More Bees with Honey Than Boiled Squid

There was a freak-fest on Peachtree Street today. More accurately, there was a libertarian "End the Fed" rally at the Federal Reserve building in Atlanta. Unfortunately, it became a freak-fest. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't dislike the eccentric, quirky, and colorful people that came to protest a truly awful institution. I was with them. Most of them were reasonable and intelligent. Unfortunately, ten people marred the face of the gathering. The other forty of us were normal or as normal as libertarians can be. What could have been an event promoting sympathy and even support for a worthy cause became a political circus act.

These ten consisted of three "9/11 Truthers", 2 people warning us about the New World Order, and 5 gun toting activists. I'm not sure what exactly the gun guys official stance was, but they liked the U.S. Constitution, hated the Federal Reserve, and carried semi-automatic WWII-era assault rifles with clearly displayed ammunition. Yes, they were carrying assault rifles as a part of a demonstration against a bank. These three fringe elements were spread through the crowd, and they were very vocal. If I had seen this rally a year ago, I would have thought the whole group was insane. I'm sure that many people driving or walking by DID think that.

Unfortunately, this is pandemic in the libertarian movement. It's not that all, or even many, libertarians believe in conspiracy theories, but that our rallies and other events are being hijacked by a fringy and unstable minority. We give other people the impression that we believe the crazy stuff. By rallying with radicals, we allow ourselves to become linked with people who do not represent our policies, our thought process, or our convictions. We allow the best belief system that exist, the supremacy of liberty, to be mixed with half-hashed theories worthy of a C-grade novel.

People judge you based on your friends. They judge ideas based on the ideas they're linked with. We can't afford to contaminate our best ideas with another person's crazy notions. Liberty activists must learn to deliver a clear message.

We have to clean up the message we present at rallies and other public events. We can do that pretty easily.

First, understand the purpose of the event. Why are you gathering? What will you achieve with this event? What are the goals? You can't very well achieve a goal you haven't set. In the context of a demonstration like a rally, what message are you trying to communicate, and to whom are you trying to communicate it? If you don't know your message, neither will anyone else. Your event is guaranteed to fail.

Second, and possibly most importantly, LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE EVENT! Pick specific issues and push them hard. Don't cross-contaminate them. This allows you to be more efficient with your time. Picking specific issues can also help rally more support for your cause. Left-wing democrats will join you in protesting war, but not in a anti-war, anti-taxes, Ron Paul 2012 rally.

Third, make sure the purpose of the event is clear to participants. We want attendance at our events, but remember the goal. Does an "End the Fed" movement benefit from signs and demonstrations protesting TSA Screenings? I don't see how. When organizing the event, communicate to group leaders its intended goals, and make sure they're willing to limit themselves to that. Make it clear that you do not want to mix issues.

Finally, both organizers and participants need to be respectful of others' time and efforts. If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you're free to declare that. It's not fair to inject that into an event they organized for a different purpose. Committing to an "End the Fed" event then arriving with a "Legalize Marijuana" sign is not honest. In the business world we call that fraud. People are committing their time to the rally. Respect that. If you want to spread your theory on the "New World Order", you're welcome to hold your own rally. Don't hijack mine.


Remember our philosophy is correct. The cause of liberty is the most noble pursuit you can become involved with. I love liberty, and I want to work effectively towards it. These confused masses that pretend to be organized protests do not help that. If you want to help the movement, learn to get organized, and learn to stick with the message.

A Three Paragraph Fix

In three paragraphs, I can resolve most of the issues that divide the two political parties in this country. Maybe these paragraphs will require some supporting application, and maybe I'm not the author, but we'll set that aside for a minute.

Here goes:

1.Everyone has the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three elements necessary to preserving life; each element requires the others, and cannot be understood without them.

2.If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, then a number of men have the right to combine together to form a group to defend their rights, property, and liberty.

3.If this is true, then the group's reason for existing, and its lawfulness, rest in individual right; and the group can't rationally have any other purpose than that of the isolated forces, the individual, for which it is substituted. So, if an individual cannot lawfully damage the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual, then for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes.

That's it. If everyone followed the logic laid out in these three paragraphs by Frederic Bastiat, I modernized them to reflect the 150 years since they were written, politics would be ridiculously simple.

Apply this idea to two scenarios:

1.The Republicans author legislation to ban gay marriage.

2.Democrats raise taxes to pay for nationalized healthcare.

Take the first.

