Senate Passes New Hate Crime Legislation

From today’s Dallas Morning News, the Senate voted Thursday to extend the definition of “hate crimes” to include those against homosexuals – specifically, crimes committed on the basis of the victim’s gender or sexual orientation, but I doubt anyone is thinking of crimes like that against Jesse Dirkhising. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) described the measure with the words “Orwellian” and “thought crime.”

A senator saying something insightful is uncommon, but hate crime legislation is an obvious example of thoughtcrime. The accused is no longer convicted for just an act of violence, but for doing so with the wrong thoughts. Consider, the word “hate” in “hate crime” is redundant – who has ever robbed, assaulted, or murdered someone they admire? Merely increasing the severity of punishment isn’t a likely rationale, either, since I would guess (though I know assumptions are dangerous) that juries are more likely to recommend longer prison sentences, or capital punishment if that’s available, for particularly brutal or malicious crimes anyway. Increasing the severity of a crime’s maximum punishment is possible, but that would likely raise the punishment to a level beyond just compensation for the offense – though I wouldn’t put it beyond Congress to do that – and cases of homicide are already a capital offense.

Why, then, is hate crime legislation necessary? I can think of two reasons.

The first is mentioned in the DMN: the new measure would “give the federal government the authority to prosecute violent, anti-gay crimes when local authorities failed to [emphasis mine].” So, it’s another federal power-grab. There’s nothing new in that, though. The federal government has been expanding its legal (not lawful, mind you) purview to prosecute crimes for decades.

The second is to punish politically incorrect thoughts. Few civilized men (excuse me, “men or women”) would argue that bigoted attitudes are correct or anything but harmful to society; however, nobody – especially not the state – has the authority to deny someone the right to hold such beliefs, regardless of how foolish they are or how many people’s feelings may be hurt by them. If someone does commit a crime on the basis of his bigotry, let him be tried for that crime, and the judge and jury may determine how to weigh the motivation into their verdict and sentence.

So, will hate crime laws stop here? If the mere thought of racism or homophobia or whatever is so dangerous, surely the dissemination of such ideas must also be outlawed. In fact, the government’s policy would need to prohibit these dangerous thoughts outright. Will an Orwellian state come into existence in the United States? Perhaps not, but if it does, then hate crimes seem a likely entry point.

Review of Ron Paul’s “End the Fed”

If you haven’t yet bought a copy of Congressman Ron Paul’s latest book, End the Fed, why the hell haven’t you? Everything our favorite Republican does garners a lot of attention these days, so I’ll keep this review brief.

Congressman Paul covers a lot of ground in a fairly short book; the shady founding of the Federal Reserve, the threat of fiat currency to a free society, the case for a gold-backed currency, and the Fed’s role in creating the current economic crisis, among other related topics, are discussed clearly and concisely, all in layman’s terms. To those already familiar with Austrian Economics, or even libertarianism or (traditional) conservatism generally, most of this material will already be familiar, and those well-versed in the topic can, honestly, safely skip over the book. However, as an introduction to what is arguably the most dangerous single institution in the United States, End the Fed will prove and invaluable tool for those who have not paid much attention to such seemingly arcane topics as monetary policy.

So, buy a copy for yourself, read it, donate a copy to your local library, give a copy to all your friends and relations. With the possible exception of Murray Rothbard’s What Has Government Done to Our Money? (which is available here for free), this is the best introduction to the case against fiat currency I’m aware of, so take full advantage.

Census Bureau Cuts Ties with ACORN

Good news via today’s Dallas Morning News – the Census Bureau has cut ties with ACORN. Why the Census Bureau even considered such an organization is a good question, but at least the still problematic census is a little less odious now.

Christian Libertarian Blog Carnival

A good resource I found via LibertarianChristians.com – Christian Libertarian Blog Carnival. It links to several excellent articles, so check it out.

Are Mandatory Vaccinations Upcoming?

Mandatory vaccinations against Swine Flu have already been planned for members of the US military, and as the Obama Administration increases the budget for civilian Swine Flu preparations speculation abounds that vaccination may become mandatory for civilians as well. The World Health Organization has already recommended such a procedure should the virus turn into an epidemic and its recommendations are mandatory for member States. From section 1.5.1 of this 2005 WHO document:

During a pandemic, it may be necessary to overrule existing legislation or
(individual) human rights. Examples are the enforcement of quarantine
(overruling individual freedom of movement), use of privately owned build-
ings for hospitals, off-license use of drugs, compulsory vaccination or im-
plementation of emergency shifts in essential services. These decisions
need a legal framework to ensure transparent assessment and justification
of the measures that are being considered, and to ensure coherence with
international legislation (International Health Regulations).

Exactly how “existing legislation or (individual) human rights” are to be overruled within a “legal framework” is left unsaid.

Now, at first glance, such immunizations may seem wise, but problems soon appear – some obvious, like the logistics of such an operation, and the fact that such speedy development means that such an innoculation has not yet been thoroughly tested – and some less obvious. Such mandatory vaccination is plainly unconstitutional, of course, but the implications are wider than that. The main implication is that American citizens are public property.

