Personal Liberty

Home » Personal Liberty

In the Nation’s Capital, Drinking in Large Groups Can Get You Fined

in Drugs, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

In the Nation’s Capital, Drinking in Large Groups Can Get You Fined

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Busybodies are always trying to figure out a way to control our lives in ways never seen before. In Washington, DC, the obsession is turning into a mental health epidemic—among bureaucrats and their supporters only.

DrinkingAccording to Watchdog.org, DC has decided to target groups that organize pub crawls. Because drinking in large groups is apparently dangerous.

Claiming to have safety in mind following a host of different pub crawls organized in the city this past year, DC officials are targeting these same pub crawl organizations, saying that bringing large groups of tourists to local restaurants and pubs to boost the local economy is just too much.

Instead of letting the community benefit from tourism, DC officials want fewer groups to organize pub crawls in the region, forcing gatherings of over 200 people to register with the city before hitting the town. These groups have to pay officials $500 for the privilege of getting an OK from the local government to operate, and organizers must also have a security plan set up. Oh, and never mind the holidays! DC will not give you an OK to operate for those sacred drinking dates.

According to Reason, the new rules also dictate ho pub crawls can be advertised, forcing organizers to add a warning saying “you must be 21 or older to participate” on every piece of pub crawl marketing material. Organizers must also add a line encouraging the use of public transportation.

But before this debacle took place and the city decided to “take action,” organizers were simply required to submit a registration. With the new requirements in place, the number of organized pub crawls in the nation’s capital is already starting to drop.

But despite the criticism, DC officials seem focused on letting this new set of rules stay in place. Even if that means local businesses will hurt as a result.

According to Watchdog.org, new impositions have created another set of problems, especially if government officials find an issue with you and your buddies participating in unregulated or unlawful pub crawls. Restaurants and pubs that aid unregulated groups under the new rules could be fined.

To Jon Gabel, an executive with event organizing company Joonbug Productions, the city’s new rules could hurt local businesses by both keeping people away and forcing restaurants to turn down customers.

He told the Washington City Paper that his pub crawls saved their lives in several occasions. A local restaurant manager agreed, saying that the new rules are “definitely going to impact a lot of businesses.”

In DC, large pub crawls have been part of the scene for several years, but it was only during 2015’s Halloween pub crawl that residents and law enforcement began to push for different rules. Nevertheless, Watchdog.org reports that incidents or arrests were too few or unimportant.

With the new rules in place, local business owners are afraid of the future, especially considering that since its implementation, at least four events were canceled.

The Drug War Has a New Target: Poor, White People

in Drugs, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

The Drug War Has a New Target: Poor, White People

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In one of my latest articles for The Anti-Media, I explain that the rate of incarcerated whites in the United States is higher than the total incarceration rates of most other countries across the globe.

HomelessAt 466 per 100,000 citizens in jail—the rate of white individuals currently serving time in American prisons—the United States would still be in the top ten list of top jailers globally. And as pointed out by The Washington Post’s Keith Humphreys, the rate of blacks in prison has been in steady decline over the past decade, while the number of white prisoners—both male and female—continues to rise.

The explanation for this fact is simple: The drug war hasn’t stopped.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the crack cocaine epidemic that swept major urban areas across the country was met with “tough on crime” policies, forcing oftentimes nonviolent drug law offenders to go to jail for life. Blacks account for 80 percent of federal crack cocaine convictions but whites and Latinos account for more than 70 percent of powder cocaine convictions.

As the movement spearheaded by libertarian-leaning organizations asking for mandatory minimum reforms and drug legalization gains popularity among liberals and conservatives, more states begin to review their drug laws, helping to change incarceration rates locally while giving first-time and nonviolent offenders a chance to get their lives back on track.

But as another drug epidemic takes the streets of both urban and rural America, another group begins to feel the heavy weight of misguided government policies.

West Virginia is the number one state in the country for fatal drug overdoses. The state also has the highest rate of babies born with some dependency on opioids.

Just recently, the city of Huntington, WV saw 26 overdoses in a matter of hours, prompting news organizations to call the city the heart of America’s opioid epidemic.

According to The Washington Post’s Keith Humphreys, there are two underlying issues that have been putting whites in jail at a greater rate.

First, “changes in drug use and enforcement over the past 15 years” may be playing a part. But “[m]ethamphetamine, prescription opioid and heroin epidemics” have also impacted “whites more than did the crack cocaine epidemic.” In states like West Virginia where over 93 percent of the population is non-Hispanic white, there’s an increased push to toughen drug-related laws, prompting enforcement organizations to respond accordingly.

But as we’ve seen with the crack cocaine epidemic and the US government’s war on drugs, increasing penalties for drug law offenses does not work.

All Americans, whether they are white or black have only one obstacle in their everyday fight for freedom and peace, and that is government’s heavy-handed, immoral interventionism. The time to identify the beast and speak openly about it is now.

Homeland ‘Security’? Gov’t Wants to Collect Travellers’ Social Media Info

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Homeland ‘Security’? Gov’t Wants to Collect Travellers’ Social Media Info

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises writes that tending toward “a transgression of the limit” of the application of violence is a natural impulse among professionals who use violence in their line of work, even if the particular application of violence is seen as legitimate.

These transgressions are seen everywhere, from instances of police brutality to the ever-growing presence of law enforcement agents on our borders and airports.

SmartphoneNow, this transgression is entering another realm, making way for law enforcement to have an even more formally accepted online presence.

According to a new Department of Homeland Security proposal, officials are considering asking visitors entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program to disclose information pertaining to their social media presence.

If the DHS has its way, visitors would have to fill out a form with links to their Twitter, Facebook, and other online applications. According to the DHS, the collection of this information would “enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case.”

