Greetings.
As NCAA bracketology, missing Malaysian flights, and plenty of other news stories that are "fit to print" prominently took center stage this past week, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) and Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-MI) began an attempt to convince the American people that ending National Security Agency spying on the American people is a TOP PRIORITY of theirs.
Specifically, these two congressmen, from two different sides of the political aisle, are preparing to co-sponsor a bill that would, in effect, end the NSA's program aimed at gathering and storing, in bulk, metadata belonging to the American people. However, those that would hail this new development as a "victory" for the Fourth Amendment and a sound defeat of anti-privacy laws and practices should not be so easily deceived.
This latest legislation is a smoke-and-mirrors act for several reasons.
First of all, the law being proposed wouldn't go far enough. While intelligence agencies, under the Ruppersbarger-Rogers legislation, would no longer be permitted to directly gather metadata from the cell phones of Americans, they would still have a green light to legally access the records of private service providers in order to get what they were going after. Basically, this new law would simply redirect (to companies) the unconstitutional efforts of the federal government, rather than shut them down.
Secondly, it is practically absurd to expect anything but these types of legislative theatrics from the likes of Ruppersbarger and Rogers. According to sources, both Rogers and Ruppersbarger have been the recepients of campaign donations (numbering in the six figures) from intelligence contractors since 2005.
Can it be hoped, then, that either of these men will see the egregious violations of Americans' Fourth Amendment-protected liberties for what they are? Not likely...at least not as long as their reelection efforts and financial bottom lines depend on it. Even less likely is the possibility that our government as a whole, to include all three branches, will ever these unconstitutional violations for what they are and take steps to ELIMINATE (not simply "improve" or "decrease") them from the national landscape.
John Adams once famously said, "...a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
I am afraid that we are well past the point of individual liberty being a mainstay in the national conscience. However, I am not convinced that this is grounds for any sort of permanent pessimism on our part. We must continue to fight. This can happen in a number of ways.
1) Stay active, involved, and LOUD. Never pass up an opportunity to make your voice heard, especially with regard to your elected officials. While many are beholden to special interests and lobbyists, that is still no reason to keep silent. Stay engaged.
2) Disobey when necessary. Civil non-compliance is the best way to effect change on the national landscape. History bears this out and our future as a free society mandates it. Always count the cost, but always be ready to defy unjust and tyrannical laws.
3) Stay assembled. Always look for ways to associate with like-minded individuals who share your values of freedom and liberty. Remember: strength in numbers.
The politicians may not listen to us now, but our numbers are growing.
Live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Civil Disobedience in Connecticut.
Greetings.
Many of you know about the tensions rising in the state of Connecticut in recent weeks as a result of tighter gun laws aimed at so-called "high-capacity" magazines and weapons. For those that do not, here's a quick re-cap: The Connecticut legislature passed, and CT governor Daniel Malloy signed into law, a bill that prohibited sales of certain types of weapons and which also now mandates that those already possessing such weapons register them with the government.
To sum up, the people are refusing. After only a short time since the law passed, a large number of gun owners numbering in the hundreds of thousands have yet to comply with the law. While not for certain, it could be assumed that they have no intention of doing so...and for that, they should be applauded.
Indeed, while there are several intriguing elements to this ongoing saga, I want to call specific attention to the element of civil disobedience in this particular case. I am afraid that it is fast coming to a point in our history for free citizens everywhere where we no longer have the option of obeying our government if we wish to remain free. And thus, stories like the one coming out of the Constitution State should be refreshing to those of us who do wish to live free.
It has already gotten to the point where police forces in Connecticut, too many of whom have been hell-bent on enforcing this latest piece of legislative tyranny, are actually SCARED of what may happen if they do try to enforce. More can be read about that at the following link.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/threats-connecticut-police-escalate-following-connecticut-cops-gun-confiscation-comments-pro-gun-veteran-asked-help-cool-things/
For free citizens who, for too long, have had to live in fear at the thought of losing their liberties on a whim, thanks to onerous government overreach, this too should come as a breath of fresh air. The fact that the government now seems to be the one running scared (albeit to a degree) should be welcomed as a much-needed turning of the tides. As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Where people fear their government, there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people, there is liberty."
