Category: Libertarian

Destroying an Admirable History

Many have pointed out that the notion of civil liberties in the United Kingdom is now a sham, but this is ridiculous:

Commander Dave Johnston, giving a personal point of view, said that samples could also be taken from people renewing passports and from migrants.
…

The head of the Met’s Homicide and Serious Crime Unit also suggested taking DNA from dead people might help “cleanse” the database.

He added that blood samples were already taken from babies at four days old to test for genetic diseases but stressed it was important to have a debate over the human rights issue.

A debate? Do you think? A child’s future is unknown, which is just part of life. Are we ready to assume that children are guilty until proven innocent, and that solving hypothetical, unlikely crimes trumps any rights a child has?

DNA samples are retained from those arrested but not convicted and from victims and witnesses who give their consent.

Apparently.

For once, I’d want someone to ring the doorbell.

There’s been a great deal of debate floating around the libertarian blogosphere about the elderly woman shot and killed by Atlanta SWAT police while they executed a search warrant. Kip addressed one underlying issue that I agree shouldn’t be lost in the discussion. It’s easy enough to pontificate like a Monday Morning Quarterback, but it’s entirely different to face down the gun of an armed woman. It doesn’t matter that she’s elderly, and likely innocent of any alleged drug-related crimes that brought police to her home. As Kip said, if someone shoots, you shoot back. There may be procedural flaws in the SWAT raid, or even the warrant process, but the default assumption should be that the police did their jobs. With the woman’s death, there should be an investigation, but we must remember that, like the woman, the officers are innocent until proven guilty.

That said, I have the same problem many have with raids like this. I don’t think we’re dealing with an “epidemic” of botched SWAT raids, but even one is too many. And creating a scenario that will result in death and destruction, as SWAT raids are necessarily violent, is stupid beyond belief. The simplified solution is to knock on the door and let the suspect answer.

I know this is a bit too simplistic. Kip’s assertion, and I think I’m summarizing it correctly from his past entries, is that any right to the home’s sanctity does not include the right to flush the evidence when the police arrive. This makes sense. If an activity or item deserves to be illegal, the government has a legitimate interest in eliminating it and prosecuting those who violate the law. Hence, drugs are illegal and if police reasonably suspect drug possession, then serving a warrant is appropriate.

I don’t believe drugs fall into the scope of legitimate, at any quantity, though. I’ve said in the past that I think drugs should be legal. Of course, if they were legal, usage in my household would not change. I’ve never used drugs, and I don’t intend to, legal or not. They’re not right for me, but I don’t pretend to know what recreation (or addiction) is right for anyone else. Legalize and let’s move on.

I like to be realistic, so I know that’s not going to happen soon. In the context of drug raids gone wrong, there can be a middle ground, I think. Rather than pursuing eradication, decriminalize possession. Even if there’s a specific threshold, as exists today, it can only help the situation. If the police find a few seeds in the trash, how likely are they to conduct a SWAT raid to prevent flushing the evidence? If they knock and wait for suspects to answer the door, there is still a point at which the police are entitled to force entry. If a reasonable person could assume someone’s home and being uncooperative, for example. (Assumptions, probably based on too many cop shows. Definitely with risky loopholes. But plausible. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Of course, there are consequences to any change in policy. Where would the police change tactics? What would politicians want to see, since they have a thriving need to be tough on crime at the expense of justice and common sense? Is there some additional legislative limit that could be placed on prosecuting distribution? I don’t know. I concede that there are flaws in this, both known and unknown. Unlike some demands, I wouldn’t do something just to do something. Appearances don’t help. See: PATRIOT Act. But there has to be a better way than knocking down doors and creating situations in which violence is likely.

Thoughts?

Complacency in the Face of (Minor) Tyranny

Hawaii, like too many places, has a very strange assumption justifying a near-universal smoking ban. If you want to play the home version of this game, I think you can spot it before I excerpt this article:

The Smoke-Free Hawaii Law went into effect Thursday, banning smoking in all public places such as restaurants, bowling alleys, malls as well as from curb to cabin at airports.

When was the last time Hawaii’s government took out bonds to pay for improvements to a local bowling alley? I’m guessing never, since they’re not public spaces, paid-for and maintained by the taxpayers through their state government. Instead, these establishments are private businesses. Remember, the familiar “right to refuse service” exists because the bowling alley, mall, restaurant, or whatever is a private enterprise, with control over its premises and who may barter for its products and services. If the owner hates smoking or believes smoking is driving away more business than it generates, the owner will prohibit it.

But the most amusing point of this, if it can be called funny, is that in banning smoking in “public places” over which it has no legitimate control, governments force smoking into public places where the argument for banning smoking could justifiably move to the science behind such fear-mongering. The answer, of course, is private markets, but good luck selling that in America.

