7Jul09 The Placation of TaxationPosted By: Barry Belmont

On the Fourth of July, the UNR Students for Liberty were invited to the Reno Tea Party to participate, mingle, and even give a speech. It was a fun time had with a bunch of interesting people (around 2000!) and we were thankful to be a part of it. As there has been a few requests for it, below is the text of the speech Barry Belmont gave, please do enjoy:

The Placation of Taxation

Now, perhaps more than anything, attempts are made to placate people like us, to pacify us, to mollify the groups with which we freely associate, ‘to appease and to please all our well meanings deeds seem to all go up in smoke.’ Many, including politicians and citizens, seem to think that conciliatory action is always the soundest strategy towards greater liberty, that somehow middle-of-the-road decisions that no one in their heart of hearts actually believes is correct is what should be done, as if one could simply take an average of ideas and declare it to be right.

The placation of “your taxes in action” is used by many people, probably even a few of us in attendance, as an off-hand rationalization both for the ability and inefficacy of government. It is used when pointing at roads and National Parks but also at videos of police brutality and whenever we read a story about a politician engaged in illicit (most likely extra-marital) affairs.

Taken in the name of bettering the situation of everybody and reconciled with the notion that it accomplishes this laudable (if not essentially justified) goal, taxes are when one group of people, we call them the State, decides to take from another set of people in the name of giving both to themselves and to yet another set of people, perhaps even “given back” to the very same people from whom they were taken in the first place, albeit, by definition, at a lower value. It is claimed that a group of people could not come together and build a school or a road and that it takes the concerted effort of the State (a group of people). This, in essence, means that since people were not willing to pay for it on the free and open market, the State will provide it for them, by taking from the free and open market valuable resources, manpower, and time all without any incentive to be efficient nor any indicators on whether their decision is the “right” one.

What this means is that since people are not willing to pay for it on the free and open market and no people are willing to sell for it, that no one really even “wants” one in any meaningful sense, that’s why you don’t see space shuttles, egg beaters that beat only to the preludes of Chopin, or chopsticks that turn into golf clubs on the free market. But this does not appear to be true of anything the State provides. Even without a State I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of us would like schools and roads and thus there would be a market for it.

Therefore, all taxes accomplish is to pay for an apparatus that uses force to take more taxes. This apparatus also builds noble institutions so that many do not actually notice this fact until its too late. But it’s not too late. Not yet.

That is why I can no longer allow the evil of taxes to hide behind the everyday banality we ascribe to them. They are not just a mild inconvenience, they are not just a little off the top to help out the less fortunate, they are not just club dues that help build an awesome clubhouse, and they are not just a small tithing that we pay to the greater glory of the great and glorious State. They are a theft. They are stolen from you and I. Taxes are an invasion of property which is the very cogwheels for the liberty destroying machine of the State and they must be stopped.

Many who are not in attendance with us now may view us as “crazy” or “loons”: it is simply ridiculous to protest taxes, downright silly to do what we’re doing. But no matter how absurd, no matter unlikely it is that it will be this protest that will change anything, no matter how futile the fight may be, no matter how our fellow citizens may view us, we will resume the struggle. Why? Do we really think we can empty this ocean of evil a few cupfuls at a time? Do we really think by swimming against it, we will really be able to turn back the tide of growing government?

Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be placated anymore. For that reason, I will stand forth in the name of freedom, stand with those willing to fight for it, and stand and rise against all those opposed. And that is why on this day, this day of all days, we must always remember and take up as our own the motto Ludwig von Mises ascribed to himself: Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.

Comments Posted by Barry Belmont in Local/Nevada, Tax, The State
Tagged ,
6Jul09 Dems Block Vote to Audit the FedPosted By: John Russell

Here’s background on what is going on, taken from the Campaign for Liberty Newsletter:

July 6, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

Earlier today, the first shot in our battle to pass Audit the Fed through the U.S. Senate was fired on the Senate floor by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

Senator DeMint, who has a well-deserved reputation for taking the battle to the other side in the Senate, once again proved why he is such a valuable ally in our fight to bring transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve.

A little while ago, the Senate voted to pass HR 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This $3 billion bill contains, among many other things, provisions for GAO audits on certain agencies.

