Posts in "Politics"

A Response from Copyfighter Alan Wexelblat

aheram — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:56:39 +0000

Alan Wexelblat from Corante’s Copyfight blog responds to my SOPA-related post:

As I am not libertarian, I was interested to read their point of view. In particular, Aheram asserts that copyright itself, by virtue of its government-granted monopolistic status, is an illegitimate infringement on sovereign private property rights. I suspect that others - even other libertarians - might not agree there, though I see the logic that is being followed.
I am reminded of arguments made by Stewart Baker (whom I read through Volokh Conspiracy, itself often a home for libertarian thought). In an op-ed published in the Hollywood Reporter, Baker argues that Tea Party conservatives played a major role in swinging Republican sentiment against SOPA.
[…]
If Baker is right, then we really do need more pieces like Aheram’s to reach out to untapped or skeptical communities and help them see where their political freedoms and Internet freedoms overlap.

As I noted before, I really hope that young libertarians will realize that copyright laws are being used vehicles to develop the tools of oppression which will pose massive threats to free speech and private property rights. With the near-passage of SOPA, libertarians of all stripes cannot afford to remain ignorant of the Copyfight.

TSA Illegally Detains Senator

mvwindsor — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:33:01 +0000

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was detained for four hours at a Nashville airport on Monday, January 23rd, after declining a TSA request for a pat down. Believing that his first attempt at the scanner had triggered a false alarm, he asked if he could walk through the scanner once more. He was then denied a second attempt and briskly escorted by local police into a detention cubicle where he remained for four hours, missing his flight as well as his commitment that day to speak in front of a crowd of 200,000 at the March for Life rally in D.C.

After his release, he was allowed to board another flight after he went through the scanner again without setting off the alarm a second time.

Though the TSA argues that it acted properly and objects to the use of the word "detainment" to describe Paul's treatment, according to Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution it is illegal to hold in custody Congressmen who are traveling to and from Congress:

They [the Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.

This is not to say that members of Congress are above the law and are not subject to the same security measures as non-office holding citizens while traveling under regular conditions.

Why do so many members of Congress support SOPA?

Elliot Engstrom — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:19:46 +0000

Remember social studies class in high school, when you learn about how there are three branches of government that balance against each other, and one of those is the legislative branch which is supposed to represent the will of the people (originally the will of the people and the states, but you know what I mean). If anything should show us just how perverted this system has become, it should be the difference in the support in Congress for the Stop Online Piracy Act vs. the actual support among the various congressional constituencies.

Let's start with the rationale for supporting SOPA. Why do it? DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the most prominent supporters of the bill and its highest-ranking Democrat sponsor in the House, thinks that we need the bill in order to "protect Americans from companies that profit by stealing and repackaging other people's work." Ahh yes. We need to deprive Americans of an important freedom in order to protect them from a vaguely-stated threat. Where have I heard that sort of talk before...?

Well, okay. The congresswoman (and others like her) say that they support (or supported until they realized it was unpopular) this bill because it protects Americans. Let's start with the (false) assumption that members of congress are generally good and honest people. Certainly we shouldn't just automatically disbelieve anything they say, right? Perhaps there is evidence that suggests another, more concrete reason that Wasserman and her compatriots support this bill.

The SOPA Brouhaha Explained

Bonnie Kristian — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:02:49 +0000

Want to know the exact what, why, and how of the dangers SOPA (and similar legislation, PIPA) poses to the internet? This video is for you. It's 11 minutes long, yes, but it's a good 11 minutes to spend educating yourself to explain exactly why this proposed internet censorship is such a problem. Remember, even if SOPA fails, there is sure to be another bill in a similar mold sooner or later. It's better for us as liberty activists to be knowledgeable and prepared sooner.

The Internet Goes Dark

BenLevine16 — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:30:12 +0000

Those who would give up Essential ██████ to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither ██████ nor safety.

The sponsors of SOPA & PIPA want you to forget about your inherent liberties. Don't let them black that out, too. Contact these cosponsors and tell them to stop the attack on our liberty!

House cosponsors. Senate cosponsors.

