Tag Archives: libertarian

Better, Yes

07 Sunday Mar 2021

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Better, Yes

Tags

, , , ,

Tho Bishop wrote not so much an attack on nationalism, Christian or otherwise, as a call for paleolibertarianism as a better alternative to modern globalism masquerading as leftism. He’s right – it would be better.

Written in 1994, one of the last journal articles he ever published, Rothbard’s analysis has tremendous relevance to revived discussions on nationalism both in America and abroad. The breakup of globalist institutions, such as the European Union, should be the top political aim of any “conservative” movement wanting to restore traditional social bonds and civil society—even if the underlying motivations for the secessionist cause are not purely “libertarian.”

The greatest flaw with the uniquely American nationalist crowd—a natural extension from those who still idolize Abraham Lincoln—is the failure to appreciate that there is no singular American nation. The most exciting aspect of the modern political stage is a growing acknowledgment of this issue.

In conclusion, history is not shaped merely by great men but is instead molded by the prevailing ideology of a time. Ultimately, however, the strength and lasting power of a movement depend upon the rigor and strength of its intellectual inspiration. The modern American right has succeeded in acknowledging many of the institutional causes that have given rise to the rule of the “evangelical left,” but the aim of replacing them with simply another variety of progressive statism is unlikely to result in their desired ends.

To truly threaten the modern progressive state, America needs a Rothbardian right.

Much of what Rothbard believed would be immeasurably better than the liberal-conservative charade today. It’s good to see people open to the idea of necessary secession and separation. However, there’s still a lingering confusion about the state versus the nation and, more importantly, about the preeminence of identity before culture and politics. There certainly was an American nation, an American People in the United States, years ago, before it was subsumed by malicious policies – some of which modern, or post-modern libertarians champion.

But, the hour is very late. The old America is subsumed even though a Remnant survives. That Remnant deserves a nation-state of their own. And they, we are currently under attack – this is a war, civil and external – on all fronts by multiple parties. Plainly put, an ideology that foremost promotes non-aggression is not particularly useful in a war. Rothbard’s ideas, many of them, would be ideal for future rebuilding. But the future isn’t now. Today, we need strong, utterly strong, and relentless nationalists. For the Christian American Remnant, it would be best if these strongmen were also strong in the faith. While it would benefit from dispensing with the lies of the globo Uniparty, and benefit even more from some well-placed Rothbardian Natural Law-based ethics and ideals, what America needs most is hardcore, uncompromising Christian Nationalism.

Not the Biggest Danger

16 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Not the Biggest Danger

Tags

, , ,

Michael Rozeff plays ardent libertarian today at LRC. He’s certainly correct that the globohomo crowd greatly increases the odds of socialism. However, that predicament pales in comparison to the real danger posed by the mass migration of peoples.

I’ve found one recent paper (October 2016 in the Journal of Politics) that examines our situation with respect to Mexicans in our country. Mexicans constitute about 1/3 of our immigrant population. The title is “Partisanship by Invitation: Immigrants Respond to Political Campaigns”.

The study examined two elections: 2006 and 2008. The authors, James A. McCann and Katsuo A. Nishikawa Chávez, find that the Democratic party benefited much more highly from its partisan appeals than did the Republican party. The detailed findings led the authors to conclude

“Barring a major shift in the dispositions of Republican lawmakers and party activists towards identities and issues that Mexicans and other immigrant groups hold dear, a shift that appears improbable at this juncture, there is likely little chance that Republican campaign messages in any electoral environment could pull the Mexican-born toward that party, even if Republican candidates themselves are perceived as personally attractive figures.”

Although the Republican party has been no stranger to socialist legislation, such as extending Medicare to prescription benefits, the Democrats are worse. They typically propose the socialist extensions and campaign for them for years on end until they become law.

The biggest danger of uncontrolled or unlimited immigration is that it shifts American politics even more greatly toward socialism.

Wrong. All the old left-right, Dems-Repubs, liberal-conservative ideation is now useless. The problem is not economic nor even purely political. When it comes down to it, the kind of socio-economic structure is irrelevant. That’s because the open borders agenda is far worse than any scheme heretofore practiced outside of ancient Babylon (maybe Sodom and Gomorrah). Old hardline Soviet Communism, while less than desirable, was better. For all its problems, it did not seek to destroy the Soviet Nation and People. Globalism does.

The true danger of allowing mass migration and unfettered “free markets,” is that they destroy families, communities, nations, and peoples. Literally, almost nothing is left but an incompatible mass of jumbled humanity without any common culture or tradition. The exception to the “almost nothing” is violence. Power-loving Republicans, power-loving Democrats, and pot-loving Libertarians are steering us gleefully if stupidly into war. And that, when it comes, is a little worse than the loss of property rights.

The current scheme isn’t predictive of or prerequisite to collapse. It is a collapse in progress. Vox Day illustrates using the Trump-Omar row as an example. Read that.

A Libertarian Gets It

27 Saturday Oct 2018

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on A Libertarian Gets It

Tags

, , ,

Open borders kill countries, with the more civilized recipients falling victim to the less civilized incomers. Even first world to first world can have problems. Third world to first world is a problem. Robert Ringer gets past the theory:

All good theoretical stuff, but, unfortunately, reality has a way of overwhelming theory, and the dominant reality of our age is that a significant number of the earth’s inhabitants believe they have a right to violate your freedom. I’m not just talking about political thugs and bureaucrats, but their envy-crazed followers as well. Thus, the reality of illegal immigration is that it has the potential to destroy a civilized country.

…

Any undocumented person arriving at any border of the United States, regardless of age, sex, or country of origin, must immediately be refused entry. No courts involved. End of discussion.

