“One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.”

- Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Having taken in much of the current shouting match on gun control, I think it’s time to apply a little common sense to the subject.

An effective gun control program can readily accommodate the legitimate needs of hunting, marksmanship, collection and self-defense. That’s not the problem. The problem has to do with the Second Amendment, which was placed in the constitution for two reasons. First, an effective citizens militia was regarded as essential to national defense. Second, it was thought to be more difficult for an unjust government to tyrannize over an armed citizenry than an unarmed one.

As regards the first reason, this country has not relied on the militia for over a century, and it seems unlikely that it ever will again. The Amendment is almost certainly not needed for national defense.

As regards the second reason, things are not so simple. We live peaceably under a benign government, and the threat of tyranny is perhaps the last thing the average citizen has on his mind. It can’t happen here. Or can it? It Can’t Happen Here was the title of Sinclair Lewis’s extremely powerful book, which described exactly how it could have happened here and the terrifying consequences, which ensued. Anyone who hasn’t read it should. The world was half-crazy when Lewis wrote in the 1930’s, and America was no exception. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin: they were the “wave of the future” to many even here in the land of the free. True, sanity won out in the end but it was a close call, and there have been times in America’s past when sanity did not win out. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Surely there is no controversy here. At least some of those would-be totalitarians are still with us. And an armed citizenry is a tougher nut to crack. Not impossible — there are no guarantees against tyranny — but it definitely makes the tyrant’s job harder. The Second Amendment offers real protection and is not anything we should abandon lightly. It is certainly not a matter for undue haste, especially in this period of near-hysteria following the recent spate of school and other shootings. I don’t know how others feel, but I always get concerned when the “talking heads” and other self-appointed guardians of the public weal begin screaming in unison.

I’m also concerned that we may have already abandoned the Amendment’s protection. The Brady Law and similar legislation operate normally to give government a list of all people who buy guns, other than hand-cocked sporting rifles. In another few decades, this will be a de facto list of virtually all gun owners. I’m not sure that keeping such a list is wise. I don’t hate my government, but I don’t entirely trust it either. And I’m mindful of Aristotle’s cautions about where abuses of democracy lead. Far from extending anti-gun laws, it may be time to roll them back.

I’m not sure about roll back, but it certainly ought to be considered. The key question is can these laws be made to operate without producing a list of gun owners. If it can and the method is foolproof, then roll back is not necessary. In fact extension might make sense. But I’m not sure a foolproof method really is available.

If the government lets up on gun regulation, where does that leave us?

I think the National Rifle Association has common sense on its side when it argues that, law or no law, most criminals will get their guns. This is a country that can’t even regulate its drug traffic. There are too many “underground” procurement sources that cannot be controlled in a free society like America. It is true that we have a higher murder rate than some countries with strict gun laws, but we also have a higher rate than some without such laws. One such country is Switzerland.

Actually Switzerland doesn’t “permit” its citizens to bear arms. It requires them to do so. And, because it is one of the few countries that still relies on a militia for national defense, these arms are usually either handguns or military-style assault weapons. An adult Swiss male can be fined if he doesn’t have a proper weapon. There are controls of course but they are lax, and there are many, many guns. Estimates run from 3 to 12 million (including non-military guns) for a country with only 7 million inhabitants. Yet Switzerland’s murder rate is a small fraction of ours and on a par with those of Japan and Britain, two countries that prohibit almost all guns.

Intercultural comparisons are tricky, and I don’t think they apply in this complex area. The fact that some countries with strict gun laws have lower murder rates than the U. S. is irrelevant.

It appears to me, then, that the Brady Law and other anti-gun legislation does not materially reduce murder or other crime, at least that committed by ordinary criminals. For such crime the NRA is right. But I doubt that this applies to crime (or other violence) committed by the mentally unstable, since these people generally don’t have the same access to underground procurement that ordinary criminals do. In fact it was just such a person who was responsible for the Brady Law in the first place. The man who shot Brady was not a criminal; he was insane and was sent, not to jail, but to an asylum. Furthermore, it is the mentally unstable who are responsible for virtually all of the recently publicized school and other shootings. Of course many stole the guns they used, and these people can’t be stopped by any law. For others, however, keeping or extending anti-gun legislation might make sense. But before we do this let’s answer some key questions.

First, how prevalent are shootings by those previously diagnosed as mentally unstable? All we seem to have so far is anecdotal evidence. Are there any hard numbers? In this context, the term “previously diagnosed” is key; we must be able to identify these people in advance if we are to stop them from buying guns. Secondly, what do the mentally unstable do when they find they can’t get guns? To what extent do they steal them or turn to other weapons, homemade bombs for example, which can’t be regulated? In other words, is there or (if anti-gun laws are extended) would there be an appreciable reduction in violence? And lastly — and by far the most important in my opinion — what can be done to prevent the legal process from producing a list of virtually all gun owners? I don’t know the answers to these questions. The subject is complicated, and perhaps there are no truly satisfactory answers. I do know one thing, however. We really haven’t tried to address these or similar questions in a productive manner. We seem content just to shout at each other. And that serves no purpose at all.

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

-Thomas Sowell

Originally published at Liberty For All January 16, 2008.

