Forty Legislative Reforms Which I Think Most Minor Parties and Independents Would Support

     1. End the wars and bring the troops home: Dismantle at least 800 overseas U.S. military bases, and drastically reduce the number of countries in which at least one U.S. troop is deployed (which is currently about 160).

     2. Repeal the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, repeal any and all A.U.M.F.s (Authorizations for the Use of Military Force) against Afghanistan and Iraq, and end the national state of emergency over the Korean conflict.

     3. Repeal or amend the War Powers Act, strictly requiring congressional declaration of war before troops can be deployed to a new country.

     4. End torturous “enhanced interrogation” and extraordinary rendition (illegal torture abroad).

     5. End warrantless wiretaps, and stop spying on American civilians and our allies abroad.

     6. End entangling alliances, end all foreign aid, and exit N.A.T.O. (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

     7. Prohibit the use of drone warfare, and the deployment of drones in foreign countries, without a congressional declaration of war (and, if possible, the host nation's permission).

     8. Abolish active registration for the Selective Service (i.e., military draft).

9. Repeal the “Clinton omnibus crime bill” (a/k/a the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) in its entirety.

     10. Ensure equal protection under the law: Stop denying due process and fair trials to terror suspects and suspected undocumented immigrants. If they're not made subject to our protections, then they shouldn't be held subject to our laws.

     11. Amend the 13^th Amendment to prohibit involuntary servitude in all cases of punishment for committing victimless crimes.

     12. End police brutality by taking away police officers' rights to kill during unlawful arrest and “have sex with people in their custody” (i.e., raping people).

     13. Protect children by amending child trafficking laws, and making age of consent laws more uniform.

     14. Respect the principle that the just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, by making participation in all government programs voluntary, and by repealing taxes on all harmless productive economic activities.

     15. Require that constitutional justification for all new bills and departments, must be included within the bill.

     16. Require sunset clauses for all new legislation, strictly adhering to the Constitution's two-year limitation for all military-related expenditures.

     17. Achieve free, fair, and open elections, by improving ballot access for minor parties and independents.

     18. Annually audit, and eventually end, the Federal Reserve System, sending its powers back to Congress. Additionally, ban Fractional Reserve Banking and prosecute it under anti-usury laws.

     19. Balance budgets, achieve fiscal solvency, and produce surplus budgets A.S.A.P. to pay down the debt.

     20. Let states experiment with Universal Basic Income, the Negative Income Tax, and state public banks.

     21. Let states and communities experiment with Land Value Taxation and Community Land Trusts.

     22. De-politicize issues related to science, medicine, the environment, technology, budgets, finance, banking, the judiciary, election fairness, governmental ethics, redistricting, the arts, etc..

     23. Protect the planet and the people over profits by creating a blueprint for ecologically sustainable production.

     24. Shorten medical patents, to allow generics to come onto the market sooner, to reduce medical prices.

     25. Reduce medical prices by eliminating unnecessary taxes on health goods and services.

     26. Legalize alternative medicine and make vaccines optional.

     27. Reduce medical costs by allowing non-profit medical organizations to operate tax-free.

     28. Let non-profits operate tax-free, because they cannot be taxed without being forced to operate at a loss.

     29. Clarify Roe v. Wade: Craft a nationwide amendment on abortion which clarifies the meaning of a “reasonable state restriction to abortion access”.

     30. De-politicize the issue of abortion by ending all involuntary taxpayer funding of abortion services.

     31. Legalize growing cannabis at home; in order to 1) lower marijuana prices, 2) eliminate all excuses for federal intervention in marijuana on interstate commerce grounds, and 3) eliminate the need for state licensing and permits for growing.

     32. Take cannabis / marijuana off of Schedule I, as it is not a drug that lacks legitimate medical uses.

     33. Fight for a free, fair, and open economy by eliminating all unfair subsidies to business, and by prohibiting government from contracting with monopolies.

     34. Increase the use of the federal government's antitrust power to break up monopolies.

     35. Amend the 1935 Wagner Act (N.L.R.A.) to make it easier to form a second union in a workplace or collective bargaining unit.

     36. Restore the full right to boycott, and engage in secondary labor actions, by repealing the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act.

     37. End the trade war, and re-negotiate N.A.F.T.A. so that importers and exporters are not unfairly targeted for taxation.

     38. Fix our nation's crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.), as long as areas other than the Bos-Wash corridor on the East Coast receive a fair share of transportation spending.

     39. Make the Postmaster General a cabinet-level position again, and allow the U.S. Postal Service to receive taxpayer funds.

     40. Help the poor, homeless, and refugees, by legalizing mutual aid. Remove barriers to providing humanitarian aid; by legalizing squatting and camping, lowering residency duration requirements in order to claim homesteading rights, etc.. Additionally, prohibit housing subsidies whenever and wherever the number of empty residences exceeds the number of people in need of permanent shelter.

     The set of proposals listed above were developed in connection with the policies I called for in my earlier outline of a platform for a yet-to-be-founded hypothetical Humanitarian Party. That platform can be viewed at the following link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/towards-free-united-populism-proposal.html

Written on August 30th and September 1st, 2020

Published on September 1st, 2020

A Libertarian “Family Values” Solution to Fighting Gang Violence

     Between 3 P.M. on Friday, August 3^rd, and 6 A.M. on Monday, August 6^th, 2018, seventy-four people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. In the first three hours of that Sunday alone, thirty people were shot, in addition to another ten people within the few hours before and after that. Eleven or twelve of those 74 people reportedly died as the result of their injuries.

