Using the Language for Fun and Profit

Sometimes, we Libertarians forget that it is often how one presents ideas that is perhaps more important than the ideas themselves. I present the below essay to illustrate a couple of mistakes we make when presenting our points of view on self-defense and private consensual behavior.

Notice I have not used neither the phrase "gun control" nor "illegal drugs". That is because, in my estimation, these phrases give legitimacy to the activities of the Control Crowd.

What do most people think of when they hear the word "control"? What are they thinking when they try to envision the opposite of control? Maybe: Out of control? Aimless? Anarchy? Violence?

Yes! Those, and a bunch of other terms that should make anyone uneasy.

What mental image comes to mind when we hear "illegal drugs" or the other phrases drug warriors use, like "crack babies", "drug addict", "pushers", "narco-terrorist", and "dope"? Do you think such images would be positive?

What I am here to suggest -- emphatically -- is for all libertarians to consider more carefully what we are really doing when we use establishment terms in support of our positions.

When discussing drugs, what term might be used to cast a negative image on drug law instead of drug users and dealers?

“Prohibition”.

The average American knows Alcohol Prohibition was a dismal failure. I don't think you'll find many Americans supportive of the idea of making alcohol illegal again.

So use that word, instead. Any time you speak of the government's war on private consensual behavior, be it recreational substances, contractual sex, private or non-state-lottery wagering, or the employment of weapons for self-defense, speak of these things in terms of Prohibition.

Tie it to Alcohol Prohibition immediately, without even mentioning the word "alcohol"!

Your audience's first reaction upon hearing the word should be visions of the mayhem caused by that law. This forces them to quickly quell their own internal argument about prohibition; then, they must then come up with arguments to defend continuing Prohibition -- instead of attacking legalization.

Never ask, "should we legalize drugs?"

Instead, ask "should Prohibition be repealed?" Or "Why should Prohibition be continued?"

Doing so immediately shifts the burden of the debate from our court to "theirs".

I am sure other terms could be used effectively, also. But in no case should we lend our opponents the advantage by using the terms they have chosen!

Purely as an example of this tactic in action, think of the abiortion debate. Do people who favor keeping abortion legal call themselves "pro-abortion", which carries the stigma of the actual abortion; or do they call themselves "pro-choice"? Isn't it harder to explain why an individual's "choices" should be taken away? Likewise, people who favor outlawing abortion call themselves Pro-Life, for similar reasons, instead of “anti-abortion”, or “anti-choice”. No one likes to be an "anti" anything, the word itself is negative. On the other hand, who can justify being against life?

Gun control is not gun control. It is "victim disarmament", or even "gun Prohibition."

Don't legitimize the language of tyrants. Use proper English and use it to your advantage.

Listen to the following sentence carefully:

"And now, since I favor allowing others to speak, I will return to my seat." Some of you might notice that sentence contains no negative sounding phrases like "in closing".

Remember: use that language FOR what you believe in, not against what they believe in!

The "Step In, Justify, and Kill" Procedure

Anyone who has ever watched "Cops" will have witnessed car-chase scenes where a suspect almost hurts a police officer, with a predictable police response of immediate deadly force. The first few times a casual viewer sees one of these sequences, he would probably think the force was justified. However, after dozens upon dozens of these events, it becomes clear that the escalation to deadly force is part of a predetermined pattern:

1. A "perp" is trying to get away from police in a car.
2. He aims to escape via escape route "A".
3. A cop walks calmly into the line of Route "A", placing himself in "harms way" just as the car begins or already is moving.
4. The car, as it is already moving in his direction, and regardless of whether the perp attempts to steer around or away from the cop, is now "evidence" that the cop's life is in danger.
5. The cop, "justified" by his own stepping in front of an object with intertia, SHOOTS -- often emptying his clip into the "perp".
6. Perp dies, back-slapping all around, everyone goes home a hero.

This is what I call the "Step In, Justify, and Kill Procedure". (SIJK).

Watch a "Cops" episode -- you'll be able to pick it out sooner or later. The SIJK procedure is invoked any time a person is *perceived* as attempting to elude police. Very simply, one or more of the police officers will carefully maneuver into a position that will put him (or them) directly in the path of a suspect's already-moving vehicle. This then gives them 'cover' -- the presumption that they now are in a situation where they must act in self defense; they were "in fear of life or limb".

Once an officer is in position, the suspect is immediately shot in a hail of gunfire. It's always a hail, too -- never just a shot or two. Can't have the case go to court, after all.

After seeing this in action multiple times in multiple jurisdictions, it becomes obvious that government police bureaucracies are actively training officers how to do it and get away with it. Think about it: A generation of officers has been trained to manipulate suspects into a position where they can be given an immediate death sentence.

According to a whole bunch of non-government employed witnesses, it has apparently happened again -- with yet another young life ended prematurely and for no apparent reason. The money line:

"An officer then 'ran in front of the car, weapon drawn, and started firing within seconds...'"

Read more about this tragedy here.

UPDATE 2012-01-02: Private security guards don't kill their suspects in a hail of gunfire. They simply step away and catch the guy later. Privatizing government police forced is the only way to abolish the SIJK practice -- at least then they will be subject to the same liability as company actors in any other company.

Assassin Kills 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, Five Others

Here we go again.

So a lone nutcase shoots several individuals in Arizona, and the media -- within minutes of the shooting -- begin parroting the "it's all the fault of the Tea Party, gun nuts, Libertarians, conservatives..." line. Yadda, yadda, yadda... Haven't we heard this story before?

It's no wonder the lamestream media is losing eyeballs in droves. Increasing numbers of Americans are aware of the fraud and manipulation the government and its media lapdog engages in, which is why most people now get their news from the Internet. Of course, that can't be allowed to continue: predictably, it is the left (and the government) that wants the Internet regulated.

Think about it. The left's mantra for years has been that thousands of terrorists killing thousands of innocents in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. Yet one loon -- who we know nothing about -- attempts to kill a Democrat Congresswoman, and somehow we're supposed to immediately agree the blame lies with adherents of the Tea Party?

Politically-motivated shooting rampages like this needn't happen at all. Were government small and irrelevant enough that no one really cared about politicians and other government bureaucrats, those politicians and bureaucrats would be very safe. In essence, power-hungry fat-government wannabes creat a self-fulfilling AND self sustaining prophecy: create a crisis that provokes unrest, knowing full well that some statistically insignificant remnant will regard that crisis as the "last straw" and go nuts. Then, use the results of whatever mayhem the statistically insignificant extremist has managed to do, to further your government-fattening, victim disarming, Constitution-busting, power-grabbing childish agenda.

Six people were killed. But it was interesting to note that as of 6:00 p.m. Saturday evening, January 8, 2011, out of 1,800 Google News search results for news of the shootings, almost none of the news stories mentioned the name of the little girl who was killed, much less said anything about her ended-too-soon, innocent life. Nor have the names of four of the other five citizens killed. The only dead victim named in the stories was another government employee -- a federal judge.

The victims the media forgot are:

-Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, Giffords' director of community outreach

-Dorwin Stoddard, 76, a pastor at Mountain Ave. Church of Christ.

-Christina Greene, 9, a student at Mesa Verde Elementary

-Dorthy Murray, 76

-Phyllis Scheck, 79

To the left, life is only important if that life is that of the nobles of government.

To hell with us Mundanes.

Can War Ever Be Justifiable?

A recent article by EJ Dionne noted the upcoming 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, and it urged the widespread adoption of the leftist view of that war: that it was all about slavery. Unfortunately, the article ignores the fact that, as in all things politic, "it ain't so simple".

There is no such thing as a "good war".

Ever.

The desire to go to war is all about one thing, and one thing only: Money. The slavery issue was just a way for Lincoln to make war into a “moral imperative”. In our time, “terrorism” is similarly used to justify government aggression.

Conquest is little more than a means for the elites -- who profit from the endless financial rape of mass numbers of people -- to either gain or retain "tax territory".

Tax territory simply translates into "wealth" -- money. Control more territory, and you control more people and the wealth they create. The more tax territory a government seizes, the more powerful an army and spoils system it can support. A powerful army makes possible further conquests of additional tax territory. Of course, if anything comes along that threatens a government's tax territory, expect a brutal response.

