Google Search

Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts

Sunday, September 22, 2013

How Anarchism Can Solve Social Problems: Gary Chartier at Freedom Fest 2013


"Once states get a footing, they tend to crowd out alternatives," says philosopher and La Sierra University professor Gary Chartier, author most recently of Anarchy and Legal Order. "Also, I think they tend to colonize people, ideologically."

Reason Magazine's Matt Welch caught up with Chartier at this year's Freedom Fest to discuss his extensive writings on anarchy and left-libertarianism.

Held each July in Las Vegas, Freedom Fest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks.

About 4 minutes.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Paul Detrick and Oppenheimer.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- How Medical Innovation Redefines Our World
- "Punishment Has Been Achieved"
- The United States Government Does Not Want Americans To Travel Abroad
- Social Pressure as a Means of Keeping Order
- Are Police in America Now a Military, Occupying Force?
- Lynne Stewart: Convicted of Supporting the Declaration of Independence
- Abolish Your Local Police
- Truth as Treason

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Disabled Vet Gets A Taste Of The 'Freedom' He Was Fighting For After Cop Kicks Him Off Boardwalk & Tickets Him Over Service Dog


Chris | InformationLiberation

Adam Kokesh once said if troops care about fighting for freedom, they should be fighting against the government, not for it. Here's a good example why from NBC40.net:
NORTH WILDWOOD - A disabled U.S. Army veteran, who served our country for 19 years, says he was kicked off the North Wildwood boardwalk last night, simply for having his service dog by his side.

Jared Goering served 1 tour in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan, and spent 19 years as an active member of the Army. Jared said, "I served from 1993 to 2012." He then told NBC40 he couldn't sleep Thursday night because he felt so disrespected by a North Wildwood police officer.

Goering said, "Just like any veteran with disabilities with a service dog, to come back and be harassed and shown no respect, it upset me - it really bothered me. I was up most of the night thinking about it."

A North Wildwood police officer issued Jared and his wife a summons because of the dog. Goering said, ?I expected to get more respect from him because of the jobs that we both have to do."

"He mockingly asked if all veterans get service dogs," said Jared?s wife, Sally Goering, ?his dog is medically necessary and he is a service dog."

[...]The Goering family said, even after showing the officer the dog's service identification card, he still issued them a summons and kicked them off the boardwalk.


_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Cop Convicted Of Second-Degree Manslaughter For Shooting 5-Yr-Old Boy In Back Of Head Gets Record Expunged, Now Free Again To Become An Officer
- Boston Cop Shoves Videographer, Then Threatens to Arrest Him for "Battery On A Police Officer"
- Man Refuses To ID At Texas Border Patrol Checkpoint, Checkpoint Officer Says "Get The F*ck Out of Here" & Waves Him Through
- Attorneys For Ibragim Todashev's Father Say There's NO Evidence He Was Armed When FBI Executed Him
- Philly Cop Filmed Punching Small Woman In Face At Puerto Rican Day Parade Gets Job Back With Full Back Pay
- Oregon Deputies Caught on Dash Cam Acknowledging Illegal Traffic Stop
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- "They Kidnapped Our Child": Why CPS Needs Transparency Now

I am going to start using statist excuses in my daily life. "Citizen safety" will become part of my repertoire. "Based on my training and experience" will also be a key factor. Just think of the difference we could make if we all became a Citizen Peace Patrol armed with handguns and cameras streaming to Youtube and researched citizen arrest laws... Every time we observed police officers violate the law we could film them and effect a citizen's arrest. Oh, probably wise to keep some cash at home for bail money, but if enough of us did this it would make a difference. We will make a public apology pending investigation. Aka City Hall speak for we will apologize if we are shamed into doing so.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Monday, July 15, 2013

The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America


by John W. Whitehead

In the Wachowskis? iconic 1999 film, The Matrix, the protagonist Neo is wakened from a lifelong slumber by Morpheus, a freedom fighter seeking to liberate humans from virtual slavery ? a lifelong hibernation state ? imposed by hyper-advanced artificial intelligence machines. With their minds plugged into a perfectly crafted virtual reality, few humans ever realize they are living in a dream world to such an extent that most are willing to give their lives in order to preserve the system that enslaves them.

Sound familiar? It should, because as I make clear in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (available on Amazon.com and in stores), we too are living in a fantasy world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy, while in reality we are little more than slaves in thrall to an authoritarian regime, with its constant surveillance, manufactured media spectacles, secret courts, inverted justice, and violent repression of dissent. And for the few who dare to challenge the status quo such as Edward Snowden, they are assured of being branded either as conspiratorialists, alarmists, lunatics or outright traitors.

So well-oiled and interconnected are the cogs, wheels and gear shifts in our government machinery that it can be near to impossible to decipher where the fault lies when something goes awry. What some are slowly coming to realize, however, is that the mechanism itself has changed. Its purpose is no longer to keep our republic running smoothly. To the contrary, this particular contraption?s purpose is to keep the corporate police state in power.

Just consider how insidious and incestuous the various ?parts? of the mechanism have become.

Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents? fundamental rights. Congress? most grievous behavior, however, is its failure to bring the president to task, who for all intents and purposes now operates above the law. The precedent set during the Bush administration of Congressmen going along with senseless and illegal White House policies has turned the office of the president into an untouchable, unstoppable force.

The President. Despite having ridden into office on a wave of optimism and the promise of a new America free of civil liberties abuses, President Obama has proven to be a more effective manipulator of the American people than his predecessors. His presidency has been defined by ?kill lists,? the murder of civilians in secret drone strikes, the assassination of American citizens, the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay, the championing of warrantless surveillance of American citizens, and most recently, the funneling of arms to al-Qaeda backed rebels in Syria.

The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ? once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America ? has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Consider that in the past month alone, the justices have determined that criminal suspects, who are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, may have their DNA forcibly extracted from them by police. They have decided that staying silent while the police question you may be considered evidence of guilt, despite the Fifth Amendment?s protection against self-incrimination and the well-established ?right to remain silent.? These are just two examples of a Court that, like the rest of the government, places profit, security, and convenience above our basic rights.

The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world?s largest corporations. Besides shoving drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. From championing the invasion of Iraq based upon absolute fabrications, to the fanatic support of all surveillance state policies and the demonization of whistle blowers like Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, the pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.

The American People. Of course, the most superior engine in the world still requires some form of energy to bring it to life and maintain it, and in this particular mechanism, ?we the people? serve that vital function. We are the petrol that powers the motor, for good or bad. We now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn?t matter what you call us ? chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it?s all the same ? what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private.

Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society. Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives, and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall. Having allowed ourselves to descend into darkness, refusing to see what is really happening, happily trading the truth for false promises of security and freedom, we have allowed the police state to emerge and to flourish.
_
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He is the author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State and The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks).