     As a response to the escalation in violence, hundreds of additional police officers have been put on patrol in the city. The rash of shootings has prompted calls for the resignation of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, who served as Barack Obama's chief of staff during the first year and a half of his presidency, condemned the shootings, calling them “unacceptable in any neighborhood”. Chicagoans might have considered this number of shootings “normal” if they had occurred during the Fourth of July weekend, but given that they took place in early August, it just seems out of place.

     The shootings have also renewed public interest in calling-in the Illinois National Guard to help the Chicago Police Department patrol problematic areas of the city. Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner disagreed, saying “the national guard is not for neighborhood policing”. Rauner, who is up for re-election this November, added that improving economic opportunities would help to end the violence in the city.

     In November, Rauner faces re-election challenge from Democratic nominee and fellow billionaire J.B. Pritzker, Conservative Party nominee and state legislator Sam McCann, and Libertarian Party nominee Kash Jackson, as well as, possibly, various other independent, minor party, and write-in candidates.

     On March 3^rd, Kash Jackson was nominated for governor by the Libertarian Party of Illinois, defeating challengers Matthew C. Scaro and Jon Stewart. Although Stewart was the only one of the three candidates who was open to considering deploying the Illinois National Guard in Chicago, he articulated his own comprehensive plan to address gang violence during their campaigns, as did Mr. Scaro and Mr. Jackson. All three candidates agreed that economic opportunity would play a part in the solution to gang violence, as well as the decriminalization of non-violent drug offenses and gun possession. Jackson in particular would like to give inmates the opportunity to acquire skills while in jail that will help them become valued, contributing members of society and the labor force.

     The Libertarian Party and its candidates, of course, do not agree with Bruce Rauner on everything. If we liked Bruce Rauner, we wouldn't be running anyone against him. However, I, and many L.P. members, feel that Bruce Rauner and Kash Jackson are correct in their agreement on this particular issue. Economic opportunity should be part of the solution, and calling-in the National Guard should not.

     In my opinion, this is a position which fits in line perfectly with what libertarian-inspired public policy should look like. It also stands as an example of what moderate Republicans do right, as far as libertarians are concerned; looking to freedom, rather than brute strength, to fight gangs, gun crime, and violent behavior associated with the use and sale of drugs.

     You don't fix urban gang violence by calling the National Guard into cities, nor by imposing a curfew on adults. That would violate the freedoms of all people within the areas being patrolled; even adult citizens who vote and pay taxes, and who of right ought to be allowed to make their own decisions. To impose a curfew is to disregard people's natural freedom of locomotion (movement; travel), and makes them unfree to leave their homes. This is not Saudi Arabia, nor it is Egypt in 2011, where governments can get away with using brutal, uncivilized means to supposedly achieve civil “order” (which essentially amounts to a state of legalized terror over the public).

     The patrol of streets by police officers, who often watch and even follow people without warrants or reasonable suspicion, essentially create a standing threat against citizens. When supplemented by officers trained in military techniques, and especially when provided with military-grade weaponry and surveillance technology, police departments can be transformed into what essentially amounts to units of a standing army. That is what the second and third amendments to the U.S. Constitution were intended to prevent.

     Calling-in the National Guard sends the message that not just law-breakers, but also potential law-breakers, will be dealt with as if they were an invading army of foreign militants, posing an immediate threat to people. This makes people feel as if they are not at home in their own country. This treatment especially negatively affects people of color, and brings back bad historical memories (more than those whose relatives do not have stories of similar situations can imagine).

     Additionally, the ubiquitous presence of police results in what is called “the alienation of the will”, as well as the “Panopticon” effect. It causes people to worry that they are being watched, and change their behavior as a way to compensate. The motivation behind the Panopticon is to cause people to “police their own behavior”. Unfortunately, this has turned many of us into our own worst enemies. Thus, the Panopticon has done little other than to put a man's leash into his own hand, and to allow police to get away with shouting “fire” in a crowded theater with no fire, by shooting at people who they claim to be threats.

     This can have disastrous consequences, including 1) more secretive behavior on the part of citizens and law enforcement officers alike, 2) government encouraging citizens to spy on their neighbors, and 3) criminals killing more witnesses and police in order to get away with their crimes than they otherwise would have (a problem which is spurred-on by the harsh penalties involved). Moreover, 4) an environment of fear is created in the community, as well as the perception that one is being watched, and that privacy is impossible. Also, 5) some citizens begin to behave as if they were police officers. Not by protecting and serving, mind you, but by using the violation of petty infractions as an excuse to shoot people who are engaging in harmless behaviors which they personally don't like, and by extrajudicially detaining someone who “looks like a terrorist” in a grocery store for no reason, while they call the cops.

     Making people believe that they are being watched at all times, has more unintended consequences than we can anticipate. There is little evidence that creating an environment of Kafkaesque fear – fear that we'll be accused of anything and everything, and be on our own to defend ourselves against charges our accusers can't even articulate, and fear that we could be breaking some obscure law no matter where we go and what we do - has ever made people into better or more law-abiding citizens.

     This environment of fear has, thus far, only served to reproduce in the streets what the people of Pamplona feel every year; that of an approaching stampede shaking the ground, and of a public panic about to ensue, which, for everybody's safety, needs to be prevented.

     The “law of the instrument”, explained by a quotation whose origin has been attributed to many different people, states that “every problem looks like a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer”. Not all of our problems can be killed or destroyed; didn't we learn that from our failed war on the ideology of terrorism?