Which brings us back to the Civil War.

To believe the North's fight was motivated by an altruistic purpose, such as abolishing slavery, is to believe in fairy tales and Santa Claus. It, like every other fight in history, was about tax territory. The United States government didn't want to lose a large chunk of its tax territory, and so a fight was inevitable when the southern states decided they didn't want to continue being the cash cow for the Northern-dominated congress and its decades-long transfer of billions in southern wealth to the North.

Had Lincoln allowed the South to secede, slavery as an institution would have collapsed on its own. Besides the fact that it had become a huge political liability, there were pricey related expenses (enforcement, social, uprisings, mistreatment) which were rapidly overtaking any profitability. One can look at modern examples of subsidized industries that collapsed even after decades of government protection and subsidization -- steel, autos, textiles, etc.

The Fugitive Slave Act was in effect a direct subsidy to slaveowners at the expense of federal taxpayers. It worked to an extent, socializing the costs of capturing runaway slaves. But even with it, slaves still escaped. Had individual owners been required to pay their own enforcement costs for chasing down runaways, the entire institution would have collapsed before the War. Fugitive slave laws were subsidies that skewed the actual costs of the chattel slavery system, thereby helping it compete in the market against free labor.

Economic reality would have caught up with slavery in very short order under an independent south. Private slavery was subsidized by the public treasury and in that respect it functioned only as well as any other implementation of socialism: it externalized the costs of its activities on others. But eventually, all socialized industries collapse on their own.

"Two wrongs don't make a right". The principle applies to governments as much as it applies to children on a playground. While the slaves were freed from private owners as a result of the Civil War, the entire population of the country became enslaved to overbearing government bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with surveillance, subsidies, taxes, the draft, speech prohibitions, and regulation. That government has only continued to grow to the point where it now steals half of all wealth individuals create every year. Americans to this day are enslaved to the colossus that emerged from the Civil War.

Can one justify freeing slaves by enslaving free men? Can altruistic motives be ascribed to northern politicians who dragged 168,649 young men off the streets to fight for the freedom of others? Lincoln’s draft caused the death of about a fifth of them. One must not deny the fundamental injustice done to those young men. An instructive read on this subject is Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s 'Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men'.

Can one justify freeing slaves at the price of subjecting non-slave-owning women and children to rape and murder? Unleash an army and rape and plunder will always travel with it. The Civil War was no exception. In her treatise “Rape in the American Civil War: Race, Class, and Gender in the Case of Harriet McKinley and Perry Pierson”, Maureen Stutzman found few rapes (335) prosecuted by the Union army. Most of the recorded instances were limited to 1863 and 1864 . One wonders why there were no rape prosecutions recorded earlier in the war, or in 1865. Lack of records does not equate to a lack of rapes. Southern legal records were often destroyed – so civilian reports of rapes and other crimes by invading troops are hard to come by. In addition, in an environment of subjugation of the southern citizenry, there was considerable reluctance to report rapes committed by conquering troops.

Can one justify freeing slaves at the price of slaughtering non-slaveowners? Various estimates suggest over 50,000 southern civilians were killed as ‘collateral damage’ due to the indiscriminate shelling of towns and cities – many of which were occupied mostly by women and children.

Slavery could have been ended the same way it was done within the limits of Washington, D.C., as well as in many other places in the world, and without bloodshed: simply by compensating slaveowners for the change in national rules. But apparently, that was too much to ask of the northern states, which had been transferring southern riches in a northerly direction since 1783.

Another bloodless alternative could have been simply an official declaration of an end to all enforcement of fugitive slave laws. The resulting uncontrollable exodus of slaves would also have brought collapse.

The slavery issue was a great propaganda tool for Lincoln – a white supremacist and separatist who cared little for the black race. John Wilkes Booth’ bullet elevated the man into a myth; otherwise Lincoln’s blathering about shipping blacks back to Africa would have ruined his legacy.

Lincoln, in his first year of office, rapidly implemented an unreconstructed Whig agenda of a centralized sultanate of government meddling and subsidization of the railroads, tripled protectionist tariffs, and federalization (and debasement) of the money supply.

A few years ago, liberals were criticizing George Bush for imprisoning people without charges, access to counsel, the right to confront accusers, or even a trial. Of course, now that Obama is doing the same thing, they are silent – but the point is that it was Abraham Lincoln who showed Bush & Obama that a president can get away with it.

Far from encouraging peace and compromise, Lincoln’s actions fanned embers into flames.

-------------

Addditional reading:

Are you aware of the extent to which free blacks held slaves?  Then check out "Did Black People Own Slaves?" by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The $1,000 Challenge

So, you're a Libertarian Candidate, and you want a big donation from me. Sure! I have $1,000 burning a hole in my pocket. You can claim it -- all of it.

But it isn't "free". You'll need to have some ducks in a row. Here are my requirements:

********************************************

1) You must have a written campaign platform with no substantial deviations from the LP platform or with Libertarian principles. If you're in favor of any new tax, or some form of gun control, or interfering with people trying to move from one place to another, or interfering with the right of association, or more government enforcement related to this or that victimless 'crime', well, I can donate to a bunch of Democrats and Republicans if those things interested me. Libertarianism is about *abolitionism*.

2) You should have a reasonably detailed campaign plan. I will want a copy. While each campaign should have some flexibility in the specifics discussed in its submission, I would expect to see the following information:

(a) A statement specifying the personal financial commitment you will make to your campaign.

(b) A description of the manpower resources committed to the campaign. In particular, the description should included a list of key campaign personnel, along with brief descriptions of their previous campaign experience.

- (i) I am not disposed to provide resources to any campaign that does not have both a campaign manager and a treasurer who knows something about campaign finance reporting requirements.

- (ii) The candidate should serve neither as his own campaign manager nor as his own treasurer, except in unusual circumstances.

(c) A biography of the candidate.

(d) Assessment of whether there is a reasonable chance the candidate will not be able to complete the campaign. (For example, if the candidate has been informed of a possible change in job status, such as being transferred to a different state, this should be disclosed.)

(e) A description of anticipated fundraising sources and activities, along with information about pledges from prospective donors. (As in Item 3 above, information about prospective donors will be treated with discretion. To the extent that such information is included in LPVa or local party files, it may be appropriate to redact names from such reports.)

(f) A description of campaign strategy (e.g., what issues will the campaign emphasize) and a proposed timeline for campaign activities. This description should include information such as anticipated number of votes needed to win, as well as a basic analysis of the voting patterns of the district. (For example, assuming previous data exist, what percentage of voters in the district vote Democrat, vote Republican, vote Libertarian, etc.)

(e) A description of campaign goals and performance metrics. (For example, if the candidate considers winning the election to be unlikely, what are the alternative goals of the campaign? Obtaining at least X number of votes? Causing the incumbent to be defeated? Winning the candidate's home precinct?) Personally, my preference is that all candidates use their races as an opportunity to finding and recruiting the libertarians who are already out there into becoming members, supporters, and -- candidates for next year.

Be realistic. Candidates who overblow their case and generally have absolutely unrealistic expectations aren't going to get *my* money. So many times, I've listened to LP candidates who swear that theirs is a winnable campaign. The fact that they are out-funded and out-volunteered by a factor of 5, 50, or 500 to 1 doesn't seem to faze them. If you think you're going to win, you better have some solid polling results that agree with you.

3) You must have at least the basics assembled of a campaign: a) a website that gives some sort of candidate/campaign overview as well as several high-resolution, media-quality photographs ready for download by media outlets; 2) a basic campaign flyer and yard sign, both with complementary designs to project a consistent image; and items associated with the campaign plan (for instance, if you have a treasurer, you should already have a bank account in the name of the campaign.

4) You must have reasonable credit history. Repeated personal bankruptcies, well... if you can't stay within budget, you should be a Republican or Democrat.

5) You must have a clean criminal history. I may make an exception for victimless crime convictions, but expect full disclosure.

