literature are “no different from the terrorists involved in the September 11 tragedy.”  Perhaps Ms Resor would agree to a little experiment.  First we’ll hire a troop of Junior Woodchucks to throw wads of bigoted handouts at her house.  Then we’ll fly a very large scale model radio controlled airplane through her front window.  Still think pamphleteers are “no different from the terrorists involved in the September 11 tragedy,” Madame Senator?

EXHIBIT F

President Bush waved his hocus-pocus pen and signed a bill declaring that only Mississippi Delta catfish can be called “catfish.”  This outraged the Vietnamese, whose catch of the day formerly known as “catfish” hail from the Mekong Delta and make up 20 percent of the US market.  The magically monikered domestic “catfish” monopoly quickly drove up prices.  But the Viets had their own juju.  They dubbed their former catfish “basa” and promoted it as a trendy delicacy.  The price of “basa” increased by 33 percent and enlarged its American market share by eight percent.  Now consumers pay more for “catfish” and “basa” alike.  Thanks, political prestidigitators.  Go fish!

Originally published in The Loose Cannon Libertarian June 1, 2002.

Garry Reed is a contributing editor for Liberty For All.  You can contact Mr. Reed at Reedcannon@aol.com.

by Lady Liberty

It seems that everybody’s looking for somebody to blame these days. In things large and small; all encompassing and personal; important and, well, laughable; the greatest effort is spent laying the problem at someone else’s doorstep rather than actually figuring out how it is there’s a problem in the first place. And then once fault has been set to somebody’s satisfaction, somebody else will get sued instead of anybody bothering to see what it might take to actually fix the problem. It’s important, of course, in this process that a few facts don’t get in the way of any predetermination of blame, and that the whole story not be publicized when half of the story is more incendiary.

Consider, for example, a billboard campaign in Florida prior to the 2004 presidential election. In that campaign, a series of Florida billboards blamed President Bush for the devastating hurricanes that made landfall there that fall (I’m personally inclined to consider that the blowhards behind MoveOn.org, the political action group that paid for the campaign, contributed far more hot air to the region than did the president). The point of the billboards was, of course, that because the Bush administration has “ignored the threat of global warming” (in other words, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol mandating a reduction of greenhouse gases), Floridians can expect still more nasty hurricanes in the future.

It’s entirely true that there is now something of a scientific consensus on climate change (as published in the December 3, 2004 online edition of Science Magazine). According to that report, some 75% of almost a thousand papers published on the subject indicated a conclusion that human activity did influence climate. Because the United States is a relatively large contributor of so-called greenhouse gases, the rest of the civilized world (okay, Europe) likes to lay the blame almost solely at the feet of greedy Americans whose president won’t sign onto the Kyoto Protocol.

Forget that the Protocol is a UN effort, and that any UN effort is almost certainly an affront to national sovereignty and a lean towards global government and socialism. Take note instead of the fact that scientists are more convinced of climate change than of the Kyoto Protocol’s ability to change anything. One Dutch scientist is on the outs with Europeans for having the effrontery to say that the Kyoto Protocol won’t work and that it may actually harm efforts to control global warming (to his credit, he’s also outlined what he believes to be a better idea).

The willingness of many to disregard the complexity of the science or reality, and to ignore almost entirely the naïveté of the proposed solution, is common in more local matters as well. Let’s go back to Florida for a moment (What is it with Floridians, anyway? Have those hurricanes sent by the president robbed them of their common sense along with their roofs?) to take a look at an infamous shooting that occurred there.

You doubtless recall the many news stories about the teacher who was shot and killed by a young student after he told that student to go home (the boy did; he came back with a gun). The teacher’s widow filed a lawsuit against not just the owner of the firearm, but the school board and the gun’s manufacturer as well. A jury found the gun’s owner and the school board to be 95% responsible, but despite agreeing that the manufacturer had made a gun that performed as advertised and hadn’t had any direct role in the crime, ordered the manufacturer to pay over a million dollars in damages. That verdict was overturned, and then appealed, with attorneys continuing to argue that the manufacturer should have taken on the responsibility to make its guns safer.

Although the boy-who went to a family friend’s house, searched for and found the gun, and returned to the school where he brandished the firearm and shot the teacher-has been jailed, that wasn’t enough for a woman who apparently didn’t think that enough blame had been spread around to assuage her pain. Was the family friend to blame for having a loaded gun in a drawer? Not any more so than you or I would be to blame if our cars were stolen with a full gas tank and later involved in a fatal hit and run. Was the school board at fault? No school administration could possibly be expected to conduct business under constant lockdown conditions unless we want our kids to go to school in the equivalent of maximum security penitentiaries (which, by the way, also see drugs and weapons smuggled in). Was the gun manufacturer to blame? Not unless you think that Budweiser bears direct responsibility for the fool who drinks a 12-pack and then does something harmful or deadly in his drunken stupor.

I can understand Pam Grunow lashing out at anyone and everyone in the aftermath of her husband’s killing. But I neither understand nor excuse a jury that placed so much blame in so many places it didn’t really belong. Meanwhile, a New Jersey woman has apparently decided that the teenager who shot and killed her husband had nothing to do with the killing. Instead, she was quoted as saying, “That gun destroyed my entire life.” Really? Wouldn’t it have been the kid with that gun that changed everything? (Later on, she did say she thought the kid should have received the death penalty which shows she’s at least somewhat further ahead of the intellectual curve than the woman in Florida. To be fair, though, New Jersey hasn’t been hit with a really good hurricane in some time.)

