Showing posts with label self-ownership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-ownership. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

California May Compensate Victims of Their Eugenics Programme


Source: Californiaheathline.org

From 1909 to 1979, the state of California forcible sterilized 20,000 residents deemed genetically inferior by the state.The victims of this state programme include Rose Zaballos, who was forcibly sterilized at the direction of her older brother in 1939 and died as a result of the operation.California was not alone in their efforts to weed out undesirables and breed a master race. Across the country, 32 states, including my own, adopted similar measures to sterilize people with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, racial minorities, and people deemed to exhibit abnormal behavior by the government. 60,000 people were forcibly sterilized from the early 20th century to the late to mid 70’s. California abolished it’s programme in 1979, publicly apologized for it in 2003, and is now considering paying out reparations for it’s victims under Senate Bill 1190. There are currently estimated to be 800 living victims of the eugenics programme. The passage of this bill would make California the third state to provide reparations for the victims of the eugenics movement, following in the footsteps of North Carolina and Virginia.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

State Imposed Smoking Bans Don't Protect Workers


This is a follow up response to a post made by @eric-the-red Free Market Solutions.

A common argument for forcing restaurants, bars, and casinos to kick smokers out of their establishment is that it protects the workers from secondhand smoke. This might be a valid contention if it weren’t for the inconvenient fact that restaurant, bar, and casino workers are significantly more inclined to smoke than the general population. In fact, according to the CDC they are about 1.5x more likely to smoke than workers in other industries.

CDC analyzed National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data for 2011–2013 to estimate current cigarette smoking prevalence among adults working in the accommodation and food services sector, and found that these workers had higher cigarette smoking prevalence (25.9%) than all other workers (17.3%).

Anyone who has ever worked in a restaurant would intuitively know this. This is what the waitstaff do on their breaks. Saying your intention is to protect them from secondhand smoke is kind of worthless if they’re already inhaling first hand smoke at a significantly higher rate than the customers they serve.

Of course this isn’t an endorsement of cigarette smoking or any other kind of smoking for that matter. I am personally against smoking; putting tar in your lungs is never a good idea. Smoking is bad M'kay, but you are the only one with a moral claim to your own body; only you have the prerogative to decide what you put in it. In a state of affairs where unhealthy behavior wasn’t subsidized at the taxpayers expense, the grim consequences would deter such behavior. Despite its posturing and moral grandstanding on the issue of smoking, the government, through its department of agriculture still subsidizes crop insurance premiums for tobacco farms, and until 2004 the government fixed tobacco leaf prices to guarantee high profits to farms.

Monday, February 19, 2018

In 34 States, Police Can Legally Rape People They Detain


Sources: Big Think, Associated Press, New York Daily News

Currently 34 states, including my own, do not prohibit police officers from making sexual contact with the people they detain as long as they claim that consent was given. I don’t think I need to point out how this is completely inappropriate on the job even when consent is given; it should be a no brainer even for pro-cop simps. However, the coercive relationship between an officer and a detained citizen makes consensual sex all but impossible. To put this in perspective, imagine a scenario in which a young girl is caught with pot or some other illicit substance on her person. The officer, who is a straight male in this example, tells her that she can avoid arrest by giving him head. If she were to comply with his request, it wouldn’t be consensual by any known legal standard. Similar propositions are illegal in every other profession, but somehow the one profession that uses state sanctioned violence gets a free pass. Since 2006, at least 26 officers have been acquitted of sexual assault and rape charges by arguing that the detained person consented in their defense. To boot, sexual assault is one of the most reported forms of police misconduct second only to use of excessive force. From 2009 until 2014, approximately 550 officers lost their jobs for sexual assault and rape charges, and an additional 440 for possession of child porn and soliciting sex from minors. The example I gave earlier is not too far off from the real story of Anna Chambers, who was raped in the back of a police van by two plainclothes NYPD detectives. It began when the detectives caught her and 2 male friends smoking pot. They let her two friends go, but she was handcuffed and placed in the back of the van, which means sex was their motive all along, not some heroic stand against the reefer madness. It will be interesting to see how quickly state legislatures across the country follow suit and close this loophole out of sheer embarrassment to the rest of the civilized world.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Man Who Raped Young Girl At Church Camp Spared Prison Because He is 'legally blind'


Source: AOL.com

This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. It gives a new meaning to the phrase justice is blind.

