An Image to Sum Up The NYC Mosque “Issue”.

LOL! Click!

Just a quick little blurb because I am sick to death of the media spin and all of the Statist rhetoric! Like I wrote on Twitter anyone who can’t see the issue in banning an individual or company from using their private property to celebrate free speech is less American than terrorists who attack America

If you ban a Muslim place of worship what would stop a Jewish or Buddhist place of worship from being banned? If you have an issue please see a dictionary and look up “private property”. If you really have an issue with it then pool some people, pool your money and buy the property.

Despite what a lot of you Statists may think, America isn’t a Christian nation. It is void of an official religion. Get over it. The government has no business regulating free speech. Were the attacks horrible? Of course! However, banning the building of this mosque would be the equivalent of banning German ownership of buildings in Israel. Foolish! This is not an action you want your government to take. (You don’t really want a government to take any action in anything haha!)

Anyway, the image speaks for itself.

Police Abuse Their Power at a Football Match and… Just Watch

Do I support violence? No. Do I support Police using excessive force on a skinny twenty-something year old kid overcome by passion at a Football match? Fuck no! There were 4+ security guards on one skinny kid, did they need to begin stabbing him with a baton over and over? No. This was unacceptable.

The gentleman who ran on to the field did in fact violate the rules of the private institution and for that he is guilty. Moving this over into the realm of a market anarchy the violator would be tackled and removed from the stadium. Would he be beaten like that when he is clearly not resisting? Probably not, the risk to violate an individual would be too great. In the event they did the violating security force would no doubt lose business and be subject to some sort of arbitration. If the kid was stabbing players or trying to harm someone then I can see the need for immediate force. The video shows though, he was not.

What is very acceptable is the power of people to band together and rise up against injustice and abusive force. Should they have attacked the police? The answer is no, violence is never the answer, but when you abuse your authoritarian power on someone who has not committed a violent crime this is the result. It would have ended much better if the mob of people simply rescued the victim and broke up the altercation. Victimizing the security team makes them just as guilty in regard to rights violation as the violent security team. Alas, nothing in life is perfect.

In Regard to Illegal Police Searches

Just doing their job! Right?

The other night a few of my friends were at a local concert. Most were inside or roaming around the parking lot of a privately rented building to host the show. Within minutes the place was swarming with Police cars and officers. A group of a few officers approached a vehicle with a group of kids in it and proceeded to have them get out of the car and place their hands on the roof. The officers began to search the kids, their possessions, and the car all the while ignoring the cries and pleas of each individual. All of them individually exclaimed they had a right to not be searched. The police ignored these proclamations and violated their right to privacy nonetheless.

Situations like this are becoming more and more common. Police, using their monopoly of force have a nearly unregulated existence and with that can freely violate the rights of individuals at will. Cop-out laws like “reasonable suspicion” enable these legal mobsters to take advantage of nearly any situation and sway it to their advantage. Reasonable suspicion is defined as:

“The legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.

While reasonable suspicion does not require hard evidence, it does require more than a hunch. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually insignificant, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. For example, police may have reasonable suspicion to detain someone who fits a description of a criminal suspect, a suspect who drops a suspicious object after seeing police, or a suspect in a high crime area who runs after seeing police.”

With loose definitions like this Police have an in at any given moment to detain you and frisk you. The law states it requires “more than a hunch” but what is the legal definition of a hunch? And at what point is a hunch acceptable? This a major problem with State supplied “security”, which is itself a contradiction. Police have little to do with security and much more to do with instability and coercion than any accused “criminal”. The point is these officers violated the 4th amendment rights of everyone in that car. Now the question remains, what can be done?

The short answer is file a complaint, the long answer is nothing. In this country and many others like it we rely on the State to regulate itself. Lets break that down. We count on the State, an entity with unlimited power to regulate itself, in the event it violates a rule that it wrote for itself. Does anyone see the problem with that? What good will filing a complaint do if the complaint is filed with the very company or “police force” that violated you? It is good for nothing! There is no vested interest on the side of the violating police firm because they only have to answer to themselves. Are we beginning to see the severe disconnect here? Asking the State provided monopolistic Police force to punish and regulate themselves is like asking the murderer to think about being less of a murderer “next time”. It just contradicts itself.

