A LITTLE REBELLION

A Global Internet Regulator?

The Internet is perhaps the freest institutional framework in the world and a great example of the spontaneous order of the free market and stateless organization. As soon the World Wide Web went online, it was immediately (and thankfully) impossible for states to control and manage. Encryption, anonymity, no intellectual "property" restrictions, discreet shipping, and dispute resolution are the legacy of the Internet.

It will only continue to expand and improve, but not if French Fascista and US Puppet Nicolas Sarkozy has anything to do with it. What's worse than hearing "I'm from the government and here to help?" I'm from the global government, and here to regulate, coerce, manage, dictate, imprison, monitor, and control help.

An Anarchist Look At Memorial Day

Thomas L. Knapp remembers the dead, not by glorifying their "service" or "sacrifice" or the state-corporate interests they fought and died for, but by letting them speak for themselves.

California Gulags

In California's barred cages that house prisoners, like animals, the conditions are near Stalinesque:

"As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet. Up to 50 sick inmates may be held together in a 12- by 20-foot cage for up to five hours awaiting treatment."

Mentally ill convicts go untreated until they "suffer from severe hallucinations" and fall "into catatonic states." Suicidal inmates are "held for prolonged periods in telephone-booth sized cages without toilets." Some prisoners die for lack of medical care, and others kill themselves.

The "Supreme" Court is now weighing in, saying something has to be done. Slight "reform" will likely be recommended, and take years to implement.

But any reform of the American prison-industrial-complex trims the branches of a problem that is rotten all the way to the roots. The problem with the state-provision of anything, in this case justice, is that it twists and warps the concepts to suit its ends. In the current form, the criminal aggressor is locked inside of a rape-room for an arbitrary amount of time, while the victim of the crime -and the rest of us- is forced, at the point of a government gun, to pay for this. And this is supposed to be justice?

In a free society, justice would be handle by the free market and the Western-Christian concept of retribution. Any one who commits a crime will then owe the victim, plus damages; people are inherently conforming creatures, and ostracism works far better than gulags at providing justice and preventing recidivism.

But what about those criminals who refuse to pay up for their transgressions? Well good luck going to the grocery store, buying gas, let alone getting/keeping a job or acquiring a loan. As the great libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneaux explains, a stateless free market justice system relies on economic and moral sanctions to enforce law. When a criminal realizes that he is essentially shut out from society, it won't take long for him to negotiate retribution to his victim. And all of this, of course, without the violence and medieval sadism of state prisons.

This would require the immediate end of the "war on drugs," the abolition of all laws not directly related to the violation of person and property, and the rejection of the government billy-club. Now that's reform I can get behind.

The Futility Of War

Michael S. Rozeff gives us something real to celebrate on Memorial Day, the futility and ineffectiveness of the utter insanity of modern warfare:

The most powerful militaries in the world have not brought peace to Iraq or Afghanistan after 10 years and trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives lost, wrecked, and maimed. The bombs are still going off in both countries and still killing both soldiers and civilians. They make headlines every day.

What is there to celebrate? Not the glory of these wars, rather their futility. Let us celebrate the limitations of these powerful military establishments and take the steps drastically to reduce their importance in every way possible. They should be mothballed. The last glory days that military supporters can make any claim to celebrate had to do with World War II. That’s 70 years ago. That’s a long time ago. There’s no longer anything to celebrate and there hasn’t been anything to celebrate since. Take the military machine apart and stow it. I’ll celebrate that.

Only The Dead Have Seen The End Of War

 

Will Congress Give the President the Authority to Wage Permanent War?

Earlier this month, the House Armed Services Committee began marking up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2011. Tucked inside the over 300-page bill is a provision introduced by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R - Calif.), which has some very dangerous and unconstitutional complications.

If passed, the legislation would grant President Barack Obama — and all presidents after him — sweeping legal authority to go to war in any part of the globe he chooses to without any consent or debate from Congress. In other words, it gives the president the “power to declare worldwide war without end,” as the ACLU puts it:

The proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack.

It also expands on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed just days after 9/11, which granted President George W. Bush limited authority to use military force against those directly responsible for the attacks.

In similar fashion to the speed in which Sen. Harry Reid (D - Nevada) passed an extension of the PATRIOT Act with the intent to create “as little debate as possible,” the provision in the NDAA met virtually no discussion as it was marked up literally in the middle of the night.

