close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20100729020233/http://www.libertyforall.net:80/

If Libertarians save one life

BERJAYAPosted in Deadly Politics by R Lee Wrights on July 28th, 2010

by LP staff

BERJAYAThe War in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost nine years. According to the Washington Post, there have been 1,189 American military deaths, which is more than two per week.

And of course, today’s big news about WikiLeaks raises a lot of questions about whether we’ve been honestly told how badly the war is going.

I’m often asked how Libertarian candidates make a difference in cases where they don’t win their election. We have over 150 candidates running for U.S. Representative, and over 20 for U.S. Senator.

Here’s how: ending the war sooner will save both lives and money. I’m also convinced that ending the war sooner will reduce terrorism, although I understand some others disagree.

I’m not attempting to put a dollar value on a life saved, but I’ve seen reports that some environmental and safety regulations cost anywhere from millions to billions per life saved. The cost of training and equipping replacement military personnel is also very high.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

Good news, bad news

BERJAYAPosted in Liberty's Lady by R Lee Wrights on July 27th, 2010

by Lady Liberty

BERJAYASome of you know that I used to work in the news media. Maybe it’s that insider viewpoint that makes it especially disgusting to me when I see the state of journalism-and I use the term loosely-today.

It wasn’t so very long ago that news was news, editorials were editorials, and the line between the two was both clear and sacrosanct. Today, there are times I’m hard pressed to tell the difference. Worse than that are the times where the difference is obvious but the labels are backwards.

I like to catch up on the news every morning while I’m getting ready for work. I’m not entirely sure why I bother any more. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve actually found myself, hairbrush in hand, shouting back at the TV over one inexcusably biased, or outright error-filled, report.

Just the other day, there was a short feature the purpose of which seemed to be to chastise those who were criticizing the president for his speech to schoolchildren. The reporter cut to a so-called expert who proceeded to lambaste conservatives. The president was merely going to encourage students to work hard and to set goals, he explained. What could possibly be wrong with that, he asked. The reporter shook his head at anyone who would protest such a thing. As usual, both of them selectively ignored the point entirely.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

Stating the bleeding obvious: Part 2

BERJAYAPosted in Liberty's Friend by R Lee Wrights on July 26th, 2010

by Larken Rose

BERJAYA“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? … See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

- Frédéric Bastiat

My last “bleeding obvious” article addressed the absurd notion that anyone could ever be morally obligated to disregard his own moral conscience. But the concepts of “authority” and “government” depend entirely upon the insane notion that, at least in some cases, it is bad for people to do what they think is right (if the politicians call it “illegal”), and good for people to do what they think is wrong (if “the law” commands it). Statism relies upon such insanity. But that is not the only way to demonstrate the insanity of the superstition called “government.” (This next one, many of you have seen before.)

Question: Can you give to someone else a right that you don’t have?

Here are your two possible answers:

Yes, I can delegate to others a right that I do not have. That would mean that even though it is immoral for me to do certain things (committing theft, assault, murder, whatever), I can nonetheless bestow moral permission on someone else, giving them the right to do such things.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

Setting the record straight about Steve Kubby

BERJAYAPosted in NtheDrgWar by R Lee Wrights on July 25th, 2010

by Thomas L. Knapp

BERJAYATwo things I learned from “Scarface,” a heckuva movie.

Lesson Number One: Don’t underestimate the other guy’s greed!

Lesson Number Two: Don’t get high on your own supply.

Steve Kubby learned Lesson Number One the hard way.

Cannabis Science apparently still hasn’t learned Lesson Number Two.

Before I go any further, disclaimer time: I did some contract writing work for Cannex Therapeutics before it entered into its ill-advised — and now canceled nunc pro tunc (remember that term, it’s important) — deal with Cannabis Science, Inc. I intend, or at least hope, to be involved in future projects with Steve Kubby. I am not a disinterested party here.

On the other side of the ledger, this post is not a sponsored post. It’s my opinion, for which I take sole responsibility, and I’m not being paid by Kubby or by anyone else to write it except to the extent that I may move some DVDs on affiliate commission or collect some advertising revenues for page views, etc. I do not own, nor have I ever owned, any shares in Cannabis Science, Inc., nor do I hold any “short positions” or other tools for profiting through manipulation of CBIS’s stock value. Nor, frankly, would I want to unless, as seems increasingly likely, CBIS stock certificates at some point become cheaper than retail-price toilet paper.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (1)

Three imperial edicts

BERJAYAPosted in The N.C. Way by R Lee Wrights on July 24th, 2010

by Sean Haugh

BERJAYAThis is something written for Praxis for the People, briefly a neat Green zine from Asheville NC, five years ago this month:

The question is fascinating, “if (I could) pass any three pieces of legislation, without having to worry about the approval of Congress, what would they be?” I always associate legislation specifically with congress or the general assembly. I can relieve that contradiction by framing my answers not as legislation, but rather as executive orders, or even better, edicts.