It’s time do more than just “turn the page” on America’s foreign wars. We should close the book and put it pack on the shelf, said potential Libertarian presidential candidate R. Lee Wrights in response to President Obama’s address to the nation Tuesday night.

“President Obama said he was announcing that ‘the American combat mission in Iraq’ has ended and that it was time to ‘turn the page’ on a ‘remarkable chapter in American history,” Wrights said. “It is time to do more than just turn the page. It is time to close the book of war, put it back on the shelf, and never refer to it again.”

“There is nothing remarkable about this chapter in American history,” Wrights said. “If the president really wanted to end the war he would simply tell the joint chiefs to draw up a plan to remove every last American solider, sailor, airman and marine from the region as quickly and safely as possible.”

“If the president really wanted to honor the sacrifices made by America’s men and women in uniform, he would not continue to put them in harm’s way unnecessarily,” Wrights said.

Wrights said that President Obama was elected on the expectation that he would end America’s interventionist foreign policy, but from the words he used in this address it appears he is going to continue this policy and use different language to obscure his intentions.

For example, Wrights noted that while the president said the combat mission is ending, he said our commitment to Iraq is not. The president also said a transitional force will remain to advise and assist Iraqi security forces, support Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions and protect civilians. In fact, as the last “combat” troops leave Iraq, fifty thousand troops will remain behind.

“In other words, our soldiers and marines will still be going on patrol, getting shot at, and possibly getting killed, but the president won’t call it combat operations,” Wrights said. He noted that the infantry brigades still in Iraq have been renamed “advise and assist” brigades.

“It is shameful the way politicians will parse words in order to justify and obscure their actions; and, it is disgraceful that any president who refers to himself as the commander-in-chief would use such a tactic to disguise the service of the men and women he is supposed to command.”

“It is disturbing the way the president casually dismissed the fact that this war was fought for a lie,” Wrights said. The president said that what began as “a war to disarm a state became a fight against insurgency.”

“It is distressing that President Obama admitted that the war has cost us one trillion dollars, most of it borrowed for other nations, and contributed to our debt, yet he doesn’t miss a beat in calling for even more government spending,” Wrights said. “He shows absolutely no signs that he is going to change anything in American foreign policy when he said America ‘must use all elements of our power to secure our interests and stand by our allies.’”

Wrights is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud and unequivocal call to stop all war. He has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states.

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

At dinner last night with extended family, we discussed one person’s experience in New Zealand, a socialist country where most residents seem content with their government. I was informed that 96% of the population loves the country just the way it is. It’s fairly hard to immigrate there. The cops are actually nice to people. Health care - even dental work - is provided to all comers free of charge. And the income tax rate is about 50%. However, I was told that people are generally content with that. I did not try to verify any of this, but just assumed for now that it’s true and let it stew in my brain.

A few days earlier, I’d read a Time Magazine article about the best countries to live in. Interestingly, small, cold, politically neutral, socialist countries came out very much on top. The U.S. was in 11th place.

So what’s stewing in my brain is that socialism is something that a lot of people like and want. It’s something that many Americans are demanding more and more of. And socialism seems to be working for a number of countries. These countries are generally small, homogenous, neutral in geopolitical affairs, and spend most of the taxes they collect on stuff that benefits the people directly. I would note that these countries are not building empires or attempting to police the world. It looks to me like socialism “works” on a small and somewhat consensual basis.

A few days prior to that, at a family reunion, I was discussing what it could mean to be a “libertarian socialist,” which one young member of the family claims to be. Many libertarians would consider this a contradiction in terms, since socialism as we know it has always been a coercive system. But I guessed that this young person tacked “socialist” on there to counter an assumption that many people have about libertarianism - that libertarian necessarily means “every man for himself,” and somehow outlaws cooperation, charity, or any kind of social safety net. Socialism, of course, is entirely compatible with libertarian principles, as long as it’s voluntary, and no one is being forced into “the system” at gunpoint. Obviously, the elements of socialism in American society are part and parcel of our coercive system of government. I’m going out on a limb here, but I really don’t think that Americans object to socialism nearly as much as they object to coercion.

People have an underlying moral feeling that voluntary, contractual relationships are morally superior to forced relationships. Why else would people do mental gymnastics to fabricate a “social contract” within the forced relationship of citizens to government? We constantly hear things like: “you consented to their control when you did X.” And “X” could be when you were born here, when you got into your car, when you got a job, or whatever. But if you didn’t know you were consenting, or to what you were consenting, how could that possibly be valid? How can a person consent to anything by being born? We also hear constantly that we are bound by contracts that were made between other people, long before we were born, such as the U.S. Constitution. Or that we consented to “the way things are” when we voted, or when we didn’t vote!

Why would people so desperately try to find a consensual contract somewhere in there unless they felt that consensual relationships were morally superior to brute force? They are desperate to have us all believe that we consented, even though we didn’t know we did, and even though unknowing consent is no consent at all.

The fact is, none of us natural-born citizens consented to any of this, especially not in any conscious, specific way. I guess people who become citizens actually do take an oath of allegiance to the United States or something like that.