But the wording in this new proposal is broad enough to allow officials to dig at will, increasing the risk of abuse of power—a surveillance issue that has already been associated with 4th Amendment violations in the past. To privacy advocacy organizations like Restore The 4th, this new transgression is everything but legitimate.

In a press release, the organization explained that the DHS new proposal is toxic.

In a letter addressed to the US Customs and Border Protection, the group along with “over two dozen human rights and civil liberties organizations” outlined the program’s “disproportionate risks, excessive costs, and other serious shortcomings.”

According to the letter, the DHS will be further invading individual privacy, putting freedom of expression at risk if this proposal is implemented. Furthermore, the federal government would have to worsen the national debt due to the high cost of implementation. The maintenance of this program would also cost taxpayers greatly, Restore The 4th added, and these costs “appear to be unaccounted for in the DHS Paperwork Reduction Act statement.”

The advocacy group also claims that the DHS would ignite the expansion of the surveillance state by opening a new window into the traveler’s private life. If implemented, this new rule could impact particular groups of travelers, allowing law enforcement to refer to their racial and religious bias in order to do their job.

Restore The 4th explains:

“This ‘disparate impact will affect not only travelers from visa-waiver program countries, but also the Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans whose colleagues, family members, business associates, and others in their social networks are exposed to immediate scrutiny or ongoing surveillance, or are improperly denied a visa waiver because of their online presence.’”

The letter urges CBP to dismiss the DHS proposal altogether. ​

Don’t Just Depend On A Piece Of Paper

in Education, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Don’t Just Depend On A Piece Of Paper

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

This week, I participated in a panel discussion for new students beginning their college careers at my alma mater, Ball State University. I shared my experiences on campus, talked about leadership, how to find the right job after graduation, and what I am doing now with The Advocates for Self-Government with the Class of 2021 C.L.A.S.S. participants.

Ball StateDuring the Q and A portion of the panel, a student asked if earning my degree was more important than the professional experience I gained by completing internships during undergrad.

This is what I told him:

I wouldn’t be where I am professionally without the networking I did as an undergrad. Networking led to internships which led to my professional career. However, the journalism, history, graphic design, and political science classes I took gave me the technical skills I needed to succeed in professional clubs and internships.

In other words, I don’t think that it is important for students to depend on a piece of paper alone. A degree in a subject that one is truly passionate about is great – but it’s not the be-all and end-all of your education.

I have friends that never earned a college degree but have incredibly successful careers. I have other friends that have multiple degrees and are stuck in jobs that make them miserable.

My advice to college students is to take advantage of every single opportunity this upcoming school year and throughout your college career.

Do your best in your classes and ask for help when you need it. If there is a professional club on campus that is relevant to your major, attend a few meetings. If your department is hosting an alumni mixer, GO, and introduce yourself to professionals. Ask for their business cards and keep in touch.

One of my favorite quotes comes from actress Tina Fey:

“Say yes and you’ll figure it out afterwards.”

College is where you’re supposed to take risks, learn, and GROW personally and professionally.

Now, get out there and grow.

California: Closer to the End of ‘Policing for Profit’

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

California: Closer to the End of ‘Policing for Profit’

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

California has just taken another step to nullify a federal rule over its unconstitutional nature.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the California Assembly passed a bill that would keep state officials from using civil asset forfeiture to seize private property without due process while also effectively preventing federal agents to do the same in the Golden State.

Police StopSenate Bill 443 was introduced last year, and it was a response to the growing trend against civil asset forfeiture taking over the country. Organizations like FreedomWorks and Tenth Amendment Center are some of the leaders in this area, helping state legislators have access to reform ideas that render the federal rules unenforceable.

According to the libertarian justice firm Institute for Justice, civil asset forfeiture is “legal plunder,” because the practice gives federal and state law enforcement agencies the power to take a person’s property or assets, even if the owner hasn’t been arrested or convicted of a crime.

After passing the state Senate last summer, the bill failed in the Assembly. But once Assemblyperson Chris Holden made a motion to reconsider, the bill was placed in the inactive file and then brought up for a vote in the full Assembly on August 15.

If the bill is signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, the loophole in California law that allows officers to refer to federal agents in civil asset forfeiture cases in exchange for a portion of assets seized will be gone. Equitable sharing has been the only issue with California’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which are considered to be some of the strongest in the country. But up until now, the local protections against the practice meant nothing if federal agencies were involved.

Between 2000 and 2008, federal agents doubled their equitable sharing earnings. By the end of 2008, state officials across the country had helped the federal government seize about $400 million through the program.

With SB443, state prosecutors would be prohibited from going around restrictions imposed on state officials by passing cases off to the federal government. While this is good news, the bill still isn’t perfect.

If the amount seized is above $40,000, SB443 would allow state prosecutors to refer to federal officials under the equitable sharing program. The state could also have access to a portion of the assets seized if the owner of the property is convicted in a related criminal activity.

Despite its potential shortcomings, SB443 goes a long way to roll back federal intervention in local law enforcement activities, removing the financial incentive often tied to the practice.

Will other states follow?

Adding a Private Element to Public Schooling Boosts Diversity

in Economic Liberty, Education, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Adding a Private Element to Public Schooling Boosts Diversity

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

During the 2016 Amplify School Choice event promoted and organized by the nonprofit news organization Franklin Center, bloggers and journalists from across the country had the opportunity to visit two public schools in the Denver, Colorado area.

While the event brought several options of schooling to light, one of the programs most speakers focused on is known as a charter.

StudentsCharter schools are public schools. What makes them uniquely different from traditional schools is that they share a private element with for-profit organizations.

Instead of being run like a public school, charters are given the freedom to refrain from following regulations imposed on traditional schools, allowing leadership to resort to different educational methods. Charters usually hire teachers who are not unionized and often use unique educational techniques, giving students with special needs an opportunity to adapt.

