Those Boring Politics

The highly unconstitutional defense bill of $662 billion passed the Senate by a landslide which is, in many opinions, incredibly scary. The Defense Authorization Act still faces an executive veto, but with votes like that, it makes me think it could easily receive the necessary 2/3 override vote.

Which means the only real hope is judicial review. However, this is not really a huge hope at all…

In 1944 when Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 he gave local military leaders the power to set up excluded areas and to detain Japanese-Americans there. The Census Bureau offered up information on citizens to help find Japanese-Americans (PATRIOT Act anyone?). When it came to judicial review, the Supreme Court sided with the government over the issue of internment camps. Another atrocity in Supreme Court history.

The Defense bill, fortunately, is exclusive of American citizens. 

What is still negative though is that it expands the United States’ war efforts around the globe, increases its funding in some areas, and can be considered a defiance of the Geneva Conventions. While I am not one in support of international law, the morals of these laws are protective of individual liberties and are still law. Detaining suspects is ridiculous. We should all be looking to the highest court of the nation and hope they strike down the bill.

Ron Paul just said something very interesting:

It was on the topic of immigration reform. All of the other candidates were talking about a fence and stricter border controls when Ron Paul mentioned that a fence works both ways. It may be meant to keep illegals out, but it really could also be used to keep us in.

I mean, right now, the government practically controls international transportation. Our freest means of leaving is by ground vehicle. With that kind of border control the other candidates proposed, in times of recession when many people want out, who is to stop the government from keeping us from leaving for various ridiculous reasons?

And don’t even say it’s not far fetched, what with all of these unconstitutional laws, like the Patriot Act, and police brutality. The government could very well hold those with capital in for its own benefit. Never thought of it. But it’s true. It could be a detriment to our civil liberty and right to leave whenever we want.

thewaterwillcome:

talkstraight:

In 1994, abortion-lobby champion Ted Kennedy passed the Free Access to Clinics Act (FACE), which imposes stricter limitations on peaceful protests of abortion clinics than any other peaceful protest.

This law, which strikes me as pretty darn unconstitutional, has never really been enforced. Tom McClusky at the Family Research Council says the decision to not enforce it was a “gentleman’s agreement”: “The story I normally got from Justice Department, Hill and real world lawyers on both sides of the aisle was that everyone understood the law was unconstitutional….”

But now, NPR reports, Obama is deciding to crack down on those protesting, conducting sidewalk counseling, or even praying for the mothers and their babies.

____________________________________________

Obama apparently has no problems trampling on individual freedoms if it keeps the abortion mills churning at full speed.

Im pro-choice (pro-abortion even, I hate kids and the 405 is way to crowded) but everyone should take note and be concerned when the state restricts protests of any kind. 

I classify myself as pro-abortion (because I don’t much like the terms pro-choice or pro-life) and support abortion clinics (obviously not taxpayer funding of them), but this startles me as well. It’s odd though, that no one takes any means to end these types of Unconstitutional law. I mean, it’s so very clearly stated in the Constitution that these things are illegal, but we have these insane laws that even initially get passed!

Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage. It’s mostly straight people who are doing the divorcing and unwed mothering.
John Stossel (via cosmicdragon)

amazingatheist:

CULT of Ron Paul

Discuss this video at my forums http://forum.thatfatatheist.com 
Visit my website http://thatfatatheist.com 

* * * 

Ron Paul on Seperation of Church and State:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”
SOURCE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Thomas Jefferson disagrees: 
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”

Can a man who lies and distorts the message of this countries founders be trusted to run this country? 

Ron Paul on Evolution: 
“You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.”
SOURCE: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/

What? Dawkins on Evolution: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFOlyt7ErE
Ron Paul is a history-denier who claims to be a “scientist” yet doesn’t even know the definition of the word theory. 

Can a man who views a 2-5,000 year old anthology of primitive fairy tales as more compelling than a scientific fact be trusted with the highest position of power in the land?

The notion that Ron Paul does not believe in Church and State is a blind notion to say the least. When Dr. Paul speaks of Separation of Church and State, he’s not speaking about imposing religion and religious values on the people, like TJ here suspects. 

No, instead he is speaking of laws that prohibit the activity of the people of a certain faith. Here’s the best example: A faith or church accepts polygamists and homosexuals. This faith wants to marry its believers when their believers desire to do so, and since there is a legal definition of marriage, they want to go through the government and states to do so. But wait! The government, imposing itself onto this faith, doesn’t allow those marriages! Now the ability for these citizens to marry is hindered or halted. That isn’t Separation of Church and State as defined by the Constitution. 