The flip side, however, is that there is indeed a sense in which this is tragic. No free citizen should want bloodshed. I certainly do not; many of the libertarian-minded, peace-seeking people who share my ideology do not; not even our Founding Fathers wanted to see war in their day. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the current situation in Connecticut is any indication, those desperate times may be upon us sooner than we think.
In the meantime, it is important for us all to stay vigilant of the events transpiring in Connecticut as well as elsewhere. Support those who choose to live free and seek to disobey unjust laws whenever possible.
Until next week, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Many of you know about the tensions rising in the state of Connecticut in recent weeks as a result of tighter gun laws aimed at so-called "high-capacity" magazines and weapons. For those that do not, here's a quick re-cap: The Connecticut legislature passed, and CT governor Daniel Malloy signed into law, a bill that prohibited sales of certain types of weapons and which also now mandates that those already possessing such weapons register them with the government.
To sum up, the people are refusing. After only a short time since the law passed, a large number of gun owners numbering in the hundreds of thousands have yet to comply with the law. While not for certain, it could be assumed that they have no intention of doing so...and for that, they should be applauded.
Indeed, while there are several intriguing elements to this ongoing saga, I want to call specific attention to the element of civil disobedience in this particular case. I am afraid that it is fast coming to a point in our history for free citizens everywhere where we no longer have the option of obeying our government if we wish to remain free. And thus, stories like the one coming out of the Constitution State should be refreshing to those of us who do wish to live free.
It has already gotten to the point where police forces in Connecticut, too many of whom have been hell-bent on enforcing this latest piece of legislative tyranny, are actually SCARED of what may happen if they do try to enforce. More can be read about that at the following link.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/threats-connecticut-police-escalate-following-connecticut-cops-gun-confiscation-comments-pro-gun-veteran-asked-help-cool-things/
For free citizens who, for too long, have had to live in fear at the thought of losing their liberties on a whim, thanks to onerous government overreach, this too should come as a breath of fresh air. The fact that the government now seems to be the one running scared (albeit to a degree) should be welcomed as a much-needed turning of the tides. As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Where people fear their government, there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people, there is liberty."
The flip side, however, is that there is indeed a sense in which this is tragic. No free citizen should want bloodshed. I certainly do not; many of the libertarian-minded, peace-seeking people who share my ideology do not; not even our Founding Fathers wanted to see war in their day. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and if the current situation in Connecticut is any indication, those desperate times may be upon us sooner than we think.
In the meantime, it is important for us all to stay vigilant of the events transpiring in Connecticut as well as elsewhere. Support those who choose to live free and seek to disobey unjust laws whenever possible.
Until next week, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Friday, March 7, 2014
No Country for Free Enterprise
Greetings.
It has been just over two weeks since I last contributed to this; a fact that I am deeply regretful over, but which leaves me all the more motivated to get back to writing and discussing the issues that are currently foremost on our culture's landscape.
One of the most hot-button topics in the news lately (at least concerning news that matters) over the last couple of weeks is a law that was recently vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. This law would have given a layer of protection to small businesses that refuse service to homosexuals on the grounds of religious conviction and religious liberty. What is unique about this issue is that it has managed to divide not only the usual mix of ardent conservatives and hard-core liberals, but also even a few libertarians (amongst ourselves) as well.
On one side, there is the crowd that (rightly, I believe) thinks that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds. On the other side, there's the anti-discrimination crowd which argues that discrimination is not only unkind, but is also against the law...though few are very specific about which law is being violated when service is refused.
Personally, I fall on the side of the "religious liberty," crowd. However, my argument doesn't just end at religious liberty. Not only do I believe that businesses have every right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds, they also have the right, I think, to do so on ANY grounds they choose. This is simply by virtue of the fact that it is THEIR business. They own the property and the inventory, not to mention the stewardship and responsibility for the success (or failure) of their enterprise. Thus, it is they, and not a government from Phoenix or Washington, D.C., that get to determine how their business will operate. Period.
