By
Mitchell Gray
The Democrats have recently sold us out – twice in a week – again. They approved at $164 billion spending bill to continue the war they are so against (funny…they could end the war tomorrow by no longer appropriating any money for it but they wont – meaning they actually approve of the war in Iraq) and the House has voted on an amendment to the FISA bill of 1978 that will give the President even more powers to spy on Americans. HR 6304 eviscerates the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution by allowing the President to engage further in warrantless wiretaps for up to seven days before an actual warrant is sought (completely contrary to what the Constitution requires), gives the President more power to spy on US citizens international communications even if that person has no connections whatsoever to any foreign terrorist. It also provides immunity for all of the telecommunications companies that violated everyone’s privacy rights by participating in the Presidents illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
So what’s the point anymore? Why even bother acting like the US is governed by the Constitution? We need to face the facts – the noble experiment of the Founders of this country has failed miserably. Their attempt at constraining the governments hands with a written Constitution has been shown to be a terrible failure. The failure of the Constitution in limiting the power and reach of the government only further illustrates the abusive tyrannical nature of government. The only solution to your problems is not to limit government but to abolish it completely.
Limited government advocates must now recognize that “government” and “limited” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a “limited government” for all governments seek to grow and expand in power. Nor can you have a government that “protects your rights” because they only way the government can “protect your rights” is by first denying them to you in the first place. The coercive use of force must be the sole monopoly of the government in order that it might “protect your rights.” They must steal from you to fund themselves (taxation) and then use their vast means of violence to deny you access to market solutions to your problems.
So let’s stop kidding ourselves here folks. The Constitution is dead and gone and in its place we have the lumbering monster known as the federal government of the United States. A fascist dictatorship that must continue to destroy the dollar, violate our rights and steal as much money as it possibly can. The sad hard truth is that sooner or later the United States will fall. It will either be a violent fall that will usher in smaller states or it will be by means of the peaceful anarchist collapse of the State that will bring about peace, prosperity and freedom to all people.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Your State Taking Care of You
By
Mitchell Gray
For all of you who believe the State is there to protect your rights and ensure your safety here is a good example of how the State fails in that charge. The State being the single largest violator of human rights on the planet is the monster you worship.
In Cedar Rapids, Iowa police and firefighters are illegally breaking and entering into private homes in violation of the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution but more importantly completely violating the most basic human right of private property ownership. The claim that they are there to “protect” the people is ridiculous and suspect. They are supposedly searching for homes that have structural damage but instead of spending taxpayer dollars on this endeavor why not allow the people who actually OWN the property to make that decision? It is no ones business what should happen to a person who re-enters their OWN home which they bought and paid for (and paid extortion money for) to search for valuable items and assess the state of their home.
Yet the jackbooted thugs of the Cedar Rapids police department have instead set up immoral and illegal check points refusing to allow people to enter their own homes and arresting those that do. Rick Blazek was one such man who attempted to re-enter his home even though the Lords and Gods of the Cedar Rapids police department had yet to rule whether his home was safe to enter or not. Mr. Blazek was twice removed from his OWN home by the State thugs. Mr. Blazek once more tried to enter his OWN home by running one of these illegal and immoral check points (can anyone say police state?) only to bump a police officer, have guns drawn on him, a window smashed out and be dragged from his OWN car, handcuffed and arrested now facing assault charges and five years in prison. All of this because he just wanted to go home – to his own property.
Chief Greg Graham stated in a press conference that the “strike teams” were not breaking into homes but would enter them only if a door or window was unlocked. Whether they kicked in a door or came in through an open window they have still illegally entered the home of a person who has committed no crime. Quite the opposite Mr. Graham, video has been released showing these loving “strike teams” cutting locks to get into homes. They even show an officer (who took an oath to defend the Constitution – including the 4th amendment) yelling at a homeowner who took issue with police kicking doors down and illegally searching someone’s home. The officer told him that if he didn’t stop “harassing” the “strike team” that he’d see to it that the man never came back until all of the illegal searches were over.
We now live in an age in this country where telling police to stop breaking the law is considered harassing them and can be punished with arrest.
These are great examples of how and why the State must be destroyed. You can never be free when men rule over you. You will always be a slave, you will always be subject to abuse and your “rights” are subject to being rescinded at any time for any reason.
Mitchell Gray
For all of you who believe the State is there to protect your rights and ensure your safety here is a good example of how the State fails in that charge. The State being the single largest violator of human rights on the planet is the monster you worship.
In Cedar Rapids, Iowa police and firefighters are illegally breaking and entering into private homes in violation of the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution but more importantly completely violating the most basic human right of private property ownership. The claim that they are there to “protect” the people is ridiculous and suspect. They are supposedly searching for homes that have structural damage but instead of spending taxpayer dollars on this endeavor why not allow the people who actually OWN the property to make that decision? It is no ones business what should happen to a person who re-enters their OWN home which they bought and paid for (and paid extortion money for) to search for valuable items and assess the state of their home.
Yet the jackbooted thugs of the Cedar Rapids police department have instead set up immoral and illegal check points refusing to allow people to enter their own homes and arresting those that do. Rick Blazek was one such man who attempted to re-enter his home even though the Lords and Gods of the Cedar Rapids police department had yet to rule whether his home was safe to enter or not. Mr. Blazek was twice removed from his OWN home by the State thugs. Mr. Blazek once more tried to enter his OWN home by running one of these illegal and immoral check points (can anyone say police state?) only to bump a police officer, have guns drawn on him, a window smashed out and be dragged from his OWN car, handcuffed and arrested now facing assault charges and five years in prison. All of this because he just wanted to go home – to his own property.
Chief Greg Graham stated in a press conference that the “strike teams” were not breaking into homes but would enter them only if a door or window was unlocked. Whether they kicked in a door or came in through an open window they have still illegally entered the home of a person who has committed no crime. Quite the opposite Mr. Graham, video has been released showing these loving “strike teams” cutting locks to get into homes. They even show an officer (who took an oath to defend the Constitution – including the 4th amendment) yelling at a homeowner who took issue with police kicking doors down and illegally searching someone’s home. The officer told him that if he didn’t stop “harassing” the “strike team” that he’d see to it that the man never came back until all of the illegal searches were over.
We now live in an age in this country where telling police to stop breaking the law is considered harassing them and can be punished with arrest.