Benjamin Lawrence Petty, age 36, rapped a 13 year old girl in June 2016, while working at the Falls Creek church camp in southern Oklahoma.

Court documents state that Petty told the young victim that he wanted to show her a new type of device he brought to the camp when he suddenly pulled her into his cabin.
Petty then "closed the door to his bedroom, tied [the victim's] hands behind her back, pulled down her jeans, pushed her face down on his bed, and violently raped and sodomized her," records show.

Petty pled guilty to charges of forcible sodomy, 1st degree rape, and rape by instrumentation last month; all three resulted in felony convictions. His punishment? Only 15 years of probation, 2 of which he is required to wear an ankle monitor. Apparently, his attorney was able to find some loophole that allows him to avoid prison because he is “legally blind.”

Murray County Assistant District Attorney David Pyle, who negotiated the guilty plea, said that Petty's blindness was a major factor in his decision not to insist on prison time.
"The big thing is Mr. Petty is legally blind and the parents (of the victim) live out of state and this little girl lives out of state and didn't want to make all the travels back and forth," Pyle said. "The plea was negotiated with their permission."

According to Fox News this man has since resigned as DA.

Although I’m not a fan of putting people behind bars I make exceptions for heinous crimes like this. Obviously, Mr. Petty can see well enough to cook and rape a little girl so I fail to see how his so called ‘medical condition’ would make it impossible for him to go to prison. If his blindness is as bad as the moral ineptitude of the prosecutor then maybe they should put him in solitary confinement. You don’t need your sight to rot in solitary confinement.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

People Are Arrested For Pot Even When It's Legal


Source: Fox News of all places

Even if you sell or consume cannabis in a state where it’s legal, and even if you jump the myriad of permit and licensing hurdles required to do so, you can still be arrested. Case in point, California Highway Patrol arrested two employees of Old Kai Distribution, a pot delivery company in Mendocino County. Now recreational pot has been legal in California since 2016 and the company in question has a license to legally transport cannabis within the county, but that didn’t prevent the state police thugs from kidnapping them, taking their van, and taking someone else’s pot. What’s their justification? The company didn’t follow a law that hasn’t taken effect yet. According to CHP commissioner Warren Stanley, the company didn’t also have a state license to legally transport cannabis, but the licenses won’t be issued and take effect until the first of next year. We live in a country where the government can not only apply laws selectively and retroactively, but they can also enforce laws that don’t exist yet. That is why I’m skeptical of the whole marijuana legalization movement; it will only work in countries with rule of law: countries that don’t enforce laws selectively and don’t enforce the capricious will of officials. The saddest part is that people’s businesses are ruined because of this. The family farm that grew this cannabis lost their entire harvest for the year, and the retail businesses that sell it lost the money they put towards purchasing it.

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Utilitarian Case For Self-Ownership

I broach the subject of property rights quite often in my articles. I’d say probably 65% of my content is about property rights, and for a good reason. Property rights are foundational to civilization itself. The framers of our Constitution recognized this fact. The third, fourth, fifth, and 14th amendments to the constitution deal directly with issues involving property rights and the first amendment deals with property rights indirectly. For instance, the fourth amendment prohibits police from conducting ‘arbitrary searches and seizures’ and requires probable cause justification to search a person’s property. Similarly, the fifth amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of their property without due process; the 14th amendment applies this same standard to state and local governments. The third amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops on private property, in peace times, without the owner’s consent. The first amendment deals indirectly with property rights by enshrining the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, both of which require the recognition of property rights, especially freedom of assembly. I’d argue that the 13th amendment, the one that supposedly abolishes slavery, also deals with the subject of property rights, though not in the same manner in which we are accustomed to thinking about it. I would contend that it concerns the property one has in one’s own body and mind: self-ownership. It did after all make the once widespread practice of directly owning other people, for any reason except restitution, illegal. I’d further contend that it gave the government a legal monopoly over slavery, but this would detract from the subject at hand. My main point here is that the constitution recognizes self-ownership, not consistently mind you, but it is in writing. Of course, the constitution isn’t an infallible document; it was not handed down to James Madison by God himself in Philadelphia, so ultimately, we should defer to moral law when the constitution does err or omit certain natural rights.