Either we take such an unyielding stance or, by default, meekly submit to the dissolution of the United States of America. History teaches us that empires fall apart when their rulers and their citizens become soft, and Americans have become very soft. Now, thankfully, we are being forced to make a choice, and for that I must thank the organizers of the fake caravans. What shall it be?

America is either a country or it is not.

UPDATE: My weekly email to President Trump:

Dear President Trump:

Congratulations, as usual, for your unswerving dedication to America, the Posterity of the Constitution, and freedom.

You were correct to deem the current illegal migrant “caravan” (and all others) a “national emergency.” It is not a caravan. It is an invasion column – war conducted under the guise of globalist immigration.

As such, I would recommend treating it as a hostile military incursion. Repel it with military force. Do not allow another single invader into the United States. Consider strongly removing those already here. And, consider most strongly removing that enemy within, that which constantly encourages and suborns the invasion and the concurrent destruction.

You know the timing and the landscape better than I but I suspect the time is near to take hard action against our domestic enemy combatants. Please do so.

Thank you, as always, for all you do.

MAGA.

Sincerely,

Perrin Lovett

 

They Prefer to be Called “Libertarians”

19 Wednesday Sep 2018

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on They Prefer to be Called “Libertarians”

Tags

, ,

Capital “L” there. Whatever you call them, just don’t call the stoners “stoners.”

“That word can be used to negatively stereotype people,” said Daniel Yi, senior vice president of communications at MedMen, which operates 14 retail pot stores, including one in San Diego.

“We want to take that stigma away. We want to make marijuana mainstream.”

MedMen’s $2 million “Forget Stoner” advertising campaign debuted earlier this year and is part of a larger, on-going push by the cannabis industry to normalize the use of marijuana.

Normali$e it. And they’ll likely forget if you slip and call them stoners – being stoned and all.

Ovx4k

The Simpson’s.

Even The Pursuit Of Power Corrupts

06 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Even The Pursuit Of Power Corrupts

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Given Lord Acton’s observations I long thought that should the Libertarians officially come to power they would become willing participants in the system: corrupted and the very thing they were elected to combat. Now, it seems, their ascendancy isn’t even a requirement. John Bock wrote an intriguing piece suggesting the corruption has already happened. Or, at least, it has begun.

Today’s Libertarian Party is not the same party your father knew. The party known for promoting civil liberties, minimal government regulation (including ending drug laws), free market capitalism and the end of welfare seems to have wavered in its original mission. This election cycle, the Libertarians have enjoyed extra support with all of the early “Never Trump” talk. More people have looked into the Libertarians, but not everyone – especially gun owners – likes what they’ve found.

The article is gun-centered but so is freedom. There appears to be a lot to worry about.

I like the LP, theoretically, as an alternative to the current uni-party BS system. Many of my friends are Libertarians, many more libertarian with the capitalization. I never entertained joining the LP. I’ve never joined any party. Not a party person, so to speak.

Three problems have always specifically stood in between the LP and myself. First, there’s the aforementioned potential for decline. Second, the applications I have seen have a requirement that members declare they will not try to overthrow the government. I see no need for direct action as state’s usually do a marvelous job of committing suicide, unassisted; however, the option is nice to have in needed (see 1776, etc.). Third, I have found the LP, first and foremost, to be the party of pot.

I don’t use marijuana nor do I mind if you do. I think all drugs should be legal though I might never use them. But, it’s not my only issue. Mary Jane’s Stoned Green Grass Pot Party is not for me. I have a very funny story about my experience with the ravishing reefer enthusiasts but it can wait just a while.

Guns are another of my many issues so let’s return to Bock’s article.

Gary Johnson picked as his running mate a liberal Massachusetts gun-grabber. This makes the ticket no worse than the gun controllers offered up by the DNC and the GOP but it is no different. If there’s not a difference, what’s the point?

Johnson’s campaign in Delaware is chaired by Melissa Joan Hart, another celebrity telling you how to vote. She’s also a spokeswoman for Mom’s Demand Action (against you and your guns). She’s also easy on the eyes so I might let that one go, if it stood alone as an anomaly. It doesn’t.

nimbus-image-1475783653817.png

Hmmmm…

It seems even the venerable Cato Institute, bastion of libertarian thought in D.C., is at least willing to compromise on gun control. It’s not that bad, but it is a compromise and one that makes no sense.

By Robert A. Levy

…1. Assault rifles.

…That said, some weapons can be banned. For example, automatic weapons have, for all practical purposes, been banned since 1934. But banning popular semi-automatic rifles, merely because they have a military-type attachment that doesn’t affect their lethality, makes no sense. The task, therefore, is to identify semi-automatic weapons that are not commonly used and not needed for lawful purposes. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban went too far, but a more limited version might be viable.

2. High-capacity magazines.

…To my knowledge, no actual or potential (civilian) victim has fired dozens of rounds in self-defense. Perhaps that suggests a ban on magazines with more than, say, 20 rounds.

3. Universal background checks.

…It may be time to revisit and, if necessary, fine-tune Manchin-Toomey.

Robert Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

Boch immediately follows with a story of a citizen who used a scary assault rifle and one or more high capacity magazines to fight off armed thugs, none of whom I am sure, cared the least about background checks.

And Levy and company miss the point entirely. If the government has powerful weapons, it follows the people should have them also – just in case. It has nothing to do with shooting deer or fighting criminals in theory. (Although in practice the weapons do a great job with both of those issues).

Maybe this is in keeping with the LP pledge to tolerate any government. Maybe it’s a cave-in in an attempt to garner the mad mom vote. Either way, it isn’t libertarian, American, nor wise.

Just to show no hard feelings towards Libertarians – Legalize the Weed!