These are great examples of how and why the State must be destroyed. You can never be free when men rule over you. You will always be a slave, you will always be subject to abuse and your “rights” are subject to being rescinded at any time for any reason.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
More Property Right Violations in California
By
Mitchell Gray
It’s no surprise that property rights would be subject to violation in California. Actually we should call it the Peoples Republic of California in reference to all of the communist nations who like to declare they are a “Peoples Republic.” California is, after all, the most socialistic State of the Union. A federal appeals court in San Francisco, the most liberal city in America, has made it more difficult for a business to ensure that their property is being used correctly.
The case involves a Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers of the Ontario, CA police department who sued their employer because requested transcripts of various text message conversations Quon and his associates had. Arch Wireless, the wireless provider, duly handed those transcripts over. Mr. Quon and friends apparently were misusing company property by sending these emails. The court ruled that the Ontario Police Department had no right to view those transcripts because they contracted with an outside company to provide wireless service. They further ruled they in order to view those records they would first have to seek the employees permission. They also ruled that employers can only access employee email if it is stored on an internal server. There are several issues I take with this ruling.
The court feels that because an outside company has provided the wireless service the employer has no right to see the transcript of any calls or text messages. Normally I would agree but there is a big problem we have here namely the employer (the Ontario police department) has contracted with Arch Wireless to provide this service to their employees. Because the employer has contracted with an outside company means they have a acquired a property right in how this service is used (because the employer pays for that service). The employer has also provided the tools to make these communications happen (pagers and cell phones) meaning the employer also has a property right in the equipment (since they paid for them). Because the employer pays for both the service and the equipment means that they have the absolute right, even if they have an outside company providing the service, to see how their property is being used. They may give the cell phones to the employees and say “this is your cell phone” but it is done on a conditional basis only. The employer isn’t giving any title of ownership of the phone to the employee but is merely granting them stewardship over the phone. If the employee loses it, breaks it or needs a new one they would more than likely need to inform the company to receive another. And if they should end their employment with that company then the employee would have to surrender the phone to the company since it was not the employees property to begin with.
Now, if Sgt. Quon was using his own personal cell phone or pager in order to send the messages to his associates personal cell phones or pagers then, no, the employer would have no right to see the transcripts of those conversations. If the employer sought those and obtained them then both employer and contracted company (Arch Wireless) would have violated the property rights of Sgt. Quon and his friends. If Sgt. Quon had used his personal cell phone or pager to send messages to his associates employer provided cell phones or pagers then his employer would still have the right to view what was sent. Why? Because Sgt. Quon’s associates have used their employer provided equipment to carry on the conversation thus they are using company property.
As long as someone is using company property the company has the right to know how that property is being used. Likewise if I work for a company and I am regularly sending out offensive emails from my company computer to friends and family the company has the right to know how I am using their property. Assuming that the company does not store any emails on an internal server but contracts with their internet service provider to do so they still have the right to know what emails were sent and received by the computer I’m using (because they bought it and pay for the internet service). If someone should send me an email to my company computer then the employer still has the right to see the transaction. They have a property right in that computer and in the internet service they provide and the right to know how their property is being used.
We must understand that privacy can only exist if we are dealing with your own personal property. If you are using another’s property that person or company has the right to know how their property is being used. You have no privacy rights in that since you only have a right to privacy on your own property. If I take my personal computer to Starbucks and use their internet service to send and receive pornography Starbucks has the right to know how their internet service is being used. They have a property right in it because they pay for it and allow me to use it. It becomes different if I pay Starbucks for access to their internet service. Once I transfer them the money they are transferring some form of ownership to me. Now, if the contract calls for them to maintain my privacy then sending dirty pictures ought to be protected by Starbucks and the privacy right I have acquired because of my rental of their service. If privacy is not expressly stated in our agreement then I should assume that since I am merely renting this service from Starbucks I do not have absolute privacy and any violation of their terms of use could result in either criminal prosecution or ban from their service.
People do not have a any “rights” per se. Since all rights come from your right to property your rights extend only to your property. I have the right to free speech but only in my newspaper, blog, television program, etc. I have no right to free speech on or in someone else’s property. To assume I do would violate the property owners right to determine how he or anyone else should use his property. I have a right to privacy on in my own property. You don’t have the right to peek in my window at night. You don’t have the right to see what is stored on my computer hard drive. But I have no right to use your property and expect that I have a right to privacy (thought I can have contractual privacy protection). By demanding a privacy right on your property I am violating your right to determine how your property is being used.
Mitchell Gray
It’s no surprise that property rights would be subject to violation in California. Actually we should call it the Peoples Republic of California in reference to all of the communist nations who like to declare they are a “Peoples Republic.” California is, after all, the most socialistic State of the Union. A federal appeals court in San Francisco, the most liberal city in America, has made it more difficult for a business to ensure that their property is being used correctly.
The case involves a Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers of the Ontario, CA police department who sued their employer because requested transcripts of various text message conversations Quon and his associates had. Arch Wireless, the wireless provider, duly handed those transcripts over. Mr. Quon and friends apparently were misusing company property by sending these emails. The court ruled that the Ontario Police Department had no right to view those transcripts because they contracted with an outside company to provide wireless service. They further ruled they in order to view those records they would first have to seek the employees permission. They also ruled that employers can only access employee email if it is stored on an internal server. There are several issues I take with this ruling.
The court feels that because an outside company has provided the wireless service the employer has no right to see the transcript of any calls or text messages. Normally I would agree but there is a big problem we have here namely the employer (the Ontario police department) has contracted with Arch Wireless to provide this service to their employees. Because the employer has contracted with an outside company means they have a acquired a property right in how this service is used (because the employer pays for that service). The employer has also provided the tools to make these communications happen (pagers and cell phones) meaning the employer also has a property right in the equipment (since they paid for them). Because the employer pays for both the service and the equipment means that they have the absolute right, even if they have an outside company providing the service, to see how their property is being used. They may give the cell phones to the employees and say “this is your cell phone” but it is done on a conditional basis only. The employer isn’t giving any title of ownership of the phone to the employee but is merely granting them stewardship over the phone. If the employee loses it, breaks it or needs a new one they would more than likely need to inform the company to receive another. And if they should end their employment with that company then the employee would have to surrender the phone to the company since it was not the employees property to begin with.