Seizing on a chance to take quick action to bring Audit the Fed up for a vote, and with the GAO provisions in mind, Senator DeMint attached the full text of S 604, the Senate version of Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, to HR 2918 as Senate Amendment 1367 before it was considered for final passage.

However, Senate Democrats refused to even allow a vote on the amendment! That’s right. The internationalist, Fed-loving elite in the Senate used a parliamentary tactic to shut down DeMint’s amendment.

After Senator DeMint brought Audit the Fed to the floor, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska raised a “point of order” to prevent a vote, claiming that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by “legislating” on an appropriations bill. The Senate president agreed, and the amendment was shot down.

Senator DeMint did not back down, though, and directly challenged Senate leadership by pointing out the other GAO audits contained in the bill. As Senator DeMint listed them off, the Senate president was forced to agree with Senator DeMint that each one he described, all of which would be left in for final passage, also violated Senate Rule 16.

Which tells us at least one thing: the problem wasn’t with “legislating” on the bill or violating Senate Rules (which is commonly done). Shooting down the amendment was about preventing a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time in its history!

Senate leadership is hoping this issue will just fade away so they can get on to what they deem to be more “important” business, like dictating what kind of healthcare plan you and I can carry or passing destructive Cap-and-Tax legislation.

But the American people deserve answers on what the Fed has done with trillions of our tax dollars and what they are committing us and future generations to as part of their secret deals with foreign central banks and governments.

Comments Posted by John Russell in Federal Reserve
1Jul09 Really Harry Reid… Really?Posted By: John Russell

Comments Posted by John Russell in Absurd, Tax, Videos
Tagged , ,
28Jun09 Law Enforcement Series: Karolina ObryckaPosted By: John Russell

Who: A 125 lb bartender named Karolina Obrycka and a 250 lb off-duty police officer named Anthony Abbate
What: After Karolina would not serve Abbate anymore drinks in the tavern, he became violent and pummeled the bartender to the ground and continued kicking her.
Where: Chicagom Illinois at Jesse’s Shortstop Inn
When: Incident: February 2007. Judgment: June 2009.
What Happened: Abbate said she pushed him first and claimed self defense for the assault. However, Cook County Circuit Judge John Flemming rejected the claim but only sentenced him to a home curfew of 8PM to 6AM and 130 hours of community service. Additionally, Abbate was relieved of his duties and pay but was not formally fired from the Chicago Police Department.
Footage:

Watch CBS Videos Online
Extra:
There were two surveys on the source website:
1) What do you think of the sentence?
It’s too lenient 96%
It seems reasonable 3%
It’s too harsh 1%
Total Votes: 22,236

2) Do you think Abbate would have gone to prison if he hadn’t been a policeman?
Yes 93%
No 4%
I don’t know 3%
Total Votes: 21,375

Source:
http://news.aol.com/article/cop-in-bar-beating-gets-probation/510139?icid=main|main|dl1|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fcop-in-bar-beating-gets-probation%2F510139

Comments Posted by John Russell in Law Enforcement Series, Police
Tagged , , ,
27Jun09 Finally, a plan to pay for the stimulusPosted By: Travis Hagen


US To Trade Gold Reserves For Cash Through Cash4Gold.com

Comments Posted by Travis Hagen in Videos
Tagged , , , ,
26Jun09 iPorn: Paradoxes and PossibilitiesPosted By: Barry Belmont

Yesterday, Apple introduced its first app(lication) for the iPhone to feature full frontal nudity. This was subsequently banned later that day (or perhaps earlier this morning) for what appear to be two contradictory reasons. The devloper of this “Hottest Girls” app, on his website claimed that he asked for the app to be removed, saying

“The Hottest Girls app is temporarily sold out. The server usage is extremely high because of the popularity of this app. Thus, by not distributing the app, we can prevent our servers from crashing. Customer satisfaction is more important to us than profits. Those who already have the app will still be able to use our app. To answer the question on everyone’s mind: Yes, the topless images will still be there when it is sold again.”

