Tag Archives: Liberty

The Conditioned Support of Tyranny

18 Tuesday Oct 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Defying the laws of nature and economics, the Empire marches on. Country after country falls into chaos. Only the Russians stand in the way of global domination by the banksters. People under age 30 might not understand what “DEFCON” means. They should probably learn the scale. People are learning all sorts of things.

People in what’s left of Libya are leaning that they miss life under Moamer Kadhafi (Gaddafi?).

Those living in the capital say they are exhausted by power cuts, price hikes and a lack of cash flow as rival authorities and militias battle for control of the fragmented oil-rich country.

“I hate to say it but our life was better under the previous regime,” says Fayza al-Naas, a 42-year-old pharmacist, referring to Kadhafi’s more than four decades of rule.

Today, “we wait for hours outside banks to beg cashiers to give us some of our own money. Everything is three times more expensive.”

A UN-backed unity government has struggled to assert its authority nationwide since arriving in Tripoli in March, with a rival parliament in the country’s far east refusing to cede power to it.

On Friday it suffered a new blow when a rival seized key offices in the capital and proclaimed the reinstatement of a third administration previously based in Tripoli.

The turmoil after Kadhafi’s 2011 fall has allowed the Islamic State jihadist group to gain a foothold on Europe’s doorstep after seizing the strongman’s hometown of Sirte in June last year.

Undoubtedly, for the average Libyan, life was better back then. Kadhafi was a strongman. Strongmen can be brutal. They oppress people at times. They also keep terrorists at bay. They keep money in the banks. They maintain order. All of that is lost in Libya.

The first part of the plan was to steal the money. Mission accomplished. The cashiers cannot turn over a depositor’s own funds because the cash is now in London in the possession of greedy thieves. Inflation and suffering follow.

The second part of the plan was to arm and foster the growth of ISIS. Mission accomplished. The banksters also profit from this.The people do not.

In Kadhafi’s place the UN has erected a new “government”. Every single thing ever attempted by the We are the World Gang of the East River has failed miserably from the start. Libya is no exception.

The Empire marches on to Syria. Death, destruction, and waves of refugees (all, oddly, healthy, younger males) follow. Should the Assad regime fall, in short order the survivors in Syria will miss Bashar.

Honest people in Iraq miss Saddam.

It’s kind of a universal condition outside of the West.

Older blacks, in private, in what’s left of Rhodesia, admit they would trade their current status in a heartbeat in order to be second class citizens once again under Ian Smith.

Similar sentiments are expressed in South Africa – quietly, privately, but honestly.

Perhaps my favorite quote from antiquity: “Only a few prefer Liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.” – Sallust. As I noted a while back, The People Appreciate a Benevolent Dictator.

In the absence of fairness and benevolence, the majority will take whatever they can find. Heavy-handed brutality, while not necessarily pleasant, means stability. It offers much craved security in place of dreaded freedom. The plight of sheep – destined for the diner table but well fed and spared the threat of wolves.

America was different. Was. It is no longer. And the age of the difference is rapidly fading into memory. The founding generation of the Old Republic were men of the ultimate Western variety, descended by blood and ideology from the Greeks, the Romans, The Franks, the Germans, and the British. The best of the best and rather demanding of freedom. So demanding as to slap the face of the most powerful King of their day. No more.

Thirty-odd years ago, Ronald Reagan lied to the world. He said anyone could come to America and become American. In truth they only come. Today the assimilation works in reverse. Since 1965 the nature of the population has radically changed. So has the national disposition, now bordering on the third world. And even that demoted status might be preferable to the alternatives. The way it’s going right now, a Planet of the Apes scenario doesn’t seem so far-fetched. Even if that were to happen, it would not be the fault of the apes.

It’s the people. The masses. Trading whatever they have to in order to appease those fair and benevolent masters. They’re doing it right now, writ large on a national scale. Damn near half the population supports a corrupt, Disney-villain, witch as their chosen ruler. Many openly acknowledge she is a criminal – one the best criminals in history – “their” criminal. She will bring order, security, fairness, benevolence.

The opposition is better but not by much considered in toto.

And all of it is firmly controlled by the same super-criminals who brought down Kadhafi and Saddam, who looted the banks, who profit from death.