If that seems like a stretch, consider: by what authority may the state compel a person to do something? If a man is truly sovereign over himself, then no one has the authority to order him to do anything.* That the state ultimately rests on force, meaning the threat of fines, imprisonment, capital punishment, and the like, renders its authority uncivilized, and, frankly, illegitimate. Actually, income taxes have the same assumption – that the state has a claim to the products of your labor, not much different from how a slaveowner claims the product of his slaves’ labor.

———————————–

*I am excluding, of course, divine authority, since the creator of a thing has a claim of ownership over it, and that would include the Creator of all things, but only the most devoted followers of our Dear ObaMessiah would claim that the state possesses a power of that magnitude.

Karl Marx, the 2010 Elections, and You

As a little exercise today, how about taking a look at the the federal government’s guiding document? No, not the Constitution, but the Communist Manifesto. If you think that’s just alarmism, consider that a quick web search for the “ten planks of the Communist Manifesto” yields a long list of results, almost all of them detailing how each of the ten planks are already at least partially, if not fully, in force in the United States. They vary in quality, of course, but go ahead and read a few. The best that I’ve found is this one by John Keller. Keep in mind that Keller’s commentary is about eight years old, and Marx’s vision has only been further advanced in that time.

Now, I don’t believe everyone in the federal government is consciously advancing a Communist agenda (though I have no doubt that a few, at least, are), but that does not excuse those who, for whatever reason, well-meaning or not, have aided the state down the Marxist, or at least collectivist, path. Perhaps it’s simply that the nature of a state is to increase its power. Perhaps over 50% of Americans are just stupid enough to vote for “change” by voting a for party that’s been around for over 250 years, and the rest are too unprincipled to realize that the “lesser of two evils” is still evil. Political campaigns have already begun for the 2010 elections, and once again I’ll beg my countrymen: please do not vote for Republicrats, or at the very least, do so only with extreme caution.

The Road to Serfdom

In a step up from Glenn Beck, I recently finished Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, first published in 1944. Since mankind, at least in large numbers, seems incapable of learning from past experience, Hayek’s 65-year-old commentary on how Fascism (and Stalinism) are not deviations or perversions but natural developments of the collectivist mentality common among socialists is still relevant, and well worth reading. I have less to say about Hayek than I did about Beck, since Hayek is more thorough in his analysis, but will add a few comments stemming from his book.

Occasionally, (American) conservatives are made fun of for seemingly believing that fascism and communism are essentially the same thing. I found it interesting, then, that Hayek did not draw a strong distinction between the two collectivist philosophies. Rather, he points out that they are two variants of the same socialist tradition. Communism is obviously an outgrowth of socialism, but Hayek also spent some time demonstrating the socialist roots of National Socialism (why so many would be surprised that the National Socialist party would have socialist tendencies is another discussion).

As the United States travels (or is dragged, in some cases) toward a centrally planned economy, with its central bank, heavily regulated (and now partly government-owned) industries, and highly regulated and possibly soon-to-be nationalized health care, we also move increasingly toward a totalitarian state. The Rule of Law, which applies equally to all men, and is fair because it does not discriminate, is replaced with an arbitrary government which must make increasingly specific decisions on what is to be produced and how goods are to be distributed. The United States probably will not end in Nazism or Stalinism, but our destination is nonetheless much closer to fascism than to the Classical Liberalism that informed many of our founding fathers (and Hayek himself).

One further comment on fascism, as it applies to the modern United States: no lesser authority on the subject than Benito Mussolini once commented that “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” It’s not difficult to see how this applies to the US, given recent experience with General Motors, long experience with the Federal Reserve, and the influence of corporate lobbyists in Congress. What we see here is not capitalism, but rather a reinstatement of the privilege that Classical Liberals fought against. Under the Rule of Law, anything Congress does should effect all men equally, and nobody gets special privileges. Instead, the federal government leans towards fascism and arbitrary rule in its policies.

How does the state decide who gets bailouts if their business fails? Just the arbitrary rule of Congress or the Federal Reserve, granting a privilege to these lucky few at everyone else’s expense. Is this in accord with our supposed founding principles? Or a mere arbitrary exercise in power by the state? I leave the answer to the reader’s imagination.

Review of Glenn Beck’s “Common Sense”

It’s no secret that the vast majority of the mainstream (or new, really) media’s commentators are either distractions or simply know-nothings. My co-editor refers to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as “organized opposition,” men set up by media corporations as friends of  “the people,” but who, in reality, seldom say anything of substance and certainly offer no solutions to the problems they identify.

I’ll confess that I know little of Glenn Beck; I’ve read none of his previous books, never listened to his radio show, and seen but little of his television program. Starting on his latest work, the rather audaciously titled Common Sense, I had low expectations. It does include Thomas Paine’s original Common Sense in the back of the book, though, so I dived in and was pleasantly surprised – sort of.