While Apple itself claimed:

“Apple will not distribute applications that contain inappropriate content. The developer of this application added inappropriate content directly from their server after the application had been approved and distributed, and after the developer had subsequently been asked to remove some offensive content. This was a direct violation of the terms of the iPhone Developer Program. The application is no longer available on the App Store.”

Which brings up an interesting question: which is the better reason? Is it better that a business stop a practice for customer service (read in, “long-term profit”) or for apparent moral considerations? Are both aspects equally laudible or detestable? Should a business be allowed to discriminate on any basis it chooses or must there be some “meta”-reasoning behind it, that is, are some reasons for doing the exact same action better than others and does this make a difference?

To explore this issue, consider the opposite, if it were only actions that mattered: intentions are irrlevant. As appealing as this might be on the face of it, would you really find a lovable, “can’t-get-anything-right” serial killer who, lacking the strength to properly strangle his victims, instead gives them soothing massages? Or what about a woman, who, though she never says anything in public, hates black people more than anything in the world and prays to God (who she fervently believes in) that He slaughter every single one of them? More to the point, we implicitly do believe that the normative reasoning behind certain actions are important, even if not exclusively important. Getting a birthday card from somone is nice, but in our minds can become tainted if we later learn that the person who gave it to us only did it so that we would mow his lawn in return.

But neither do we think intentions are all that matters. Actions do matter. Hugging a bunny is sweet, but crushing it is awful, even if the intent was the same.

Now that we have established that intentions to account for something, we must establish if it is at all possible to rank them. It would be absurd to say “this intention is twice as good as that one” or even to ascribe something like 1.7 gintents (the units of good intention) or 4.5 bintents (bad intentions). In fact, I am not entirely sure one could even compare gintents to bintents or even compare bintents to themselves, could one really be able to say this bad intention is worse than that bad intention? Perhaps, but for this present discussion we will limit ourselves to gintents. But since we held that you can’t rank something as two gintents above another, we seem to be at an impasse. However, this is only if we consider the cardinal nature of our ranking system (where, 2 is greater than 1 and 6 greater than 5.9, based on the numbers themselves). If we, instead, consider our ranking system as one of ordinality (where an amount B is greater than an amount A because it occurs after it) then we have no problem. Even if we do not know how much greater B is than A, simply knowing B > A is enough.

So is customer service > moral considerations? Does it matter? I claim it does matter, but that we are still unable to solve it. We are unable to because one can simply be morphed into the other, even though they can be treated as distinct and separate things. This may be unclear, so for example, consider the case of Sally who works at a customer service desk at Big-Mart. Big-Mart sells guns, which Sally opposes on moral grounds. If a customer comes up to her and asks her where the guns are located, then she is feeling the very real difference between moral considerations and customer service. What should she do?

Well, she works for Big-Mart and her job is to provide for customers. One way she does this is by following certain moral rules (e.g. “don’t yell at the customers” or “don’t lie to the customers” or “be nice to the customers”) which increase both her happiness and the happiness of those she serves. Another way she does this is by giving the customer what they want, for instance, answering questions about bath salts or toilet bowl cleaners, which usually involves little to no moral weight.  But now in our example she has to choose between those morals and thos responsibilities.

Or does she?

What is it about “doing your job” that makes it a responsibility? The fact that you are under a contractual obligation between yourself and others which you are free to break (and suffer the consequences of) at any time. What’s so special about your morals? The fact that you are, in effect, under a contractual obligation between yourself and others which you are also free to break (messy issues of “free-will” aside). What I am getting at is that though morals and responsibilities are in reality different, in essence they are the same. And this is where the dilemma arises.

But then again, this may just boil down to angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argumentation, though I sense there is more to this. If we are unable to decide who comes first, the customer or ourselves, then why have moral convictions at all? This debate is important if but for the simple fact that the distinction between ourselves and others is an inherent classification that all of us already implicitly make (recall our Lady Racist). Our very sense of uniqueness is the foundation for this paradox: who’s more important, us or them?

Comments Posted by Barry Belmont in Absurd, Random
Tagged ,
25Jun09 Giving “the right to ‘bare’ arms” a whole new meaning.Posted By: Mary Hunton

There has been a lot of talk on prostitution going around the Students For Liberty site as of late, enticed by my own article (sorry, guys!) and it got me thinking about another right that deals first and foremost with what people are allowed to do with their own bodies. The topic is tricky, and we have actually debated it in one of our meetings if I remember correctly, and the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became of my conclusion.