But because these schools are publicly funded, students who would otherwise be stuck in the neighborhood’s traditional school are given the opportunity to choose.

Charters, which are often smaller, are able to work with students in a more direct way than traditional school teachers can. And low-income families with access to the charter option are often thankful in the long run.

During a conversation with Bill Kurtz, the CEO of DSST Public Schools—a local charter—we were lucky to get to know three DSST students, all who happened to be the children of immigrants.

According to Kurtz, the idea behind DSST is to boost the community. “As you can see,” he told the audience of bloggers and journalists, “the school is very diverse. [It] largely mirrors the population of Denver.”

With a 100 percent success rate in sending students to college, DSST stands out for the diversity of its students and its success rate in following its mission. But during the conversation, Kurtz didn’t go into the economic or praxeological reasons why his school excels in bringing diverse people together.

In the book The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory Of Diversity And Freedom, author Chandran Kukathas contends that the state has no place promoting any set of values. Kukathas argues that, if the government imposes values by force, individuals will feel compelled to rebel or to act against their conscience.

The author adds that the “most important source of human motivation is principle—or, better still, conscience. … not because conscience always overcomes or overrules other motives … [but because conscience is] what we think should guide us.”

In an environment where private elements come together, eliminating the need to follow the values imposed by a governmental body, individuals are compelled to follow their heart, so to speak.

Adding the private element to a traditional school removes many of the impositions traditional educators, parents, and students are often faced with, boosting efficacy and yes, diversity. Not only because schools might be effectively targeting minorities, but because children stuck with bad educational choices due to their zip code are now given the opportunity to choose.

Students may come from a variety of backgrounds, but they also resort to charters because they have specific goals in mind: get a better education.

Schools with the private element are freer to experiment, giving students who are willing to follow their style an opportunity to grow while “weeding out” those who are not particularly fond of that school’s mission.

In the traditional school system, a child’s fate is set by his or her zip code. But where choice abides, so does conscience. And that’s why the removal of value imposition through government often produces great results.

NYC Weed Arrests Up Again, Is Full Legalization the Solution?

in Drugs, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

NYC Weed Arrests Up Again, Is Full Legalization the Solution?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Someone forgot to tell progressive New York Mayor Bill de Blasio that times, they have already changed.

NYPDDuring the then mayoral candidate’s campaign, de Blasio vowed to ensure the New York Police Department would cease to treat possession of small amounts of marijuana as a crime, but ever since he was elected, the number of marijuana-related arrests went up. This year, Gothamist.com reports, it went up nearly a third.

In 1977, New York decriminalized possession of fewer than 25 grams of weed. Users smoking or holding the bud in public, however, were still subject to police scrutiny. But while commissioner Ray Kelly was in command between 2002 and 2013, arrests for possession of small amounts of marijuana went up considerably. In 2010, low-level pot possession had become the top cause of arrest in the city, mostly due to the fact 50,383 people had been arrested for related offenses throughout that year.

That’s when pressure began to mount.

Faced with countless accusations of racial bias, commissioner Kelly decided to send officers a memo asking them to stop “improper” marijuana arrests, which often involved blacks and Latinos.

Once de Blasio took office, however, marijuana-related arrests dropped, but that didn’t last. In 2014, police had made 26,400 weed-related arrests. Now, recent figures show that the number of people going to prison for related offenses has increased considerably.

During the first half of 2015, NYPD had arrested 7,236 people for marijuana possession, but during the same period this year, the number went up to 9,331: A 30 percent increase.

Despite de Blasio’s campaign promises, things might not get better for pot smokers in the Big Apple unless state laws change.

A bill from 2015 that is still stuck in the state legislature could help give marijuana users more peace of mind. But the bill isn’t perfect.

If S. 1747, or the Marijuana Taxation and Regulation Act, passes, marijuana would be regulated and taxed like tobacco and alcohol. Proponents of similar pieces of legislation often say that while similar measures might have a negative effect on the overall cost of weed, it would keep officers from knocking people’s doors down in the middle of the night. But to many libertarians, only decriminalization of all substances, including marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol, works.

Mises Institute’s David Gordon argues in a piece from 2002 that punishing a person for using drugs is to “impose a severe disability on him; and justice requires that punishment be imposed only on someone who violates rights.” Drug use, therefore, cannot be criminalized simply because it could lead to bad social consequences. After all, Gordon continues, “[t]o punish people simply because their acts encourage others to act in a way deemed undesirable is to use people as means, in a morally unacceptable way.”

Despite the strong support the Marijuana Taxation and Regulation Act has obtained over the past year, many proponents of the bill believe that it could take years for something similar to pass through the state legislature, forcing New Yorkers to think twice before stepping outside with a small amount of weed in their pocket.

What the Village of Tyneham Can Teach Us About Eminent Domain Abuse

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

What the Village of Tyneham Can Teach Us About Eminent Domain Abuse

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Great Britain’s compulsory purchase orders are the equivalent of America’s eminent domain laws. These powers give UK government bodies the ability to retain property even if the property owner is reluctant to give it away.

TynehamMuch like eminent domain laws in America, certain UK bodies are allowed to obtain these properties by claiming that the land should be used for “public betterment.” But whether or not government is allowed to exercise this power if compensation is provided shouldn’t be the crux of the matter because value is subjective.

Ludwig von Mises wrote in Human Action that value “is not intrinsic, it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment.” So if a man finds value in his land, even if he is being compensated for leaving against his will, the action imposed by the governmental body forcing him out is, indeed, immoral. Because value, Mises adds, “is not what a man or groups of men say.” It’s how they act that counts. Even if you agree with the government’s rationale, taking a man’s land against his will is inhumane. After all, Mises adds in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality, “there is no yardstick to measure the aesthetic worth of a poem or of a building,” so who are we to judge what is or isn’t valuable to an individual?