The good news is that life goes on. It always does. Cincinnatus preceded Sallust who preceded Jefferson, et al., who preceded us – with plenty of tyranny in between. Best of all, the individual, even amid the crazed chaos, can still live a mostly free existence.

91827_obv

Apmex.

If tyranny is their preferred condition, it does not have to be ours.

American Nostalgia

02 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

On Monday the United States turns 240 years old. Almost everyone will enjoy a day off, fireworks, and cookouts. But, as this Youtube video shows, very few people today can connect the significance of July 4th to the spirit of what it means to be American.

I almost dislike the Fourth anymore. All the firework-watching, barbecue-eating, vacationers will celebrate their “freedom” under an unfathomable dome of laws, rules, regulations, and new norms that make life anything but free. Much of the celebration will be directed towards the government, adulation in the name of liberty of the very thing that squashes liberty.

Two-hundred-forty years is a long time for societal continuity. Comparing the rhetoric of American life to the reality makes me wonder if our best days are behind us.

Consider, if you will, this incredible collage of 1940s-50s advertisements put together by Reason: Happy 4th: These Vintage Ads for Capitalism Will Make You Proud to Be an American, Katherine Mangu-Ward, July 2, 2016.

Reason, The Ad Council-Standard Oil.

All of the ads are unabashedly pro-American and pro-capitalism. Many celebrate the accomplishments of 1950 America compared to those from 1900. Many, like the one I display above, celebrate modern, suburban family life. Scenes like the one above look like America.

True, if we kept on comparing and contrasting some things, the 21st century would look like the good new days. My phone has vastly superior video capabilities than any television from 1950. Were I transported back to the 50s right now, I would have in my possession the two most powerful computers in the world. Our cars are safer, more fuel-efficient, better, if uglier than those from the 50s. We have 900 channels on television. Every building is air-conditioned. But, are we better for all the new, universal comforts and conveniences?

You can see something in the pictures that I don’t have to describe. All of the people pictured are happy, they are family oriented, they look dignified. They had good reason to smile while smoking pipes and watching Junior play with the dog. Back then America was growing – in terms of prosperity and of income and opportunity. They had laws and regulations then but those did not extend into every facet of daily life as they do now. By and large, we were then one big homogenous family. There was a certain comfort associated with that era which technology cannot rival.

Today all of these happy 1950s Americans would look out-of-place in most parts of our daily landscape. Can you imagine one of those well-dressed, smiling families striding through a Wal-Mart clogged with 400-pound, EBT card-wielding slobs? No. Each group would think the other recently departed from employment with the circus. Can you imagine people today talking openly and with pride about American capitalism, growth, and family oriented spirituality? No. They would be accused of committing micro-aggression upon micro-aggression.

There will be a lot of flag waving come Monday. But, more often than not today the flag is frowned upon as it may invariably offend some newly arrived intruder who sees America as little more than a welfare check and a place to convert to third world status.

Two things are to blame for this decline: the government, which seeks to dominate everything, and; the people who accept it, trading happiness and freedom and dignity for gadgets and gluttony. Loafing is not leisure. Frivolity is not freedom. What a better world we would have today if we could keep the true advancements, trade the glittering state-worship (and the state) for peaceful prosperity, and, most importantly, return to a happy, prideful sense of civilization.

When or if you celebrate this long weekend, pause to ask what you truly enjoy about post-modern America. Is it just pomp and frolicking for a day or is it a real celebration of human spirit and freedom?

Powers Vs. Rights

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Powers Vs. Rights

Tags

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

This post concerns the force and effect of the United States Constitution and similar documents. I’ll stick with the U.S. version for simplicity and because most state and many foreign constitutions are based on the federal version.

The old parchment is divided into several articles and subsequent amendments. Each of these deals with different legal concepts. Article One grants certain powers to Congress. Article Two does the same for the executive. Amendment Three prohibits the government from sheltering soldiers in your house during peacetime. There are seven primary articles and twenty-seven amendments.

Aside from formal division the Constitution may be properly divided into two parts. Good Constitutional Law professors cover this in first year law school. The notice is generally lost amid a mad scramble to interpret Byzantine case-law and make a living as an attorney. The lesson is almost completely unknown outside of law and political theory education.

The first effective feature of the Constitution is that is allows powers for the government. In fact the Constitution created the federal government. In 1789 those seeking strong central political control replaced the Articles of Confederation which had loosely united the several (and wholly independent) states for a very few mutually beneficial purposes. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, came along two years later as almost an afterthought.