The Separation of Church and State was not made only to prevent church from imposing values onto the state, but also to prevent the state from imposing values onto the people and hinder various faiths. The country was founded on the idea of personal liberties and freedom of religious dissent. But we don’t really have that right now, considering all faiths are not equal in the eyes of the state.

This ban of nativity scenes from Town Squares and other public lands should not be allowed. Public land is the land for all of the people. The state’s decision to remove faith from its public land goes against the idea of freedom of speech. That being said, these public lands should also include every other faith that decides to place something up in order to express their values.

Yes, this would include Atheism, considering if it didn’t, it would limit our freedom of expression.

That is the “War on Religion” Dr. Paul speaks of. And as an Atheist blogger, I believe he’s right. Public land is public land and must represent all viewpoints that desire to be placed there. 

As for his view on evolution, again, it won’t change his policy decisions: he does not believe in the state instilling values onto the people. Separation of Church and State is complete in his view; it isn’t just limited to protecting the state from faith. And he even says “it’s irrelevant”.

"But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.” See that? That’s pretty much directly stating that what each person believes is not a big issue… at all.

Why I’m A Minarchist As Opposed To An Anarchist

thoseboringpolitics:

Many of my fellow libertarian bloggers take Libertarianism to the measures of a stateless society. In principle, I am an anarchist. But after calling into Stefan Molyneux’s show a few times to discuss basic anarchist ideals I have decided that in practicality, anarchy would fail.

There is an ideal that believes in a stateless society that there would be multiple competing legal-system firms to include one’s self in voluntarily. This type of legal system would just flat-out be a failure. I’m not sure how popular this idea is, but conflicting opinions would simply exclude themselves from certain laws that would perhaps prevent rape or murder.

This agorist theory does include free market dispute resolutions, which I think if privatized on too large of a scale would be disastrous. Having private courts be in determination of law and its practice could be detrimental to the freedom of the people and the true freedom of markets. It could turn into the situation that the Federal Reserve has always been, which would use the force given to it by the government as a private entity to keep corporations evil. It wouldn’t be as big a scheme as the Fed, though, considering it wouldn’t mess with our money supply. But it would be much easier for other businesses to lobby to the court-system, giving a ton of profit to the executives without actually giving fair hearing to the people who bring a claim to courts. Government must provide a strong court system, and it must be expanded to be able to handle many claims at once. With this system, lawsuits would be a more frequent occurrence simply because it would be easier for one party to hold another party liable for either a small issue or a larger issue.

I do, however, hold some principles of privatized Dispute Resolution, which includes privatized police. A privatized police force is practical and allowable, though the explanation for such a thing is for another post.

A privatized military (also existing in an anarcho-capitalist society) on the other hand would be a nightmare. This is because the military would then be upheld by shareholders looking for a profit. To start, I think the idea of a profit-seeking business in the market of murder is completely immoral. At shareholders’ meetings, the company could be voted to gain profit by attacking the oil kingdoms and becoming very active around the world. Though, and here is where the second problem is found, where would the incentive be for any soldiers to take part in this? During “peace time”, soldiers will be payed to sit around and do nothing; when combat comes around, there is no patriotism or nationalism and pride to motivate the soldiers to stay and fight. That’s a necessary trait regarding military, and without it, you’ll have a hard time finding any willing people. The whole thing would be a mess, and if you did happen to make it work, it would be pretty bad ethically.

Even if one country became an anarchist society, every other country won’t follow suit, and they’ll blame the entire region for mishaps and atrocities caused by this private military. This is then a liability issue for the company which would a) become so rich they buy their ways out or b) scapegoat someone else or c) use their military to defend their money-conquest. Now even though I recognize the need for a government to provide a military, the military’s job should be at a minimum with a defense budget that would require zero income tax or corporate tax. The function of this military is purely defense. If we are attacked, we attack back. If we are invaded, we defend. And that’s it.

As for laws for people to follow, I believe only in laws that protect a direct victim. This means rape, murder, and any crime dealing with aggression. These would be the only laws people would need to follow. The privatized police force would be of use here in carrying out their duties. All other “crimes”, deemed crimes by current law, could be solved in a court or totally forgotten when the laws are abandoned.

Moving on to economics briefly. Liability is a wonderful word used to begin an explanation/justification for Austrian economics; disputes would be resolved with cases in courts, whether it is just a claim against a person or a case with need of a lawyer in response to a business’ behavior. The government would not regulate business or support the person claiming a business has liability, but simply give a hearing for the prosecutor and make a decision. It’s just one simple way an industry would have to keep honest as well as at a modest size; keeping liability costs lost in court low is a good thing for business, so it would be in their best interest not to screw with consumers.