The human body is a wonderful thing, and it’s something that all of us happen to have (go figure, eh?). However, concealing the human form, hiding it from sight, has been in practice ever since the beginning of the written human history back with the Egyptians, and far before that. Whether you believe we hide the human form due to the modesty and shame that Adam and Eve acquired upon being cast from Eden or due to some other, evolutionary mechanism, my question here is this: why is it such a big deal?

Public indecency laws exist in every state with different penalties and severities, but the fact still remains that, for some reason, we seem to feel that the government needs to step in to indicate when, where, and under what circumstances it is okay for someone to choose not to wear clothing. Wearing clothes is a personal choice. We all have different tastes, but those tastes can’t legitimatize wearing nothing at all. I don’t understand this. The human figure is natural and normal, why is there such a big fuss about it?

Most of our problems with public nudity are cultural. Within the American culture, the naked human body is seen as something obscene and strictly sexual. The only time many of us are exposed to seeing a completely nude body other than our own is within the confines of a rated R movie or trashy magazine, and this only further identifies it into that negative stereotype. Due to this, the naked figure is torn to pieces and further demonized, strengthening the social taboo.

However, half-clad women are all right on the cover of Cosmopolitan and Allure as long as they are sexy celebrities, and the un-sexy ones are allowed for the sake of gossip on People. From what I can see, our views on nudity and sexuality are skewed. Risqué and sensual, half-naked men and women are completely acceptable, whereas being naked in a totally normal, everyday, non-lewd fashion is still prohibited by law.

Simply walking around nude is perfectly acceptable. As far as I’m concerned it infringes upon no one’s rights, and if someone so chooses not to wear clothes I see absolutely no problem with that. The mere act of being naked is entirely normal and natural, and it is not something the government should tell us we can or cannot do. I chose to put clothing on this morning, but if I hadn’t who am I really hurting? The people who are lucky enough to see my beautiful, naked form? I think not.

I know what you’re thinking. “Not everyone is as stunningly good-looking as you are, Mary! This logic is ridiculous!” But I have to disagree. It isn’t about whether or not people look good naked, it’s about whether or not they have the right to choose to be, and I believe they do.

But it still stands: is the fact (and yes, sadly, it is a fact) that it could offend people enough to condemn it? I think not. No matter what anyone does, we cannot remove every ounce of offensive material from the world. Have you ever driven down the highway and seen a billboard hanging high that says, “Jesus saves?” That right there could be considered offensive material, because I certainly have never seen anything preaching about Buddha, Muhammad, or Satan up on those boards. What about the Montana Meth Project? Not everyone appreciates being exposed to everything they see every day, and yet we let it slip through. Why should the naked body be any different?

Of course, there are things that really would not be okay publically. Sexual conduct, for example, but merely walking around without clothes on is far from that. There is a very big difference between being inappropriate and being, well, naked.

Yet there are less “moral” reasons that speak against public nudity, but none of these are completely justified either. Sanitation is the biggest issue I’ve run across. Sexually Transmitted Infections are the major worry, but it works much the same way as any other sickness. If you are infected, it is your responsibility to take care of yourself. What do you do when you have the flu? You certainly don’t go about and infect the whole world, do you? You get yourself to a doctor and make yourself healthy again. There are ways to prevent spreading illness, with or without clothing.

But then there are the STIs you can’t ever get rid of, such as HIV, HPV, and herpes. What do we do about those? Viruses actually don’t live long outside of the human body, so HIV, HPV, and herpes wouldn’t be a problem. The only way to contract many of these diseases is through intercourse, needle sharing, or any other situation where bodily fluid is directly exchanged or skin-to-skin contact is made, and if left stagnant on non-human surfaces they will die and become harmless.

There’s more than that, though. Safety could very well be an issue, as well, but not a big enough issue to demand its illegalization. Walking around naked could, theoretically, increase the chance of one getting attacked, whether verbally or physically, and potentially raped (as my sister and roommate pointed out), but again this is not necessarily true. The way we dress already dictates how certain people treat us sometimes. Being naked is as much as a lifestyle as dressing in any stereotypical fashion. If I were to wear the hijab I would be instantly classified and, potentially, judged based on that.

