"The relationship between those who are constantly watched and tracked, and those who watch and track them, is the relationship between masters and slaves." - Chris Hedges
Via Liberty Blitzkrieg.
This is why liberals can't be trusted even on issues that they tend to be pretty decent on.
A federal czar? Are you kidding me? Local police have slowly been turned into vestiges of the Pentagon precisely because of political centralization. And progressives think the solution to this is...more centralized oversight.
They want the government guns in their noble, enlightened hands, where power can be trusted and dispensed justly.
Meanwhile, this would only serve to further legitimize the federalization of police power, add more bureaucracy, and do absolutely nothing to stop police from killing, maiming and caging with complete immunity.
A federal czar?
Decentralize and repeal.
Thanks to the state of Illiniois finally allowing their subjects to exercise their natural rights to self-defense, Chicago is slowly becoming safer. There truly is no better way to reduce crime, maintain liberty and create authentic order than privately owned firearms and the legal ability to conceal and carry them in public.
You can't make this stuff up. Via ZeroHedge:
When President Obama bragged earlier that "The United States is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world..." adding that "no other nation can do what we do," we should have guessed some more war-mongering was coming... and sure enough. As AP reports, it appears Syrian airstrikes are on their way.. but there's a mind-blowing twist in US foreign policy: "In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets." In the words of the Guinness commercial, Brilliant.The intelligence gathered by U.S. military surveillance flights over Syria could support a broad bombing campaign against the Islamic State militant group, but current and former U.S. officials differ on whether air power would significantly degrade what some have called a "terrorist army."
"Air power needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, not a drizzle," Deptula said, entailing "24-7 overwatch with force application on every move of ISIL personnel."
Further complicating the plans, any military action against Islamic State militants in Syria would also have the effect of putting the U.S. on the same side as Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose ouster the Obama administration has sought for years.
So first Iran and now Syria are best buddies with America? Well we can't have that...The U.S. is not cooperating or sharing intelligence with the Assad government, Pentagon and State Department spokesmen said.But the U.S. flights are occurring in eastern Syria, away from most of Syria's air defenses. And experts expressed doubt that Syria would attempt to shoot down American aircraft that are paving the way for a possible bombing campaign against Assad's enemies.
In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets. However, that option is largely unappealing to the president given that it could open the U.S. to the kind of long-term commitment to Syria's stability that Obama has sought to avoid.
So to summarize:...the limited airstrikes in Iraq (which the Iraqi government did not ask for) now appear to be expanding into '24/7 carpet-bombing' of ISIS targets in Syria (which the US are not asking permission or forgiveness for) and in the interests of "fairness doctrine" America will bomb al-Assad's military installations to maintain some 'balance' between the moderate terrorists, extreme terrorists (and national armies), and scary-as-shit terrorists...
Is there something we missed?White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying,"We're not interested in trying to help the Assad regime." However, he acknowledged that "there are a lot of cross pressures here."
"Cross-pressures" indeed. And all humanitarian.
Even in one of the most unfree and impoverished areas of the world, radical libertarianism is spreading.
Nelson Chartrand and Joisy García run the Anarcho-Capitalist Club of Cuba. With eight other members, they are focused on promoting the radical ideas of the philosophy on the island — a place where, as they describe, “everything is illegal.”
This is no easy task. Capitalism could not be further from the Cuban reality — private property is expressly forbidden as an individual right — and the totalitarian nature of the Fidelista state means anarchism is even more distant.
The Cuban regime’s decades of economic confinement have been bad enough, but repression of thought is also ever present, and it is only getting worse. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has blacklisted Cuba for “the level of threats, harassment, and acts of repudiation against human rights defenders in Cuba … particularly those involved in the defense of the rights of persons who have been deprived of liberty for political reasons,” among many other crimes (PDF, section 138).
However, the anarcho-capitalists haven’t given up after facing threats and aggression.
Chartrand can only access the internet once per week, through a connection provided by an embassy in Havana, but he graciously shared some of his precious online time with the PanAm Post and our readers.
What was the genesis of the Anarcho-Capitalist Club in Cuba? How did you find libertarian thought on an island where knowledge is so restricted?