Property rights arise from the division of labor; they are adopted because they are useful for the efficient allocation of resources, and nothing more. The human body is a scarce resource for which there is a demand. As strange as this may sound people’s bodies have a market value, and we know this from prior experience. Slavery, for instance, has been around for thousands of years and still persists today under the form of sex trafficking and human trafficking. People also claim ownership over others, or rather parts of them, through illegal organ harvesting, and we face the ever burgeoning problem of figuring out who owns your DNA. The principle of self-ownership isn’t just a metaphysical tautology, it’s a method for disputing competing claims over bodies. The alternatives to self-ownership are twofold; either you presume that the human body (and mind) is unowned or that people can assume ownership over others. Obviously, most people who object to self-ownership also find chattel slavery repulsive so they would choose the former alternative, but this would still place the human body in the same category as other unowned resources and imply that things like slavery and nonconsensual organ harvesting are amoral. For instance, we recognize that the act of cutting down a tree for wood is amoral in itself. We would hold a similar regard for the act of breaking stones. Saying that the human body is unowned places actions against a human body in the same category as cutting down a tree or breaking stones; it would imply that these actions are amoral in themselves. Slavery and organ harvesting would have to be considered amoral under that assumption. The only palpable option is to assume self-ownership.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Full Decriminalization Is The Only Way To End The War On Drugs


Last Thursday, Fox5 reported that twelve people were arrested for growing and selling cannabis in San Deigo. In most parts of the country this doesn't seem like anything extraordinary. Of course they got arrested for selling cannabis, it's a schedule 1 substance. However, recreational cannabis is legal in California. They weren't arrested for the cannabis, but for growing and selling it without a government permit. As long as the state remains the gate keeper of who can enter the cannabis market people will still be incarcerated for growing, selling, distributing, and ingesting the plant even if it isn't the electorate's intention. Only full deregulation of the growing, selling, distributing, and ingesting of cannabis will keep non-violent and otherwise benign offenders out of the crimminal training grounds known as the US prison system, which is also filled with illicit drugs despite the totalitarian control governments wield in them. Allowing people to enter the cannabis business without the government's permission would turn it into a true buyers market driving down prices and profit margins, which would make it less lucrative for organized crime who can undercut permited businesses and more transparent to consumers for whom there is already a wealth of information available on cannabis. It was government prohibition that created the black market and made it a windfall for organized crime in the first place by causing artifical scarcity. Erecting a new barrier in its place will keep the black market in existence. Full decriminalization would not exclude an age restriction; selling to persons under 21 could still be punished as contributing to the delinquency of a minor as it is with alcohol and tobacco. It would also not exclude legal sanctions against people who drive while high or while hot boxing. This could be considered reckless driving or a DUI under certain circumstances.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Maine Governor Asks Feds To Override Will of The People And Nullify Cannabis Legalization