     I believe that it is impossible to solve gang violence by treating ordinary citizens as if they were standing threats to public order, even if they are supposedly walking in dangerous neighborhoods. We cannot put all of our potential “problems” in jail, just because we think that they might do something bad or harmful. Especially when our “problems” are human beings, who nearly always have perfectly rational motivations for the things they do.

     The idea that we can police our way into paradise, and that all we need is increased police presence on the ground, presumes people guilty until proven innocent, instead of innocent until proven guilty. It puts the responsibility upon the accused person, to defend himself against accusations which the accuser has little to no responsibility to even articulate, much less for which to provide evidence. All of this subverts our civil liberty to due process of law and fair legal proceedings. It plays into the idea of “thoughtcrime” (a term coined by George Orwell in his novel 1984) and “pre-crime” (a term used in the film Minority Report).

     Using this logic, we might as well put everyone in jail! But then, who would hold the keys?

     Willingness to violate a petty infraction does not make one a violent criminal, and failing to follow the law should not merit being treated like some sort of hostile foreign invader who is incapable of living in a civilized society.

     In Illinois, many Republicans want a more strict enforcement of the law, and say “make an example of small-time rule-breakers”. But ironically, some of them defend calls for Democratic former Illinois Rod Blagojevich to be pardoned, and prematurely released from prison, after being sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption. Granted, political corruption is not technically a violent crime, but this is our government, and we ought to be holding our elected officials to higher standards than ordinary citizens.

     Why these Republicans are defending a corrupt Democrat is confusing enough as it is; but maybe they're just taking Trump's lead. Either way, the fact that they'd rather release Blagojevich (who isn't eligible for release until May 2024) than “small-time rule-breakers” is not only disturbing, but perhaps even shows a tinge of racism. Maybe these are the same people who chose to set Barabbas the murderer free instead of Jesus Christ.

     It amazes me; the lengths some Illinois Republicans are willing to go, to compare non-violent petty offenders to murderers, and to cast Rod Blagojevich as a faithful public servant who was unfairly targeted. The man offered to sell the vacated seat of the outgoing U.S. Senator who became president, and all but admitted it on audio tape.

     As we saw in Operation Iraqi Freedom, “shock and awe” failed to win the United States of America “the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people”. Likewise, the police should not expect to be able to win the public's trust.

     Especially not by simply making sure that most of the police officers who are arresting minorities, are themselves minorities, or “look like the neighborhoods they're policing”. Especially not if they are arresting their own families and neighbors for petty theft, minor drug charges, and the possession of weapons without permits and licenses.

     The only way the police can gain public trust is to make sure that people are less afraid of the police than they are of gangs. And one of the best ways you can do that is to decriminalize the non-violent possession of drugs and weapons, and decriminalize prostitution by consenting adults, and repeal laws against victimless crimes. Fortunately, it's also one of the easiest ways to deal with the problem, because the police would have less work to do, and therefore less resources would be expended, leading to lower taxes.

     Why shouldn't legalizing harmless, peaceful, non-violent market activity – even if it is supposedly “black-market” activity - be part of extending economic opportunity to these often poor, overlooked neighborhoods experiencing gang violence? We should be careful to avoid confusing non-violent “black market” behavior, which is technically illegal but harmless; with violent “red markets”, which involve crime for profit, such as murder-for-hire, robbery and burglary, and coerced prostitution. The longer we pretend that the black and red markets are the same, the longer they will work together to avoid their mutual enemy the state.

     Of course, selling drugs and becoming a prostitute is by no means the only type of “economic opportunity” which would help struggling neighborhoods. Bootlegging could be decriminalized. Jurisdictions could reduce fines on becoming a food vendor without applying for a permit, or they could get rid of the permits, or reduce the fees or requirements therefor, or they could re-evaluate which professions need strict permits altogether.

     Job opportunities aside, minor traffic and parking infractions which result in no harm to person or property could be dealt with more fairly; and in a more lenient fashion; and without relying on the impossible dream of an omnipresent state, to make all behavior everywhere to conform to what the state wants.

     When the people are not constantly antagonized - and overregulated, tracked, and spied on – in their places of business (legitimate or not) and elsewhere, then the prospect of citizens and police getting along, and working together against violent crime, will become possible. Only when that happens, will the people be less afraid of the cops than they are of the gangs.

     To expect people to “snitch” on members of criminal gangs that would want them dead for doing such a thing, is patently absurd. But it is nowhere near as absurd as the idea that one set of violent criminals (the state) is qualified to crack down on another set of violent criminals who help them enforce the drug cartel. The state has just as much of a history threatening and intimidating peaceful people as organized criminal gangs do; maybe even more. Considering how much material support Al Capone's gang provided to needy people, I almost want to recommend that people turn-in problematic police officers to their local gangs.

     To many people, to snitch on a criminal is a “turn in a friend, get a free plea deal” situation; it's a no-win situation. This is to say that small-time drug dealers are afraid to turn-in drug dealers who steal, kill, or poison the drugs they sell; and that prostitutes are afraid to call the cops on pimps and johns who abuse them. Not only are prostitutes and small-time drug dealers not criminals; if they are reporting any of the offenses I have mentioned, they are victims of crime. To prosecute such people is to send a clear message that the police have no interest in protecting and serving vulnerable members of society.