The birth of the Anarcho-Capitalist Club of Cuba came after Joisy García, a friend of mine, received a couple of videos from a friend who lives abroad. They were videos that contained lectures by Jesús Huerta de Soto, among others, and this made us think about and immerse ourselves in this political philosophy. As Huerta de Soto correctly points out, it is the system truly compatible with human nature.
I believe every human being is, in essence, an anarcho-capitalist; we all wish for liberty, progress, and happiness.
That was when Joisy García proposed to me the idea of a club, with the objective of giving life to a new perspective on humanity, and to a people so thirsty for freedom and happiness. And here we are.
What would be your immediate proposal for Cuba? Can the nation initiate a transition?
Our immediate perspective is precisely that one, to introduce a new perspective of thought at a moment when, to the best of our knowledge, the regime is in crisis and must implement changes. While those changes are being directed by the “gods of power,” there is a chance to set a path for the future.
Transition in Cuba, as I said, is not voluntary, but forced. The regime can’t hang on any longer; reality and truth are prevailing.
The “gods of power” are tired, and they want to leave a path prepared for their successors, who of course are not the majority of the Cuban people. That is why they passed the new Law of Foreign Investments, it is their bequeathal.
Are you classified as the opposition in Cuba, or just advocates of ideas?
We are classified as the opposition, even though the goal of the club in this first stage is to introduce a new and alternative way of thinking.
How do you express and spread the ideas of liberty in Cuba?
The club has an institute with a digital library, which through the Indpendent Libraries network in the country, we use to spread libertarian ideas.
What obstacles do you face?
We clearly have some barriers to overcome. A member of the club has already been detained. He was threatened that he must desist with the idea, but we continue on.
The members of the club post their IDs on Facebook, because they trust the protection of the international community more than their own government. (CAC Facebook)
How many members do you have?
Officially, there are 10 members of the Club.
Why do you post on yourFacebook page the IDs of the members of the Club?
We post the IDs for safety reasons. In other words, this turns us into public persons and forces the government to restrain any measure against us. This way the international community could help us before any injustice.
Would you be able to host an anarcho-capitalist conference in Cuba?
As I said before, we have planned to organize conferences; we will see if they let us. It’s very difficult, but we will try. Everything here is illegal.
Do you think Cubans would accept the ideas of liberty and behave respecting the rights of the rest?
Of course Cubans could accept the ideas of liberty and honor the liberty of others. Now we have to educate them. We Cubans have forgotten what it is to be free.
Including the concept of private property?
In Cuba, there is no private property. Self-employed workers are not private but quasi-private. The only private property that exists in Cuba is in hands of the ruling elite.
How widespread are black markets today in Cuba?
The Cuban people live in the black market. The government knows it, but they do nothing, because they fear social unrest. Intervention only comes when the situation impacts on their private interests.
Have you received any help from international organizations?
Winter Trabex has a great piece at The Art of Not Being Governed about the benefits of decentralizing and marketizing the production of food.
As a leader in Soviet Russia, Nikita Kruschev wanted to shift from rule by terror- which characterized Josef Stalin’s rule- to rule by popular acclaim. One of the ways he wanted to accomplish this was by energizing the nation’s agriculture program. He created what was called the Virgin Lands program. This program was designed at plowing previously unused land for the purpose of growing grain. The harvest of 1956 was Kruschev’s only mark of success, as he had a bumper crop that year. By the 1960′s, an adherence to monoculture had stripped the soil of its nutrients. Much of the soil had turned barren to the point where it simply blew away in the wind.
This is but one example of how authoritarian societies ignore the lessons of both history and reason. These societies are often filled with hungry people waiting in lines for bread because the government has interfered too much in the marketplace. The thought behind the Soviet Union’s agriculture program was that the farmers of the country could withhold their crops from the people if they didn’t like the government’s policies. This thought supposed that farmers wanted to impoverish themselves for the purpose of making a political statement. It was fallacious, idiotic and childish- just as much of what government does is fallacious, idiotic and childish.