As for rape, I’m sorry, but I doubt that someone would randomly pick a woman up in broad daylight if she’s not strolling down some questionable neighborhood. Unless she is waltzing around town alone at midnight in her birthday suit, which isn’t a smart decision whether or not she is wearing clothing, this chance is minimal. I do not believe that the rape rate would rise simply because some women would make the conscious decision not to wear clothes.

Sexual promiscuity is also questionable. Would the fact that there are people walking around without clothing on make the society a more sexually rich environment? I don’t believe so. Think of it this way: just because being naked would be legal, we must take into consideration the human condition. How many people, in reality, would make that choice? I highly doubt that there would be enough nude people walking around to promote such a thing. Just legalizing it would not mean that everyone would choose it. I would be willing to bet that less than ten percent of the population would actually do so. However, even if that number was as high as fifty percent, would it really be a problem?

There are many situations where the vast majority of the population is naked. Nude beaches, clubs, and resorts are common in some places. Within these societies, there is no increase in sexual promiscuity, diseases, or anything of the sort. Nothing that we worry about with public nudity in our society actually comes to life within these institutions. If places where everyone is naked aren’t any worse than places where no one is, why is there such a fear of mixing the two?

The point still stands that my body is mine to do with what I will. There is nothing wrong with nakedness, and the government doesn’t need to step in and tell me what I can and cannot do. If I get to choose the kind of clothing I wear, why can I not simply choose not to wear any at all?

Comments Posted by Mary Hunton in Libertarianism, Random
Tagged ,
25Jun09 Oh, Hookers.Posted By: Travis Hagen

In the comments Mary’s article ‘Oh, Nevada‘ there is an epic discussion about prostitution and the morality of legalizing something that leads to drug addiction, sexual abuse, and human trafficking. While I found no hard studies on these side effects of prostitution, let’s just assume them to be true. Clearly, it is impossible to support an activity that leads to such terrible consequences, right? Wrong! Libertarians support legalized (and unregulated) prostitution not because we are horrible people who want to see people throw their lives down the shitter, but because we recognize that it is their life to throw away. Nobody has the authority to tell anybody else what they can or cannot do with his or her own body.

The case was brought up about women who voluntarily enter prostitution, but then get hooked on drugs by their pimp and are “dependent on the pimp monetarily and for illegal substances and is unable to ‘quit any time she wants to.’” (from a comment by Jacob K). Let us assume this too is also true, and still the case does not change. The prostitute is working to feed an addiction, she could leave, but she doesn’t want to, she would prefer to satisfy her need for drugs, shelter, and whatever else the pimp provides. This is a classic trade for mutual benefit, the pimp gets money for his protection and drug procuring, and the prostitute gets drugs and business for her body. They both find this trade acceptable, it happens, and they continue doing business. Neither I, nor anybody else has a right to interfere with this trade.

Of course, in the case of someone kidnapped and forced into sexual servitude, this is definitely not the case. Here, someone is forcibly taken, against his or her will, and made to perform certain acts. Yet, despite this abhorrent situation, the crime is still not prostitution. The exceptional evil here is kidnapping and slavery. Granted, prevalent prostitution leads to a greater market for sexual slaves, but trying to outlaw a legal, voluntary action to prevent a separate crime is as ridiculous as it is stupid. If it were not, there would have to be laws against trade, property, and of course, all human interaction. While these laws would drastically cut crime, they are obviously ludicrous. While more drastic than a law prohibiting prostitution, the same principle is tested. People need to be free to make mistakes, to follow their own paths, and not have bumpers on life. There is no grand social responsibility to save people’s lives from self-destruction.

In fact, the only way for prostitution to become anything but voluntary is for another, non-consensual act to take place. The prostitute must be beaten, forcibly addicted to drugs, or coerced in some other fashion, and that is the crime. Prostitution is defined as “offering sexual intercourse for pay,” and this act alone is always voluntary (see, it says ‘offering’). Getting addicted to drugs, becoming dependent on a pimp, and not making tons of money is not the responsibly of the government to stop. Even though life as a prostitute is dangerous, with exceptional risk, it should still be legal and open. It’s about freedom dammit.

