I have often commented on how many so-called Libertarians take a half-ass stance toward an issue and wind up doing either nothing or worse, harm instead of good. One example is the LPF's chair, Adrian Wyllie, who allegedly "took on" the state driver license system.
This would have been great, except that his objection, on further examination, wasn't on the premise of having a permit to do a thing that you have a fundamental liberty interest in (travelling from place to place for personal, non-commercial purposes) -- it was simply that he didn't want to present proof of his identity in a form that the state and federal government demanded.
This is, of course, rather different than arguing that one should not need a permit to engage in something that is a right.
To the best of my knowledge this game of his is still going on, although a quick search failed to disclose an active case in any of the surrounding counties in the public court records.
There are two problems with such misguided "attacks" on government overreach. The first is that you're likely to lose. If, for example, you concede that the government can demand identification be carried in order to travel then it is certainly necessary and proper that the same government verify that you actually are who you claim you are, lest the entire purpose which you conceded was proper be invalidated!
But the larger problem besides winding up a martyr (or a fool) is that you may actually do violence to the real issue, which is that once you admit that government has a proper interest in licensing travel among those who have demonstrated no probable cause to believe that criminal activity is occurring you wind up with situations like this:
For more than two years, the police in San Leandro, Calif., photographed Mike Katz-Lacabe's Toyota Tercel almost weekly. They have shots of it cruising along Estudillo Avenue near the library, parked at his friend's house and near a coffee shop he likes. In one case, they snapped a photo of him and his two daughters getting out of a car in his driveway.
Mr. Katz-Lacabe isn't charged with, or suspected of, any crime. Local police are tracking his vehicle automatically, using cameras mounted on a patrol car that record every nearby vehicle—license plate, time and location.
"Why are they keeping all this data?" says Mr. Katz-Lacabe, who obtained the photos of his car through a public-records request. "I've done nothing wrong."
That's simple -- they are keeping all this data because you consented to turning a right into a privilege, which in turn means that this privilege can now be conditioned as the government so chooses, which happens to include affixing a nice piece of metal on the back of your car that is instantly recognizable by machine.
And it's all your fault. It's my fault. It's Adrian's fault. It's all of our fault.
We all consent to someone taking a picture of us (or simply using a pair of binoculars and looking at us) when we walk around in public. That's the nature of being in public. But technology advances, and what used to be a matter for gumshoes is now a matter of someone with a computer and a video camera along with big storage and honking CPU power that can do pattern recognition at very high rates of speed.
Mitigating this is that if you're driving you're behind glass (which glares), you're only partially exposed to view (your head) and then only from certain angles, and most of them are blocked by nearby traffic, so you need to be in immediate proximity to determine who someone is. In addition there are thousands of nearly-identical cars just like yours on the road, with many of them of the same color along with make and model.
So to fix this problem for the "nice guys" from government you consented to sticking a big metal plate on the back (and sometimes in front as well!) with a unique short identifying string of numbers and letters, which means you no longer need to be pulled over under probable cause before the nice guys from government -- or private parties -- can figure out exactly who you are and where you are.
Consider how outrageous you would find being told that in order to walk around outside your house you had to wear a shirt that had your true first and last name in 3" block letters, and if you didn't you were subject to arrest.
There would be a revolution by morning.
So, given that, would you care to revisit your silent consent to doing the same thing when you are merely using a means of personal transportation common to the current time?
After all, we didn't consider a demand that riders on horseback wear said 3" block lettered name tags in the 1800s sane, did we?
In short may I ask exactly when are you going to reclaim your fundamental rights, including one of the most-basic of them -- your right to choose where you physically are located with your person and personal effects, using the means common in the present day?
Or will you, including those who claim to be "promoting liberty", continue to choose to live as a slave?
(Reuters) - A federal judge made permanent on Wednesday her order blocking enforcement of a U.S. law's provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan had ruled in May in favor of non-profit groups and reporters whose work relates to conflicts in the Middle East and who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, signed by President Barack Obama in December.
Wednesday's 112-page opinion turns the temporary injunction of May into a permanent injunction. The United States appealed on August 6.
The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.
This injunction effectively de-fangs the concept of the US Government playing "we'll detain but never charge, try or convict you" games with US citizens. With this section barred from use the government must now adhere to Due Process of Law, one of the founding principles of our nation.
The real question that stands before us, however, is not that a judge managed to read The Constitution and actually comprehend it, or was willing to speak truth to power.
It is that both sides of the aisle voted for and passed this outrage in the first place, and we the people now need to take a stand on whether we will allow this outrage to stand in the upcoming elections.
My bet is that we will, but we most-certainly should not.
The simple fact of the matter is that Habeas Corpus was in fact one of the issues that led to the American Revolution. Back in the 1770s colonists were often held without charges and without any opportunity to confront accusers, either in person or in the form of the alleged evidence against them. This barbarism was in no small part the reason that our forefathers took arms and ejected the British from what is now America, and wrote into the Constitution its protection.
Both Lincoln and Bush suspended that right. Neither had the Constitutional authority to do so, for the Constitution does not confer rights, it only recognizes them. By definition a right cannot be bestowed as it is an inherent thing -- something that can be bestowed is not a right at all, but rather a privilege and thus is subject to revocation by the entity that granted it.
