| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle |
| |
|
|
Looking for Freedom?
|
April
02, 2007 You ever talk to a non-gunner and get the feeling that you are on a totally different wavelength? I certainly have, and as an amateur philosopher, I found myself wondering about it. I suppose this feeling could simply be a natural part of being a knuckle-dragging, narrow-minded Neanderthal of a gun-owning ignoramus. However, as a scientist with experience as an educator, I think there is more to it, and I would like to pass along my observations for your consideration. But why bother with such theoretical analysis? Well, it IS philosophically comforting to confirm our suspicions. Much more importantly, the ugly fact is that our gun rights will ultimately be determined by the attitudes of the populace. If enough people become firmly anti-gun, then nothing we can do will preserve our rights and we will lose them. Period. (Read the rest here)
WalMart
Open Carry Resolved By Susan Callaway, Editor In a perfect world, the answer to my original letter to WalMart would have been clear and totally supportive of the right to bear arms for self defense. But in the real world of today, the answer I did get was pretty good. Here is the letter from the Spearfish WalMart, and my response. (March 06, '07)
Libertarian
Commentary on The News, 25
- 31 March, 2007 Wow, hard to believe the first quarter of 2007, and Winter, are behind us! Once again this week, I have only a short column, due to family and other conflicts for my time. Hopefully, next week we can again enjoy a full review of the news together. Meanwhile, here is a very small splattering of the week’s news, and my own views Stupid
government tricks: The problem, of course, is that the local tyrants who claim to be the legitimate government of Bern are doing things like reserving parking spaces for women, apparently from an irrational belief that women must be protected from men. Mama's Note: How dumb and degraded are those Swiss women anyway? They should all be armed and ready to defend themselves. You wouldn't catch me using a "pink" parking spot either. Sick, patronizing politicians need some real attitude adjustment, and not only in the UK or the US.
Plan
to Give the District of Columbia a Voting Representative Representative Hoyer would have us believe that the Constitution consolidated the States and their people into one nation and placed them under the control of Washington, D.C. Contrary to the representations by Mr. Hoyer, the Constitution did not establish a national democracy between the American people. If it had, then residents of the District of Columbia would have been given representation in Congress when the Constitution was written in 1787. There is a simple reason why the District of Columbia does not have voting representation in either House of Congress. It is not a State. The Constitution is a union or compact between the several States, not a union or agreement between the American people as comprising one nation. The only parties to the compact known as the Constitution for the United States are the individual States. [EN-1] Since the District is not a State, its residents are not entitled to direct representation in either House of Congress. [EN-2] (Read the rest here)
History's
Table of Context As all of you doubtless know, a movie entitled 300 recently opened to huge box office success and reasonable critical reviews. Most of the raves are coming courtesy of some truly phenomenal Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) which, with 300, has reached a pinnacle many of us couldn't have imagined even a few years ago. But some heavy promotion of the film is also coming from those of us who are fans of freedom. I wrote a review of 300 that praised the filmmaking technique because it truly was stellar. I often address such things as special effects or edits in my movie reviews because those are particular interests of mine. In some cases, though, and where it's appropriate, I'll also comment on some political message or another a movie may convey. In the case of 300, I wrote (in part; you can read the rest of the review here): (Read the rest here)
Courage
For Democrats We all know that George W. Bush’s invasions and occupations depend on a great deal of money. And all of the democrats in Congress should realize they won the midterm elections because the people want us out of Iraq. And now they are about to have a unique opportunity to deny Bush the money to carry on his folly. We’ll see if they have the courage to carry the advantage or simply do what the republicans did in 1995. In the latter months of 1995, the republicans in Congress, led by Newt Gingrich who had a “contract with America” in his pocket, refused for several months to raise the national debt limit. In fact, Newt said he didn’t care if he bankrupted the nation to get what they wanted. And all they wanted was a agreement from the democrats to balance the budget, a law that finally passed Congress in November of 1997 and picked the year 2003 as the date the budget would be reconciled with tax income. (Read the rest here)
Hillary's
Bitter Pill: Women Can't Stand Her Hillary Clinton's polling numbers are tumbling, but the real shocker is how poorly she is faring with the female electorate. According to the recent Rasmussen poll, 43% of women say they will not vote for Hillary. And the latest poll by John Zogby reported an almost identical number - 42% of women would not vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances. Hillary's gender problem is underscored by the bootleg Apple Computer 1984 ad. The person who hurls the hammer at Hillary's Big Sister image is not some 40-something pony-tailed biker dude. No, it's a young, athletic woman, exactly the demographic that Hillary hopes will put her over the top in November 2008. (Read the rest here)