Comments Posted by Travis Hagen in Libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Stupid Government
Tagged , ,
24Jun09 Law Enforcement Series: Ronnie HollowayPosted By: John Russell

Who: A 49 year old schizophrenic man by the name of Ronnie Holloway and a policeman by the name of Joseph Rios III
What: After complying with a female officer’s request to zip up his jacket while he was on a sidewalk, the male driver of the vehicle they were riding in steps out and proceeds to assault him.
Where: Passaic, New Jersey
When: May 29, 2009
What Happened: After tackling Holloway to the ground, it can be seen that the officer began allowing him to stand back up, only to body slam him into the police car. The punching continues until backup arrives. Holloway was arrested on charges of resisting arrest and wandering with the intent to buy drugs. He has filed a complaint and an Internal Affairs investigation is underway. Officer Rios remains on active duty during the investigation, and has made no comment.
Footage:

Raw Footage:

Source:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6850726

Comments Posted by John Russell in Law Enforcement Series, Police
Tagged , ,
22Jun09 Oh, Nevada.Posted By: Mary Hunton

Of all the states I’ve been to, I’ve got to say that I am completely and utterly in love with my own. Nevada is simply the single coolest state in the country, hands down. We’ve got sagebrush, crazy weather patterns, some of the world’s worst drivers, and, you guessed it, more sagebrush. There’s no denying it, the Silver State leaves much to be desired when it comes to predictable summers (why the hell is it still so cold!?) and green shrubbery, but what it lacks in pleasant aesthetics it makes up for in badass laws.

Nevada gets a lot of crap for being the only state with legalized prostitution and gambling, and our gun and alcohol laws appall the more “sophisticated” states, but clearly everyone else is looking at things in the complete wrong way. Prostitution is nothing more than a profession and gambling doesn’t hurt anyone but the poor sucker throwing all of his money into the slots. Making guns harder to buy won’t stop people from being shot and keeping alcohol confined strictly to liquor stores is doing nothing but making alcoholics drive a little bit further for their fill.

I’ve been through a good few states, and being from Nevada always gives me a little bit of an edge. I can’t even accurately describe the horrified looks I’ve gotten when, upon being asked if I’ve seen a prostitute, I not only say yes, but proceed to explain where the actual brothels in Elko are. It gets even worse when I then tell them how if one were to go to the clinic on Friday, more than half of the people in the waiting room are, in fact, prostitutes waiting for their mandatory weekly check up.

“That’s disgusting!” they tell me.

“No,” I say. “That’s a way of life.”

Of course prostitution isn’t the most ideal way to live life, and no little girl in Nevada grows up and actually aspires to be a hooker when she grows up. It’s more the fact that she can if she needs to that makes it acceptable. It’s her body. If she wants to sell it she has absolutely every right to.

The same goes for gambling. The casinos basically keep Nevada’s economy alive, and if people want to put their money in on it there is no reason they shouldn’t. It’s not like it hurts anyone other than themselves in the long run (and sometimes it pays off. I won’t lie, I love it when my parents hit it big–they get really generous and slip some into my bank account without telling me). Not to mention, let’s face it, if gambling was really such a horrible thing, would over thirty million people visit Las Vegas every year for it? I didn’t think so.

But just because Nevada is the only state with legalized prostitution and gambling doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen elsewhere. The lottery, for example, is still a form of gambling, and Indian reservations around the country have hopped onto the casino bandwagon. Prostitution is also country wide. Just because it’s not legal doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. Girls sell themselves off on the streets all the time under the nose of the law. And people think it’s a bad idea to keep prostitutes under a safe roof with regulations as to who can and cannot see them?

Let’s face it: Nevada certainly isn’t the most ideal place by any means, but where is? For all intents and purposes, Nevada’s got its head in the game. Not many other states think it’s okay for you to do what you want with your body or your money. At least we’ve got that one right!

Comments Posted by Mary Hunton in Libertarianism, Local/Nevada
Tagged , ,
Pages (27): 1 2 3 4 Next » ... Last »