1.Republicans author legislation to ban gay marriage. If we apply the logic of Bastiat to this legislation we'd face this: As an individual, I have no authority, or right, to tell anyone they must or can't marry, no matter how reprehensible, distasteful, and downright gross I find the union. The government is just the combination of my authority with the authority, or rights, of a bunch of people just like me. None of us have the authority to prohibit the marriage, so together we don't have the authority or the right to prohibit it. It's wrong to do something you don't have a right to do, so it's wrong to pass this ban.

The second is just as easy.

Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for nationalized healthcare. I don't have the right to take money from my neighbor, no matter how much someone else needs it. The government is the combination of my authority, or rights, with the authority, or rights, of a bunch of people just like me. None of us have the right to take anything that's not freely given from anyone else, so together we don't have the authority, or the right, to take anything from anyone. It's wrong to do something that you don't have a right to do, so it's wrong to raise taxes to pay for nationalized healthcare.

These are two simple cases, and there are cases where it gets more complicated. Externalities exist (e.g. a factory producing dense fumes that ruin the air quality for you town.) In most cases this rule is easily enough applied, that it could go a long way towards clearing up the hypocrisy found in both parties of American politics.

A Fallacy of Anti-Gay Legilslation

Many who argue for Proposition 8 in California and for similar legislation use a common fallacy to establish their position. They say that because many countries with laws friendly to gay "marriage" subsequently pass laws restricting anti-gay speech, such legislation must be a necessary consequent of allowing gay "marriage."

The following is my response to a dear friend of mine who raised this objection. My response includes, in part, my broader view on the subject. I was so impressed with myself- I always sound intelligent when I read my own writing at 2am- that I decided to post it here. It was much easier than rewriting the whole thing as a separate post. Here it is:

I read the article you sent me and I see the correlation between state
acknowledgment of the gay union and the abridgment of free speech. I
still don't see that the logic supports the notion that "If we stop
this discrimination based on sexual orientation, then we will lose our
liberty to speak freely." It's a non sequitor. There are two issues
that I see. The first is the government restriction of gay "marriage".
The second is the assault on liberty to express oneself. While there
is certainly a correlation between the two, but it's not a conditional
relationship. I think there's a very simple explanation for the
correlation.

When a pro-gay majority takes power-like in Canada, Ireland, Sweden,
New Zealand, the Netherlands, etc- they will obviously remove
restrictions on gay "marriage". That much is an obvious first step. At
that point, they have done nothing to restrict anyone's liberty to
express themselves. They do tend to take that step, but this isn't
because they have removed the ban on gay unions. It's because of the
idea that government has a place in restricting expression at all. The
restriction on liberty comes from a government wiling to interfere in
individual's lives; The anti-freedom laws are not a by-product of the removal of "marriage" restrictions, but of having a pro-gay majority who is using
state power to strike at the ideology they don't like.

The mirroring possibility is an anti-gay government who believes in
using state power to restrict liberty by banning gay marriage. When
they are in power, they will enact laws like Prop-8 in California, or
like the late ant-sodomy laws in Texas and other states.

So to stage this logically, we have a pair of bi-conditional
statements. "If the government believes in using state power to
enforce its viewpoint, and if the government is pro-gay, then anti-gay
laws will be removed, and then the government will act against the
viewpoint they disagree with." That's one bi-conditional. The other
is, "If the government believes in using state power to enforce its
viewpoint, and if the government is anti-gay, then there will be laws
prohibiting gay behavior or that assign some sort of punitive
restriction to homosexuality."

Right now America is somewhere between these two polarities. The first
condition is already a reality. Government clearly believes in using
state power to enforce viewpoints. Theirs been a push for that sort of
legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Anti-hate speech
legislation is already the law. The second condition is clearly moving
towards the pro-gay left, at least among the political movers and
shakers.

So why not attack the real issue? Fight the cancer of government
intervention in private life. That would destroy the only real threat
the gay movement poses to the rest of us. Without state intervention
in private life, there is no legislation attacking free expression. If
the Right does that while Conservatives/libertarians/Republicans have the

power, then they claim the mantle of protecting freedom. Everyone will
support that. If we wait till a leftist coalition is in power, then
the Right will simply look like bigots trying to make sure they can criticize those to whom they have an aversion.

Beyond it being the right thing to do, this would also give the right wing access to the large block of gay, fiscally conservative urban votes that currently swear enmity to Republicans. That could
change the whole shape of politics in San Fransisco (imagine, no Nancy
Pelosi!) and in Atlanta.