The blame game is at its most entertaining when it’s approached from opposite sides of the spectrum, in this case almost simultaneously. Remember Oliver Stone’s supposedly epic movie, Alexander? Neither, apparently, do a lot of people, and Oliver Stone isn’t happy. He publicly stated that his movie didn’t do well because “raging fundamentalists” in America didn’t like that the movie made clear that Alexander happened to be bisexual. (Actually, lots of very liberal movies do quite well in America. His box office receipts weren’t low because of Christian backlash; they were low because the movie wasn’t very good.) Meanwhile, some Christian groups that actually did have something to say about the movies this year are mad that The Passion of the Christ didn’t receive any major Oscar™ nominations. They say that’s because Hollywood is anti-Christian. (In reality, it’s because The Passion of the Christ didn’t deserve any major Oscar™ nominations.)

If more people spent more time actually learning about the realities of the situations they find upsetting; if they’d focus on the direct causes and circumstances instead of the most peripheral matters; and if they’d buck up and accept that sometimes bad things just happen, we’d all be happier in the long run. We’d also see more immediate and effective solutions to many of our problems.

Too fat? Go on a diet and go for a walk instead of blaming MacDonald’s. Your kid break an arm after he climbed on top of the jungle gym and jumped? Tell your kid that’s what he gets for behaving like an idiot and trust he’s learned something instead of suing the playground equipment manufacturer. Lose a loved one due to the malice or carelessness of another? If it were me, I wouldn’t stop until the person at fault was punished, and punished severely, but I wouldn’t blame a knife manufacturer or a liquor store for that person’s irresponsibility, and neither should anyone else.

Most importantly of all, we have got to realize that just because something isn’t necessarily our own fault (and we should own up to it when it is!) doesn’t mean it’s everybody else’s fault! Personally, I blame the lawyers. Here’s hoping they’re all on vacation in Florida during next year’s hurricane season which, with Bush back in the White House and another Bush in the Florida state capital as governor there, ought to be a doozy!

Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty’s Constitution Clearing House http://www.ladylibrty.com/. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com.

by Peter Orvetti

Officer Wesley Cheeks, Jr., inadvertently revealed a sad truth during a confrontation with a peaceful demonstrator last Tuesday in Reston, Virginia.  The man was one of several holding up signs outside a town hall forum on health care hosted by Rep. James Moran.  Cheeks, a security officer employed by the public through the Fairfax County Public Schools, singled out this man because he did not like his sign.

Cheeks approached the demonstrator and told him to obscure the sign from view.  When the demonstrator asked why he was being singled out, Cheeks gave the dubious answer that it was because his sign had a picture on it.  Cheeks threatened the man with trespassing charges, and when the activist said he was engaged in legal protest, Cheeks replied, “I’ll charge you with whatever I want to charge you with.”

“This is America!  This used to be America!” the agitated demonstrator replied.  Then came Cheeks’s moment of truth.  “It ain’t no more, okay?”

Well, it’s not quite as bad as all that.  The demonstrations over the health care debate have been passionate and sometimes violent, but they have been happening.  Dissent has not been snuffed out.  But over the past decade, those in power have cynically abused the legitimate need for public safety and security in order to stifle opponents.

Probably the first known “free speech area” was created by the city of Atlanta during the 1988 Democratic National Convention.  One abortion rights advocate complained that the city “put us in a free speech cage.”  A decade later, the raucous demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle led to greater deployment of the tactic.  The National Lawyers Guild, which monitors First Amendment abuses, said it saw “a notable change in police treatment of political protestors” following the 1999 WTO meeting.  The Guild said a “pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights” began to emerge in cities across the U.S.

Such “protest pens”, as activists later dubbed them, became commonplace during the presidency of George W. Bush.  In September 2002, a retired steel worker named Bill Neel was holding up a sign critical of Bush when the president came to Pittsburgh.  Police cordoned off anti-Bush demonstrators at a fenced-in baseball field a third of a mile from the site of Bush’s speech; those with pro-Bush signs were allowed to line the motorcade path.  Neel refused to go to the pen.  “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone,” he later said.  He was arrested and his sign was confiscated.  During Neel’s trial, a local police officer testified that the Secret Service told police to segregate those making a statement “against the president and his views.”

Such incidents became common.  In 2003, St. Louis police blocked members of the media from talking to protestors during a Bush visit.  In another instance, antiwar demonstrator Brett Bursey was ordered to go to a “free speech zone” a half-mile from Bush’s location during a South Carolina trip.  Bursey refused, and was arrested.  Bursey said he asked if it “was the content of my sign, and [the officer] said, ‘Yes sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.”  One journalist summed up the policy in these words: “Protestors will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can’t be heard.”

Thankfully, not all law enforcement officers have forgotten what country they live in, or what principles it is founded on.  The members of Oath Keepers, a “nonpartisan association of currently serving military, peace officers, firefighters, and veterans,” swear to “fulfill our oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  Oath Keepers will not conduct warrantless searches, detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants”, disarm citizens, or obey any order that infringes on free speech.

On their website, the Oath Keepers say, “We don’t care if unlawful orders come from a Democrat or a Republican, or if the violation is bipartisan.  We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders.”  Noting that some decent officers are torn between their commitment to liberty and their duty to follow commands, the group says, “We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops.  Help us win it.”

The Oath Keepers and their allies are making sure that this is still America - no matter what Wesley Cheeks Jr. might think.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.

by Kevin Tuma

by Larken Rose

Whenever I speak of forcible resistance against “government,” some people respond with things like, “How can you be for violence?” And almost everyone who says that is both delusional and hypocritical.