So what can really be done? Well unfortunately until there is a massive privatization of security and police not much at all. The best thing to do is educate yourself in the proper procedure when dealing with the countries largest street gang, ie. the police. A great website called Flex Your Rights has many great videos and great tutorials on the proper code of conduct when presented with a police run in. I suggest that every person who steps out of their bed take the time and read or watch the videos there. You can never know too much! The other option is contact your local civil rights organization. Groups like the ACLU may be able to help you.

Remember you don’t ever have to talk to an officer of the law. You have a right to remain silent. If you are asked to allow a search a few simple words like “I’m sorry Officer, I don’t consent to any searches” can save you a lot of trouble! Knowing how to ask if you are free to go is also an important aspect to dealing with these run ins. Arm yourself with knowledge and hope that you only deal with officers who understand and value the rights of citizens. Don’t hold your breath for that though.

“An appeal to the constitution implies that it is the job of the state to solve the problem of the state. Immediate fail.”

The Market and Net Neutrality

A glimpse into the future? Click and see.

I was ranting and raving all day on Twitter in regard to the proposed Google/Verizon net neutrality deal announced today. The Internet as expected is up in arms as they should be. Google and Verizon are effectively attempting to limit the Internet. They would feed the Internet to big business and let them decide what sites you can see, use, and sign up with. So what to do?

People are quick to beg and plead with the government to step in and stop this but the government is the reason this is an issue. Verizon and Google would have no way to monopolize the Internet so long as the government doesn’t grant them the exclusive right to do so! Think about electric companies where you live. How many can you choose from? In most cases only one! Why is that? Nine times out of ten it is because those companies have contracts with the government to monopolize a certain area. Same goes for cable tv, gas, and oil companies. Government is in fact granting these monopoly contracts that completely remove the free market competition and pander to big business. It is *illegal* for another company to provide energy or cable television in those areas. This is precisely what would happen in the event the Internet is more or less “given” to Verizon and Google. We now know that the government is not the answer to the net neutrality problem.

What we need is a market response. Should these policies be enacted one would hope that the market response would be negative. This would bring about a large spike in DSL service. Independent companies that provide Internet service that don’t piggy back from Verizon or Google equipment would see a huge spike in subscribers. As the old saying goes “necessity is the mother of invention” and in this event much like the early 90′s cable and satellite battles, and the current telecom battles which saw a rise in VOIP services (Vonage, Skype, Fring). One would be safe in assuming that new technology would naturally arise to combat these corporatist evils. Keeping all of this in mind it leads us to one natural conclusion and battle plan.

Do nothing. Let Google and Verizon attempt to corner the Internet, their fate will be worse than anything they could propose. Their fate will see market shares disappear. They are doing more harm than good. I for one (and I know there are many more like me) would refuse to use such a service. I would no longer remain a patron of Google, simple as that. I don’t use Verizon so I am already all set with that. As they lose users they lose profits. These companies will suffer the same fate that any corporation which doesn’t respect the free market suffers. They will simply be replaced by a new Google and a new Verizon.

Allow them to alienate themselves to their entire user baseĀ  and just hope a pray that big nanny government doesn’t grant them these exclusive monopolies! That is the true evil and the true danger. Trust the market.

To jump-start your Anti-Google movement start using http://www.startpage.com and have your privacy protected!

The Enemy of the State

Murray N. Rothbard, the founder of Anarcho-Capitalism and modern libertarianism.

Today, rather than celebrate independence, I choose to honor the true enemy of the state Murray N. Rothbard. His Anarcho-Capitalist system of a stateless society dictated by market forces, and protected by a simple code that no individual has a right to aggress against another’s person or property spawned a revolution.

Before his death in 1995 Murray Rothbard was considered by some to be the most dangerous man on the planet, a true honor. This distinction was not rendered from any ability to command an army of violent aggressors, or execute hundreds of thousands of innocent people. This distinction came from his noted brilliance in politics and economics.

A man of character, peace, and integrity he never raised a hand in aggression, never committed an act of violence, never struck a foul blow against any individual. His “crime” was his ability to educate and expose the ills and corruptions of any established State.

To this very day, through his teachings and brilliant contributions the inner workings of any State shake and crumble beneath his pen. A lack of an “independence day” is in honor of his fight against tyranny, Statism, and government coercion. Today I pay tribute to my hero Murray Rothbard.

“The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism.”
– Murray N. Rothbard.

Rest in peace.