An Unexpected Gift: Christmas at the Supreme Court

22 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Usually my legal and political writings center on the wrongs of government … and rightly so.  My assessment of court rulings, of the Supreme Court in particular, are often negative: The Affordable Care [SIC] Act; the end of the Fourth Amendment; etc.

Yesterday, however, a gleam of sunlight emanated from the High Court.

From coast to coast the police are profiling drivers in an attempt to find any reason to arrest otherwise free citizens in the ongoing War on Freedom.  A simply traffic stop, for something as innocuous as driving on the shoulder of the road, is used to extend the parameters of the stop to facilitate a deeper investigation.  This investigation is aimed at discovering illegal drugs, guns, or cash.  The initial routine stop is a pretext for a subsequent felony search, in the absence of probable cause to suspect any felony has been committed.  In plain words, the stop is a fishing expedition.

In Rodriguez vs. United States, 575 U.S. __, Slip Opinion No. 13–9972 (April 21, 2015), the Court declared these after-the-fact exploratory searches illegal.

Denny Rodriguez was stopped by a Nebraska law enforcement officer for temporarily driving his SUV on the shoulder of a road.  The officer checked Rodriguez’s license and issued a warning regarding his road departure.  Things then got out of hand and out of Constitutional bounds:

Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped petitioner Rodriguez for driving
on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After Struble attended
to everything relating to the stop, including, inter alia, checking
the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a
warning for the traffic offense, he asked Rodriguez for permission to
walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble
detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved
his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing
search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes
elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the
dog alerted.
Rodriguez was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress
the evidence seized from the vehicle on the ground, among others,
that Struble had prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable
suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. The Magistrate Judge
recommended denial of the motion. He found no reasonable suspicion
supporting detention once Struble issued the written warning. Under
Eighth Circuit precedent, however, he concluded that prolonging
the stop by “seven to eight minutes” for the dog sniff was only a de
minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment rights and was
for that reason permissible. The District Court then denied the motion
to suppress. Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea and was
sentenced to five years in prison. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Noting
that the seven or eight minute delay was an acceptable “de minimis
intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal liberty,” the court declined to
reach the question whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to continue
Rodriguez’s detention after issuing the written warning.

Courts have, for eons it seems, held “de minimis” or short deprivations of liberty acceptable in the War on Freedom.  I and a minority of libertarian legal scholars hold that any deprivation without cause (and the War itself) is illegal.  In an amazing turn of events the Court has agreed – in part.

“In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 (2005), this Court held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of
unreasonable seizures. This case presents the question whether the Fourth Amendment tolerates a dog sniff conducted after completion of a traffic stop.” Rodriguez, Slip Op. at 1.

I do not agree with Caballes but I am more than willing to take what the Court offers with Rodriguez:

“We hold that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation.”  Id.

“A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation. ‘[A] relatively brief encounter,’ a routine traffic stop is ‘more analogous to a so-called Terry
stop . . . than to a formal arrest.’”  Id, at 5.  This is true so long as the stop is for a violation of a valid law (few and far between).

However, “[t]he scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.”  Id.  Such justification goes only with the underlying traffic stop.  “A dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at detecting evidence of ordinary [non-traffic related] criminal wrongdoing.”  Id, at 6.

The presence of overt indications of attendant criminal activity – the smell of marijuana, contraband plainly visible to an officer, etc. – may give rise to a further search, investigation or detention.  Concerns for “officer safety,” as nebulous a concept as may be imagined, may also justify a stop beyond what would ordinarily be necessary.  Absent these factors further detention is untenable.  Id, at 9.

Thus, the next time you are stopped for a simply traffic violation and you receive either a warning or a ticket, you are free to go at the conclusion of the incident.  You may deny an officer’s request for additional harassment citing Rodriguez.  Mind you, the police are as likely to comply with this ruling as they currently comply with the Constitution itself.

Police-dog

(Nothing to worry about.  Google.)

Should you be foolish to argue the old “ain’t doing nothing wrong, ain’t got nothing to worry about,” then, please, don’t be troubled when you find yourself surrounded one night by gun-wielding officers with attack dogs.  Even if trouble arises, and you live through it, maybe The Nine will eventually smile on you.  Then I can happily write here about your case.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Election

05 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 2004 I did a stupid thing.  Despite my libertarian leanings I once involved myself with the local Republican party.  I did this partly as a networking opportunity and partly as an attempt to side with the famous “lesser of two evils,” a political compromise if you will.  As a result I wasted a lot of time at various party events, listening to irrational people ranting about hateful or pointless things.  I learned a valuable lesson though and I have never placed myself in such a demeaning situation again.

Something funny (or alarming) did happen.  I’ll relate to you now.  I actually got a little bit of wisdom out of the whole experience.  Maybe you will too.  Mainly I learned the Party was useless and certain of its members and supporters were untrustworthy at best.  This story relates to one of the chief events which taught me the lesson.  Enjoy!

It was George Bush, the Dimmer’s, second Presidential campaign.  I was invited to travel down to Marietta, Georgia to attend a luncheon seminar on the subject and what the “grassroots” folks could expect.  The featured speaker was Ralph Reed of former “Christian” Coalition and political snake-oil fame.  The event was held in a trendy hi-rise and the crowd was composed of typical Republican types – older white folks in suits and such. 

bush-stupid-facial-expressions

(The Misunderstestimator.  Google Images.)

Ralph went on and on about how Bush could and should win, if only us little people would do our part.  I was more interested in the menu than the rhetoric for most of the meeting.  Then I caught something Ralph said which made me laugh openly.  I nearly choked on my scone.  He was commenting on how hard it would be to win the re-election, or any new election for that matter, thanks to the Draconian and likely illegal provisions of the dreaded McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, recently enacted.  He went on for a few minutes about the horrors of doing business under the new law and then opened up for questions.

