Category Archives: Civil Liberty

Worldwide Police State

The Dec 16, 2011 passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was a dark day in American history. In short it (a) expands the “battlefield” of the “war on terror” to the entire planet and (b) it permits the indefinite detention of a suspect (including US citizens) without any appeal rights. Although this Act has been authorized annually for the last 48 years, this is the first year that it has codified questionable implicit powers. The implicit nature of those powers has always been debatable but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the explicit powers granted basically gut the 4th , 7th and 8th Amendments for any covered person who is “determined to be a member of…a…force that acts in coordination with…al-Qaeda” (Sec 1032(2)(a)). There is a provision in Section 1031 exempting US citizens. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. Only citizens “arrested in the United States” are exempt. If you’re travelling, then all bets are off. Furthermore, that exemption does not apply to Section 1032. Section 1032 “requires” indefinite detainment only for non-US citizens. US citizens meeting the definition of “covered person” for the purposes of Section 1032 may be detained “without trial until the end of the hostilities” in the sole and arbitrary discretion of the Executive branch.

 

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. Benjamin Franklin

 

One problem is that the definition of “covered persons” is open to interpretation. What is a “force”? Perhaps it is an anti-war political movement? Perhaps speech in support of closing military bases and ceasing hostilities in foreign lands could be considered as acting in coordination with al-Qaeda? If you think that’s a stretch think again. History shows that those who believe in the mantra of “the ends justify the means” are willing to justify the most horrific crimes. One recent example of twisted interpretations: would you consider someone that minted silver coins and sold them as being a domestic terrorist? As absurd as that sounds the US government does, as exemplified in the case of Bernard von NotHaus earlier this year. An attorney for the government stated that “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.” If minting coins is terrorism then there is no limit to what the government can arbitrarily slap that label on. And if you don’t think you have anything to worry about because you’re not a terrorist then think again. What would happen if you were mistakenly arrested under the authority of this act and indefinitely detained? Even though you are innocent you have no right to a hearing to prove your innocence. A secret “determination” of your guilt is grounds enough to lock you up. Mistakes happen. This act only works in a world where government is clairvoyant and infallible. And here are a few things that can get you on the potential terrorist watch list: more than 7 days of food in your house, buying flashlights, paying in cash at hotels, texting privately in public, own precious metals or owning guns and ammo (all are public FBI/DOJ/DHS info).

This act starts the slippery slope toward a total police state. Don’t like something, simple, just call it “terrorism” and then lock up offenders without trial for the rest of their lives. And I do mean “the rest of their lives” because the “war on terror” will never end. Real terrorism can never end because it is simply a symptom of our species’ propensity toward violence. You might as well declare war on aggression, jealousy or selfish behavior.

But perhaps what is most frightening is how overwhelmingly it passed (93-7 Senate and 283-135 House). It’s nice to see that Democrats and Republicans can agree on one thing: trampling our rights. As Benjamin Franklin said, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

 

Legalize Stupidity

If you were offered raisins, crickets or pebbles would you prefer that they were chocolate covered or plain? They would seem palatable at first if coated with chocolate, but after a few bites you would know their true nature. Everyone prefers to see things in their unadulterated form if there is risk of ingesting something distasteful. Oddly though this natural preference is artificially negated when we interact with groups of individuals. Some groups (businesses and social organizations) are legislatively required to pretend to be something they are not. In less abstract terms I’m referring to anti-discrimination laws. Before I go further let me dispel any misunderstandings – I am not in any way endorsing or promoting bigoted behavior. It is socially and morally reprehensible… but that does not mean it should be legally reprehensible. Some might say immoral behavior should be outlawed. I disagree; it is not the place of the state to impose morality on society (unless you’d like to live in a theocracy like Iran). If you want someone to adopt your morality, lead by example, not by force.