     It's not that co-conspirators, accomplices, and accessories to the crime shouldn't be prosecuted; what I'm saying is that people who break laws against victimless crimes, such as vice laws, should not be perceived as criminals, simply because they have broken some petty infractions. Harming “the public” is impossible, because what “the public” is, is a social construct. It is a fantastical, made-up thing, which does not tangibly exist, and thus cannot be physically harmed, much less called to testify in open court. When the public is the accuser, a fair trial is all but impossible, since one cannot confront one's accuser, except through a duly authorized representative (and what makes that representative acceptable is a matter of debate).

     Whether we're talking about decriminalizing non-violent black market activity, or legalizing under-the-table work in “gray markets”, or just getting rid of some of the many laws that ordinary people violate every day without even knowing it (several felonies per day, by one estimate); the point is to rid ourselves of the need to create laws whose enforcement results in the police unnecessarily antagonizing the people.

     Through liberalization, legalization, and decriminalization of non-violent behaviors, the need for police to enforce the law can be diminished, and the presence of police in neighborhoods will diminish due to that lessened need. Perhaps it helps to think of the police as an occupation force, like the United States was, and still is, in Iraq and Afghanistan: as the people rise up to defend their homeland, the police will draw-down their level of active duty assistance in policing those neighborhoods.

     But of course, people are only governable if the set of laws by which they're expected to abide are reasonable, and are limited to the protection of people and justly acquired property. Otherwise, a system of officers of the peace (who may not go on patrols), citizen militias (who may not forcibly recruit), and deputized citizens (whose arrest powers must be limited), would burst through those constraints, and collapse into an occupying army. “Mission creep” would set in, and many people would be coerced into becoming Stalinist “see something, say something” spies on their neighbors - volunteer snitches who do police bidding without caring whether the laws they're enforcing are just in the first place – in order to survive through currying favor with the authorities.

     But no army, nor police force, can survive long, if it is itself itself occupied with enforcing unjust laws that are impossible to obey, and which are undesired by the people. It is only through the efforts of people, who put up with and sometimes even help enforce unjust laws, that the legitimacy and finance of the occupying police army are maintained (or else destroyed).

     While we, as libertarians, may feel the impulse to reject calls to resolve the problem of gang violence by “restoring family” as socially conservative, traditionalist, or outmoded. However, the gubernatorial nominee of the Libertarian Party of Illinois, Kash Jackson, believes that fatherless homes are a major contributing factor leading to increased likelihood of youth drug use and involvement in gangs. The statistics prove him right on that.

     Jackson believes that family values are a potential solution to gang violence, but he does not promote family values in the manner in which Republicans are apt to promote family values. His is a “family values” platform which avoids that control-freak fantasy of an omnipotent, state that can make criminals into law-abiding citizens by locking them in cells and depriving them of opportunities, nor that it can make peaceful citizens into better people by treating them as criminal suspects.

     Nor does he stoop to paternalism; his platform supports equality of the sexes, as the Libertarian Party has since its formation in 1971. When you listen to Kash Jackson, you will not hear any judgmental, dog-whistle-laden talk about minority fathers in urban areas being deadbeats, nor talk about single mothers leading immoral lifestyles. Rich or poor, white or black, whichever gender; Jackson and his supporters in Illinois are following through on their promises to treat individuals the same, regardless of their demographic differences, and regardless of what they can do to benefit the candidates personally.

     On June 29^th, 2018, after the Libertarian Party of Illinois turned in tens of thousands of signatures to the Illinois State Board of Elections in Springfield, the candidates and several state party officials held a press conference. At that press conference, Kash Jackson criticized Social Security Title IV-D (child support), saying that “Illinois sets support orders that exceed double of the national recommendations.” Kash Jackson recognizes that it is the Social Security system, not necessarily moral failings on the part of parents, that has created the mess that families are in (especially in Illinois).

     Like Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Jackson has also criticized what Ryan called “the poverty trap in welfare”; something that is a key factor contributing to the difficulty of transitioning from welfare to work. In this “poverty trap”, people are cut-off from government assistance as soon as they become required to report new income. As a result, people who receive government assistance are effectively given a disincentive to get off of welfare. While Ryan criticized this problem more generally, Jackson has criticized it in regards to the fact that single-parent households are more likely to need some form of supplemental income than two-parent households, whether from government or through child support. But then, of course, Jackson emphasizes in his speeches that the government of Illinois gets paid by the federal government every time it helps to collect on child support orders. That aside, the point is that not only does Social Security offer this perverse incentive; other government assistance programs do too.

     It would not be unfair to conclude that a two-parent household – with parents of any gender, sex, or sexual orientation – can do a better job of raising a child than the state can.

     The Libertarian Party joins those conservatives who recognize that, at least in Illinois, child support is an extortion racket, which all too often assumes fathers to be at fault, and which hurts good parents as well as “deadbeat” and abusive parents.

     But the Libertarian Party also joins those liberals and progressives who know that parents also shouldn't have their children taken away, nor their right to become parents, simply because they are an undocumented immigrant, or gay, or unwed either.

     At the Libertarian Party of Illinois's June 29^th press conference, Jackson stated, “No Illinois citizen should be kicked out, and separated from their children. The exact same thing that happens to the kids on the border, that's been happening to American citizens with child protective services and with our family court system, should be ended today, because it's Draconian, it's archaic, and it shouldn't happen.”

     And all the evidence we have seen – from the concentration camps at the border (which, for all we know, are operating on a for-profit basis) and the separation of children from their parents (at the border and internally); to the jailing of first-time and petty offenders who then learn criminal lifestyles while in jail; to the failed wars on crime, drugs, terrorism, and poverty – points to Jackson and the Libertarians being right.

