A LITTLE REBELLION

Walmart of Weed Opens in Washington, DC

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

WeGrow, a company that provides information and products for medical marijuana use and is dubbed “the Walmart of weed,” will soon be opening a store in Washington, D.C. Not only will this facility allow more sick and dying patients a way to ease excruciating pain and nausea, but due to its training technicians and services, it will allow individuals to grow their own marijuana as well. The growth of WeGrow, which started in California, will likely lead to copycats, the increased use of medicinal marijuana, and a battle over federalism.

Although federal law prohibits the sale or cultivation of marijuana, 16 states (and Washington, D.C.) have legalized it for medical purposes. It is slowly but surely becoming a very important issue, especially when the use of marijuana can prevent, cure, or greatly reduce the pain from a multitude of crippling diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and strokes. And unlike poisonous and legal prescription drugs, there are virtually no side effects.

If the legalization of medical marijuana continues to spread across the country, the federal government will have quite the conundrum on its hands. Do they go after the sick and dying in society and those that are helping them? Or, let states make their own laws as the U.S. Constitution actually prescribes?

Tragically, so far the current administration has opted for the former method. Although candidate Obama vowed to end federal raids on medical marijuana facilities, President Obama's DEA has launched several raids in California and has increased security and cooperation with Latin and South American governments in order to further fight the drug war.

Although I firmly believe the drug war should be abolished tomorrow based on the rights of individual self-ownership and responsibility, the best way to handle divisive and complicated issues are to address them as locally as possible. An increase in state nullification of federal drug laws, however, and the spread of companies like WeGrow is hopefully a trend that will shine the light on the growing need for the decentralization of drug laws.

Private vs. Public Barbershops

Via the Circle Bastiat:

The Supreme Court is going to consider the constitutionality of ObamaCare in the coming weeks, but the government takeover of healthcare didn’t start with the current president, but with Harry Truman decades ago.

We’re told the nation’s health care needs fixed: That the free market isn’t providing for this vital service adequately.  However, America’s healthcare hasn’t been left to the free market since World War II.   The president has promised that more government will make healthcare cheaper and more available.

A comparison of two capitol hill barber shops will shed some light on whether the president has it right.  The Senate and the House of Representatives each have a barbershop for member use.  In 1994, the House barbershop was privatized by Republicans who had taken over control of the House that year for the first time in decades.  The Senate shop has remained a government operation.

Before it was turned into a private enterprise, the House shop employed 16 barbers, each of whom received federal pensions and benefits. Now the shop has three employees, one of which is part-time.

“We’ve gone through a lot of changes, with members going back to their districts on the weekends and fewer customers because of the extra security that the House has put up after 9/11, but we’re all self-employed,” long-time House barber Joe Quattrone says. “Money’s not everything. I love coming to work every day. Would you rather go to a job you hated for $50,000 or one you liked for $40,000?”

The House shop actually turned a profit last year, despite occupying an inferior location in the Rayburn House Office Building, farther from the two adjoining House buildings than is the Senate’s barbershop.

Meanwhile, the Senate Hair Care Services, the formal name for the Senate barbershop, with its 11 employees, required a $300,000 taxpayer bailout to keep its barber pole lighted, despite not having to pay the government a dime in rent.

Having the advantage of government subsidy, one might assume senators pay less for their haircuts and shaves than House members.  Not hardly.  While the Senate barbershop charges $23 for a trim with water but no shampoo and $20 for a shave, the House barbershop charges $17 and $10.

So while many lawmakers are all for having the government take over healthcare and other things that private enterprise can provide better and cheaper, the inefficiency of the Senate barbershop has at least one big government cheerleader wondering.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is no fan of free markets, but says “I would like to know why the Senate barbershop is running its business into the red.”

