Sunday, February 21, 2010

Joe Stack proves the TSA should be shut down

The last time I flew on an airplane the TSA took my sunblock away from me, presumably to prevent me from somehow using it to overwhelm the pilot with its gentle eye sting. So that I would be unable to fly that plane into a building a la 9/11. For the service of them taking people's sunblock and water, torturing crippled kids, and taking naked pictures of famous Baliwood stars, it costs something like 6 billion a year. Then some guy flies a private airplane into a building anyway and never even passes by a TSA checkpoint. The TSA might say this is some sort of gap in their security, but the fact is that destruction is much easier than construction and there will always be opportunity for those bent on destruction.

We as a population may not ever prevent all of the Joe Stacks in the world from going crazy and doing something destructive and harmful to innocent people as these are random unpredictable events, but we could force the government to quit their systematic victimization of us all through taxation, regulation, micromanaging of our lives, and simply shut the government down. Choosing instead to pursue voluntary replacements for the coercive “services” the government currently provides.

H/T for picture

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Cop turns off camera, beats up woman, gets fired, but no charges

Don't watch if you get think all cops are heroes, it may force you to re-evaluate your belief system.

There is not enough evidence to pursue criminal action against this cop? I call bullshit on this. If I were to beat my wife like that and a cop came by later, I would be in jail even if I claimed she fell. If she said I beat her, that would be all it would need. Her injuries are not consistent with somebody falling down and that would be obvious to anyone. If this were anyone except a cop accused of beating a HANDCUFFED woman like that, this would lead to prison time. Also I would like to see the part in the procedures where it says to turn off the camera as long as the detainee is still in the room.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

New penny makes me want to barf

It is bad enough that a tyrant responsible for killing 600,000 Americans is on the front of the retched miserable penny that costs more than it is worth (literally). Now they have changed the back.

This from the US mint website:

The 13 vertical stripes of the shield represent the states joined in one compact union to support the federal government, represented by the horizontal bar above. The horizontal bar features the inscription E PLURIBUS UNUM—"out of many, one"—while the inscription UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is depicted along the upper rim of the coin. The union shield, which dates back to the 1780s, was used widely during the Civil War.

A union shield that was used during the civil war to represent the north in the same way the stars and bars represented the south. It was hardly used before or since, it represents a union of the unwilling at any cost. It is disgusting. This comes at a time when the right for states to secede is actually a popular topic of conversation. The federal government has proven its worthlessness so many times that the people of North America should be advocating the removal of themselves from that disaster. A worthless union bound by the threat of violence against its own citizens being glorified by an even more worthless piece of tin that is supposed to be “money” but would not even be accepted as such if it were not for the government forcing people to accept US dollar denominated bills and coins as “legal tender” not backed by anything except a violent state willing to murder anyone who stands up against this counterfeit currency.

It is almost as if the federal government is taunting us by tying the worthless idea of an undivided union with a worthless coin, and leaving Lincoln on the front as an unspoken threat to the states that they better keep in line or else they will go all "Abe Lincoln on your ass".

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Stossel on the Road to Serfdom

I never wrote a post on last week's Stossel about the food police, but it was really fun.

This weeks show was “the road to serfdom”. It was a good episode that focused on the disparity between the government and everyone else as far as pay and benefits (hint: the government parasites have now overwhelmed their host and now make more money and get better benefits, have more job security, all at the expense of those actually producing goods and services that people want so much they are willing to VOLUNTARILY pay for, unlike their counterparts in the government).

It was good to hear them mention Austrian Economics, even though they focused on Hayek, I would have preferred they focused on the ideas of Rothbard, but if it prompts someone to look up Austrian economics it is unlikely that that person would stop at Hayek and not find Mises, Rothbard and other more modern greats like Walter Block. I really like John Stossels show, even though I know he is for some government when it comes to the topics he focuses on I agree with him. He has never done a show talking about whatever he thinks government is good for.

The best part of the show was when Stossel really made government intrusions hit home by showing a nice lady who sells hotdogs in LA, but was thrown in jail because she had the audacity to sell hotdogs wrapped in bacon. Even though she had been selling them this way for 26 years without complaints, some bureaucrat decided that bacon is a health risk if it is sold from a street vendor.

He also talked about San Tan Flat Saloon and their issues with the “authorities” over a local law that banned outdoor dancing. Libertarians and voluntaryists are not the best at spreading our ideas, but these kinds of stories spread the message of liberty far better than most libertarians do. Stories like this show the masses the injustice that comes with government. Then all we have to do as supporters of people living free is to use the injustices to show that the more government you have the more injustice you have.

Government interfering with the market place causes distortions that hurt small business when those distortions are removed

Currently in the land mass I live on called Colorado, there is a bill moving through the legislator to allow grocery stores and convenience stores to sell full strength beer (six point as the kids call it). Right now only liquor stores are allowed to sell it and now the convenience stores are upset because they have seen a dramatic decrease in beer sales since the liquor stores were legally allowed to open on Sundays. So the main opposition to this is the liquor stores, they are up in arms and claim it will mean that they will not be able to stay open.

