Can Individuals Delegate a Right They Don’t Have to the Government? -Video

Amazon.com – Read eBooks using the FREE Kindle Reading App


Jan: Can you properly delegate a right you do not have?

Sen. Inoue: You cannot tax your neighbor, but you can authorize me as a senator to vote for programs that will tax your neighbor…

Jan: Then you think that you can actually delegate a right you do not have? …It is interesting to me how the agent can have more power than the principle. If the principles are the people, and the source [of power] comes from the people, the individuals do not have the right to initiate force against others-

Sen. Inoue: As individuals-

Jan: Well, if they get together then all of the sudden they have the right?

Sen. Inoue: If they authorize the government to do so, yes. If they authorize the government to enter into a war and kill people, that’s a right.

Jan: Where does this right come from if it doesn’t come from the people?

Sen. Inoue: The people through the Constitution.

Jan: The Constitution was made by the people right? So then the people are the source of all legitimate power, so if the people did not have the right to initiate physical force against anybody, then the government cannot have- It seems like there’s a contradiction there as far as if you say that all legitimate governmental power is derived from the people, and you agree that the individual citizens do not have the right to initiate force against other citizens, then it would seem clear that they cannot delegate that right to the government.

Sen. Inoue: Why don’t we just leave it this way, we disagree.

What Jan Helfeld is saying is that if a citizen does not have the right to do something as an individual (like rob their neighbor), then what gives the government the right to rob his neighbor on the citizen’s behalf? If the government derives its power from the people, where does this extra power come from, that the people can never exercise as individuals?

What is so magic about government, that suddenly they can act on an individual’s behalf in a way that the individual could never act on his own? What is so magic about a group of individuals that allows them to rob their neighbor, or initiate force, when said force would always be illegitimate as an individual?

There’s nothing magic about it. It is wrong to initiate force as an individual, and it is also wrong to initiate force as a group, even with approval of the majority. The only legitimate way to take someone’s money (time, labor, wealth) is for them to voluntarily hand it over to you. Otherwise it is theft, even if the government is the robber.

Charity versus taxation is the difference between sex and rape.


Interview on Free Talk San Franciso

Check out an interview from last week that I did about my novel, Anarchy in New England. Host Steven started Free Talk San Francisco, and was kind enough to invite me on as a guest! We discus adaps (advertiser’s apartments) and pod tunnels from the novel, private police, and free markets.

PorcFest X Video

The Porcupine Freedom Festival at Roger’s Campground in Lancaster New Hampshire was a blast. The Free State Project’s 10th annual summer festival was a mixture of Republicans, Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, Constitutionalists, and even some Democrats. You couldn’t walk ten feet from your campsite without seeing someone carrying a gun, because these people like to exercise their rights. In fact I felt incredibly safe the entire time I was attending the event, and go figure no one got shot despite the multitude of rifles and handguns being carried. There were no problems at all in fact, no police required, no accidental discharges, no fights, just a bunch of like-minded people looking out for each other and enjoying their time together.

The camaraderie was amazing. I don’t think everyone who attended Buzz’s Big Gay Dance Party was gay, but everyone was having a blast. I think it means a lot to the gay community to show that acceptance is something they will find among the ranks of Libertarians. I have been to other events similar in size and revelry; concerts and such, and you always seem to see a few out of control drunk folks, and some tough guys looking for a fight. Well there were plenty of tough guys, but no one was looking for a fight, and even the drunk people were in control. This was a self policing event where we all knew that we had something in common, we knew we were ambassadors to the limited government (or no government for the Anarcho-Capitalists) ideology, and therefore we kept ourselves and others out of trouble.

There were at least 5 State Representatives from New Hampshire at the festival, and I believe there are currently 9 Free State Project participants who are in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Mark Warden and Michael Garcia are two of the Free State Project’s elected reps, each representing a different side of the aisle, but each having almost identical voting records. States rights and keeping New Hampshire in control of its affairs is a major part of the movement. Free Staters have also introduced legislation to legalize cannabis, lower taxes, and protect New Hampshire from federal law through nullification.

Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nominee, gave a great speech which covered multiple liberty oriented topics. One thing I found interesting about this libertarian crowd though, was the unwillingness to take what Johnson said as gospel. Throughout most of his speech the crowd agreed, and applauded heartily; you could see Gary Johnson stickers on a large percentage of cars at the campground. But most of the people involved in Porcfest are pretty ideologically consistent, which is why there were boos heard when Gary Johnson expressed support for the flat tax. Most people in attendance agreed that there should be no income tax at all, which is why Gary Johnson was not met with praise in that particular segment. Still, he brushed it off, laughed and said that it would be a step in the right direction. But the crowd was friendly, so I think Johnson understood that when some audience members disagreed, it was more teasing than anything else; he handled it well.