6) You must have a reasonably clean driving record. If you've had three DUI's and been at-fault in more than one or two accidents, well, cowboy, it's time to get yourself a bicycle.

7) You must have a clean civil history. If you have made your fortune like John Edwards did, by filing lawsuits against innocents, well, you're not my candidate. Conversely, if you've been sued six or seven times, sounds to me like you need to find a safer line of work.

8) There must be a disclosure statement, concerning any potentially embarrassing or controversial aspects of the your background. This statement should include all information in items 4, 5, 6, and 7 above; and you must make it available for review by the members who attend your district nominating meeting, as well as the city or county committee and the State Central Committee, PRIOR TO any approval by any of these committees. The state and local party committees will treat these disclosures with discretion; such statements should not be available for public scrutiny.

9) You must have already been certified as "on the ballot".

10) You must have been formally endorsed/nominated as the official LP candidate during a meeting of the members WHO RESIDE WITHIN YOUR ELECTION DISTRICT; *and* you must also be formally approved by the county or city Libertarian committee in which you live. No exceptions. This is how the major-party candidates are nominated, and we can do the same thing.

10) All of the required financial reports must be up-to-date. I'll want copies.

11) "Open Secrets" -- Campaign finance reports should be accessible online on your campaign website; or if it can be linked to VaPAP or the SBOE website, that's fine as long as there is a prominent, non-hidden menu link to that page on your site.

12) You must openly identify yourself as a Libertarian candidate in all campaign appearances, on your literature, on your website, in your media releases, and the like. I will not donate to anyone who has a history of being involved in the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Democratic Freedom Caucus, or who accepts the endorsement of any other political party. Call it being a partisan hack all you want, but I do not intend to give anyone money for sending a mixed message about the abolitionist basis of the libertarian philosophy and the political party that represents it.

13) You must *demonstrate* a thorough understanding of the necessity of recruiting new members into the LP; which means:

- submit all campaign contacts to the LP for followup on a timely basis -- preferably daily

- providing PROMINENT and EASY access to visitors to the campaign website to ask for more information about the LP

14) You must provide some evidence that you have done some serious fundraising already, on your own. I've been in the LP since 1980, and for all of that 30 years, I've observed LP candidates enter races that typically cost a winning winning candidates, oh, say $50,000 -- and then watched them give all sorts of reasons why the LP or LP members should give them thousands of dollars, even though he hasn't even raised a few hundred from friends and family.

It's fairly easy to raise at least a few thousand dollars just from friends and business associates. See:

http://lpva.com/Archives/Tips/s99/fr-quick.html

Additional campaign and party-building tips are available:

http://lpva.com/Archives/Tips/s99/

"Serious funds" means seriousness about winning the election. The LP candidate seeking election should work towards funding superiority. He should raise and spend as much or more than the COLLECTIVE opposition. Yes, that means if you're in a 3-way race, your fundraising must exceed the funds available to BOTH of your opponents. We're the only guys advocating freedom -- the other guys are BOTH advertising socialism. Unless you have enough dosh that you can drown *them* out, you're not going to win. Fundraising should be at the heart of any serious campaign. If you don't raise money, you can't advertise. If you don't advertise, you aren't going to get elected.

If you can't raise enough to give the majors a serious run for their money, then you're running for the wrong office. Try running for County Board of Supervisors, or Town Council, instead.

However, if you want to stay in the race you're in, and you are not going to win, then it had better be a campaign that directs all efforts to signing up more LP members to build the cadre for next year.

15) You must have demonstrated some ability to find volunteers for your campaign. This is almost as important as fundraising. The majors send their volunteers out to knock on doors for them, to manage their campaigns' "back office", and so on.

16) You must provide in a timely manner a reasonably detailed post-election report to all of your donors, to the LPVA State Central Committee, and to your local endorsing committee.

17) Not a formal requirement for my $1,000, but I'd appreciate provide copies of campaign material (e.g., signs, posters, flyers, bumperstickers, fundraising letters, etc.) and news coverage (e.g., newspaper clippings, video and audiotapes of media interviews) for LPVa archival purposes.

18) If you accept money from me, but you decide to withdraw from your race for any reason other than a medical condition or involuntary transfer by your employer, you shall refund my donation(s) first, before any loans are paid and before any other donors are reimbursed. In the event you have no campaign funds left, you must shall reimburse me and other donors using your own personal funds.

********************************************

That's my checklist. It's not short, and there are hoops to jump through. But there is $1,000 waiting at the end of the hoops. And, not a single one of my requirements is any less than a major-party candidate would be required to do for them. This is common-sense, party-building stuff.

To make your case, write me at Freedom (/at/) LPVA.com (Remove the obvious spamtrap elements).






Here are a few resources you might find useful:

Campaign Planning Manual from the Libertarian Party of Indiana

Political Resource Library, from PoliticalResources.com

Litigious Americans Eyeball Toyota Loot

You know, there is only one endemic flaw to modern automotive brakes: you have to push the brake pedal down for them to work. But I digress.

Have you noticed that the reports of out-of-control Toyotas have mostly stopped? Perhaps the main reason is that the highest profile cases are all well-known now as simply pure unmitigated lies. The public has now become inured to the fact that most of these "Sudden Unintended Acceleration" stories are blown fabrications bloviated into existence by the lamestream media, rich lawyers, greedy would-be plaintiffs, "victims" who want to be absolved of their responsibility for pushing on the wrong pedal, and government bureaucrats aiming to increase their regulatory penetration of the automotive industry and to make the waters more hospitable for Government Motors (GM).

Cases in point:

- Lawsuit-lotto hopeful James Sikes of California, who went on the televised 25-mile joy ride

- Gloria Rosel, the house keeper who drove the Prius into a wall in New York

- Myrna Marseille swore she was standing on the brake pedal of her 2009 Toyota Camry when it crashed into the Sheboygan Falls YMCA on March 29

All of the above were found to be 'driver error' (although Sikes' was in reality just a hoax).

Since then, reports have tailed off and almost stopped. Was it magic that stopped the daily out-of-control Toyotas, or was it the fact that government police have -- mostly -- finally admitted the real cause (driver error) of these crashes? Did it have anything to do with the corrollary that, as a result, potential 'victims' hoping to get off scot free with a chance at a lawsuit lotto win began to understand the party was over? My guess is it wasn't magic.

Hmmmm... it is annoying to see it took government cops almost a year longer than it took skeptics to figure out the truth.

A stuck pedal does not drive you into the wall while the "victim" was 'pushing the brake pedal to the floor'. Neither does a stuck floor mat. A foot stuck on the long skinny pedal does though.

I have owned many powerful and fast cars in my lifetime, but not a single one of them can accelerate when the brakes are firmly applied. Owners of older muscle cars can attest to this: pressing on the brakes to lock up the front wheels while flooring the accelerator is a 'powerbrake'. It's how we hot rodders raise clouds of rubber-and-asphalt smoke when showing off (doing "burnouts").

The brakes on a Prius are *better* than those on those old muscle cars, and their little motors are lucky to put out about a third of the power.

Brakes against the motor? Don't make me laugh. The brakes will win every time.

And yes, it works when the cars is already at speed, also. If your accelerator really is stuck, you are in danger only until you realize it is -- a realization that should set in within three or so seconds with a *good* driver. It is a truly rare event that a stuck pedal -- like a really stuck pedal, not someone mashing the wrong pedal -- causes a crash that otherwise would not have happened. These crashes usually happen within 3 seconds of the pedal getting stuck, before a driver recognizes the problem.

The brakes will haul down that same muscle car from 80 with the gas pedal floored with little trouble.

Sudden Unintended Acceleration is a hoax now as much as it was with the Audi twenty years ago. The government agencies that are "investigating" these accidents aren't helping anyone and in fact are impeding the market's ability to "cure" itself. Abolish the NHTSA, abolish all the other federal regulatory bodies that meddle in the automotive business, move liability torts into private arbitration and mediation services, and let the market work as it should.

Sudden, Unintended Acceleration: Remember, if you heard it from the lamestream media, it's probably false.

2011-02-18 UPDATE: Another good article I discovered recently on this topic is the one by John Cook over at Gawker.com.