The anti-federalists were concerned that certain fundamental rights needed official recognition and legal protection. Their theory was that a strong government, even of republican nature, could run roughshod over the freedoms of the people – like a dictatorial monarch. The amendments were added without much fuss as it was then concerned the new government, its keepers, and their successors would never seek to abridge such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, or freedom from illegal arrest and punishment. No one saw any harm in the additions.

The inclusion of those additional protections proved both prophetic and pointless. Those ten amendments and a few others comprise the other practical function of the Constitution – protection of individual rights.

In an ideal world government would only exist to protect people from those things they would be otherwise vulnerable to. The proper function of law and politics would be a careful balancing of the power of the government and the rights of the people. Powers versus rights. Some legal scholars still wax elegantly about the concept. Their conceptualization is largely just conceptual.

The new federal government lost little time in enacting various laws which curtailed individual liberty. The trend continues to this day in addition to the habit of constantly expanding the realm of federal authority light years beyond what the Constitution allows. The courts, allegedly the arbiters of the balancing test, have largely consented to this gross shift. They too wasted no time in inventing new authority for themselves – “judicial review” for example.

Any review usually ends up empowering the state. They are on the same team after all. The people, now bereft of representation and appellate avenues, are on the outside looking in. Lawyers gleefully await court decisions to tell them what laws really mean. The public, largely fat and ignorant, continues to support this corrupt system with astounding zealous patriotism.

As a result of all this what we are left with is a central government of unlimited power ruling over a nation of peasants who are happy to receive whatever liberty the rulers confer upon them. Every once in a while one or another branch kindly reaffirms some right. These are usually in trivial matters. However, the march to greater control never ceases. It works well as most do not favor freedom. Under the faux two-party system, most go along so long as their side wins on a somewhat regular basis.

In truth, they lose. We all lose. All except for the corrupt politicians and beaurocrats and their corporate crony enablers. The system is wrecked and bears nearly resemblance to even that central authoritarian regimes of the late seventeen Century let along an ideal state.

In modern reality ignorance abounds. Some speak of the right of the government to do some thing or the other. Governments have no rights as they are artificial constructs. Only human individuals have rights. These rights are natural, God-given. Governments can only protect or (more often) abridge those freedoms.

Others decry freedom outright. They declare the people have too many rights. For them, in their simple lives, they may be right. Argument for order and justice is lost on them and a waste of time.

There are those who indulge in the fantasy that a return to the original text and intent of the Constitution would usher in utopia. If this myth was anything but, I could agree with them. The federal government of 1791 would be infinitely better than what we suffer today. That of the Articles would be better yet.

The myth lovers assert the Constitution established a national government of limited scope. Maybe they are correct in theory. In real life no government worth its salt stays limited for long. Geometric growth of government is an iron law of political science.

bbnhyu66667

So it is with freedom and central authority. Mencken.

Lysander Spooner said it best of the lost war of Rights versus Powers: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” He elaborated: “A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government.”

I find my view of anarchy criticized at times as belief in fantasy. It is said that men, by their very nature, cannot be trusted for long to maintain free, peaceful association and mutual respect. This, sadly, may be true. It, then, is also true that an honest man, desiring to remain free, cannot trust a government, any government. Belief in central authority is thus misguided. Tell you what, you have your fantasy and I’ll have mine. The rest of you have a choice to make: support powers or support rights.

The People

24 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Down along the left-hand side of this article and all others on my site a reader will find a list of words. Seventy-five words to be exact. These are the most popular descriptive terms or “tags” found here at the blog. I recently increased the number from 50.

You, dear reader, may have noticed some of those terms are larger, others smaller. The larger the word the more times it has appeared in my writing here. Should you click on one, all the columns featuring that term will pop up. No, these terms do not appear on the simplified mobile version of perrinlovett.me. If you’re on your phone just scroll to the very bottom of this page and click on the regular web tab.

Of the larger search terms one of the biggest is “The People.” I mention these mysterious folk on a very regular basis, especially in my legal and political works (the majority). Who, exactly, are “the people?”

Well, when I put them in a column I usually have two meanings. One is prominent, primary. The other is a bit more subtle and deployed less frequently.