Source: 10th Amendment Center

On November 8th ,2016, the electorate of Maine approved a statute legalizing the use of recreational cannabis for persons over 21, in a statewide referendum, by a slim margin of 50.3% to 49.7%. The statute went into effect on January 30th, 2017. Republican Governor Paul LePage is not content with his constituency's decision to allow adults to consume a certain psychoactive plant. In a local radio interview, he called for the federal government to step in and once again dictate what adults can put in their own bodies because daddy government knows best. The irony of calling for federal control over what people can put in their own bodies was not lost on the same governor who recently signed a law giving local communities and towns control over which foods could be produced and sold within their jurisdiction, allowing people to produce and sell things such as raw milk without state licensing and inspections. A similar consideration for cannabis is not only congenial since it is often used in cooking and food prep, it is the logical conclusion of a moral principle that nearly everyone recognizes intuitively in everyday life but suddenly abandons at the polling booth. I am sure LePage recognizes self-ownership in other areas of life that are not politicized or that otherwise align with his agenda. Surely he is against initiatory violence perpetrated by private persons against other private persons, but when a group of men who call themselves the government do it it's magically made permissible by the turn of phrases 'common good' and 'law and order.' A lack of principles and reliance on expediency is the cause of this chasm.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Orleans Parish DA: The City Should Jail Sexual Assault Victims

Source: ACLU of Louisiana

And I'll leave it at that because his reason for doing so does not justify it. The means does not justify the end. Losing a week of wages and possibly your job is not a 'mere inconvenience'; neither is the distressed caused by being behind bars, or being put in the same room with actual criminals that may re-victimize you. Spending time in jail is not like getting a traffic ticket or having to do community service on the weekends. The principle of the matter is that no one should be put in jail without being charged with a crime. Making an exception in one case opens the door to making exceptions in other cases as well. When you have a policy of jailing people without charging them with a crime on the basis of expediency (short-term gains), you set a precedent for jailing people not charged with a crime in other cases as well, as long as the 'common good' can be invoked as an excuse. In the long run we will learn that expediency is the mother of despotism, but that doesn't concern public officials who are only worried about getting reelected and leaving office with a golden parachute. Cannizzaro isn't concerned about 'public safety' or the wellbeing of victims; his public image, fragile ego, and salary is a stake if victims don't testify, and that is really the motive behind his policy.

Monday, March 6, 2017

The Red Tape Times (article 26)

Feds Shutdown Cannabis Festival on Tribal Land


Source: Indian Country Media Network

On February 16th, U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden sent a letter to the Moapa Paiute Tribe, who would host the event, warning them that their planned event would violate federal law if they allowed attendees to bring marijuana to the event, which defeats the purpose of holding the event in the first place. The event in question, the High Times Cannabis Cup, has been hosted in other states that legalized recreational use of marijuana in the past few years, such as Colorado and Washington, without much fuss from the leviathan. Since Nevada, which is where the Moapa Paiute tribe’s land is located, recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana in November of last year, the tribal council probably figured that they could host the event without much trouble as it had been hosted in other states that legalized the recreational use of marijuana in the past few years. The problem here is that Indian tribes lack the sovereignty to determine their own drug laws since 1) they are still dependent on federal spending for revenue and 2) they are under the plenary power of congress, which means the CSA still applies to tribal land. Ultimately, no government should have the power to regulate what individuals can put in their own bodies, but taking that power away from the federal government and handing it over to state and tribal governments is a step in the right direction. Thus far, eight states have taken that step by legalizing the recreational use of marijuana while twenty-eight states have flirted with the idea by legalizing medicinal marijuana. The High Times Cannabis Cup was still held, though in name only. It was eventually demoted to a music festival with arts and crafts on the side.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Repost: Concerning Virginia's Interdiction List

Originally posted on The Experience Project March 23, 2016

The state of Virginia maintains an interdiction list of residents who are prohibited from purchasing, possessing or consuming alcohol. A prosecutor can suggest that a person be added to this list, in a civil court, without the accused person's knowledge, and the accused has no means of appealing the decision.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
NO PERSON SHALL be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Not only is this a direct violation of the 6th amendment and 5th amendment, the accused can also be arrested and prosecuted for having the faintest scent of alcohol or being in the company of people who are consuming alcohol or who are in possession of alcohol. This law is supported as a means to crack down on habitual drunkards, but we've already learned what happens when the government treats a mental illness as a criminal offense over the past 45 years.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Dothan Police Department Makes the Case for Civilian Review Boards

Originally posted on Experience Project December 1, 2015
This is last years news that I decided to repost due to its relevance to the subject matter of the blog and the continued expansion of police power in this country under one of the most militant administrations in recent history.