2013-12-06 UPDATE:  As of December 6, 2013, Toyota has settled a lawsuit with one of the hundreds of plaintiffs that filed suits in response to the scam that began in 2009; and it is looking to settle several hundred more very soon.  So people are getting rich from this media-driven scam.

Here are a few articles that support the idea that "sudden unintended acceleration" is a scam and a hoax.

The Problem is the Driver, not the Pedal:

Outside the world of trial lawyers, Democratic congressmen, and their ilk, anyone who's looked at the problem knows that the vast majority of cases of sudden unintended acceleration are the fault of the driver applying the gas pedal when s/he thinks s/he's pressing the brakes. Efforts to prove otherwise have proven to be frauds or failures. Remember the rigged 60 Minutes hatchet job on Audi back in 1989? There was no sudden unintended acceleration problem. But there was pure unadulterated journalistic fraud for which 60 Minutes brought in a trial lawyer's expert witness to provide technical assistance. "The NHTSA's official view, detailed in a 454-page 1989 report, is that the vast majority of sudden acceleration incidents in which no vehicle malfunction is present are caused by drivers mistaking the gas pedal for the brake." (WSJ)

The news media, the trial lawyers, and the [sic] Congressional allies peddle the electronic gremlin story by focusing on Toyota. But there are reports of sudden unintended acceleration about virtually every model of virtually every manufacturer. What do all those cars have in common? Drivers.

Indeed.  In addition, one of Professor Stephen Bainbridge's commenters, "Bosco", on the above article touched on one of my pet peeves: the disappearance of manual transmissions and clutches:

With a manual transmission and a clutch pedal, there is an instant solution to "runaway acceleration", just depress the clutch pedal and instantly disengage the drivetrain.

And Bob Dobalena boiled the solution down to its essence:   

If you are pressing down as hard as you can on the brake and your car continues to accelerate out of control, then take you foot off the brake and put it on the pedal immediately to the left of the brake. 

In another article, "Unintended Acceleration and Other Embedded Software Bugs", Michael Barr reviewed an NHTSA study of Toyota "black boxes":

After reviewing driver and other witness statements and examining said black box data, NHTSA concluded that 39 of these 52 events were explainable as “pedal misapplications.” That’s a very nice way of saying that whenever the driver reported “stepping on the brake” he or she had pressed the accelerator pedal by mistake. Figure 5 of a supplemental report describing these facts portrays an increasing likelihood of such incidents with driver age vs. the bell curve of Camry ownership by age.

And if you are a car person, you will appreciate the hilarious comments following this Jalopnik article, "The Mechanics of ABC News' Unintended Toyota Acceleration Hoax".

-------------------------------

The real problem here is that without even going to court, Toyota has already lost the case.  Even if every case goes to trial and Toyota wins every one, it has already lost.  Winning the cases will still cost Toyota billions of dollars -- billions of dollars that will go to the trial lawyer industry -- both those representing Toyota and those representing the plaintiffs.

These racketeering lawyers -- and yes, some of Toyota's lawyers will be among them -- will then take their fresh billions and wine and dine their lawyer cohorts in state and federal legislatures to get them to write more laws with which they can loot more and more companies.

Eliminate the "lawyer tax" on manufacturing and product/service delivery, and prices on all goods and services would fall by a third or more.

Repeal Drug Prohibition

You know, the Libertarian positions on Drug Prohibition and immigration were the two issues that stymied me for a while; so I fully understand the hesitation some have with the libertarian position on these issues.

Over time, I realized that Drug Prohibition has been the single largest cause of the loss of liberty in general and the most serious factor undermining the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights specifically. Alcohol Prohibition had the same effect while it was in force, too.

Drug Prohibition is unconstitutional; despite the inability of the Supreme Court to say so. We can't help it if law graduates don't know how to read. In any case, there was never any Amendment authorizing the federal government to regulate, much less prohibit, the recreational use of any substance.

Libertarians understand that there are costs to the individual, and to society, of drug use. No rational Libertarian advocates the abuse of any drug. That said, we believe Drug Prohibition is a "cure" that is far worse than the disease.

One of the many concerns about our position on Drug Prohibition, is that if Prohibition is repealed, there would be a massive spike in the number of users. I tend to agree, but my personal theory is that this effect will most likely be due to congressmen, state legislators, and cops all heading en masse to their local drug store -- with teenage pages and interns in tow -- as soon as Prohibition officially ends. Don't expect any of these people to show up for work the first couple of weeks after Repeal.

In all seriousness, if you examine the trend in prohibited markets, it is always towards harder, more potent varieties of whatever the substance is. The history of Alcohol Prohibition showed this phenom very clearly: as Prohibition started, traffickers brought in anything people wanted. Over time, however, they began to gravitate towards ever-more potent hooch and other hard liquors; and of course always there was the danger of adulterated product.

After Repeal, years of persistent education pointing out the dangers of too much alcohol has led to wine coolers, non-alcoholic beers, and otherwise less and less potent varieties of social beverages.

Likewise, with Drug Prohibition, the trend has been to ever-more potent varieties of drugs, a constant search for better "delivery devices", and again adulterated product. With repeal, besides bringing street disputes (which currently end in bloodbaths) into the court system for resolution, the trend will be towards unadulterated and increasingly safe products.

In addition, keep in mind that Repeal advocates do not suggest that drug users should be permitted to operate motor vehicles irresponsibly. Everyone, even drug users in an environment without Prohibition, should still be held 100% responsible for their actions.

The side effect of Prohibition that does the most damage is that trade in illegal drugs finances terror around the world. The enemies of the United States routinely use drug trafficking to finance operations against US soldiers, civilians, and other targets (look at the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not to mention the narcodollars propping up communist thieves Morales & Chavez in South America. We absolutely *must* remove this funding source from these crooks' toolkit. Continuing to ratchet up the drug war will do the opposite -- it will keep them in business.

Time to Lift the Freon Ban

The ban on dichlorodifluoromethane, the generic name for DuPont's "Freon", was based on junk science. DuPont funded a large fraction of the agitation against Freon in 1989-1990, because it had already developed alternatives to Freon and its original patent ont he product was approaching expiration.

DuPont has a log history of getting into bed with the government to give itself a de facto monopoly on any given market. For instance, DuPont funded the agitation to prohibit hemp products in the 30's -- an activity coincident with the company's development of rayon and other patented products in the same decade.

The media spoon-fed it to us all, just like all the other chemo-scares. Apocalypse remains in high demand -- fear-mongering sells newspapers and glues eyeballs to the screen. Here's a short list of hazards overblown by the media, way beyond the bounds of sound science: PCBs, DDT, dioxin, Alar, smoking, breast implants, irradiated foods, nuclear power, high-voltage lines, radon, acid rain, pesticides, herbicides, asbestos, ozone depletion, global warming, species extinction, deforestation and overgrazing, among others. Some were later shown to be complete lies, others remain controversial.

If you heard it from the lamestream media, it's probably false.

Abolish Licensure, Prohibition, Checkpoints and Chases

I had to shake my head in sadness and anger at the front-page headline and article, "Police Chase Tragedy". Of course Darryl Harris bears primary responsibility for Mr. Taylor's death. Harris will have to live with his actions for the rest of his life.

But as a Libertarian, I cannot overlook the role government had in creating the conditions that caused Harris to run. Until Harris began endangering others with his driving, all of his actions -- from his suspended license, to the marijuana + gun possession, even to departing from the checkpoint -- were victimless crimes. Unfortunately, in our society, the *discovery* of victimless crimes result in a ruined life -- and it was fear of being discovered that made Harris run.

So let's examine the state's role in Taylor's loss.

First, there's government licensure. Harris' license was apparently suspended. That's a victimless crime.

Travel is a right, not a "privilege", as the 'authorities' continually claim. A license is a 'grant of privilege'; and thus cannot coexist with something that is a right, free and open to all, such as the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge, and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. I agree with the Supreme Court of Illinois, which, in the twenties, stated that while a government can legitimately regulate commercial activities, "no reason exists why [licensing] should apply to the owners of private vehicles used for their own individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion."