     It's just too bad that Libertarians want to defund public schools. Without public schools, who would teach your children that all of these catastrophic failures of leadership are just the price we pay for living in a civilized society, and that the community and the government know better than parents what's right for their children anyway?

Written Between August 8^th and 11^th, and 14^th, 2018

Published on August 14^th, 2018

Take Marijuana Off the Schedule I Narcotics List

Originally written on September 28^th, 2016
Edited and Expanded on October 4th, 5th, 10th, and 19th, 2016

 

 

 

            On June 20^th, 2012, Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) asked Drug Enforcement Administration Chief Michele Leonhart whether heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine were greater health problems than marijuana is. Leonhart refused to comment, and declined to admit that hard drugs pose a greater health problem than marijuana does. Years later, Polis commented that she was "terrible at her job".

            Of course, marijuana and its byproducts should not be classified as Schedule I narcotics. This is, first, because the term "narcotic" has several definitions. One definition is simply a vague label for any illicit or prohibited drug. Another definition refers to any substance that affects mood or behavior, and has nonmedical purposes. Yet another definition implies that "narcotic" applies to opiates and sedatives, pain relievers and painkillers, and drugs with analgesic and anesthetic effects.

            While it is true that marijuana is illicit and prohibited, and has non-medical purposes (including its effects on psychology and emotions), it would be misleading to describe it as a narcotic. Marijuana is not a narcotic; rather, it has stimulant and depressant effects, both of them mild. Marijuana is certainly not an opiate; in fact, alcohol is more chemically similar to heroin than either alcohol or heroin is to marijuana.

            Secondly, marijuana does not belong on the Schedule I narcotics list, because drugs are supposed to be put on Schedule I only if they have no scientifically demonstrated medicinal benefits. Of course, marijuana does have medical purposes. The most active psychoactive ingredient in marijuana - Delta-9-THC (Delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol) - facilitates the growth of neuronal stem cells into adult neurons, and untangles the tau protein that agglomerates in neurons. This protein probably causes, or at least contributes to, a host of neurodegenerative disorders, possibly including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Tourette's. Whole-plant marijuana - which can be eaten; it doesn't have to be smoked - has even been shown to reduce seizures, even more so than concentrated synthetic marijuana-based compounds that have had the psychoactive ingredients removed. THC is found in cannabis sativa, and is responsible for the "head-high" effects that some cannabis gives.

            Although marijuana has some mild depressant effects, it is not a narcotic in the sense that that term means sedatives or opiates. It does, however, have pain relief effects. CBD - cannabidiol, which is responsible for the "body-high" effects in some cannabis, and which is found in cannabis indica - is the type prescribed to medical marijuana patients. It has been used to relieve joint pain and glaucoma, to expand the alveoli of the lungs (increasing lung capacity), and to stimulate and regulate the appetite.

          Vaporizing marijuana at 190℉ (instead of smoking it) ameliorates nerve cancers, while avoiding the lung cancer caused by inhaling combusted material. Congress should either repeal unconstitutional federal laws against drugs, or else it should enact drug policy via a proper constitutional amendment. Until that occurs, the states have every right to nullify those laws, and interpose the federal government if it tries to enforce them.
     Either way, marijuana and its byproducts should come off of the Schedule I narcotics list. Additionally, governments should legalize and normalize the production of hemp, which is only toxic if consumed in amounts which are impossible to ingest by creatures of our size. Removing marijuana from Schedule I would legalize the testing of new cannabis strains which is needed to officially show that the drug is not harmful when ingested properly.
     Until we adopt D.E.A. and F.D.A. policies supporting legal testing - and a drug education policy that seeks to enlighten, not frighten - we will continue to be plagued with problems like addicts being in the shadows, addicts being driven to a life of violent crime, and people overdosing because they don't know whether their dose will kill them.
     Additionally, we will still have to face problems associated with young people trying drugs for the first time, not knowing simple things about how to take drugs safely (for example; that they shouldn't hold-in marijuana smoke, because more than 99% of THC is absorbed by the lungs upon inhalation, and holding in the smoke does not increase the drug's effects, but only leaves tar on the user's lungs).
     Lack of knowledge regarding safe drug use can lead to overdose deaths, as well as deaths resulting from ecstasy users dying from water poisoning because they incorrectly believed that they needed to drink as much water as possible while on the drug. Moreover, the risk of (non-fatal) overdose extends to marijuana as well; in my opinion, marijuana prohibition has resulted in a shift from smoking to edibles; because ingesting cannabis in foods allows users to more easily conceal its scent. Few marijuana users seem to be aware that the risk of non-fatal overdose (including disorientation) is higher for edibles as opposed to smoking cannabis; I believe that normalizing the smoking of cannabis will help reduce non-fatal overdoses from edibles. 

Papers, Please!?: Freedom vs. Permission

Based on Posts Written on May 23^rd, 2015

Expanded on December 15^th, 17^th, 22^nd, and 23^rd, 2015, and February 12^th and 13^th, 2016

Edited on January 22^nd and 23^rd, and February 12^th and 13^th, 2016

            American civil society is not based on freedom and liberty; is it based on legality and permission.

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The majority in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania ruled that “no state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” The majority in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama ruled that “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

Nowhere does the Constitution mention home ownership, car ownership, marriage, sex, drug use, nor commercial activity which does not cross state lines. Since they are not mentioned, the federal government does not have jurisdiction to regulate those activities, so according to the Tenth Amendment, they are rights that are retained by the states, and/or – depending on the content of the various state constitutions – the people.