I feel sorry for everyone involved because they designed their business models based on the reality of an unnaturally distorted market place. However, the government has no role in distorting the market place through protectionist measures. They should have never interfered in the first place. To remove the barriers is to normalize conditions to the most desired outcome based on the needs of the consumer. The reason the liquor store owners do not want this bill is that they know that most consumers would prefer the convenience of being able to buy the beer they want along with other items they are already buying. I understand this, however I also understand that the government used threats to prevent other store owners from selling the products their consumers are demanding.

There should be no restrictions on what products stores are allowed to sell. Would this mean fewer liquor stores if other types of stores were allowed to sell full strength beer and liquor? Probably. I used to live in Nevada where liquor and beer was sold everywhere, there were still liquor stores, but fewer of them than we have in Colorado where they are given a government enforced monopoly on the sale of full strength beer and liquor. This may even mean fewer jobs in the liquor business, but all sales of consumable goods should be about the consumer and not those selling those goods. In the long run the consumer should come first. The competition is likely to lead to lower prices, more selection and more convenience for the consumer. The consumer benefits the most at the place where price, convenience and customer service merge. This place can never be reached if the government interferes in the marketplace.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Just for LOL's I filled out a survey for people running for political office

I am not running for any political office, but I saw this survey on and decided to fill it out. After reading my answers it will become clear why I won't run for office. You can hear the slave speak even in the wording of the questions. So it was difficult to answer a few of these questions as the question itself assumed a statist structure. The author of the questions, Ari Armstrong, is a fairly liberty oriented objectivist most of the time, but his statist colors come out sometimes.


In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

I am not running, but if I were it would be to spread the message that people don't need the state and that voluntary action is always better than coercive action.


* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to "stimulate" the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

NO, all money spent by the government was taken from people who would have used that same money in a more appropriate fashion in an effort to improve their lives, which is a more effective use of that money than the choices some bureaucrat would make.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?


* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

If it were to be altered it should be to make it stronger and eliminate the ability for the government to raise taxes and call them “fees” like the recent car registration fee hike.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

Repealed. It forces the state to pay ever more for public schools, when there should not even be any public schools.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

They should all be repealed. Taxation is theft and is never justified, no matter what altruistic ends some bureaucrat has designed.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Lower, much much lower, like at 0%

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repealed, the minimum wage is evil and forces people who cannot prove a productive value above the minimum wage to into a life of welfare, it targets the mentally and physically challenged as well as youth.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?


* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes all antitrust laws should be repealed, and all government enforced monopolies should be eliminated.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?



* What do you believe is meant by the "separation of church and state," and do you endorse it?

I don't believe there should be a state so if you eliminate the state then this would not be an issue.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

No. Stealing from people is not the basis for charity.

Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars


* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

NO, there should not be any tax funded schools so this should not be a question. People should be free to pay for the kind of education they desire for their kids. Religious or otherwise.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?


* Do you support gay marriage?

I don't believe the government has any place in a marriage contract. Therefore if two adults consent to a marriage contract drawn up privately, I do no care what sex they are.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?


* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

Yes, but it should be up to the private adoption services to decide who they wish to allow to adopt their children and what criteria they follow.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?


* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?


* Do you endorse the "personhood" measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?


* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?


* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?


* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman's life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?


* Should elective abortion be legal?


* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?


* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?


* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?


* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?


* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

Yes, but tax money should not go towards such things.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?



* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

Yes, but I believe free people should be able to travel freely so I reject this idea of legal and illegal crossing of arbitrary lines in the sand that represent government borders. If the land they cross was privately owned then that owner should decide if they are allowed onto his/her land.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?


* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

No welfare should be extended to anyone no matter what plot of land they happened to be born on. We need to eliminate government schools.


* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

There should be no such a thing as eminent domain.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?


* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

Yes, it should be abolished and private individuals who care about these creatures should work in private ways to try and save them.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?



* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?


* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?


* Should the FTC's rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?


* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

First off there should be no need for a concealed carry license and secondly there should be no tax subsidized colleges, private colleges could set their own gun rules.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

The right to protect yourself should be obvious, so all restrictions on gun ownership are invalid and should be repealed.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?


* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?



* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

All drug laws should be repealed. A person has a right to put into their body anything they choose.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

The state should be abolished, therefor no petitions would be needed.

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

We need to end the monopoly on the printing of money.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Tom Tancredo says some stupid crap at the "Tea Party"

Tea party? I was not a big supporter of these so called Tea parties. I thought they were a bit too republican. So I was watching the local news last night and they showed part of Tom Tancredo's speech at this “tea party” convention. He made the claim that illegal immigrants who can't even say “vote” in English were responsible for electing Barack Hussein Obama. This is a ridiculous statement. The idea that the majority of registered democrats who went to the primaries and the caucus's were mostly non English speakers is so absurd on its face to make everything he says not taken seriously. George Bush was so hated that whoever was the democrats nominee was going to win over the republican nominee. Statements like the one by Tancredo are the reason I would not want to be associated with the tea party people. I know that in some earlier incarnations there really were small government types making up the tea parties, but the movement was quickly hijacked by the GOP. I don't know what to think of these tea party events now, but I know that I am embarrassed for people who really are mostly about small government who have now been lumped into a group with the likes of Tom Tancredo.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Voluntaryism is the only path to harmony

On occasion I read a blog or something that tries to explain why the author is not a libertarian/voluntaryist. They normally all break down the same way.

