Illegally Download Music, Lose Your House?

Most "Free Liberals" support property rights. That said, reasonable, pro-liberty people can disagree over the concept and enforcement of intellectual property. Most fair-minded people also understand the concept of proportionality in punishment.

That brings us to Los Angeles where the County Commission recently adopted an ordinance that essentially allows the authorities to seize homes if acts of piracy (illegally downloading music and movies) are found to be committed on the premises.

According to the story from Wired, the County board declared that piracy "substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors."

Not surprisingly, the regulation was crafted at the urging of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.

Property owners who knowingly permit such activity can also be dinged $1,000 for each counterfeited work produced on the property.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers included provisions for patents in the Constitution. They did this because the public at large benefits from new products and technologies. Without patent protection, the incentive for people to innovate is reduced. Is this true for intellectual property? The debate over that issue rages on, but the answers are much less cut-and-dried.

It would seem that losing one's house for pirating a movie is more than a little unfair.

The Truman Transformation

Ever wonder where today's "imperial presidency" came from? Columnist George Will made the case recently that Harry Truman's presidency should be viewed as a turning point in presidential power.

Salient reasons for Will's argument include the undeclared Korean War without Congressional approval and seizure of the nation's steel mills. While historians' approval of Truman's presidency is to be expected as he grew government and increased the power of the presidency, he was among the biggest of big-government Democrats.

The Thugs of Redford Township

The powers that be don't like to be hassled. (H/T Eric Dondero).

Park Police Thugs Destroy Liberty in the Shadow of Jefferson

Do you think the police are really there to protect you? We are told from childhood that the police are our friends and are there for our benefit. While minorities have often seen and experienced otherwise, the rise of youtube and other "democratic" media outlets has shown increasingly how police act like jerks, take our liberties, and treat average people like dirt.

One recent example of that recently occurred on Thomas Jefferson's birthday at the Memorial in our Nation's Capital which honors him. Radley Balko discusses the details of this recent example of police abuse at Reason's blog.

Taxation is Theft. Go for it!

Wow! Jan Helfeld’s interview with Harry Reid sure touched off a firestorm of comments. The interview and its reactions illustrate the twin dangers of radicalism and rationalization.

Taxation for the most part is theft. (Exceptions are certain user fees and externality taxes.) However, doing without taxation is truly problematic. Without taxes, we might not be able to fund an adequate military, a broad social safety net, astronomical baseball player salaries, or a helium fund for our mighty dirigible fleet.

Machiavelli provided the answer: if evil is required to accomplish a greater good, then go for it. But be honest. There is no social contract. We tax because the ends justify the means.

Or do they? For national defense I would say the answer is a strong “yes.” Without theft by our own government, we might suffer worse theft by a conqueror. Some social safety net programs might be justifiable as well. Given the choice between robbing the rich to pay for institutions and group homes or letting the severely mentally handicapped go without care, I’ll take robbing the rich. (But if I can dodge this choice through charity, then methinks charity is the better answer.)

On the other hand, I am not persuaded that the benefits of a city owned baseball stadium justify theft. Professional baseball is entertainment for people who like boring sports. Let them fund their boring pastime through ticket sales or donations. (Or better yet, let them watch chess tournaments. The players are cheaper and the action is far more intense.)

Your values may differ. If you think getting a Major League franchise in your city is so important that it justifies robbing your neighbors – including those of us who hate baseball – then go for it. Just realize that you are committing robbery to support your pastime and take moral responsibility.

And don’t be surprised when someone robs you back to pay for that mighty dirigible fleet.

283 Nonarchy Pods -- Comin' Right Up

Nonarchist theorist Roderick Long, philosophy prof at Auburn, is bold. He's so bold that he and 282 other brave souls are petitioning the government – to abolish itself! And be replaced with...nothing.

Always one to prefer constructive criticism, Long might want to consider broadening his "demands" out a bit. Why limit his petition to the United States? If Marx can cry out: "Workers of the world, unite!" why can't Long exclaim: "Governments of the world, dissolve!"

Of course, all the stockpiles of munitions will need to be disposed of, but why get wrapped around one's axles about such minor details?

Long is technically correct when he states, "...few if any of those over whom you claim authority have ever consented to such governance...." After all, did you sign a contract with the government that gives them authority to do what they do? I know I didn't. I'm quite sure I'd like government to do less, a lot less in my dreams. I've even toyed with moving to the stateless area formerly known as Somalia, but I've become accustomed to my inside-the-Beltway oasis and its creature comforts. And, while a time machine has yet to be invented, it might be cool to teleport back a thousand years to Iceland. This way, I can validate the historians who claim to've read the records scratched on bogs that suggest that perhaps that isolated tundra of an island was an anarcho-paradise. Of course, that even Iceland could not maintain its nonarchic utopia might -- just might -- give pause to the Long 283.