I Prefer Dangerous Freedom Over Peaceful Slavery

But since a free society produces wealth, peace, and order, thankfully we really don't have to choose between the two. (thanks to Eric Duke)

Ron Paul Will Win As A Third Party Candidate, Not By Giving in to Republican Demands

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

In a recent petition at Change.org, Ron Paul supporters say they are “outraged” at the treatment Paul’s candidacy has received from the GOP at the local, state, and national levels, the press blackouts of the candidate, and dirty tricks at the caucuses used against him. Because of this, they are urging fellow Paul supporters not to vote for the eventual Republican candidate if Paul or his son, Kentucky libertarian Senator Rand Paul, isn’t nominated as the vice presidential candidate. Although I agree with the sentiment behind the petition, the GOP will likely not give either Paul a VP nod, and it would probably not appease Paul supporters anyway. So what will Paul supporters do in November?

The petition is absolutely correct, however, when they point out that Paul supports make up about 15-20% of the Republican Party, and GOP hostility to their presence at caucuses and their libertarian leanings is a recipe for disaster if the GOP thinks that they can win the presidency without a significant percentage of their votes. It is hard enough to defeat a sitting president; offering up a candidate that differs only slightly on major issues will make it even tougher.

There has been much speculation about what Ron Paul will do with the significant amount of delegates he will in Tampa. The mainstream media, never prone to hinder gossip, has suggested that Paul has an “alliance” with Romney where Paul will transfer his delegates over to Romney for a multitude of rumored reasons: a VP slot, cabinet position, speaking role at the convention, or influence in the party platform. 

But this “alliance” is completely manufactured; the GOP leadership would never allow Ron Paul to be VP and Romney — being philosophically opposed to Paul on nearly every issue — would probably never even give it to Paul anyway. And even if Paul influenced the GOP platform by having them include, say, promises to audit the Federal Reserve, abolish the Sixteenth Amendment, and scale back the American empire, the GOP has a long history of using libertarian and populist rhetoric to acquire votes, only to expand the federal government once in power.

I sympathize heavily with the aforementioned petition’s frustration with Paul’s treatment from the GOP, but the likelihood of Paul being included in the GOP — or having actual influence among the nominee — is virtually zero. Paul supporters are also fundamentally at odds with much of what the GOP stands for, so they will likely not vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Besides, when both parties offer slightly different version of federal interventionism at home and abroad, who exactly is the lesser of two evils? Without Paul in the race, 15-20% of the GOP will probably stay home, vote third party, and once again be unrepresented.

But that could change if Paul decides to do something that the petition doesn’t discuss: run third party. Paul’s home has never been with the Republican Party, the party elite are openly opposed to his ideas and candidacy. The Libertarian Party, which is on the ballot in all 50 states, has their presidential convention in early May and he could drop out of the GOP race by then and run as a Libertarian.

Although Paul polls very well nationally and draws a lot of support from Democrats and independents, Paul’s uneasiness about having the amount of power a president has in his hands suggests that his candidacy is truly about spreading a philosophy that will outlast this or any election. A third-party run allows him a continued national stage to tell us about the dangers ofpaper money, empire, and big government —  the ultimate final hurrah. Plus, with war feverdominating much of the country, the presence of Paul at the debates will expose the Republican nominee and force Obama to tone down his overseas aggression. In other words, a Ron Paul third-party candidacy has innumerable upsides and virtually no downsides. 

Ron Paul supporters should not look to deals, bargains, or comprises within the corrupt Republican Party. The future lies in getting as many ears and eyes exposed to the classical liberal ideas that Ron Paul advances and a third-party run is the best way to accomplish this. And who knows, it might even stop a war or two.

So Much For the MSM-Manufactured Paul-Romney 'Alliance'

I always thought the supposed "alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney was media-manufactured gossip. After all, these men couldn't be further apart - both philosophically and personally. This, however, makes much more sense:

GOP leader claims: Romney-Santorum-Gingrich unite to stop Ron Paul

Well, well, conspiracies do exist after all. Thanks to the proliferation of cell phones you will hear Alex Hayes, director of mainstream Republicans of Washington State, making the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns have united behind a commons slate of candidates in Washington State to block the Ron Paul machine from winning the delegates. The apparent move on the part of the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns is to block citizens favoring Ron Paul from taking over the Washington State delegation to Tampa.