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- How Thieves and Terrorists "Apologize" to their Victims
- The True Cycle of Violence
- Will They Assassinate Snowden?
- The State Doesn't Define What is True or Right
- The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It
- Snowden's Flight to Freedom
- Freedom versus The National-Security State
- Why People Tolerate a Total State

If a handful of unelected (by the people) judges can override a vote of the majority of the people, that should shatter any illusion that we are living in a democracy, or that your vote means anything. America is full of grossly deluded people who think they're free. Americans are just one step away from being manacled and chained to work benches in concentration camps We are all bullied into surrendering our children to the hostile, uncaring, unloving, soul-less, indoctrination camps.
We are broken people. A country of people who never truly own their own homes. They pay perpetual rent to the bankers and the puppet politicians that the bankers own.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Snowden's Flight to Freedom

by Jeffrey Tucker

Dear rest of the world: Please know that it?s painful for us Americans to see what is happening in the case of Edward Snowden.

Here he is flying from Hong Kong to Russia ? countries that seem like safe havens from the long reach of the U.S. empire. Where will he end up? Could be Iceland, Venezuela, or Ecuador. He needs someplace to go where the authorities can?t be intimated to turn him over to his jailers and possible executioners.

It?s either that or face the chair for doing the right thing. Even though I understand the corruption of the system ? and I get just how bad things really are ? it?s still hard to process. The law under which he has been charged dates from 1917, and its sole purpose was to destroy the peace movement of the time. As Woodrow Wilson said before the law passed, ?Creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out.?

And they were. If you spoke out against the war, you were arrested. Papers were effectively nationalized. Prices were controlled. Independent thinkers of all types were jailed. Actually, a number of Americans at the time fled to Russia for freedom and found themselves in the middle of the Bolshevik Revolution. Then, like now, the choice was the frying pan or the fire.

So yes, we know that America has not been itself for a long time. Maybe it never was. But still, we read the Federalist Papers. We read Thomas Jefferson. We read the Declaration, the Constitution, the words of Madison and Paine. We just can?t shake the idea that there is something to this notion that government ought to be limited and that people have the right to freedom.

Snowden is a good young man who wanted his fellow citizens to know what our own government is doing to us. He wanted to warn us that our own government is reading our emails and chats and listening in on our phone calls. He blew the whistle on the alarming fact that our own government is assembling a vast database from which it can draw at any point in the future, essentially putting the government in a position to blackmail every citizen forever.

He didn?t just assert all this. He proved it with vast documentation. And he blew the whistle because he thought that doing so might help bring change. I detect something like naivete in his voice. It?s like he still holds to the old ideals. Maybe he was paying attention in the civics class where they teach about the ?Land of the Free? and things like that.

To say what he revealed is unconstitutional is a ridiculous understatement. This program utterly shreds not only the Constitution, but every notion of liberal society. If we had any truly democratic features remaining in our system, Snowden would be given total immunity to prosecution and asked to testify to Congress. Then Congress would get to the bottom of the scandal and gut the agencies that took advantage of public fear to enact totalitarian surveillance.

Alas, Snowden is on the run. But everywhere he goes, he releases more information. No matter how bad you think it is, it seems to get worse. While in Hong Kong, he showed journalists evidence that the U.S. government hacked Chinese mobile phone companies to read millions of text messages. It followed the communications of professors at Tsinghua University. It burrowed into the databases of Pacnet in Hong Kong, their version of AT&T.

These revelations come after years and years of kvetching by U.S. officials that China has been stealing U.S. trade secrets. Whether that is true or not (maybe they?ve made a mountain out of a molehill), just think for a minute about what Snowden?s information implies. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot.

Let?s just say that a Chinese dissident came to the U.S. and provided The New York Times with proof that the Chinese communists had tapped the phones of our university professors, had been reading our text messages, and had burrowed down deep to have a direct passage to listen to our phone calls.

Can you imagine that response? There would be hysteria. Sermons from the pulpit on Sunday would once again attack the godless communists and their imperial ways. After a few weeks, we might even be close to all-out war. The American people would be absolutely beside themselves.

So you wonder why the Chinese people might be just slightly annoyed to hear this information. And then consider that the U.S. is hounding this leaker and demanding he be captured like a criminal and turned over to the U.S. for a thorough flogging, a life sentence in jail, or possibly even worse.

What?s mystifying is that all of this is happening under a president who ran on a platform of encouraging whistle-blowers. Maybe this promise was like Chairman Mao?s promise to let a hundred flowers bloom. Once they bloomed, he cut them down. Maybe Obama?s encouragement of whistle-blowers was designed to find the traitors and eliminate them.

I actually doubt it, really. In fact, I wonder how much Obama really can control the national security state at all. I?m not against blaming the president for anything and everything, and it?s true that he might have intervened to stop it ? and he might have even personally approved it.

More likely, however, is the strange reality that no American really wants to admit: namely, that the president is a figurehead. A glorified PR man for the state, and not a godlike central planner in charge of all things. There are only so many hours in a day, and most of the president?s days are filled with defending himself, keeping his entourage together, putting the gloss on the elites and their policies, and meeting people and the like.

The system is much bigger than one man, and that one man that everyone trumpets is mostly a bit planner, a survivor who watches the clock and worries what the history books will say about him.

In the day-to-day machinations of the state, we are largely ruled by bad laws and legislation enacted by people long dead ? the worst of it passed 100 years ago ? and they are enforced by bureaucrats and players today who are not subject to any aspect of the democratic system. This combination of legislative cruft plus bureaucratic inertia on behalf of public and private elites is the real source of the tyranny of our times.
_
Jeffrey Tucker is the publisher and executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, the Primus inter pares of the Laissez Faire Club, and the author of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo, It's a Jetsons World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes, and A Beautiful Anarchy: How to Build Your Own Civilization in the Digital Age, among thousands of articles. Click to sign up for his free daily letter. Email him: tucker@lfb.org | Facebook | Twitter | Google


View the original article here

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Freedom versus The National-Security State


by Jacob G. Hornberger

U.S. officials are poking fun at the fact that Edward Snowden, whose commitment to a free society motivated him to disclose the NSA's massive secret surveillance scheme over the American people (and the people of the world), has fled to China and Russia, two countries that are near the top of the list of violators of civil liberties and privacy.

I find that very amusing. When U.S. officials point their finger at China and Russia, they conveniently ignore the fact that there are three fingers pointing back at them.

In their rage over Snowden, they miss the big point. In communist and totalitarian regimes, such as those in China and Russia, there are no such things as civil liberties and privacy. U.S. officials are absolutely right about that. There is no way that the Chinese people or the Russian people can be considered to be living in a free society so long as their governments wield the power to spy on them and monitor their activities, especially by monitoring their telephone calls or reading their mail. In fact, government surveillance over the citizenry was always one of the hallmarks of the communist regimes in East Germany and Eastern Europe.

But that's the point! That's precisely why Snowden, libertarians, and a few principled liberals and conservatives are objecting to the massive NSA surveillance scheme! Duh! It has no place in a free society. It is antithetical to a free society--not only in China and Russia (and North Korea and Cuba) but also right here in the United States!

U.S. officials take the position that it's bad when the communists spy on their own citizens but good when the U.S. government spies on its own citizens. How ludicrous is that? The fact is that it's bad when any government spies on its own citizens. It's what an unfree society is all about!