The first and most common usage refers to you, my readers. You and like-minded people everywhere. This site is admittedly Amerocentric. “America” is another of the largest words on my list. I happen to live amidst the ruins of the Old Republic. Many or most of my stories concern the U.S. though “The West” is also a frequent topic. I am concerned with that heritage descended of the Romans, the Greeks and the English.

I also often conjoin “people” with “free.” These are people who live in an idyllic world of liberty, the kind still romanticized by American conservatives. Others live in otherwise unfree settings but personally choose to live free. Sometimes we call ourselves anarchists. Believe it or not, this lifestyle is easier than one would imagine.

All you have to do is live in peace, largely ignore popular culture, and beware of the authorities when necessary. Sometimes playing along and humoring the stupidity of the state goes a long way. It can also be a fun game.

I digress.

The free people live in harmony with others or at least try to. They work and mind their own business. They are folks you would want as neighbors. However, they are generally the most aggrieved victims of government aggression. They are expected to shut up, pay the taxes, obey the rules, and pull the load for society.

Great is my sympathy for free people wherever they may be. Without them the horror stories I explore here would be all too appropriate. Without them my regular references to Natural Law would have no context. They live the ideals of Western Civilization. Sometimes they stumble but they are on the right path.

The other group I sometimes delve into are of an opposite disposition. Lacking most individuality and fortitude, they go along with the herd, right or wrong. Whereas the former crowd is concerned with truth and the eternal, the latter is obsessed with the here, the now, and the easy.

Paul Craig Roberts once referred to these folks, domestically, as “the shit stupid American people.” A bit cruel perhaps but generally accurate.

They are the majority – always accepting and seeking out fair masters. The free and independent minded are a small sect indeed.

For these miserable many I express scorn or weary tolerance rather than empathic support. You can always tell the difference. I use descriptive words like “masses,” “zombies,” “fools,” “sheep” and so forth. Like Roberts’s, my labels fit if uncomfortably.

I truly bear them no ill will unless or until their pitiful, unthinking indifference affects me and mine. It is my desire, in addition to informing and entertaining you, to wake these sloths from their collectivist sleep. I wish them happy freedom.

For most freedom is a frightening idea. Along with the loss of annoying management comes the loss of perceived security. Said security is always false. But, it is, apparently, very difficult to shake off.

So, there you have it. If you have made it to this end of the article you likely belong among the true and the free. If, by odd chance you are, ashamedly, of the other variety, then join us! It is really better over here.

swad1g1xmyolckwhxvev

W. Wallace understood the difference. Google.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

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

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Liberty, Death, or Something In Between?

09 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Liberty, Death, or Something In Between?

Tags

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

Much, over the long years, has been made of freedom and the unnecessary curtailing thereof. Consider the following quotes:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, Richmond, VA, 1775.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin.

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.

I think I have quoted all of these lines before. They are worth repeating.  John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has a terrific article along similar lines on the false security based demise of freedom in 21st Century America:

‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’: The Loss of Our Freedoms in the Wake of 9/11.

What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. Since then, we have been terrorized, traumatized, and acclimated to life in the American Surveillance State.

The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time, but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has transitioned us to life in a society where government agents routinely practice violence on the citizens while, in conjunction with the Corporate State, spying on the most intimate details of our personal lives.

Whitehead.

The good news is that as the American Empire collapses under its own weight, things will get better for the free people. The bad news is that things will be painful along the way. Of course, for the sheep, the unaware, and the unfree, things will get worse and stay worse. In any event, I think Henry had it right.

 

Choose Freedom

24 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Choose Freedom

Tags

, , , , , ,

Everywhere I turn these days the people seem to clamor for help, for security rather than for freedom.  Our mega institutions from Washington to Wal-Mart are ever happy to oblige.

Yesterday, over at LRC, I read a great column on the subject of individual liberty by Edward Curtin:

“The only way to deal with an unfree world,” Albert Camus wrote, “is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

William James said it was a choice.

Could the first act of freedom be to snap your fingers and say, “Yes, I am free, free at last.”

This piece reminded me of the late, great Harry Browne’s How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (1973).

51RCG4WDPJL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

H. Browne (RIP), Amazon.

Both are worth serious review by anyone who lives in the modern world but suspects he might actually desire a little personal liberty.

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.