That doesn't seem like idealistic dreaming to me, but like the only
policy that makes any sense. Boiled down to one thought, my stance
could be this: The solution to too much state power (restricting
anti-homosexual speech), cannot possibly be more state power
(government regulation of marriage). The solution is to abolish state
authority over the individual. Water never saved a drowning man.

Department of Corruption

Why is the Justice Department (DoJ) filing suit against Arizona over the state's new immigration law? It's probably motivated by the upcoming elections. I say that because if the case goes to the Supreme Court, the DoJ can't win! The Supreme Court has already ruled in a very similar case. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that questioning someone who's already in custody on their immigration status does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The summary of the ruling, found on Cornell Law's website is pretty straightforward. Full text for the ruling can be found on that page.

2. The officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary appears premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to so question Mena. However, this Court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434. Because Mena’s initial detention was lawful and the Ninth Circuit did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, no additional Fourth Amendment justification for inquiring about Mena’s immigration status was required. Cf. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. Pp. 7—8.

So why even pursue the case? They will lose. Unless overturning the law isn't their objective. If their objective was to make some noise, and show the Latino population who's on which side of the immigration debate, then they're succeeding.

Latino voters, consistently in the Democratic bag, aren't excited like they were in 2008. According to a recent CNN article, 2010 could have a very low Latino turnout, because Latinos aren't happy with the party in power.

In a year where the Democrats badly need support to avoid heavy losses in both Houses, isn't it convenient that the DoJ is making it so clear where the Democrats stand on illegal immigration? With 50 million Latino votes in the country, excitement in the Latino community for the Democrats could be the 11th hour rescue for the incumbent party.

This filing by the DoJ comes at a time close enough to the midterms to at least raise some eyebrows. The DoJ could very well be filing this suit just to draw the battle lines, and to drum up attention. They can't win the case, but they can win attention.

Cowardice in the State Department

What is it about the State Department and its tepid and gutless refusal to condemn injustice? In yesterday's State Department briefing, Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, had two good opportunities to boldly and decisively condemn the flagrant affront to liberty that is Iranian adultery law. He didn't even make an effort. Here's the transcript:

QUESTION: I know this issue’s been addressed previously, but Amnesty International is saying that the stoning execution in Iran is imminent, that it will imminently take place. Have there been any developments on this from the U.S. front? Has the U.S. made any appeals? Obviously, there are no diplomatic relations, but has the U.S. – does the U.S. have anything more to say on this case?

MR. TONER: Well, we’re deeply troubled by press reports of the planned execution by Iranian authorities of Ms. Ashitiani by stoning. Stoning, as a means of execution, is tantamount to torture. It’s barbaric and an abhorrent act. The recent United States General – United Nations General Assembly resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran called specifically on Iranian authorities to end the practice of stoning. We call on the Iranian authorities to live up to their due process commitments under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. And we condemn in the strongest terms of the use of the practice of stoning anywhere it occurs as a form of legalized death by torture.

Go ahead, Courtney.

QUESTION: Actually mine is the same question. But the British foreign minister has been – was a little bit stronger than that in his condemnation of this and beyond just the idea that it would be an execution by stoning, but the fact that this woman is being held at all for adultery. I mean, is there – has the U.S. made any kind of – I know there’s not strong diplomatic ties between Iran, but has the U.S. made any kind of more assertive effort to stop this or work through intermediaries to --

MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think the language I just used was pretty strong in condemning the practice of stoning. I probably would need to get back to you on what, if any, diplomatic channels we’ve been pursuing. But obviously, we’re taking a strong public stance against it as a barbaric practice.

Given two opportunities, he condemned the practice of stoning, but ignored the fundamental issue. A woman is being executed for adultery. Whether by stoning, lethal injection, or smothering her with hugs (I suppose that last would be forbidden by Sharia law), SHE DIES ANY WAY.

As the supposed leader of the free world, the United States ought to decry the injustice of the abhorrent laws restricting liberty that are being enforced against this woman. The State Department instead decries "the practice of stoning." Stoning isn't the human rights violation, but arresting Ms. Ashitiani in the first place is.

"Courtney" gives Mr. Toner a chance to clarify the S.D. position, and come out against the true injustice and not just the barbarity of stoning. She even cites the Brit Foreign Minister, who apparently gets it, but Mr. Toner refuses to man up to the question.

There is an utter lack of courage in the State Department, and in our government all together. America is not, and will not be, a beacon of liberty unless we are clearly and vocally enemies of oppression and tyranny, wherever it rears its head.