Licensure would not be an issue if the government would simply get out of the business of building and owning roads. Some of our major roads in the area today, such as Brook Road, were originally developed in the 1800's by the private sector. Were our roads privately held, individuals who refuse to use them wisely would then be committing the real crime of criminal trespass.

Then there are those "stop and confess" parties that the police call "checkpoints". Checkpoints are unconstitutional and un-American. They belong in third-world dictatorships - not in a nation that thinks of itself as "the land of the free". Yes, the Supreme Court has 'deemed' checkpoints to be constitutional, but that's because we have too many lawyers who make it to the federal bench who can't read plain English. Check out the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"Effects" simply means "property"; and your car is property. Police searches of you or your property are unconstitutional unless they have a warrant based on sworn evidence. During a police checkpoint, police routinely demand your papers, they reach into your vehicle with electronic surveillance devices hidden in their flashlights (Google the "preliminary alcohol sensory device"), among other activities. No one should be forced to comply with a checkpoint. They are clearly unconstitutional, and no matter what kind of lipstick and hair spray the Supremes put on them, they will remain unconstitutional.

In the end, however, the events that led to Taylor's death can be laid at the feet of Drug Prohibition.

Prohibition itself is a constitutional and moral abomination. It has ruined tens of millions of lives and has cost hundreds of thousands of other lives -- millions, if you count a half-century of war, terror and aggression by global narcotics-funded religious and ideological extremist movements, along with decades of drug-related violent crime. Prohibition's toxic stew includes an aggressive and arrogant drug warrior law enforcement culture that by itself has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocents in "collateral damage". And worse, drug warriors largely don't care about the damage their war causes.

Repeal Prohibition, end the "papers, please" roadblocks, and call an immediate end to all chases except where the suspect is known to pose an immediate violent threat to others. The cost of doing otherwise is simply too high, and no spin by the Henrico PD or its 'defenders' can change that fact.

Concerned citizens across America have repeatedly warned police bureaucracies that chases are too dangerous and result in innocent deaths, to no avail. Henrico PD's statement that the chase "complied with written guidelines" is insulting and meaningless. Most people who study American policing are aware that police bureaucracies' statements that an action "followed policy" is simply code-phrasing, acknowledging "yeah, we messed up, but we're not going to do anything about it, and neither are you."

Had a private individual conducted a similar chase that ended in disaster, that person would end up facing jail time. For instance, if a security guard attempted to arrest someone at the entrance of his private, gated neighborhood, and that individual then fled with the security guard in pursuit and crashed into a park bench of children, the government police would then quickly and gleefully arrest the guard for contributing to the slaughter.

No cowboy logic justifies high-speed chases. They are stupid and dangerous in the best of conditions. They should be banned except in cases of violent individuals who present an immediate threat to additional potential victims.

***********************************

Marc Montoni is a Libertarian and a technician who resides in Henrico County. To request more information about Libertarian ideas, email or visit http://www.LP.org

***********************************

Abolish Prohibition, Checkpoints and Chases

I had to shake my head in sadness and anger at the front-page headline and article, "Police: Drugs, gun in car", in which Henrico County police tried to justify the slaying of an innocent in the course of their pursuit of a man who fled a checkpoint.

Community activists across America have repeatedly warned police bureaucracies that chases are too dangerous and result in innocent deaths, to no avail. Henrico PD's statement that the chase "complied with written guidelines" is insulting and meaningless. Most people who study American policing are aware that police bureaucracies' statements that an action "followed policy" is simply code-phrasing, acknowledging "yeah, we messed up, but we're not going to do anything about it, and neither are you."

If the same series of actions had been committed by a private individual, that private individual would end up sentenced to jail. For instance, if a security guard attempted to arrest someone at the entrance of a private, gated neighborhood, and that individual then fled with the security guard in pursuit and crashed into a park bench of children, the government police would would then quickly and gleefully arrest the guard for contributing to the slaughter.

No cowboy logic justifies high-speed chases. They are stupid and dangerous in the best of conditions. They should be banned except in cases of violent individuals who present an immediate threat to additional potential victims.

It is arguable that the man never would have run at all if not for his justifiable fear of the unconstitutional and un-American checkpoint. They belong in third-world dictatorships, but not in a nation that thinks of itself as "the land of the free".

At its core, the events that led to Taylor's death can be attributed to Drug Prohibition - itself a constitutional and moral abomination. Prohibition has ruined tens of millions of lives and has cost hundreds of thousands of other lives - millions, if you count a half-century of war, terror and aggression by global narcotics-funded religious and ideological extremist movements, along with decades of drug-related violent crime.

Prohibition's toxic stew includes an aggressive and arrogant drug warrior culture that by itself has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocents in "collateral damage" - and drug warriors simply don't care about the damage their war causes.

Repeal Prohibition, end the "papers, please" roadblocks, and call an immediate end to all chases except where the suspect is known to pose an immediate violent threat to others. The cost of doing otherwise is simply too high, and no spin by the Henrico PD or its useful 'defenders' can change that fact.

FairlyTaxin'

In March of 2004, the members of the Libertarian Party of Virginia voted to endorse a national retail sales tax. Here is the language adopted in 2004:

WHEREAS taxing wages, earnings, investment, savings and, death destroys individual freedom and initiative; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Internal Revenue Service is a positive step in the right direction to restoring individual liberty; and
WHEREAS the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be repealed; and
WHEREAS passage of H.R. 25 would change the direction of government confiscation of private property in the favor of the citizenry; and
WHEREAS the complexity of the current tax system causes arbitrary government enforcement and denies equal protection under the law; therefore be it:
RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Virginia (LPVA) endorses the passage of H.R. 25 as a step, and only a step, in the right direction; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the LPVA encourages all members to contact the Virginia delegation for their support; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the LPVA encourages all members to attend the first national rally to eliminate the Income Tax on May 1st in the Hampton Roads area of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

HR 25 was the "FairTax" legislation that was in congress in 2004 (I do not know if it's been reintroduced under that same number).
I have offered resolutions to overturn this endorsement at every state convention ever since. This year, 2010, was no different. At our March 6, 2010 state convention, I introduced the following resolution:

Whereas, the Libertarian Party has historically held the position that all involuntary taxation, regardless of form, function, or method of collection, is forceful and coercive in nature; and therefore represents legalized theft, and,

Whereas, the state and national governments are collecting revenue even in these depressed economic times that are double or triple what was collected just a few years before, in most cases just 7 to 8 years, and,

Whereas, this 'revenue' represents property stolen from individuals in mass quantities,

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of Virginia hereby calls on all governments, to repeal the income taxes to serve as a real 'economic stimulus' for these tough economic times; and,

Further, be it resolved that at no time should repealed taxes be replaced with new taxes, regardless of source, such as "sin", corporate, trade, licensure, or sales taxes; and,

Further, be it resolved that governments should operate under balanced budgets at all times, without incurring any debt, and should reduce expenditures to reflect current real revenue.

During debate, I outlined just a bit of the many reasons I believe advocating any new tax, particularly the FairTax, is simply bad business for the LP. Fortunately, there is a great library of excellent articles about the FairTax. Here are a few:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0704d.asp
http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=5911
http://www.mises.org/story/1975
There are of course many more.
Surprisingly, at the convention this year, the question went further than it had at both of the two prior conventions -- it was only two votes shy of success in a (very) slightly amended form.
Here are a few relevant facts.
The individual income tax typically brings in about 40% of federal revenue. Last I heard, 2009 federal revenue was on-track to be about $3.2 trillion. The Individual Income Tax brought in $915 billion. Federal spending just TWO years earlier was almost that much (spending increased $500 billion in FY 2009 over 2008; $250 billion 2008 over 2007.
I don't want the tax system to be revenue-neutral. I want it to be coercion-free. When you have a $915 billion theft going on, it is simply wrong to allow that theft to continue.
I intend to keep trying, until my colleagues learn that we cannot play the FairTax game. We're not Republicans. Nor are we Democrats. We must be eternally vigilant against any stew they cook up -- and the FairTax is a thoroughly Republican stew.
I never thought I'd witness LP candidates openly advocating new taxes (some promote the FairTax, others promote carbon taxes). Yet here we are. How's that working for us? Seems like the promised land hasn't gotten any closer -- the LP is still exactly where it was a few years ago, before we started hearing Libertarians proposing any new taxes.
I do not believe promoting the FairTax gets us any closer to a free society. If I'm going to spin wheels, I'd rather spin them with a clean conscience. Advocating a new tax does not leave me with a clean conscience. The sound-good idea of the FairTax should be recognized for what it is: never-ending federal tax enslavement.
If Libertarians are afraid to walk the libertarian talk, there's not much point in working via a third party.