You probably can guess what happened next.  I couldn’t resist.  I raised my hand early and when called on I asked, “Do you mean the same McCain-Feingold law authored by Republican John McCain?  Ralph, reading my thoughts, nodded affirmatively but uncomfortably.  I kept on, “You mean the same law passed by the Republican majority in both houses of Congress?  Ralph began to sweat.  At this point, several of the well-fed attendees looked up from their dessert dishes.  I pressed on, “You’re talking about the law signed by President Bush, the same guy with the current troubles?  Ralph was white and shaky.  He had a hard time answering me.  A few more of the Rush-bots began to listen.

I further inquired, “This is the law which Bush said was probably UnConstitutional, but that he’d sign anyway?”  Ralphie swooned.  I should have stopped but I just could not help myself.  Most of the herd was still grazing thoughtlessly, but I had a large enough audience for my point.  “Didn’t Bush sign the law only to say the Supreme Court would work out the details?” I asked.  At this point Mr. Reed determined to leave early and stopped my questioning with a vague, “Uh, yeah…that law.”  He didn’t want the suits to catch on if they could.  There were no more questions.

As if by chance, or design, I happened to take the same descending elevator as Mr. Reed.  I pressed a little further.  I didn’t want to harass the poor guy but the fun was too good to let slip past.  I asked rhetorically, “I guess it’s up to the Supreme Court, now?”  Ralph began to turn green but responded, “Yeah.  We’ll have to see what they say.”  I ended the verbal water-boarding, “And, we can always count on them, can’t we?”  I wish there was a video to corroborate my story.

The first time I was alone afterwards I laughed loudly for minutes on end.  The ride home was unremarkable though.  I don’t think the person I accompanied ever caught on to what I was implying.  To her, whatever this new law was, it was just another part of the process – our team versus theirs.  What it really meant was that the home team consisted of a bunch of F—ing Morons!  I’ve never seen Ralph since and he won’t accept my Facebook friendship request.  Bad memories I suppose.

The law turned out to mean nothing to the ticks and has since been largely over-ridden.  The Supremes did make their ruling – a classic in my opinion.  They pointed out the oppressive, free-speech limiting nature of the law, but concluded that since it pertained to the two political branches, and since those branches had approved it, the Court would too out of deference.  So they did!  As I said the law has been rendered moot for the most part.  Politicians don’t mind stamping out the little people’s rights and opportunities, but they sure as hell won’t have any law impinging on their schemes.

free-speech

(Justice Scalia did note the chilling provisions of Mc-Gold on “average” people.  Google Images.)

In the end, I guess nothing was gained or lost, except any respect I had for Republicans not named Ron Paul.

Top Shelf Cigars

03 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by in Other Columns

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I like to help people.  I also appreciate good people and good services.  So, I have no problem whatsoever writing this column about my great friends at the Top Shelf Cigar Shoppe in Martinez (Evans [greater Augusta]), Georgia.  This is part of my continuing series on good businesses.

My family and I moved to Augusta about six years ago.  I needed to find a top-notch place to purchase and enjoy fine cigars.  There were and still are several tobacco businesses in the area, each unique in its own way.  However, when I first visited Top Shelf I knew I was “home.” 

Just about every city over 100,000 in population has at least one cigar shop.  Some are decent, others are good, some are great.  Top Shelf falls into the rare great category.  If you live in the area and enjoy fine cigars, I highly recommend a visit.  Find them on the web, here: http://www.topshelfcigarshoppe.com/.  If you’re visiting or just passing through, you’ll feel right at home.

Top Shelf is the brainchild and proprietary interest of Mr. Russell Wilder.  After retiring early, Russell knew he wanted to develop a special place dedicated to premium cigars and pipe tobacco.  He has more than accomplished his original goal, having built one of the most recognized and distinctive stores in America.  This has not been am easy process.  Often he reports to work before the sun rises and doesn’t leave until it is dark again.  He goes the extra mile for his customers and with his suppliers and employees. 

0906121812

(Russell and his boss.)

Russell regularly attends national conventions and trade shows and has a personal relationship with most of the major players in the modern cigar market.  Just the other day he returned from a trip to Esteli, Nicaragua and a visit to Nick Perdomo’s growing and production operation.  Nick and other cigar royalty have been quests at Russell’s shop over the years. 

I’ve been to cigar shop’s from Florida to New Hampshire.  The really good one’s are memorable because they get things right.  In addition to maintaining an inventory which works for the local market, owners must follow trends and design their stores to be as comfortable and enjoyable as possible.

Russell has had three different locations, each an improvement over the previous incarnation.  His original shop was in a shopping center.  As is (or was), it was an excellent place.  However, when the opportunity presented itself to move to a larger space where he could upgrade most of the shop’s features, Russell didn’t hesitate.  I helped move some of the stock and furniture from place to place as did most other “regulars.”  A great shop will always have at least a few regular customers on hand to demonstrate the quality of the business.

Last summer Russell made a quantum leap.  He bought his own freestanding building and moved his shop to its current location on Columbia Road.  This provides easy access from Washington and Wheeler roads, both major arteries, as well as access to Interstates 20 and 520.  There are some interior pictures of the new shop at the link above.  You may notice a rounder version of your’s truly in one of those – seated at the domino table with a few other vagabonds.