Is this true? I am seeking to find out.

The good news for Ron Paul people is this, the Ron Paul grassroots campaign is indeed reshaping the Republican Party. It may very well control the delegations in numerous caucus states which are now incorrectly portrayed by the media to be favoring other candidates. In some cases, the only way it can be stopped is for all three campaigns to coordinate to prevent a takeover.

Contrary to the reports in the national media, the Ron Paul campaign will have far more delegates to Tampa than is now thought, most of them at the expense of Governor Romney but also some at the expense of Senator Santorum. States such as Missouri, where Senator Santorum won a meaningless beauty contest, will see a sizeable Ron Paul representation, as will Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa. In Nevada, on the first ballot, the delegates, even if Ron Paul supporters, must vote for candidates proportionately as they finished in the Nevada Statewide beauty contest. But they can vote their conscience on the second ballot.

'How Jesus Never Claimed to Be God'

In an article I wrote for Strike the Root last January, I argued that the historical figure of Jesus Christ was essentially an anarchist who built a private community completely separate from the legal and political authorities around him. He advocated stateless organization and cooperation and urged followers not to look to fallible, Earthly realms for spiritual salvation.

As someone who grew up Roman Catholic, I know that I will always have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the traditions and teachings of Christianity. But as I have gotten older and done more reflecting, I find myself much less interested in the claims of Jesus' "divinity" or "holiness" and focused more on Jesus as Philosopher and Teacher and how he spoke universal truths that are just as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago.

At the Skeptical Libertarian blog, David Bier has a very interesting post questioning Jesus's divinity simply by looking at Jesus's own words and the many contradictions in the Gospels. Bier concludes, as I do, that Jesus was probably a wise and spiritually enlightened individual with a ton of followers who was later used by power-hungry figures (especially Paul) to start a religion, claiming he was "the son of God" and "the Messiah."

I think this idea is healthy and would actually benefit Christianity. Too much emphasis is placed on the supposed brutal torture and crucifixion of Jesus, his divinity, and the necessary submission rather than his message of peace and voluntarism.

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful

 

The Chain of Obedience

Commands, orders, and dictates mean nothing if we choose to ignore them and live as freely as possible.

 

The Three Political Parties of America

Robin Koerner, one of my favorite writers at HuffPo, has a new piece about the three dominant factions in America today.

The largest are the Republicrats:

They are offering two candidates for president in 2012: their names are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Being such a large party, they have adopted a clever means of ensuring that they hold power perpetually: they split themselves into two wings called "Democrat" and "Republican." This rather clever setup allows them to compete with each other in the formal competitions of American democracy by emphasizing different pieces of the platform, while ensuring that one of the wings will always hold sway, allowing them to implement their shared social democratic platform.

And what is this platform? It is a corporate socialist one. They stand for enlarging government, the replacement of individual civil rights with centralized programs, the redistribution of wealth from working individuals to the non-working but mostly corporate and special interests (their main sponsors) and a military presence throughout most of the world.

There are a number of ways to tell that their two candidates, Romney and Obama, are from the same party. Their have the same major donors (big banks, and other multinationals) -- and the most important legislation that they both favor includes the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and most other bills that reduce our liberty (but always for our own good, and usually for our own protection).

Then there's the equally fascistic and crazy Scared Religionist party:

The Scared Religionists deserve credit for the clarity of their message, if not necessarily for the consistency of its content. Their view of the world was wonderfully encapsulated by their candidate, Rick Santorum, who recently said:

I am hopeful that some of the things we're seeing with respect to the nuclear program [,] the United states is involved in -- which, is on occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that is a wonderful thing ... And if people say you, well, can't go around and assassinate people, well, tell that to Al-Awlaki. We've done it. We've done it to an American citizen.