People like to say, “love it or leave it,” whenever we express a desire to change the status quo. Now “love it or leave it,” can be a reasonable choice - in a romantic relationship, perhaps, or your hometown, or even a small country like New Zealand. However, to me, it seems unreasonable to say this about the United States, which has swallowed up most of the livable part of North America. People aren’t usually quite cruel enough to tell us to “love or leave” the whole planet - at some level, I think we all know that people have some kind of right to be at least somewhere that life is possible. “If you don’t like oppressive government, move to Antarctica,” does not strike me as reasonable at all. Neither does: “If you don’t like Jim Crow laws, leave the south.” Or, “if you don’t like Nazism, leave Germany.”

But I think that any “right” to live where we were born conflicts with our desire to form communities with like-minded people. And I think this conflict needs some closer analysis in light of what comes next.

My epiphany was that we actually could have social contracts - real ones, and lots of them. In the past, when I’ve tried to imagine an anarchistic society, I’ve often come up with lots of communities, each with its own rules. Anarchy, to me, is not an absence of rules, but the freedom to choose the rules one lives under. People obviously want social rules, but different people want different ones. And different people want different rules enforced in different ways, and arranged in different hierarchies of moral importance. For instance, in hypothetical community A, two men get married and everyone celebrates with them. In community B, there is quiet but tolerant disapproval. In community C, a gang goes to their house and kills them.

Any gay person with a brain would not choose to live openly in community C. Community B would have to offer compensating benefits to outweigh the disapproval. Community A would win unless other factors made it less desirable. Should community C be “allowed” to exist? Should gays (and others) go there and insist on their right to live there and be tolerated? If gays simply abandoned community C and flourished in communities B and A, would community C mind its own business? Community C might think that community A should not be allowed to exist.

I don’t know the answers to those questions. People would do what people would do. But the United States right now looks to me like hundreds of communities, wanting hundreds of different sets of rules, but all thinking they should have one set, and fighting bitterly over what set that should be. So we have approximately 400 million people hating and trying to change each other, and spending a lot of energy to forcefully impose their values on others who have different values. And if we don’t like all this hating and imposing - well, we should love it or leave it.

So, I propose social contracts - real ones, and lots of them. We can only imagine what this would look like; communities could be pretty big (like a state) or pretty small (like a town). Each community would have an actual contract between its organizers and every single adult resident, with specific rights and obligations on both sides. Each community could decide on an age of consent - how long people who are born there are allowed to live there without signing the contract, and whether or not to tolerate non-signers and on what terms.

If we like the mythology of the social contract, why not make it a reality? Imagine actually knowing what to expect from one’s “government” instead of pinning one’s hopes on campaign promises that a candidate has no obligation to fulfill (and most likely no intention, either). Imagine knowing your rights and obligations up front, instead of things being legal one month and illegal the next, and instead of your “fair share” changing drastically from one year to the next according to the political tides and the self-interest of professional liars.

It’s only natural to wish to impose our most passionately held moral principles on the whole world. Of course some communities would have rules and practices that were abhorrent to others. So what else is new? Abhorrent practices exist right now within the United States and all over the world. And much as I would love to have the whole world live by my values - it doesn’t.

To be quite honest, real social contracts actually would impose a few of my values on the world, and would create a path toward more of my values (if this were not true, I would not propose them, would I?). The value of “live and let live” is at least a start. Honest social contracts are more in line with my values than power-serving mythologies are. And, as I mentioned previously, I don’t think people would remain in places where they’re persecuted, and the sovereignty of the community where they are accepted would not allow persecutors to chase them wherever they go. Do we really care if people sit around hating people who are out of their reach?

I think, for instance, that if antebellum northerners had consistently and sincerely welcomed blacks to the northern states and protected them from pursuit, that the slave states could have been “drained” of slaves and a horrible war could have been avoided. I think this didn’t happen because northerners were racists and authority-worshippers, and had other reasons to conquer the south. Slavery (though not oppression) died in the Civil War, and that was a good thing as far as it went. What was not so good was the death of the idea of peaceful secession. Divorce, after all, can and does prevent murder. (”Is that a hint?” asks my husband.)

But seriously, some means for peaceful separation is an essential part of a voluntary contract. If there is no peaceful way to get out, then violence becomes the only way to respond to oppression (a la Burning Beds and such). The “contracts” we are currently born into willy-nilly have no escape clauses other than leaving our friends, family, and country.

Tessa Rose is the wife of tax heretic/anarchist writer Larken Rose, with whom many of you are familiar. Find out more about Tessa at http://tessa-rose.blogspot.com/.

If you’re a public-school student, your chances in life may be largely dependent on where you live — not just which country, not just which state, but which little bureaucratic zone.

In San Jose, Calif., many parents want to get their kids in Fremont Union schools because they’re so much better than neighboring schools. So parents sometimes cheat to get their kids in. At least cheating is what local officials call it. Steve Rowley, district superintendent, said, “We have maybe hundreds of kids who are here illegally, under false pretenses.”

Illegally. False pretenses. Sounds like the kids are criminals. All they’re doing is trying to get a good public-school education. Don’t the public schools’ defenders insist all children have a right to a good public-school education?

Inspector John Lozano goes door to door to check if kids really live where they say they do.

At one house, a mother and daughter answer the door, so Lozano sees that the daughter is there, but he still tells them that he needs to look inside the house to make sure. The school district police can go into your daughter’s bedroom, even go through drawers and closets. “Well,” he said, “we have a computer, we have some ‘Seventeen’ magazines. We have pictures of the student and her friends on the wall.”