But history is full of anecdotes that teach us that much and yet we ignore it. Allowing generation after generation to place bureaucrats in charge of telling us what our most sacred rights truly mean.

Take the story of a village formerly known as Tiham, but which is now referred to as Tyneham.

In 1943, Tyneham and the neighboring area residents were asked to leave. They were given 28 days to walk away from their homes so Allied forces could use the place as a post where they would train for the D-Day landings.

As villagers left with the belongings they could carry, villager Helen Taylor waited until the very end, posting a note on the door of the limestone church of St Mary that read “We shall return one day and thank you for treating the village kindly.”
As villagers left believing they would one day come back, government later proved them wrong. The 13th Century church endured, but folks like Taylor would never have the pleasure of holding mass there as a community again.

In 1948, the Army resorted to compulsory purchase order laws and put a hold on the village and its standing properties, claiming soldiers needed the place for military training. Up until this day, that’s what the village and its remains are used for. Now, littered with scrap and shells from decades of target shooting, only dead former members of the village are allowed to come back to be buried in the churchyard.

The image of a concerned villager asking soldiers to treat her home well may have vanished from English people’s memories, but the message remains the same. What right does a man have if not to do what he pleases with his own property? Stripping citizens from their belongings under the guise of fighting for peace may sound honorable, but in practice, all that is often left behind is garbage—and heartbreaking memories.

Be Your Own Advocate

in Education, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Be Your Own Advocate

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

I have the unique experience of sharing the same alma mater as my parents. I grew up hearing stories about how things were when they were at school, the friends they made, and the professors who helped shaped their worldviews. When it was my turn to attend college, I remember my parents making a lot of comments about how different my experience was going to be from theirs. And as a recent graduate, I agree.

AdvocateThe ‘culture’ of college campuses has changed greatly since my parents were in school. Recent events at Mizzou, Yale University, and Occidental College have garnered national attention. Moreover, the way that college administrators have reacted to those events have shown how they are contributing to the creation of, in my opinion, the most coddled generation.

I think one of the most important aspects of growing into adulthood is learning how to handle one’s self professionally.

During my undergraduate years, I had multiple classmates with difficulties discussing issues or grievances with professors, faculty, and other students. Rather than confronting the issue in an adult way, they would often take to social media to complain, would involve a department head when it was unnecessary…or would have their parents take care of it.

I think that there are some very extreme situations in academics when it’s important to rely on others for help.

But when the issues at hand can be resolved in a short, face-to-face conversation, it’s important to rely on one’s self. My advice to incoming freshmen is simple: be your own advocate.

Nothing is going to boost confidence more than learning how to stand up for one’s self. Life lessons like this one can transcend the majority of material in a classroom and can help in the workplace, too.

College is a time of growth. Do you want to take an active role in that growth or do you want to take a backseat and let someone else drive?

 

Pokemon Go Creators Face Lawsuit Over Possible Property-Related Crimes

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Pokemon Go Creators Face Lawsuit Over Possible Property-Related Crimes

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

It’s no secret that Pokemon Go, the augmented-reality game, is currently one of the most popular apps in the country. But as users become involved in accidents due to their outdoor adventures trying to catch Pokemon characters, reports related to individuals being chased away and at times even shot at for trespassing are also becoming more common.

PokemonNow, a man from New Jersey is escalating the fight against Pokemon trespassers by suing the company behind the game—not the actual players. If he has it his way, individuals who own property listed as a Pokestops or Pokemon gyms in the app could be added to the list of plaintiffs.

According to the suit, Pokemon Go encourages players to go after Pokemon characters placed close to or at private properties without the owner’s consent. The suit also states that at least five individuals approached the plaintiff asking if they could have access to his backyard in the past. Interestingly enough, the suit alleges these individuals knocked “without plaintiff’s permission,” confusing anyone who believes that knocking and formally asking for access means that he was properly approached and that his property was never trespassed against.

To players, however, the concern brought up by the New Jersey man may seem illegitimate since the system alerts users they should not trespass, warning that attempting to gain or gaining “access to any property or location where you do not have the right or permission to be” should be out of the question.

Despite the warning, Niantic Labs, Nintendo, and The Pokémon Co. have all been named in the suit. California’s federal court should soon rule on whether the man who filed the complaint will be able to legally keep Pokemon hunters off his property.

The game, which has been downloaded more than 30 million times, generating over $35 million in revenue, continues to be both praised and criticized for the several consequences of its launch. But blaming the company behind the app for a potential trespassing incident might not have a positive outcome after all.

Pokemon Go players have an opportunity to learn a thing or two about property rights and voluntary cooperation while playing, taking the example of other players who have been involved in delicate incidents while catching Pokemon into consideration while roaming the streets in search of new characters. Instead of putting the blame on the game, why not help players understand that playing safely can also be fun? All they have to do is follow the company’s instructions and play responsibly.

After all, suing Niantic Labs over risks potentially associated with the act of playing the game is like suing a weapon manufacturer for a potential gun injury incident that hasn’t even materialized.

Allowing players to take responsibility for their actions could be yet another reason to believe Pokemon Go is one of the best things about modern life.

Nullification Works, Colorado & Other States Show How

in Drugs, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Nullification Works, Colorado & Other States Show How

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Colorado, the state of legal recreational marijuana, may soon be able to kick the federal government’s erratic surveillance policies to the curb, proving that state nullification is worth the effort.

Iphone

A bill signed into law earlier this year that has been active since May 11, 2016 applies state law rules to federal agencies, effectively barring agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) from taking actions locally that infringe on certain rules. The result is important, since the refusal to enforce federal rules on Colorado soil means that federal acts that go against the Constitution could be thwarted.