The situation is no different today as authoritarian states (it is impossible to separate these two words) exercise an ever-increasing amount of control over individual markets. In some states in America, it is illegal- or at least frowned upon- to grow food in one’s front yard. Big agriculture businesses have figured out that the government is the best way to ensure profits for themselves- even if at the expense of everyone else. A corporate-government relationship can only end in government planning with corporations dictating what those plans should be.
"I like to believe that people, in the long run, are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, Radio and Television Broadcast With Prime Minister Macmillan in London, 8/31/59
It is hard to think of a better example of the role governments and media play in shaping and controlling public debate than the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is portrayed in America. Propaganda, slogans, changing goal posts, lies, half-truths, misinformation, echo-chambers; it's all there.
But since understanding the political nature of this conflict is at the heart of the U.S. Empire and the terrorism aimed at our shores, it's easy to see why this is done. Since 1968, Arab terrorism can be directly attributed to the U.S. government's unwavering and blind support for the self-destructive and murderous policies of the Israeli government. Every year, Americans have a portion of their liberty and property confiscated in order to provide Israel with the most advanced weaponry in the world, surveillance date for military strikes, prop up a corporatist-militarist economy, and immunity from international law, even when they intentionally kill American citizens.
And in the middle of a horriffic assault on Gaza, the multi-trillion dollar trough of stolen money known as the U.S. Congress couldn't wait to help the Israelis reload.
Even General David Petraeus has admitted that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank --and the starvation, malnutrition, and utter poverty that has resulted-- is one of the main reasons that Arabs are willing to commit terrorism against the U.S.
The common denominator of this conflict, and of nearly every friction that occurs between peaceful, cooperative human behavior, is an excess of government power.
This is because governments are always at war. When states occasionally blow off steam and level a few cities, this is the direct and visible side of this constant warfare. But what is generally unseen is that governments are continuously at war with their own citizenry. Governments, despite thousands of years of self-aggrandizing propaganda, are nothing more than parasitic institutions with the moral authority of compulsion, theft, and violence over the citizenry.
If asked to voluntarily contribute to the full-scale slaughter of Palestinians or to the subsidizing of brutal dictators that also oppress Arabs, most Americans would probably say no; they have better things to do with their money. This is why it has to be paid for through theft and compulsion (taxation), and sugar-coated with national-security propaganda and comic-book narratives.
And without a hyper-nationalistic, expansionist government spoon-feeding Israelis lies and propaganda, I doubt there would be Israeli mobs chanting "death to Arabs" and crowds eating popcorn and cheering as Gaza gets pummeled with missiles. Or at least far less of them.
Thankfully, a growing number of current and former Israeli soldiers, called "refuseniks" (I love that name) are ahead of the curve and refusing to participate in the slaughter of an already sanctioned and starved open-air prison.
These brave Israeli soldiers - who have seen up close how ugly the Jim Crow rule in Gaza really is - are beginning to question the wisdom of what they are told to do: indiscriminately kill, no questions asked. Asking questions is what all States hate, of course, and the refusal of soldiers to carry out orders is a beautiful and liberating form of withdrawing one's consent and de-legitimizing state power and control over society.
In The Washington Post, Yael Evan Or - an Israeli journalist and activist who, during her service, evaluated candidates for the recruitment department of the Israeli army - is urging fellow Israelis to join her petition and refuse to serve in the military that they are forced by their authoritarian, fascist government to kill and die for:
To us, the current military operation and the way militarization affects Israeli society are inseparable. In Israel, war is not merely politics by other means — it replaces politics. Israel is no longer able to think about a solution to a political conflict except in terms of physical might; no wonder it is prone to never-ending cycles of mortal violence. And when the cannons fire, no criticism may be heard...
...The Israeli Army, a fundamental part of Israelis’ lives, is also the power that rules over the Palestinians living in the territories occupied in 1967. As long as it exists in its current structure, its language and mindset control us: We divide the world into good and evil according to the military’s categories; the military serves as the leading authority on who is valued more and who less in society — who is more responsible for the occupation, who is allowed to vocalize their resistance to it and who isn’t, and how they are allowed to do it. The military plays a central role in every action plan and proposal discussed in the national conversation, which explains the absence of any real argument about non-military solutions to the conflicts Israel has been locked in with its neighbors.
The Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are deprived ofcivil rights and human rights. They live under a different legal system fromtheir Jewish neighbors. This is not exclusively the fault of soldiers who operate in these territories. Those troops are, therefore, not the only ones obligated to refuse. Many of us served in logistical and bureaucratic support roles; there, we found that the entire military helps implement the oppression of the Palestinians...
There are many reasons people refuse to serve in the Israeli Army. Even we have differences in background and motivation about why we’ve written this letter. Nevertheless, against attacks on those who resist conscription, we support the resisters: the high school students who wrote a refusal declaration letter, the Ultra orthodox protesting the new conscription law, the Druze refusers, and all those whose conscience, personal situation, or economic well-being do not allow them to serve. Under the guise of a conversation about equality, these people are forced to pay the price. No more.
Against the sentiments of these Israeli soldiers are the attitudes of the people that claim to "represent" the interests of their subjects.
For example, here is the footage of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bragging about how he personally helped derail the Oslo Accords. According to Bibi, American foreign policy is "easy to manipulate," and that the only way to deal with Palestinians is to "beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it's unbearable."
Netanyahu laughs at the Americans who blindly back Israeli aggression as they provide rhetorical cover and sloganeering for the slow-motion implementation of Greater Israel. He is a liar who knows his audience. After all, it takes a lot of lies and manipulation in order to make ruthless aggression sound like self-defense and turn occupied captives into rabid terrorists.
And if there is one thing governments are good at besides wrecking economies and mass murder, it's propaganda.
Despite the actions that Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans would likely take if left to their own devices --namely, peace, commerce, and minding their business-- their respective governments do the exact opposite in promoting corporatism, bogeymen, and endless war to serve the interests of themselves and those who cuddle up to the State.
This is why I have never been able to understand the calls, though well-intentioned, for a "two-state solution." I would definitely agree that the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state would be a far more preferable situation to the current apartheid regime status quo, but it can't be the end all be all.
The Palestinians have suffered too much and for too long under the thumb of a foreign state; they (and all of us!) deserve better than a parasitic, destructive, coercive, top-down institution like a state. Why trade a foreign occupier for a domestic one?
Besides, with the "two-state solution" that is generally favored by the Israelis and the US, the Palestinians lose either way.
Instead of putting our faith in the same institutions that have created a majority of the modern problems plaguing the Holy Land, here is a radical, but simple, idea: a no-state solution.
Just look at what large, centralized states have created in Palestine.
Prior to the creation of the state of Israel, Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived together in Palestine much more peacefully than they do now. They of course had, and will always have, their differences; but differences are far more easily managed without a nearly cost-free, centralized outlet of violence, exploitation, and oppression like the State.
President Truman's advisers realized this. After Truman immediately recognized the state of Israel in 1948, they warned him that this would be detrimental to American interests and peace in region. Israel would be trapped in a blur of perpetual warfare, they argued, and better to be neutral and not add fuel to the fire by taking sides.
Hamas, an organization that Israel uses a justification for the bombardment and deliberate starvation of the Gaza Strip, is also a product of the State. The U.S. and the Israeli governments did not like the power and influence of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, and in order to combat this, funded and supported Hamas, at the time just a small group of individuals frustrated with the Israeli occupation. Governments have no concept of the long-term consequences of their actions, since they are nearly immune to the costs of their decision making.
The Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip and the subsidizing of settlements into Palestinian land --both large government programs-- have the effect of essentially banning free-market capitalism and trade, to the detriment of all parties involved. As Frederic Bastiat famously noted, "if goods don't cross borders, armies will."
Additionally, the Israeli government treats their own citizens like cattle. They are forced to serve in the IDF, and there is nothing more degrading, more detrimental to peace and human dignity, than military slaves serving Sparta.
The same goes for the Palestinians as well. Hamas - who are essentially the prison guards of the Israeli occupation - routinely abuses the rights and dignity of Palestinians. Random bomb blasts, assassinations from masked gunmen, torture, no access to lawyers, politically motivated arrests, indefinite detention, and the banning of peaceful protests are the norm. Abbas, the hired gun of the Americans and the Israelis, does the rest in the West Bank.