I admit, compared to almost everyone else, my political views are very extreme. For example, I don’t advocate that anyone ever be forced to fund something that they don’t want to fund. I don’t support robbery, even when the stolen loot is to be used for something supposedly noble or beneficial. No Democrat or Republican can honestly say that. Though they differ on how the politicians should spend the loot, every single one of them advocates that I be robbed, under threat of violence, to pay for things that I don’t want. And, of course, they also advocate that you be robbed to pay for things that you don’t want.

I don’t. Ain’t I extreme?

The trouble is, even though every Republican and Democrat advocates the initiation of violence against millions of people who haven’t harmed anyone, the way people see reality is so warped by the “authority” myth that they can’t see that what they advocate is coercion. They think that calling it “law” or “taxation” somehow makes it legitimate and disqualifies it as violence. And yet they know that anyone who doesn’t pay the federal Mafia’s extortion fees will be punished, with either extra robbery or imprisonment (or death if they continue to resist). It’s not that they are unaware of the violence behind all “laws”; it’s that they think it’s automatically righteous when “government” does it, and so they don’t call it violence.

The most bizarre example is the people who say, “I abhor violence, so I’m for gun control.” Oh, really? And how, exactly, will this “gun control” be imposed? By friendly suggestion? By rational argument? By a group hug? Or by men with guns forcibly disarming the general public? “Gun control” is violence. Even worse, it is the initiation of violence against people whose only sin is having the ability to defend themselves. And using violence against someone merely because that person possessed the means to protect himself is violent, evil, hypocritical and insane.

And such lunacy is the direct result of the belief in “authority.” If, for example, a burglar broke into someone’s house, and the homeowner pulled out a knife and threatened to attack the crook if he didn’t leave, how would most people judge that? Most would obviously see the invader as the bad guy, and the guy trying to chase him away as the good guy. But if the burglar happens to be called a “tax collector,” and tries to forcibly rob someone, and his intended victim resists, nearly everyone would loudly condemn the victim of the extortion as being a nasty, “violent” criminal.

That is why, when I say that using force to defend against those who initiate violence–even when that violence is called “law” or “taxes,” and even when the attackers call themselves “government” or “law-enforcement”–most people view me as the violent one. This is because almost everyone truly believes that when you make an actual crime (trespassing, robbery, extortion, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc.) “legal,” it ceases to be a crime. They further believe that resisting a crime, when the crime has been “legalized,” is a horrible thing to do.

Almost everyone in this country advocates constant, widespread violence, but they are too deluded to know it. Often the violence is fairly hidden, because the mere threat of authoritarian retaliation (for not paying “taxes,” for building something without a “permit,” for possessing an “illegal” weapon or an “illegal” substance, and so on) is often enough to coerce compliance. In those cases, statists can pretend that people obey “voluntarily,” though that makes about as much sense as saying that someone “voluntarily” gave his car to a carjacker, in order to avoid being shot. But even when the government violence is overt and bloody, as with the “war on drugs,” or foreign wars, or even some traffic stops these days, statists are still unable to see that what they are advocating is BRUTAL, BLOODY VIOLENCE. Worse yet, when I suggest that it would be justified to use whatever force it takes to stop such aggressive force, the statists see me as the “violent” one.

To illustrate this hypocrisy, I like to make the following offer, to anyone and everyone who considers himself peaceful and civilized: “I will never initiate violence against you myself, nor advocate that anyone else do so.” When I ask if someone will do the same for me, he always says “yes.” And almost no one who says that means it, as a simple follow-up question easily illustrates: “So you don’t advocate that I be forced, via ‘taxes,’ to fund anything that I don’t want to fund?” That’s when they start to backpedal, make excuses, start to use vague euphemisms about one’s “fair share,” and so on. “Okay, so you won’t promise to refrain from advocating the initiation of violence against me. That’s good to know.”

Here is a very simple principle that almost everyone understands: “Don’t ever start a fight, but if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.” And yet, because of the cult belief in “government,” that simple rule sometimes turns completely upside- down: “It’s okay to start a fight with everyone in the country (via ‘taxes’ and other ‘laws’), and okay to violently crush anyone who tries to defend himself against your attack.” Well, if such lunacy is considered to be an acceptable, civilized, mainstream attitude– which it is in this country, and throughout most of the world–then I’m happy to be “extreme.”

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

by J. Michael Bragg

In light of the shootings and violence in our schools and streets of this Great Nation

Dear God,

Why didn’t you save the little girl in Michigan?

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

AND THE REPLY…

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God.

Let’s see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O’Hare complained she didn’t want any prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible That says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as you do yourself. And we said, OK.

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem. And we said, an expert should know what he’s talking about so we won’t spank them anymore.

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don’t want any bad publicity, and we surely don’t want to be sued. And we accepted their reasoning..

Then someone said, let’s let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won’t even have to tell their parents. And we said that’s a grand idea.

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they’re going to do it anyway, let’s give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won’t have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said that’s another great idea.

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn’t matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. And agreeing with them, we said it doesn’t matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good.

And the entertainment industry said, let’s make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. And let’s record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it’s just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.

Therefore, now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with… “WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.”