Now, if Sgt. Quon was using his own personal cell phone or pager in order to send the messages to his associates personal cell phones or pagers then, no, the employer would have no right to see the transcripts of those conversations. If the employer sought those and obtained them then both employer and contracted company (Arch Wireless) would have violated the property rights of Sgt. Quon and his friends. If Sgt. Quon had used his personal cell phone or pager to send messages to his associates employer provided cell phones or pagers then his employer would still have the right to view what was sent. Why? Because Sgt. Quon’s associates have used their employer provided equipment to carry on the conversation thus they are using company property.
As long as someone is using company property the company has the right to know how that property is being used. Likewise if I work for a company and I am regularly sending out offensive emails from my company computer to friends and family the company has the right to know how I am using their property. Assuming that the company does not store any emails on an internal server but contracts with their internet service provider to do so they still have the right to know what emails were sent and received by the computer I’m using (because they bought it and pay for the internet service). If someone should send me an email to my company computer then the employer still has the right to see the transaction. They have a property right in that computer and in the internet service they provide and the right to know how their property is being used.
We must understand that privacy can only exist if we are dealing with your own personal property. If you are using another’s property that person or company has the right to know how their property is being used. You have no privacy rights in that since you only have a right to privacy on your own property. If I take my personal computer to Starbucks and use their internet service to send and receive pornography Starbucks has the right to know how their internet service is being used. They have a property right in it because they pay for it and allow me to use it. It becomes different if I pay Starbucks for access to their internet service. Once I transfer them the money they are transferring some form of ownership to me. Now, if the contract calls for them to maintain my privacy then sending dirty pictures ought to be protected by Starbucks and the privacy right I have acquired because of my rental of their service. If privacy is not expressly stated in our agreement then I should assume that since I am merely renting this service from Starbucks I do not have absolute privacy and any violation of their terms of use could result in either criminal prosecution or ban from their service.
People do not have a any “rights” per se. Since all rights come from your right to property your rights extend only to your property. I have the right to free speech but only in my newspaper, blog, television program, etc. I have no right to free speech on or in someone else’s property. To assume I do would violate the property owners right to determine how he or anyone else should use his property. I have a right to privacy on in my own property. You don’t have the right to peek in my window at night. You don’t have the right to see what is stored on my computer hard drive. But I have no right to use your property and expect that I have a right to privacy (thought I can have contractual privacy protection). By demanding a privacy right on your property I am violating your right to determine how your property is being used.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Mass Murders Can Happen Even Without Guns
By
Mitchell Gray
Gun control advocates love to throw up the numbers of people killed by firearms every year as proof that “guns are bad.” They believe that by denying people their God given right to defend themselves with the most effective tool available they will save lives. In the wake of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killings the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups are on the war path again. Using the tragic deaths of the victims of these two shootings they are attempting to further deny people their right to self-defense through emotional pleas that more guns means more mass killings. It is sort of funny (not ha ha funny) how reality once again proves them wrong.
Recently in Japan a man on a murder mission drove his car into a crowd of people and then proceeded to stab 17 people killing seven people. The attacker Tomohiro Kato is reported to have slammed a rented truck into a crowd of pedestrians, jumped out and started stabbing the people he hit with the truck. Then he began running around the crowd stabbing other people screaming as he thrust his knife in to his unsuspecting victims. But this is not an isolated incident. According to an Associated Press article March saw eight people stabbed with one of them dying. In 2001 a mentally deranged man ran into an elementary school and stabbed and killed eight children.
Of course we can’t really believe this happened. After all mass killings only happen with guns right? Gun control advocates declare that guns are responsible for crime. To stop the killings we have to get rid of the guns. Gun rights advocates know that people are responsible for crime and guns are used to save lives. The only reason the Kato was stopped was because there just happened to be a cop around with a gun. If someone else in that crowd had had a gun perhaps seven people would still be alive right now.
Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/08/japan.attack.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Mitchell Gray
Gun control advocates love to throw up the numbers of people killed by firearms every year as proof that “guns are bad.” They believe that by denying people their God given right to defend themselves with the most effective tool available they will save lives. In the wake of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University killings the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun groups are on the war path again. Using the tragic deaths of the victims of these two shootings they are attempting to further deny people their right to self-defense through emotional pleas that more guns means more mass killings. It is sort of funny (not ha ha funny) how reality once again proves them wrong.
Recently in Japan a man on a murder mission drove his car into a crowd of people and then proceeded to stab 17 people killing seven people. The attacker Tomohiro Kato is reported to have slammed a rented truck into a crowd of pedestrians, jumped out and started stabbing the people he hit with the truck. Then he began running around the crowd stabbing other people screaming as he thrust his knife in to his unsuspecting victims. But this is not an isolated incident. According to an Associated Press article March saw eight people stabbed with one of them dying. In 2001 a mentally deranged man ran into an elementary school and stabbed and killed eight children.
Of course we can’t really believe this happened. After all mass killings only happen with guns right? Gun control advocates declare that guns are responsible for crime. To stop the killings we have to get rid of the guns. Gun rights advocates know that people are responsible for crime and guns are used to save lives. The only reason the Kato was stopped was because there just happened to be a cop around with a gun. If someone else in that crowd had had a gun perhaps seven people would still be alive right now.
Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/08/japan.attack.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
In the Defense of Discrimination
By
Mitchell Gray
Nothing in this country can destroy a mans reputation quicker than a claim of discrimination or racism. To discriminate against another man simply because they have a different skin tone, gender or sexual preference than you is childish, selfish, stupid and wrong on many levels. However wrong racism and discrimination are we must always understand that it is wholly the right of the individual to act as such. To understand what I’m trying to say we are going to have to first discuss ownership and property rights. Everything comes back to property ownership so if you do not have a solid grasp of that there is no way you can progress any further in anything.
All men are self-owners, that is, they have a property right in themselves which no man can claim and which they cannot relinquish. Your body and your life are the one piece of property that can never be traded permanently. For example, a person cannot rightfully be owned by another as this would create a system of slavery. Slavery can only exist through force since no man can actually release his property claim on himself. And since something that exist through force has no authority the “master” actually holds no claim over his slaves. Slavery continues, not because the master has a claim over the bodies of the slaves, but because the slaves allow it to happen. They might feel as though they are in a helpless situation that they can never escape from but in reality they are free to either remain enslaved or to separate themselves from the slave owner even if that separation may be difficult and dangerous. Since all men have an absolute claim over their own bodies no man can force them to act or think in a way that they do not feel appropriate. For example, I cannot force you to walk in a certain way or live a certain way or think a certain way. By doing so I would be suggesting that I hold some claim over your property (your body, life and mind). Furthermore I have no right to tell you how you can use any other property you rightfully own. For example, if you went out and purchased an MP3 player I cannot force you to use it a certain way. If you want to use it as a drink coaster that is your right. If you bought a television and knocked out the screen and used it as a radio I have no right to challenge that. If you have $100 in your pocket I have no right to dictate how you ought to spend that $100. The reason for this is because I hold no claim over that property. Since ownership of property is absolute and total you, as the rightful property owner, are the only one who can decide how that property ought to be utilized. A mans mind is completely part of his body and is such his property. Since it is his property no one has the right to dictate what a person can and cannot think. Understanding this is vital to our discussion as is the understanding that property ownership is absolute. The essence of the argument is thus: No man can control another mans mind since they cannot lay a rightful claim it.