It was such a refreshing few days to be amongst the friendliest, most fun people I have met in a long time. I am planning on attending this event on a yearly basis. It keeps growing each season and people from all across the country were in attendance this year. Check back here for more discussion on other speakers and the concept of Anarcho-Capitalsim.

Here is a video I put together from some footage I took at Porcfest. (I re-uploaded it after the sound was muted because I used a Pink Floyd song. Now there’s no background music, and it is silent for the first minute or two).

Obama Video Clips: Responding to NSA Snooping

“You can’t have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience, we’re going to have to make some choices” -President Obama. First of all, we do not have 100% security; Obama is acting like the USA has a zero crimes rate, and no terrorist attacks, and all that people have to put up with is a little intrusion into their internet history. On top of the crime and terror attacks, we have just learned that the government agency the IRS targeted conservative and Tea Party groups based on their political persuasions.

Is it really a stretch to think that another government agency would not target specific groups based on politics? With the IRS we have a chance of getting to the bottom of things, but any questions the NSA does not want to answer can just be brushed off as “classified information”. But don’t worry, they say, we have the proper oversight in place, and we do not target Americans–trust us. I guess Ben Franklin’s warning is falling on deaf ears these days, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Some variations of the quote include the phrase, “and will lose both”.

 

Watching the following clip brings to mind Saturday Night Live more-so than a Presidential Press Conference. “And if people can’t trust, not only the executive branch, but also don’t trust congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process, and rules of law, then we’re going to have some problems here” -President Obama. People should not be asked to blindly trust the sections of a government that have let them down on numerous occasions.

Is Obama saying that Tea Party groups should trust that the government will not target them because of their political beliefs? Should the press trust that the Justice Department won’t target them for saying negative things about the government? Should soldiers and ambassadors trust that America will keep them safe overseas, and not misrepresent events for political purposes? Trust is something that is earned, and being elected President or to Congress is not sufficient to earn the trust of Americans, nor should it be. A healthy skepticism of government will keep them honest, while blindly believing that the government will do the right thing leaves the door wide open for abuse of power, and the erosion of rights.

 

I found the following line especially amusing, in a depressing sort of way; “The people who are involved in America’s national security, they take this work very serious, they cherish our constitution. The last thing they’d be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody’s phone calls” -President Obama. And I am sure the last thing the IRS would be doing is auditing conservatives because they donated to a Republican. And probably the last thing the DOJ would be doing is tapping the phones of the press because they reported unfavorable things about the administration. In fact, I might go so far as to say the IRS and DOJ take their work very seriously, and cherish our constitution.

The government has proven to Americans beyond a reasonable doubt within the last few months that they cannot be trusted, that they will lie to make themselves look good and their opponents look bad, and that they have no problem harassing and suppressing media outlets and political groups for their own personal political gain. Obama can say what he wants, but his credibility is gone.

Papers Please: Police Are Out of Control

Local police are in serious need of being reigned in for their behavior towards innocent civilians who have not been charged with anything. Just for being in public, there is no legal justification for a police officer to force anyone to show their identification. Our Fourth Amendment rights clearly protect us from unreasonable searches by law enforcement. Multiple court cases have also clearly upheld the right to videotape police officers performing their jobs in public, despite what seems like the majority of police officers lying to their victims that such an act is illegal. Overzealous police officers are also more likely to shoot an innocent civilian by mistake, compared to non-officers, yet we are expected to rely on them for safety, and relinquish our own right to self defense.

When plainclothes police officers raided the wrong home on faulty drug informant information, a women understandably thought it was a home invasion. She told her 61 year old husband to get their gun, which he did and fired at the plain clothes police who then fatally fired back. Full article.

A 22 year old man and member of the National Guard was shot by police in the early morning and died, after being pulled over for cutting off a police van. The police claim he reached under hit seat for a gun, despite the fact that his passenger, a coworker who he was driving home from work, says he kept his hands on the wheel at all times. The police later claimed a power drill was mistaken for a gun. The women in the passengers’ seat claims it was an incident of road rage by the angry police officers. Full article.