Or, like the sun rising and setting, we just might accept that some sort of State seems likely for the foreseeable future and beyond. Call that a "constructive contract" if you must, but unless the 283 swells to tens of millions, I'm making book on some semblance of government continuity. And, near as I can tell, 99.9999% seem to accede to the terms, more or less.

Still, it seems we should have compassion for the 283. What to do? My modest proposal: Nonarchy Pods. If someone really, really, really wants to opt out of the state's authority to keep the peace, we should let them. They can buy a pod that envelopes them on their property. The pod is impenetrable – nothing comes in or out. They become autonomous little Lichtensteins, except they cannot leave, as the 283 have stated they refuse to abide by the rule of law here amongst the governed.

OK, OK, we allow them to trade through a small hole in the pod, I'm feeling generous. And if someone wants to go in the pod, they may, so long as the understand that there is no exit.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program, "Roll Back the State."

-RC

“Original Intent”: Then, Now and Forever

Two conversations that freedomistas continue to have are about the “original intent” of the Constitution and the intent of the Union during the Civil War. These issues are intertwined in interesting ways.

Let’s stipulate that we really can’t know what the “original intent” of the Framers was. Sometimes, I myself am conflicted in my intent, how about you? Occasionally, I’m quite clear on my intentions, but, frankly, that’s a rare thing. I suspect that’s the human condition, and was the human condition in the 18th century, too.

If true, it follows that any one Framer’s intent back then was probably somewhat muddled. Aggregate those muddles, and we get a pool of muddledness. We can read the text of the Constitution, transcripts of the proceedings, written documents from the times commenting on the draft, etc. But, still, we should be humble enough to recognize that there was no such thing as an “original intent.”

Which leads to the intentions of the Union in 1860: What was it? It may be no surprise that it was just as muddled in the 19th century as it was in the 18th. This, of course, includes Abraham Lincoln, whom some deify and others demonize. It’s one thing to explode myths about Lincoln, but another to suggest that the Confederacy’s secession was in effect authorized by the Constitution’s (non-existent) original intent. A case can be made, surely, but overstating the case tends to undermine the validity of the assertion.

The revisionists go further: The Civil War wasn’t about slavery, or that slavery was one of several disputes. Yes, the record shows that there were other bones of contention. Yet, one need only read the Republican Party’s platforms of 1860 and 1864 that the party, at least, was deeply concerned about the continued institution of slavery. It appears that they viewed the secession of the Confederate states to be a “Rebellion.”

In 1860, they said:

7. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. 8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States. 9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave- trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

In 1864, they said:

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

There are a number of ways to look at any issue. We should take great care when asserting that we know the one truth.

-RC

Alberto Gonzales Steps Down

In case you haven't already heard, Gonzales stepped down as US Attorney General today. It is hard to overstate just how poorly he has performed his job of "upholding and protecting the United States Constitution."

For many in the media and the Democratic Party, Gonzales's legacy will be the US Attorney scandal which may or may not have had real importance for the Republic. What does matter and is directly relevant to our current situation is his prominent role in developing the Administration's positions on torture and domestic spying.

There's no doubt his legacy will be "dismal," but it is important he be remembered for the really outrageous behavior, not just the politically-motivated attorney scandal.

Orwell update

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for calling attention to the plight of Professor Walter Murphy, a former Marine, critic of Roe versus Wade, and a supporter of the Alito nomination. In a chilling example of how the war on terror is also a war on dissent, Professor Murphy found himself on the no-fly list and was told it likely was because he give speeches critical of Bush.

Here is the story in Professor Murphy's own words:

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

State Secrets and National Security

Below is a petition which is being submitted to Congress on behalf of Liberty Coalition (of which I serve as communications director) and other organizations. The petition points to the real problem that we have been facing where the executive branch has been repeatedly making tactical moves to prevent Congress from providing meaningful oversight of the activities of the federal government.

In the case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, it sounds as though she may have damning evidence of criminal behavior within the US goverment, as well as information which could shed more light on the 9/11 attacks. While her own travails as a whisltleblower provide a reason for concern, the out-of-control behavior by federal public servants is especially troubling.

Please read below and see what you think.

-- KDR

***

To: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

A Petition to require public hearings by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform into confirmed reports by FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds of wrongdoing, criminal activities, cover-ups against the security and interests of the United States and its citizenry, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case.

In March 2002 the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-IG) began its investigation of Ms. Edmonds’ reports.