First, I’ll give Mr. Beck major credit for making the important point that there is no major difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties, and he makes this case strongly in the books penultimate (and best) chapter, “The Cancer of Progressivism.” He compares statements and policies from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (who has explicitly referred to herself as a Progressive) to our last two explicitly Progressive presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. This chapter, coupled with the inclusion of Paine’s original pamphlet, is enough to justify purchasing the book if you’re so inclined.

Unfortunately, most of the book falls short of that one chapter. Much of the time, I got the feeling that Mr. Beck was trying to write a manifesto, which requires some universality in its scope and content. Usually, though, this just means that he gives few specific examples, and much of what he asserts isn’t common sense so much as it’s plainly obvious, and he fails to follow through many potentially major points.

For example, he mentions once that the United States were founded as a republic, not a democracy, and that this is “not a subtle distinction.” However, he not only fails to define that distinction, but he himself refers to the US as a democracy multiple times throughout the book! Does Mr. Beck not grasp the difference himself, or was this just careless editing?

Finally, though Mr. Beck is a step above the likes of Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the critical flaw that most prevents him from being more than organized opposition is that he offers no solutions to the problems he identifies.

The problems he identifies are all legitimate, but what are we to do about it? He proposes leaving the Democratic or Republican Parties if you’re a member, voting for individuals rather than parties, and better educating oneself; this is all good, but it’s also obvious.

So, though this Common Sense may be worth a read, it ultimately falls far short of not only its Thomas Paine namesake, but also of similar works. If you’re looking for an authoritative look at the state of the modern United States, you’re still best off reading Ron Paul’s The Revolution.

ACORN-ucopia of Census Problems

It’s almost time, my dear readers, for that once-a-decade invasion of privacy, the United States census.

Now, the census is always annoying, and perhaps in its modern form unconstitutional (more on that in a moment), but this one is more controversial than normal because ACORN has been selected to help conduct the census, despite having been investigated in multiple states and the suspicious end to a proposed federal probe. Why a private corporation would be tasked with one of the government’s few (arguably) legitimate responsibilities is another question. Some have also raised concerns that, since there is a private corporation collecting so much personal information, some of what they collect may be shared to third parties.

However, there is another, deeper concern regarding the 2010 census, concerning the government’s authority to collect so much information. Again, there is a constitutional mandate for a census every ten years, but it is only for an “enumeration,” that is, a simple head count. A citizen’s race, age, income, religion, and other such information is irrelevant and unconstitutional. Actually, the whole procedure may now be unnecessary: the purpose of the enumeration is to determine representation in Congress, but since the number of representatives is now fixed, what is the point of the census at all?

Even if we grant the federal government the authority of conducting a census, in its modern form it may be expressly forbidden by the Bill of Rights. Some have mentioned the Fifth Amendment, protecting against self-incrimination, but consider the Fourth Amendment: is the government demanding to know your race, religion, and so on an unreasonable search? They certainly have no right to the information, no authority to gather so much, and I cannot think of a legitimate use of any of it. In fact, the only use I can think of would be for some sort of social engineering project.

What, then, should a sovereign American do? The Fourth and Fifth Amendments has been mentioned as a possible reason to decline cooperating with the census-takers at all, but we at America First propose the following:

Respond, but Do Not Answer

In other words, do respond to the census-takers, but do not answer directly. In its simplest form, this may involve giving nonsense answers. Taking a cue from our friends in other anglophonic countries, for example, you could record your religion as “Jedi Knight.”

A more sophisticated (more mature?) approach would be to respond with your own questions. For example, answering with “I cannot make a legal determination on this question.” If pressed, you could reasonably answer that you do not know the legal meaning of race, religion, age, or whatever else.

Regardless of which route you take, one sure way to end government meddling is for everyone to simply stop cooperating with it. Though this, like not voting, is a simple step, it could be a start. Stay tuned, as we’re planning on sharing more tactics for dealing with our intrusive government, federal, state, and local.

On Today’s Presidential Address

I just finished watching a speech given by Barack Obama, and it made me feel a need to belabor the obvious for a moment.

Regarding the recent Iranian elections, I propose that the internal affairs of a foreign nation are no one’s business but their own. Besides, it’s not as though the United States have the fairest elections in the world, either. There are effectively two approved parties that do all they can to ensure they retain a monopoly of elections, and the vast majority of the media, both the mainstream and new media, goes along with them. Though third parties or independent candidates do sometimes win elections at the local or even state level, rarely does such a candidate have a strong showing at the national level.

Obama also mentioned a favorite topic, health care. For those who support expanding national health care programs, I have some unfortunate news: we have no money. Not only is the federal governmnet broke, but it is in astounding levels of debt.

As I’ve mentioned before, there comes a point when one must conclude this man-made disaster of reckless spending is intentional. Surely nobody, not even politicians, can be so stupid (or Keynesian) that they think spending billions of dollars when one is already crushingly in debt is a good idea. I can only conclude that the president and most of Congress are guilty of some manner of treason, though exactly how this came about and who is ultimately responsible, I don’t yet know.