Limited Government, Not Rights

Before I get into this entry, I admit to being guilty of What’s the Matter With… in this entry. Do I get a free pass because I’m complaining about citizens voting away the rights of other citizens, rather than people aren’t behaving the way I want? Yes or no, so be it. Moving on.

I didn’t expect to be as angry as I was when the anti-marriage amendment passed yesterday in Virginia. As I mentioned this morning, I knew it would pass and I still wanted to rant and swear and threaten to leave Virginia. But I’m beyond that, for several reasons. Primarily, I own a home here, so it’s not as easy as just letting my lease run out and then moving away. But that’s only the structural roadblock. There is something more fundamental.

I grew up in Virginia. I went to college in Virginia. This is my home. And I’m not abandoning it to the bigots. Virginia’s role in the founding of America and the enshrinement of our principles in the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States is too proud and too strong to let it slip away just because a majority of adults motivated enough to vote fear gay Virginians. Those of us who know better must stay and fix this mess. As such, I’m not going anywhere. This victory will be Pyrrhic.

With that in mind, I want to bring attention to a few quotes on the anti-marriage amendment. After that, I’ll be done for awhile. Probably.

First:

Attorney General Bob McDonnell said, “Today Virginia said yes to traditional marriage. This amendment to add constitutional protection to traditional marriage gave Virginians the opportunity to directly affirm their longstanding belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This is a victory for Virginia families, and the democratic process. Virginia is stronger because of the passage of this amendment.”

Let’s see, this amendment attacks a portion of my family, but it’s a victory for them. It also proves that the democratic process includes the ability to vote away the rights of a group of citizens. How exactly does this make Virginia stronger?

Next:

“I’m not an ultraconservative when it comes to homosexuals. I have some wonderful friends who are homosexual, but I think marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Ann Potocnak, 37, of Prince William County.

Forty-five years ago, that would’ve said I’m have some wonderful friends who are black, but…, followed by a self-satisfied cleansing of any possibility she might be wrong. I’m sure her gay friends are content to know what she thinks of them, though. I hope my wonderful friends will stab me in the back when given the chance.

“I feel [same-sex couples] should have rights as far as benefits are concerned, but I feel marriage should be between a man and a woman,” said Chris Murray, 36, a mortgage broker from Fairfax County. He said he realized that there was a chance the amendment would lead to the loss of legal rights for same-sex couples, but “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” he said.

Of course, a logical person might say “you can’t vote ‘maybe’ or ‘kind of,’ ” to Mr. Murray’s unproven fear that a Virginia judge will rule that the state must recognize same-sex marriage. Apparently you can vote maybe or kind of, if the desired outcome fits your personal whim. Collateral damage be damned.

I’m going to end with a nod to someone who gets the obvious:

“It’s already there. Why go on and drag this out, just because some religious groups want to exclude certain things from certain people that have different lifestyles?” asked Frans Hagen, 72, a retired restaurant executive from Annandale who runs an education foundation.

Anti-marriage amendments are just a speed bump in the path of liberty. An ugly, shameful speed bump, but Frans Hagen is correct. History will not be kind to the defenders of these amendments.

Bigot-Bigot Bigot Amendment

Delegate Robert Marshall co-sponsored the proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that voters will likely pass next Tuesday. In his determination to show that he really isn’t a bigot, he included a nice bit in his latest newsletter. I’ve scanned the original for proof, but a few thoughts are warranted, so I’ve transcribed the text.

Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment

This November citizens will be able to vote for Del. Marshall’s proposed Marriage Amendment to the Virginia Constitution defining marriage as the union of one-man and one-woman. In four states (MD, MA, VT, and HI) courts have, on their own and without legislative input or sanction, granted same sex couples the legal authority to “marry” or enter into “Marriage lite,” i.e., a civil union.

One-man and One-woman. [sic] and [sic]. Del. Marshall can’t grasp the English language, yet he’s qualified to propose a wordy amendment that goes beyond his stated goal of banning what’s already been banned twice by Virginia. This will go well. Of course, I’m sure he wishes he could have this newsletter back to amend New Jersey into his parenthetical proof that Virginia’s courts will catch The Gay. Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland. It’s spreading south, can’t we see?

But the ability to register to vote, enter a contract, have a joint bank account, write a will, buy a house with a friend, start a business, receive job benefits from an employer, designate a friend to carry out advance medical directives, or the right to be free from assault belong to any competent adult. These rights do not derive from marriage or a legal relationship approximating marriage, and are not altered by the Marriage Amendment.