Originally published in Liberty For All April 13, 2000.

by Kevin Joseph Tull 

There is an idea among some opponents of Libertarianism that under a Libertarian system one can sell themselves into slavery. There are even some Libertarians who have a difficult time arguing against this concept as they see that by having property right over ones own body they can sell their body or parts thereof to others and once such a contract is agreed to by both parties no government interference can occur to break this contract. These Libertarians and their opponents can see that this would actually leave someone in a state of slavery even if they changed their minds about a contract of indentured servitude after it was signed. Sometimes the only Libertarian responses available to the ill informed activist are “It says in the platform we are against indentured servitude, so we are,” or even worse, “Well, if your stupid enough to enter into that kind of contract then I guess you get what you deserve.”

Opponents of Libertarianism claim that because a persons body is just another piece of property, as stated in our platform, then creditors could take possession of it as the last item of property a debtor owns.

From this point some of our opponents come up with bizarre fictionalized accounts of a leviathan corporate slave society where children of slaves are harvested to compete with free laborers and also harvested for body organs all to be traded as just another commodity.

While this concept could make an epic Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson or Kevin Costner science fiction film about this imagined future Libertarian society, it would remain purely fiction.

The reason this imagined society wouldn’t exist is twofold:

First Libertarians believe that all our property rights emanate from the person along with the right to life and the right to liberty. Libertarians also believe that rights are inalienable, inherent in being human. In other words just by being created human we have rights that we can never be separated from, otherwise they would not be rights. In the platform it says that “All rights are inextricably linked with property rights”, not that all rights originate from property or ownership of property. Self ownership is a right we can not be separated from.

The only way a government can justly infringe on these rights (through arrest and incarceration) is if the person in question has infringed upon the rights of others. But because the person still owns themselves, government or any other entity cannot then sell a person incarcerated into slavery.

Second the fact that the Libertarian Party platform supports common law court proceedings, allows a level of protection not fully enacted in today’s judicial system. One right that Libertarians recognize is the right to take disputes over contracts to court, and not just to be judged by a magistrate, but to be judged by a jury based on the facts without government interference in the rules of evidence. Also, being under common law calls for not allowing a Judge to order a jury to decide a certain way if the evidence presented upholds a person’s case.

A good example of how this system would work is provided in history from a time when even though it could be proven by the plaintiffs that their clients had contracts to ownership of slaves they still lost in a court of law. The Fugitive Slave Act could not be effectively enforced previous to the Civil War. And this was at a time when although most jurors in the north were against slavery many still did not believe that blacks were equal to whites. And in Boston angry mobs set free captured blacks who were pending trial.

In this enlightened age where the vast majority recognize the equality of all mankind does anyone believe a jury would uphold a contract of involuntary servitude. Only fools and bigoted fools would believe that. In a Libertarian society the chance of a contract of indentured servitude existing would be slim to none.

After the Civil War the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted and in case anyone is worrying no Libertarians are calling for the repeal of this law.

I have made several good points on why the Libertarian platform not only does not support slavery and in fact prohibits it. Their still is no clear point in the LP’s platform that can be pointed to that directly promotes this idea so that Libertarian activists can speak on this topic without confusion. Unless a Libertarian take the points of debate on this topic that I have espoused then they can misrepresent what we stand for and look rather foolish because they have not armed themselves with this information.

Because of this I am now proposing and will be submitting to the Libertarian Party Platform Committee the following addition to the platform, after I have received feedback on this. Under the section titled: Individual Rights and Civil Order, and under the subtitle: The Right to Property, I propose after the following paragraph that the next paragraph be added as new language.

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

New proposed language:

Because of the fact that an individuals body is their own property and since all rights originate from the individual it is then recognized and affirmed that a persons body throughout their life remains their possession and cannot be taken possession of by a creditor, nor can any contract be entered into for a person to sell parts or use of their body unwillingly, nor can any contract for the selling of an individuals body parts or the use of an individuals body already entered into be considered binding once the individual has refused consent.

I believe this will clear up any confusion with where Libertarians stand on this issue and will help our activist’s to more clearly portray this to the public.

I believe that there will be some who might argue in good faith that our platform doesn’t need to keep growing for us to counter this subject, but I feel that this is an important point for us to make that it will supply us with a little extra ammo in the continuing fight for freedom.

We Libertarians know that our political philosophy is the best way to help increase the freedom of mankind. We know that as our ideas become reality that the sweeping grasp of our current governmental system will loosen and we will know what it means to be a free people who are not beholden to our government for freedoms that we were born with.

No more government landlords and no more government regulation that is just an excuse to keep us from exercising our rights to control our bodies and our property.

We Libertarians have the only political and societal philosophy that is not based on the initiation of force.

Because all other political philosophies are based on the initiation of force to achieve their goals they perpetuate slavery and because they do not realize it or they call it by some other name does not make it any less slavery.

Other people and political parties give lip service to advocating freedom, but only the Libertarian Party believes in your right to ignore the state and the state to ignore you as long as you do not violate the rights of others.

Imagine, only just laws that as long as you don’t violate them you remain free; the ability to go where you want to go and do what you want to do without government license or fees or rents or regulations.

That people, is freedom and anything apart from that is slavery.

by Jessica Peck Corry

Free speech can be complicated, as evidenced by the call from U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Fort Collins) for “civility” in the passionate debate over President Barack Obama’s plan to socialize American health care.

At town hall meetings and through online campaigns, millions of Americans have expressed heated opposition to Obama’s proposal.

Markey, justifiably nervous about the response she’ll face at her own upcoming meetings, plans to provide attendees copies of George Washington’s “Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company.”

The Denver Post’s Monte Whaley writes that “if voters angry over (Obama’s) attempts to overhaul the nation’s health care system don’t heed her plea, maybe they’ll listen to the father of our country.”

