When The Government Does It, Apparently It's Not Illegal...

Remember that movie Minority Report? Remember when the very thought of stopping "pre-crime" was a philosophical quandry for science fiction--an unrealistic and tangential thought experiment that looked at the nature of crime and guilt? Well, that notion is fiction no longer, though they are sure to tout its scientific nature. New trespasses on our freedoms brought to you by our very own imitators of stormtrooper (the real ones, not these cheeky front-handed references) fashion, the New Jersey Police. Apparently fascist fashion isn't the only thing they seek to imitate. The next logical step? Perhaps telescreens in every home to give those criminals nowhere to hide? Of course, with the current state of the legality of wiretapping and (soon to be also) web-monitoring, do they really need them? And where is the ACLU on this? Where are those "valiant defenders of our personal liberties" when we really need them? As usual, they are absolutely incontinent in defense of those liberties.

Now, for those of you who say that, alright, there may be a use for this technology in limited circumstances, or that at the very least, it will stop violent crimes that would otherwise happen, I ask you, at what cost? Can our consciences contain innocent people being wrongfully charged? And even if such an event could be proved to be a limited number among many true crimes (a statistic which, under this type of "enforcement" would be impossible, by the way), can we have an acceptable ratio of innocents being treated with injustice? And beyond this, let us not forget the very problem with "precrime" in the first place, if you haven't commited a crime, even if you were going to commit that crime, and they could somehow prove that you would have, how can you be charged as guilty of that crime? And because no one but one's self can judge intent (and even then not with absolute clarity), how can some leering government enforcer judge your intent through what is effectively digital peephole? It goes against the very idea of justice, regardless of the fact that stopping someone from committing a crime should necessitate that they not be charged with committing that crime. That is, unless we are actually contemplating making it a crime to "look like a criminal," in which case, we might as well just hand the government the keys to our homes and tell them to arrest anyone that they decide disagrees with them, because free speech can look mighty "criminal" and seditious to those who are drunk with the power they've been given over us.
And if this was not enough reason to be outraged at this offense to liberty, let us remember how Minority Report ended. In the end, it was not the innocent people incarcerated, or the fact that no murders had been committed under precrime's "benevolent" watch that destroyed the institution, it was the fact that the very system that prevented murder for the general public was used to cover up murder committed by the man who was put in charge of precrime. To give someone the power single-handedly enforce the law is to give that very person the means and power to break that law with impunity, and the more power given to enforce, the more power that person will have to disregard and disobey. I will leave you with what is to me one of the most telling scenes in the entire movie.

Lamar Murders Danny
Minority Report — MOVIECLIPS.com

Earlier today, lewrockwell.org shared a youtube video which I found very, very telling, so I thought it worth sharing here as well. Ah! The wonders of the internet! But onto the video; it has to do with the notion of "soaking the rich" for all the national debt and constant deficit our Supreme Leader(s) deem it wise to pile upon us. It's not long, and is very insightful. Feel free to comment extensively.

Intellectual Property

In response to SOPA, PIPA and some discussions I've had recently about the problems of online piracy/copyright infringement, and what it means to actually "steal" someone's "intellectual property," I thought it would be handy to link to a number of articles and resources which I've found largely effective in explaining the intricacies of the situation better than I could. Of course, they're from a point of view generally favourable to my own, but what else can you expect? I never claimed to be unbiased.

First is a mises.org article that approaches the problem from the stand point of an economics/price issue. 

Second, is another Mises.org gem, in this case a wiki article that looks at what a world without intellectual property would look like. Doesn't sound so bad, does it? In particular, pay attention to the literature and music sections in the article, as I think that is where some of the most astounding examples can be found in favour of a deregulated market of so called "intellectual property."

Third is an article by Jeffry A. Tucker that looks at the supposed benefits of copyright and other intellectual property laws and shows the danger of falling into the common way of thinking.

And fourth, if you're really interested in tackling this subject head on, here is a modern classic (book), by N. Stephan Kinsella, available FOR FREE in PDF form at mises. Fitting with its free availability, it is entitled "Against Intellectual Property," and is a good, quick, and incisive read. Fifth, I give you a brief history of the notion of Intellectual Property (I promise you, it is likely not what you thought), over at GNU.org, by Richard M. Stallman. It's very short, and also a very easy read, but is very to the point.

And as a bonus, if you want a really detailed explanation of intellectual property, and why it needs to be rethought, here is a video lecture by Stephan Kinsella.

I hope these have been helpful in some way. If you already agreed with a No-IP point of view, perhaps these articles and videos have been affirming, and if you're not convinced yet, hopefully you have found these at least mind-opening--showing that the issue is at the very least more complex than it is made out to be by those who stand to gain from this being seen as a clear cut problem.

The Cost of a Dream

I guess I shouldn't really find this that surprising, but it certainly is a sad commentary on the state of intellectual property that perhaps the most iconic speech of the previous century is not only not free, but is so restricted that it is even kept out of documentaries regularly. Via motherboard.vice

Walter Block: Jews for Ron Paul

A couple weeks old now, but still well worth listening to:

Some really good stuff in here. Particularly, in regards to Israel's ability to defend itself and America's supposed role as Guarantor: " There are those who will say, 'But wait, America is a Guarantor.' Why don't we ask the South Vietnamese what sort of Guarantor the US is."

Omnipotent Moral Busybodies

A quick quote to think about on this NH Primary day:

"If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. . . . In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They ‘cash in.’ It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science. . . . Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. . . . The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.

. . . .

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

-C. S. Lewis, from God in the Dock

Rick Santorum, the Statist

In case any of my conservative friends feel as though Rick Santorum is a viable "limited government" option, please just watch this. In his own words, he is for government interference.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1Gwwmm-cQxU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks to "The Judge," Andrew Napolitano and his show "Freedom Watch" for this clip.
Whenever someone I know says they feel like they have to go with one of the candidates the media and republican primary has anointed as acceptable (ie, anyone but Ron Paul), I almost want to say "Just for God's sake, don't vote for Santorum." But then I catch myself, and remember, they're all this bad. Santorum is just tactless enough to admit it. So, to my Conservative friends: Please, please please don't vote for any of these Republican Sirens who will say anything to get your vote! Vote for someone who isn't going to mouth exactly what you believe and then do the opposite when he's in office, vote for someone who will actually be for smaller government, even if his foreign policy isn't your exact position. Unless you aren't actually for smaller government either, in which case do whatever you want. Of course, if you feel like you cannot vote for Paul, my suggestion is not to vote at all (at least in the primaries). It's your right. And at least you won't be bringing us another four years of tyranny at the hands of whatever party clone is chosen next.

US Interfering in Spain?

I guess it should no way be surprising, but the US government is blackmailing Spain into joining in the new "SOPA-esque" paradise that we are about to enjoy so much. Essentially the message is "Get on board or suffer the consequences."

Is there nothing our leaders think they don't have a right to control?