Category Archives: Private Property

UPDATE II: Judge Andrew Napolitano: Some Libertarian (A Good Lawyer Counters)

Individual Rights, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Private Property, Religion

The much-lauded Judge Andrew Napolitano, a feature speaker on some heavy hitting libertarian forums; quoted ad nauseam by these outlets too—does not appear to believe in the most basic of liberties: absolute freedom of association and the rights of private property. The Judge—supposedly a libertarian who should support the spirit of a law in furtherance of freedom of association and property rights—objects to giving individuals who want to exercise these individual rights, however, obnoxious, a legal standing to argue their case in a court of law.

WATCH.

UPDATED I: FACEBOOK THREAD & The Cult of Personality.

I suggest people listen again to the Judge. Moreover, it’s so stupid the way these TV personae acquire their fans who will defend them no matter. I’ve been following the Judge long enough to know he is a Reason-type, left-libertarian, who supports Civil Wrongs legislation. Look at the hot mess he made here.

UPDATE II: Jim Ostrowski is excellent, as always. Listen to a good lawyer as opposed a blowhard TV persona:

As I understand Indiana law, the only plausible libertarian position is to support the (very wimpy) religious defense statute. All laws banning private discrimination are to be opposed. This statute carves out a small slice of liberty in an otherwise loathsome legal regime. Liberty always trumps equality, including equal protection of the laws. It does sound like the Judge opposes this statute which position is NOT libertarian.

Also, as I argued on my page, the liberty required to carry out one’s religious obligations is far more that the right not to be shot on the way to church. The pioneers of liberty, many of whom were deeply religious, understood this and supported liberty in the fullest sense of the word (the right to do what you wish with what you own) precisely in order to meet one’s one religious obligations.

Further thoughts on Indiana–

Sandy Beach, WBEN.com, is a social moderate but fiscal conservative who opposes a religious exemption to civil rights laws. He appears not to realize that the very same principle that allows progressives to force business firms to serve this or that designated group, that is, the state’s right to force its alleged values on individuals, ALSO justifies all the taxes and regulatiions that Sandy presumably objects to, e.g., Obamacare. Liberty is seamless and so is progressivism!

Sandy made the point that being forced to do business with this or that group doesn’t threaten their religion. He misses the point. To be able to carry out one’s religious views, one needs liberty in all things, e.g., to be charitable, one needs the fruits of one’s labor. To raise your children properly, one needs the fruits of one’s labor as well. To visit the sick or prisoners, one needs time, energy and even money. All state coercion interferes with one’s religious moral duties.

Now that the progs have made quick work of several uber-conservative politicians, they smell blood in the water and will now go after religious groups more aggressively. You may laugh but I know the progressive mind fairly well. They start out attacking a thing but soon end up banning it.

Ron Paul On The Indiana Law

Ann Coulter, Private Property, Religion, Ron Paul

Ron Paul on the right of private property vs. the demand to be served; the freedom to associate at will vs. forced association:

Although there are differences between your average housebroken conservative and his emphasis on religious freedom, as opposed the libertarian emphasis on property rights and the right of the individuals who own and control these businesses to use their property as they wish—Ann Coulter is thoughtful on the topic.

Watch her.

Free Ross Ulbricht, Proprietor Of Silk Road

Criminal Injustice, Drug War, Justice, Law, Private Property

He operated through “the ‘Dark Web,’ a network of computer servers around the world accessed only through The Onion Router or TOR” (USA Today). He facilitated voluntary, victimless trade in drugs, online. He is “Ross Ulbricht, the operator of Silk Road, a sprawling underground Internet drug bazaar.”

Enter the criminal syndicate known as Uncle Sam. It had outlawed the commerce Mr. Ulbricht had facilitated between consenting adults. In order to catch Ulbricht, Uncle Sam put to work its vast resources, culled from robbing us, its subjects. Now, federal agents are auctioning off Ulbricht’s private property, which is tantamount to legalized theft.