The problem is this: Since the first grade, the American people have been inculcated with the notion that they live in a free society. They're convinced that this is true. That's why they tear up at sports events when they're asked to sing "Thank God I'm an American because at least I know I'm free" and when they praise the troops for "defending our freedom" by killing people thousands of miles away from American shores.

Thus, since most every American living today has been born and raised within the national-security apparatus that was grafted onto our constitutional order after World War II, we have ended up with a citizenry that thinks that this entire "national security" scheme constitutes "freedom" and is grateful for it.

Secrecy, secret courts, secret surveillance schemes, MKULTRA, wars of aggression, assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, coups, support of dictatorships, state terrorism, murder, kidnapping, rendition, torture partnerships with brutal dictatorships, execution, foreign aid, perjury, interference with foreign political and economic systems, interventionism, foreign military bases, militarism, and imperialism.

In the mind of the average American, all this is freedom, owing to the false mindset that has been inculcated within him since the first grade. It's tyranny only when foreign governments do it, not when the U.S. government does it.

The sad part about all this is that not only do modern-day American think that living under a national-security state constitutes freedom, all that matters to them anyway is safety. Many of them really don't care if they live under a tyrannical regime so long as it keeps them safe from the terrorists (or the communists, the drug dealers, the illegal aliens, or any other boogeymen that national-security state officials come up with to terrify people into continuing to embrace the national-security state way of life).

What matters to me, as a libertarian, is freedom. ?And the biggest impediment to my freedom and well-being lies not with the terrorists but instead with the entire U.S. national-security state apparatus, the anti-freedom apparatus that was brought into existence to fight anti-freedom apparatuses in communist countries.

The time is past to talk about "reforming" the national-security state. The Cold War ended a long time ago. This anti-freedom apparatus needs to be dismantled. I choose freedom. I'm willing to take my chances with the terrorists.
_
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- How Thieves and Terrorists "Apologize" to their Victims
- The True Cycle of Violence
- Will They Assassinate Snowden?
- The State Doesn't Define What is True or Right
- The Trick is to Suspend the Constitution Without Admitting It
- Snowden's Flight to Freedom
- The Land of the Blind: The Illusion of Freedom in America
- Why People Tolerate a Total State

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Friday, October 19, 2012

The Hope of Freedom in the American Character


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Wendy McElroy

It is the saddest quotation from classical liberalism. On the eve of World War I, British foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey stated, "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our time." The lamps or lights were freedom and peace. Grey did not see them again.

Today the lights are going out all over America. Many people are sick at heart about the future of freedom, and understandably so. But there is no need to live in darkness. Freedom is not an external flame or circumstance that is beyond individual control; it is internal and the natural state of man.

Many people realize that government does not create wealth but they still believe it creates freedom. And, so, when freedom becomes scarce, people look almost automatically to government to restore or create it. They agitate for a law, they vote for their candidate, they sign a petition. As with wealth, however, the government can only confiscate freedom, not grant it. Ultimately, all appeals to authority amount to pleading for less to be taken?or for the return of a portion of what was stolen before.

Appeals to government are prevalent in America where the myth of being "the freest nation in the world" is tied to its political system. For example, the Founding Fathers are credited with establishing a free nation as though freedom did not exist before the Constitution. In reality, the Founding Fathers were remarkable not because they created liberty but because they usurped so little of the liberty that already existed. Even the Bill of Rights did not establish freedom; no piece of paper can. The Bill of Rights recognized the prior existence of specific freedoms such as free speech and, then, set up restrictions on how far the government could intrude upon them. The Bill of Rights said "leave the people alone in their freedom." And that is remarkable enough.

Where does liberty come from? In his pivotal book Democracy in America (1835-1840), the classical liberal Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the expansiveness of American freedom, especially when compared with Europe. He attributed this freedom to one phenomenon; namely, the American character.

Two traits dominated this character: a zeal to join; and, a stubborn individualism.

De Tocqueville called America a "nation of joiners." Whenever three Americans gathered in one place, associations and clubs seemed to spring forth. From construction crews to town hall meetings, from religious societies to fraternal organizations, Americans were driven to combine and improve society. They had a passion for civil society through which average people themselves conducted the business of living together with government rarely in evidence.

At the same moment, an irrepressible spirit of independence and self-interest also drove the American character. Of this trait, de Tocqueville was critical. He wrote, "I see an innumerable multitude of men?.Each of them withdrawn into himself, is almost unaware of the fate of the rest. Mankind, for him, consists in his children and his personal friends. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, they are near enough, but he does not notice them. He touches them but feels nothing. He exists in and for himself, and though he still may have a family, one can at least say that he has not got a fatherland."

De Tocqueville was puzzled by the what he considered a contradiction: Americans were profoundly self-interested and, yet, they were a nation of joiners.

He wrote, "There is perhaps no country on earth where one meets fewer idle people than in America, or where all who work are more passionately devoted to the quest for well-being?.An American will attend to his private interests as though he were alone in the world, yet a moment later he will dedicate himself to the public's business as though he had forgotten them?.The human heart cannot be divided this way. The inhabitants of the United States alternately exhibit a passion for well-being and a passion for liberty so strong and so similar that one can only believe that the two passions are conjoined and confounded somewhere in their souls."

De Tocqueville embraced a false dichotomy. There is no contradiction between economic well-being and liberty. There is no tension between being active in a voluntary society and retaining your individuality. Indeed, the characteristics are two sides of the same coin. The more secure a man is in his personal sovereignty, the more goodwill he feels toward neighbors. He naturally reaches out to them to cooperate for the immense mutual advantages that civil society offers the individual. Indeed, civil society is the result of masses of people pursuing their own self-interest and, then, going home.

This was the American character. Average people administered the business of society while remaining vigorously individualistic. And, so, the American was free.

Today the business of society has been almost completely usurped by government so that no one can so much as buy a tomato without a license and payment of tax being involved. As people lose the ability to administer society so, too, do they lose personal liberty. The one-to-one correlation between the two is strong enough to be considered a cause-and-effect.

Freedom needs nothing so much as Americans returning to character. The nation of joiners needs to join with each other instead of with government in order to resume the administration of civil society. At the same time and at every juncture possible, people need to privatize their own lives by removing government from their actions, attitudes and expectations.

The lights of America will be lit again, one by one, by individuals who reclaim the business of society while privatizing their own lives. There is no need for darkness.
_
Wendy McElroy is Author, lecturer, and freelance writer, and a senior associate of the Laissez Faire Club.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Why Vote?
- Obama Lists His Five Criteria for Death by Drone
- Liquid, Liquid Everywhere, But Not a Drop To Drink Free of Our Rulers' Stranglehold
- Eight Reasons to End Prohibition of All Drugs Immediately
- Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters
- The Liberal Way to Run the World - "Improve" or We'll Kill You
- Of Bidens and Bikers: Does Anybody Remember Derek Hale?
- Abandoning My Pre-9/11 Mentality

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Freedom is Dead; Long Live Freedom.

Wendy McElroy

Why has America, a nation known for rugged individualism, descended so quickly into submission and a police state?