The piece of legislation (HB1109) was a bipartisan effort that, according to Tenth Amendment Center’s Mike Maharrey, could help to put an end to federal efforts that infringe on Americans’ constitutional rights such as the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs. Since massive databases used by the NSA require a great deal of water to keep computer systems cool, refusing to provide resources to federal agents may help to prevent the expansion of the surveillance state.

This type of approach to federal laws has been upheld in court in the past.

In 2007, when the federal government sued the state of Nevada for refusing to give the Department of Energy (DOE) access to its water supply to build a nuclear waste disposal site on Yucca Mountain, US District Judge Roger L. Hunt ruled that the state of Nevada had a right to say no the federal government, basing his decision on the fact that state rights are protected and shouldn’t be violated by a federal agency.

Maharrey explains that the legal basis for this refusal to cooperate is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, which came to be due to four Supreme Court cases, including the Printz v. US from 1842 that serves as the doctrine’s cornerstone.

The anti-commandeering doctrine reassures the states that they are free to refuse to cooperate, while also making it clear to the federal government that its agents are prohibited from forcing state officials to comply. If Colorado is able to use its water rights to thwart the growth of programs that effectively infringe on our constitutional rights, that means that other states may join the effort.

Recently, Louisiana took an important step toward hindering the surveillance state by passing a law that requires a court order for the use of stingray technology, which is often used by law enforcement to track the location of phones and give officers access to their contents. The law is now into effect.

Illinois has also passed a very similar bill, which will go into effect on January 1, 2017. According to the bill’s wording, stingray technology use will also be restricted by court orders. But the bill goes further by prohibiting the use of the technology to gather the contents of phones targeted by law enforcement. Instead, officials with a warrant will only be able to use the stingray system to track the location of a device or identify it as a communications device, effectively protecting the individual’s conversations.

Judges Ignore FBI’s Law-Breaking Ways, Acting Outside of Their Jurisdiction

in Criminal Justice, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Judges Ignore FBI’s Law-Breaking Ways, Acting Outside of Their Jurisdiction

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The problem with certain government policies (or should I say all of them?) is that, prior to being enacted, neither lawmakers nor members of the press ask the question: What are the long-term, unintended consequences of signing it into law? But in many other cases, oversight is so spotty that entire governmental agencies are given a green light to act as both the lawmaker and enforcer, making matters even worse.

FBI

During a recent child porn investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) deployed a hacking tool known as Network Investigative Technique (NIT), which allows officials to obtain the real IP addresses of certain website users. But the warrant used to deploy this tech was later ruled as invalid and unconstitutional by judges in Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Kansas. Despite the courts’ review, the FBI was given a pass, as judges simply placed the blame at the feet of the judges issuing the warrants instead of penalizing the FBI for making the move.

Now, we’re learning that the malware used by the FBI is breaking its own rules by giving officials access to computers from users around the globe.

According to Motherboard, at least 50 Austrian IP addresses were targeted by federal intelligence officials, giving US authorities the means to pursue suspects outside of the country’s jurisdiction, effectively exceeding the agency’s own Rule 41(b), which allows for remote access searches without notice or special justification.

Tech Dirt reports that the FBI’s hacking tool has now been responsible for the targeting of individual IP numbers in Greece, Denmark, Colombia, Chile, and the UK, even though “the FBI gave no indication in its affidavit that it would possibly be carrying out extraterritorial searches.” In this case, the FBI failed to report that individuals being targeted were located in areas outside of the magistrate’s jurisdiction. And that is a huge problem.

But the targeting of individuals both in America and abroad is wrong—and unconstitutional.

Remote access of a series of computers without consent or specific justification has a name: Mass surveillance. An issue that has already been settled by the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Individuals should be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures due to the 4th Amendment, so why is the FBI being given the freedom to act outside of its jurisdiction while also going against the law of the land?

In a free society, the work of law enforcement should always be difficult. Not because officers are to be mistrusted in general, but because people with power ought to be mistrusted. Regardless of what role they play. That’s why the presumption of innocence is a feature and not a bug in a country where liberty reigns.

Unless we are willing to annihilate any trace of freedom we still have, we should never let this type of abuse of power go unchecked. No matter how scared you may be of potential criminals.

Personal responsibility is still the best defense against criminals.

Fear Shouldn’t Dictate Action

in Education, Elections and Politics, First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Fear Shouldn’t Dictate Action

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In the last year, dozens of student protests on college campuses have called for everything from supporting the #BlackLivesMatter movement to demanding that school administrators address microaggressions on campus. From Mizzou to Yale University and Occidental College, these
demands have garnered national attention.

ClevelandBut one of the most recent incidents that happened on a college campus? A “safe space” that was provided by Case Western Reserve University in order to “assist those psychologically or physically traumatized by the prospect of Republicans being in Cleveland and giving speeches,” that hardly anyone utilized.

Located a few miles from where the Republican National Convention was held, the university made a statement in The Daily, that the private school’s Social Justice Institute “will host a ‘safe space’” in the basement of Crawford Hall for the duration of the convention.

“After extensive consultation among our leadership team and discussions in last week’s open forums, we have decided that the university will reduce its on-campus operations significantly from Monday, July 18, through the close of the convention Thursday, July 21,” the statement explained.

Classes were cancelled or moved off campus. Essentially, faculty, staff, and students were told to take the week off. The statement also reminded students that University Counseling Services would “continue to offer walk-in services for students who want to talk with someone about their concerns related to recent events and/or the upcoming convention.”

According to The College Fix, Case Western closed down most of that week because it allowed hundreds of police officers to stay in their residence halls for the duration of the RNC. (And that made a few groups very unhappy.)