We have forgotten our heritage and how this nation came to be.
Fortunately, there is at least one Judge that remembers.
The question for our military members and for we, as as citizens, is this: Do you remember?
During the second week of March 2012, a Dell Vostro notebook, used by Supervisor Special Agent Christopher K. Stangl from FBI Regional Cyber Action Team and New York FBI Office Evidence Response Team was breached using the AtomicReferenceArray vulnerability on Java, during the shell session some files were downloaded from his Desktop folder one of them with the name of ”NCFTA_iOS_devices_intel.csv” turned to be a list of 12,367,232 Apple iOS devices including Unique Device Identifiers (UDID), user names, name of device, type of device, Apple Push Notification Service tokens, zipcodes, cellphone numbers, addresses, etc. the personal details fields referring to people appears many times empty leaving the whole list incompleted on many parts. no other file on the same folder makes mention about this list or its purpose.
The hacker group that got the file released at least part of it.
Now here's my question -- How did the FBI obtain the file?
That's what you ought to be wondering. More to the point: Is Apple providing the FBI with every customer's registration and sale details? And if they're not -- who is?
Let's be real here folks -- 12 million UDIDs is a hell of lot of them. Are you willing to believe that there was no "official transfer" from "somewhere" to the FBI of that data?
I'm not and you shouldn't be either.
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson said he has been detained twice for his refusal to cooperate with invasive searches by airport security.
“I don’t go through the rapist machine,” Johnson said. “I’ve been in this case twice where I’ve been patted down and the gloves reveal nitrates, and so now I have to go to a private screening room where all my luggage is taken apart.”
The nitrates are probably because our good Governor likes to shoot and, well, powder is made out of nitrates. So are a number of other things that don't explode, but the machine doesn't know that -- it just knows they're present.
The TSA’s invasive search tactics would subside if he is elected, Johnson promised, but he did not rule out the possibility of “racial profiling” as a part of what his campaign website describes as a “risk-based approach to airport security.”
Sigh.... So close, and yet so far.
See, a Libertarian view of airport security is that airlines and airplanes are private conveyances. Yes, they're run by companies serving the public (as is a taxi, a bus or a train) but the aircraft isn't owned by the government. State "flag" airlines went away in the United States a long time ago (they still do exist in other nations, incidentally.)
The real screw job that came from 9/11 wasn't the TSA, although I would recommend that Gary Johnson start calling it what it is -- it's not rape, it's sexual assault. Thus, my name "The Sexual Assault" for the agency. It sounds like a fine distinction but it isn't; molestation is a better word than "rape". But I'll take it as he uses it, if he likes.
No, the real screw job was the immunity that the airlines received. That's where the problem was and is. They should have had to defend their security procedures, including the decision to not reinforce doors to the cockpit, and let a jury decide.
I'm quite sure that the airlines are very capable between themselves and their insurers of determining what is a reasonable level of risk, if they're forced to pay when they blow it. If that puts a few airlines out of business, then so be it -- policies will change. And unlike the government, you can sue a private company with some success, so molestations will be treated as exactly what they are.
Let's take a Libertarian view of this Gary. Dissolve the TSA and remove the airlines' liability shield. Let the market decide -- perhaps one airline will allow people to carry firearms, provided they're filled with Glazer Safety Slugs, while others will have a policy that nothing more dangerous than a plastic spork can come on board. The marketplace will decide which model for security is the superior one, with votes cast with wallets -- exactly as it should be.
Face the facts -- 643 million passengers are expected to board an airplane in 2012. If we figure that somewhere around 500 million have done so every year since 2000 then 5 billion passenger-trips have been taken in roughly ten years. If we accept the 3,500 people (approximately) killed on 9/11, and that there have been no US terrorist attacks on airliners since that have succeeded, the risk of dying from any one encounter with an airplane is 1 in 1.429 million. This is approximately equal to the risk of being struck by lightning -- literally.
I like those odds and find the risk entirely acceptable -- without the TSA.
Oh this is rich...
The BATFE has "updated" the 4473 form. For those of you who have never bought a gun, a 4473 has to be filled out by anyone who buys one at a store or otherwise from a "FFL" (a licensed dealer.)
Now, suddenly and out of nowhere, there's a Question "10a" on the form where there used to be just a "10" (Race).
And guess what "10a" is?"
Are you "Hispanic or Latino" -- or not.
What does being Hispanic have to do with purchasing a gun?
Incidentally, 4473s (commonly called "yellow forms" as the pre-printed ones on pads are usually yellow) are not sent to the ATF. They go into the dealer's "bound book" where they must be retained. The BATFE can come look at that book any time it wants, however, and if the dealer goes out of business the bound book is then sent to the BATFE which keeps it for records purposes. Since the 4473 has serial numbers on it these forms are commonly inspected when law enforcement has a recovered firearm from a crime and wants to know who it was sold to at retail.
I have no idea if the call-in procedure now asks for this information at NICS, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does.
I have to wonder -- will Hispanics vote for President Obama in November knowing that his BATFE is singling them out for "special consideration" on firearms purchase forms, likely as some sort of sop to cover up the malfeasance associated with "Fast and Furious"?
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.