A racially motivated police conspiracy was uncovered in Dothan, Alabama which involved about a dozen officers and which was covered up by the lieutenant, a sergeant, and the district attorney. The evidence of this conspiracy is provided in the link below.

http://henrycountyreport.com/blog/2015/12/01/leaked-documents-reveal-dothan-police-department-planted-drugs-on-young-black-men-for-years-district-attorney-doug-valeska-complicit/#comments

'The Alabama Justice Project has obtained documents that reveal a Dothan Police Department’s Internal Affairs investigation was covered up by the district attorney. A group of up to a dozen police officers on a specialized narcotics team were found to have planted drugs and weapons on young black men for years. They were supervised at the time by Lt. Steve Parrish, current Dothan Police Chief, and Sgt. Andy Hughes, current Asst. Director of Homeland Security for the State of Alabama.'

This is why every city should have a civilian review board composed of actual civilians. There is no reason why someone should be incarcerated and have their life ruined for an imaginary crime: a crime that they not only didn't commit, but that shouldn't be a crime in the first place. It's plain as day, unelected bureaucrats are not held accountable for their actions as PUBLIC SERVANTS. We have a constitution that is based on the checks and balances of power among the different branches of government. The police are an extension of the executive branch; it is common sense to have an external agency that investigates their practices and ensures that they don't abuse their power or violate the law. Civilian Review Boards should also not allow officers to be representatives because this would defeat the purpose of the agency. And on one last note, civilian review boards should also be representative of the demographics within a city to ensure that racial discrimination doesn't occur in law enforcement.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Land of the Serf Home of the Cowardly: Why The Outrage Against Kaepernick is Completely Misplaced

In light of the outrage against Colin Kaepernick, and the growing trend of national anthem protests, I thought it would be appropriate to show that there are legitimate grievances to protest, even if Colin Kaepernick and his supporters aren’t aware of all of them.


Most Americans take their rights for granted, which is not surprising given the fact that they have had the ‘freedom and democracy’ platitudes hammered into their heads since childhood; and despite taking their rights for granted, ironically, most Americans don’t even know what rights they have, in the same way that they don’t know how much money they spend or how many possessions they have, hence consumerism. For this reason, it might be helpful to show that the rights Americans have under U.S. constitutional law and moral law have all but been demolished under the pretense of patriotism and freedom, another ironic outcome of free education.


Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and the press


The right to film public officials in public places is freedom of the press, as determined in Glik v. Cunniffe, and yet police officers constantly violate the first amendment by arresting civilians simply for filming them.














The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. A vigilant citizenry has never been more critical in this day in age in which so called law enforcement, and their neoconservative lackeys (tried and true jack boot licking pro-cop simps) believe there should be no restraints on what the police can do at either the federal, state or local level. It’s funny how the same people who defend dragnet surveillance techniques like stingray operations object to sousveillance of public officials under circumstances where, unlike the former, there is no expectation of privacy. Allowing people to film the police on the job should be a no brainer given the fact that there is an entire TV series dedicated to filming police on the job. Pro-cop simps are never short in supply.


The right to desecrate and ‘disrespect’ the American flag is freedom of symbolic speech, and yet 40 states still have anti - flag desecration laws on the books, which are sometimes enforced, though it is important to note that none of the people who have been charged with this imaginary crime, equivalent to anti-blasphemy laws in Saudi Arabia, have been put on trial.




I don’t know what’s sadder, the fact that the Illinois legislature passed an anti-flag desecration law as recently as 2013, or the fact that police arrested him just to protect him from crazed lunatics who think burning a certain piece of colored fabric should cost you your life.




I covered this story back in August. This army veteran wasn’t even technically desecrating the banner; flying the flag upside down down signals distress not disrespect.




There are even earlier cases then this one. The fact that criminalizing flag desecration would even be taken into consideration, to the extent that it would warrant an act of congress (see Flag Protection Act) shows just how far we have slipped into a police state.