No doubt discrimination is a vile practice and those that employ it are the most debased of all men yet we must recognize that though it is vile and evil it is nonetheless the right of all men to think and act that way. During the 1950’s and 1960’s the subjugated races of this country finally rose up to resist those who placed them in subjugation. While slavery had been dead in this country for many years blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other races were still denied full citizenship through a system of laws known as Jim Crow Laws. Everything from buses to courts to churches were segregated. In every town in the south you’d see signs that read “Whites Only” and “Negro water fountains” and such. Because of such things as the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the Jim Crow Laws of the south were finally put to an end and rightfully so when it comes to public things but these laws, while they did a great good, have also done a great badness.
Central to my argument is the philosophy of private ownership and the right to use such property as one wishes. The flaw with these advancements for the equality of all men is that it placed others on a level of inequality when it comes to their absolute ownership of their private property and it is the effect that these laws and other affirmative action laws have created an atmosphere where individuals and the government can violate the private property of private individuals.
Let us assume that I am a store owner who sells electronics. Now assume that I am racist particularly towards the black race (which I’m not in case you are wondering). As the owner of that particular property (the store and the merchandise) I have the absolute right to decide who may enter my store and purchase my merchandise. Assume now I have exercised my right as property owner to deny access to my store for certain individuals (blacks) by placing a sign on the store that says “No Blacks Allowed.” While the community may protest the action I have taken, particularly the black community, they have no right to force me to allow blacks access to my property. That is, they hold no claim over my property and to use force against me would be a violation of my property right. But does not my denying them access to my store violate some right of theirs? Do they not have the right to shop anywhere they wish? Yes, they do, provided the places where they want to shop want them there to begin with. As a property owner I have the absolute right to dictate what happens with my property. You, as a property owner (ownership of your self) can decide where you shall spend your money. If you are a white man who finds my attitude towards blacks immoral (which it is) and offensive (which it is) you have the absolute right as a self-owner to not shop at my store and blacks have the absolute right as self-owners to go somewhere else as well. But you cannot use the government to force me to allow someone on my property just because you think you are right (which you are not if you are going to violate my property rights). The only way you could force the issue is if I am either using coercive force against someone or I am violating their property rights. If a black man enters my store and refuses to leave I have the right to eject them by any means necessary even if that includes violence because they have violated my property rights. But if I should leave my property and proceed to beat you up because you are black to make an example of you then I am the aggressor and the violator of your property rights.
The line of demarcation then is drawn on property rights. I have the right to do as I wish on my property but I cannot violate your property. Likewise you can do as you wish on your property but you cannot violate my property. Neither of us can use force or the threat of force to make another do what we want. Yet if either of us violated the others property we have the absolute right to protect our property with violence if we felt it appropriate. Some might argue that I am violating the property rights of blacks because I am denying them access to my merchandise (electronics) which might make their standard of living improve but that is absurd. No one has a “right” to electronics nor do they have any right to violate my property. No one has a “right” to shop at my store since my store is private property and shopping there is by my invitation. It is therefore a privilege but in no stretch of the imagination a right. Since it is a privilege to shop at my store I can revoke that privilege at any time. It is common even today to see signs in stores that read “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” which is true. As property owners you can decided who can or cannot shop at your store.
But what about employment? Surely everyone has the right to equal employment! Not really. People have the right to seek employment but no one has a right to it. Rights are something you are born with – they are natural. If employment was a right then we’d all be born with a job to do. Even in the workplace discrimination is the right of the employer. If a black man owns a company and only wants to hire other black men that is totally within his right. As the property owner of not only the business but also the money which he pays the wages of his employees he has the right to decide who will enjoy those things. No one can tell him he must, for diversities sake, hiring a white man or a Hispanic woman because that would be a violation of his property right – the right to decide how he is going to spend his money. You cannot force a person to give his property (his money) to someone who he does not like even if it is for the morally bankrupt reason of racism. As the owner of the business I can decide if I want a staff of nothing but white men, black women, Hassidic Jews or whoever else. Likewise you have the right to not seek employment with me.
Equal pay? Doesn’t everyone enjoy the right to equal pay? Nope. There is no reason why a businessman should be forced to pay a woman or a person of another race the same wage he would men or a member of his race. The money he is paying you comes from his pocket and is his property and he alone has the right to decide how much someone is going to be paid. No one has a “right” to equal pay. They have the “right” to seek a job that will pay them what they are worth but as a business owner I don’t have to pay you equally. If you come to me seeking employment and I agree to hire you, but only for $30,000 per year, and you accept then we have come to a mutual agreement. I have decided that your services are worth $30,000 a year and will gladly pay you for them so long as you maintain your end of the bargain and work productively. You have decided that the time you are going to spend and the labor you are going to exert are worth $30,000. You will gladly trade your time and labor for that $30,000 a year provided I keep my end of the agreement and pay you on a timely fashion and the amount we have agreed to. Say you’ve been at the job for six months and find out Dave is less qualified than you and hired on at the same time but is receiving twice as much money simply because he is of a different race (which the owner prefers, thus you are being discriminated against). Do you have a right to demand equal pay? Yes. Do you have a right to force your employer to pay you an equal wage? No. You can do one of three things: You can either continue working for the agreed upon rate of pay or you can resign and find other employment or you can try to convince your employer to increase your wages. But you cannot sue for equal pay nor can you use the government to force your employer to pay you the same money as Dave.
A private Christian school has the right to deny homosexuals access to their facilities. A business run by blacks has the right to deny whites access to their services. A man has the right to pay other men more than he does women and women likewise have the right to pay other women more than men. We also have the right to protest any business or school or charity that discriminates, provided we do not violate their property (such as keeping people from shopping in a store that discriminates against Asians).