So, if these rights – excuse me, “abilities” – are still in effect, in spite of the wording of the proposed amendment, why do we need this amendment? Again, two laws against same-sex marriage already exist in Virginia, as well as the indefensible-yet-still-accepted federal DOMA. Same-sex marriage isn’t coming to Virginia any time soon, amendment or not. That leaves one explanation, which is quite unbecoming of an elected official. But maybe Del. Marshall can save himself with an example.

When Massachusetts parents objected to a public school requiring their second graders to read a story with pictures about two princes who “marry,” the school said, “We couldn’t run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them … decides their child should be removed. [This community] is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.”

Bonus libertarian points if you’ve already figured out what I’m going to say about this paragraph. Ready? Is this paragraph support for a bigoted marriage amendment, or would it be better support for eliminating the public provision of education? Without public provisioning, parents could send their children to whichever school sells their preferred bigotry, if that pleases them. Instead, Del. Marshall believes we should all be sold bigotry, in the Virginia Bill of Reduced-at-the-Whim-of-the-Majority Rights, no less. Del. Marshall seems to be on the wrong side of (at least) two issues. Let’s bump that to three, just for fun, since it’s clear he favors mob rule over republicanism.

The Amendment reads:

“That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”

Remember, Del. Marshall says no rights will be eliminated because they do not derive from marriage. So why do we need the second paragraph in the amendment, in as much as we (don’t) need any of it? I’m trying to draw a conclusion other than bigotry, but I can’t.

I like alien radio. Here’s why.

Witness the actions of a dinosaur:

The radio wars are escalating. In a one-two punch aimed at enlisting regulators to their cause, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and National Public Radio want the Federal Communications Commission to investigate alleged misdeeds by satellite radio companies XM (XMSR) and Sirius (SIRI).
…

In its second claim, the NAB contends that XM and Sirius shouldn’t be allowed to give away their products for free to new car buyers or online. Last week, Sirius streamed Howard Stern’s program for free on its Web site.

The NAB argues that such freebies ought to subject satellite radio to the same FCC regulations as those governing terrestrial radio. That likely would trigger restrictions, for example, on language and other racy content.

If you can’t beat them, force them to join you? I don’t recall learning that maxim in business school. Yet, that’s exactly the perversity unleashed by regulation. The NAB’s members roll over and play dead every time the FCC yells Bang!, so it expects satellite broadcasters to do the same. They’re imbeciles. People don’t have to consume satellite radio, even when it’s free. They don’t have to consume terrestrial radio, either, which is what the NAB seems to miss in bowing before legislators instead of customers.

I won’t be surprised if the FCC takes action, though XM and Sirius will clearly fight back if it does since they’re businesses are on the line. But the NAB’s complaint leads to an obvious, and chilling, conclusion. If we’re going to take its claim as valid, that would open every podcaster to FCC regulation if he allows his customers to download his podcast for free. I’ll take my liberty in maximum strength tablets, not children’s chewables. Liberty for all, including customers.

Marriage is a fundamental right for individuals

I haven’t bothered catching up on what same-sex marriage amendment supporters have said about the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in everything but name because I don’t care what they think. Those in Virginia who are worked up because of it, like Sen. Allen, were already going to vote for the amendment here. Why should I care, beyond pointing out their obvious stupidity? They’ll drive 5 miles per hour faster to the polls on November 7th because they can’t wait to stick it to the gays protect marriage. Big deal. Instead, I’m focused on what intelligent people are saying.

I’ve noticed two dominant themes regarding the decision: declaring victory and cautious agreement. I agree with the first viewpoint, as it’s clear that state-sponsored bigotry will eventually be set aside. I think it should occur faster. Rights are rights, regardless of who exercises them. We shouldn’t need a silly period of adjustment so that the majority can catch up. If they don’t like it, they’re capable of remaining in their own marriage anyway. But it is what it is.

The second viewpoint, while I’m happy that it exists, as opposed to opposition until the majority catches up, lacks what I think is fundamental about our Constitution and courts. Our rights are not provided by legislatures, at the will and whim of whatever majority exists at the moment. That’s a recipe for oppression, not liberty.

Instead, we must always remember that the Constitution guarantees rights we possess through the simple process of being alive. Courts exist to protect that fact, and enforce it on the other branches of government. It’s fine to believe that legislative action is a superior way to have rights protected, but legislatures are full of politicians. Rights, or the denial of rights, can and will be sold. That leaves the courts as a viable option that should not be dismissed as too challenging to the values and beliefs of Americans. If Americans can’t grasp that, our civics education has failed, not our political process.

I like what Jason Kuznicki wrote Wednesday at Positive Liberty:

Ultimately, I don’t care so much about process. I care about equality before the law, and I think that there are multiple legitimate ways to attain it. If equality happens one way, great. If it happens another way, that’s great too.