From
The Archives
The political establishment, with the aid of so-called educators, has been extremely successful in convincing the American people that the source of their individual rights are the first ten amendments to the Constitution for the United States commonly known as the Bill of Rights. Many believe that freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech are rights created by the First Amendment. This has resulted in these rights being called "constitutional rights." The purpose of this commentary is to dispel this misconception. None of the rights enumerated in the First Amendment are "constitutional rights." The sole purpose of the so-called Bill of Rights was to expand the system of limited government established by the Constitution by placing additional restraints on the powers of the federal government. (Read the rest here)
The
Independent Institute The conventional wisdom for dealing with Iran is demanding repeatedly that the Iranians end their uranium enrichment program, and slapping on new sanctions. Although the December 2006 United Nations Security Council sanctions that banned countries from exporting nuclear and missile materials and technology to Iran probably were prudent, widening the sanctions outside the nuclear and missile areas is a mistake. Broadening the sanctions changes their main purpose from being instrumental to being merely punitive. Although any kind of sanction is prone to evasion, an instrumental embargo which attempts to deny Iran the materials and technology needed to make a nuclear weapon and to deliver long distances via a missile could at least slow Iranian acquisition of such ingredients, or raise the price to do so. A comprehensive ban on weapons sales, cutting off loans to the Iranian government, and freezing the assets of important Iranian individuals and institutions have little to do with keeping Iran from getting nuclear and missile materials and technology. Thus, widening the measures beyond this narrow purpose turns sanctions into punitive symbolism. (Read the rest here)
The
Future of Freedom Foundation Last Friday, the presiding judge in the case, Marcia Cooke, denied Padilla's motion to dismiss. The judge held that when a person, including an American citizen, is held in custody by the Pentagon as an "enemy combatant," the time doesn't start running with respect to his right to a speedy trial. It begins running, she held, only when he becomes part of the federal criminal-justice system. Gee, I wonder if the judge's reasoning applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights as well. Maybe the First Amendment doesn't apply if it's the Pentagon that is suppressing speech and assembly as part of its perpetual "war on terror." Or maybe the Second Amendment prohibits only the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), not the Pentagon, from seizing guns from the American people, as it is doing as part of the "war on terror" in Iraq. (Read the rest here)
External
Articles We are talking major social change here, involving many millions of people. I believe that change is best done in a decentralized and multi-pronged manner. I am well aware that the situation is social and broad in scope. We are in fact linked together via the state’s laws. Yet I believe that whatever coordination needs to occur to deconstruct the state will occur without heavy-handed central planning or force. One does not make a people free or force a people to be free. Two advocates of decentralized change are Gary North and Samuel Konkin III. North’s large body of works, among other things, advocates voluntarily withdrawing from the state’s embraces while building up alternative private and church-based institutions that rebuild civil society and wealth. Konkin advocated "agorism," basically withdrawing one’s consent from the state’s activities and moving wherever possible into untaxed, unregulated, and grey markets. These are but two approaches to the problem. (Read the rest here)
Individual
Liberty - 101 Few aspects of libertarian political theory are in a less satisfactory state than the theory of punishment.[2] Usually, libertarians have been content to assert or develop the axiom that no one may aggress against the person or property of another; what sanctions may be taken against such an invader has been scarcely treated at all. We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights: the theory of "proportionality." We must now elaborate further on what such a theory of proportional punishment may imply. (Read the rest here) (Read the entire article at the source website. Use the back button to return.)
The
Mailbag
From The Libertarian Enterprise
Luke7777777.blogspot.com CATHOLICISM - LIBERTARIANISM - INFOANARCHY (Editor's Note: Very good blog with lots of thoughtful comments. Does not seem to originate in the US and has non-English material on the top of the page, so scroll down for English articles. ML)
Click
Here for the Archives
Friends
of Liberty Links
Special
Feature! Add your signature to the
Contact
The Price of Liberty Editor MamaLiberty
is the owner, publisher, writer, chief cook and bottle washer for The
Price of Liberty. |
Our
Writers No longer active contributors:
Editors And Staff
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