In 1831, the French political theorist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville received a commission to examine the prison system in ?America. His personal purpose, however, was to examine the character of a new America to which many Frenchmen looked as a model. After turning in his official report on prisons, De Tocqueville published his more personal findings: a pivotal work entitled Democracy in America (two volumes: 1835 and 1840).

The primary purpose of Democracy was to explore the American political system but it also commented upon the character of civil society. De Tocqueville wrote, ?Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions.? Unlike status-conscious Europeans, Americans shook hands with each other as though there were no social distinctions. De Tocqueville was amazed by town meetings at which everyone unabashedly voiced their opinions and objections. America was not a nation of bowed heads.

Scroll forward about two centuries to 9/11 and the creation of a ?a bowed America. But 9/11 cannot explain the rapidity and ease with which a police state arose in the "land of the free." The terrorist attacks were not the cause but the tipping point in a long process that has worked quietly in America?s political background. For many years, institutions designed to protect individual rights have been eroded. These are institutions such as courts that respect due process or schools that teach critical thinking.

These institutions form a powerful barrier that shields liberty by restraining government. Over time, however, they became hollowed-out shells?or worse. They became tools of government intrusion and living mockeries of their former selves, from courts that blithely enforce unconstitutional laws to a public school system that teaches conformity. When the two planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11, it was not merely the buildings that shattered but the last remnants of freedom-oriented institutions as well.

Most Americans did not seem to notice at first. Perhaps many had lived with liberty so long that they took it for granted that America was the freest nation in the world; it always had been; it always would be; it is innate within the American character. They missed a fundamental truth that is obvious to anyone in a totalitarian state. Namely, the continuation of both liberty and personal safety rests upon invisible institutions like freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Only when the institutions disappear does it become obvious that their presence means the difference between speaking with impunity and being shot as a dissident.

America?s freedom did not spring from characteristics innate within the American soul. Ask yourself a question: Why would a child born in Wisconsin be more naturally inclined to liberty than one born in Mexico City or the Ukraine? There is no genetic explanation. It was the institutions of America that were largely responsible for its freedoms; the institutions helped to shape the character of Americans by encouraging them to value peaceful exchange and productivity. Why? Because they were able to reap the rewards of civil society and hard work. This is what De Tocqueville saw -- the character of a free and equal people who felt at liberty to look others in the eye and to speak their mind. This is what amazed De Tocqueville -- a society of free men.

What is an institution?

An institution is any stable and widely-accepted mechanism for achieving social and political goals. Traditional institutions of society include the family, court systems, the free market, and churches. Institutions generally evolve over time to reflect the history and dynamics of a culture. For example, the institution of common law evolved on a grassroots level to meet the demand for justice by average people. Equally, the institutions of money and the market arose to satisfy human need and desire for goods.

As those needs and desires change, so do the institutions. Sometimes the change occurs due to conscious human design. Trial by a jury of one?s peers, for example, was a procedure consciously designed to maximize the justice of verdicts. This court procedure ?weathered the test of time well enough to now be viewed as a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence. When institutions are responsive and grassroots in nature, they become such a natural part of human progress that they change in a spontaneous manner, as in the continuing evolution of language. Like the free market, they strongly encourage peaceful interaction because that is what benefits the vast majority of people.

The political system is the institution upon which libertarians focus. They commonly observe that politics ?institutionalizes corruption?; political structures and procedures encourage bad results like the personal malfeasance of elected figures. A large reason for the corruption is that the political system is not responsive, not grassroots. As a static institution, it serves the embedded interests of an elite class rather than the dynamic ones of the average person. (The elite class consists of politicians and those with political pull.) What libertarians call ?corruption? is what the elites call ?profit?. They have consciously sculpted the institution to increase their profits through such procedures as non-transparency.

In a sense, the embedded corruption of politics is good news for libertarians because it spotlights a basic truth about institutions. They can promote liberty or statism depending upon their structure, procedures and the embedded incentives. The Founding Fathers knew this. For example, they attempted to limit the government by constructing a tripartite system of checks and balances designed to prevent the centralization of power. The Bill of Rights created incentives toward liberty by laying down ?societal ground rules to be upheld by the Supreme Court. (Whether the best intentions of the Founding Fathers were doomed to defeat by the inherent nature of politics is debatable.)

The specific structures and procedures of any institution will determine the results it produces. As long as the procedures are followed, the motives of those participating in the institution are irrelevant. Elsewhere, I offered the example of a man who works in a candy factory with the intention of producing canned tuna. As long as he follows the workplace rules and procedures, however, he will produce candy. A police officer may want to promote libertarian justice but as long as he enforces the laws of a totalitarian state, he will produce injustice.

Equally, as long as everyone respects the rules of the free market, it will function as a mechanism of peace and prosperity even if some of its participants are ill intentioned human beings. You may buy goods from a man whom you would never allow into your home; he can detest your religion or skin color even as money peacefully changes hands. As long as the rules of the free market are observed, freedom itself is served.

The burning question now becomes: how do we construct institutions that encourage liberty?

Conclusion

There are two answers on how to construct freedom-oriented institutions. The first: do not to construct them at all. Allow them to evolve through the spontaneous interaction of individuals pursuing their own self-interest. This is how free markets function, families are created, free speech rings out? Many ?institutions require merely to be unobstructed.

But other institutions require some design beyond the "anything that is peaceful" rule. For example, a court system requires procedures of justice such as "innocent until proven guilty." And, so, the second answer to designing institutions is: do so in as ?minimal a manner as possible and only to promote individual rights.

America?s rugged individualism has been called the ?soul? of its character. America needs its soul back.
_
Wendy McElroy is Author, lecturer, and freelance writer, and a senior associate of the Laissez Faire Club.


View the original article here

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Five Pillars of Economic Freedom

by Jeffrey Tucker

The great debate between capitalism and socialism suffers from a lack of clarity about definitions. This is why when Walter Block lectured in Brazil this past week, he was very careful to distinguish between crony capitalism and authentic capitalism. And it's why when I was interviewed, the question came up immediately: What precisely do you mean by capitalism?

Every day, for example, we read how the European economic mess is a "crisis of capitalism." Huh? It's been more than a century since governments let these economies grow on their own without bludgeoning them with regulations, taxing and looting the public, littering financial systems with fake money, cartelizing producers, shoveling welfare benefits, funding gigantic public works and the like.

Some advocates of market liberty believe that the term "capitalism" should be jettisoned permanently because it causes confusion. People might think that you favor using the state to back capital against labor, using public policy in a way that supports prominent producers over consumers or pushing political priorities that advance business over labor.

If a term elucidates an idea with accuracy, great. If it causes confusion, change it. Language is constantly evolving. No particular arrangement of letters embeds an immutable meaning. And what is at stake in this debate about market freedom (or capitalism or laissez-faire or the free market) is a substance of profound importance.

It's the substance, not the words, we should care about. Civilization really does hang in the balance.

Here are five core elements to this idea of market freedom, or whatever you want to call it. It is my short summary of the classical liberal vision of the free society and its functioning, which isn't just about economics but the whole of life itself.