It would seem that these kinds of property ownership and activities are natural liberties, which existed prior to, and without, government, and therefore they should not, and cannot, be rightfully limited, nor conditioned, by governments.

However, many manners of ownership and types of activities such as these – including ownership and activities which neither harm, nor even affect, anyone else, if properly maintained and undertaken – are routinely, and egregiously, taxed and regulated by governments. Moreover, they have all kinds of permission and licensure requirements imposed on them; requirements that all sorts of documentation be presented to authorities in order to continue.

Proponents of gun control sometimes argue that guns should be treated like cars. As an internet meme on the subject reads, “It’s done for a car, why not a gun? Get a learner’s permit. Take a written test to prove your knowledge of gun laws, usage and safety. Take your weapon for a ‘road test’ to obtain a license. Obtain insurance, pay to register it every few years and have it inspected on a regular basis.”

But is it really necessary to have a driver’s license in order to enjoy the right to drive? No; in fact, between 1868 and 1972, no less than 24 cases in the United States effectively affirmed either 1) that driving is a fundamental right, rather than a privilege; and / or 2) that one’s mode of transportation is a matter of personal choice; and / or 3a) that it is not necessary to obtain a license nor registration in order to drive or travel; and / or 3b) that it is not necessary to pay a licensing fee, nor any other tax or duty; and / or 4a) that the only thing required to drive a vehicle is reasonable care in its operation, and / or 4b) to obey the common law of the road.

The first in these cases was Crandall v. Nevada (1868, Nevada), the ruling in which actually goes so far as to suggest that requirements to pay for drivers’ licenses are taxes which inhibit people from leaving their state.

Twenty-three other cases which affirm the liberties which I mentioned above are: Arthur v. Morgan (1884, U.S.); Swift v. City of Topeka (1890, Kansas); City of Chicago v. Collins (1898, Illinois); Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v. Davis) (1904, California); Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown (1905, Indiana); Christy v. Elliot (1905, Illinois); Hillhouse v. United States (1907, U.S.); Simeone v. Lindsay (1907, Delaware); Brinkman v. Pacholke (1908, Indiana); Cecchi v. Lindsay (1910, Delaware);vFarnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. (1911, Florida); State v. Armstead (1913, Mississippi); Escobedo v. California (1914, California); Butler v. Cabe (1914, Arkansas); Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. City of Chicago (1929, Illinois); Thompson v. Smith (1930, Virginia); Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth (1943, Mississippi); Berberian v. Lussier (1958, Rhode Island); Schecter v. Killingsworth (1963, Arizona); Adams v. City of Pocatello (1966, Idaho); California v. Farley (1971, California); People v. Horton (1971, California); and Ward v. Meredith (1972, California).

This shows that the gun control proponent’s argument holds no weight, when predicated on the idea that gun licensing requirements can be justified on the grounds that one must be licensed in order to drive a car.

But let us (ahem) shift gears for a moment, from cars and guns, to gay marriage: proponents of gay marriage often argue that homosexual couples should be “free” to marry just like heterosexual couples. However, they often neglect to mention that the legal right to marry is not a freedom, but a privilege; a privilege which is only granted if the civil government deigns to grant permission for the union.

Given that, before 1967, most states in the union had anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited people from different races from intermarrying, isn’t it obvious that a government which has the ability to deny the legal right to marry on the basis of race, is a government which is powerful enough to deny the legal right to marry on the basis of sexual orientation, and moreover, a government powerful enough to reverse its stance on criminalizing marriage across races? And isn't it obvious that a government powerful enough to have once restricted the conditions for blacks to own firearms, is powerful enough to do it again?

Given all this – and the fact that in some states (particularly, Illinois), couples actually have to apply for an application to obtain a marriage license (that’s right, you have to apply in order to apply) – why should marriage be a privilege, but not a freedom? If my spouse and I agree that we are married, and we have a verbal or written agreement between ourselves, and/or mark that fact down in our family Bible (or our copy of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, or wherever we want to write it down), then what is a government to tell us otherwise? How does our status as an informally married couple interfere with the rights or freedoms of anybody else?

Similarly, the proponents of marijuana legalization have argued in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana use, sale, and possession, but rarely support making marijuana use a freedom. While it is conducive to increasing personal liberty to reduce criminal penalties for using, selling, and possessing marijuana, to “legalize” marijuana serves only to create new sets of laws which control how, and when, and by whom, marijuana is used. To “legalize” marijuana is not to normalize it – making its use and sale “free” – but to (as I like to say) “legal it up”.

Some states, regrettably, are so eager to make marijuana use more free, that they are willing to tax it, albeit for some arguably good purposes, such as education. But when the State of Oregon considered its own legislation to legalize recreational marijuana use, clever lawmakers were able to hide the fact that nearly half of the funds from legal marijuana taxation went to law enforcement. They did this by breaking up funding for police into three different items, such that the single item appearing to reap the most funding – because it had the highest percentage of funding for a single item – was education and schools, rather than policing.

The result is that, while police may cease enforcing laws against personal marijuana use, the taxes reaped from legal marijuana sales in Oregon, now fund the enforcement of laws, including laws against selling marijuana without the proper business permits (in the case of Oregon, that is, unless the buyer is a medicinal marijuana patient, in which case, they, too, have to go through the proper channels, obtaining diagnoses from doctors, and permits).

Although in some states, obtaining a marriage license entitles couples to some hundreds of legally protected rights (in the case of New York, fourteen hundred), and permits for guns and marijuana protect those who own and use them against unlawful aggression by the police, these are not true protections of already existing freedoms, i.e., liberties, but rather, privileges, which are only gained upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, and which can be altered and taken away through elections and legislation.