Compared with this legacy of state power over the region, the constant war and oppression, panarchy - anarchism without hyphens - in Palestine is the best way to handle the regional, ethnic, and religious differences by decentralizing power and providing the most stable checks and balances. Netanyahu, Barak, Lieberman and Abbas would have to get real jobs, or starve on the street (I'll let the reader decide which is preferable).
Rather than sending stolen money and weapons, why not send free pdf copies of Rothbard, Mises, Hazlitt, Bastiat and thousands of others to everyone's inbox? Use Bitcoin to mitigate and undercut state sanctions and their threats of war. There are an infinite amount of ways to show solidarity through social media to the people while also opposing government violence. Palestinians tweeted out their support to the victims of the military occupation in Ferguson, and they responded with chants of "Free Gaza!"
A non-state solution in Palestine - and here. Lead by example, and they will follow.
Ever since I read about the concept and history of jury nullification I have been fascinated by the idea. I was never taught this in any of my government schooling (even in my constitutional law class), and yet it remains as one of the oldest and most effective forms of expanding liberty, restricting state power, and creating law without legislation. Rules without rulers.
Here is a great article from the Niagara Falls Reporter on how the power of juries have created good, just laws and fought against oppressive ones:
Jury ended the power of Kings
In 1215, when the Barons of England compelled King John to sign the Magna Carta, trial by jury was established. The King now had to seek permission through 12 citizens unanimous in their verdict before he could take anyone's freedom away. That's why we have jury trials: To protect people from government oppression.
Right of Assembly; Freedom of Religion; jury can't be punished
In 1670, Quakers William Penn and William Mead were prosecuted for preaching to an assembly. The government did not approve of the Quaker religion and made laws against public assembly. At the end of the trial, the judge instructed the jury to return a guilty verdict. Four jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to return the guilty verdict. The judge then ordered the jury locked up until they returned with an acceptable verdict, the one he had ordered them to return. For two days the jury refused to return a guilty verdict and the judge ended the trial. As punishment, the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine. Bushell refused and spent months in jail. He was eventually released after a public outcry and his habeas corpus petition prompted the Court of Common Pleas chief judge to rule that a jury can nullify the law and forbade judges from punishing jurors for their verdicts.
This jury gave us freedom of religion and the right of peaceable assembly.
Witch trials stopped
The Salem witch trials began in 1692. After a splendid year-long government conviction rate and the execution of 33 witches, in May, 1693, juries decided the court of Oyer and Terminer had gone too far. They nullified the witchcraft law with 52 consecutive hung juries and/or acquittals. Frustrated, prosecutors ceased bringing cases to trial. Juries made it impossible to hang or otherwise put to death known witches in Salem.
Freedom of speech won by jury
In 1734, John Peter Zenger's newspaper criticized the Royal Governor of New York. It was against the law to criticize the government in Colonial America, as it still is in many countries that do not have jury trials. The British charged Zenger with seditious libel. At his trial, Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, admitted Zenger broke the law but asked the jury to acquit because the law was bad and Zenger published the truth. Chief Justice James Delaney disagreed. "The truth is no defense," he ruled.
Hamilton urged the jury "to make use of their own consciousness and understandings in judging of the lives, liberties or estates of their fellow subjects," declaring jurors "have the right, beyond all dispute, to determine both the law and the fact."
Hamilton said if jurors cannot nullify laws, then "juries (are) useless, to say no worse . . . The next step would make the people slaves."
The transcripts of the trial were widely published and the verdict encouraged literature critical of England by such as Franklin, Jefferson, Paine and others. If Zenger's jurors had obeyed the judge's directions, the people of America might still enjoy British rule.
Jury trial in the bill of rights
Given the jury's role in Zenger's and many other Colonial trials, the framers of the Constitution envisioned that juries would continue this role when they guaranteed jury trials in the Sixth Amendment.
Benjamin Franklin said that jury nullification is "better than law, it ought to be law, and will always be law wherever justice prevails."
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making [of] them."
Alexander Hamilton said of some of the framers of the constitution, "If they agree on nothing else, (they) concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists of this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."