So she passed the inspection.

But then he went to an address listed by Esterlita Tapang, whose grandson attends a Fremont Union high school. He told the man who answered the door, “She said she lives here and her grandson is going to live here so he can go to the high school.” The man shook his head and said she didn’t live there. “Caught,” Lozano told us. “She’s definitely caught!”

Granted, Tapang broke the rules. The rules said her grandson, because of where he lived, wasn’t entitled to the quality education Fremont Union schools provide. But which is worse: a system that traps students in bad schools, or a grandmother who lies to save her grandson from being denied a decent education? I asked her, “Isn’t it creepy that they force you to go to the black market to get your kid a better education?”

She thought it was. “I was crying in front of this 14-year-old,” said the grandmother. “Why can’t they just let parents get in the school of their choice?”

Why can’t they? Changing schools can change a child’s life. In Florida, Patty Bower’s kids were stuck in a school that wasn’t teaching them. But then they got vouchers, which let them attend a private school that works with kids who have special needs.

“Joey has been brought up four grade levels in reading,” Bowers said. “He’s gone from C’s, and D’s to being an honor roll student.” But the Florida Supreme Court this month killed a similar choice program, and Patty fears her kids will soon be forced back into public school. “If they take the McKay scholarship away, I don’t think — I’m sorry. I don’t think Joey will finish school.”

Why can’t she choose her child’s school? Most countries that beat America on international tests give their students that choice. In Belgium, the government spends less than American schools do on each student, but the money is attached to the kids. So they can go wherever they want — to a state-run school, a Montessori school, or even a religious school.

“I wouldn’t send my child to an American public school,” said Maria Loth. “Not even for a million dollars.”

Her son lives in Belgium now, but when he was 6, his family lived in America. “In America, I had to beg, please, please give me good school for my child. And here in Belgium, they’re all over the place.”

That’s right. In public education, our land of the free is now a bunch of local fiefs, where petty-bureaucrats-turned-lords-of-the-manor decide whether you can get a decent education, and parents must go to them, begging for their children’s future. Meanwhile, in Belgium and much of the rest of the world, students and their parents have the freedom to choose their schools — and the opportunity that comes with that freedom.

Originally published at Townhall.com January 25, 2006.

John Stossel - arguably the highest-profile libertarian journalist in the world - joined Fox News Channel (FNC) and Fox Business Network (FBN), effective October 2009, to begin a weekly show that may well be the most consistent, intelligent, ongoing presentation of libertarian views in television history.

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief in the long-running Nordyke v. King case in California, arguing that Second Amendment issues must be decided on a “strict scrutiny” basis, and that an ordinance in Alameda County banning gun shows at the county fairgrounds is unconstitutional because it would not withstand that standard of review.

This case was a catalyst for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear SAF’s case challenging the handgun ban in Chicago, because in an earlier Nordyke ruling - subsequently set aside in favor of a full en banc hearing by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - created a conflict in the circuits over Second Amendment incorporation.

SAF’s brief was written by attorney Alan Gura, who argued the landmark 2008 Heller case and represented SAF and its co-plaintiffs in the recent McDonald case, and is currently working with the foundation on other cases in Maryland, Illinois, New York and North Carolina.

Alameda County passed an ordinance more than ten years ago prohibiting the carrying of firearms on county property following a shooting at the county fair in 1998. Russell and Sallie Nordyke operated a gun show at the county fairgrounds. The shooting incident was not related to their gun show, but county officials used that as an excuse to adopt the prohibition.

“This is a very important case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because it could establish the highest standard of scrutiny to which gun laws around the country would be subjected. While gun prohibitionists were upset by the 2008 Heller ruling and demoralized by our victory this year in the McDonald case, they are terrified of a strict scrutiny standard that could be established by the Nordyke case.”

The Nordyke case’s importance, Gottlieb stated, “cannot be underestimated, or understated.”

“Strict scrutiny is the standard of review to which all constitutionally-protected fundamental civil rights must be held,” he observed. “This case has survived for more than a decade, a fact in itself that is remarkable. We believe, in the wake of Heller and McDonald, that the Ninth Circuit must act decisively to protect the Second Amendment from willy-nilly regulation by anti-gun public officials.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

“The most successful war seldom pays for its losses.”

- Thomas Jefferson

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has surpassed one trillion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this figure is staggering, a Libertarian presidential hopeful said that the real cost of these conflicts to our economy and our liberty is even more staggering.

“One trillion dollars is an almost incomprehensible number, but what is even more incomprehensible is the fact that most of that cost is borrowed money,” said R. Lee Wrights, former Libertarian Party national vice chair and the editor and co-founder of Liberty for All online magazine.

“The federal government borrows about 43 cents of every dollar it spends, and then uses it to build schools, roads and hospitals in countries where we’re partly responsible for destroying that infrastructure,” he said. “That’s not only insane, it’s immoral.”

Wrights said that he is considering seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 should be a loud and unequivocal call to stop all war.

“The Libertarian Party faces a critical test in 2012 and I want to make sure that we’re up to the challenge,” Wrights said. “The Libertarian message in 2012 must be loud and clear - stop all wars! Stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop the war on drugs and alternative lifestyles, stop the war on civil liberties.”