Furthermore, history teaches that the free market is a much more effective enforcer of social justice, not to mention a much more effective picker of winners and losers, than a centralized, tax-funded bureaucracy housed in a capital building. Again, let's take the Arizona example. Suppose enough people get really angry at this business owner for what they are calling "discrimination." What will the business man (or woman) do if left to his or her own devices when confronted with these angry consumers? Will he 1) ignore them and continue his business practices only to see his business fail and be replaced by a more "gay-friendly" enterprise? Or will he 2) change his business practices, stop refusing service to homosexuals, and save his business?
The answer, obviously, is that we do not know. Either way, however, the problem is solved either by way of the business owner going out of business or by way of the business owner changing his ways to attract new business. And this is a classic example of an unrestricted, minimally-regulated, free market can solve the societal ills that too often divide and trouble us.
The flip side of my argument is that while I do not think Governor Brewer made an entirely prudent decision in her decision to veto, I also do not completely buy that this turn of events completely spells certain doom for small businesses owned by people of faith. Could it make the lives of faith-based small business owners a bit more difficult? Absolutely. Could these small business owners have benefitted from the layer of protection afforded by this new law? Certainly.
However, it is important to remember that any lawsuit filed against a business for refusing service could easily be defended on First and perhaps even Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Free speech and equal protection counter-arguments could (and should) be made forcefully on behalf of small business owners should they be taken to court in the wake of these events. And liberty lovers everywhere would then do well to support these enterprises by donating to their defense funds wherever they may be found.
That's all I have for this week. Until next time, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
It has been just over two weeks since I last contributed to this; a fact that I am deeply regretful over, but which leaves me all the more motivated to get back to writing and discussing the issues that are currently foremost on our culture's landscape.
One of the most hot-button topics in the news lately (at least concerning news that matters) over the last couple of weeks is a law that was recently vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. This law would have given a layer of protection to small businesses that refuse service to homosexuals on the grounds of religious conviction and religious liberty. What is unique about this issue is that it has managed to divide not only the usual mix of ardent conservatives and hard-core liberals, but also even a few libertarians (amongst ourselves) as well.
On one side, there is the crowd that (rightly, I believe) thinks that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds. On the other side, there's the anti-discrimination crowd which argues that discrimination is not only unkind, but is also against the law...though few are very specific about which law is being violated when service is refused.
Personally, I fall on the side of the "religious liberty," crowd. However, my argument doesn't just end at religious liberty. Not only do I believe that businesses have every right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds, they also have the right, I think, to do so on ANY grounds they choose. This is simply by virtue of the fact that it is THEIR business. They own the property and the inventory, not to mention the stewardship and responsibility for the success (or failure) of their enterprise. Thus, it is they, and not a government from Phoenix or Washington, D.C., that get to determine how their business will operate. Period.
Furthermore, history teaches that the free market is a much more effective enforcer of social justice, not to mention a much more effective picker of winners and losers, than a centralized, tax-funded bureaucracy housed in a capital building. Again, let's take the Arizona example. Suppose enough people get really angry at this business owner for what they are calling "discrimination." What will the business man (or woman) do if left to his or her own devices when confronted with these angry consumers? Will he 1) ignore them and continue his business practices only to see his business fail and be replaced by a more "gay-friendly" enterprise? Or will he 2) change his business practices, stop refusing service to homosexuals, and save his business?
The answer, obviously, is that we do not know. Either way, however, the problem is solved either by way of the business owner going out of business or by way of the business owner changing his ways to attract new business. And this is a classic example of an unrestricted, minimally-regulated, free market can solve the societal ills that too often divide and trouble us.
The flip side of my argument is that while I do not think Governor Brewer made an entirely prudent decision in her decision to veto, I also do not completely buy that this turn of events completely spells certain doom for small businesses owned by people of faith. Could it make the lives of faith-based small business owners a bit more difficult? Absolutely. Could these small business owners have benefitted from the layer of protection afforded by this new law? Certainly.
However, it is important to remember that any lawsuit filed against a business for refusing service could easily be defended on First and perhaps even Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Free speech and equal protection counter-arguments could (and should) be made forcefully on behalf of small business owners should they be taken to court in the wake of these events. And liberty lovers everywhere would then do well to support these enterprises by donating to their defense funds wherever they may be found.
That's all I have for this week. Until next time, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)