Markey emphasizes Washington’s first rule: “Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.” Markey implores participants to “respect one another. Don’t yell at people. Don’t hold a sign in front of someone’s face. You may not agree with what they say, but everybody deserves a right to speak.”

However, invoking Washington in America’s current debate yields new questions. Would America’s first president encourage respectful debate or call for a revolution against expanded government control?

According to Washington expert Joseph C. Smith, the analysis is complicated. While Washington encouraged political civility, he recognized the necessity to fight against oppression.

“He obviously did not believe that civility was more important than freedom,” Smith said. “Otherwise he would have condemned the notoriously uncivil Boston Tea Party, which he did not.”

As Smith notes, Washington backed a resolution in the Virginia House of Burgesses expressing solidarity with Bostonians and calling for a day of prayer and fasting. When Virginia’s colonial governor responded by dissolving the chamber, Washington still observed the day, a move Smith calls an “in your face” gesture.

At critical moments, Washington believed the need for civil discourse was outweighed by the call for freedom. While history books will define whether this is one of those moments, recent events have certainly put Democrats in a tough position. Having remained silent as liberal radicals repeatedly have silenced the speech of others, they now proclaim the First Amendment’s necessity.

Democrats are mum every October as radicals make their annual Denver pilgrimage to shut down the city’s Columbus Day Parade. They said nothing as protest ringleader and ousted University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill waged his censorship campaign on the Boulder campus, shouting down countless political opponents, including David Horowitz.

Democrats failed to condemn paid CU staffers who welcomed former University of California Regent Ward Connerly to campus years ago by donning faux Klu Klux Klan garb and holding signs calling Connerly “a puppet for the White man.”

There was no voice of outrage after students, during a taxpayer-funded lobbying trip to Washington, D.C., interrupted a congressman with, “Education is a right! Not just for the rich and white!”

Certainly, America’s health care debate, and the debate over how it should proceed, will continue. There have been some on both sides of the political aisle guilty of attempting to silence opposition.

But to understand where Obama’s opponents are coming from, look to the words of patriot Patrick Henry, who, in 1775, famously proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Ultimately, for families facing serious health problems — resistant to any suggestion of rationed care — this is about fighting for the freedom to choose life over death.

This article originally appeared in the Colorado Daily, August 24th, 2009.

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

from SAF

BELLEVUE, WA - The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed a strategic alliance to litigate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are not subject to any federal authority, resisting Congress’s dramatically expanded use of the interstate commerce clause to justify Washington’s regulation of virtually all of the private economy.  The MFFA also applies to firearm accessories and ammunition.

MSSA is most well-known for advancing pro-gun and pro-hunting bills in the Montana Legislature, and has been successful with 54 pro-gun and pro-hunting measures in the past 25 years.  SAF is a pro-gun foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights of gun owners primarily in judicial fora.  SAF has been a party to numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to federal power under the commerce clause.  MSSA and SAF expect to mount this legal challenge by filing a suit for a declaratory judgment to test the principles of the MFFA in federal court on October 1st, the day the Montana law becomes effective.

The concept of the Firearms Freedom Act has caught fire nationwide.  Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA.  Other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan.  Legislators in 19 other states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones soon or when their legislatures next convene.  See:  http://firearmsfreedomact.com

This wave of interest across the Nation is what the federal judiciary calls “emerging consensus” and will play an important role in validating the principles of the MFFA.

MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, “We’re excited to get the MFFA into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and states’ rights.  It’s especially encouraging that people in so many other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom train.  It will be an interesting journey, and we hope successful one.”

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added, “This is an issue that needs public attention because it challenges federal intrusion into an area where the federal government clearly, and literally, has no business.”

The MSSA/SAF legal team is currently working up its arguments and litigation strategy.  The team has identified several areas of rationale’ that have never been discussed before in cases about Congress’s commerce clause power.  The general thesis is that Washington has gone way overboard in attempting to regulate the internal affairs of states under the strained theory that states’ internal activities are related to interstate commerce.

Although the MFFA addresses firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories specifically, it is primarily about states’ rights and the commerce clause power of Congress.  Firearms are the object; states’ rights and freedom are the subject.
Information:   

Gary Marbut; 406-549-1252 http://mtssa.org

Alan Gottlieb; 425-454-7012 http://saf.org

Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
Email: InformationRequest@saf.org

by Peter Orvetti

My sons, who will be five next month, have recently discovered mathematics.  They are learning their numbers, and are intrigued by the concepts of addition and subtraction.  They do, however, have a tendency to guess that 10 plus 12 is “forty hundred”, or to insist that there is a number called “seventeen eleven”.  (This has led me to question my competence as a homeschool dad.)

Even they, though, have a basic understanding of how money works.  When we are at the bookstore or the toy store, they know that they cannot buy a six-dollar item if they have just four dollars.  They also know that if they save their money wisely, they can afford even better things later on.

It would be nice if the government could learn this lesson, too.

It is overly simplistic to say that spending should never exceed income or saved wealth.  We buy houses and pay for college through big loans, since the costs often exceed regular income.  We also purchase cars and furniture and other products on pay-over-time, interest-based systems.  Similarly, governments must have the capacity to allocate funding for emergencies and major long-term projects.

However, these circumstances should be the exception, not the rule.  But sadly, governments overspend as a matter of course.  Late Friday afternoon, officials at the White House Office of Management and Budget confirmed that they expect the 10-year budget deficit to reach $9 trillion, not the $7.1 trillion predicted just three months ago.  In June, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a $9.14 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019, and that number could now tip into 14-digit range, passing $10 trillion.  Deficits could easily exceed four percent of the gross domestic product.