In 2005 a young man named Fouad Kaady was driving with a container of gasoline to assist his father, when the gas caught fire, also igniting Fouad, who then crashed. He was reported as badly burnt and walking naked down the highway after the accident. The police found him sitting naked indian style and essentially catatonic. For some reason, they told him to roll onto his stomach, despite the fact that burnt flesh could be seen hanging from his body, as well as lacerations, all over his blood covered body. When he refused to comply–when this in shock, dazed, severe burn victim who had just been in a bad accident and was quite obviously in extreme need of medical attention refused to comply–the officers tased him with two separate tasers. This is apparently when the victim of the car crash became a victim of police brutality. After being tased, the man reportedly jumped to his feet, and ran at officers (or in some direction, remember he had just been tased and in a severe accident) at which point he was shot 7 times by the police officers. The man was unarmed. The police officers were not charged with any crime. Read more here.

And of course there was the event in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina when police officers murdered and burnt the body of an unarmed black man, reportedly while laughing about the murder. But even when police are not murdering innocent civilians, they often abuse their power and make illegal unconstitutional demands of their victims.

In the following video some youngsters are filming in a Walmart parking lot for an unknown reason. A police officer can be seen at one point in the filming, but he was clearly not the subject of their recording. He tells them that they cannot film him, which is false. He is on duty in public, and therefore can be filmed along with the Walmart parking lot. The officer then comes over to the young men and demands to see identification. This is a harassment tactic police use to intimidate people, but it is completely illegal for them to force someone to show their ID if no crime has been committed. It is unclear whether the officer is racist, or just belligerent, but after approaching the young men he pulls out his stun gun, after attempting to grab one of the youth’s phone away from him, and begins to threaten them, and claim they have broken laws. Apparently walking away from an officer with his gun drawn is a crime in this cop’s mind, as is not showing your papers when the law demands. The officer became agitated after one of the young men correctly stated that they did not have to show ID’s. In the end the police officer successfully bullies the young men into showing ID’s. After the teens mention the constitution, the officer calls a back-up unit.

 

In the following video a police officer stops a man because he was “leaning on the corner watching me”, after the police officer drove by and saw the man standing next to a car parked in his drive way. He claims the man looked suspicious, and asks for his identification. When the man tried to walk away, the police officer claimed he could not do that. Two more police cars then arrive to handle this non-situation. The car parked in the drive way of the mans’ home is then searched, and the trunk is opened, both of which appear to be illegal since no permission appears to be given. Since the car was parked on private property without the engine running, the police had no right to search it. In the end the police leave after harassing the youths for about ten minutes, possibly because they were being filmed.

 

In this video a man is detained by police for carrying a gun, something that is not illegal. He knows his rights however, and the police officer ends up leaving without seeing the man’s ID. The man is correct in asserting that the police had no reason to stop him and search him, or confiscate his weapon, because he had committed no crime, and was told he was stopped for a legal activity, carrying a gun.

The attitude of police officers that they can search anyone, or stop anyone on the street and ask for their ID needs to change. Being in public is not reason enough for a police officer to detain you, and ask for your papers. This needs to end, and it can start with informed citizens exercising their rights in the midst of illegal police activity. But in order for us to be able to exercise our rights, we cannot be in fear that the men and women who are supposed to be protecting and serving, will murder us with impunity. I encourage people to know their rights, and film suspected illegal searches and seizures by police.

Click here to read “The Constitution Applies Locally” about more local violations of citizens’ rights.

Click here to read “State Sanctioned Home Invasion”.

Black Conservatives Discuss Racist Roots of Gun Control

This video goes well with the other day’s discussion about Democrats’ exploitation of racial tensions to garner votes. I discussed how historically Democrats were the ones who opposed black equality and fought the civil rights movement. In fact almost every politician who had previously been a KKK member, has been elected as a Democrat. In the video black conservatives discuss the root of gun control, and how it was meant to keep blacks from defending themselves against racists in the south.

The first man to speak thanks the NRA for their roots of training freed slaves in firearm use to protect themselves against the KKK. The video then cuts to Niger Innis who says that gun control has always been about people control. During the Dred Scott case he says, the racist chief justice said that the humanity of blacks could not be recognized, because then they would be able to keep and bear arms.

 

The next video is from the same conference, although the camera work is not quite as good. Stacy Swimmer mentions how the first gun laws were to keep track of which blacks in the south could defend themselves against Klansmen. He then speaks about criminals’ reaction to gun control and says, “So if you think for one minute that gun control is gonna do anything about reducing crime, what you’ve done is you’ve just played into the hands of criminals, and they are having a party and thanking the Democrat party for making it much easier for them to take the lives of law abiding citizens.”