Clearly, members of the Scared Religionists are sure they know best for everyone, and so do not have to worry about such traditional limitations as due process or respect for life. (The last one is a little ironic.) Consistent with his view of how the universe is run, Santorum would seek to run the nation in a way that ensures, by force if necessary, that everyone else behaves "rightly." To many non-members of this party, there is an apparent paradox that the Authority whose earlier work provided large lists of what is right, in some of His other books, asked that the judging be left to Him, and to leave everyone else to make their own choices.

And finally, the Freedom and Peace Party:

Their current candidate is Ron Paul. The media don't say much about them, but when they do, you will hear that they are extremists. For example, they believe that we should be governed by law, including the Constitution, to ensure that we are not governed by the interested preferences of men -- powerful or rich or both -- since that would be tyranny. They don't believe in going to war unless it is "just" and their elected representatives declare it. Related to that word, "just," is their belief that people shouldn't have their life or liberty removed without due process. They also believe that laws should not be so many and so complex that all citizens are in violation at some point in a typical day, since such a situation gives authorities undue power over citizens, and that too is tyranny. They also believe that the people who make the laws should read the laws that they vote on. (That they haven't been very successful is indicated by the fact that last January, 43,000 new laws came into force. One wonders how on earth we held the country together without them.). One of their most extreme views of all is that if you make money honestly, you should be allowed to keep it, and if you lose it -- and especially if you lose other people's -- you should be left to go bankrupt.

Paul's platform, like that of Obama and Romney, is reflected in the origin of the donations he received: most of his money comes in small donations from individual Americans. From those who are defending with their lives the values of the Freedom and Peace party -- the US Navy, Army and Airforce -- he receives more donations than do all the other candidates put together.

Although the Republicrats have held power for many generations, they have made huge progress since 2001. From that year onward, the politics of fear have allowed them to move forward on massive violence internationally (against people) and domestically (against our way of life). The bailouts, TSA, elimination of 1st, 4th, 5th and 7th amendments (under the Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, and other legislation) are all acts of fear as they all try to prevent bad things from happening. Only the Freedom and Peace party believes that the political energy used doing this could have been better used to make good things happen -- which is done best by letting honest Americans get on with their lives without the imposition of thousands of unnecessary laws and the taking of trillions of their dollars.

Anarchy, Government, and the State

Over at the Ron Paul forums, Sentient Void gives a succinct explanations of anarcho-capitalism and the difference between violent political rule under a centralized state and governance in civil society:

While the anarcho-capitalist and voluntaryist movement has certainly been growing *significantly* (at the extreme disdain of 'left' anarchists) - I don't think we make certain *very* important distinctions clear enough.

I believe part of why many others have trouble grasping anarchy is because they are (including many anarchists, even) conflating 'the State', with 'government' or 'governance'. There is an essence of 'talking past eachother'. 

Understand, all States are governments, but not all government (or 'governance') requires the State.

In an anarcho-capitalist (which is a tautology supported by theory as well as historical evidence) society, there would still be government. Government by your peers through social and commercial ostracism and acceptance. Government of social behavior, civility, disputes and justice by competing courts, defense/security agencies to ensure protection, and the recognition / respect of property rights. Government of businesses and the market through the free market, the price signal, profit & loss, competition, customer satisfaction, commercial ostracism (credit ratings, boycotting, reputation, etc), and supply and demand. Government of risk and socialization of that risk, through insurance agencies. Self-government through individuals' pursuit of their *rational* self-interest, having themselves to bear the responsibility of their actions through the decentralized accountability systems arising out of the market to maintain it.

I could go on. Anarchism does not necessarily mean 'no government' so much as it means 'no State' or (etymologically speaking) 'without ruler'. In a purely capitalist, free market society - you have no coercive authority over you. All commercial and social relationships are voluntary. Your employer is not your ruler (despite what so many 'left' anarchists like to claim), since you can leave your employer at any time and choose another employer who pays and/or treats you better, or choose to work for yourself, even.

Your typical 'left' anarchist heads are exploding at these words right now - but anarcho-capitalism is the only realistic, moral, practical and workable way to abolish the State and still not just maintain civilization... but maximize prosperity, liberty and justice, above and beyond what any flavor of the State could ever come close to deliver.