The right to protest grievances is freedom of speech, expression and assembly, yet the FBI has taken it upon themselves to harass and intimidate those on the political fringe by spying on them, blacklisting them, and harassing them at their residence without suspicion of criminal activity, just as they did in the 60’s and 70’s during the conintelpro days


‘in Colorado and other states in the summer of 2004. A three-page report discusses the events of July 22, 2004, when two teams of JTTF agents, accompanied by Denver police officers in SWAT gear, appeared at two Denver residences on Lipan Street that are home to a number of young political activists, including Bardwell. Bardwell explained at the time that the JTTF agents demanded to know if she and her housemates were planning to commit crimes at the upcoming Republican and Democratic conventions and whether they knew anyone who was planning such crimes. They also threatened that failing to provide information to the FBI was a criminal offense.’ The harassment ranges from showing up to the houses of activists with a paramilitary force to conduct frivolous searches of residence for evidence of ‘material support for terrorism.’








You see a terrorist is an American citizen who visits certain websites and participates in certain political causes. Animal rights activists, environmentalists (called ‘eco-terrorists’ by the FBI), anti -war groups, and people who generally hold anti-government views are considered domestic terrorist threats by the FBI. Washington funded salafist militias like Ahrar al Sham, Jaish al-Fatah, and the FSA that burn down churches, massacre religious/ethnic minorities, and engage in extortion are not terrorists but ‘moderate rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters.’


As Benjamin Franklin once said “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.” We cannot have a free and democratic society if law enforcement is allowed to censor their critics and anyone who doesn’t fall in line with popular sentiment as prescribed by public schools and corporate media outlets.


Freedom from warrantless searches, surveillance, and seizures of private property or any unreasonable searches and seizures of private property


"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It should be well recognized that the Bill of rights are not an exhaustive list of our rights but rather a list of limitations on the government’s power at both the federal, state, and local level, but especially at the federal level. The 4th amendment is not only a matter of constitutional law, but also moral law. The gradual erosion of our 4th amendment protections has been particularly devastating because the gatekeepers in msm don’t talk about it except for the controversial NSA prism program. What they don’t tell you is that this is done at the local and state level as well through stingray operations that indiscriminately collect cellphone data. They don’t tell you that FBI field offices basically have subpoena power through National Security Letters, which allows them to demand personal information, including phone records and browsing history, from any citizen’s telecommunications providers. They won’t tell you that the NSA can share the information they incidentally gather on citizens with domestic law enforcement with CISA, the latest congressional assault against the 4th amendment, which not only gives Tech companies immunity to share your personal information with the DHS and requires the DHS to further share your personal information with the NSA, DOD, and Director of National intelligence. Even the Supreme Court has joined the butchered ruling in Utah v. Strieff that the police can use evidence illegally obtained in court against a defendant, through parallel construction, if they weren’t aware that they have breached the 4th amendment at the time of a search or seizure: basically just an extension of ‘qualified immunity.’ The 4th amendment has not fared much better at the state level either. The Wisconsin Supreme Court completely nullified the 4th amendment, under their jurisdiction, in a recent ruling that officers may search homes and seize evidence without a warrant if they are exercising their ‘community caretaker’ function. The fifth circuit court appeals in Texas also decided to nullify the 4th amendment when they ruled that having religious memorabilia and air freshener in one’s vehicle constitutes probable cause of a crime. In New York and other major cities, the police departments have ‘stop and frisk’ policies that allow their officers to stop passing civilians and search their person with only reasonable suspicion, which only justifies temporarily detaining someone and questioning them; reasonable cause is required to justify a search.


Freedom from extrajudicial killings, arbitrary seizures of private property, and eminent domain seizures of private property for private companies


‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC USE, without just compensation.’ is the pertinent part of the 5th amendment that has been curtailed and the instances are numerous. Under the Obama admin, four american citizens, suspected of terrorist activities, were executed by drone strikes without a jury trial and grand jury indictment. It was the same admin that signed indefinite detention into law through the NDAA.