The new shop is a model of cigar industry environment and decor.  It features a giant, two-room walk-in humidor with dark wood and exposed brick trim.  The rest of the building (even the huge bathroom) is covered floor and ceiling in rich judge’s panelling and tongue and groove Arkansas pine.  The floor is a beautiful faux stone.  I played a small part in the remodeling of the new space, working several nights until late with a crew of other dedicated regulars to help Russell build his dream.  It was well worth it.  And, it says something about a man when so many of his friends and customers will pitch in on a construction project of that magnitude for free.  The greater portion of the credit for the new design goes to one Scott Kirby, who single-handed did about 80% of the interior work.  Everything you see is hand, scratch built.  The design rivals anything I’ve ever seen in the cigar best of any major city.  Think a luxury shop in New York or London.

0829121354

(Kipling in the humidor.)

Any liquor store with a license can sell cigars.  Some lower-rent aficionados go so far as to buy cigars on-line.  A great shop makes for a great experience.  Russell and his staff – wife Sharon (the real boss), daughter Sarah, Gerald, Tom, and Matt – know the business inside and out and can make tremendous recommendations and comparisons. 

Another critical facet of a successful shop is the smoking lounge.  As noted above, Top Shelf’s is trimmed in luxurious wood and stone.  It has three air-cleaners to keep the atmosphere breathable no matter how many cigars are being enjoyed.  There is spacious seating for many friends to gather in comfort.  Russell provides humidified lockers, a giant screen television with cable, a refrigerator, free coffee, and innumerable other services.  The lounge is usually busy any hour of the day, any day of the week.

As part of going the extra mile Russell offers many additional perks.  The shop is home to a premium club with meets at least once a month.  The meetings provide an entertaining opportunity for fellowship and the enjoyment of the latest cigars.  The shop also hosts a friendly poker game once a week (no cash).  Russell also is deeply involved in the community.  From his annual charity golf tournament to providing cigars to local businesses and clubs to keeping the smoke-loving patrons of the Masters happy, Russell is everywhere.

An arch-libertarian, Russell is happy to give his opinion on politics and economics to both his customers and friends as well as the local media.  Russell also has a keen sense for the stock market and is always dropping profitable hints to those who will listen.  This level of personal service is what puts Top Shelf above just about any other store in the Southeast.

Drop by for a visit if you can.  If not, scour your area for a shop with the traits I’ve listed here.  You’ll be glad you did.  Not a cigar lover?  Shame on you.  There is still time!

Politics

27 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Politics” comes from ancient Greek roots.  “Poly,” of course, means “many” and “Ticks” are little blood-sucking parasites.  Thus, “politics” means: many little blood-sucking parasites.  I really wish I could attribute that definition to my own genius but I feel overly honest today.

palpatine

(Emperor Palpatine, the ultimate politician. Source: Google Images.)

Wikipedia says “politics” is  “the art or science of influencing people on a civic, or individual level…”  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics. 

I have studied politics (formally and informally) since around 1980.  In those days, everyone in the South tended to be Democrats, party-wise.  My parents were proud Democrats at the time and were horrified when Ronald Reagan won the Presidency.  I watched on.  As the years progressed, I decided I was a “conservative” and, therefore, a Republican, much like Reagan. 

I watched Family Ties back then and might have been influenced by the antics of Alex P. Keating.  Then came the Rush Limbaugh era; I listened everyday after high school while working as a runner for a local law firm.  I knew Rush was right.  Well, something in my subconscious had doubts.  In college I drifted into libertarian thought and have remained there ever since.  As the years pass I become closer and closer to a full-blown anarchist. 

During this time, while I descended from a believer in minimal government to a dreamer about no government, reality took a turn for the worse.  The whole of my dear country seems to have gone the other way!  Whereas we had a big government when I was a child, now we have a GIGANTIC monstrosity of a government that seems to grow geometrically ever second.

Hence my disconnect from the world of practical politics.  It is patently obvious that there is no discernible difference between the two major parties in America – they both lead to bigger and more controlling governance.  Over the years I supported several politicians in various ways – both Republicans and Libertarians (I have Democrat friends too).  My support usually faded away with my short, rambling attention span.  I have never been a member of any party. I am proud of that; I hate political parties.

Deer Ticks (file/credit: Getty Images)

(Politicians soliciting contributions.  Google Images.)

In his Farewell Address to the nation, President George Washington devoted nearly two pages to warning the people about party politics.  He began: “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.”  Thereupon he listed the many dangers of “faction” at the expense of Public Liberty.  He closed with a thought on excessive party politics: “A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.”  See: The Founder’s Almanac, pp. 309 – 310, The Heritage Foundation, Washington 2002.  Given Washington’s fame and standing you would think more people would have listened; they did not and American “democracy” became an all-consuming conflagration.

H.L. Mencken wrote in the Minority Report (1956): “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – both commonly succeed, and are right.”  Mencken defined “democracy” as “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”  Every election since has proved him right on both counts.

The most excited I ever got about any election(s) was in 2008 and 2012 supporting Ron Paul.  I knew then Dr. Paul was an anomaly in American politics.  My fellow citizens chose a different path and now Dr. Paul is retired.  With him, at the end of 2012, went Rep. Dennis Kucinich.  Washington is now devoid of any statesmen whatsoever and the only small impediments to Total Government are gone.  I would like to believe Dr. Paul’s son, the other Dr. Paul, will follow in his father’s hallowed footsteps; I don’t think it will happen.

I have decided to waste no more time following the stupidity (which worsens daily) of field level politics.  My personal academic concentration is now centered on political theory or philosophy and the history thereof.  A good friend of mine says that America is finished, like a $500 car in need of $5000 worth of repairs.  For our generation I fear he may be on to something.  Still, I hold some hope for the future.

My fledgling professional academic career is and will be focused on educating younger persons about the mistakes of faith in politics and government, the evils resulting from such faith, and alternatives to the status quo.