“When we first invaded Iraq we were told that the ‘war would pay for itself’ because Iraq had the oil resources,” Wrights said.  He noted that Paul Wolfowitz, then assistant secretary of defense, told Congress in March 2003, “There’s a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

“That hasn’t happened. Instead, the federal government has simply printed or borrowed the money to rebuild what’s been destroyed,” Wrights said. “Politicians are treating war spending like an open checkbook. As long as they have checks, they keep writing them without bothering to balance the account.”

The 2010 military budget is $700 billion. In real terms, defense spending is more today than at any time during the Cold War, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, according to Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute.

“To justify its budget, the Defense Department said it was not enough to have a military capable of deterring or responding to aggression,” Wrights said. “Incredibly, defense officials actually claimed it was ‘vital’ the United States be ‘a force for good by engaging with and helping positively to shape the world.’”

“Our founder’s would be appalled,” Wrights said. “They predicted that war would be the most dreaded threat to our liberties. They told us that from war would proceed mean debt, taxes, fraud and degeneracy of morals. They warned us that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Wrights has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states.

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in Texas. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

“As an American, I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name. America gave him the White House based on the same credentials.”

- Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House

It is becoming more and more transparent that Barack Obama has perpetrated the ultimate fraud upon the American people.  Beginning with his refusal to provide his birth certificate, to the sealing of all educational information, to his unsavory associations with anti-American radicals, much has been written about his deceitful history and behavior but Americans are finally waking up to reality.

He has failed to honor the promises he made as a candidate and consistently lies about nearly every subject.  What he says usually has no basis in reality and he no longer even bothers to try and hide the fact he’s lying.  He simply doesn’t care and feels he can strong-arm the Congress and the American people into doing whatever he wants.  Islam believes that if they lie to a ‘non-believer’ in order to achieve their goal, then its not lying.  Obama has that art down pat.  According to his own autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama leaves a prolific trail of evidence as to his penchant for Marxism and his ties to Islam.  In his June 2009 speech at Cairo University in Egypt, he said, “…my father came from a Kenyan family that included generations of Muslims.”  As an elementary school student in Indonesia, he was required to register under the religion of his stepfather, which was Muslim.  He has pulled the ultimate con job in becoming President of the United States and it is becoming frighteningly clear that we may have a sleeper cell in the White House.

If any doubt was left, his candid and forceful endorsement of a proposed mosque at Ground Zero should erase it.  Despite the fact Obama wouldn’t host a National Day of Prayer, he did host an ‘iftar’ (a special evening meal observed during Ramadan) in the White House dining room at taxpayer expense.  His concern and support for the Muslims clearly outweighs any compassion for the 3,000 families whose loved ones were murdered on 9/11, their survivors, the rescue workers, and the citizens of New York and the nation.

Muslims not only want a mosque, they want to demolish a 152 year old building TWO BLOCKS away from the mosque site to expand their “in-your-face” insult by building a Muslim community center as well.  While Muslims have a right to build a mosque according to religious tolerance in this country - 68% of polled Americans feel they do not have the right to needlessly cause more pain and offense to the families that have suffered so much.  The word ‘Islam’ means ‘obedience and submission’ and the fact the Muslims turned down another property offered to them by the state, demonstrates their intentional slap in the face and determination to dominate America.  Tim Brown, a New York City firefighter who filed a lawsuit to stop the mosque stated, “Our own president, the president of the United States, has abandoned the families who gave too much already.  It’s insensitive and hurtful and Obama couches it in religious freedom.”  Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) agreed and said Obama was dead wrong to endorse such “an insensitive and uncaring” project.  Despite that fact, Obama’s support for the Muslim ‘conquest’ plan makes his stand transparently clear.

Obama opined that celebrations like the iftar dinner “reminds us of…Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”  Yeah, OK …

1) justice: they made themselves judge, jury, and executioner when they murdered 3,000 innocent people in the twin towers on September 11, 2001.  Some ‘justice.’

2) progress: their terrorist agenda cleared a lot of land at Ground Zero for future construction jobs. Muslims also brought us the intrusive body scans at airports, confiscation of nearly every travel item, ‘no-fly’ inconvenience, and filled “jobs Americans won’t do” such as taxi drivers and 7-11 convenience store ownership.  Guess that’s Muslim ‘progress.’
 
3) tolerance: these savages believe in “womens’ rights” …. their right to be slaves to men, to be stoned to death if they are raped, to be beaten with 200 strikes and then shot in the head for getting pregnant while being a widow, to be killed for talking to a man that is not a relative, and for numerous other Sharia law ‘honor killings.’ And an American judge recently ruled in favor of Sharia law in a rape case right here in “the land of the free.”  The U.S. doesn’t want this kind of ‘tolerance.’

4) dignity: their determination to dominate the world and bring death to all Infidels is staggering as is their hatred of Jews, gays, women, and anyone who doesn’t think the way they do. That narrow view gives the world an eye-opening in-sight into the world of Muslim ‘tolerance.’

Obama went on to declare that, “…Islam has always been part of America and American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.”  WHAT???  How many Muslims arrived at Plymouth Rock on the Mayflower?  Or fought in the Revolutionary War?  Or signed the Declaration of Independence?  They contributed all right … 9/11 and Fort Hood among other things.