FREELIBERTYPAC.COM RELEASE: Virginia Budget Chicanery

====================================
NEWS FROM FREELIBERTYPAC.COM
THE "LIBERTARIAN WING" OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
World Wide Web: http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
====================================
For release: February 5, 2010
====================================
For additional information:
Marc Montoni, Founder, FreeLibertyPAC.com
Phone: (804) 592-6066
====================================

Despite the myths government officials distribute, reports of "budget crises" are mostly hogwash. The problem is not revenue; many government bodies are collecting revenues that are only one or two percentage points off their peak, and some are collecting more this year than last -- the economy be damned.

The problem is that governments spend cash like drunken sailors. When was the last year a government budget -- in real dollars -- was smaller than the previous year?

Governments viciously suck up every spare penny they can find. Just from 2000 to 2009, Virginia's state spending has increased by 28% over the rate of inflation and population growth. From 1982 to 2007, Virginia government spending has increased at an average of about 7 per cent annually. How many wage earners have seen the same sort of increases?

Every time a federal, state, or local government declares some sort of "budget crisis", a quick fact check reveals "crisis" revenues are usually about the same as the revenue collected two or three years prior. So the question must be asked -- were government employees -- now the best-paid people in the job market -- begging on street corners those previous years?

Hardly.

Citizens and taxpayers are the ones being hit hard by economic conditions, not governments. Governments normally do their level best to increase the hardship, rather than relieve it -- their greed and avariciousness only increases during economic downturns. In their desire to steal ever more wealth from the private sector, governments raise tax rates to extract more wealth at gunpoint (try not paying and see who shows up).

Here are some budget ideas that would actually wrench Virginia's economy into rapid and sustainable growth: 1) Abolish the state income tax. 2) Initiate a hiring freeze at the state level; and initiate layoffs of employees whose functions do not directly protect the rights of individuals (we don't need the state government running ports or courier services, for example). 3) Repeal most regulations and taxes on starting businesses, such as the outdated and entrepreneurship-crushing BPOL tax. 4) Abolish zoning laws that crush the formation of garage businesses.

There are many more similar reforms that could be made. Unfortunately, however, governments never willingly give up money or power -- so we're destined to continue on the slow march to economic oblivion.

Sources:

JLARC Spending Synopsis: http://jlarc.state.va.us/inbrf/Inb392.htm

JLARC Spending increases from 1982: http://jlarc.state.va.us/fau/Data/Expend_Func.xls


**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.

------------------------------------------------------------
FreeLibertyPAC.com http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
PO Box 71106 voice: 804-288-2766
Richmond VA 23255-1106 fax: 804-592-6066
------------------------------------------------------------

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

My Personal Journey with Open Carry

[Note: This article was first published in "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 9/30/09".  VCDL used to have an archive of their Alerts but now it seems to go back only to 2012.  Other sites, such as OpenCarry.org, republished it.  I am publishing it here on my own blog also for archival purposes.]

In 1971, at the age of 9, I was stuffing envelopes for a Democratic candidate I didn't even know, while on a family visit to Pittsfield, MA.  My mother had taken me and my sister to see relatives in the area, and one of the relatives was supporting a local campaign for office.  Two things I remember about the mailing party we stumbled upon during our visit were 1) one of the relatives making an impromptu speech about guns and how they should all be outlawed, and 2) I was a super mean envelope-stuffer.  People around the table were amazed at how fast I was assembling the mailing.  I distinctly remember the sound of those custom-imprinted nail files with the candidate's name and office on them, hitting the envelopes I was stuffing.

In retrospect, I probably wasn't so fast so much as everyone else was yakking a lot about the campaign.

Throughout the seventies as I became a young adult, I remember many conversations with my parents about gun laws in the United States.  The often bemoaned their still-(somewhat)-legal status.  At that time, I swallowed their line without question.

Then, in 1980, a friend handed me a copy of 'The Fountainhead', by Ayn Rand, and from there I became affiliated with the Libertarian Party.  I changed my mind about guns, but consciously declined to buy one for myself for several years.  I remember thinking about it, but I was too nervous about guns -- a relic of my upbringing -- to own a "real" one.  I had shot BB guns and even a small .22 during my youth, and it didn't seem a big deal -- but bigger guns seemed like magical objects to me.

That changed in 1993.  By chance one day, I saw a friend on the Henrico County police force, Officer Pace, looking through some collectible comics at a comic shop.  Pace had helped me on a couple of previous occassions (accidents or crimes I had witnessed, I think).

For whatever reason, we got on the subject of guns.  He told me that citizens can wear a gun openly, on their hip, or three points visible in a car, without a permit.  I'd been thinking more and more about guns in the years leading up to this, and I was looking for a way to increase public awareness of the law-abiding ownership and carrying of weapons.  Officer Pace's words on open carry inspired me to do more research on the law.

Eventually I decided that open carry fulfilled my goal perfectly, so I went to a local gun dealer and bought my first gun, a Davis P-380 semi-auto.  In retrospect, it was a laughable carry piece.  It was too small for my hand -- two of my fingers were all that could securely grip the handle.  But for the moment, it would do.  Besides, Davis Industries was a pretty cool little company.  It was a California shop, and it warranted all of its guns for life -- which came in handy when a couple of parts eventually broke on the gun.  Too bad they, like many others, were sued out of existence.

But in any case, I knew if I owned a gun, I needed to know how it worked, so about a week after I bought it, I stopped in at a then-brand-new shooting range, U.S. Training & Development (now called Top Gun Shooting Range), in Harrisonburg, VA.  I nervously bought my first box of ammo, a couple of targets, borrowed eyes and ears, and went to the lane.  On the first round I shot, my hands were so shaky I there was this nagging thought I should just forget it and leave.  But I squeezed it off, and except for a few jams that the attendant showed me how to handle, 50 shots went flying away just fine.

A couple of thousand rounds later, that gun is pretty much toast, and I have a better carry piece that actually fits my hand now.

But in between my first outing in the spring of 1993 and now, I have been in places all over Virginia with a gun on my hip, and have fired thousands of rounds through every conceivable type of gun at numerous indoor and outdoor ranges.

Most places I have been, there were no issues.  However, I was thrown out of the Valley Mall once in Harrisonburg (1995), I was asked to leave The Grey Wolf Grill (1998) at Willow Lawn Shopping Center in Henrico (ironically the Grey Wolf was two doors down from where that conversation with Officer Pace had taken place almost five years earlier), an old man in the buffet line at a Western Sizzlin in Henrico angrily asked me and my friend Chris why we were carrying, and verbally berated us for doing so, and a few other minor incidents of a similar nature.

I have been stopped once or twice for traffic violations, and it's never been much of an issue with the officer involved.

In all, I'd say my experience was positive, and advanced gun rights.

* My mother, who had been anti-gun all her life, started talking to me about them.  Eventually, she agreed to go target shooting with me -- the first time she'd *ever* held a gun, much less fired one.

* My best friend, Chris, began a gun collection and open-carrying odyssey of his own -- he now has more guns in more varieties than I do (a fact which I agree shames me).

* The barber I used to go to regularly began talking to me about guns and carrying, over the course of six months' worth of periodic hair cuts.  By the end of that six months, I accompanied her to a gun store to shop.  While she didn't buy that day, she did buy shortly thereafter -- and I treated her to her first 50 rounds of ammo and an hour at the range.

* When I bought my first house, one of my longest-term roommates was a good friend -- a fellow I'd sold a car to in 1982, and we'd remained friends ever since (must have been a good car to him).  After seeing me carry for a while, he bought his own gun, too.