 

 

Not mentioned in the video, is what the abolitionist John Brown did which got him hanged. John Brown believed the only way to end slavery would be an armed slave insurrection. He therefore attempted to raid the Armory at Harpers Ferry in order to acquire firearms to distribute to slaves. He was unsuccessful. But the lesson is that free men must have the ability to protect themselves, and that the only way for men to be enslaved, is for them to be unarmed and defenseless.

American’s Guns Confiscated Without Due Process

Yesterday I wrote about how American citizens of Japanese ancestry were imprisoned in American internment camps during WWII, completely violating their Constitutional rights. Today I would like to highlight another issue that “could never happen here”. If you are a citizen who is distrustful of our government, which is healthy, and believe in the Constitution, you may have run into people who laugh at any suggestion our rights could be taken away. Many on the extreme left will claim they support the second amendment, while in the same sentence talking about the limitations they would like to see on firearm ownership–the phrase “shall not be infringed” does not leave much open to interpretation.

But I try not to let it bother me when ignorant people scoff at the fact that our rights are slowly diminishing. Some people apparently think that if a government wanted to limit our rights they would come out and say it explicitly. That’s not what happens though, waves of tiny regulations amount to having no rights in the end. Right now we can see the beginning stages of gun confiscation. Some instances may seem like isolated events, but others appear more orchestrated. This could be the negative effects of a bureaucracy at work, or it could be the beginning stages of testing how the public will react to gun confiscation.

Check out the video below. You will see national guard units patrolling neighborhoods in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, confiscating firearms. You will see and hear victims of unlawful  firearm confiscation where no crime was committed, property rights were ignored, due process was ignored, and innocent people’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were clearly violated by local, regional, and federal law enforcement.

The video begins with a Marine saying, “Marines obey orders, and when we’re told to carry out a mission, we carry out that mission,” when asked if they would confiscate firearms if ordered to. The video then moves onto the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, where the police department says that “no one will be able to be armed. We will take all the weapons”. This, of course, would be the very situation where people need their firearms most, in order to protect their families, homes, and property. Likewise, anyone without a legally registered firearm would not have their gun confiscated, meaning the looting criminals get to hold onto their guns, and innocent people holed up in their homes trying to ride out the disaster will be defenseless. Oh yea, and its completely 100% illegal for the police to enter a home without a search warrant, disarm the inhabitants, and steal their property without going through due process of law.

That happened today in this wealthy neighborhood, where residents had armed themselves to protect their mansions. Residents were handcuffed on the ground. In the end the police took their weapons, but let them stay in their homes.

How nice of those police, to allow the people to stay in their homes on their property; all they had to do was submit to being totally helpless and at the mercy of the police and criminals. Next the police broke into an old lady’s home, punched her in the face, body slammed her to the ground, confiscated her unloaded revolver, and dragged her out of her home. She shows her bruises in the video, which also shows her being slammed into the wall and ground, and you can make your own decision about how dangerous this frail old woman was. But this is what the police felt was necessary, not arresting looters. Instead of keeping safe the innocent people they are supposed to “protect and serve”, police harassed them, violated their rights, and became the threat, instead of the safety net.

A women who is a Baptist minister commented on the whole situation:

It’s going against my Constitutional rights as a citizen… You’re letting the thugs get away with everything and you’re coming to honest good citizens and taking away their protection and it is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Another man was in the process of evacuating with his family after a tree fell on his home. He was stopped by police, and had his vehicle searched by police. The police then smashed his girlfriend’s pearl handle revolver given to her by her grandparents, and also smashed his .22 rifle. In this situation, since the police were so obviously not “going by the books”, the man says he was extremely scared, and had no idea what the officers would do next. “Heed the warning of what this was” he warns.

[Click here to read about a man who was murdered by police, and then had his body burned by police to cover up the evidence, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.]

We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be blind to what is already going on in this country. It is not absurd to think our guns might get confiscated, it has happened before, and they did not do it in a nice, lawful, or Constitutional way. No warrants, no due process, just an innocent civilian staring down the barrel of a government gun. When people laugh at your “paranoia” laugh right back at their ignorance. If they bothered to open their eyes and look around, they would realize our concerns are quite justified.