Ultimately ending discrimination is a cultural issue. During the 1950’s and 1960’s people began to realize that denying someone access to something simply because of the color of their skin was wrong. No one is born to be racist. Racism is something that is taught from an early age and as each successive generation grows up seeing people for who they are and not what color their skin is racism and discrimination will eventually go away. Each group of persons has had to fight for equality. Women had to fight for the right to vote and the right to work. Blacks had to fight for the right to be human and live the way others do. Atheist had to fight for their right to disbelieve. Homosexuals are fighting now for those same rights everyone else fought for. With every battle that is won humanity gets a little better.
We must always remember that simply because someone discriminates against another does not mean we have the right to violate their property rights. We have the right to use our moral arguments to pursued people from shopping in their stores or using their services. We can use our moral strength to teach others, especially the younger generations, that discrimination is wrong. But we cannot under any circumstances use coercive force against another simply because they don’t like us.
Mitchell Gray
Nothing in this country can destroy a mans reputation quicker than a claim of discrimination or racism. To discriminate against another man simply because they have a different skin tone, gender or sexual preference than you is childish, selfish, stupid and wrong on many levels. However wrong racism and discrimination are we must always understand that it is wholly the right of the individual to act as such. To understand what I’m trying to say we are going to have to first discuss ownership and property rights. Everything comes back to property ownership so if you do not have a solid grasp of that there is no way you can progress any further in anything.
All men are self-owners, that is, they have a property right in themselves which no man can claim and which they cannot relinquish. Your body and your life are the one piece of property that can never be traded permanently. For example, a person cannot rightfully be owned by another as this would create a system of slavery. Slavery can only exist through force since no man can actually release his property claim on himself. And since something that exist through force has no authority the “master” actually holds no claim over his slaves. Slavery continues, not because the master has a claim over the bodies of the slaves, but because the slaves allow it to happen. They might feel as though they are in a helpless situation that they can never escape from but in reality they are free to either remain enslaved or to separate themselves from the slave owner even if that separation may be difficult and dangerous. Since all men have an absolute claim over their own bodies no man can force them to act or think in a way that they do not feel appropriate. For example, I cannot force you to walk in a certain way or live a certain way or think a certain way. By doing so I would be suggesting that I hold some claim over your property (your body, life and mind). Furthermore I have no right to tell you how you can use any other property you rightfully own. For example, if you went out and purchased an MP3 player I cannot force you to use it a certain way. If you want to use it as a drink coaster that is your right. If you bought a television and knocked out the screen and used it as a radio I have no right to challenge that. If you have $100 in your pocket I have no right to dictate how you ought to spend that $100. The reason for this is because I hold no claim over that property. Since ownership of property is absolute and total you, as the rightful property owner, are the only one who can decide how that property ought to be utilized. A mans mind is completely part of his body and is such his property. Since it is his property no one has the right to dictate what a person can and cannot think. Understanding this is vital to our discussion as is the understanding that property ownership is absolute. The essence of the argument is thus: No man can control another mans mind since they cannot lay a rightful claim it.
No doubt discrimination is a vile practice and those that employ it are the most debased of all men yet we must recognize that though it is vile and evil it is nonetheless the right of all men to think and act that way. During the 1950’s and 1960’s the subjugated races of this country finally rose up to resist those who placed them in subjugation. While slavery had been dead in this country for many years blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other races were still denied full citizenship through a system of laws known as Jim Crow Laws. Everything from buses to courts to churches were segregated. In every town in the south you’d see signs that read “Whites Only” and “Negro water fountains” and such. Because of such things as the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the Jim Crow Laws of the south were finally put to an end and rightfully so when it comes to public things but these laws, while they did a great good, have also done a great badness.
Central to my argument is the philosophy of private ownership and the right to use such property as one wishes. The flaw with these advancements for the equality of all men is that it placed others on a level of inequality when it comes to their absolute ownership of their private property and it is the effect that these laws and other affirmative action laws have created an atmosphere where individuals and the government can violate the private property of private individuals.
Let us assume that I am a store owner who sells electronics. Now assume that I am racist particularly towards the black race (which I’m not in case you are wondering). As the owner of that particular property (the store and the merchandise) I have the absolute right to decide who may enter my store and purchase my merchandise. Assume now I have exercised my right as property owner to deny access to my store for certain individuals (blacks) by placing a sign on the store that says “No Blacks Allowed.” While the community may protest the action I have taken, particularly the black community, they have no right to force me to allow blacks access to my property. That is, they hold no claim over my property and to use force against me would be a violation of my property right. But does not my denying them access to my store violate some right of theirs? Do they not have the right to shop anywhere they wish? Yes, they do, provided the places where they want to shop want them there to begin with. As a property owner I have the absolute right to dictate what happens with my property. You, as a property owner (ownership of your self) can decide where you shall spend your money. If you are a white man who finds my attitude towards blacks immoral (which it is) and offensive (which it is) you have the absolute right as a self-owner to not shop at my store and blacks have the absolute right as self-owners to go somewhere else as well. But you cannot use the government to force me to allow someone on my property just because you think you are right (which you are not if you are going to violate my property rights). The only way you could force the issue is if I am either using coercive force against someone or I am violating their property rights. If a black man enters my store and refuses to leave I have the right to eject them by any means necessary even if that includes violence because they have violated my property rights. But if I should leave my property and proceed to beat you up because you are black to make an example of you then I am the aggressor and the violator of your property rights.
The line of demarcation then is drawn on property rights. I have the right to do as I wish on my property but I cannot violate your property. Likewise you can do as you wish on your property but you cannot violate my property. Neither of us can use force or the threat of force to make another do what we want. Yet if either of us violated the others property we have the absolute right to protect our property with violence if we felt it appropriate. Some might argue that I am violating the property rights of blacks because I am denying them access to my merchandise (electronics) which might make their standard of living improve but that is absurd. No one has a “right” to electronics nor do they have any right to violate my property. No one has a “right” to shop at my store since my store is private property and shopping there is by my invitation. It is therefore a privilege but in no stretch of the imagination a right. Since it is a privilege to shop at my store I can revoke that privilege at any time. It is common even today to see signs in stores that read “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” which is true. As property owners you can decided who can or cannot shop at your store.