That’s the heart of it, I believe. The fight for marriage equality has been misrepresented by those more invested in maintaining some illusory sense of control over values. Marriage, as I understand it, is not a dual right, existing only for pairs. Every individual has the right to marriage, or whatever civil contract structure the government offers to promote efficiency in bundling certain incentives and benefits. The concept of individual rights requires this governmental offering be made to individuals who are interested in pairing, not to pairs who meet a notion of acceptability pre-conceived outside of the civil framework. Who a person chooses to marry is solely his or her business.

Our government’s role is merely to provide that benefit to everyone. Or no one, if it can’t play fair. Follow that common sense approach, and same-sex marriage opponents might finally understand the proper role of government. The rights of the individual trump the will of the majority.

Whew, George Allen weighed in on New Jersey’s decision

I’ll have more thoughts later on yesterday’s ruling by New Jersey’s Supreme Court. Until then, I do want to note Sen. George Allen’s statement:

“Today’s decision by the NJ Supreme Court is another example of activist judges inventing the law and subverting the will of the people. This is why I support the marriage amendment, because it will protect the values and views of the people of Virginia from judges who would want to impose their elitist views on us. This is a clear difference between my opponent and me – I support protecting marriage from judges who do not understand their role: to interpret the law, not invent the law. My opponent does not. “My opponent says that this amendment would infringe upon the rights of ordinary Virginians, and he opposes it. But I and many members of the Virginia Assembly joined in asking the Attorney General of Virginia to render an opinion. His response: ‘I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians’. “This amendment does exactly what it says it does; it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and I’m for marriage between a man and a woman while my opponent is against it.”

I’m sure that majoritarian plea about the will of the people (and current law being more than individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution) is a sacred part of his own libertarianism. Of course, I’ve already debunked the silly notion that values will disintegrate if we don’t pass draconian bills and amendments. I’ll refute the rest of what Sen. Allen said when I post my thoughts on the ruling. Until then, perhaps someone should tell Jim Webb’s wife that he’s against marriage between a man and a woman. Although, I’m amazed she doesn’t know, since that is a giant plank of The Homosexual Agenda&#153.

Ice Cream Man!!!!

I wonder if administration officials camped out at the U.S. District court to deliver this message, the way college kids camp out for tickets to the biggest game of the year?

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that “no court, justice, or judge” can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.

Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.

That would cause whiplash if it wasn’t so unsurprising. That sort of reminds me of this routine by Eddie Murphy:

Any guesses as to which character President Bush is? And let’s not forget what happens to his ice cream in the end.

Traditional marriage would decrease marriage

La Shawn Barber has an entry today about outing closeted public officials. It’s a topic worth considering, but a passage in the middle caught my attention.

… When I say I don’t care who people sleep with, I mean it…as long as it’s not in my face. Keep your business to yourself, and don’t define yourself by or try to turn your bedroom activities into a political cause. But that is what the homosexual agenda is about. Two to three percent of the population, people whose sexual orientation got mixed up somehow — genetically, environmentally, or how ever — want to flip the culture upside, demand special rights, and tell the rest of us how to think. It won’t work with me.

I read Ms. Barber’s blog because she’s intelligent and I agree with almost nothing she writes. Reading opposing views helps me flesh out my ideas and beliefs. I don’t see this issue as gay Americans fighting for special rights based on their sexual orientation. They are asking for the equal recognition of their rights by our government. It’s that simple. If they’re right, and I think they are, it doesn’t matter if that flips the culture upside, causes a few minor blips, or results in a collective yawn. Rights are inherent, not granted by the majority (telling the minority how to think).

More to the point, turn your bedroom activities into a political cause is not exclusive to gays within the realm of marriage. With accusations that gays have done that by asking for their right to marry, supporters of “traditional” marriage have turned their (heterosexual) bedroom activities into a political cause. Just yesterday, I posted a quote from a gentleman who claimed that marriage is about procreation. If that’s truly the case as it surely must be with a push for “traditional” marriage, then the freedom that heterosexuals maintain to marry anyone they please is unjustifiably broad. If this is the legitimate standard, we must begin reducing the right to marry to those who may create children. No one else would hold the right to state-sanctioned civil marriage. Or to procreation outside of marriage, if we want to be consistent in our defining our rights by some standard of values.

For example, my grandmother became engaged recently. She’ll be married with the full sanction of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet, I reasonably assume that she is beyond her child-bearing years. Some other criteria must be at work. Love? Happiness? What is it? Are those enough, since she will have no more children? Whatever it is, surely gay Americans possess the same capacity and desire to exercise this fundamental right.