McKeon’s provisions (section 1034 in the bill) represents an unconstitutional grant of authority to the p resident, which has unfortunately become quite the trend in Congress. The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, and for good reason. The president is not King, and he should not have the power to declare war on his own without the consent of the People’s House. Granting the President the authority to use lethal military force to send young Americans to war deserves the utmost scrutiny, prudence, and public debate.

Not only is war an issue that deserves more, not less, transparency, but it is also a catalyst of domestic government abuse and violations of civil liberties. War is the health of the state, as Randolph Bourne famously argued, and a nation permanently at war — as this provision promises to ensure — cannot maintain constitutional government for very long.

Surprisingly, the Obama administration is threatening to veto the NDAA if section 1034 is included in the bill. A commitment to the rule of law and constitutional principles should definitely be commended; however, given Obama’s recent actions in Libya, it’s easy to be skeptical of the White House’s position.

As the 60th day of Obama’s war in Libya approached, the Department of Justice leaked a memo arguing that Obama didn’t need to come to Congress as the already lenient War Powers Act requires. In a manner that would make Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo proud, the Justice Department claimed that the US needed to stand behind the United Nations and defend regional stability; in other words, Congress should just stay out the affairs of the Executive Branch. The U.S. Senate, in predictably bipartisan fashion, cowered and agreed.

Although many presidents have ignored Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and waged war at their own discretion, section 1034 of the NDAA would essentially codify near-dictatorial powers for the presidency into law. Future presidents, Republican or Democrat, would no doubt use and expand on these powers as well as history has shown. For the sake of the rule of law and the checks and balances of constitutional government, this bill must be opposed.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons 

In Honor Of Memorial Day

 

The Problem With The Pledge Of Allegiance

It's not the "under God" provision that deserves scorn, but the word that ties us, like slave chains, to DC: indivisible. How could any government formed with the supposed attempt to protect liberty be indivisible? Would you enter into any contract that you could not peacefully dissolve, especially when the other party loots, taxes, regulates, and coerces you?

After all, as Kirkpatrick Sale notes, the Pledge of Allegiance was created in 1892 by a socialist-nationalist-religious ideologue in order to brainwash young children into serving the state. Even the concept alone, of pledging allegiance (my country right or wrong!!!) to the government, has very totalitarian and fascistic implications.

The Anarcho-Capitalist Theme Song

 

No-Fly Zone Over Texas?

First there were US "no-fly zones" in Iraq and Libya. Now, as all empires tend to do, punishment for defying the dictates of DC is not limited to bearded brown-skinned foreigners anymore; another aspect of the American Empire has made its way home.

The Justice Department is now threatening that it will cancel all flights out of Texas if the state legislature passes a law banning TSA agents from molesting innocent people without probable cause. 

Will the Regime declare war and send in the Marines if Texas approves their anti-TSA bill? I can see it now. "The Governor must go!" Caesar will declare to roaring applause, those backward hicks need to be "liberated." We will stand down when they stand up. Freedom. Democracy. Flags wave.

Hyperbole? Texans know all too well that it's happened before.

Libertarianism In 4 Minutes

 

Utah Legalizes Monetary Freedom

The Utah legislature just passed a bill legalizing gold and silver as currencies to compete with DC's fiat paper money. The idea came from Republican state Rep. Brad Galvez, "who sponsored the bill largely to serve as a protest against Federal Reserve monetary policy. Galvez says Americans are losing faith in the dollar."

Beginning June 1, Craig Franco's Utah Gold and Silver Depository - a private company - will begin to issue debit-cards backed by gold and silver that is stored in a vault.

Legalizing competing currencies is by far the best way to break the chains of the Imperial Dollar and phase out the Federal Reserve. Moves like this recent bill in Utah will likely provide consumers with stable and viable alternative currencies and create a whole new marketplace for money.

My only fear about Utah's defiance of the federal government is the example of Bernard von NotHaus. He created an alternative gold-based currency, dubbed the "Liberty Dollar," but was arrested and detained by the US government and is now facing a possible 25-year prison sentence.

Given that the feds have raided and continue to raid countless medical marijuana facilities and Amish farmers selling raw milk - issues of very little threat to the regime - what will stop them from raiding and seizing businesses that do threaten their rule: those who are producing free market currencies?

30 Years Of Consistency

 

A Third Way?

There are many - from the Catholic Church to liberal progressives - who favor a supposed "third way" between capitalism and socialism that attempts to balance social justice with individual rights.