But what about employment? Surely everyone has the right to equal employment! Not really. People have the right to seek employment but no one has a right to it. Rights are something you are born with – they are natural. If employment was a right then we’d all be born with a job to do. Even in the workplace discrimination is the right of the employer. If a black man owns a company and only wants to hire other black men that is totally within his right. As the property owner of not only the business but also the money which he pays the wages of his employees he has the right to decide who will enjoy those things. No one can tell him he must, for diversities sake, hiring a white man or a Hispanic woman because that would be a violation of his property right – the right to decide how he is going to spend his money. You cannot force a person to give his property (his money) to someone who he does not like even if it is for the morally bankrupt reason of racism. As the owner of the business I can decide if I want a staff of nothing but white men, black women, Hassidic Jews or whoever else. Likewise you have the right to not seek employment with me.
Equal pay? Doesn’t everyone enjoy the right to equal pay? Nope. There is no reason why a businessman should be forced to pay a woman or a person of another race the same wage he would men or a member of his race. The money he is paying you comes from his pocket and is his property and he alone has the right to decide how much someone is going to be paid. No one has a “right” to equal pay. They have the “right” to seek a job that will pay them what they are worth but as a business owner I don’t have to pay you equally. If you come to me seeking employment and I agree to hire you, but only for $30,000 per year, and you accept then we have come to a mutual agreement. I have decided that your services are worth $30,000 a year and will gladly pay you for them so long as you maintain your end of the bargain and work productively. You have decided that the time you are going to spend and the labor you are going to exert are worth $30,000. You will gladly trade your time and labor for that $30,000 a year provided I keep my end of the agreement and pay you on a timely fashion and the amount we have agreed to. Say you’ve been at the job for six months and find out Dave is less qualified than you and hired on at the same time but is receiving twice as much money simply because he is of a different race (which the owner prefers, thus you are being discriminated against). Do you have a right to demand equal pay? Yes. Do you have a right to force your employer to pay you an equal wage? No. You can do one of three things: You can either continue working for the agreed upon rate of pay or you can resign and find other employment or you can try to convince your employer to increase your wages. But you cannot sue for equal pay nor can you use the government to force your employer to pay you the same money as Dave.
A private Christian school has the right to deny homosexuals access to their facilities. A business run by blacks has the right to deny whites access to their services. A man has the right to pay other men more than he does women and women likewise have the right to pay other women more than men. We also have the right to protest any business or school or charity that discriminates, provided we do not violate their property (such as keeping people from shopping in a store that discriminates against Asians).
Ultimately ending discrimination is a cultural issue. During the 1950’s and 1960’s people began to realize that denying someone access to something simply because of the color of their skin was wrong. No one is born to be racist. Racism is something that is taught from an early age and as each successive generation grows up seeing people for who they are and not what color their skin is racism and discrimination will eventually go away. Each group of persons has had to fight for equality. Women had to fight for the right to vote and the right to work. Blacks had to fight for the right to be human and live the way others do. Atheist had to fight for their right to disbelieve. Homosexuals are fighting now for those same rights everyone else fought for. With every battle that is won humanity gets a little better.
We must always remember that simply because someone discriminates against another does not mean we have the right to violate their property rights. We have the right to use our moral arguments to pursued people from shopping in their stores or using their services. We can use our moral strength to teach others, especially the younger generations, that discrimination is wrong. But we cannot under any circumstances use coercive force against another simply because they don’t like us.
Monday, June 2, 2008
How America Can Help Win Mexico’s Drug War
By Mitchell Gray
Mexico is locked in a desperate struggle with vicious drug cartels which has seen over 4,152 drug related deaths since Felipe Calderon took office in December of 2006.[1] The cartels are waging war, not just for control over lucrative shipping routes to the United States, but also against the Mexican state who is seemingly powerless to stop them. Since Calderon’s offensive against the cartels over 450 police, soldiers and prosecutors have been gunned down.[2] In the Mexican state of Sinaloa the cartels are lauded for their generosity as they rebuild houses, give away cash and extravagant Christmas presents to the poor people of the region. The people of Sinaloa sing songs of praise known as narco corridos, or drug ballads, about the valientes, or the brave ones, the foot soldiers of the cartels. The cartels have learned the first lesson of a guerrilla war – win the hearts and minds of the populace. The Mexican state on the other hand has failed to do that. The Mexican government is considered corrupt and despotic by the Mexican people. All of the top officials are viewed to be on the take and the people do not trust them. The Mexican police and military are routinely thought of as abusive and corrupt showing little regard for the average Mexican with the courts protecting the wealthy and extorting and abusing the poor. With the death toll rising Mexico is now putting pressure on the United States to help fight their war.
President Bush has proposed the Merida Initiative which was suppose to include $500 million for training, equipment and technical advice for Mexico to aid in fighting the cartels eventually paying out over $1.4 billion to aid in Mexico’s war.[3] The US cannot put American solders on the streets of Mexico because of Mexican law and strong Mexican nationalism so the fighting would have to be done by the Mexican military and police. But because the drug trade is somewhere in the neighbor hood of $80 billion a year the Mexican cartels have plenty of money to buy off judges, cops, military officers and the average foot soldiers. Los Zetas, a paramilitary group who sides with the Gulf Cartel and acts as its enforcers even though it is believed they also conduct their own drug and human smuggling operations, is now reaching out to Mexican police and military personnel. Los Zetas is comprised of former Mexican special forces trained by the United States at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia where American special forces are trained. These highly trained soldiers defected to the Gulf Cartel lured in by promises of extremely high pay. Recently you could see signs hung off of overpasses in Juarez which read “The Zetas Want You – We Offer Good Salaries to Soldiers.” Mexico has stepped up by offering more money to soldiers and police officers but they continue to defect to the cartels in large numbers bringing inside knowledge about Mexican operations with them.[4]
The United States should play a major role in the war with the cartels. After all, it is Americans who are buying the drugs that are fueling it. But throwing more tax dollars at the problem isn’t going to fix anything. The solution to the problem is adopting the libertarian view that a person has the right to do whatever they wish with their body. If that includes polluting it with drugs – any drug – that is entirely their right to do so. Yes, the way to win the drug war is to legalize all drugs – not just marijuana – in the United States.
Legalizing narcotics in the United States will take away much of the business of the cartels as legitimate businesses are established in this country for the production and/or importation of drugs from other countries. The cartels derive their power from the prohibition the United States has on all narcotics. The prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s and ‘30’s brought about nothing but violence as various mafia gangs were organized to bring in liquor from other countries or produce it domestically here at home. But when prohibition was finally done away with the violence that was created by these rival gangs stopped since there was nothing to fight about anymore. Instead legitimate businesses took over and things returned to normal. We would have the same results here and in Mexico if both nations would simply legalize liberty and allow their people to make mistakes. Libertarians reject to the notion of a “victimless crime” and drug use is one such thing. For something to be a crime there must be a victim but when someone smokes weed or shoots smack into their veins they are harming no one but themselves.