Our laws treat groups of individuals differently than they treat the individual even though there is no logical basis to do so. For example, if an individual does not allow certain types of people into their home or does not purchase goods from them they are free to engage in such behavior. But if we substitute the word “individual” with “group” and “purchase” with “sell” it suddenly becomes a criminal action. This is arbitrary and illogical. Why is it ok if one person does it but not ok if two people do it? I’m not advocating that we impose anti-discrimination laws on the individual though; rather we should repeal anti-discrimination laws. That does not mean I’m “pro” discrimination. Rather, I’m pro transparency. For example, if you are seeking employment and the government has forced the discriminatory employers to behave as though they are non-discriminatory then how are you going to discriminate yourself between the good and the bad employers? I often read about court cases where people fall into this trap. Only after many years of employment do they finally realize the employer is actually bigoted and they either have to quit or file a lawsuit. Even if they win why would they want to keep working for an employer that they know is bigoted? As an employee I’d much rather know what kind of company I might be working for in advance so I can avoid the jerks and work for an employer that will treat me right. A good employer will flourish in a system where they can attract the productive employees that the shortsighted discriminatory firms are ignoring. In such a system the discriminatory firms will atrophy and die. Why? Because they have restricted themselves to a narrow talent pool that ignores potentially more productive employees. Productive discriminated employees will go to the non-discriminatory firms and help them outcompete the discriminatory firms. Additionally, the public would cease to patronize such discriminatory firms were their true nature known. In other words, the market spontaneously regulates such bad behavior by punishing those groups stupid enough to hold such unacceptable positions.

The knee jerk reaction against the idea of eliminating anti-discrimination laws is based on the faulty premise of believing government is our savior by citing the civil rights laws of the 1960s. Government simply fixed the very problem it had created. Discriminatory Jim Crow laws were upheld and enforced by government fiat. However after nearly 50 years the most serious wrongs have long since been righted. There is no longer a reason to outlaw stupidity. Please, let us see who the stupid people are so we may ourselves discriminate and avoid them entirely.

Decriminalize Immigration

The idea of “illegal” immigration is a silly notion. It’s akin to an “illegal” vacation. Immigration is simply the act of moving from Location A to Location B. Why should permission be required to exercise this right? Up until 1882 (with passage of the non-euphemistically named “Chinese Exclusion Act”) anyone was permitted entry. Immigration laws were tightened further until 1921 when the Temporary Quota Act set “national quotas” and permanently criminalized immigration. And thus a legal harmless act was made “illegal” by arbitrary government fiat.

The RIGHT to immigrate (or emigrate) is distinct from the PRIVLEGE of citizenship. The basic idea is “you’re welcome to come and work and live here and support yourself but don’t expect handouts from the government… if you want a handout then you must become a citizen.” If immigration were properly viewed in this manner it would solve the issue of an overburdened social safety system. If only citizens can utilize the social institutions then you remove all incentives for those with parasitic intentions from immigrating. We would, however, have to change the antiquated citizenship laws that confer citizenship to those born on US soil. Citizenship should be a privilege reserved for those that meet the established criteria or the children of a US citizen.

The most common justification for restricting immigration is that they ‘steal’ jobs from Americans. Hogwash. They are doing the jobs that nobody wants. And when nobody does them, they don’t get done. For example, my family has been buying peaches from a fruit stand on Hwy 441 for several years and we have gotten to know the owners quite well. This past spring Governor Deal signed into law Bill 87 (which enacts severe penalties and mandates in order to curb illegal immigration). So this was the first growing season after that bill passed and recently one of the owners, Amy Bishop, remarked to us that the lack of immigrants had severely affected their business. There are simply not enough pickers. Food is rotting in the fields. The peach harvest was greatly diminished in both quality and quantity. She stated “I’ve thrown away more peaches this year then in 15 years, we lost, at our cost, over a 6 week span over $2000 just on peaches” (due to low quality from lack of tending and higher prices due to diminished supply).

“I’ve thrown away more peaches this year then in 15 years, we lost, at our cost, over a 6 week span over $2000 just on peaches”

With high unemployment you’d think the growers would have people lining up to work. Apparently not. When unemployment compensation can last 2 years it disincentivizes the unemployed to find work when such work might only equal or barely exceed what they already collect for doing nothing at all. Some say the wages for such “menial” jobs are too low to attract Americans to work them. Funny, the immigrants seem to get by just fine. Nevertheless, if the pay is “too low”, then I don’t understand the argument that jobs are being stolen? Stolen from the people that don’t want them?

Many immigrants fill a niche in our economy, the niche of the menial jobs that the native born don’t want. This has been true since this country was founded. The first generation is willing to do the hard work so that their children won’t have to. Removing the immigrants simply leaves those jobs undone, driving up prices. If we don’t want immigrants “mooching” off our big social safety net we need to either make the net smaller or require proof of citizenship for those wishing to partake in a government handout.

Public privacy?

The Atlanta Journal recently reported on plans to increase video surveillance in downtown Atlanta. This was quickly decried as an ever-greater violation of our privacy. That viewpoint rests on a faulty assumption, namely that our right to privacy extends into the public arena. In short, there is no privacy for public actions, only private actions.