But as Jeffrey A. Tucker, writing in the Catholic Crisis Magazine, argues:

There are only two possible ways to organize the economic life of a nation. There is the market way, which relies on voluntary exchange, protection of private property, and no unwanted invasions of another’s space. The result of this system is commonly called the free market, or capitalism, if you will, but both terms are too limiting. The voluntary, property-rights approach encompasses more than economic exchange; it also encompasses the whole of the voluntary sector that empowers houses of worship, charitable institutions, the family, and every other institution that serves an intermediating role between the individual and the state.

The other system is very different. It uses the state to intervene in this voluntary system by use of the police power of force, coercion, guns, and jails. That means more laws enforced at gunpoint, taxation, forced redistribution, monetary manipulation, nationalization, war, and all the rest.

There is no mystic "third way." There is only a free society - in which no one may initiate force on another acting in a free marketplace (the non-aggression axiom) - or varying degrees of institutionalized plunder. Whether it's fascism, communism, socialism, or social democracy, all political systems rely on naked force in order to exist, and are therefore antithetical to the peaceful market order essential for human cooperation and civilization.

Gangster-in-Chief

As the head of the largest criminal syndicate in history, Caesar must rule the world - and us - with bribes of stolen loot and moralistic chest-thumping like any good Mob boss. "We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," says the Gangster-in-Chief, backed up with mighty tax-guzzling killing machines at his disposal for anyone who dares not heel and kiss his ring.

Witness the billions of dollars that have just been stolen from you and I and transferred to Arab oligarchs to do the biddings of the Empire. Do what I say, Israel! dictates Caesar from a podium in another self-aggrandizing speech. And don't forget about His kill orders while playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner in one fiat swipe of his benevolent pen.

Obama's Regime represents the epitome of gangster government; but then again, is there really any other type?

Bipartisanship At Its Finest

In classic "bipartisan" fashion, top members of the Warfare-Welfare party agree that the PATRIOT Act should be extended for four more years. The deal between Senator Reid and House Speaker Boehner attempts to "pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government." Quiet, citizen, four more years without a 4th Amendment is unnegotiable. Pay your taxes and heel, you have nothing to hide right?

Why Ron Paul Will Win The GOP Nomination

(via PolicyMic.com)

As the Obama administration perpetuates the decades-long federal policies of a monetary system based on fiat central banking, new conflicts added to the already unpopular wars, and the addition of layers of bureaucracy on an already stagnant market, Congressman Ron Paul's (R-Texas) third presidential run is a breath of fresh air.

For over 30 years in Congress, Paul has opposed nearly every government expenditure that is not authorized in the U.S. Constitution; precisely what any good Congressman should do. He has stood firmly against large government programs and wealth transfers that have especially irked the American public and drained the Treasury: the bank bailouts, Obamacare, entitlement programs, the war in Iraq, and the idea that the U.S. should maintain a global empire.

But is the soft-spoken 75-year old electable?

Fellow PolicyMic writer Jason Orr doesn't think so. In a very interesting article, Orr makes the case that although he supports a lot of Paul's positions, the fact that Paul is supposedly prone to conspiracy theories, his flip-flopping on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and libertarian stance on social issues give Paul virtually no shot in the GOP primaries, let alone the presidency.

By being a defender of free markets, civil liberties, a sound currency, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, things can at times be very lonely and frustrating. I share some of Orr's pessimism. However, I completely disagree with Orr's recommendation that Paul should stop wasting his time.
Paul may have significant disagreement with social conservatives and the role of government in enforcing morality, but as the economy continues to struggle and inflation continues to drive up the price of goods, job creation and economic productivity become more important to voters. And who is more appealing to fiscal conservatives than someone who wants to cut taxes and spending drastically, free up the economy, and eliminate many government-enforced barriers to employment? Besides, disagreements on social issues tend to matter very little to those who can't find a job or who are working an extra one to get by.

When it comes to the decade-long war in Afghanistan and the new intervention in Libya, conservatives are growing more and more frustrated with these unnecessary and costly government programs. Paul, of course, opposes both.

Add these factors to the level of GOP competition that Paul faces — a group of repetitive sounding slogans in suits — and the odds against Paul winning the nomination become slimmer by the day.
There is also a second way that Paul will "win," and this one is a guarantee. Even if Paul does not win the Republican nomination, his candidacy will be a nationally televised speaking tour on behalf of individual liberty, peace, and the Constitution.