Bear in mind that this is just the deficit projection, not the national debt.  That number has passed $11.7 trillion, and is growing at $45,000 per second.  That’s more than $5,000 more than the annual U.S. income per capita - every second.  Congress has sprung into action several times since the current recession began, boldly raising its meaningless national debt cap.  Currently set at $12.1 trillion, the cap will have to be raised soon, as the Treasury Department plans to borrow an additional $892 billion this year.

In the mid-1990s, the rising national debt was seen as so dire that a group called the Committee of 50 States, headed by a former governor of Utah, sought to get at least 38 states — three-fourths of the union — to sign on to an “Ultimate Resolution” that would dissolve the United States and fire the entire federal government for gross incompetence when the debt got too high.  The resolution would have kicked in when the national debt hit $6 trillion.  Today, a debt of just $6 trillion would seem like a blessing.  Today, the White House admits it will overspend by much more than that amount in just the next 10 years.

While spending has speeded up under President Obama, it would be wrong to blame just him or his party for this lamentable situation.  After a long climb from a $290 billion deficit in 1992, the U.S. federal budget registered a $69 billion surplus in 1998, and by 2000 the surplus was $236 billion.  Then came the man The Economist called “Red George.”  With “a socialist in the White House”, as the British publication put it, a net loss of $632 billion took place in just four years.  By the time of the 2004 election, the U.S. was running a $413 billion deficit, a record at the time.  By 2008, the deficit was $438 billion.  Then came the bailouts, and the stimulus, and the $1.58 trillion deficit for this year alone.

The government’s “solution”, no doubt, will involve you and me.  Imagine for a moment walking into your boss’s office and demanding - not asking for, but demanding - a raise.  When told that you have not been doing such a great job lately, you tell your boss, “That’s irrelevant.  My bills are going up, and I want to get my house painted, and it would really be nice to take a trip to Cancun next spring.”  You would be laughed out of the office, if not fired.  But that’s what the folks who work for you in Washington will do.  They will demand you pay more, even though they created this mess.  When it comes to fiscal recklessness, our leaders have achieved that sought-after bipartisan cooperation we keep hearing about.

Peter Orvetti was an early political blogger in the United States, running his Orvetti.com political news report from 1997 through 2002. He is a past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers. Contact Mr. Orvetti at peterjorvetti@gmail.com.

by Kevin Tuma

by CCRKBA staff

Seattle gun owners can take much credit for the ouster of anti-gun Mayor Greg Nickels in this week’s primary election, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said this morning following what amounted to a concession speech at his press conference.

Nickels came in third in the city’s “Top Two” primary, signaling that voters in Seattle were fed up with his bully pulpit style, and perhaps more than anything, his arrogance, said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. No single episode has better underscored that haughtiness than the mayor’s open defiance of Washington State law that denied him the authority to set up the city’s own restrictive gun laws.

“When the mayor announced last year that he would ban legally-carried firearms from city property when he knew it would be contrary to the state’s preemption statute,” Gottlieb recalled, “it made tens of thousands of Seattle gun owners furious. Nickels insulted their intelligence by promising to ban guns by executive order, which is the height of municipal contempt for the rights of citizens under the state Constitution. He literally threw away their votes.”

CCRKBA Projects Director Thomas McKiddie, a West Seattle resident, said he and his gun-owning fellow Seattleites had simply had enough of the mayor’s condescension toward their rights to be safe on city streets, in parks and on other public property.

“I don’t know a single gun owner in Seattle who voted for Nickels,” McKiddie said. “After he threatened an executive order, he lost the nerve to actually issue one because he knew he would lose that fight in court. Instead, he included gun prohibitions in use contracts for the Seattle Center and other venues. He knew a citywide ban would be unenforceable, and his ouster demonstrates that Seattle gun owners were having none of it.”

“We hope this sends a signal to Nickels’ successor,” Gottlieb observed, “that stirring the wrath of gun owners is a mistake. This week’s primary result in Seattle should stand as a warning to other mayors who signed on with New York’s Michael Bloomberg to trample the firearms rights of their constituents.

“Mayors are not monarchs,” Gottlieb concluded. “They are not above the law. Greg Nickels is going to have a long time to think about that, as he watches this election season from the sidelines.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

Copyright © 2009 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
E-mail: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

by Dennis D. Hayes

Let’s face it… Parasites Suck!!  It’s frightening to think that they have been around for so long they may never go away. And in this Little World We Live In, it is my fear that we have for too long overlooked what might have to happen in order to be rid of ‘em. Parasites that is!

To illustrate what it is I have been thinking about, I will attempt to present a variation on an old theme and story, a rather traditional premise best described as the story of… The Ant and the Grasshopper. Imagine just an ant, and just a grasshopper.  Trapped as it were, two Tsunami survivors left for dead on some remote and uncharted island.

Well, the ant knew immediately that he would need to make provisions for the future.  In fact, according to the atmospheric pressure sensed by the myriad microscopic hairs of his body, the ant had no doubt that there would be a harsh and cold winter to come.

Good neighbor that he was, the ant invited the grasshopper to join him in the preparations for winter. The grasshopper however, declined. He was surrounded by plenty of food.  In these warm months he could simply eat through the kernel of the grain and live off the fat of the land. Still, the grasshopper never missed the chance to provide unsolicited advice to the ant, telling him that what he was doing was somehow wrong or was not being accomplished in the best manner.