* Another roommate was a student from mainland China.  I took her shooting with all of my guns also.  We had several interesting conversations about guns -- she told me that all Chinese citizens are trained to arms from a young age.  That meant shooting was nothing new to this bantamweight 18-year-old young lady, which surprised me no end. 

* Countless other friends have gone shooting for the first time in their lives -- with my guns.

I eventually created a flyer to carry in my back pocket about open carry / any kind of carry, just to answer the most common questions (unfortunately, as open carry has become more accepted and I've had to explain it less, I managed to lose my digital file of that flyer).  The gist of it was I'd been telling questioners verbally: that I believed a right not used is a right you will lose; and that I wanted to confront the image most people had of guns.  TV news had long promoted a very one-sided view of guns - they would show the aftermath of violence in DC readily, but they would put stories of people defending themselves in the dustbin.  The only other times citizens saw guns were when they were on the hips of government cops.

In short, I became a missionary for gun rights as much as I had become a missionary for the Libertarian Party.  It was a happy coupling, though.  The Libertarian Party has by far the strongest position of any U.S. political party on the private ownership of weapons.  Libertarians are probably more consistent on weapons than even some of the most radical gun groups.

My own version of libertarianism says that if a weapon is too dangerous for citizens to own, then it's too dangerous for governments to own as well.  Readers may then surmise that I believe as as the Founders believed - that individuals should be allowed to own & bear military-class weapons, primarily as the best defense against tyranny.

I continue to carry to this day, and it warms my heart to see so many others have joined the movement.  Thank you, Internet.

And thank you, Officer Pace.

Who is funding Virginia's Left?

Exposing the Schills

Who funds the left?

You do.

Really, it's true.

Let's take a look at just one example. A Multi-million dollar example that covers only a few months of the left's rent-seeking.

Take a look at the recent contributor reports filed by The Democratic Governors' Association (DGA), which is meddling in Virginia elections by funneling millions of dollars through "Common Sense VA", against the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell:

This report covers only the loot that ONE leftist organization has taken from your wallet.

Perhaps you should ask the businesses and entitites you do business with why they are funding the left. Did you receive full disclosure from those entities that by doing business with them, you would be helping to fund a massive wealth-transfer enterprise that would get your assets seized in a RICO proceeding in other circumstances?

Let's pick out a few examples from the report. Keep in mind that about $3 million dollars has been funneled through the Democratic Governor's Association into Common Sense VA; and the main purpose of Common Sense VA is to run anti-McDonnell ads. This is money that does not show up on the Deeds campaign's finance reports; although it can easily be seen as a rather direct contribution:

1. You fund the left when you buy a plane ticket. A portion of your fee goes to pay the pilot, who is a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. His union funnels a portion of his dues into the DGA, thence into Common Sense VA.

2. You fund the left when you pay the countless taxes, fees, and fines your federal, state, and local governments force upon you daily. A portion of your money is deducted from the bureaucrat's wages, and funneled to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which in turn gives those government worker union "dues" to DGA, which again sends the cash to Common Sense VA. AFSCME is one of DGA's fat cats - just from January 1 through June 31, this amounted to almost half a million dollars.

3. You fund the left when you pay the toll on that fancy new bridge, you're throwing money at AECOM Enterprises, which routed $5,000 of your money into DGA, and from there, DGA sent some along to Common Sense VA.

4. You fund the left when you pay your Aetna premium. Aetna paid DGA $30,000 over six months -- and DGA gave some of that money to Common Sense VA.

5. Remember the AFLAC duck? Cute, ain't he? He should be, because when you pay your life insurance premiums to American Family Life Insurance Company (AFLAC), remember that they paid $ 88,690 to the DGA.

6. Big Pharma supports socialism, too. Allergan, a seller of Botox products and other things, sent $ 100,000 of your payments to DGA.

7. Big Rail got in on the act too. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) gave DGA $ 150,000.

There are so many other companies on the list! Take a look at the report for yourself.

If you ever shop at Wal-Mart, in six months the company gave the leftists at the DGA $80,000 of your money. Be sure to tell your local Wal-Mart manager how much you appreciate the company throwing money at Democrats through front organizations like the Democratic Governors' Association and Common Sense VA. Maybe it's time to shop K-Mart for a while, instead.

Oh, and if Waste Management, Inc., picks up your trash, call them and ask why they're sending your money to the Left. Then find another refuse collection service.

You know, it wouldn't hurt if you showed up at the corporate offices of these behemoth companies to ask them to stop funding the growth of government.

Next Month: Exposing Republican Schills


**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Breathless Media Treatment For One; Yawn for Another

OK, let's see.

Scenario 1:

A guy (with two full carloads of very large friends, as well as a BB gun that looks like a pistol and a bunch of baseball bats loaded in the cars) chases down two very small guys and one girl. One of the small guys shoots at one of the following cars, killing one of the occupants. Despite the chase, the deceased becomes an "innocent victim", and outrage and protest follow. The jurors remain awake and alert during the trial and deliver a guilty verdict for the shooter and his cousin. They are sentenced to long prison terms -- terms which don't satisfy the family and friends of the deceased.

No charges are ever leveled against any of the other individuals in the two following cars for their role in the situation. Every one of the reporters covering the trial itself mention the racial composition of the jury, as well as the race of those involved -- repeatedly.

Scenario 2:

A business man steps out of his truck one morning, is immediately accosted, shot to death, and robbed by three crackheads. The initial shooting was reduced to a footnote and hidden on inside pages of the local daily, and not reported at all by most other papers and radio/tv stations in the area.

Two years later, the police at last arrest three suspects, with what would be considered pretty solid evidence in other cases. At the trial of the first one of the three, several jury members -- all but one of whom is the same race as the defendant -- fall asleep during the trial. Eventually they return a "not guilty" verdict, and set the defendant free. Outrage and protest follow, but again not on the front page. None of the reporters covering the trial itself mention the racial composition (or the sleep habits) of the jury; that's left to the victim's wife to say.

What's the main difference between the cases?

The first story was reported almost as thoroughly and endlessly as Michael Jackson's death; with almost daily updates on the progress of the case. Every reporter managed to play the race card in every story.

The second story was almost completely ignored; with only two major articles in the regional daily during and after the first trial. The reporters leave out the race of the victims and perps; except when the reporter on the second story mentioned that the march by family and friends of the victim was "all white" -- even though a black man is clearly seen in the accompanying photo of the march.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/PBUR22_20090621-221803/275243/

So why the breathless coverage of one case, while the other, where there was a clear criminal (actually three) and an entirely innocent victim, elicits a media yawn? And speaking of yawns, what judge in his right mind fails to declare a mistrial when the jury falls asleep?

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Common-Sense Solutions to Sprawl: OUTLAWED!

Soaring gas prices last summer caused many people to seek out ways to drive less and work closer to home. Unfortunately, seeking was about all they could do. Over the past century of land-use planning, governments have criminalized the construction of compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. The direct result of government wisdom was to make walking, biking, or even using public transport to work, school, and recreation simply impractical, if not un-economic (time has value too).

A recent Commentary columnist in the Richmond Times-Dispatch called for more restrictive zoning to "preserve" green space that she doesn't own. I think she has it backwards.

Sprawl can't be blamed on developers. Developers build because people need places to live and work. It was government that prevented the construction of any more compact, efficient grid-layout cityscapes such as people had built for generations (look at the housing in Richmond's Fan area, for instance). In 1900, a plot of a few acres could house hundreds of people. With the advent of zoning, however, city and county governments have steadily ratcheted density down. This doesn't mean that fewer people will move to a locality -- it just means that to house the same number of people, developers must seek out more and more spread-out virgin land to house them.

With zoning, the following is the normal progression: Zoning starts out by forcibly reducing the number of people allowed to occupy a given parcel of land by introducing minimum lot sizes and adding setback requirements. Then, some shrill minority [often newcomers who wish to slam the door behind them] whine about the precious farmland that is being chewed up as a result of the minimum lot sizes, and scream for passage of even larger lot size requirements. Eventually they get their wish and lot sizes increase to 25, 50, or 100 acres -- the point where only millionaires and government bureaucrats can afford them. This, of course, chews up MORE farmland, so the only 'logical' next step is to simply prohibit any growth of any kind. This progression is in play everywhere in the United States.