The right to privacy is a natural right and as with all natural rights we must act in order to secure this right. Just as we work to secure our right to life, so must we work to provide ourselves with the tools that secure our right to privacy (e.g. shelter and clothing). Once these tools are secured, we have established our private-public boundary. Any uninvited breach (e.g. trespass, eavesdropping, thermal imaging, “peeping”, personal searching, etc.) of that boundary is a violation of our right to privacy.

Once we exit the private realm and enter the public arena there is no longer a boundary (other than clothing) that can be breached. There is no reasonable expectation that we will not be observed or if we are, that it is incumbent upon any observer to cease such observation. Natural rights cannot obligate others to act in order for us to secure our rights. For example, the right to life is sustained by inaction of others (i.e. not killing us). Conversely the right to life cannot obligate others to act unwillingly on our behalf (i.e. provide us with food without anything in return). In the same way, a demand for “privacy” when in public would obligate others to act (e.g. cover their eyes and ears). No person has the right to forcefully obligate another to act on their behalf.

So, if it is unreasonable to expect people to shield their senses from us when we are in public, then: Is it ok for a person to observe another person in public? Is it ok for a person to draw what they publicly observe? Is it ok for a person to more efficiently draw what they publicly observe (e.g. use a camera)? Yes to all, but at this point some might hesitate and suggest permission is required or even “no”. But why? It is an emotional response, as there is no logical difference between observing and drawing versus observing and snapping a photo. The latter is merely a more efficient tool to accomplish the former. I can dig a hole with my hands or with a backhoe. The backhoe is a whole lot more efficient, but both processes are still the same: digging.

Public cameras are merely tools that facilitate that which is unobjectionable (a cop standing on a street corner watching people) to be more efficiently accomplished. Legitimate concerns have been raised that public cameras are wasteful because they don’t accomplish the desired goal in a monetarily efficient manner. Also abuse such as stoplight camera “gaming” (adjusting yellow light duration) is common. Inefficiency and abuse are valid reasons to object to such monitoring, but privacy concerns are not. If our laws only protected natural rights rather than trying to legislate behavior there would be little objection to such monitoring. Absent abuses of power or waste, we should be more concerned with the nature of the laws rather than the method of their enforcement.

 

Privatize Marriage

The right of association is the right to associate with whomever and for whatever reason we please. We can form businesses, churches, private clubs, unions, or a family. Although the US Constitution does not specify this right (the EU and Canadian ones do) I would like to believe all reasonable people would agree we have a right to associate with whomever we please. Oddly enough this “ignored” right still exists today. A man and a woman can live together as can two men or two women or a man and several women. Some may frown upon these associations but there are no laws prohibiting them. So if people can be with whomever they want, then what is the issue concerning non-traditional marriage? The issue is free speech.

Think of it like this: (1) Is it ok to associate with one or more persons? YES (2) Is it ok to publicly proclaim such an association? NO, or rather, it depends. This is true for marriage as well as for other associations. For example, a business can legally announce that it exists (incorporate) only if the business fits into a predefined pigeonhole established by the government (e.g. C-Corp, LLC, etc). Any other structure is “illegal”. Likewise for marriage.

When a couple marries they are saying to the world: “We publicly proclaim that we bind ourselves together and establish mutually beneficial rights and responsibilities – we no longer wish to be in a transient relationship but rather a responsible and enduring one”. The odd thing is that when government definitions of “permissible” associations ignore non-traditional marriage the message is: “Although you are attempting to enter in a mature and responsible relationship, we would prefer you keep it to yourselves and continue living in a manner consistent with a lack of commitment and responsibility.” In other words, attempting to engage in responsible behavior is ignored. Not permitting such public proclamation of the relationship is a restriction of free speech and clearly violates the 1st Amendment.

If people want to associate (marry) that is their right. If a church will do so, great. If it won’t, then too bad (for the couple). The government should not compel private institutions such as churches to operate contrary to their belief structure. Additionally, their right to make such a proclamation does not mean anyone is required to accept it. The lack of use of force runs both ways. I may not stop you from speaking but that doesn’t mean I have to listen or agree with you.

Shifting gears from the political to the lexicological: words mean something. Changing definitions cause confusion. Redefining “marriage” would be like redefining “cars” to encompass motorcycles because they both have wheels and an engine. If the proponents of non-traditional marriage want a word to define their relationship they would do themselves a big favor by coining a new one; I (and others) suggest “pairriage.”

Government is currently the tool that defines what associations are permissible. Each side fights over the tool in an attempt to force their point of view on everyone. The solution is to get rid of the tool. Privatize all associations and remove from government its ability to define permissible relationships.