Perhaps the most honest book ever written about American politics is Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke (1991).  The title says it all.  Inside the reader will discover, among many other witty things, a whole section of chapters entitled, The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television and Bullshit.  Perfect.

Government and politics in general, particularly in America, really do center on O’Rourke’s three “branches.”

Money in politics is not necessarily the root of all evil, but it certainly is the tool of all evil in politics.  It takes a lot of money to get elected to national or state office in the first place.  Savy politicians set up campaign funds legally designed to break or sidestep any campaign finance laws in the way.  Then the ticks turn around and suck blood from any source to fill their funds.  Sometimes they contribute a little of their own money but most of it comes from “donors.”  People all over give a little here and there to help some bozo get elected; once elected the bozo ignores the little people.  The big bucks come from the special interest groups, they get the politician’s attention post-election.

Money flows into Washington, D.C. and the several State capitals by the dump truck load.  Giant corporations and the super rich constantly brib ..er.. give to elected officials in all kinds of ways.  Sometimes they support a pet project of the tick’s (charity, etc.), sometimes they provide booze and hookers, they give kickbacks and favors, and sometimes they just give plain old cash in brown- paper grocery bags.  The amount of money flowing into the Capital is astounding, but it pales in comparison to the money flowing out.

This year, like last year, the federal government will spend something like 3.5 Trillion dollars per its official “budget.”  I just put “budget” between quotation marks because Congress hasn’t put forth an actual budget, as required by the Constitution, in years.  Alarmingly, the vast majority of federal spending is on UnConstitutional programs.  The government spends a huge percentage of that money out of debt.  Fully a third of the budget is borrowed these days.  Check out the U.S. Debt Clock for a good fright: http://www.usdebtclock.org/.  In fact, I believe the borrowed sum exceeds the amount paid by individual taxpayers.  Corporations also pay for a larger portion of the budget than do the individual taxpayers.  However, as with any business expense, corporations pass their taxes along to customers via higher prices for their goods and services.  So the People ultimately pay those taxes as well.  Aaaaand, guess who guarantees the huge debts run up by the ticks?  Yes, taxpayers again.  So, Ma and Pa America have to pay for all the illegal, unnecessary spending of the government, even when they receive no representation for their money.

Like I said, most government programs are not grounded in the Constitution and are therefore illegal.  Of the $3.5 trillion spent, Medicare and Medicaid get about $800 billion.  They are not in the Constitution.  Social Security, the third rail of tick-dom, gets a similar amount.  Not in the Constitution.  Our never-ending, foreign, undeclared wars of aggression get a slightly smaller amount.  Being undeclared and indefensible, they to are also illegal.  The total of interest on the national debt, federal pension costs, and various welfare programs get a similar amount of funding.  Like undeclared warfare, specific welfare is also illegal.  As none of the programs are needed there is no need for all the federal employees vested in those pensions.  If the government didn’t spend so damn much money there would be no debt and, thus, no interest.  The “legitimate” functions of the federal government are mostly unnecessary anymore, and those that are should really only cost us a few hundred billion dollars per year at most.  That could easily be covered by tariffs and import fees – as the government was supposed to be funded and was funded for years without trouble.

I could go on and on with the money stuff but we still have television and bullshit….

Television is really representative of all major media, both news and entertainment, in this nation.  Whether you get your news on TV, from the radio, or from a print medium, it’s all the same.  The government puts out a line of crap and the media runs with it.  Very seldom in America are we treated to any critical reporting anymore.  Remember those special interests?  They own the media nearly completely.  Towing the line is part of the overall scheme.

This scheme extends into non-news entertainment.  Reality shows, pro sports, pop music and other trivial pursuits are the modern bread and circuses of Amerika.  While you drunkenly watch 300-pound men decked out in pink play with a ball, the government is stealing you blind and destroying your country.  The ticks laugh at you too.

Bullshit.  It’s a crude term but it accurately describes everything I’ve been writing about.  It’s also all you ever get from the government.  Mostly everything you hear, see, or read from the government or its pet media are outright lies.  Very little the ticks do is honest or important so they have to concoct wild stories to get you to go along – provided you even pay attention, most people do not.  For instance, when Washington goes to war the ticks always say it’s over something noble like “keeping the world safe for democracy” or “fighting the ‘terrorists’.”  Saying they want to keep profits high for the military-industrial complex (a special interest) doesn’t sound as good.  When President Obama announced ObamaCare, he didn’t say he wanted windfall profits for the insurance and finance companies of America (special interests).  He said it was all to help the children, or the less fortunate, or you and me.  Bullshit!

And when the government and the ticks tell the truth, it’s truly frightening.  The Whitehouse says it will use drones to kill Americans without Due Process.  You better believe they will!  When Congress authorizes an illegal ponzi scheme like Social Security or an illegal monopoly like the Federal Reserve (the biggest special interest of all), they do so openly and with impunity. 

My point is … well, I’ve already made it – I do not like modern, practical politics and for good reason. 

The next time you come into contact with a tick, instead of giving it money and voting it into office, get out the tweezers and the alcohol.  I’m Perrin Lovett and I approve this message.

How to Interact with the Police

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Don’t talk.  Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances whatsoever, ever.  Ever.  This is the general libertarian legal advice given by good lawyers who wish to spare their clients and anyone else listening the possibility of unwittingly implicating themselves in criminal activity, whether they were actually involved or not.

I like this advice and tend to give it to clients myself.  However, as with most legal issues, this matter is not quite that simple.  Well, maybe it is, but there are reasons why you might need to address the cops.  I’ll get to those a little later.

On March 10, 2013 I will address the Libertarian Party of the greater Augusta, Georgia area.  I was asked to speak on the subject of citizen interaction with the police in general and, more specifically, interactions involving a citizen carrying a firearm.  I will do so happily.  This column is a preview of what I will likely discuss.