So, as the Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico (my preferred title, after Emperor Norton), here are my first three proclamations:

1) I would abolish marriage licenses. To me, that’s the most offensive thing government does (short of killing people). At its root, it’s nothing but a state license to love - I am outraged, that they would think for a moment this is any of their business. Who and how people choose to love, well, I can hardly imagine a more personal matter. The marriage license is the lynchpin in government’s ability to define the family. The world would be a much happier place if families could simply define themselves.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

Principles of Liberty: 16 affirmations for those who would live free

BERJAYAPosted in LFA Flashback by R Lee Wrights on July 23rd, 2010

by Kevin Tuma

courtesy of Kevin TumaI. I was born free. No government can sanction my freedom, or take it away.

II. I believe the government should be as small as possible, and its laws should be as minimal as possible.

III. I acknowledge that free speech is a fundamental human right; any controls upon speech or ideas represent tyranny. There is absolutely no such thing as “treasonous” or “politically correct” speech. No one has a right not to be offended by ideas.

IV. I understand that the government’s only legitimate use of military force is to protect its citizens from foreign invasion.

V. I understand that the government’s only legitimate use of police force is to protect citizens from crimes of violence or theft.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (2)

Tight budgets and fewer cops; time for citizens to ‘arm up’

BERJAYAPosted in Sound Off Soapbox by R Lee Wrights on July 22nd, 2010

by Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

BERJAYAPlunging government revenues may have the unintended consequence - so far as tax-and-spend (and spend some more) public officials are concerned - of reminding people that we are ultimately responsible for our own safety.

The pie plate is empty and inevitable cutbacks in important public services, including law enforcement, are on the horizon. It is already happening in Oakland, CA where the police chief has announced that officers will no longer respond to a broad list of crimes, if department layoffs go as planned.

What’s a citizen to do? Perhaps they will follow the advice of Ashtabula County, OH Judge Alfred Mackey and Hudspeth County, TX Sheriff Arvin West. In the past few months, both have advised their neighbors to arm themselves.

Said the judge, according to a report on WKYC back in April, “Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we’re going to have to look after each other.”

Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts is no less a victim of government spending out of control than, say, King County, WA Sheriff Sue Rahr. She is appealing to voters to approve a small sales tax hike to pay for sheriff’s department services, and maintain the county prosecutor’s office. It will likely be rejected. Last year, Rahr advised county residents during a series of public meetings on public safety that, faced with the possibility of a burglary or home invasion, or some other crime and the nearest deputy being several minutes away, she would “have a gun.”

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

What’s the alternative?

BERJAYAPosted in Power to the People by R Lee Wrights on July 21st, 2010

by John Stossel

BERJAYALast week, I wrote about a federal agency that most people think is indispensable. In reality, I said, the FDA regulates us to death, literally, by forbidding even dying Americans who can’t be helped by established medical treatments from trying innovative therapies.

But what’s the alternative? Have no oversight? Let any company peddle every dubious medicine to an unsuspecting public? That sounds terrifying. Snake-oil sellers would sell all kinds of harmful stuff. That’s why we created the FDA in the first place.

But wait a second. Snake oil sellers sell it anyway. I’ve done consumer reports on snake-oil sellers for years. Crooks and deluded optimists sell useless baldness remedies, breast enlargers and diet products while the FDA is supposedly in charge. The FDA rarely stopped even the obvious crooks. What it mostly stopped, or delayed, were the serious drug companies’ attempts at genuine innovations.

Without an FDA, how would doctors and patients know which drugs were safe and effective?

The same way we know which computers and restaurants are good — through newspapers, magazines and word of mouth. In a free, open society, competition gets the information out, and that protects consumers better than government command and control.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (3)

Arizona got it right

BERJAYAPosted in Straight Shooter by R Lee Wrights on July 20th, 2010

by Jessi Winchester, author of From Bordello to Ballot Box and America: The Final Chapter

BERJAYA“Where the people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty.”

- Thomas Jefferson, third President of the U.S.

Despite the federal government’s direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and its bogus condemnation of potential profiling, the Arizona Immigration Law has nothing to do with race and everything to do with concern for the state’s financial ruin as well as citizens’ fear for their safety.

Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution totally sums up the illegality of this administration’s infringement on Arizona’s Tenth Amendment states right to enact an immigration law.  It states, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and …. against domestic violence.”  With Obama’s failure to protect the state, Article IV, section 4 gave Arizona every legal right to enact legislation to protect themselves.

Barack Obama refuses to deal with the illegal criminal invasion/border situation because his approval rating is plummeting and he is losing his voter base so he intends to enact amnesty in order to gain their vote at the polls, thereby keeping Democrats in power.  That desire would seem to be in traitorous opposition to the Oath of Office Obama took on January 20, 2009 which states, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments (4)

SAF sues in New York to void ‘good cause’ carry permit requirement

BERJAYAPosted in Press Releases by R Lee Wrights on July 19th, 2010

from SAF staff

BERJAYABELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Westchester County, New York and its handgun permit licensing officers, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show “good cause.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky’s denial was because he could not “demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public.” Nikolov’s was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was “any type of threat to her own safety anywhere.” In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division.

Attorney Alan Gura is representing the plaintiffs, along with attorney Vincent Gelardi with Gelardi & Randazzo of Rye Brook, NY. Gura recently represented SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in their landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court victory over the City of Chicago.

Read the rest of this entry »

| Comments

« Previous entries