Federal agents shut down the Silk Road site in October 2013 and seized 29,655 bitcoins, now worth about $7.2 million, from the Silk Road server where buyers and sellers stored the currency. The government also seized 144,336 bitcoins, now worth $35 million, from Ulbricht’s computers. A judge in January ordered the sale of Ulbricht’s bitcoins.

The March 5 sale is the federal government’s third bitcoin auction stemming from its Silk Road prosecution. The federal agency will accept e-mail bids from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on March 5. Bidders must pre-register by March 2 (USA Today).

Not content with stealing a young man’s life and property, the federal government has subjected Ross Ulbricht to a Stalinist show trial, during which due process was practically denied. Via Target Liberty:

The following statement has been issued by the family of Ross Ulbricht, who was recently convicted of being the mastermind of Silk Road:

Ross’ trial is now over.

We were shocked — horrified really — at how unfair it was. Day four saw a reversal from when we last wrote you. Before that we expected evidence favorable to Ross would continue to be presented, and the complete story told.

Instead, the government’s own exculpatory evidence was suppressed; defense witnesses were blocked from testifying; and Ross’ attorney was hamstrung, unable to effectively cross examine government witnesses. It was a one-sided presentation that suppressed facts essential to Ross’ defense.

This is a good overview from Forbes, read here. You can also read about the trial here, and about Ross during the trial here. We will continue to post more.

Ross’ attorney said he will appeal. This is not over! We believe it’s essential for everyone to have a fair trial. When a trial isn’t fair, it is a threat to us all.

Meanwhile, this is a very hard time for Ross and our family. Thanks to everyone who has reached out to us. Your love and support mean so much.

Please send Ross a note. It’s easy to feel cut off and despairing in prison. We know it will help him to hear from you. His address is below.

ROSS ULBRICHT
#18870-111
MCC NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER
150 PARK ROW
NEW YORK, NY 10007

As always, this is an expensive fight. We are facing a mountain of debt from the trial and need funds to pursue the appeal. Please spread the word, and donate if you can.

Thank you,

The Ulbricht family

NICE SITE:

Have Social Security Will Travel

IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Private Property, Taxation

Or, more precisely, have Social Security—will receive earned income credit (EIC) from the American taxpayer. The good fortune belongs to illegal aliens who, “under Obama’s new executive amnesty,” will receive Social Security numbers, enabling them to apply and qualify for the EIC.

Libertarians want individuals to keep all of their income because it properly belongs to the individual, not to government. To the extent the state returns income to any individual in the form of exemptions, deductions and credits—to that extent government is returning private property it stole. However, when given to a segment of the population, a tax credits, as part and parcel of tax policy, is usually stolen from other taxpayers. Government does not make do with less; it simply steals more from others.

Laurence M. Vance at LRC.com has a piece on libertarians and taxation:

… The libertarian view of taxes is not that taxes should be fair, adequate, sufficient, constitutional, uniform, flat, simple, efficient, apportioned equally, or low. It is not that the tax code should help the poor, benefit the middle class, and be business friendly, should not be used for social engineering purposes, income redistribution schemes, or have loopholes, and should ensure that everyone pays some arbitrary “fair share.” And neither is it that most Americans are not legally required to pay income tax, filing your taxes is voluntary, paying your taxes is voluntary, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, etc., etc., etc. My final reply to those arguments is simply two words: Irwin Schiff.

The libertarian view of taxes is simply that taxes should not exist in the first place. There should be no tax code because taxation is theft and violates the non-aggression principle. …

… If Congress—for whatever reason—decided to give a special tax deduction or credit to Americans named Bob, Americans who owed [sic] a horse, Americans with red hair, or Americans with green eyes it would be a good thing as long as Americans not named Bob, who didn’t own a horse, who didn’t have red hair, or didn’t have green eyes didn’t have to make up the difference. …

MORE.