Auburn Limits Student Free Speech

BrianMUGA — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:31:22 +0000

I'm a Georgia Bulldog through and through, so that naturally places me at odd with Auburn fans (including my parents) at the height of football season. Though I cheer for the "Dawgs" when they're on the field, I stand with the Tigers when they fight their administration to regain the free speech rights which are justly there.

In this editorial, an Auburn alum and PhD student speaks out against his school's coercive speech codes, which ban the display of anything in dorm room windows, and demonstrates how they are inherently unconstitutional:

What made this incident so egregious is that the university permitted other students to display their bumper stickers, flags, and signs in dorm room windows. This double-standard suggests that Auburn, a public university, was more interested in suppressing ideas associated with a popular political candidate than it was in the safety and welfare of the student body.
Auburn’s policy is to ban the hanging or displaying of items that obstruct residence hall windows. This policy represents an alarming restraint on student speech. Total bans on expression are, among other things, too often subject to abuse of discretion and arbitrary prosecution. The Auburn incident is a case in point.

Read the full editorial here.

YALiberty.org may be shut down for good...

Bonnie Kristian — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:11:34 +0000

...if SOPA passes and this copyrighted image stays up:

We're pretty sure this particular artist wouldn't mind, but if they chose to prosecute, SOPA could easily shut this site down.

Learn more about the enormous potential for censorship and abuses SOPA will usher in if we allow it to pass.

America, past and present

cityoflight — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:59:20 +0000

It’s easy to pick out the most unsavory aspects of our history and claim that if not for the benevolent efforts of the state, we would still be mired in our own version of the Dark Ages. This strategy, however, conveniently ignores the fact that there is much more to American history than slavery, corruption, and sixteen-hour workdays.

The next time you hear someone fuming about conservatives and libertarians who “want to set us back 100 years,” consider whether it would be so horrible to live in a United States where – for example – there was no federal income tax, wars had to be explicitly declared by Congress, and the government could not just print up and lend out as much money as it desired.

Or for a different perspective, consider whether Americans 100 years ago would want to live in a country where:

The government can secretly assassinate American citizens.
The national debt exceeds the gross national product.
A handful of undeclared wars are ongoing at any time.
Federal agents can search their mail and tap their phones without a warrant.

In other words, the United States we live in today. Which America sounds better now?

Such a snapshot is obviously an incomplete portrait of life as we know it, and it would be unfair to condemn the 2012 United States on the basis of a few (substantial) shortcomings while ignoring its many accomplishments. It is likewise incorrect to judge the United States of years past based only on its faults.

We're on Our Way

BenLevine16 — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:59:17 +0000

I wrote a recent article urging Washington and the media to listen to those who predicted the economic mess we're in right now. Not surprisingly, as I mentioned, many of those who saw the housing bubble and financial collapse coming are in the liberty movement. However, these economists and public figures are still laughed at when they discuss cutting government spending (real cuts, not false streamlining) and creating a true free market system. It seems like the battle has been lost. But if we look hard enough we'll find a silver lining. That is the mere fact that we have created awareness for so many issues. Google News shows we're making strides.

Take the Fed for example. If you search "Federal Reserve" on Google News, there are 12,300 returns. For a comparison, search "Alabama football" -- the team that just won the BCS National Championship -- and you'll get 14,000 results. That means just a week after one of the biggest sports games in America, the Fed is making news on par with the team that won. Sure, this might be an odd way to measure success but it certainly says something about how far our movement is pushing issues into public opinion. Anyways, just a few years ago -- although I am speculating here -- I bet there wasn't half that number of results for the Fed. Even more, Bernanke is now constantly questioned and his policies analyzed, even by the mainstream media.

A Reason to Be Optimistic

BenLevine16 — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:36:20 +0000

A Reason/Rupe Poll (yes, that is why I choose the title for this article -- pun intended) last September showed some very encouraging data about our generation (18-29 year-olds). The highlights:

About 86% favor a "spending cap that prevents it from spending more than it takes in during a given year"
Roughly 74% favor a "constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget"
38% favor a decrease in spending with no tax increases as the "best way to reduce the national debt," which is the larger than any group supporting tax increases
These young people "overwhelmingly support allowing workers to opt out of Social Security and Medicare at 64 percent and 65 percent, respectively"
38% do not believe they will receive any Social Security benefits when they retire and 44% believe the same is true for Medicare benefits, which "may in part explain their openness to reforming the programs"
62% are open to supporting an independent or third party candidate in 2012

Feds looking to hire six-figure salary "invitations coordinator"

Elliot Engstrom — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:33:39 +0000

As I was going through the news this morning, I found a link to this federal government job listing, looking to hire an "invitations coordinator" for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau. Now, I know it can look like I'm just trying to be mad for the sake of being mad when I see one incident like that and highlight it. But the point is that it's not just one isolated incident, it's part of a trend that has been going on for some time now.