Yet the grasshopper himself never did get prepared.  So when that fateful day arrived, and arrive it did- in full fury, he found himself whining at the ant’s door, begging to be let in.

Here the grasshopper now stood, laying guilt at the feet of the ant and saying, “You owe me an act of sacrifice, if for no other reason than this, that despite our outward appearance, neither one of us can claim he is anything less than an insect!”

But the ant was adamant! I cannot! To allow myself to be manipulated out of guilt, even for the sake of all bugdom is wrong. How does “Live and Let Live” imply that just living your life can be in-and-of itself harmful to others? It does not! How does living my life make me responsible for yours? In reply the grasshopper only moaned, “Live and Let Live you say? Live and Let Die, you mean!”

“Why could you not have even attempted to be productive?” answered the ant.  If only for the good of yourself, let alone for the benefit of others. Though it would surely mean hardship from less food, less space, and less privacy, your efforts to provide most likely could have benefited us both.  In this respect I most certainly would have been obliged morally to share. Am I mistaken to point out the wrongness of parasitism? Shouldn’t one live according to his abilities instead of his disabilities? Shouldn’t one be responsible for its own self-preservation?

Sensing the ants resolve the grasshopper answered, “As a matter of fact I did take measures to guarantee my self-preservation. I discovered a book describing a primitive but effective form of poison-dart manufacture. I even managed to become proficient in its usage! With this knowledge and the plain fact that I have noticed you must visit the fresh-water spring in order to replenish your supply, I have kept self-preservation foremost in my mind. For you see, if necessary I will wait until you need more water, and then when you go to get some, I will surely kill you! Unless… you let me in!

Sound vaguely familiar? Is this story so very different from our current state of affairs?  Doesn’t the ant (the producer) end up getting coerced into providing for the grasshopper? Through guilt, envy, penalty, or threat of death? Isn’t the grasshopper representative of the parasitic bureaucrat, any number of religious leaders, and the old-fashioned non-producer?

Which brings me to my great fear.

Let’s just suppose for a minute that the grasshopper ends up killing the ant.

This would result in only two choices left for the grasshopper. He could, at the end of the ant’s provisions, and as a consequence of his immoral and irrational actions, simply give up and die. Or he would have to learn to produce the way the ant did. In other words the parasite, if he kills the producer, will perish, unless he becomes a producer. My great fear is that the parasites of this Little World We Live In will see the aforementioned scenario as the only recourse that will ever be available to them, and sadly that the producers of this Little World We Live In will fail to realize that there is and must always be other ways to overcome the parasites… ways that do not depend on first killing the host.

Pacificus

Originally published in Liberty For All March 17, 2001.

by Linda Gorman

Climbing from 3.5% of government revenues in 1965 to over 17% in 1990, the true cost of government health spending has panicked our political leaders. Desperate to control costs, they have mounted a media blitz designed to convince us that while a government takeover of the health care industry may cost more in taxes, the result will be better, cheaper, care. Unfortunately, the facts suggest otherwise. Government controlled medical care has been tried in Canada, Britain, and has always produced lower quality and higher costs.

Quality deteriorates because bureaucrats, not patients, control purchases. Much of the medical care cost increase since World War II has been caused by the explosion of technological progress and the rapid spread of health insurance. Widespread health insurance has made sophisticated care affordable, and we spend more because more can be done.

When patients control spending, they buy medical treatment that promises more life or improves its quality. Spending increases as medical knowledge expands, offering relief for those suffering from previously untreatable problems. This spending has bought life for trauma patients, premature infants, and others whose survival depends on modern medicine’s expensive machinery and highly trained specialists.

When bureaucrats control spending they buy cost control. With new treatments a primary cause of rising medical costs, government can contain costs only if it restricts access to modern treatments and retards the development of new ones. The effect of such rationing falls primarily on the biggest consumers of medical care: the aged and the seriously ill. Politically controlled medical systems emphasize preventative care for the healthy majority while callously disregarding the rest. Healthy bureaucrats and academics tend to applaud the theoretical elegance of this approach. Its practical implications, as the relatives of the Canadians who have died waiting for admission to antiquated hospitals can tell you, are hazardous to your health.

The politicians, of course, would have us believe that they can control costs by reducing inefficiency, eliminating “unnecessary tests” and having such “experts” as Hillary Clinton make “smart” medical choices for us. Much has been made of the claim that a government takeover of the insurance system would save $95 billion a year. This, however, is the maximum estimated savings. Other experts expect cost increases of up to $31 billion. People familiar with the oxymoron “government efficiency” will know which number to pick. Consider the federally-run Veterans Administration, the largest health care system in America. Characterized by long waits, filthy hospitals, antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff, the VA has long been a national scandal.

The Clintons have gone for the sympathy vote by emphasizing free vaccines for children. But free vaccines are already available. Government-imposed price controls (including “voluntary” controls imposed by arm-twisting) always produce havoc. If the Clinton plan goes through, wise parents will immunize their children immediately to avoid the inevitable vaccine shortage.

Most outrageous is the constant refrain that “we” spend “too much” on medical care. On what should people spend their wealth if not their health? In 1990, 12.2% of GNP was spent on medical care. If that’s bankrupting America, what about the 9.2% spent on private automobiles in the same year?

People also claim US inefficiency because US expenditures average about $2,500 per person per year while Canada’s are about $1,700. These claims mislead because they fail to correct for obvious differences in the two populations. The US, for example, spends more on medical R&D, has an older population, and a higher incidence of drug abuse and violent crime. US health care spending also includes purchases by Canadians who would rather pay for US medical care than endure “free” Canadian care. When properly adjusted for these differences, average US spending drops below the Canadian level.