There were many reasons zoning codes became a popular import from the European national socialists of the 1890's. Rent-seeking politicians quickly realized that restricting land use could easily be used to exclude poor whites and racial minorities from middle and upper-class white areas; and indeed, some of the earliest zoning codes in the north included provisions for segregated neighborhoods. After the Supreme Court declared such laws un-enforceable in 1948, politicians simply replaced the objectionable provisions with new ones that accomplished essentially the same end using different language.

Other land-use restrictions have further eroded the human-to-land-surface ratio; chewing up build-able surface on every parcel. Setback requirements, for example, and minimum house sizes, such as the ones in Henrico, further restrict the housing stock and force developers to seek out virgin land in less-developed areas.

A look at Henrico County is instructive. Henrico was an early adopter of zoning law (1933) and an early adopter of exclusionary zoning: Henrico ordinances of 1960 outlawed building the small-lot, compact (600 square feet), and efficient entry-level housing such as that which was grandfathered-in around the Fairgrounds and Lakeside areas. This successfully kept blacks from buying into the county because housing prices quickly became inflated beyond the reach of many.

These days, sure, the county supposedly allows starter homes to be built -- but only where they're already standing. With blacks increasingly integrated into the social fabric of society, more and more black families can be found in Henrico neighborhoods. However, the exclusionary intent of zoning law is still there, with a changed focus. Now, it is simply classist rather than racist. The door has been slammed in the face of people with lesser means. You're simply out of luck if you want to split up a parcel into 1/8 acre lots with four or five $80,000, 600-square foot bungalows in one of the trendy West End neighborhoods. Try it and see how long it takes for zoning officials to laugh you out of the building.

Of course, a lot of small houses on compact lots makes bus service somewhat tenable. The 4,000 square foot McMansions with huge setbacks and large lots are auto-centric, and they are what politicians want because they generate more tax revenue.

It is clear that sprawl can be laid at the feet of rent-seeking politicians and the "NIMBY" activists who elect them and pressure them to slam the door on newcomers.

Anyone with common sense would understand that if you artificially restrict the supply of housing in one area, people will go elsewhere to buy their home. Leapfrog development happens when people who want homes can't find any, or find that the ones in the area that they really want have been artificially driven out of their price range. These people continue looking -- further and further away from their desired location.

Besides the severe cost to the environment in the form of sprawl, land-use regulation has relentlessly driven the cost of owning a home upwards. The covetous and loud interest groups that campaign so mightily at "evil developers" and who decry the lack of open or green space from the porch swing on their McMansion, are the people to thank for sprawl. Politicians reflect their constituents.

Zoning, once enacted, is always ratcheted ever tighter, like a noose.

In every community afflicted by the cancer of zoning, residents eventually discover they will have to go to the planning commission to do the most trifling things with their own property -- and the zoning board will see to it that a bunch of meaningless and useless conditions are placed upon them even then. "Oh, you want to put up a new mailbox? Go ahead -- but it has to be one of these approved $1,000 brands, and you have to paint it this color, and you can only put it in this spot here."

In a few decades, zoning will have created a sterile, stuffy, controlled, and boring environment. Our own children will have to leave, because they won't be allowed to build homes or work nearby.

Maybe it's time for change. Not a change in the form of moving control from rightward-tilting socialism to leftward-tilting socialism as in the recent presidential election. Rather, socialism should be dismantled altogether.

Zoning laws should be repealed as the abhorrent affronts to human liberty they are. Those who wish to control property belonging to others should do so the the honest way: buy it, or pay owners to insert restrictive covenants into their deeds. At the same time, the state should cease the practice of building free roads in virgin areas (think I-295 when it was built), and instead leave it to developers and new residents and businesses to pay for their own infrastucture in such areas. These two actions combined will help curtail the explosive sprawl we have today.

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

A Chrysler Tale

Without a doubt, the architects of Chrysler's comeback in the 1990's were shaking their heads in disbelief at DCX's fruitcake management of the marque after the so-called 'merger' in 1997.

A bit of history: Chrysler, bought American Motors Corporation in 1987, and, a few years later in the mid-nineties, had integrated AMC's cost-effective "platform team" manufacturing model. The company had a terrific engineering department, and was very lean. While the company was not the "lowest-cost producer", it had made huge strides in that direction. In short, it was a lean, profitable operation. Chrysler had socked away something like $14 billion in cash by 1997.

Indeed, Chrysler was the most profitable automaker in the world in the mid-'90s.

Then Daimler rolled in, and everything changed.

The pile of cash disappeared into Daimler's gaping maw.

Before Daimler, Chrysler was very cautious about its updates of successful products. The company planned carefully to update styling, technology, and features -- while doing its damndest to ensure changes would not turn off repeat buyers.

Daimler, on the other hand, was haphazard and sloppy. Who was demanding the Pacifica, or the Crossfire? And the Neon? Product planning at Chrysler had originally scheduled a complete redesign for 2000 -- DCX canceled it. Predictably, sales kept falling as the line aged; and eventually the car was discontinued without any replacement model in the pipeline.

2000 represented the beginnings of product planning / long-term management choices from Stuttgart. Mistakes made two years earlier now began showing up. Chrysler posted its first loss since the 1998 merger; and losses would continue to 2004. Wolfgang Bernhard and Dieter Zetsche were sent over to manage Chrysler Group. One of their first decisions was to cut costs on materials used in interiors, to profitable levels. Then they expanded the SUV line at a time the niche was becoming saturated. As I recall it was around that time that trouble-prone DCX transmissions and suspension components started showing up in Chrysler products. Selling defective parts was helpful to Mercedes, not so helpful to Chrysler.

In 2004, the long-in-the-tooth Neon was finally canceled (its 2004 [final-year] sales were 118,476. Taking its place on the production line is the Dodge Caliber / Jeep Compass sport wagon. Essentially DCX sent a fuel-thrifty model into the dustbin and replaced it with a passionless psuedo-hatchback thing that gets worse mileage at the very time the market was turning again towards thrifty.

Also in 2004, Plymouth disappears from the automotive pantheon -- perhaps deservedly. But... Maybe a better move would have been for the return of the brand to its marketing purpose half a century ago: to sell cheap cars to thrifty people.

By 2006, Chrysler marketing was inexplicably positioned to pursue the traditional Dodge buyer. Jeep's image is becoming more confused with the Compass and other new models. The Avenger, Aspen, Sebring, and Commander are all introduced at a time when Chrysler has **neither** a subcompact nor any real C-segment vehicle (the Caliber ).

In short, DCX set up Chrysler for pure disaster. DCX harvested the profits Chrysler brought in during 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2005; as well as the billions in Chrysler's bank account in 1998.

It may be that Daimler really did intend for the Chrysler purchase to be its entrance to the American mass (ie non-premium) market; but they failed to cater to that market. There were no investments in new & competitive compact sedans or subcompacts. They continually cut costs at Chrysler in penny-wise but pound-foolish ways to boost the bottom line, turned it into "all trucks, all the time", and used it as a way to recoup their investments in different technology (such as the transmissions and suspensions in the LX platforms).

Daimler certainly isn't a victim. The marriage was an abusive one that left Chrysler bruised and lighter by several billion dollars. Daimler management got lucky with their purchase of Chrysler. Cash from their American piggy bank covered DCX's never-ending losses on the Smart and Maybach lines. They took away lessons in how the American managers before 1998 got cars from a computer screen to a production line in an industry-leading eighteen months.

There are a lot of people demanding the heads of the auto execs of the Big Three. What no one acknowledges is that the execs who killed Chrysler are named Juergen Schrempp, Dieter Zetsche und Wolfgang Bernhard. They escaped with their skins; I guess just because they live in Stuttgart, instead of Auburn Hills.

FREELIBERTYPAC.COM RELEASE: Obscene Assault on Erotica

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.