For many anarchists, like many of us here - the conflation of 'government' and 'the State' is probably more semantic than anything. For many non-anarchists - it's not semantic so much as different perceptions leading to problems in understanding - the issue of 'talking past eachother'.

To the extent that I understand the real concept of 'no government' - then I completely agree with the critics in criticizing their perception of anarchy - because it's true... with a complete rejection of all forms of 'government' in how I described it above - there certainly *would* be chaos and misery. 

The rejection of universally preferable behavior (such as engaging in theft, murder, rape, etc). The rejection of the price signal and laws of supply and demand. The rejection of any and all forms of voluntary authority as well as the rejection of all self-government, in that individuals reject acting in their own*rational* self-interest in the name of holding no restraint and acting purely on whim and animalistic tendency (while being able to force others to bear the cost) would certainly result in chaos and misery for many people.

Anarcho-capitalists do not advocate rejection of these things, nor do they think they would be rejected absent the State. Rather - justice, moral behavior, and prosperity would be maximized.

I think anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists could do a *much* better job of communicating this. Then people would not only be not talking past each other anymore - but others may be much more open to discussing such ideas.

Homeschooling vs. Government Education

In nearly every statistical category measuring education, social skills, graduation rates, test scores, and costs, homeschooled students far outperform their "public" school counterparts.

(thanks to Peter Kim for sending me this great graphic)

Ron Paul on Leno

 

Calls for War With Iran Driven By Mainstream Media

This article originally appeared at PolicyMic.

Over the weekend, Wired reported that the Navy began launching a “huge Iran surge” in the Persian Gulf, doubling its minesweeper craft and preparing to get much closer to Iran’s shores. With the combination of this gunboat diplomacy and recent U.S. sanctions placed on Iran, tensions are high between Washington and Tehran. As the U.S. and Iran inch closer and closer to war, the mainstream media has unfortunately helped increase this conflict with how it has recently covered U.S.-Iran relations.

The most telling aspect of how the media has contributed to the war fever in the U.S. is in the difference between what it does and doesn’treport. When covering Iran, the media tends to report almost verbatim what Pentagon officials and analysts tell them to. The threat from Iran is always “imminent;” war is “likely” and even “inevitable.” Iran’s “nuclear weapons program” is an assumed starting point for analysis, with debate differing on when and how, not if, to strike. There tends to be a fixation on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his denial of the Holocaust, his desire to “wipe Israel off the map,” and the supposed irrationality and even suicidal nature of the Iranian regime. Why, you can’t negotiate and bargain with a madman who wants to bring on an Islamic rapture!

What is more interesting and revealing, however, is what the mainstream media either fails to report or gives very little attention to. Other than a couple glaring recent exceptions in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media doesn’t mention U.S. and Israeli intelligencereports that there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Iranian is often called a “state-sponsor of terror,” but the media has done virtually no reporting on the MEK — an opposition group inside Iran — that has committed acts of terrorism inside Iran and is financially backed by both the Israeli government and multiple, prominent U.S. politicians.

While implicitly labeling Iran a “threat,” the media fails to mention Iran’s military weakness or the fact that it is surrounded by dozens of U.S. military bases, the Navy’s Fifth fleet, and a nuclear-armed Israel. Why wouldn’t Iran want to acquire a nuclear bomb? Aren’t sanctions already an act of war? What would be the consequences of a U.S. strike? These are simple questions that an objective media should ask.

Current media coverage concerning Iran is becoming eerily similar to 2002-2003 before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The rhetoric is similar — comparisons to Hitler, WMDs, existential threats, etc. False accusations and outright lies that are made by politicians and ambassadors simply go unchallenged. The only pictures one comes across inside Iran are nuclear scientists in white coats, not of the cities, infrastructure, and people that would be destroyed in a war. Like Iraq, Iran is viewed through the lens of its leaders, not through its people, history, or culture. Iranians don’t want war. Neither do Americans or Israelis. 