I’m sure I’m not the only ticked off American.  We are at war with this type of demented philosophy and too many of our precious young men and women are coming home in coffins because we are STILL in a country that will never change and is determined to overtake us.  Why would we possibly entertain the idea of allowing our enemy who has an agenda to destroy our way of life - to build a mosque on one of the most hallowed grounds in this nation?  How much clearer can this Imposter-in-Chief make his allegiance and strategy known?

Personally, the only time I’ll ever believe him is when he admits he’s a Muslim and not a U.S. citizen.  Anyone who would support or vote for him is a traitor and if anyone still doubts he is a Muslim …. put a plate of pulled pork in front of him and see what he does!

Copyright © Jessi Winchester 2010 All Rights Reserved

Jessi Winchester is senior contributor editor for Liberty For All. She is the author of two books, From Bordello to Ballot Box; and, America: The Final Chapter.

“Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

- George Washington

What is the proper role of government in a free society?

To answer this question, we must first understand what is meant by “government.”

Government is the use of force. To govern means to control. The use of force is implicit in the definition of control. Otherwise, it would be “influence” rather than control. Even the good things that governments do involve the use of force somewhere, somehow. Sometimes government uses force directly to control behavior. Other times, government uses money taken by force to fund activities which would otherwise not involve the use of force.

Understanding that government is the use of force, the question then becomes:

What is the proper use of force in a free society?

To answer this question, we look at three types of force:

1. Initial Force. In any group of people, from 2 to 20 billion, there is no use of force until someone uses it first. Initial force is aggression or coercion.

2. Defensive Force. Defensive force is the use of force to defend your safety, rights, or property. You have the right to defend yourself, and the right to authorize others, such as those in government, to use defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force is survival.

3. Retaliatory Force. Retaliatory force is punishment of someone who has initiated force. If someone assaults you, you have the right to authorize government to punish those responsible in your behalf. Retaliatory force is justice.

Some people have suggested a fourth category of preemptive force but most examples of preemptive force, upon analysis, can be placed in one of the other three categories.

Libertarians, by definition, oppose the initiation of force. Some Libertarians are also pacifists and decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.

Some Libertarians are militants and have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is the opposition to the initiation of force. Opposition to the initiation of force (the Non-Aggression Principle) is the essence of libertarian philosophy. Freedom is the absence of the initiation of force.

A robber cannot be “free” to steal your property, nor can a bully be “free” to strike you. The robber and bully have initiated force. The condition of freedom doesn’t exist unless there is an absence of the initiation of force.

Consequently, a “right” cannot be something which must be had at the expense of others. You have the right to earn a living, but not to compel others to provide your living.

Libertarians apply the Non-Aggression Principle to ALL human behavior. It doesn’t matter if the initiators of force are in or out of government. Government doesn’t confer some mystical right on some to violate the rights of others. If it is wrong for a person to commit rape as an individual, it must be equally wrong for a person to commit rape as an agent of government. If somebody takes your property without your permission, it is theft (an initiation of force). It’s theft regardless of whether the loot is used to buy drugs or to feed the poor. It is theft regardless of whether there is one thief or 200 million thieves. It is theft regardless of whether the gang calls itself “The Bloods” the “Cryps” or “The Internal Revenue Service.”

Where government exists in a free society, its role should be limited to defending and/or retaliating against those who initiate force. Government in a free society should not be the initiator of force. Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery and fraud, are laws against the initiation of force. Enforcement of such laws is the application of defensive and/or retaliatory force, and is appropriate for government in a free society.

Other laws constitute an initiation of force. Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals. Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state. Government should not initiate force to impose lifestyles or moral codes.

Government should not initiate force even when “it’s for your own good.”

In a free society, you have property rights. You can use honestly acquired property in any way that does not constitute initiation of force or fraud, trespass on the property of others, or violate agreements you have voluntarily entered into. You decide which charities to support, and don’t have to sacrifice your property against your will for purposes that others decide on rather than you.

In a free society, you have personal rights. You can live however you want to, so long as you don’t initiate force or fraud against others or their property. You decide what risks to take, what to believe in, and how to entertain yourself.

Property rights and personal rights are really the same. Personal rights are based on property rights because you own your own life, your body, and your mind.

Ownership and use of honestly acquired property is not, in and of itself, an initiation of force and therefore does not violate the rights of others. If someone owns an AK-47 and uses it to murder school children, it is the murder that is the initiation of force, not the ownership of the AK-47. Murder should be prohibited and punished regardless of the weapons used.

If someone owns and uses drugs, and then steals to buy more drugs, it is the theft that is the initiation of force. Theft should be prohibited regardless of what the loot is spent on. The use of drugs is not the initiation of force.

If you own or rent a sexually explicit video and commit a sexual assault after viewing it, it is the sexual assault that is the initiation of force, not the viewing of the video. Rape should be prohibited whether “obscenity” is involved or not. Most people who view sexually explicit films do not commit sexual assaults.

In the old days, people sometimes had to answer to the church for their crimes. Some thought they could lessen the gravity of their offenses by claiming possession. “Your Holiness, the devil made me do it.” What we often hear today is “Your Honor, the drugs made me do it” or “Your Honor, the pornography made me do it” or “Your Honor, my unhappy childhood made me do it.”