Volition. Markets are about human choice at every level of society. These choices extend to every sector and every individual. You can choose your work. No one can force you. At the same time, you can't force yourself on any employer. No one can force you to buy anything, either, but neither can you force someone to sell to you.

This right of choice recognizes the infinite diversity within the human family (whereas state policy has to assume people are interchangeable units). Some people feel a calling to live lives of prayer and contemplation in a community of religious believers. Others have a talent for managing high-risk hedge funds. Others favor the arts or accounting, or any profession or calling that you can imagine. Whatever it is, you can do it, provided it is pursued peacefully.

You are the chooser, but in your relations with others, "agreement" is the watchword. This implies maximum freedom for everyone in society. It also implies a maximum role for what are called "civil liberties." It means freedom of speech, freedom to consume, freedom to buy and sell, freedom to advertise and so on. No one set of choices is legally privileged over others.

Ownership. In a world of infinite abundance, there would be no need for ownership. But so long as we live in the material world, there will be potential conflicts over scarce resources. These conflicts can be resolved through fighting over things or through the recognition of property rights. If we prefer peace over war, volition over violence, productivity over poverty, all scarce resources ? without exception ? need private owners.

Everyone can use his or her property in any way that is peaceful. There are no accumulation mandates or limits on accumulation. Society cannot declare anyone too rich, nor prohibit voluntary aestheticism by declaring anyone too poor. At no point can anyone take what is yours without your permission. You can reassign ownership rights to heirs after you die.

Socialism is not really an option in the material world. There can be no collective ownership of anything materially scarce. One or another faction will assert control in the name of society. Inevitably, the faction will be the most-powerful society ? that is, the state. This is why all attempts to create socialism in scarce goods or services devolve into totalitarian systems.

Cooperation. Volition and ownership grant the right to anyone to live in a state of pure autarky. On the other hand, that won't get you very far. You will be poor, and your life will be short. People need people to obtain a better life. We trade to our mutual betterment. We cooperate in work. We develop every form of association with each other: commercial, familial and religious. The lives of each of us are improved by our capacity to cooperate in some form with other people.

In a society based on volition, ownership and cooperation, networks of human association develop across time and space to create the complexities of the social and economic order. No one is the master of anyone else. If we want to succeed in life, we come to value serving each other in the best way we can. Businesses serve consumers. Managers serve employees just as employees serve businesses.

A free society is a society of extended friendship. It is a society of service and benevolence.

Learning. No one is born into this world knowing much of anything. We learn from our parents and teachers, but more importantly, we learn from the infinite bits of information that come to us every instant of the day all throughout our lives. We observe success and failure in others, and we are free to accept or reject these lessons as we see fit. In a free society, we are free to emulate others, accumulate and apply wisdom, read and absorb ideas and extract information from any source and adapt it to our own uses.

All of the information we come across in our lives, provided it is obtained noncoercively, is a free good, not subject to the limits of scarcity because it is infinitely copyable. You can own it and I can own it and everyone can own it without limit.

Here we find the "socialist" side of the capitalist system. The recipes for success and failure are everywhere and available to use for the taking. This is why the very notion of "intellectual property" is inimical to freedom: It always implies coercing people and thereby violating the principles of volition, authentic ownership and cooperation.

Competition. When people think of capitalism, competition is perhaps that first idea that comes to mind. But the idea is widely misunderstood. It doesn't mean that there must be several suppliers of every good or service, or that there must be a set number of producers of anything. It means only that there should be no legal (coercive) limits on the ways in which we are permitted to serve each other. And there really are infinite numbers of ways in which this can take place.

In sports, competition has a goal: to win. Competition has a goal in the market economy, too: service to the consumer through ever increasing degrees of excellence. This excellence can come from providing better and cheaper products or services or providing new innovations that meet people's needs better than existing products or services. It doesn't mean "killing" the competition; it means striving to do a better job than anyone else.

Every competitive act is a risk, a leap into an unknown future. Whether the judgment was right or wrong is ratified by the system of profit and loss, signals that serve as objective measures of whether resources are being used wisely or not. These signals are derived from prices that are established freely on the market ? which is to say that they reflect prior agreements among choosing individuals.

Unlike sports, there is no end point to the competition. It is a process that never ends. There is no final winner; there is an ongoing rotation of excellence among the players. And anyone can join the game, provided they go about it peacefully.

Summary. There we have it: volition, ownership, cooperation, learning and competition. That's capitalism as I understand it, as described in the classical liberal tradition improved by the Austrian social theorists of the 20th century. It is not a system so much as a social setting for all times and places that favor human flourishing.

It's not hard to discern my political outlook then: If it fits with these pillars, I'm for it; if it does not, I'm against it. Now, you tell me: Is the European crisis, or the U.S.' own, really a crisis of capitalism? On the contrary, an authentic capitalism is the answer to the biggest problems in the world today.


View the original article here

Friday, February 24, 2012

Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch

Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch - informationliberationinformationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...Breaking NewsBrowse by CategoryAnalysisHighlightsMultimediaLatest CommentsArchivesRSS FeedSyndicationAboutContact
Multimedia
An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand EverythingThe Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility
The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes OffOperation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century(more)Article posted Feb 14 2012, 6:30 PMCategory: ResistanceSource: YouTubePrint
Judge Napolitano: Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch

Judge Napolitano's Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch.

SHARE: Share Tweet submit to reddit Digg! submit to Stumble Upon Email This


Latest Resistance
- Non-Compliance In Action: Bar Patrons Ignore Armed Robber Until He Goes Away
- Vietnam farmer a hero after shootout with police
- The Way of Empires -- Lew Rockwell on Alex Jones
- The Pirate Bay Statement on Prison Sentences: "2012 is the Year of the Storm"
- Dutch ISPs Refuse To Block The Pirate Bay Without A Direct Order
- Australia: Thousands of parents illegally home schooling
- Assange TV on RT: Exclusive interview show coming soon
- Ron Paul: "We Are The Next Generation!"









No Comments PostedAdd Comment

Add CommentNameComment

* No HTML


Verification *Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below 

PLEASE NOTEPlease see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston ChurchillSearch

Advanced SearchLogin Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register
Most Popular TSA Forces Woman To Use Naked Body Scanner Three Times Because of "Cute" Figure - 02/14Kurt Haskell Exposes Government False Flag Operation During Underwear Bomber Sentencing - 02/16Caught On Tape: Cop Sucker Punches Suspect In Back Of Head, Then Charges Him With "Assaulting A Police Officer" - 02/15Caught On Tape: Officer Threatens to Make Up Evidence After Arrest of Innocent Men - 02/14Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany? - 02/13According To The FBI, Internet Privacy Is Now Considered To Be Suspicious Activity - 02/06David Stanley, RIP - 02/03911 IS A JOKE: Detroit citizens no longer rely on police as self-defense killings skyrocket - 02/07
HighlightsThe Missing Lesson From Norway: Never Trust a Man in Uniform"They're Only Out To Make Cold Hard American Cash"; Park Police Crack Down on Bicycle Cabs in DC18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent To Life In U.S. PrisonsEighth Grader Executed for Scaring a CopFeds Drop All Charges Against 27 Head-Shop Owners They Falsely Accused of Being Terrorist Drug DealersStraight-A College Student Faces 125 Years In Jail For Producing Fake IDsTexas Cops Ticket Thousands of Schoolchildren to Raise Revenue, Some as Young as 6-Yrs-OldHouston Police Chief: Videotaping or Criticizing Police May be Sign You're a Cop-Killer(more)
 Top

View the original article here

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Under Obama, the Freedom of Information Act is Still in Shackles

By TREVOR TIMM, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Three years ago this past weekend, on his first full day in office, President Barack Obama issued his now infamous memo on transparency and open government, which was supposed to fulfill his campaign promise to lead the "most transparent administration in history." Instead,? his administration has been just as secretive--if not more so--than his predecessors, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has become the prime example of his administration's lack of progress.