The media are not the only ones to blame, of course. U.S. policy has been extremely belligerent and aggressive against Iran for decades. The U.S., Israel, and Iran are all in election year as well, which increases the saber-rattling on all sides. 

Given American frustration with the economy, multiple wars already on its plate, and a fiscal mess on its hands, a war with Iran is the last thing the U.S. needs. But if war is avoided, it will be thanks to cooler heads prevailing in Washington despite a dangerously compliant and propaganda parroting press.

'The Federal Government Doesn't Need a Manicure'

Thomas Mullen on Ron Paul, republicanism vs. democracy, and taking an axe to the Federal Leviathan:

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign strategy is rooted in republicanism. He has deliberately focused his efforts on the states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because caucuses do not let the majority rule unchecked. Instead of merely pulling a few levers behind a curtain, caucus participants must complete a multi-tiered process that occurs for months after the popular vote before being chosen for the national convention. Who can doubt that these delegates are more informed than the typical primary voter? The essence of republicanism is for reason to triumph over the transient passion of the majority.

Paul’s platform likewise represents what is best about conservatism. Without exception, it protects the individual from oppression by the majority. He is the only Republican presidential candidate that has actually said the words “role of government” during any debate. That’s because he is the only candidate that seems to recognize that the government’s role is limited; that even a majority vote cannot sanction it to exercise power beyond those limits. Throughout all of human history, conservatives have defended this principle against the ungoverned passion of the majority.

The federal government doesn’t need a manicure. It needs reconstructive surgery. Make that deconstructive surgery. You don’t turn $1.5 trillion deficits into surpluses by tweaking the way that federal departments are managed. You do so by completely eliminating departments and redefining the role of government. Only Ron Paul is proposing to do so. If there is anything left of what made the Republican Party different from the Democrats, they should support both Ron Paul’s platform and his political strategy.

Walter Jones: Impeach Obama/ Why Ron Paul Should Run Third Party

The only other good guy in Congress, Walter Jones (R-NC), wants the House to impeach Obama for unconstitutionally ignoring Congress while waging his offensive wars of aggression.

No media attention, of course.

Not that I think wars approved by Congress are any good either. War is the health of the state, killing, destroying wealth and trade and liberty, even if some chickenhawk Senator votes yes. 

But what it does is at least make the prospect of war less likely. Instead we have a Congress that rubber-stamps every military spending bill and they're proposed annual increases like they're on autopilot, sometimes even piling on more stolen loot to bring back to their district.

Meanwhile, Obama wages multiple hot wars in two continents and orders drones to kill from the sky. With little accountability, virtually no opposition from his "base" and right-wingers who think he hasn't spilled enough blood.

And financed by borrowing nearly half of every dollar spent. Long supply lines and expensive, shiny weaponry like tentacles across the globe, fueling up humvees and ships and planes that will soon drop high explosives on lightly armed peasants who only want us to leave and won't stop fighting until we do. Just absolutely pummel them. Day after day after day.

At least if Congress were to take back some of its power from the President maybe some of this would stop or be less likely in the future. But who knows. Congressmen are generally spineless authoritarians. Imperial Defense Secretary Leon Panetta thinks so. He says that they can invade and bomb Syria with "international approval" and tell Congress later about it. Just like Libya.

This is why I hope Ron Paul runs as a second third-party candidate. He has enough support to gather significant votes away from both parties and polls very well in national polls. Can you imagine how fun it would be to see Paul wipe the floor with Obama and Romney, to stand up there like he always does and tell the American people the truth about empire, fiat money, and what to do about it? An alternative to Predator R and Predator D.

But they would never let a statesmen actually be President. He threatens too many well-entrenched, rent-seeking, and powerful special interests. But what an independent run does is provide Paul with a final hurrah on the biggest platform, like Cicero during the last days of the Roman Republic, to continue to spread the already global philosophical revolution. A modern Enlightenment. Thomas Paine had pamphlets, Ron Paul has the Internet.

In an incredibly thorough and detailed case for why Ron Paul should run as an independent and how he could mathematically win in a general election, Justin Raimondo argues that it could prevent a war or two.