The numbers also do not work in favor of drug prohibition. The two legal drugs in this country, tobacco and alcohol, are also two of the leading causes of death. In fact those two drugs kill over 30 times as many people every year than illicit drugs do. According to a study released in Journal of the American Medical Association in the year 2000 tobacco killed an estimated 435,000 people and alcohol killed another 85,000. The death rate from illicit drugs use saw only 17,000 deaths. While I’m not arguing that “only” 17,000 people died from using drugs, which is a tragedy, the fact remains that the two drugs we do allow people to enjoy kill over half a million people a year.[5] If the state was really concerned about saving lives both of those drugs would be outlawed and it would fight them as much, or harder, than it does narcotics. But should the state ever attempt to do that then the people would rise up declaring it is their “right” to smoke and drink as much as they want. Well, if partaking in two of the leading causes of death in this country is your “right” then why is it not the right for another person to smoke marijuana, snort cocaine or shoot heroine?
Drugs have also contributed to the rise of most of the street gangs in this country. Gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, MS-13, 18th Street Gang, the Mexican Mafia, Latin Kings and dozens of others receive the bulk of their funding by distributing and selling the narcotics brought in from Mexico. These criminal street gangs battle each other for lucrative territories within American cities and are responsible for hundreds of deaths each year.
I believe the Mexican and American government should act quickly and decisively to end the war on the border before it either becomes a full blown war or spills over on to American streets. Congress should act quickly to legalize all narcotics and recognize the right of every man and woman in this country to decide for themselves what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. Mexico should likewise do the same legalizing narcotics in their nation as well as the production and exportation of these drugs. The sooner these two government bring about the end of drug prohibition the sooner their war with the cartels will end.
[1] Aspin, Chris & Beech, Eric. “Mexicans believe drug gangs winning war with gov't.” 1 June 2008. Reuters. 1 June 2008 (http://www.reuters.com)
[3] Carlsen, Laura. “Plan Mexico.” 30 October 2007. Foreign Policy in Focus. 1 June 2008 (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4684).
[4] Associated Press. “Drug lords go after Mexican police officers.” 18 May 2008. MSNBC.com. 1 June 2008 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24695115/)
Gay Marriage or Do What I Say or Else
By Mitchell Gray
This article might be a little delayed but I’m not one to watch the news that carefully so it took me a while to find out about it. At work one day someone had mentioned that California had just legalized gay marriage. Of course this was big news in Texas were we have an amendment to our state’s constitution banning gay marriage. While it makes no difference to me who does whom in their bedroom at night it seems to be a big deal with everyone else. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how libertarianism will not advance unless were are able to destroy inane prejudices like this one which about half of the people in this country still cling to.
A little background. In a 4-3 decision the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and come June 17 gay couples in California can start engaging in this “sinful practice” enjoying all the same rights and privileges as straight couples. Of course the religious right in this country is seeing red and are looking for blood. One of the most astonishing articles I read concerning this topic was written by Maggie Gallagher of the far right conservative magazine Human Events.[1] In her article Mrs. Gallagher vehemently attacks the ruling in California by stating that discriminating against gays is totally different than discriminating against other races. After all blacks are not an abomination to God and you wont enjoy the fires of hell just because you are a Mexican. Mrs. Gallagher stated that on May 15 “four California Supreme Court judges brazenly overturned more than four million California voters, 2000 years of human history, common sense and even common decency.” And this is what we, as libertarians, have to deal with. It is this mentality that we are going to have to defeat if we are going to see libertarianism really take hold in this country and the single moral principle we must use is the defense of private property. I’ll discuss this idea later. For now we’ll return to a critique of Mrs. Gallagher’s article.
According to Mrs. Gallagher “four million California voters” have the right to dictate how the other thirty-two million Californians can live their life. The hard truth of the matter is that no man has any right for any reason to tell another how to live his life if that person is harming no one else. The basic underlying principle of libertarianism is if you’re not screwing with me I’ve got no right to screw with you. As for the court overturning common sense and common decency Mrs. Gallagher is totally out of line. Common sense and common decency dictate that you cannot use force to make a person live the way you think they ought to live. Common decency says that even if you disagree with someone or their life style they still have the right to engage in it. And yet the religious right see no problem trotting out the Bible to defend their beliefs that they and they alone know the best way for people to live. Why, they are only trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage and save the souls of all of those sinners out there! Who are we to question them? See John 8:7.
California’s Proposition 22 which was passed in March of 2000 effectively banned gay marriage, though only statutorily not constitutionally. Prop. 22 states that marriage is “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.” This is the legislation that the California Supreme Court struck down. But we haven’t seen the end of this. Mrs. Gallagher and her religious right friends are frantically working to get Prop. 22 cemented in the state’s constitution come November. Prop. 22 has enough signatures to get it on the ballot and if enough people vote for it then gay marriage, and basic human rights, are once again banned by the state. They simply cannot allow gays to have the same basic human rights as everyone else because, as Mrs. Gallagher states, “Same-sex marriage is not just about letting Adam and Steve get some juicy new government benefits, it’s about inserting into our law the principle that ‘gay is the new black,’ that sexual orientation is just like race and then using the law as a club to repress, marginalize and stigmatize Americans who disagree.” Yes, of course, we wouldn’t want to stigmatize the Americans who disagree would we. We all know that when this country was founded it was done so under the assumption that government was to ensure the rights of the majority of the people and repress the minorities. Just look at this statement from one of the premier founders of this nations government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [2] Clearly we must not allow minorities to have the same rights as everyone else.
Mrs. Gallagher does make some valid points, however. The ruling that gay marriage should be treated the same as racism opens up a whole new can of worms. Already the state is using racism to bludgeon people who discriminate in the work place, in their own business and even in their own private lives. This ruling could mean that the state could now use that same force to repress the activities of various religious groups and those that dislike the homosexual lifestyle. She cites, as an example, a case in Massachusetts where the Boston Catholic Charities, which was an adoption agency, was driven out of business by the state because they refused to place children with same-sex couples on an equal footing with traditional marriage. Another case was that of a Methodist group in New Jersey who was denied part of their real estate tax exemption because they refused to permit civil union ceremonies to take place on church property. There is a very real possibility that this ruling could mean that any person, group or church who discriminates against someone because they are gay could face legal issues much like we do today when dealing with race.