Journal News Employees Won’t Declare Homes “Gun Free Zones”

I wrote recently about the New York newspaper which posted the names and addresses of gun permit holders in certain counties on the internet. A blogger then turned the tables and posted the names and addresses of the Journal News employees. Now, James O’Keefe has produced an undercover video where he and a team pose as an anti-gun group, and knock on the doors of some of the Journal News employees. They ask the employees if they are willing to put up lawn signs denouncing violence, and declaring their home a gun free zone. Check out some of the responses they get.

 

 

1:50 At the home of Greg Shillinglaw, Multimedia Journalist for Journal News, a man tells the team about the newspaper putting up the names of permit holders online. Someone from O’Keefe’s team chimes in “We are just doing the same thing… just the opposite”. The man informs them that he does believe in their cause, but refuses a sign.

2:15 At the home of Mike Meaney, Morning Breaking News for Journal News, a woman refuses the “Gun free zone” sign for her front lawn saying “I have others reasons I can’t get into right now”.

2:30 At the home of Bob Braun, Columnist for the Stare Ledger, Bob seems to mull the sign over, and realizes, “I agree with you, and I’m on your side with this. But I’m just wondering if that’s not an invitation to somebody with a gun!” Of course it is an invitation to a criminal with a gun. That is the whole idiocy of gun free zones, announcing the fact that you are defenseless. So Bob Braun agrees with their cause, presumably thinking other places should be gun free zones, but logically concluding that announcing his home to be gun free puts him at more risk to become a victim. Bob concludes that “The problem with this town is, you know, somebody driving around here might might think it’s a–seriously–might think its an invitation to come barging in”. Correct. And people who want to effectively murder a lot of people in a shooting rampage, may consider a gun free zone their best target. “If it said ‘citizens against senseless violence’, without ‘this home is proudly gun free’, I would put the sign up” he concludes.

4:20 A home was wrongly reported to be the address of a Journal News employee, and when asked if the man would place the “Gun free zone” sign, he shows them his pistol in his waistband.

4:55 At the home of Journal News publisher Janet Hasson, the team sees an armed guard before Janet Hesson’s husband tells them they cannot place the sign, because his wife’s life was threatened. I guess Janet believes you should only be allowed to defend yourself if you can afford to hire an armed guard.

5:45 At the home of Journal News editor Liz Anderson the team is met by another armed guard. The guard says that he will pass the message along, and when asked if he himself would want a sign at his own home, the guard replies “I definitely do not, thank you though.”

6:15 The police are called before the door was ever answered at the home of Alex Weisler, who reports for the Journal News. (This is where the police officer lies and says it is against the law to record him, despite four federal court of appeals rulings which say recording a police officer in the line of duty is completely within one’s first amendment rights).

7:00 At the home of Journal News editor Cynthia Lambert, the team is stonewalled by another armed guard. That brings the tally of anti-gun newspaper employees who hired armed guards at their home up to 3.

What we have learned is that the same people who claim that guns make us less safe, have use for guns when they feel threatened. This goes for politicians who have armed security, and who send their kids to schools with armed guards. They know that guns protect them, and keep them safe, but they do not want us to be allowed to practice self defense. The responses of these anti-gunners in the video says everything that needs to be said about gun free zones, banning weapons, and criticizing those who wish to feel safe and secure in their homes and persons.

Obama Lied About Federal Aide To New Orleans

In his recent article entitled “Phony in Chief”, Thomas Sowell reveals the lies behind Obama’s statements in the recently publicized June 5, 2007 video of Obama giving a speech to a mostly black crowd at Hampton University. Referring to Obama, Sowell writes:

In his speech — delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn’t use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience — he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.

Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.

Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be “part of the American family.” But the people in New Orleans — predominantly black — “they don’t care about as much,” according to Barack Obama.

The only problem with Obama’s statement is that it is a complete lie; the Senate had voted to waive the Stafford Act less than two weeks before Obama gave that speech. Obama knew this because he was a U.S. Senator at the time, and had been present for the vote. The vote was 80-14 in favor of waiving the requirement that New Orleans pay 10% of the recovery costs. Obama was one of the 14 Senators who voted against it! Yes you read that correctly, Barack Obama voted NOT to waive the requirement that New Orleans pay part of the costs of cleaning up Hurricane Katrina. He then told an audience 2 weeks later that the requirement had not been waived because of the racism of those who voted against it.

Sowell continues:

When he gave that demagogic speech, in a feigned accent and style, it was world class chutzpah and a rhetorical triumph. He truly deserves the title Phony in Chief.

If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists which Senators voted which way on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans.

Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama’s real character that have belatedly come to light as “old news.” But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama’s character — or lack of character.