Aside from applications, and permits, and licenses, we often use the term “registration” to describe the application process for obtaining such privileges; registering your car, registering your gun, registering to vote, et cetera. But what is really going on here is that the roots of the word “register” are the Latin words regis (“of the king”) and rex (“king”).

We do not own our cars, nor our guns, nor the right to vote, nor the terms of our marriage, nor the substances we use in the privacy of “our own homes”. We register those things with the civil government, and with the aristocrats who run it. They own the titles to those things; we merely rent, or use, or occupy them. They can take those things away from us, when and if we fail to use them, how, and when, and for what purposes, they – the legal owners – would prefer us to. We pay property taxes, and rent, and fees for licenses, permits, and registration, in order to gain and retain possession of those things.

As the liberal supporters of gay marriage and marijuana legalization tell us, we should have to register our guns and obtain permits, and the taxes from legal marijuana sales should go to fund schools, and perhaps law enforcement. But what if we treated gay marriage and gay sex the same way their proponents wish to treat gun ownership and use?

Why, if one must obtain permission from the government in order to own a gun, or marijuana – and own and use them on what is supposedly our own private property – should a gay couple not be obligated to obtain permission from the government in order to do what they do in the privacy of their own homes?

And hey, as long as we’re requiring permission for gay sex and gay marriage, and imposing taxes on marijuana, why don’t we tax gay sex too!? “You don’t want to pay the government a dollar to help build a school, each time you have gay sex? You must hate children!” …Or I just don’t want to help fund the police and the political and bureaucratic classes every time I exercise a basic personal freedom.

Anyway, this may sound ridiculous, and, of course, gay couples should not have to apply for permission to do have sex. But what if they want to call their relationship a marriage? In that case, those same liberals are perfectly happy to fight for a decade or two in order to turn what was already a liberty, into a privilege, granted through government permission, and protected by law.

As 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik explained, common-law marriage already exists (at least in nine or ten states, but it used to be more prevalent). In some states, you can be in a committed relationship with somebody, live with them, have children together, and call what you have a “marriage”, and the government will, or at least should, recognize it as such. So, then, why, in the push to legalize same-sex marriage, was the debate framed in terms of “government giving or granting us equal rights”, rather than in terms of “government legally recognizing and protecting an equal right that we already have”?

Even more disturbing than the idea that our rights come from government, and that government can deny the privilege to marry on the basis of race or sexual orientation, is the implication of something else that Badnarik explained. Namely, if I have to ask the government for the legal permission to have sex with my spouse and to call that a marriage, and the government has the authority to deny me that privilege, then doesn’t this imply that the government is the legal possessor of the original right to have sex with my spouse, and to call that a marriage?

Furthermore, why should I have to pay sixty dollars to the government for a marriage license, in order to fuck my wife, when this woman has already agreed to let me fuck her, and call her “my wife” (or “Britney Spears”, or “Donald Duck”, or whatever I please) for a mere fifty dollars!? These questions may seem crass, but they beg asking. After all, isn’t it the fault of government that the economy has been so poorly managed that the resulting poverty has driven many people into prostitution?

Simply put, in that we are all potential spouses, isn’t government little more than the abusive marital partner, and the pimp, of us all?

But the fact that privileges masquerade as freedoms, rights, and liberties, does not only apply to guns, marriage, illicit substances, and the other things I mentioned; it also applies to identification documents, and substances which the government does not regard as illicit.

Take, for example, tobacco and alcohol. Suppose that I want to buy a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack of beer. In order to do so, I have to prove that I’m above some age predetermined through government legislation. That is so, even if it is obvious that I am above that age, and whether or not I am an emancipated minor, and/or mature enough to smoke or drink. The transaction between me and the merchant cannot be described as either mutual nor free-market; there is a third party involved that taxes, regulates, and conditions the transaction.

By the way, even if I have the proper identification document – such as a driver’s license or a state-issued photo identification card – there is no guarantee that the merchant will accept it, because state I.D.s and driver’s licenses can look very dissimilar, and because the merchant might not be sure that the I.D. is real. This problem could very well be used as justification for ushering in a National I.D. Card, but I argue that personal privacy would be surrendered in the implementation of such a thing.

Even now, without a National I.D. Card, if you do manage to get your I.D. accepted by the merchant, he or she might not simply read it in order to verify it, they might run it under an electronic scanner, and who knows where that information is going?

Not only are possession, use, and sale of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol conditioned by government; so too are accessories and paraphernalia. Lighters, rolling papers, keg taps… none of these things will get you high or drunk, but you still – in some circumstances and jurisdictions – have to prove you’re above some legal age in order to buy them.

Say I, to the merchant: “Papers, please?”. Reply he: “Papers, please!?”.

But why should you have to prove that you’re old enough to use tobacco, in order to buy a lighter? What if you don’t smoke, and you’re only buying a lighter because you’re about to go to the woods and light a camp fire? If the answer is because the merchant doesn’t know for what purpose you’re going to use the lighter, why should that matter, if once you buy the lighter, it becomes your property, and thus yours to do with however you wish, as long as your use of it doesn’t harm anyone else’s person or legitimate property?

What is going to happen after a monetary, governmental, and industrial collapse force us into bare subsistence mode? Are we still going to ask for government permission to build fires in order to survive?