There are two federally recognized (sometimes) natural rights which are affected by such situations – actually, they are different tangents of the same right – the right to self-preservation.  The first involves not implicating oneself in wrongdoing, the second involves the right of self-defense.  The Constitution lists these rights under Amendments V and II, respectively.  All State Constitutions recognize the same rights to a degree somewhere within their texts.  I’ll stick with federal language as a universal representation:

The Fifth Amendment reads: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The above subject primarily deals with the “witness against himself” clause, though due process is implicated as well.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  This relates, obviously, to carrying a weapon while interacting with the police.

Both of these rights, despite laws and court rulings in their favor, have experienced considerable erosion since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (most rights have).  I will not necessarily discuss the origin of the rights, their history, or their decline herein.  As is, I will just accept them as plainly written.

Back to not talking to the police.  Many attorneys, including yours truly, generally advise against talking to government employees of any stripe, not simply the police.  This extends to telephone conversations (including 911 calls) as such calls are frequently recorded.  I recently posted a link to this video (Don’t Talk to the Police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc.  The video is a 50 minute discussion of our subject by Regent Law School (Virginia) law professor James Duane.  The advice is excellent.  You’ll notice though that immediately after saying he will never talk to the police, professor Duane talks to a police officer.  There are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

I’ll cover a few of those now.  If you are a law professor who gives such a talk and you invite a police officer to participate, you will need to talk to the police.  If you’re a nice person who walks by a cop on a sunny morning, you might say, “Good Morning!” – that’s talking to the police.  If your child is kidnapped late one night you will probably call the police before anyone else.  If you are the victim of another type of violent crime you might talk.  If you are drunk, high, suffering from low blood sugar, or under a mental delusion, you might talk to the police, not remembering any of this advice at the time.  If your friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor is a cop …  you get the picture.

Other government employees sometimes require your verbal attention too.  These examples are almost too numerous to list.  They range from telling a campaigning CongressCritter to buzz off when he disturbs your breakfast at the local cafe (happened to me once) to asking a clerk where the county vehicle tag office is.

Most of these examples are innocent enough.  However, sometimes the police arrest and persecute people for innocent interactions.  I had a client once who singed an insurance policy while paying for it.  He was later arrested and charged with felony insurance fraud based on his signature.  The crime didn’t even involve his particular policy.  In such cases, no advice is sufficient; one must engage a competent attorney and fight the system.

My subject matter here is really how to interact with the cops when you are approached about a possible criminal action wherein you might be a suspect. 

I recall from law school there are three tiers of citizen-police encounters.  The first is a simple and voluntary meeting (like some of my above examples) wherein the citizen is free to leave.  If you find yourself in a Tier One and you suspect the officer is probing you, ask if you are free to leave.  If you are, do so immediately.  Remember you do not have to say anything to the police no matter what they ask or say.  In these simple situations you can just walk away and terminate the encounter.

The second tier is known in legal circles as a Terry stop (see: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  It is also more commonly called an investigatory stop.  That means the approaching officer is officially investigating some alleged or potential criminal wrongdoing.  The citizen is not necessarily free to leave and is technically under detention, even if temporarily so.  A Tier One becomes a Terry stop if the officer responds that the citizen is not free to leave.  At this point the citizen should shut up.  The exceptions are again to ask if you are free to leave or if you are under arrest and to tell the officer you do not consent to any searches.  Do not ever consent to searches.

The police are not supposed to arbitrarily initiate Terry stops (they do sometimes).  Rather, they are supposed to have “articulable suspicion” that a crime has or may have been committed and that the citizen is a likely suspect or witness.  The standard for such suspicion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by the individual case, though the common maxim is the officer must have something more than a hunch about the possible crime.  Fuzzy, yes.

Terry stops originate from many sources: tips or reports of crime, something the officer witnesses, an emergency, a man-hunt, or something else.  Frequently, the police have nothing at all in the way of evidence.  Thus, they turn to the citizen for incriminating evidence.  Citizens offer the evidence against themselves voluntarily in most cases.  If you ever saw the TV show Cops, then you know a suspect will immediately start babbling on about what he did or didn’t do.  This usually digs the suspect a nice hole – with bars.  This is why you shouldn’t say anything.  Do not help the police do their job.  At this point you will either be arrested, further temporarily detained, or released regardless of what you say.  Talking won’t help, so don’t do it.

The third tier is a formal arrest.  If you are arrested you must absolutely cease talking period.  At some point the police will advise you of your Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) – you know these from TV.  They will tell you you have the right to remain silent and that anything you say can and will be used against you.  Did you get that?  Anything you say will be used against you.  Give them nothing.  Under arrest you only make one statement, repeatedly in necessary: “I want an attorney.”  The police usually stop questioning at that point, sometimes they don’t.  Just do not answer or make any other statements – at all.  Be silent as you have the right.

Silence is the better rule in most of these encounters.  By talking you will either implicate yourself or possibly give the officer(s) something else to consider in your prosecution.  Sometimes officers hear things wrong or falsely report what a citizen says.  They can make you out to be a liar.  You’re not lying if you’re not talking.

I have been retained by several clients just over the issue of voluntary interrogations.  I stopped the practice entirely after so many such incidents.  The client would get a call from the police, asking the client to “come downtown” to answer a few questions or make a statement.  Once a client demanded to visit the Sheriff to make a statement all on his own – over a non-issue.  My constant advice to all of these folks was to not go and to say nothing.  Most did not listen and I had to accompany them to the Q&A sessions.  At those meetings I objected to each and every question the police asked and every statement the client uttered.  That did not stop most of these people.  I have literally watched as people talked themselves into felony prosecutions.  Seeing the process as pointless and potentially liability-inducing on my part, I stopped participating.  Don’t put your attorney through such torture.  Don’t talk.