In 2009, Obama made FOIA reform the centerpiece of his open government agenda. "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government," he said, while laying out principles he wished to see his agencies adopt in the proceeding months. In March of 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued what the Justice Department called "comprehensive new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines." Holder ordered that all executive branch departments and agencies were to apply "a presumption of openness" in response to FOIA requests.

In 2010, EFF's senior counsel David Sobel testified to Congress, calling on the Obama to lead by example if they wish to change the FOIA process.

Unfortunately, secrecy won out in the Obama administration almost immediately. In the early months of his presidency, a court ruled that the administration would have to turn over photos related to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal in response to a FOIA request. Knowing they'd likely lose the appeal, Obama supported a new law that could keep information secret even when FOIA would otherwise require disclosure. The bill's only intention was to create a way to shield photographs of detainee abuse from public disclosure.

President Obama also refused at first to release White House visitor records, a practice for which his predecessor, George W. Bush, was pilloried. The Obama Administration appealed a court's ruling that the visitor logs were subject to FOIA.? In September 2009, Obama reversed course and agreed to release voluntarily White House visitor records going forward. But in 2011, the Administration was still fighting in court to keep the logs before Obama's reversal a secret.

The Associated Press looked at the administration's commitment to transparency in 2010 and concluded Obama was using FOIA exemptions to withhold information from requesters more than Bush did in his final year, despite receiving fewer overall requests. And one of the most frequently used exemptions was one Obama explicitly told the agencies not to use: the "deliberative process" exemption, which allows the government to withhold documents dealing with its decision making process. In Obama's first year in office, the use of the exemption skyrocketed from 47,395 times in 2008 to 70,779 times in 2009.

Worse, more than a year after Obama and Holder's memos, a National Security Archive study found "less than one-third of the 90 federal agencies that process such FOIA requests have made significant changes in their procedures." Even FOIA requests on transparency were held up:

The AP is still waiting--after nearly three months--for records it requested about the White House's "Open Government Directive," rules it issued in December directing every agency to take immediate, specific steps to open their operations up to the public.
Yet around the same time, when President Obama was asked a question at a townhall about why his administration wasn't more transparent, he responded by saying it was the most transparent in the modern era. What was his first reason? The administration's release of White House visitor records--the same records they went to court to fight to keep secret. The President also bragged: "We've revamped the classification system so it's not used to hide things that might be embarrassing to us." Which, of course, is not true either. As EFF has pointed out, government secrecy and overclassification has reach absurd levels under Obama.

More damage was done to FOIA in the Dodd-Frank bill. A little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation stated that the SEC "no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act." Other media organizations have lodged public complaints about FOIA procedure at the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and even agencies dealing with health and scientific issues like the EPA and NASA.

EFF has experienced many of these problems first hand. When we sued the FBI after it was revealed they were systematically abusing their National Security Letter authority, the bureau redacted the vast majority of the thousands of pages requested. In another case, it was clear the FBI was redacting arbitrarily information when it wasn't appropriate. The DHS singled out EFF, along with other activist groups and media representatives such as the ACLU, EPIC, Human Rights Watch, and AP, for an extra layer of review on its FOIA requests. EFF sued just to find out the names of the members of Obama's Intelligence Oversight Board.

But by March 2011, only 49 of the 90 federal agencies had followed any "specific tasks mandated by the White House to improve their FOIA performance." The National Security Archive found in July that federal backlogs of FOIA requests are growing. A Study released in December of this year by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and OpenTheGovernment.org found the administration was withholding information using nine of the most common exemptions 33% more than George Bush's last full year in office.

But perhaps the worst violation of Obama's open government principles was the deplorable attempt by the Justice Department to change the DOJ's own FOIA regulations. Under the proposed rule, instead of refusing to confirm or deny a document is in the Department's possession, the agency could "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist." The Los Angeles Times called it an "outrageous proposal" that "provides a license for the government to lie to its own people and makes a mockery of FOIA." After near universal outcry, including pressure from Congress, the Justice Department scaled back its rules. But as the Sunlight Foundation said, the Justice Department's revised FOIA rules were still "worse than reported" and allow reviewers to dismiss requests for a host of trivial reasons. Obama's Justice Department seemed intent on killing the very law it championed at the start of his administration.

The Freedom of Information Act has been hailed by open government advocates as "one of the most significant laws ever passed by the U.S. Congress," yet its passage and survival has been fought by Presidents for more than forty years. The bill, as a significant check on executive power and secrecy, was originally opposed by Lyndon Johnson, yet was signed into law in 1966. When Congress strengthened the act after the Watergate scandal, President Ford vetoed it on the advice of his then-chief of staff Dick Cheney. Thankfully, Congress overrode his veto. Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese was so opposed to FOIA, despite its being law for more than 20 years, he wrote a memo telling the Justice Department to disregard essentially requests it disliked.

President Obama promised to change all that. Unfortunately, it's clear many of his pledges have been broken or ignored, turning his declaration that he would lead the "most transparent administration ever" into a punch line rather than a re-election slogan.


Latest Politics/Corruption
- Rick Santorum Hates Ron Paul's Libertarian Ideas
- L.A. teacher suspected of lewd conduct keeps benefits
- Gingrich Staffers Attack Ron Paul Supporter in Florida
- MD Gov. wants to tax apps, e-books, other downloads
- Obama Accused of Contempt of Court in 'Birther' Hearing
- Limbaugh: Ron Paul "Sounds Like An Islamic Terrorist"
- Idiot Politicians Propose Regulating Oil Companies With 'Reasonable Profits Board'
- Bill Maher Says He Supports SOPA

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Property, Freedom and Society | Jeffrey Tucker Interviews Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Jeffrey Tucker interviews Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Distinguished Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Recorded at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 28 July 2011.

