Posts Tagged ‘law’
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. . . .
Read more by Marko Kloos at munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com
What are we being asked to give up?
Admit that you were transfixed by surveillance video of Boston’s brother bombers. It was quintessential “Gotcha!” for the noblest of causes.
Testament to technology trumping wrongdoing, it gave cause for relief. Knock on wood, too, that the cops could track the cell phone left in the Mercedes SUV hijacked by one bomber. And those Google Maps aerial shots of the boat were pretty neat, right?
The same technology, of course, can catch your everyday non-terrorist running a red light, parking illegally at a Dunkin’ Donuts or smooching with someone not your spouse.
Cameras follow us like gum stuck to a shoe. But while official Washington is fixated on law enforcement efficiency in the wake of Boston, you might wonder about the precautions taken by those protecting us. That’s especially true given the rise of facial recognition, zoom technology, biometrics and the overall ability to track us from one camera to another, right across town.
Read more by James Warren at NY Daily News
“A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens.”
From the Peoria, Illinois, Journal Star
Speaks volumes . . . sad
When did we decide that we wanted a law that could make unlocking your smartphone a criminal offense? The answer is that we never really decided.
This is now the law of the land:
BY DECREE OF THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
IT SHALL HENCEFORCE BE ORDERED THAT AMERICANS SHALL NOT UNLOCK THEIR OWN SMARTPHONES.
PENALTY: In some situations, first time offenders may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.*
That’s right, starting this weekend it is illegal to unlock new phones to make them available on other carriers.
Read more by Derek Khanna at theatlantic.com
Every nation-state has a body of laws woven into the fabric of society. As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has commented on extensively, the stronger the rule of law, the stronger the economy.
And by “stronger” laws, I mean laws that are impervious to tampering for personal or political gains. The connection between a sound judiciary and economic health is readily comprehensible, except maybe to a politician… businesses and individuals are far more likely to invest capital in a country with understandable laws that are impartially and universally enforced than if the opposite condition exists.
That’s because the lack of a consistent body of law breeds uncertainty and adds a huge element of risk for entrepreneurs. That is the case here in Argentina, where hardly a week goes by without La Presidenta and her meddlesome comrades cooking up some new hurdle for businesses to overcome.
Which brings me back to the matter at hand – American justice on a slippery slope.
Read more by David Galland at CaseyResearch.com
As I prepare to retire from Congress I’d like to suggest a few New Year’s resolutions for my colleagues to consider. For the sake of liberty, peace and prosperity I certainly hope more members of Congress consider the strict libertarian-constitutional approach to government in 2013.
In just a few days, Congress will solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They should read Article 1 Section 8 and the Bill of Rights before taking such a serious oath. Most legislation violates key provisions of the Constitution in very basic ways, and if members can’t bring themselves to say “no” in the face of pressure from the special interests, they have broken trust with their constituents and violated their oath. Congress does not exist to serve the special interests. It exists to protect the rule of law.
Read more by Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX) at RonPaul.com
I’ve already written about the despicable practice of “civil forfeiture,” which allows governments to confiscate the property of innocent people who have not been convicted of any crime.
Now the Institute for Justice has a video that should outrage any decent person.
It’s examples of government thuggery like this that make me a libertarian. You should be one as well.
Read more by Daniel J. Mitchell at Townhall.com
A longtime professor and one-time interim dean of the University of Chicago Law School told The Daily Caller that Barack Obama was never offered tenure, despite the assertions of a New York Times reporter who covers the president and the first family.
“Other faculty members dreamed of tenured positions; [Obama] turned them down,” wrote Times White House Correspondent Jodi Kantor, author of “The Obamas,” in a July 30, 2008 profile of the president’s twelve years as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
And yet, according to longtime University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, Obama was never actually offered a tenured faculty position.
Read more by Charles C. Johnson at DailyCaller
–SNIP– In the notorious Hudson transaction, for instance, Goldman claimed, in writing, that it was fully “aligned” with the interests of its client, Morgan Stanley, because it owned a $6 million slice of the deal. What Goldman left out is that it had a $2 billion short position against the same deal.
If that isn’t fraud, Mr. Holder, just what exactly is fraud?
Still, it wasn’t surprising that Holder didn’t pursue criminal charges against Goldman. And that’s not just because Holder has repeatedly proven himself to be a spineless bureaucrat and obsequious political creature masquerading as a cop, and not just because rumors continue to circulate that the Obama administration – supposedly in the interests of staving off market panic – made a conscious decision sometime in early 2009 to give all of Wall Street a pass on pre-crisis offenses.
No, the real reason this wasn’t surprising is that Holder’s decision followed a general pattern that has been coming into focus for years in American law enforcement. Our prosecutors and regulators have basically admitted now that they only go after the most obvious and easily prosecutable cases.
If the offense committed doesn’t fit the exact description in the relevant section of the criminal code, they pass. The only white-collar cases they will bring are absolute slam-dunk situations where some arrogant rogue commits a blatant crime for individual profit in a manner thoroughly familiar to even the non-expert portion of the jury pool/citizenry.
Read more by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone
After a long summer of high-profile scandals — JPMorgan Chase trading, Barclays rate-fixing, HSBC money laundering and more — the debate about the financial sector is becoming livelier.
Why has it become so excessively dominated by relatively few very large companies? What damage can it do to the rest of us? What reasonable policy changes could bring global megabanks more nearly under control? And why is this unlikely to happen?
Read more by Simon Johnson at NY Times
In my honest opinion, Christians are not forbidden by Christ to practice basic self-defense. There are times, of course, when suffering through persecution (even unto death) will happen, but if somebody breaks into your house I think you have the obligation to protect your family. And by protect your family, I mean own some firearms and know how to use them.
The following is a pretty funny rendition of the reasons given why we shouldn’t have guns. A friend of mine sent this to me and I just had to post it… You know which reason I really despise? I’ll tell you in a minute, you should read the reasons first. Also, pay attention because there is a quiz at the end.
40 Reasons to Ban Guns
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’s high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
Read 32 more reasons at LibertarianChristians.com
Found this originally at TheStrangestBrew.com
Last Friday, US Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced HR 6357, a bill which aims to ‘prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens’ by the federal government. In other words, in the Land of the Free, they need to pass a law to prevent the government from indiscriminately murdering its own citizens.
Now if this doesn’t give one reason to pause and consider the distortions of liberty that have taken place in western civilization, I don’t know what will. Think about it:
Read more by Simon Black at Sovereign Man
And as I learned last week, it wants to know a lot more about you…
–SNIP– But after 9/11, your government can now know everything about you… under the guise of Homeland Security… completely ignoring the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. (The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure, requiring a warrant for a search).
I was shocked when I saw last week on Eliot Spitzer’s Viewpoint show just how far the government wants to go to know everything about you…
To me, this is not right, at all… Law-abiding citizens have privacy rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
–SNIP– The government has access to this stuff… typically without your permission. For example, in the second half of 2011, U.S. law enforcement officials requested data on 12,243 Google accounts. Google complied with 93% of those requests.
The government doesn’t have to notify you if it wants to check out your Google activity. It just has to ask Google.
Read more by Dr. Steve Sjuggerud at Daily Wealth