“Obamacare emails made public last week show that Obama is skilled at publicly pretending to fight a supposed bad guy – the drug lobby, in this case – while ensuring neither side actually gets hurt, both sides get paid, and everyone can be chums afterward.”
a) Securing a “right to swear in public” will not strengthen property rights or combat Leviathan in any way
b) It is not clear that a prohibition on swearing in a municipality is any more anti-libertarian than a prohibition on nudity - public space in an urban area is only semi-public in the sense that the norms regulating allowable “homesteading” of such public spaces are naturally much stronger than those regarding the use of empty wilderness.
c) In general, modern Western culture is suffering from a surfeit of high-time-preference libertinism and a deficit of low-time-preference propertarian liberalism. We already have gay marches and so on. That is well-covered territory. What we really need is stronger property rights and a rollback of the surveillance state in order to reinstitute the basic right to privacy, particularly financial privacy precisely because it is the first line of defense against government taxation.
The etatists have twisted the law & order conservatives around on themselves. “If you have nothing to hide, then why do you need to hide anything?” Well, for the simple reason that “out of sight, out of mind” - what the government doesn’t know you have, they can’t tax just like what criminals don’t know you have, they can’t steal. Putting valuables in the glove compartment or trunk is a much less expensive alternative to leaving them on the front seat and buying some expensive car alarm.
d) This is precisely the kind of “annoying, in-your-face libertarianism” that gives libertarianism a bad name with mainstream folks. Middle-class soccer moms have no interest in having the right to swear in public. If you want to persuade them to change their hearts & minds on the dangers of etatism, you need to explain how it is actually in their interests. For example: “If the Leviathan State is rolled back, you and your husband will keep more of your paycheck(s) and have more money in your household with which to raise, feed, clothe and educate your children. Would you rather have a better standard-of-living for your children or send US troops over to bomb Iraqis so Lockheed-Martin can justify another contract develop some new murderous, spying drone prototype?”
Exactly. Just because there are statutes does not necessarily make them wrong, though most of the time they are. There is no reason to believe that property owners would necessarily permit swearing on their property and therefore on the street that they own outside their property. However, it is likely that swearing would be permitted in a large amount of areas, as who is going to take the time to take people to court for swearing? But in a town center, especially in an area where there would be a lot of middle class families, it is highly likely that this kind of behavior would not be common. And if someone were especially profane, then it is likely that some security officer would remove the person from the property.
Wow, respect. H/T LRC blog. The problem is that there are just too much other bullshit the cops can pull (using “lawful orders”). Fortunately, this guy was dealing with less-than-maximal bullies. If you study the law carefully, you can stand your ground with most cops. The key is you have to realize that they all receive a standardized set of “cop law training” and you have to know the legal boundaries they were taught in that training. Most of them didn’t pay close attention to all the minutia so if you start going into the fine details and it sounds roughly like what they heard in training, they might back down. But it’s still dangerous. All you need is one asshole who doesn’t care if he gets written up (because that’s the most that will happen to him) and you’ll end up flat on the concrete with a knee planted in the back of your neck.
Check out the pro-police comments. I’ve decided that, whenever someone tells me “I’m just doing my job,” I’m going to calmly reply, “That’s the problem.”
Not to start a debate on this in the low-content thread, but…
In all honesty, and with all due respect, I’m not sure if I agree.
I think the point is about self-ownership, but I could be wrong.
Asking someone to leave property that he doesn’t own because you, as either an/the owner or an agent of the owner(s), don’t like the way he’s behaving, is perfectly legitimate IMO. Certain establishments have dress codes (no hats allowed, no shorts allowed, etc.). What I take exception to is the notion that saying certain words in certain places entails giving up certain property rights - in this case, the right to $20 of one’s own money. I believe Mr. Kokesh shares this opinion.
In a voluntaryist world, all property will be either unowned or privately owned. By “privately owned”, I don’t mean “individually owned”, but rather “exclusively owned”. So technically “privately owned” is a redundant phrase, as all ownership is private (i.e. exclusive). Note that this certainly allows for property to be jointly owned by two or more individuals. I’m not sure where the notion of “public space” fits in there, to be honest.
The first and most fundamental property right that anyone has is in himself. Asking someone to leave your house because of the way he’s behaving doesn’t violate his self-ownership. Since he doesn’t own your house, or the land it’s own, he has no prima facie right to be there. But if instead you tell him that he now owes you some amount of money because of his behavior, then you are violating his self-ownership. His behavior (assuming it wasn’t destructive) didn’t take anything from you, so it doesn’t follow that you have the right to take something from him as a result. I think this is the philosophical point behind Mr. Kokesh’s protest.
I don’t think it’s necessarily an either-or thing. That is, I think both approaches can be taken simultaneously. But as long as people think it’s okay to tyrannize those who they simply don’t like, and/or are okay with not having rights that they wouldn’t exercise anyway, I think they’re lost to the cause of libertarianism.
…or worse. That’s why the video (especially at least audio) recording is so important. I highly recommend everyone get a small digital audio recorder to keep on your person at all times, and run it anytime you even remotely feel like an encounter is about to occur. (I don’t care if your iphone has an audio recording app. It’s took big, and too cumbersome to initiate recording. Get a dedicated recorder.)
A “winning” comment on the video Clayton linked to:
“Well heres the thing, I don’t care if its in his rights to openly carry a gun, I don’t think he should be allowed to carry a gun down the street.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that translate to “I don’t care if it’s in his rights to openly carry a gun, I don’t think it should be in his rights to openly carry a gun”?
“Despite the nearly 200 demonstrations against JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and the other big banks, the AFL-CIO and SEIU are in bed with JP Morgan Chase—big time”
So in case you haven’t noticed, the original uploader got the “law student vs. cop” video removed. Apparently that upload wasn’t the original one. The funny part is, he’s gonna have a hell of a time trying to stop it. Do a youtube search for “law student cop” and laugh at what you find.
Anyway, if you’re going to embed or link to it, g’head and link to the original from the kid’s channel. He deserves it:
So I know that there are some filmakers here on the forum, and there was a discussion a while ago on good software to use. Anyway, Valve is releasing the Source Filmmaker for free. It’s in beta now so you have to apply for a beta key first. I don’t know how useful it will be now, as they are limitting it in the beginning, but it seems like they are aiming to make it a full feature program…for free!
“which classes managed to gain control of the state apparatus. The ruling class is whichever group has managed to seize state power; the ruled are those groups who are taxed and regulated by those in command.”
10 Reasons Countries Fall Apart (I mostly agree with this except for three points. Somalia is not great because of U.S.-backed warlords, not anarchy. Columbia is not great because of a U.S.-backed drug war. Peru, I don’t know, but this government-as-cure-all doesn’t make sense. If the country is wealthy enough, private landowners can build roads.)
@Nielsio: I failed to perceive any contradiction between Menger and Mises/Rothbard… can you provide a cite of the passage of Mises or Rothbard that you feel contradicts Menger?