I do fervently believe in a free-market. This means entirely free with zero regulations on business practices because I believe, as many libertarians do, that consumers can and will regulate the economy more effectively than government. But in an anarchist society, a business could lie about their revenues, outputs, costs, stock information, etc. I believe the only reason a business must be regulated is for a business to be totally honest in their accounting and finance reports. Giving the consumers enough information so that the free-market can regulate itself is what is needed. Corporations would then be transparent but still allowed to practice whatever they want. The argument of liability, costs for businesses, etc. would not work if the businesses had the ability to lie to the public. 

As a note on my debate style: I largely take the utilitarian approach to arguing for free-markets, rather than using the Non-Aggression Principle as an argument. Logicallypositive describes the situation with the NAP the best, stating that it’s usually used as an axiom and as a fact rather than a personal worldview, which is what it is.

So where do anarchists and I differ in summation?

  • I advocate for a state-run defensive military, not allowed to go beyond its means other than direct defense. The budget should be low enough for funding to come only from a small sales tax. In a booming capitalistic economy, it would cover more than the military budget.
  • I advocate for a state-run court system that could take many hearings a day, from small-claims to class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits would be a key-role in consumers and employees regulating the economy. Class-action lawsuits are more effective than government-supported unions which are completely immoral (also for another post). The courts may be state-run but the actual process would be a free-market process.
  • The only laws on people would be those to protect people from aggression: murder, rape, etc. All other laws abolished. If there is an issue, let the courts settle it. This would eliminate jails in the country to a much smaller number (they would still exist in my ideal society, as I oppose capital punishment).
  • The only regulation would be to make businesses disclose information to allow for a consumer-regulated economy.

Four very small roles of government all upheld by a small sales tax. With a complete removal of public-sector regulation, the negative effects of a mixed economy would be removed (because it would no longer exist!) Of course, with the State around, it could always come back and allow businesses to become corrupt again. This is why, by principle, I am an anarchist. We’d need government reform to prevent this from happening. Though, this would be tricky to do without also removing any voice of the people, which is imperative to society to keep around. Freedom in all parts of life is what will drive us forward, not regulation.

For my new followers since the original date of this post.

So there is this bill going to be passed called “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.”

anticapitalist:

This bill forces all Internet service providers to log everything you do on the internet, and it has nothing to do with pornography.

They named it such to make sure no one in office can vote down this bill without looking evil, but this bill is a complete piece of fascist bullshit and it needs to be rejected.

Seriously, this is so big brother it’s fucking scary. Everyone, liberal, libertarian or whatever, should be against this bill.

Fuck the debt ceiling and stock market, if we can’t even communicate and use technology privately and freely then what’s the point?

This is what we should all be focused on.

Tell your friends, rake some muck, get shit going.

Organize local protests. Talk to your representatives. Do whatever you can to at least spread the word.

A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn’t produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That’s because, since there’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American.

Walter E. Williams

And thus the distinction between negative and positive liberties is made.

christiankeyes:

debrumas:

douchefuckpositive:

bangmyenchilada:

convertedinvader:

pkherox:

weveyettocrash:

nobbert:

millstone:

HAHA oh my god! Never underestimate the power of women ;)\

LOL OMG WOMYN R SOOOO POWERFUL SHE SURE SHOWED HIM! CUZ LYKE U KNO RAPE IS ONLY BAD IF DONE 2 A GIRL.  If the genders were switched here, it would be a completely different reaction on tumblr.  And feminists say that men don’t have to deal with sexism. 
All of you fucking disgust me.

^ agreed. rape isn’t ok, regardless of who its done too.

rape isnt okay in any situation, okay, but he wasn’t exactly an angel either. here’s  an independent woman trying to make an honest living for herself, and as if women aren’t treated bad already, here comes disgusting lazy piece of crap trying to take what isn’t rightfully his. i’d like to see another man try and fuck with her again. just because she’s a woman doesnt make her an easy and vulnerable target!

>rape isnt okay in any situation, okay, but he wasn’t exactly an angel either
Go ahead, try to make the same argument regarding a female rape victim and see how many feminists wish death on you for being a “victim blamer” and “rape apologist”. Fuck your hypocrisy. Also:
>an independent woman trying to make an honest living for herself
Has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a rapist.
>here comes disgusting lazy piece of crap trying to take what isn’t rightfully his. i’d like to see another man try and fuck with her again.
Implying that men are “disgusting lazy pieces of crap” out to “fuck with” women? Nice thinly veiled misandry.

> rape isnt okay in any situation, okay, but she wasn’t exactly an angel  either. here’s  an independent man trying to make an honest living for  himself, and as if men aren’t treated bad already, here comes  disgusting lazy piece of crap trying to take what isn’t rightfully hers. i’d like to see another woman try and fuck with him again. just because he’s a man doesnt make him an easy and vulnerable target!