Furthermore, where should we draw the line between work, labor, and action? As Hannah Arendt explained in The Human Condition, some forms of action are undertaken solely for the purpose of sustenance of life, while others are undertaken for the purpose of producing some enduring item or artefact (this is Arendt’s distinction between labor and work, respectively). Arendt’s distinction is a philosophical one, but what is the difference between labor and work in legal terms?

As comedian Doug Stanhope noted, “You need a diploma in this country to cut hair.” Cosmetology students are required to take a national examination in order to get licensed and become practicing cosmetologists. Obtaining and renewing licenses range from $30 to $150, and in some jurisdictions they require more hours of training than the medical profession.

If I cut my (hypothetical) child’s hair, or anybody else’s, for free, am I engaged in a form of work and commerce; the kind that warrants being taxed and regulated, and warrants legislation requiring that I must apply for a permit in order to do so? Am I engaging in underground market activity, cheating the taxman, the regulators and bureaucrats, and the permit and licensure systems? Furthermore, if I receive no monetary compensation for doing so, am I engaging in a kind of uncompensated labor which can rightfully be described as involuntary servitude, i.e., slavery?

Am I, by cutting my own hair, or anyone else’s, depriving licensed barbers and cosmetologists of their jobs, and engaging in the kind of behavior which should merit me having my knees crowbarred by the local barbers’ union?

Or, by cutting someone’s hair, am I simply engaging in a basic liberty, which is no business of anybody else, unless I elect to call my enterprise (i.e., an undertaking) an enterprise (i.e., a business), and choose to have any income taxed, and my actions regulated?

What about cooking and washing dishes? If I invite people into “my” home, and feed them, and wash their dishes afterwards, then shouldn’t I be paid for my service, or at least compensated for the cost of the food, and the soap and water? What if I provide the cooking, and the food, and dish washing, for free, but I accept voluntary donations? If I reap income from that service, should that income be taxed? Is that commercial activity, the kind which should get me in trouble with local zoning boards, because I am engaging in business activity in a residential area?

If so, then what’s to stop the government – the pimp of us all – from declaring the sex that I have, to be untaxed, unregulated commercial activity in a non-business residential zone, requiring me to get a government whoring license, obey regulations and pay taxes, and put me out of business and send me to jail for prostitution?

While we’re on the topic of prostitution, why does “legalizing” prostitution involve licensing, permits, regulation, and S.T.D. testing? Why can’t “legalizing” prostitution involve making prostitution a liberty; making it free? Do governments that legalize prostitution expect most prostitutes to have their lives together enough to pay for these permits and tests, join a whores’ union, and fill out reams of government paperwork?

But back to serving food: Should I get in trouble with the local health inspector for serving uninspected food? Again, this may sound ridiculous, but mothers of school children who were involved in bake sales to raise money for their schools, have had their home-made baked goods destroyed because they were made in the home, rather than in places where sanitary conditions could be ensured by the health inspector.

Not only that, but in various states, police have shut down children’s lemonade stands because the children and their parents did not apply for the appropriate vendors’ licenses and permits. Lemonade stands have even been shut down for fear that the drinks sold could be poisonous, like the Kool-Aid served at Jonestown in Guyana, which led to the death of over 900 people in a mass suicide.

Eleven-year-old Madison “Mistletoe Maddie” Root was denied the freedom to walk around and sell hand-picked mistletoe at a street fair in Portland, Oregon – and told to beg for money like a homeless person – because she did not obtain a permit, and also out of concerns for the plant’s psychotropic effects. Again, “it’s poison!” Some people are allergic!

So I guess we need vendors’ permits, and also child labor laws, to stop our children from becoming exploited slaves, and somehow also, at the same time, members of terrorist religious cults. Warren Buffett gets to sell peanuts at the age of eight for five cents here and ten cents here, and now he’s a billionaire, but yeah, our children are terrorists if they can’t learn to respect the police’s goddamn authoritaw.

Clearly the problem is insufficiently enforced child labor laws, and vendors’ licensing standards, not a reckless obedience to authority that leaves us blind to the importance of instilling a work ethic in the next generation, and teaching them the value of a dollar. It’s best to just let the snow pile up on the State of New Jersey day after day, and hope that twelve-year-old boys will figure out a way to raise the $350 necessary to obtain a permit to shovel their neighbors’ driveways. Those neighbors need to get to work to slave away for their employers and the government? Tough shit.

Whether you’re an illegal immigrant buying a six-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes after a hard day of underground labor; or a kid selling some peanuts or lemonade; or a dude who just lost his wallet and I.D. cards buying a pack of rolling papers; or a gay guy having sex with his boyfriend and wanting to call it a marriage; or a black cohabiting couple with children, trying to get their common-law marriage recognized; or a wannabe hairdresser giving out free samples; or a family baking some cookies to help fund a school; or a dude with glaucoma (or just the munchies) smoking weed in his basement (or his mom’s basement); or a mutual aid society trying to feed a group of homeless people in a public park without being obligated to pay a fine; or a poor person trying to register to vote; or a black farmer in the early 20th century trying to get a gun to fend off crows, or enforcers of Jim Crow laws; or a minor driving their collapsed parent to the hospital; or a lady who wants to possess her car or home in a manner that resembles full ownership (including the right to deny others, including law enforcement officials, the right to search that property); or just a person walking around doing some unspecified thing that could, by some contrived stretch of government imagination, be construed as commercial activity… basically, fuck you, get your Nazi paperwork in order.

So go hit the books. Just don’t read the Ninth or Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, or the part of the Fourth Amendment about the right to be secure in our papers.