“Recent events” in the university’s statement must have referred to the number of altercations between police officers and civilians this summer. The deaths of Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and officers in Baton Rouge and Dallas have had this country on edge. Protests leading up to and during the Republican National Convention were expected to be large and violent, but according to The Washington Post, they were small and uneventful.

It’s understandable that the university wanted to look out for the safety of faculty, staff, and students. But as an institution of higher education, isn’t it important to teach young people that fear should never win or dictate action?

Instead of using current events as a teachable moment, the “better safe than sorry” mentality only succeeded in drawing attention away from what was really important for students – their education.

With Anti-Christian College Bill, California Universities Might Become Even Costlier

in Education, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

With Anti-Christian College Bill, California Universities Might Become Even Costlier

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

California is slowly becoming a state so intolerant to freedom, many argue it might as well benefit the rest of the country if it achieves its independence.

Recently, Governor Jerry Brown signed a series of gun control bills that would have blushed even one of the most anti-gun governors the state has ever known, prompting several groups of Californians to run for the hills. But if things continue as they are, yet another group will have to pack their bags: Christians.

CrossOnce California lawmakers get back to work in August, a bill targeting religious schools may change California’s education landscape for good. The Equity in Higher Education Act, or SB 1146, would force religious colleges that receive federal religious exemptions to publicize its status to newcomers. The bill would also restrict the number of colleges that qualify for exemptions, effectively raising the price of doing business for schools that lose their status.

To many opponents of SB 1146, the bill is an attempt at forcing Christian colleges that fail to comply with the state’s nondiscrimination laws to adapt. According to critics, Christian colleges should not be forced to comply with guidelines that go against their beliefs, especially when it comes to accommodating individuals who are transgender.

But if it wasn’t for the potentially costly discrimination lawsuits these schools could be facing in times to come, as well as the millions of dollars tied to the federal exemption status these schools would lose, the reality is that these same institutions would not be at a loss if the education system in California—and the country—were based on free market principles.

In an article for the Cato Institute, the former director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom Andrew J. Coulson wrote that the times we live in demand freedom in education, not the opposite.

“By combining a pluralistic society with a one-size-fits-all education system,” Coulson wrote, “we have created a perpetual conflict machine.”

He clarified his point by claiming that people are only able to obtain the type of education they want in a heavily regulated, heavily controlled system if they “force their preferences on their neighbors.”

On the surface, that assessment may seem correct and harmless. But once you analyze the actual real world consequences, you learn that where there’s a demand in a regulated environment, supply suffers tremendously due to the aggregated costs of doing business.

To individuals whose religious convictions are deeply rooted, attending a religious college makes sense. Restricting individuals because education “is a right” has the exactly opposite effect. Instead of opening up the market by allowing more people in once the religious factor is eliminated, the extra regulatory burden increases the cost of doing business. As schools struggle, they resort to lobbying governments for more funding. The result? A perpetual cycle of high taxes, low quality education, and high volume of individuals swimming in a sea of debt.

While the religious aspect of this debate is important and shouldn’t be ignored, honest progressives who believe quality education should be widely available do well by learning more about the unintended consequences of the government’s heavy hand.​

Airbnb to Collect Taxes from Los Angeles Users

in Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights, Taxes by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Airbnb to Collect Taxes from Los Angeles Users

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Airbnb, the short-term rental app, has recently agreed to go along with officials in Los Angeles by requiring users to collect hotel taxes from their clients. The three-year agreement was signed early this week. And according to LA city officials, money collected by Airbnb in Los Angeles would bring $5.8 million in annual revenue.

ProtestThe agreement follows the city’s efforts to regulate Airbnb and similar companies locally.

As City Council members discussed what to do with Airbnb in the past few months, the company lobbied its users to stand up against suffocating regulations in a series of emails sent out regularly.

In one of these emails, Airbnb explained that the LA City Planning Commission was considering putting a 90 day cap on the number of nights Airbnb hosts can list their space, a rule Airbnb called “restrictive and arbitrary.” City officials were also considering limiting the number of listings hosts can have, which could affect users who have more than one room to rent, and instituting a registration procedure that would render the process of hosting through Airbnb difficult and expensive.

Another rule LA city officials had considered would also force Airbnb to turn over users’ personal information to the authorities, giving them information on how many nights a host books through the site and how much money renters make. Airbnb warned its users that the city did not detail how this information could be used.

Accusing property owners of evicting tenants to turn their properties into “commercial hotel and motel businesses,” Councilman Mike Bonin was one of the first in Los Angeles to propose Airbnb regulations. But while it is true, many users have, in fact, evicted their tenants in order to list their properties on Airbnb, that alone is not an excuse to regulate Airbnb out of existence. After all, the system works because it’s still affordable.

To tourists looking for an affordable accommodation option, the extra financial burden tied to the hotel tax could mean that renting through Airbnb might not be that affordable after all. To those who use the service as renters to make ends meet, being part of Airbnb may not be as appealing if rates are high because of the new rules.

In an article for US News, Mercatus Center’s Matthew Mitchell urges regulators to “deregulate traditional industries” if their goal is to help all industries and local businesses thrive. Instead of regulating the sharing economy and stifling competition, deregulation could also make it easier for visitors to stay and spend money locally.

Airbnb’s decision to go along with Los Angeles city officials may represent the company’s willingness to compromise, but a real solution to this dilemma will only be produced when lawmakers are honest about their goals.

After all, regulation will always makes things difficult for the consumer and the businessman, no matter how you slice it.