Before being stampeded into replacing the decisions of millions of informed consumers and their doctors with the superficial brilliance of a cadre of lawyers, we should try a more promising approach. Health insurers, physicians, hospitals, medical device manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies operate under a crushing load of unnecessary regulation that discourages innovation and adds relatively little to the quality of care. Some economists estimate that unnecessary regulations increase medical costs by as much as 50%.

Although it lacks the glamorous excitement of introducing yet another grandiose plan, regulatory reform offers a realistic hope of reducing the cost of medical care without compromising its quality.

Originally published by the Independence Institute January 1, 1993.

Linda Gorman is a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Golden, Colorado and director of the Institute’s Health Care Center. A freelance writer and researcher, she was a weekly columnist for the Colorado Daily in Boulder. Her articles have appeared in local newspapers, professional journals, and publications such as The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.

by Pierre Lemieux

On July 24, in a case brought by the Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Alberta government is entitled to require a photo on the Hutterites’ drivers’ licenses. “The negative impact on the freedom of religion of Colony members who wish to obtain licenses,” the decision summary explains, “does not outweigh the benefits associated with the universal photo requirement.”

The Hutterites-a sect or a religious group as one might want to call them-refuse to have their pictures taken for their driver’s licenses and for a related digital photo data bank. They believe that photographs are “likelynesses” prohibited by the Second Commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). Stupid belief? I would think so. But it is their belief, and weighing its importance for them against the beliefs of others about some ID system is comparing oranges and apples. Such comparisons can only be arbitrary and dictatorial.

It can be-and was also-argued that the Hutterites should be subjected to the same laws as everybody else. However, loopholes can be useful in undermining a bad law. Equal oppression for all is not a great ideal. The main issue remained whether the photograph requirement infringed on the Hutterites’ freedom of religion. The court said yes, and used the so-called “Oakes test” to determine whether this infringement is, according to s. 1 of the Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms, “justifiable in a free and democratic society.” The majority ruled that it is. They argued that “maintaining the integrity of the driver’s licensing system” is necessary to protect the drivers’ licenses as “a widely used and respected method of personal identification.” Now, this is precisely the problem.

The government of Alberta argued that a photograph on drivers’ licenses (brought in by a Conservative government) is necessary to fight identity theft. How can it be so? Until relatively recently, there was no government photo ID at all in this country-as late as the 1990s in the case of Québec. Tricks and rules of thumb were developed to evaluate honesty and identify individuals, from their signatures to their body language. And it worked.

With no state ID papers, there was no canned identity to be stolen. Interestingly, the Supreme Court recognizes that “the issue of identity theft is a social problem that has grown exponentially in terms of cost to the community since photo licenses were introduced in Alberta in 1974,” and admits that “[a] collateral effect of the licensing system is that the driver’s licenses issued under this system have become generalized identification documents, with the attendant risk that they might be misused for identity theft.”

A drivers’ licensing system calls for adding photographs, which soon morph into a digital photo data base. What’s the next step? Biometric ID papers or RFID implants? Once you get into this logic, the end product will be a parent licensing system, a three-decade-old academic proposal based on the driver licensing model. The reason why no drivers’ licences should carry a picture is that we need to stop this drift-if we are too shy to question the whole system of licensing drivers.

Look at the big picture. The danger of official ID papers is that they allow the state to monitor individuals and, thus, to reduce the cost of enforcing and imposing growing regulation on them. Photographs on drivers’ licenses (and on Medicare cards) contributed much to the rise of government ID papers in Canada. When they bore no picture, they were less efficient. Blessed inefficiency!

Since photographs appeared on government ID papers, private parties have jumped on the bandwagon or obediently fallen into the ranks. Just a few days ago, I had to show government photo ID to my branch of the CIBC, where I have been a customer for nearly three decades, in order to renew an ATM card. The CIBC had resisted perhaps better than other banks (the National Bank, for example, caved in much earlier), but it has now fallen too. One sometimes wonders if these tightly regulated bureaucracies are really private businesses anymore.

Strip the Supreme Court majority of its casuistic legal prose and you rapidly unearth its statist and collectivist foundations. It pays its honors to the “administrative state.” “[T]he court’s ultimate perspective is societal,” write the learned judges, using a word which simply means “social” in clean voodoo.

The dissenting minority buys into the same hogwash. True, Justice LeBel criticizes the majority’s theory that driving is merely a privilege granted by the state. Against the public safety justification for photographs, he correctly notes that “[a]bsolute safety is probably impossible in a democratic society.” But such refreshing statements are rare. One dissenting judge writes that “religious freedom has both individual and collective aspects.” In reality, the judges are debating which of their own preferences to use as a criterion for comparing apples and oranges.

The Court finally determined that, on balance, the costs imposed on the Hutterites are lower than the benefits conferred to other people. In this approach lies the essence of state action. The state generally does not adopt policies that produce public goods that benefit everybody; instead, it adopts measures that benefit politically favored groups at the detriment of politically disfavored ones. The Court implicitly admits it by saying that “the duty of state authorities to legislate for the general good inevitably produces conflicts with individual beliefs.” If the good were truly “general,” there could be no such conflict. It is because the state promotes particular preferences and values that it fuels mounting conflicts.

Today’s exploited minorities are the Hutterites, the gun owners, the smokers, and a few others. Tomorrow, other minorities will get steamrolled.

Pierre Lemieux is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Quebec at Outaouais in Canada.