Consider this federal workforce pay chart from USA Today for 2011. Some of these seem completely reasonable. For example, I have no problem with physicians making $184,395 on average, or dentists making $141,012, even if they are working for the federal government and receiving tax money as their salary. Physicians and dentists have unique skills sets that are difficult to acquire and in very high demand.

However, consider some of these other federal jobs along with their average salaries:

Civil rights analyst -- $106,783
Public relations -- $90,560

Soldier in Trouble for Exercising Political Speech

aheram — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:18:25 +0000

A reserve soldier is in trouble after appearing in a campaign event while in uniform:

Cpl. Jesse Thorsen spoke at Paul's post-Iowa caucuses rally to give his support for the Texas congressman and his non-interventionist -- critics say isolationist -- policies calling for strict limits on the use of U.S. military power.
But Thorsen, 28, a reservist who preceded his appearance at the rally with an interview on CNN, was wearing his fatigues, and that is a violation of military code.
According to the Defense Department directive on political activities by military members, active duty forces are encouraged to vote and can sign petitions, serve as polling volunteers, contribute to campaigns and display political bumper stickers on their private vehicles.
However, they may not "participate in partisan political fundraising activities ... rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one's own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement."
They also may not "speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause" or "participate in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate or cause."

Silly soldier thinks he has political rights.

Important Bill: The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011

Bonnie Kristian — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:23:31 +0000

Thanks to Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for sponsoring an important bill to fight the dangerous provisions of the NDAA:

Senator Mike Lee co-sponsored the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, which clarifies that a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens or legal residents who are apprehended in the United States.
“The government’s most basic responsibility is to protect the civil liberties of its citizens,” said Senator Lee. “Our nation has fought wars on American soil and around the world in defense of individual liberty, and we must not sacrifice this most fundamental right in the pursuit of greater security. Without freedom there is no security."
“Americans who commit treason, or plot treasonous acts, should and will be punished for their crimes. But granting the United States government the power to deprive its own citizens of life, liberty, or property without full due process of law goes against the very nature of our nation's constitutional values.”

Read more here. Only 15 Senators have sponsored this bill to date. Click here to see if yours have -- and tell them to if they haven't.

Constitutional Intent Perverted

DMorris — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:55:29 +0000

In 1823 John Taylor wrote a book titled “New Views of the Constitution of the United States.” A strange title for a book written so close to the ratification of the US Constitution, I had originally thought -- however, after reading the book the title is very appropriate and it should be mandatory reading for anyone with a desire to learn the true nature of our government. The secret journals of the Constitutional Convention were not published until 1821 and it was these journals that spurred John Taylor into writing this book:

Had the journal of the convention which framed the constitution of the United States, though obscure and incomplete, been published immediately after its ratification, it would have furnished lights towards a true construction, sufficiently clear to have prevented several trespasses upon its principles, and tendencies towards its subversion. Perhaps it may not be yet too late to lay before the publick the important evidence it furnishes.

It was the opinion of John Taylor that the same men who promoted and argued for a consolidated national government during the convention were the same men who, after the ratification, were attempting to interpret and “construct” meanings from the document that were never intended.

Dave Barry's 2011 Year in Review

Bonnie Kristian — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:38:16 +0000

Libertarian and generally hilarious person Dave Barry has released his annual Year in Review. An excerpt:

In Washington, as the deadline for raising the federal debt limit nears, Congress and the Obama administration work themselves into a frenzy trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the government is spending insanely more money than it actually has. At the last possible minute, they hammer out a historic agreement under which the government will continue to spend insanely more money than it actually has while a very special congressional committee -- A SUPER committee! -- comes up with a plan, by a later date, that will solve this pesky problem once and for all.

Enjoy the whole thing here.