With freedom comes responsibility. If you initiate force, you should be held fully accountable. No cop-outs, no devils, no shifting the blame to others or to inanimate objects. If you do not initiate force or fraud (a subtle form of force), you should be left alone and force should not be initiated against you by government or anybody else.

It’s that simple.

Originally published in Liberty For All December 23, 2007.

Joseph Knight served as a field organizer for the Libertarian Party for three years and is a former two-term New Mexico LP state chairman.

“Since the FDA only has jurisdiction over compounds involved in ‘interstate commerce,’ they have no jurisdiction over our kitchens—yet.  Should my client lose this case, however, the FDA will have set a precedent to invade the privacy of our homes.”

- Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D.

Daniel Smith is between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.”  For the last couple of years, he has been selling “MMS Professional,” a high-quality sodium chlorite solution used to purify water. He has also been selling citric acid, a food acid similar to that found in lime or lemon juice.

Daniel also sold books, CDs and DVDs produced by others that explained how mixing sodium chlorite and citric acid produce chlorine dioxide, a chemical commonly used to purify water.  Chlorine dioxide also is an effective mouthwash (Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry Vol.21, pp. 241-248, 2000).

The books, CDs and DVDs claim that chlorine dioxide, when ingested at appropriate doses, may kill the parasite that produces malaria, as well as other disease-causing bacteria and viruses, such as the ones that are responsible for hepatitis, typhoid, MRSA, pneumonia, bronchial infections, and perhaps even HIV virus associated with AIDS.  The material claims that there are over 75,000 documented cases of chlorine dioxide’s effectiveness against malaria alone.

In these days of high medical costs, a potential antiseptic that is inexpensive and can be made at home is certainly noteworthy.  Safety studies with chlorine dioxide, undertaken in the 1980s because the compound is widely used in municipal water treatment system, raised no red flags (Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 46, pp. 57-62, 1982). The FDA is concerned because chlorine dioxide, taken in excess, can cause diarrhea and dehydration.  These are side effects that many FDA-approved drugs have, as well as over-the-counter Vitamin C and magnesium.  Presumably, a person faced with such symptoms would simply decrease their dose.

So why is Daniel being threatened with the possibility of criminal charges and years in prison?  The FDA claims that Daniel was “marketing a new, unapproved drug with labeling.”

However, Daniel was NOT selling chlorine dioxide, but the components that make it. The FDA, however, claims that Daniel is selling a new drug (chlorine dioxide) that has not gone through its regulatory process which costs, on average, over $1 billion dollars and takes 15 years of testing and evaluation. This is how potentially inexpensive treatments, already used by thousands of people, become so high priced.

The actual label on the bottle of sodium chlorite clearly states that it is to be used for water purification.  Nevertheless, the FDA is calling the books, CDs, and DVDs that Daniel was selling “labeling” of the supposed new drug that customers make from sodium chlorite and citric acid.  All such alleged “labeling” must be approved by the FDA.

What about free speech and the First Amendment?  Well, the FDA doesn’t believe that the First Amendment applies to “commercial speech.”  All of the side effects that come at the end of pharmaceutical commercials are dictated by the FDA, which reviews every single ad produced by a drug manufacturer.

In theory, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) exempts supplements from the FDA approval process to some extent.  Chlorine dioxide, however, is not a supplement, but a water purifier, so it apparently isn’t protected.

The FDA asked Daniel to “voluntarily” recall his product.  He did so in the hopes of avoiding further harassment and possible prosecution.  “Many customers tell me that they won’t return the products because they love them so much,” Daniel told me.  “Quite a few, though, are angry at me for not fighting the FDA.  They don’t realize I have a beautiful six year old daughter that needs her father to be present while she’s growing up.”

Daniel’s attorney, Nancy Lord, the 1992 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, has advised Daniel against relying on the so-called “justice system” to vindicate him.  “Anything can happen in the courtroom,” Dr. Lord explained.

Dr. Lord has a point.  Years ago, she called me in as an expert witness in another case.  The prosecutor convinced the judge to limit my testimony so much that I couldn’t get in any of our relevant points.  Miraculously, the prosecutor then asked me questions which opened the door to the very points he had excluded. The jury did not convict the client on any of the 16 counts.  However, that was a very close call for the client.  Daniel’s clients should be aware that the judicial branch of government is not necessarily even-handed when the plaintiff is another governmental agency.

“Besides potential prison time for Daniel, this case could set a dangerous precedent,” Dr. Lord explained.  “Will all vendors be held accountable for the way a customer uses their products or combines them to make something entirely different?  Daniel isn’t selling what the FDA is calling a ‘new drug.’  The customers are making chlorine dioxide in their kitchens.  Since the FDA only has jurisdiction over compounds involved in ‘interstate commerce,’ they have no jurisdiction over our kitchens—yet.  Should Daniel lose this case, however, the FDA will have set a precedent to invade the privacy of our homes.”

“The problem,” Daniel explained, “is that most customers don’t understand why the FDA is demanding a recall.  They think that something is wrong with the product or that it is unsafe in some way. They don’t understand that the FDA’s real complaint is the information which I sold. It teaches people how to make chlorine dioxide to kill pathogens in the privacy of their own home.  The FDA calls this ‘labeling.’”

