Keeping Rights on Paper, Losing Them on the Streets

Firearms, Legal System, Police Statism, Private Crime, Victimless Crimes
Share

While many people love to promote the various rights guaranteed by the Constitution, it is interesting to see how rights are restricted not through legislation or even an active judiciary, but simply by law enforcement not respecting them. Consider the right to keep and bear arms and this officer’s reaction to a man exercising his right. The Second Amendment has been upheld by the courts, and there have been recent landmark cases restoring that right to people unfortunate enough to live in places like Washington, D.C. Legal victories such at that have little effect on those supposedly hired to defend person and property, however:

Keeping Rights on Paper, Losing Them on the Streets Read Post »

Helmet Laws and Needless deaths

Health Care, Nanny Statism, Political Correctness, Victimless Crimes
Share

Yahoo News reports the death of a motorcyclist during a protest ride against New York’s helmet laws. While it is certainly tempting to simply cite this as a case of someone “asking for it” and getting it, consider the specifics of this case: Philip Contos was riding without a helmet at this place and at this time specifically because he was protesting against the state. Whether or not he normally wore a helmet, even, is irrelevant. He would not have been riding there and then if not for the state. The sad truth is that protesting laws against risky behavior unfortunately requires actually engaging in risky behavior. I, a nonsmoker, despise anti-smoking laws. How could I protest against these laws, however? By engaging in the banned behavior is the most obvious way. So, too, with helmet laws.  At minimum, Contos’s death, whenever it would have happened, would not have happened at that time at that place, under those circumstances, except for the meddling of the busybodies who claim the right to decide what is best for a 55 year old man.

Helmet Laws and Needless deaths Read Post »

The Corrosive Effects of IP

Corporatism, IP Law, Pop Culture, Protectionism
Share

Libertarian thought has largely moved against IP in recent years, largely due to the groundbreaking work of Stephan Kinsella. Kinsella’s work is a powerful defense of genuine property rights and a thorough repudiation of government-granted monopolies. One of the overlooked implications of the rights violations inherent in intellectual property laws is the terrible effect of copyright laws and government spectrum licensing on culture.

Social conservatives have long attacked the media for promoting immoral behavior. This is often quite correct. Their statist worldview has made them ill-equipped to understand the nature of the problem, and the correct solution. With laws which establish monopolies, a number of problems naturally follow. Let me illustrate this by comparing the world of professional music today and about 200 years ago. During the days of Beethoven and Mozart, musicians earned a living from performances, patronage, and, perhaps most importantly, teaching. In a world without public schools, they taught the children of the wealthy. This required them to present themselves to those people in a way which would appeal to them. Contrast that with today. Musicians are promoted by a few major record labels, and intellectual property laws mean that they have to be paid whenever their works are played or purchased. There is a greatly diminished requirement for ongoing work and constant customer relations. The fact that a relatively few people who run the labels and own the radio and television stations, act essentially as gatekeepers to popular culture, means that a tiny cabal of entertainment executives are able to drive the culture down paths of their choosing. IP, spectrum licensing and other media regulations are largely to blame for the oft-cited decline of Western culture.

 

The Corrosive Effects of IP Read Post »

On Rand Paul and Slavery

Health Care, Nanny Statism, Political Correctness, Racism, Totalitarianism
Share

Reason’s Matt Welch criticizes Rand Paul for Paul’s assertion that the right to healthcare implies slavery. While it is true that in minds of many, the term “slavery” specifically refers to chattel slavery as practiced in the United States prior to the end of the American Civil War, the term itself is not so limited. And this is not the first time that a prominent person has used the term in regard to employment restrictions: Curt Flood was well known for saying “A well paid slave is nonetheless, a slave.” The same applies here. Indeed, I have compared modern attitudes and events to slavery myself, more than once. Of course, there are critical differences between Rand and Flood and myself, with melanin levels likely being the most important one. But just as Flood’s comparison in the past was apt, so to is Paul’s comparison in the present an accurate description. It is easy to see that there have been far worse tortures in the past than waterboarding, or even beatings, but I would certainly still call the latter “torture.” So, too, would I call forced labor of any sort “slavery.” Wearing a smock rather than rags does not change the name.

On Rand Paul and Slavery Read Post »

The State v. Honesty

Business, Nanny Statism, Private Crime, Private Security & Law
Share

Gizmodo reports on a story from New Zealand about a supermarket which accidentally opened with no employees inside the store. People shopped and checked out using the self-checkout lanes. Half of the people actually paid, but note the explanation as to why the other half did not (emphasis mine):

In fact, after reviewing the tape, a religious studies professor said it seemed like everyone was going to pay until they got stuck at the self checkout machine waiting for an employee to approve an alcohol purchase. Once they couldn’t find an employee, they left with their groceries in tow.

Here we have a case of the government actually incentivizing theft and costing the store money through its moral policing. Without state laws against underage drinking, it is unlikely that stores would require employee approvals for any purchase.

The State v. Honesty Read Post »

Scroll to Top