In June 2002, in at least two unclassified Senate briefings, FBI officials confirmed the validity of Ms. Edmonds reports; however, in May 2004 Attorney General Ashcroft retroactively classified information from these briefings and gagged the Congress, preventing further investigation.
In October 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft invoked the ‘State Secrets Privilege’ to block all court proceedings in Edmonds’ case.
In July 2004 the DOJ-IG investigation into Edmonds' dismissal was completed but was entirely classified.
In January 2005 the DOJ-IG released an unclassified summary report on Edmonds’ case which concluded that Edmonds was fired for reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program, and that many of her allegations were supported by other witnesses and documents.
The issues that were reported by Ms. Edmonds include:
• Cases of espionage activities within the FBI, DOD, and the Department of State
• Cases of cover-up of information and leads pre and post 9/11, under the excuse of protecting certain diplomatic relations
• Cases of intentional blocking and mistranslation of crucial intelligence by FBI translators and management
• Cases of foreign entities bribing certain government officials and elected representatives

Edmonds filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the Department of Justice, but the government successfully argued that the state secrets privilege was an absolute bar to her suit going forward. She was even barred from the courtroom during the argument of her appeal! The Supreme Court declined to review the case. The government's invocation of the state secrets privilege in a motion to dismiss her case contradicts the core idea of judicial review and essentially allows the Executive Branch to dictate to the federal courts what cases they can and can’t hear.
Invoking the State Secrets Privilege is a tactic frequently used by the Executive Branch to stop potentially embarrassing lawsuits against the government. Many of these suits are brought by government employees, such as Ms. Edmonds, who allege fraud, mismanagement, or other unlawful conduct, and the state secrets privilege has successfully been invoked by the government to silence them. The state secrets provision has been used too frequently and with too little public protection.
Given the seriousness of Ms. Edmonds’ reports and in the best interests of the security of the country, it is incumbent upon the Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities and authority as representatives of the people of the United States, therefore:
We, the undersigned, now call upon the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in Congress to hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case.

OMB Watch
Sean Moulton, Director, Federal Information Policy

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Anthony Romero, National Director

National Coalition against Censorship
Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director

Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC)
Nancy Talanian, Director

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition
Bill Weaver, Board Member

Liberty Coalition
Michael Ostrolenk, Co-founder & Director

National Whistleblower Center
Steve Kohn, Chair

Open the Government .Org
Patrice McDermott, Executive Director

U.S.-Armenian Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC)
Ross Vartian, Executive Director

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Melanie Sloan, Director

Citizen Outreach
Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy

Concerned Foreign Service Officers
Daniel Hirsch, Board Member

Fairfax County Privacy Council
Mike Stollenwerk, Director

Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association
Sandalio Gonzalez, Director

Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Tom Devine, Legal Director

National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation
Gail Dunham, President

Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation
Scott Pullins, Chairman & CEO

Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Danielle Brian, Executive Director

September 11th Advocates
Mindy Kleinberg, Director

Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition (VAWBC)
Dr. Jeffrey Fudin, President

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation (USBOR)
Dane Von Breichenruchardt, President

Privacy Activism
Linda Ackerman, Staff Counsel

The Multiracial Activists,
James Landrith, Founder

The New Grady Coalition
Ron Marshall, Director

The Secretive Execution of Saddam Hussein

We wait in anticipation of the demise of our Great Enemy. The new Iraqi government is set to execute Saddam Hussein, dictator and villain, for his crimes against the people of Iraq. To the US Government, it appears as a victory. Finally, the man we have hated and our government has pursued since the first Gulf War, will pay for defying the US and doing unspeakable things to innocent people. It vindicates our war -- we have removed a threat in the Middle East and brought democracy to an oppressed people.

But, have we done good?

Have we furthered justice? Have we brought peace?

This execution suggests not. We don’t know when he will be executed. Whether it is for security reasons (to protect those who will carry it out), or for strategic reasons (to confuse those who would take action in protest of the execution), or for bureaucratic reasons (because executing people is not handled in a precise and scheduled manner by the government), it does not speak well for the Iraqi government’s transparency and credibility as an institution committed to honesty and justice.

Justice is certainly a fuzzy term. But, if one uses a certain definition, one cannot criticize and compare if the definition changes between cases. So, we must fix one as “our” definition of justice. Saddam had secret trials and secret executions. His raison d’etre was unknown. But, so are the methods and practices of the current Iraqi government, at least to us. We do not know that it is more just than the previous administration.

On the second count, we cannot say that Iraq is more peaceful. Certainly, the killing is no longer limited to the depraved actions of the state. But now, death squads and suicide bombers share in the terror. What is the net casualty rate?

Saddam’s execution should not hang among our laurels, but remind us of how much our government has failed in this disastrous folly.

-- KDR

The Case of Cory Maye

Ironically, while the Kelo decision has made Americans more aware than ever of the need to protect their homes from greedy government officials and developers, the philosopher that your home is your castle is under attack by other government officials -- specifically the police. Radley Balko has been doing tremendous work to expose the militarization of police forces around the country and the general disregard these more militaristic tactics show for not only the property, but the lives of average Americans.