We should not expect to lose our freedom or property without a criminal or civil proceeding and recourse to appeal such decisions, but this is not the case. The terrorist watch list and no - fly lists allows the DHS to deprive any american of their freedom to travel and leave the country without a criminal proceeding and there is no way to appeal their decision.  These watch lists have become so commonplace that some people want to use it to deny anyone on these lists the right to buy a gun.


In the U.S. law enforcement have become the highwaymen of old, stealing more from Americans
than common criminals through civil asset forfeiture, which allows leos to seize property without charging the victim with a crime much less waiting for a criminal conviction; they just have to claim that the property resulted from a crime or is linked to a crime. The stolen property is usually used for their personal benefit and the spoils of robbery are shared with the feds.


Eminent Domain has always been explicitly restricted to taking private property for public uses (e.g. highways, bridges, canals, utilities etc), but this changed after the Kelo v. New London decision which gave private corporations like the New London Development Corporation and Pfizer the power to seize the property of private individuals for their own (rent-seeking) profit. The Supreme court justified this ruling using the typical neoliberal talking points about ‘job creation’ and ‘trickle down wealth.’ It’s important to note that exactly zero jobs were created in  the years following New London Development Corporation’s eminent domain seizure of people’s homes.

The exclusive right to control one's own body, mind and the product of one's labor.

Drug prohibition is not the only remnant from the 1970's. Draft registration is still compelled under penalty of law and was just recently expanded to include women. Although the draft hasn't been used in the past four decades, to even entertain the notion that a government should force its young adults to die for the profits of defense contractors is morally repulsive, and with a Clinton presidency looming on the horizon the reality of another draft grows increasingly more probable.
To make a long story short, the U.S. is a police state, and that is just part of the problem. This in itself should be a cause to protest It might not be a North Korea or PRC, yet, but it is by far one of the most authoritarian developed nations, ranked 20th on the Human Freedom Index. When people fume over Kaepernick's national anthem protest the old adage strain at a gnat and swallow a camel comes to mind. If Kaepernick's refusal to stand during the anthem upset you, ask yourself what freedoms are you celebrating? Americans are always so boastful about their supposed freedoms, yet they stay silent when these freedoms are taken away. The selective outrage is really a reflection of poor national character.


There are also many more frivolous laws that breach our natural rights, such as the anti-structuring laws that prohibit people from making multiple withdrawals or cash deposits of less than $10,000 from their own bank accounts. Of course, anti-structuring laws and civil asset forfeiture are the spawns of a much greater monstrosity called the war on drugs, a denial of self-ownership; the government decides what you can and cannot put in your own body. Though to speak frankly, the federal government is simply a tool in this regards; a means to further the ends of the pharmaceutical industry and the private prison industry. Millions have died and over a trillion dollars have been wasted to protect the cartelized pharmaceutical industry from non-patented substances, and if the DEA's latest ban on Kratom is any indication of current progress towards drug decriminalization, then there is no end in sight. 

Monday, September 5, 2016

The Red Tape Times (article 8)

The DEA has placed a temporary ban on Kratom, making it a schedule 1 drug under the CSA.

If you want to understand the motive behind FDA and DEA policies, you shouldn't ask what is the morally correct thing to do, but rather what will be the most profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. The morally correct thing to do is to allow individuals exclusive control over what they put in their own bodies i.e. to not breach self-ownership. However, this is not the most profitable thing to do since medicinal herbs like kratom cannot be patented and sold at exorbitant prices like Oxycontin and other prescription opioids which, unlike kratom, claim thousandsof lives per year. We must also be mindful of the private prison industry's cut of the fleecing; their bottom line matters too. With violent crime rates at a 50 year low, the government must criminalize more victim-less activities to ensure that they meet lockup quotas, or else the private corrections corporations might sue them for breach of contract. And if you take a careful look at other industries and trades, you'll notice that a pattern will emerge that is not merely an accident, but is there by design. The capitalist system does not operate for the benefit of common people, but rather the political class at the expense of the common people.