The FDA’s interpretation of “labeling” stems from the passage of the 1962 Amendments to the Food and Drug Act.  Before that time, the FDA did not interfere with the sale of anything that was “safe for its intended use.”  The Amendments, however, insisted that the FDA evaluate drug effectiveness and gave it unprecedented control over the entire drug development process.  As a result, the FDA has insisted that no claim of effectiveness be made unless a drug went through an exhaustive—and continuously expanding— testing process.  By the 1990s, the Amendments had added about 10 years to the development time of drugs.

The added decade of development time meant that the average new drug took 15 years to get to market.  The terminally ill couldn’t wait that long.  AIDS patients hired black market chemists to make the very drugs that pharmaceutical companies were testing (Kwitny’s Acceptable Risks, New York: Poseidon Press, c1992.).  By the time the firm where I was working had FDA permission to test its first AIDS drug in people, every patient in the U.S. that wanted it already had taken it.  In order to do the FDA-mandated testing, we had to wait until new patients were diagnosed.

Cancer patients became so frustrated that they sued the FDA for permission to buy new cancer drugs from pharmaceutical firms before their effectiveness had been fully established according to FDA guidelines. However, the courts ruled that even the terminally ill had no constitutional right to use drugs not yet approved by the FDA!

Thankfully, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee, has introduced two health freedom bills to insure that such atrocities don’t continue.   Patients, along with their doctors, should be able to choose what’s best for them.  They should not have to enter the black market to get their treatments.  Vendors like Daniel Smith should not have to face prison for selling books along with a couple of chemicals that customers combine and use in the privacy of their own home.

Health care freedom is literally a matter of life and death.  Go to the link in the above paragraph and support health care freedom.  The life you save may be your own!

Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., is the author of Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, a liberty primer for liberals, Christians, New Agers, and pragmatists. She also wrote Short Answers to the Tough Questions: Sound Bites for the Libertarian Candidate after her Internet column (www.self-gov.org) of the same name.

We’re the Libertarian Party.  We’re for liberty.  We’re against people who believe that the state should be omnipotent, knowing no limits to its powers or deeds.

Once again, Mr. Root has missed the boat on positions that a libertarian should take.  And when you are on our National Committee, you have a real obligation not to miss that boat.

I quote for purposes of review a recent Facebook message he sent to me:

Wayne wrote: “Obama is an extension of Bush only to people who understand ZERO about economics and have never run a business in their lives. There is no comparison. Bush violated civil liberties that 90% of Americans did not even notice.

“Obama effects my business, my bank account, my savings, my stocks, my real estate, my future business decisions, the jobs that I decide to create or not, and for millions of business owners- whether they choose to stay in America or not. If you don’t understand this…you are probably without a job, own no stocks, own no home, own no business, have no family.

“Sorry but listening in on a phone call is not on par with destroying capitalism and redistributing my income. One is a pesky Nanny State…the other is communism. [emphasis added]

“And the irony for Libertarians who don’t get it…is that Obama still listens in on your calls, still runs 2 major wars, hasn’t cut one dollar in foreign aid. Yes on certain issues, Obama is an extension of Bush. On all of Bush’s worst issues.

“But Obama has added hundreds of bad economic policies that are plunging USA into economic Armageddon and destroying capitalism.

“Obama is in a league all his own.

“That could be why I have HUNDREDS of friends who all own businesses…and they all agree…to a man and woman…that Obama is the worst President of our lifetimes…and a threat to our existence. Not one of them would say that about Bush.

“So I guess Libertarian leftist radicals and anarchists are living in an alternate world…or just don’t own anything that Obama is grabbing.”

To this I answer: It’s hard to see how you could go farther off the rails.  We are the party of liberty, not the party of greed.

Sir, the essence of Communism is the police state, the KGB and its American counterpart the National Security Agency listening to our every phone call.  That’s what real Communism is about, and that’s what George Bush brought to America.  The KGB apparatchiks who tried to listen to every thought of every Russian were enemies of civilization, enemies of freedom, enemies of basic civil liberties.  The NSA apparatchiks who listen to our every phone call are equally evil and far more of a danger to us and our fellow Americans.

You just don’t get it.  We’re here about LIVE FREE OR DIE, not about TAKE MY FREEDOM, JUST LET ME KEEP MY LOOT.

I understand that your small business friends, like the legendary Mr. Babbitt, have thus far spent the first third of the book completely missing the point about what is wrong with their lives.  They still do not know.  What is clear is that it is not you who will lead them to the libertarian understanding of why America is rotting out from the core.

Mr. Root, the basic problem that you share with your Republican friends, from the banksters and defense contractors who just want more corporate warfare to the Bachmanns, Angles, Palins, Savages, and their fellow shock troops of the Republican Party’s Christian Taliban wing, is that you have not the least understanding of what it means to be a libertarian.

And for readers who think that I spend all my time discussing the inadequacies of Mr. Root as an LNC member, be prepared for change. Another LNC member has volunteered to be next on my list.

George Phillies is a contributing editor for Liberty For All. You can contact Dr. Phillies at phillies@wpi.edu.