Juries in England and America used nullification to reject harsh applications of capital punishment for simple theft and other crimes forcing both countries to limit the death penalty to murder and treason.
Nullified fugitive slave act
The federal fugitive slave law of 1850 was enacted to mollify slave owners from the South who were threatening to secede from the Union since slaves were illegally running away and the North was not doing enough to stop it. The law provided for stiff punishment for "criminals" who helped slaves escape.
In Syracuse, New York, 24 "criminals" were indicted for helping a slave escape from jail. A federal judge in Buffalo called the defendants "disturbers of society." Four trials ended in three acquittals and compelled the government to drop the charges.
In 1851, a crowd broke into a Boston courtroom and grabbed a slave named Shadrach Minkins and turned him loose. The judge called the defendants' actions in that case "beyond the scope of human reason."
President Millard Fillmore demanded prosecution. A grand jury indicted three people. Daniel Webster led the prosecution. After one acquittal and several hung juries, the government was forced to drop all charges.
Because of juries, a network of criminals called abolitionists organized knowing northern juries would not convict. Things got worse. The Southern States seceded. The Civil War followed and then the Emancipation Proclamation.
If northern juries had simply followed the law as the judge directed, African Americans might still be human property in accordance with federal law.
Set Wild Bill Hickok free
Wild Bill Hickok and Davis Tutt engaged in a one-on-one pistol, quick draw duel on July 21, 1865 in Springfield, Missouri. Tutt was killed. Hickok was charged with manslaughter. Mutual combat was against the law.
Witnesses claimed both men fired, but Tutt was the initiator, the first to display overt aggression. It was a question of honor. Had Hickok not fought, he would have been branded a coward.
Judge Sempronius Boyd instructed the jury that a conviction was its only option under the law. Then he famously instructed that they could nullify by applying the unwritten law of the "fair fight" and acquit. The jury acquitted Hickok.
Helped end prohibition
In 1920, the US?Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a majority wished to impose their moral beliefs on the minority of citizens. The jury protected citizens from the tyranny of the majority. During Prohibition, juries nullified alcohol control laws about 60 percent of the time. The fact that most juries would not convict on alcohol control laws made the use of alcohol widespread throughout Prohibition. Jury resistance contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition after onluy 13 years.
The jury made prohibition a toothless amendment.
In the late 19th century, vigorous prosecution on "conspiracy" charges against criminals known as striking union workers was thwarted by jury acquittals and gave unions the right to organize, assemble, and go on strike.
Kevin Carson has a very interesting article on C4SS dealing with a common critique of market freedom. Won't free exchange lead to disparities in wealth, thus bringing in the similar power disparities associted with capitalism?
Not exactly, Carson argues:
The sheer scale of the cash nexus, compared to alternative models for organizing social life, and its growth at their expense, carries a lot of really bad imperatives with it. But the scale of the cash nexus in corporate capitalism doesn’t result from the existence of market exchange as such. There is every reason to believe that the elimination of entry barriers for self-employment and microproduction, and barriers to comfortable subsistence, would cause a radical shrinkage of the cash nexus. It would also result in transferring the way we meet a major portion of our needs either into small-scale exchange with other small producers in exchange networks that parallel social relations within our communities (like artisans in a pre-capitalist village), or into non-monetized social production within extended family households and multi-family social units.
The motto of the rapist - and the 21st century cop.
"I like to believe that people, in the long run, are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -Dwight D....
"Liberty, finally, is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says, eternally, only that we can." -Karl Hess, "Anarchism Without Hyphens" For the victims of police violence - whether while...
The Washington Times recently ran a great story about black open-carry activists in Dallas, Texas "march[ing] with rifles, shotguns and AR-15s down MLK Boulevard." “We think that all black people have the right to self defense and self determination,” said Huey Freeman, an organizer. “We believe that we can police...
In "Technology Can Make the Regulatory State Obsolete," The Independent Institute's Lawrence J. McQuillan highlights one of the many ways markets and technology are undermining the power of the state to enforce their cartelizing and coercive regulations on peaceful people. The late American inventor and futurist Buckminster Fuller said: “You...