I’ve also been hired by clients after they talked to the police.  I have read many statements and listened to many recording wherein a client essentially convicted himself.  Often, without their own damning, idiotic testimony through such statements, the government would never have had a case to try.  Don’t talk to the police.

Firearms add an extra dimension to the issue.  America is the most heavily, privately armed country in the world.  We should rejoice!  The primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the People would always be able to fend off a tyrannical government, all other purposes are ancillary.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1791.  Today, many Americans are afraid of firearms (and much else) and defer unwisely to the government for protection.  Their fears are fueled by a few isolated stories from the lamestream media.  Many of these cases, I suspect, are false-flag operations of the government, ginned up to alarm the frightened people.  Remember always – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

In the old days, no-one looked twice at a person carrying a gun in public.  It was what Americans did.  You can still find the practice accepted in many rural communities.  The practice is open and notorious in Switzerland (God bless the Swiss). 

Swiss Militia man

(A Swiss Militia member openly carrying a battlefield rifle in a grocery store.  The blonde woman is not concerned – free people are not.  Source: Google Images.)

The local LP sent me a video of a law student telling off a police officer who “detained” the student over a firearm.  I seem to have misplaced the video link.  You can surely find it or something similar on Youtube.  Here’s my take on the matter.  First, Americans have every right to go armed just about anywhere they want to, even though many jurisdictions illegally attempt to block this right.  Second, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – more on that in a second.  Third, in the Georgia and much of the South, we are lucky to have pro-gun law enforcement.  Many officers welcome armed citizens. 

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, you encounter an officer with a dimmer view of freedom.  Georgia and most other States allow concealed carry of weapons – usually with a permit.  I think those permits are UnConstitutional.  A few States like Vermont do not regulate of require such licenses.  This issue is slowing making its way through the courts.  We will see what becomes of it.  For now, if you carry concealed, play the government’s game.

To avoid an unwanted and unnecessary confrontation over your gun, carry concealed.  If they (the police or the easily alarmed) can’t see the weapon, they can’t inquire about it.  Some State’s licenses come with the requirement that a citizen inform any approaching or present law officer that they have a license and are carrying.  North and South Carolina come to mind.  This is also UnConstitutional.  Georgia is not such a State.  Say nothing in Georgia.  In fact, if you have the gun well concealed, say nothing wherever you are.  If they don’t know, they don’t know – and they don’t need to.

If you carry openly, which is your right, you may expect someone to alert the police to “a man with a gun.”  As a result, you may be approached by an officer.  This would be a quasi-tier one/two encounter.  Carrying a gun itself is not justification for any suspicion of wrongdoing.  The police will inquire anyway.  They may go as far as to handcuff you while they check your license and the gun.  This a violation of your civil rights.  I had a friend who was stopped by a traffic officer in Ludowici, Georgia one night.  The officer inquired about my friend’s pistol and took the gun to “check it.”  The officer then announced he would have to keep the gun until the next day in order to verify it really belonged to my friend and was carried properly.  This was in keeping with Ludowici’s long-standing policy of public harassment.

Before I became really upset about the story my friend told me it had ended well.  The Ludowici police chief, realised his officer had broken the law, immediately dispatched a courier to hand deliver the gun back to my friend.  As my friend was happy, the issue died.  A bloodless victory is the best kind as we say in court.

However, if you find yourself in a similar situation, the best thing to do is keep quiet.  Do not tell off the officer as the afore-noted law student did, even though you are completely right.  The police sometimes get nervous and arrest or murder “uppity” civilians and make up a good excuse for their actions in their report.  The street is not the place to fight for your rights – unless the officer endangers your life.  You can use force against the police if necessary, just as you would against any other armed thug.  But, these situations are messy at best. 

It is usually after such an encounter you should act – by contacting an attorney.  You may very well have a civil rights action against the police (State or local) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or a Bivens action against federal officers [Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)]).  An attorney can advise you in a particular case.

Two more specific situations, very briefly.  First, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you will likely have contact with the police.  In such cases always identify yourself as the victim of the underlying crime.  In order to legally use deadly force against another, one must reasonable belive that one’s life is in imminent danger from a criminal actor who simultaneously posses the ability and the proximity to in fact endanger innocent life.  This is the general public standard, in most jurisdictions you have more leeway on your own property (stand your ground and castle statutes).

If you have to shoot someone (I hope you never do), report only the fact of the crime and that you ended it per the standard I just stated.  The police may want additional statements.  Do not make them.  Tell the officer you take the matter very seriously and that you need to, accordingly, speak with your attorney before making any additional statements or answering any other questions.  Again, if you are arrested (not always a given, here), say absolutely nothing.  I am referral attorney for the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Fund, based in Washington State, http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/.  The Fund has produced an excellent series of videos on this subject.  Legal and tactical shooting experts discuss in-depth how to handle these situations with your gun and with the law.  I recommend you purchase and review these videos. 

Second, if you are at home and the police knock on the door, do not open it.  Do not let the police in volutarily for any reason.  This by itself constitutes a consentual search (at least cursory).  If the police have authority (a warrant) to enter your home, they will do it rather than asking you for permission.  If they ask, they have no authority.  Don’t help them gain it.  I have former clients in prison because they opened a door for the police.  Don’t do it and don’t talk to them. 

Remember, in a specific case you may have, consult with a specific attorney for legal advice.

As for advice, nothing herein constitutes legal advice.  Consider this, rather, a general legal education.  When you see the police use common sense and do not talk if you can help it.  Doing the first and refraining from the second may save you many headaches.