Don’t Be Fooled by the DOJ’s Proposed Legislation

in Criminal Justice, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Don’t Be Fooled by the DOJ’s Proposed Legislation

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Two years ago, Microsoft refused to comply with a warrant concerning information hosted in Ireland, and the case was brought to court where justices ruled against the tech giant. Recently, however, the 2nd Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of Microsoft, claiming that the US government warrants do not apply to data stored outside of the country.

DOJDespite the ruling, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now proposing a piece of legislation that would affect Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), allowing the US government to force companies like Microsoft to unlock a server abroad.

According to the proposed legislation documents, Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik claims that the ideas proposed by the DOJ would help the US government investigate foreigners suspected of being involved in terrorism, urging Vice President Joe Biden to consider having Congress look at the DOJ’s solution.

In a post crafted by a former DOJ lawyer, the proposed legislation would allow the US government to have access to communication from non-US citizens who are located in foreign countries. Pieces of communication subject to the proposed rules would only be available for what the DOJ calls “criminal investigations,” which legalists claim to be helpful, since this restriction could help prevent current MLATs from being used with the purpose of gathering intelligence. Despite the carefully crafted piece of legislation, concessions aren’t enough to cover up for the DOJ’s goals to expand the agency’s reach.

According to Tech Dirt, the DOJ is using this proposed legislation to target laws and statutes that the agency has been abusing for years. Is the DOJ trying to make its work easier?

Take the Wiretap Act for instance, a law that has been rendered toothless ever since the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used a single state judge in California to build a massive wiretapping operation in the Los Angeles suburbs. If the DOJ’s proposed rules are considered and signed into law, remaining restrictions imposed by the Wiretap Act would be lifted for good, making incidents like the one that took place in California more common across the country.

But that’s not all, restrictions imposed by the Stored Communications Act, which was used by the DOJ in its fight against Microsoft, as well as the criminal Pen Register statute would also be lifted under the proposed rules, Tech Dirt reports.

If the DOJ is lucky and Congress goes along with its plan, the dubious wording in the proposed rules would give officials authority to carry searches related to the “prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism.” Targets of investigations would have to be in countries that have executive agreements with the United States.

According to Tech Dirt, the proposal may superficially seem to cater to privacy advocates, but “The self-written loopholes allow for plenty of ‘search first, ask permission later’ action.” If Tech Dit’s assessment is correct, the proposal rules’ dubious wording could further entrap US citizens, helping the authorities to destroy even more of our liberties in the name of security, while targeting foreign servers in the meantime.

After Dallas, People Are Being Arrested for Posting Inflammatory Comments Online

in First Amendment, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

After Dallas, People Are Being Arrested for Posting Inflammatory Comments Online

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Speech protections are being denied for those who harshly criticize law enforcement online, The Intercept has reported.

EarsIn Detroit, four men were arrested this past week after posting allegedly inflammatory and “threatening” comments online. While we know that in one of the tweets that led to an arrest, Micah Johnson, or the sniper who shot and killed Dallas police officers, was praised as a hero, the authorities have yet to release the names of the men who were arrested.

What’s troubling about these arrests, The Intercept report suggests, is that neither of the four men allegedly arrested over online posts were charged with a crime.

Without acknowledging whether his wishes contradict the arrestees’ First Amendment protections, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said that he wants the men his team arrested “charged with crimes. … I’ve directed my officers to prepare warrants for these four individuals, and we’ll see which venue is the best to pursue charges.”

But to Bruce Schneier, a security technologist at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University who talked to The Intercept, “arresting people for speech is something we should be very careful about.”

In Connecticut, Facebook user Kurt Vanzuuk was arrested after writing a post claiming that the Dallas sniper was a hero. Vanzuuk allegedly called for the police to be killed. He was later charged with inciting injury to persons over his post.

Ronald Medina, a New Jersey resident, was charged with cyber harassment after allegedly posting that he would “destroy the Perth Amboy police headquarters” on an unidentified form of social media.

Jenesis Reynolds, another Facebook user from Illinois, was also arrested for writing that she would “have no problem shooting a cop for simple traffic stop [because] they’d have no problem doing it to me.” Officers charged Reynolds with “disorderly conduct.”

While “posting that kind of thing on social media is a bad thought,” professor Larry Dubin of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law said, “having a bad thought isn’t necessarily a crime.”

To professor of law at Northeastern University Daniel Medwed, “threats may seem more threatening to police officers around the country” after Dallas, which may cause law enforcement to go after inflammatory speech. “We might be seeing more arrests right now because the police will interpret that they have probable cause to make the arrest,” he continued, “But that doesn’t mean in the end that this will result in convictions.”

Whether social media posts are public or not, it’s hard to justify the arrest of an individual over offensive comments.

In an article for the Mises Institute, Andrew Syrios states that “when you’re popular, you don’t need freedom of speech.” He added that “resorting to the use of political force to silence adversaries is a sign of the weakness of one’s own position.”

If law enforcement leadership is serious about regaining the trust of the public, officers should act like the adults in this conversation. Resorting to force to restrain alleged enemies will only continue to hurt the reputation of US police. ​

Arizona Court Rules that Weed Smell Enough Justification for Search Warrant

in Drugs, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Arizona Court Rules that Weed Smell Enough Justification for Search Warrant

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

In current-day America, the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government is nothing but a suggestion. In Arizona, the careless approach to the law of the land is now even backed by lady Justice.

WeedAccording to an NBC affiliate, a recent ruling supports that officers are allowed to have access to a warrant to search a person’s property over the smell of marijuana. The decision came after the state Supreme Court ruled that the enactment of the medical marijuana law does not eliminate a legal doctrine that supports that the smell of marijuana is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruling added that only with the “person’s presentation of a valid [medical marijuana] registration card” attorneys would be able to challenge the legal foundation for a search based on the smell of marijuana alone.