The Unfriendly Skies: Drones Banned In Augusta

18 Wednesday Mar 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Unfriendly Skies: Drones Banned In Augusta

Tags

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

Should you have the honor of attending this years Masters Tournament you may breathe easy – no pesky drones will disturb your golf gazing.  I doubt you were concerned to begin with.  You probably hadn’t even considered the idea.

Never apt to miss out on a non-issue the idiots of the Augusta City Commission has outlawed the (private) use of unmanned aircraft during this year’s tournament. “Hoping to prevent a drone disruption at this year’s Masters Tournament, Augusta commissioners approved a county-wide ban on launching or operating the remote-controlled aircraft between April 2 and April 13.”  Susan McCord, Drone ban in effect April 2-13, Augusta (GA) Chronicle, March 18, 2015.

The reasoning behind the ban is as solid as the air above the Augusta National: “Drones ‘have gotten very sophisticated,’ and Augusta has a ‘very big, international event’ coming up, said sheriff’s Col. Robert Partain.”  This is as logically connected as saying there are a lot of people in India and pillows are very soft, thus we must own lawnmowers…

drone1

(Bad drone.  Google Images.)

I was not present for the drafting, discussion or voting on this ordinance.  I really don’t think that matters.  The thing smells funny.  The Chronicle mentions a single incident whereby an event was disrupted by a drone – one event in Europe.  I have heard of no threat posed by non-government drones in America.  Government drones are another story; see: Don’t Drone Me, Bro! and Droning On and On.

Drone11111111-156150-165663-166189-172588-640x480

(Good drone.  Google.)

Other American cities (Charlottesville, VA, Syracuse, NY, etc.) have previously banned drones.  However, their bans are directed towards drones nefariously used by government agents in an effort to defend civil liberties.  Charlottesville, home of Thomas Jefferson’s home and University, has a “long tradition of promoting civil liberties.” Augusta has a long tradition of the opposite kind.

Here follows the pertinent and sensible resolutions of Syracuse’s ordinance:

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Resolution declares that no agency of the City of Syracuse, nor any agents under contract with the City, will operate Drones in the airspace over the City of Syracuse until federal and state laws, rules and regulations regarding the use of Drones are adopted that adequately protects the privacy of the population as guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Syracuse Common Council urges our Federal and State officials to create and adopt such laws, rules and regulations regarding the use of Drones which ensures Constitutional protections of individuals; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, to the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of this Common Council that no Drones will be purchased, leased, borrowed, tested or otherwise utilized by the City of Syracuse or its agencies, directly or through contract, until such Constitutional safeguards are in place, the appropriate personnel are trained and fully authorized by the FAA to safely operate Drones and that the Corporation Counsel of the City of Syracuse certifies that all City of Syracuse personnel engaged in the use of Drones have been trained in federal, state and local privacy laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms affecting drone operations and any data collected by drone operations…

Note that this ordinance is aimed at ensuring “Constitutional protections of individuals.” The Georgia version ensures a media monopoly for a single sporting event at the expense of the liberty of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the surrounding area. It is as stupid and illegal as it is unnecessary.

The National naturally desires to keep the most prestigious sporting event in the world private.  That is understandable; they have a right to privacy.  Happily, their rights and the rights of their patrons and golfers are protected by existing laws.  Flying a drone over the property without permission already would constitute a trespass and a nuisance – prohibited by both existing criminal and civil tort law.

Now, should you, as a news reporter, wish to film from the air the crowd entering the National patron gate, you are out of luck.  If you’re the President needing to remotely bomb demonstrators (terrorists), no problem.  A real estate broker surveying land, not this week.  A cop spying on a gardener, sure, why not.  Concerned citizen keeping an eye on one of the cops’ illegal roadblocks, you are a criminal.  See where this is going?

Something tells me that, if challenged, the Augusta ordinance will fall in Court – after the tournament is over, of course.  I have already heard of plans to defy the law.  One aviator proposes to use a balloon or kite to launch a camera skyward.  Whether the city defines these devices as drones or not they will likely prosecute this man.  They will lose. They will face a lawsuit.  Those hundreds of thousands of citizens whose liberties have been infringed will be forced to pay damages.  Sadly, those citizens will continue to re-elect the Commission.  The beat goes on.

If you come to Augusta for the tournament, enjoy it.  You’ll have a great, drone free experience.  If you live in the Garden City, consider moving somewhere else where your rights are valued.