The main objection always seems to be that they have a perceived problem or a lifeboat scenario that they can come up with to try and justify the need for a coercive monopoly on force rather than a voluntary interaction between two parties. The causes change, the stories change, but the final conclusion is always the same, they believe it points out a need for governmental aggression.

The problem is that what one person considers a pressing problem is different from what another person considers a pressing issue, and the issues are never clear cut. The methods always have negative side effects, and the benefits of government force are rarely as great as promised. For instance let's say that I determine that a road needs to be built between town A and town B and that this justifies me taking the land in-between by force to accommodate my new road. I will also need tax money to pay for the new road. This is a pretty simple example and one based on real events that occur all of the time, not just some made up lifeboat setup. Still it is one that the majority of people probably believe justifies the use of force.

Let's think about this for a second. First let's say I am right and that road would be a boon for society and would make everyone in these towns much happier wealthier and wiser. If the consensus is 100% in the area that the road would be a great thing, then I should have no problem buying the land from the current owners as they know that the road will improve the value of their remaining land that abuts against the new road. If they are unwilling to sell then there really isn't a consensus that the new road is such a good idea. Also it is unlikely that there would be universal agreement that the path I laid out for the new road is the best path for the road to take, maybe my path bypasses a town that really wants the new road to pass by them. Then let's say that I am going to demand a tax of $1000 per person that lives in towns A and B because they are the ones who will benefit from this new road. Then I have detractors who say that the road could be built for half the amount I am looking to spend. I have other detractors who say that even if the average benefit to town A and B is going to be the dollar equivalent of $1000 per person that the benefit is not equally distributed and that a few people will benefit by many thousands of dollars while other benefit very little and so an equal tax on everybody to pay for my road is really a wealth transfer from the many to the few. Suddenly the justification for the use of force to build my road is much less clear, and the most moral solution is to build my road from private funds put up by those who stand to profit the most from it and to create a path where I have the cooperation of the land holders along that path. Does this mean that my road will be perfectly straight? Maybe not, but because it was built and funded through voluntary means will ensure that it does not create a huge controversy in the community about the cost, the path, who benefits, and where the road should go. Voluntary action creates harmony, force creates disharmony. Does that mean everyone will be happy with the end result? No, but those who are unhappy with it probably were not the people who put up their land and money to see the road created so they can complain, but they really have very little say in the situation and if they had really wanted more say they could have put up their own money and land before the road was built. In the current paradigm of government force, everyone thinks they have an equal say because everyone was forced to pay for these kinds of projects.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

TSA trouble, OTN's Sam encounters the TSA in Detroit

If you haven't seen this yet, it is great. Sam "balls of steel" Dotson, confronts TSA agents on their own turf. There were a couple of moments when I felt like he went a little too far, but sometimes you have to go that extra step in order to get people thinking. My favorite part was in the second or third video when he told one TSA agent that another agent had been acting suspiciously because she stood in line at the chicken place and then never ordered chicken and he should investigate.

The local Detroit news ran a story about this video series. It is ridiculous. They open with there is a group of “vigilante journalists who go to airports” then they continually repeat the idea that Sam is a group of people instead of just one person who happened to have a layover in Detroit while traveling for the Christmas Holiday. I have never heard the term “vigilante journalist” before in my life so I have to assume that this is just some bullshit made up be these fake journalists who dominate the TV news industry.

This video really shows how slipshod “professional” journalists can be and why more and more people are turning to blogs and independent journalists for their news. Even in this case, the only real investigation done was them watching Sam's video, no other footage was used except fake TV journalist guy holding a video camera up and babbling some bullshit that has no basis in fact. These "reporters" did not interview either Sam or any of the TSA agents, they didn't check to find out if he was alone or with a group, they didn't bother to see if he is even part of a group that calls themselves "vigilante journalists" which is just something they made up.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Colorado Spring Police lie about blood-alcohol level results on massive scale, ruining hundreds of peoples lives

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- The number of flawed Colorado Springs police DUI tests has doubled to 167 since a crime lab audit last year discovered that some blood-alcohol results were inflated, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported.

How many people have been effected by this apparently systematic deception over the years? Getting busted for DUI can ruin a persons life, but in Colorado Springs the police made a habit out of ruining peoples lives based on falsified data. The Colorado Springs government is having to cut their budget, but they are not really looking very hard at cutting back on the police even though they have proven themselves to be as or more harmful to the population than the criminals they are supposedly “protecting” people from. Instead of firing these criminals, the city government people are claiming that they don't have enough money to have trash cans in the parks!