The case that resulted in this ruling involved an officer who noticed the odor of marijuana while contacting an individual. The encounter led him and other officers to discover a marijuana operation that counted with hundreds of marijuana plants.

To medical marijuana users in the state, this ruling is concerning. Rebecca Calloway, a local dispensary worker and college graduate with a medical marijuana card, says that this ruling makes matters worse since “a lot of pedestrians [already] feel they are being harassed by cops with nothing better to do.”

To privacy advocates, the ruling gives officers a loophole, giving them the freedom to use smell as a reasonable cause for searches in different occasions.

Instead of looking at the Constitution for guidance, the Arizona justices decided to continue giving drug warriors legal justifications to send more non-violent “criminals” to taxpayer-funded prisons, managing to step on the 4th Amendment rights of citizens who do not happen to be marijuana users in the process. But this is not the first time Arizona justices stand with drug warriors.

In May, Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the state’s medical marijuana laws do not give physicians immunity against prosecution in case doctors claim to have reviewed a patient’s medical records from the previous 12 months before issuing a written statement allowing for the use of medical marijuana.

While the state has come a long way by passing a medical marijuana law that helps residents suffering from a series of conditions including Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, and others, anti-drug war advocates in the state are hoping to get an initiative added to the November ballot that would legalize marijuana for recreational use.

In early July, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol submitted 258,582 signatures to secretary of state officials. To quality for Arizona’s statewide ballot, the campaign must have 150,642 valid signatures from registered voters.

If passed, the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act would legalize marijuana for recreational use and establish a network of licensed cannabis shops that would collect taxes on the sales of marijuana and marijuana-related products. The proposal resembles the model used in Colorado.

San Francisco Bans Pool Toys in the Name of Science

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Advocates HQ Comments are off

San Francisco Bans Pool Toys in the Name of Science

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

The city of San Francisco has made history in many different, and often significant and terrifying ways.

CryingThe home of the nation’s largest Federal Reserve System bank by area and population has long served as a target for conservatives and libertarians, mostly due to the city’s passion for micromanaging the lives of its residents. So the latest political piece of news to come out of the Paris of the West might not come as a surprise to our readers.

According to Watchdog.org, San Francisco’s government has just passed the country’s most extensive ban on foam products, adding pool toys to the list of outlawed items. This move alone, Watchdog reported, is why the San Francisco’s ban goes one step further than any other of the country’s most progressive cities.

Other products impacted by the ban include packing peanuts, coffee cups, take-out trays, or anything made out of polystyrene foam.

According to the city, the ban is important because plastic foam is polluting San Francisco Bay, so keeping residents from using it could, perhaps, help to protect the environment. But the ban, ABC News noted, is unrealistic. Despite the new rules, the city is incapable of stopping anyone outside the city to ship products packed in foam containers, for instance.

But enforcement feasibility is not the only issue with this new ordinance.

Last year, a ban targeting take-out trays was overturned by a New York state judge who claimed to see the move as “arbitrary and capricious,” as well as “neither environmentally effective nor economically feasible.”

At the time, estimates showed that the alternatives to the non-recyclable take-out food trays would cost about $6,000 more per year to business owners. To multi-millionaire businesses, that sum doesn’t sound all that terrifying, but to the owners of small businesses, the added cost could mean higher prices, fewer employees, or perhaps both.

In a 2012 article for the Wall Street Journal, professor of economics Donald J. Boudreaux wrote that “Industrial capitalism is history’s greatest antipollutant,” adding that “the list of ways in which the developed world has been cleaned by capitalism is practically endless.” In a report for the Cato Institute, Sallie James, a policy analyst with Cato’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, concludes that a “freer, more prosperous economy is a more auspicious path to ensuring a more rapid spread of environmental technology and the global consensus needed to combat climate change.”

The imposition of restrictions that affect the poorest among us will only cause more unemployment while hurting consumers. If you are busy simply struggling to survive, helping to save the environment won’t be a top priority.

Since governments are notorious for their lack of knowledge regarding the allocation of resources, it’s easy to see how governments also lack the necessary knowledge to implement bans or restrictions that would ensure climate policy is operated effectively.

When free markets are in place and certain market elements fail to maximize the welfare of consumers, they fail. When governments run failed policies, they do not crash and burn; they remain in place. Regardless of these failed policies’ shortcomings or evident defeat. Why not give individuals a chance to find a solution without restrictions for a change?

Education Theater

in Conversations With My Boys, Education, Liberator Online, Personal Liberty, Philosophy by Advocates HQ Comments are off

Education Theater

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

I think education is a natural system that can’t be centrally planned. And yet, that’s exactly what we try to do with curriculum-and-textbook-based learning. Scope, sequence, grading children by age, all of that is done not for the sake of the child but for the sake of efficiently delivering lessons aimed at imparting skills and knowledge. We have the best intentions, but what is it getting us?

Theater-EducationWhat we’re finding is that we can throw skills and knowledge at them but unless it’s on the child’s timeline, when they’re interested, when it matters to them, it doesn’t stick. We’re wasting all kinds of time, effort, and patience re-teaching things that we taught when children weren’t interested or ready. We’re frustrating children and what we’re really teaching them is that education is an absurd, arbitrary exercise in memorizing what someone else deems worthy and promptly forgetting it once the test is over. This is a false efficiency. This is education theater.

Worse yet, perhaps, we ignore the individual’s strengths, genius, needs, desires, capacities, and dreams when we attempt to be efficient and to impose ‘education’ on them. What they’re really doing is creating themselves and I think in the best of all worlds the people who love them the most should be resources or facilitators or mentors in that process. Sometimes it seems to me that education is like a bad present. We’re shoved into the dreaded Christmas cardigan from Aunty Hortence and told to go thank her when what we really wanted, what we really needed, was the bike.

Page 1 of 612345...Last »