Latest Economy
- Marc Faber's October Outlook: Forget EU Debt Crisis, A China Meltdown Is The Real Threat
- Obama's "Millionaire Tax" Collected Over Next Ten Years Will Plug 4 Months Worth Of Deficit
- Peter Schiff On New 5.6% Millionaire Surcharge Tax
- Wrong Medicine for a Sick Economy
- Hiding Gold in All the Unusual Places
- The Top 100 Statistics About The Collapse Of The Economy That Every American Voter Should Know
- Colorado Farmers Hire Locals for Farm Labor, They Quit After Six Hours
- EU calls for global tax, Canada says can block it

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Freedom or Fairness? (Comic)

Freedom or Fairness? (Comic) - informationliberationinformationliberation
The news you're not supposed to know...Breaking NewsBrowse by CategoryAnalysisHighlightsMultimediaLatest CommentsArchivesRSS FeedSyndicationAboutContact
Multimedia
An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand EverythingThe Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility
The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes OffOperation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in Europe
How America Can Be Saved: A Lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe(more)Article posted Sep 17 2011, 2:01 PMCategory: GeneralSource: Mimi and EunicePrint
Freedom or Fairness? (Comic)


SHARE: Share Tweet submit to reddit Digg! submit to Stumble Upon Email This


Latest General
- Study: Crime in surrounding area increased after closure of LA medical marijuana dispensaries
- 14-Year-Old Who Made 'It Gets Better' Video Commits Suicide Amidst Bullying
- Top TSA Official Accused of Stabbing Woman to Death
- Terrorism Alert! (Comic)
- Obama has a new website to report people that lie about his positions or smear him. I reported someone.
- Explosives Lost During Terror Drill At Phoenix Airport
- Video: Dramatic CNN news reporter Rob Marciano exaggerates Irene as people are just walking by
- Flashback: Broadcast journo exaggerates flood









Comments 1 - 20 of 26Add CommentPage 12 of 2 >DavePosted: Sep 18 2011, 9:54 PM

Link freedom, to use that word on a planet infested with propaganda feels freaky, as if it is some novelty, as if people are so conditioned they would ask what it means, how they could join and what the rules are. i would rather discuss that freedom is a word that to some can imply order as opposed to disorder and refinement of order is the vector to destruction.

it might help if people knew the size, sophistication, capabilities, activities and true vector of the domination architecture. if the aims were achieved, the possibility of free thought would be eliminated, then that architecture would be just a pile of junk. that is to suggest that military domination is self negating, ie futile.

frank zappa was perhaps referring to this domination structure, the real prison when he said:



he may have meant it is all the theatre, that there is no man behind the curtain. empires are built on manipulation, much goes on back stage before being playe out in the public theatre.DavePosted: Sep 18 2011, 10:09 PM

Link in part due to the self defeating prophecy of control, global hegemony, full spectrum dominance and all that stuff, with free thinking one can realise and unleash a true strength more powerful than the military complex as it negates it; simply reality.

unlike the task of continuous warfare to conquer minds, releasing them is to give people what they already have, their own minds. i see it happening as it must to avoid cataclism. the more this happens the less casualty there will be and the more recovery there will be from previous wars and empires, the incumbant included.

reality goes unseen rather than hidden, often denied rather than unknown. it is when seen as obvious as the folly of our history, our present and lives lived in the cognitive dissonance the controlled media and societal operators project and protect.DavePosted: Sep 18 2011, 10:22 PM

Link if one looks at a societal construct, a system based on control, it requires continuous war, plots it on a timeline, it is heading for failure from the off. a quote i see as expressing this is:



the controlled media uses reframed arguments to further a premade decision, the political agenda. it does so in attempts to manufacture consent and to eliminate opposition. it puts up a construct that is or supports the agenda, puts up a negation so at the end people have been through both sides an end with balance as if nothing has changed. everything has changed, crime is the most profitable business on earth and new laws allow the commission of serious organised crime whilst eliminating competition.DavePosted: Sep 18 2011, 10:36 PM

Link demo cracy in action

a number was being done on the people recently with the construct of a 'mining disaster'. peole were led through what i would call a shakespear cartoon, ie absurd nonsense presented but with drama pulling on people's empathy for 'trapped miners'. we were told bodies were recovered, their names were read out as on 9/11 remembrance. the story was that a wall collapsed leading to flooding and the public is then taken to the issue of how this could be avoided. the issue is raised that there needs to be identification of water deposity, stephen nolan giving the game away i thought by saying 'i thought that was coming next' or similar when there was a cut.

dark side of the moon

the listener with a logical mind, but with blinkers (often robust blinkers with educated minds), is likely to have believed they had the idea that is the solution to 'preventing further disaster' themselves. no, this is military psyops and how general mind control works, by having people believe it was their idea. in reality, by consenting to power to control all land and water supply is in reality agreeing to hand over the entire population of the planet to total domination based not on fuel but the survival necessary of drinking water. having thinking done for you by the media is often of the form (by outer meaning): one small step by a human (the astronaut who is reframed), one giant leap for humankind (towards oblivion). the true context reveals this.

what wasn't mentioned was monopolising water was the policy put out by the royal society, put out by the systems that predictively program mass populations with this agenda and it was the role of the bbc to sell the minds of the audience to the agenda. the agenda announced was that the oil racket would be taken down and replaced by orchestated shortages and total monopoly of water, a timeline where considerable progess to domination has already been achieved over many years.DavePosted: Sep 18 2011, 11:11 PM

Link due to the official realm with reverse merit system here on earth, people exchange freedom for privilege and it makes for robust denial (mind control) when it is perceived that privileges are protected by denial not to mention the effects that group constructs have on people. there is much happening, of necessity there is much happening but zooming out on the situation as i see it, it approximates to 'we are all in this together' and adopting the presented paradigms play to the war structures which already manifest as madness extensions or megalomania.friendstacyPosted: Sep 18 2011, 11:22 PM

Link programs on top of older programs
the original meanings buried
cow jumped over the moon
symbols hidden in nursery rhymes
a secret codeDavePosted: Sep 18 2011, 11:42 PM

Link i try to backfill on unriddling the riddler but prioritise that the media will want to present a mind sales sequence in the form of presenting escallating disaster stories so people feel pinned down by this artiliary of trauma shots and thereby having agenda dictated rather than thinking outside of the box presented. the ambulances here are run by 'big military' i noticed when i last looked at the royal society, remote manipulation of things, people, the entire theatre is how minority influence is exerted, mind controlled people being predictable to thresholds. allowing dominant narratives to be run by the controlled media has by their own admission been much of how we are in this position.

if the traumas can be sold, they will be repeated, if they can gain momentum, all manner of stuff can be done behind such distraction. if there is perception of escallating attrocity, the unconscious interpretation could be that the earth is falling apart not deconstruction and transformation of constructs. there is likely some bunker mentality in play where for political reasons people would want to engineer catastrophy. that is potentially not dissimilar from the end of animal farm.friendstacyPosted: Sep 18 2011, 11:50 PM

Link it helps to know how we got to where we are, to look at the past so that we can see where we are going. trauma, denial, more trauma, more denial, and you end up with nobody knowing much of anything about where we are or how we got here. if people don't know and/or won't admit that they are on a train ride to destruction, how can they possibly prevent the wreck?

the comic strip asks "who decides"
that is the important question

thanks daveAnonymousPosted: Sep 19 2011, 11:23 AM

Link 205209Was this cartoon supposed to represent a complete thought? It's even less substantial than a bumper sticker.DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 12:05 PM