The answer to the problem lies in a single axiom that thankfully all libertarians seem to understand: The Right to Private Property. Problems arise when the state tries to force “equality” on all people. Unfortunately reality doesn’t support the idea that equality can be legislated and enforced through the courts nor should it be. As self-owners we have the absolute and fundamental right to think and act the way we want so long as we are not using force against another or violating their property rights. That being said every man, woman and child on this planet has the fundamental right to discriminate or not against another person. For instance, a Protestant church who fundamentally disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle has the absolute right to deny homosexuals entry to their property. As owners of the church the church members have the right to dictate who can and cannot come on to their property. And a gay man who owns a night club has the right to put a sign up that says “No Straights Allowed.” He has the absolute right to dictate who can and cannot enter his club and if his club is for gays only it is his right to deny straights entry to the club.
We, as libertarians, must do more to help these people understand that, while they may not agree with a persons life style, that doesn’t give them to the right to tell others how they can live their lives. And those people don’t have the right to tell the religious of this country how they ought to conduct their lives as well. Equality can only come about through social change. You cannot legislate equality since everyone has the fundamental right to discriminate against another (since no one can claim ownership of another’s mind and thoughts). While we cannot morally use government force to change the lifestyles and habits of others we can use our moral arguments to try and steer people onto another path.
It is essential that we focus on teaching others about the ultimate right to own property and all that it entails. Property rights begin with yourself – body and mind – so thinking and believing any way you wish is totally and completely within your rights. Discrimination, while probably morally wrong, ultimately is the right of every person if they so desire.
The case in California only helps to illustrate just how much progress needs to be made. We cannot have a libertarian society if people do not understand that they have no right to use force to dictate to another how they ought to live their lives.
[1] Gallagher, Maggie. “Prop. 22 Can Save Traditional Marriage in California.” 29 May 2008. Human Events. 30 May 2008 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26716).
Moral Consequence of Minarchism
By
Mitchell Gray
Mitchell Gray
Advocates of limited government tell us there must be some level of state interference in our lives if for nothing else than to ward off any potential invaders to our rights. Most, however, will tell us that it is fine for the state to issue money, provide police protection and courts, armies and even regulate some parts of the economy for the public good. But any interventions in the lives of ordinary people must always be limited in scope and focused on protecting rights not violating them. That is the mantra of minarchist: We need governments to ensure our rights are being protected. We’ll just ignore the overwhelming body of evidence collected throughout mankind’s history that shows it is the state that is the single largest violator of basic human rights and not the protector of them. But ignoring all of the atrocities and rights violations the state has committed over the course of human history we are still faced with a glaring moral problem.
Minarchist will usually agree that to steal is to violate the property rights of another and rightly the robber should be punished for his crimes. They will usually appeal to the authority of the state to see that the criminal is captured, prosecuted and punished. Why, nothing else but the state can ever do anything like that! We must have the state if for nothing else than to lock up criminals. Yet here we find our moral hypocrisy in minarchism: If private theft is illegal then why is government theft lawful? Justice, to be blind, must apply the same principles and punishments equally to everyone no matter their wealth or status. Justice can only see the right and wrong, black and white and nothing else.
The state is always funded by coercive force, that is, using state power to confiscate the wealth of its subjects in a practice known as taxation. If states were voluntarily funded through charitable donations the state would soon collapse because of financial insolvency. Why would you voluntarily give your money to a bunch of bureaucrats when you could use it to buy food, clothing, a new house or car or maybe take a vacation? Proponents of limited government will say that taxes are required, that it is your duty to pay them, that what taxes you pay is your “fair share” for the maintenance of these vital programs (police, courts, prisons, roads, etc.). But what if I don’t want to pay those taxes? It’s all fine and good for you to pay them if you really wanted these services and actually believed it was your duty to pay your “fair share” but what of those people that don’t feel the same way? Why are they to be to forced to pay their “fair share” of taxes if those taxes go to fund programs and services they don’t agree with or want?
We come to the sticky problem for minarchist that taxation is theft. If you take from me without my consent there is no other word for it than theft and that is exactly what taxes are to millions of people in this country. The moral implications of this is are thus: If it is lawful for the state to steal my money then it is equally lawful for me to steal your money. Justice, assuming that it should treat everyone equally, must recognize that if the state is allowed to steal money from people by force or the treat of force then I must also be allowed to use force or threaten to use force to take money from anyone I so please. Along the same line I would also have the right to imprison anyone I wanted who did not hand over their money and if they resisted to hard I would have the right to shoot them dead without fear of prosecution for murder. After all, is this not what the state does to those who do not pay their taxes? Indeed, according to the minarchist logic I should be allowed to do just that.
Morally we must suppose that since theft is a violation of a persons property rights then any violators of those rights, up to and including the state, must be held liable for their actions. Failure to provide equal footing and protection for all people under the law undermines the whole concept of a free society which minarchist attempt to create with a limited state to rule over them.
The only moral solution is that the state cannot be allowed to exist because it violates the non-aggression axiom that all libertarians abide by (or at least should). State coercion and theft is just as unlawful and just as much a violation of property rights as private theft. If we allow state theft (taxation) to continue then it is only fair that all laws regarding private theft, and even the imprisonment or murder of those who refuse to be robbed, must be overturned. But that creates another moral issue in that no one has the right to use coercive force against another or violate their property rights unless it is in self-defense. So we are at a crossroads. Either we must throw out the whole philosophical and moral principles which define libertarianism (the non-aggression principle) or we must throw out the concept of the state. We cannot have it both ways. As the Tannehill’s point out in their book The Market for Liberty to “advocate government is to advocate slavery. To advocate government is to put oneself in the ridiculous position of advocating limited slavery.” (The Market for Liberty, p. 35.)
Minarchism cannot produce a free society because it allows for a state which violates the property rights of all people through the coercive act of taxation – theft on a massive scale. To have a truly free society we must attack the common enemy of all men – the very existence of the state itself. Governments are the single largest violators of human rights and even the Constitution of the United States, which was the most ambitious attempts by men to restrain the hands of a “limited government”, has proven to be a failure when it comes to protecting the rights of man. It is important to adopt a philosophy of peace instead of violence. We cannot have a peaceful philosophy so long as minarchist see fit to endorse the state and its coercive actions, such as taxation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