In 2008, Paul came nowhere near to winning the nomination; yet his persistence and principles exposed millions of people to libertarian ideas, shifting the national debate. It is in this manner — exposing more and more Americans to the ideas of a free society — that Ron Paul truly can win. As Paul himself, quoting Victor Hugo, likes to say, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Has his time come? As more and more Americans grow tired of the artificial Left-Right divide and of a government that is nearly completely unaccountable, perhaps the third time really is the charm.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

End The Fed!

(via Policymic.com)

In last week's Republican Presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, all of the candidates were asked a final question concerning what they thought was the biggest problem facing the country. All of them, in one form or another, answered: government spending and the federal debt.

Liberals and conservatives each agree that the budget should be cut, but both sides have solutions which fail to address the problem of the true fiscal stability. Both liberals and conservatives ignore the main source behind runaway government spending: the Federal Reserve.

For example, Harvard economist Jeff Miron, in a short video, argues that spending on entitlement programs will only continue to grow at a rapid and unsustainable pace. Miron argues that unless cuts are made to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, there is no hope to getting spending under control.

From the liberal side, Moveon.org's "Big Mike" insists that cuts have to be made, but not in entitlement programs. Given that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over $1 trillion, ending these misguided wars would be the right way to begin to reign in spending and bring some fiscal sanity.

Although both of these arguments come from supposedly opposite political spectrums, both agree that cuts have to be made. It's hard not to agree; the U.S. government is over $14 trillion in debt, will spend almost $2 trillion more than it takes in this year alone, and borrows more than 40 cents out of every dollar in order to finance this spending.

As a libertarian, I disagree with both the conservative case for cutting domestic spending and the liberal desire to cut military spending. Both proposals view government spending like an accountant, and try to trim the branches of a tree that has grown far too large. But our spending problem is a philosophicalissue, namely, what is the proper role of government in society and how does the government acquire it's revenue in the first place?

Will Rogers once quipped that "thank God that we do not get all the government that we pay for." Well nearly everything the government does that is not specifically authorized by the United States Constitution is a funded in a way so that Americans don't initially see the costs. Wars, stimulus-es, bailouts, and entitlement programs are paid for through the Federal Reserve's printing presses that give the government all the money it wants without a direct tax on the American people.

Unfortunately, whenever a central bank like the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air, it devalues the purchasing power of the dollar (disproportionately harming the poor), causes prices to rise, distorts the economy with artificial interest rates, and leaves the bill to those who are not even born. In fact, the value of the dollar has declined by 95% since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913.

Yet hardly anyone on the left or right bring the issue of the Fed up. Yet it is by far the main source of our financial mess, creating "boom-and-bust" cycles, malinvestment, debt, and crony capitalism.

Analyzing what central banks have done and continue to do to economies is the philosophical counterpoint to the nitpicking accounting of liberals and conservatives. Libertarians view government as an institution that exists solely to protect liberty; it should not police the world, create a welfare state, and has no business in the production of currency.

Perhaps the left and the right, unfortunately, are too fixated on their respective big government spending programs and bipartisan statism to see a practical alternative in a free society.

The libertarian solution to the budget problem? End America's governmental controls and sell off federal property, use that money to properly fund anyone who is currently receiving Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, allow anyone to opt out of the current tax code, repeal legal tender laws to allow competing currencies, and most importantly, abolish the Federal Reserve; all of these would establish a real free market economy, prosperity, liberty, and fiscal sanity. 

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Myths Of The PATRIOT Act

Defenders of the PATRIOT Act argue that in this age of terrorism and Muslim hordes at the gates ready to enslave us all under Sharia Law, it is a necessary tool for the US government to keep us safe and free. Bruce Fein dispells these dangerous myths and exposes the PATRIOT act for what it is: the de facto erasing of the 4th Amendment, a violation of civil liberties, and actually not effective at preventing terrorism.

Free Market Defense

"National Security" is often cited as one of the main justifications for a state. Given that liberty and order mean very little if people aren't secure to engage in commerce and live peacefully, this is exactly why leaving the task of security to a coercive monopoly like the state is not only unnecessary, but terribly dangerous.

For a recent example, a group of hijackers armed with box cutters turned civilian aircraft into missiles on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 innocent Americans. The federal government, in charge of protecting those Americans, with billions at its disposal, could not stop it. After 9/11, the federal government began to receive more money!

Michael Rozeff has a very interesting article explaining why a free market in defense services is the only way to truly provide security.