Link i do not choose to be imprisoned by my perceptions of what some author intended, religions do that, the cartoon presented as the official 9/11 story did that. nor do i choose to have cognitive dissonance by jumping into a presented context without knowing what i am leaving. a frame of reference i try to look to is physical reality, my thinking depends on that. no food no life, being surrounded by brainbusted people who are participating in the agenda to regress them from brainbusted to some other form of life, perhaps just an atom in a desperate attempt to maintain a control function, is a reality i disagree with. thought police and all that. boo to that nuisance factory.

i mentioned by intention such things as global water theft as if i give priority to facts and i do, that strikes me as non trivial.

the cartoon mentions fairness. if i want unfairness in a human system, i seperate action and consequence by seperating the decider with as much distance (layers of people) as possible. i was flashing the car lights like mad many years ago driving out of cardiff, driving the other way was a fleet of cars. they had launched one of those ape cons, a welsh assembly and there were a load off SS cars with covert flashing lights escorting a new puppet king walla walla like they do in america. the distance is the danger, with freedom people themselves decide, those that disagree are before them, not some muppet.DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 12:13 PM

Link one can show disconnections by putting together an argument. for example, the way i figure it, if david cameron was not an imposter and he himself wants to go have a revolution in libya, give him some weapons and parachute him in there. let him fight without the clandestine operators and net controllers clearing his path, if he is a leader let him lead. if he survives let him come back to london with his clothes dripping with blood to the praise of the brotherhoods and sisterhoods that seek conquestion to witness.AnonymousPosted: Sep 20 2011, 12:14 PM

Link 67171The cartoon is a representation of the Third Way political movement, aka "communitarianism" -- look it up!

Communitarianism is collectivist. So, you have the group needs versus the individual's needs. Individual freedoms are group freedoms, however.friendstacyPosted: Sep 20 2011, 12:16 PM

Link somebody said to me, "I bother to realize that those people are really my friends in a way."

i think he's right. i've got nothing against most people, even the ones trapped inside a system that demands you (the word "you" meaning all of us) lie for your living. i do happen to believe they bought into a line of bullshit, however, and i also believe that if i never speak up, then my voice will never be heard. some folks try to silence any dissonant voice, believing in the good of the group, and only hearing the chorus of good/groupthink. that isn't their fault. nobody needs to be blamed for any of it, but i feel responsible for saying what i think about how harmful i see it. and the way i see it, if we aren't deciding for ourselves, there is no freedom. if we are only allowed to answer "yes" as per newspeak demands of us, we aren't deciding. the ability to say "NO" is very empowering, something all humans are born with. just ask any parent with a toddler aged child if you doubt me.

(edit to add the following)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
quote wiki:
The basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State.
...The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a "yes" of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 9:26 PM

Link in response to 67171, i didn't know the name of the program despite it running throughout AI's domain and loyal servants. your post has helped to resolve some scraps of information i was wrestling with. resolved now thanks. had i known, this wouldn't have changed my decision not to register with what was presented.


what i tend to encounter is the pathology of belief in the group, not belief in 'group'. the systems we have are military in function, acting on 'vengeful gods'. despite all the presentations, skins like 'communitarianism', it is a shadow system. people when questioned in a military group tend to present disconnection to hide that there is anything behind the group mask. safety in the group really being of the form they are attacked if they express who they really are. there have been exceptions, division of course evaporates in such circumstances hence div V to try to prevent this from happening.DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 11:05 PM

Link i don't look necessarily at whether something presented is authentic or not, i take the stimulation and monitor my own thoughts. for protection against brainbusting i observe my reactions to what is presented and to pickup pre-existing contamination i monitor what comes in and goes out. something i was reading was:

long as the psychopolitical operative or his dupes are the only authorities as to the difference between sanity and insanity,
their word as to the therapeutic value of such treatment will be the final word. No layman would dare adventure to place judgment upon the state of sanity of an individual whom the psychiatrist has already declared insane. The individual, himself, is unable to complain. And his family, as will be covered later, is already discredited by the occurrence of insanity in their midst. There must be no other adjudicators of insanity, otherwise it could be disclosed that the brutalities practiced in the name of treatment are not therapeutic.

A psychopolitical operative has no interest in ?therapeutic means? or ?cures.? The greater number of insane in the country where he is operating, the larger number of the populace will come under his view and the greater will become his facilities.>DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 11:05 PM

Link leucotomy, and other operations long-since practiced in Russia on political prisoners.
It is to the interest of the psychopolitical operative that the possibility of curing the insane be outlawed and ruled out at all times. For the sake of obedience on the part of the population and their general reaction, a level of brutality must, at all costs, be maintained. Only in this way can the absolute judgment of the psychopolitical operative as to the sanity or insanity
of public figures be maintained in complete belief. Using sufficient brutality upon their patients, the public at large will
come to believe utterly anything they say about their patients.>DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 11:09 PM

Link so that wherever tenets of the mind are taught, they will be hypnotically believed. The psychopolitical operative, having
under his control all psychology classes in an area, can thus bring about a complete reformation of the future leaders of a country in their educational processes ..>

it was interesting to read as i see it as relevant. knowing this is done now on a global basis, one can talk to people and awareness of their mental health reveals much about political activity and nature in the area.DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 11:13 PM

Link listening to what was outwardly presented as a 9/11 remembrance, stephen nolan, likely tavistocked himself, was presenting an 'american soldier' who just wanted to serve. what the bbc were doing was visible (presenting what to them was an achievement) and this is echoed here:

DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 11:23 PM

Link something one sees often in politics:

DavePosted: Sep 20 2011, 11:29 PM

Link
By lowering the endurance of a person, a group, or a nation; and by constant degradation and defamation, it is possible to induce, thus, a state of shock which will receive adequately any command given.>Comments 1 - 20 of 26Page 12 of 2 >

Add CommentNameComment

* No HTML


Verification *Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below 

PLEASE NOTEPlease see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston ChurchillSearch

Advanced SearchLogin Username:

Password:

Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Register
Most Popular Judge Rules Cops Beating Up Seizing Diabetic They Thought Was Drunk Is A-OK - 09/08Nervous Breakdown? 21 Signs That Something Big Is About To Happen In The Financial World - 09/21TSA and Unproductive Labor - 09/17Man faces life in prison for planned Federal Reserve protest - 09/07During commercial break of Wednesday's GOP debate, Perry physically grabbed Ron Paul and got in his face - 09/08Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens - 09/19Cops kill man for honking at them - 09/06WI Judge: No "Fundamental Right" to Own a Cow, or Consume Its Milk...Am I Making Myself?Clear? - 09/22
HighlightsThe Missing Lesson From Norway: Never Trust a Man in Uniform"They're Only Out To Make Cold Hard American Cash"; Park Police Crack Down on Bicycle Cabs in DC18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent To Life In U.S. PrisonsEighth Grader Executed for Scaring a CopFeds Drop All Charges Against 27 Head-Shop Owners They Falsely Accused of Being Terrorist Drug DealersStraight-A College Student Faces 125 Years In Jail For Producing Fake IDsTexas Cops Ticket Thousands of Schoolchildren to Raise Revenue, Some as Young as 6-Yrs-OldHouston Police Chief: Videotaping or Criticizing Police May be Sign You're a Cop-Killer(more)
 Top

View the original article here