So rape is apparently ok now if it’s A) in retaliation for robbery B) The person doing it is a woman?
Wow Tumblr. Just wow.

People are actually applauding this? What?! This is not okay, at all. This is RAPE. How is this in any way justifiable? She subdued him, that’s all she needed to do. This is completely disgusting. If the roles were reversed, many of the people in support of her would be up in arms. We can’t exalt the abuse of certain people as inherently more tragic than others. That is in no way equality. If we want equality, we have to look at crimes with unclouded eyes, and not put victims in a hierarchy of importance, deeming some more worthy of our sympathy than others. Fighting for equality is a brilliant principle; trivializing crimes against others because of their gender or saying “they had it coming” or “they deserved it,” however, is not. It’s repugnant and hypocritical.

ITT: The Part of Feminism You Don’t See!

While I’d rather not post this as one of my first posts in about a week, I find that I need to. This is why I’ve disassociated myself with the term “feminism”. It’s a movement that holds proponents of equalism (who should abandon the term “feminist”) and proponents of supremacism. When people are applauding this and don’t realize that if it were reversed everyone would be up in arms, you have to question the validity of these people.
Also… it’s rape. It’s bad. Don’t support it. This man was wrong because he infringed on her negative liberties, but all she had to do was subdue him. She far surpassed him in his wrongdoing to her.

christiankeyes:

debrumas:

douchefuckpositive:

bangmyenchilada:

convertedinvader:

pkherox:

weveyettocrash:

nobbert:

millstone:

HAHA oh my god! Never underestimate the power of women ;)\

LOL OMG WOMYN R SOOOO POWERFUL SHE SURE SHOWED HIM! CUZ LYKE U KNO RAPE IS ONLY BAD IF DONE 2 A GIRL.  If the genders were switched here, it would be a completely different reaction on tumblr.  And feminists say that men don’t have to deal with sexism. 

All of you fucking disgust me.

^ agreed. rape isn’t ok, regardless of who its done too.

rape isnt okay in any situation, okay, but he wasn’t exactly an angel either. here’s  an independent woman trying to make an honest living for herself, and as if women aren’t treated bad already, here comes disgusting lazy piece of crap trying to take what isn’t rightfully his. i’d like to see another man try and fuck with her again. just because she’s a woman doesnt make her an easy and vulnerable target!

>rape isnt okay in any situation, okay, but he wasn’t exactly an angel either

Go ahead, try to make the same argument regarding a female rape victim and see how many feminists wish death on you for being a “victim blamer” and “rape apologist”. Fuck your hypocrisy. Also:

>an independent woman trying to make an honest living for herself

Has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a rapist.

>here comes disgusting lazy piece of crap trying to take what isn’t rightfully his. i’d like to see another man try and fuck with her again.

Implying that men are “disgusting lazy pieces of crap” out to “fuck with” women? Nice thinly veiled misandry.

> rape isnt okay in any situation, okay, but she wasn’t exactly an angel either. here’s  an independent man trying to make an honest living for himself, and as if men aren’t treated bad already, here comes disgusting lazy piece of crap trying to take what isn’t rightfully hers. i’d like to see another woman try and fuck with him again. just because he’s a man doesnt make him an easy and vulnerable target!

So rape is apparently ok now if it’s A) in retaliation for robbery B) The person doing it is a woman?

Wow Tumblr. Just wow.

People are actually applauding this? What?! This is not okay, at all. This is RAPE. How is this in any way justifiable? She subdued him, that’s all she needed to do. This is completely disgusting. If the roles were reversed, many of the people in support of her would be up in arms. We can’t exalt the abuse of certain people as inherently more tragic than others. That is in no way equality. If we want equality, we have to look at crimes with unclouded eyes, and not put victims in a hierarchy of importance, deeming some more worthy of our sympathy than others. Fighting for equality is a brilliant principle; trivializing crimes against others because of their gender or saying “they had it coming” or “they deserved it,” however, is not. It’s repugnant and hypocritical.

ITT: The Part of Feminism You Don’t See!

While I’d rather not post this as one of my first posts in about a week, I find that I need to. This is why I’ve disassociated myself with the term “feminism”. It’s a movement that holds proponents of equalism (who should abandon the term “feminist”) and proponents of supremacism. When people are applauding this and don’t realize that if it were reversed everyone would be up in arms, you have to question the validity of these people.

Also… it’s rape. It’s bad. Don’t support it. This man was wrong because he infringed on her negative liberties, but all she had to do was subdue him. She far surpassed him in his wrongdoing to her.