A Paul third party candidacy would not only open up a prospect that, right now, seems highly unlikely if not impossible – i.e. Ron Paul sitting in the Oval Office – it would also place significant constraints on the other candidates, including President Obama. Faced only with a warmongering Republican, Obama can pretty much do whatever he likes when it comes to provoking, sanctioning, and threatening Iran: after all, antiwar voters have nowhere else to go. With Paul in the race, however, Obama is going to have to be very careful not to lose his left-ish antiwar constituency, which has so far stuck with him as the lesser to the two evils. If and when Obama makes his move against Iran, Paul’s third party campaign will be right there, scarfing up votes from the President’s disillusioned and angry former supporters.

So Walter Jones, please keep trying to impeach Obama. And Ron, leave the crooked GOP, run third-party, and prove that "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

Only Remaining Reporter Covering Ron Paul Is Pulled

The MSM has decided that coverage of Ron Paul's campaign is deemed unworthy of media coverage. We will decide which plastic men you will choose from, citizen;  just ignore the 4,500+ crowds at his speeches, the grassroots organization, the passion, the support, the delegates, and most importantly, the ideas of liberty and peace being spread like wildfire. Nothing to see here, move along.

Crash the Justice System

Like any bureaucracy, government courts are notoriously slow, inefficient, expensive, and unjust. This is one of the major reasons why over 90% of criminal cases never even see a jury. With thousands upon thousands of laws, it is very tempting for those who end up entangled in this cobweb to take a plea deal when faced with robed tyrants and rogue prosecutors.

The odds are heavily stacked in favor of the prosecution, and when told that you will face 15 years if found guilty in a trial or 6 months of prison if you take a plea, can you blame them?

But what would happen if the 90% of those facing criminal charges who take a plea demanded their constitutional and moral right to a jury trial and crashed the justice system?

The government court system would likely collapse under the weight of all this pressure, much to the benefit of us all. Who know - without government courts, maybe more and more people would begin to see the virtues of a private law order and dispute resolution.

Just Remember, They Hate Us For Our Freedoms, Awesomeness, and Democracy, Not For Our Imperial Conquest and Occupation

 

Letter from Aldous Huxley to George Orwell

Via Letters of Note:

Wrightwood. Cal.
21 October, 1949

Dear Mr. Orwell,

It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. It arrived as I was in the midst of a piece of work that required much reading and consulting of references; and since poor sight makes it necessary for me to ration my reading, I had to wait a long time before being able to embark on Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Agreeing with all that the critics have written of it, I need not tell you, yet once more, how fine and how profoundly important the book is. May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual's psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf. The philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is a sadism which has been carried to its logical conclusion by going beyond sex and denying it. Whether in actual fact the policy of the boot-on-the-face can go on indefinitely seems doubtful. My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World. I have had occasion recently to look into the history of animal magnetism and hypnotism, and have been greatly struck by the way in which, for a hundred and fifty years, the world has refused to take serious cognizance of the discoveries of Mesmer, Braid, Esdaile, and the rest.

Partly because of the prevailing materialism and partly because of prevailing respectability, nineteenth-century philosophers and men of science were not willing to investigate the odder facts of psychology for practical men, such as politicians, soldiers and policemen, to apply in the field of government. Thanks to the voluntary ignorance of our fathers, the advent of the ultimate revolution was delayed for five or six generations. Another lucky accident was Freud's inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible through the use of barbiturates, which induce a hypnoid and suggestible state in even the most recalcitrant subjects.

Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. In other words, I feel that the nightmare of Nineteen Eighty-Four is destined to modulate into the nightmare of a world having more resemblance to that which I imagined in Brave New World. The change will be brought about as a result of a felt need for increased efficiency. Meanwhile, of course, there may be a large scale biological and atomic war — in which case we shall have nightmares of other and scarcely imaginable kinds.

Thank you once again for the book.

Yours sincerely,

Aldous Huxley

Is Intellectual Property Really Property?