Author Archives: Chris Byrne
Ron Paul, The Republicans, and the “Hidden Support”
Doctrinaire Libertarians always assume that:
1. They are right, without question (after all, their perfect doctrinal system says so).
2. It is so obvious and intuitive that they are right, that there must be a huge but silent majority that agree with them entirely.
Thus, their anointed representative in the Republican party MUST have huge reserves of previously unseen support, the polls are inaccurate, they aren’t measuring all the libertarians, he’s ready for a surge blah blah blah.
Ron Paul never had anything more than a snowballs chance in hell. I agree with him on most things, but his stance on 9/11 and the war alone put him (and almost every other doctrinaire Libertarian) into the “would vote for McCain first” zone.
For anyone who knows me, that is as stinging a rebuke as I could possibly give without resorting to vulgarity; or invoking a Clinton.
Let me make this even clearer. I like Paul, I respect him, I agree with him on far more issues than any other candidate; BUT FOR HIS POSITIONS ON THE WAR AND 9/11 ALONE, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM.
Do you know how many MILLIONS of people out there feel exactly the same way?
Funny enough, unlike the phantom Paul supporters, those people aren’t hidden; they’re the ones campaigning for Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson… or misguidedly supporting Romney because they think that somehow he’s electable and at least better than McCain or Rudy.
I can’t stomach Paul for president AND I’M A LIBERTARIAN FOR GODS SAKE. I MIGHT vote for him over Hillary; but I’m more likely not to vote in such a contest.
Does this not put any lights on over anybodies heads?
The support you seem to believe is there?
It isn’t.
The agreement you seem so sure is there?
It isn’t.
The surge you seem to think he’s going to make…
Do the math.
And “The System” Rolls On
So, it’s been over 100 most days for the last month and a bit, with some massive wind and dust storms… generally not the most pleasant outdoor environment, and like many Arizona residents we’ve neglected our yard a bit.
Note, I said “a bit”; here’s the total weed growth since we last did the weeds in March(the dead branches are damage from a series of severe wind storms over the past couple months. We’ve been waiting for the trees to recover a bit before trimming back; and the desert scrub grass at the base of the trees is there ON PURPOSE):
Today we received a notice from the city of Scottsdale, demanding we remove the “Excessive weed growth” from our “desert landscaped” front yard by Sunday, or face a $2000 fine.
WHAT!
Well, first of all, they call THAT EXCESSIVE?
WTF Over?
Not only that, but a $2000 fine?
We’re not talking about some anal HOA here. Our house was built in 1953, long before the unholy institute of unlawful prior restraint, the home owners association, was an itch in Satans scrotum.
No, this is the city of Scottsdale…
Now, I thought something was a bit fishy about that; so I started looking at city ordnances etc… and there is nothing that says they can levy a $2000 fine for weeds. The only thing I can find is a “blighted property” statute where they can charge you $2000 for allowing your property to fall into a dangerous state of disrepair or abandonment.
Sooo, they’re going to declare a property “blighted” because of (and I counted them) 29 small weeds, mostly right along the edge of concrete.
Yeah, Ok, that’s really gonna fly. Obviously, if I took them to court then I would win; but seriously, who’s going to do that? Hell, just to take them to court, I’d have to post the fine, AND fees penalties and costs in escrow before hand.
So, grumbling, we go out in the 102 degree sun and pick the weeds. Then we notice a bunch of other folks outdoing similar things.
It seems that every house in the neighborhood got some kind of a violation notice.
Our neighbor got a notice saying he would have to pay a $600 fine for not having his house number posted properly so that it was visible from the street…
Only the house number is PAINTED IN 8″ HIGH LETTERS ON THE CURB IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
Not only that, but it’s also on his mailbox, which is on the side of his house facing the driveway. He has a set of numbers on the side facing the street as well, but one of the numerals had fallen off during a recent windstorm, and he hadn’t fixed it yet.
This one was flagged because it was a “fire hazard” because “emergency services may not be able to find the address in case of emergency”.
Did I mention that every address in the city is in the cities GIS database, which is GPS linked to all city vehicles, and emergency services?
We talked with him (a great guy actually. A rastaman in his early 50s who’s been here for 20 years. He and his wife have a beauty salon a couple miles away, and a bunch of grown kids), and he says a few days ago a guy from the city was around looking at everyones houses, and didn’t leave ’til he found violations on everybody. Then this morning he went around posting notices.
So, what would have happened if we were gone on vacation for the week?
This is your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen. bureaucrats have to justify their existence after all, or they could be downsized (unlikely, but hey, it could happen). Thus, they drive around every neighborhood in the city, and search every house and yard for some kind of violation.
I guess if here are no violations, then obviously they aren’t doing their job; so there have to be violations.
Just like lawmakers have to make new laws… because after all, they are lawmakers right; if they arent making laws then they aren’t doing their jobs…
…right?
But what about when there AREN’T any violations, or no more laws are needed?
Of course THAT would never happen, because there are ALWAYS more laws to make, and the laws are written so that EVERYONE is a violator, no matter how they try not to be; because the government cannot control you if you aren’t guilty of something.
So everyone is guilty, and the system rolls on
…and more bureaucrats are hired, and more attorneys, and more prosecutors, and more officers… and the system rolls on.
Because that’s what systems do. They perpetuate themselves. They create work, to ensure that there is always work. They increase work, to ensure they can always increase their empires. They justify work, to ensure they will always increase their budgets… and the system rolls on.
Perhaps this is a radical proposition…
I was reading Michael Bane today, and he noted something that Sandy Froman (outgoing NRA president) wrote:
I’m not the only one who’s feeling a bit queasy as Parker makes it was to the Supreme Court. This from my friend and former NRA President Sandy Froman, writing in World Net Daily:
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court finds that the Second Amendment only grants states a collective right to arm National Guard units, then the consequences for the gun-rights movement could be disastrous. From that moment forward, Second Amendment rights for private citizens would be in serious jeopardy. Gun ownership could become a privilege, not a right (unless you live in a state where the state constitution contains a right to bear arms provision.)
Many millions of Americans, especially those in the middle of the political spectrum, tend to defer to the Supreme Court on constitutional questions. When the Supreme Court speaks on a matter, they tend to trust in its judgment and authority.
Right now, over 70 percent of Americans accept that the Second Amendment gives individual citizens the right to own private firearms. But if the Supreme Court were to say otherwise, you could expect that number to plummet. The next generation of lawyers, scholars, academics and even judges would all be taught as they were growing up that there is no constitutional right to own a gun. These people would shape public opinion and educate those coming after them, until eventually the percentage of Americans believing in the individual rights view might only be 20-30 percent of the population.
Frankly, I think I would rather see Congress strike down the D.C. law, which would automatically negate Parker…either that or have one more card-carrying conservative Justice on the high court.
Maybe I’m worrying needlessly about teh Court, probably the consequences of living with a lawyer for a long time.
It is important to note, the constitution does not GRANT us the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, any more than it GRANTS us the right to practice our religion.
We have these rights inherently, as free men.
No law, or court ruling, or amendment can take away my right to defend myself, by force of arms if necessary; and I will actively resist the enforcement of such a law against me, with violence if necessary.
I am no second amendment absolutist. I recognize that violent felons, through their actions, have lost their right to bear arms. I recognize that people who are intoxicated or insane should not have access to arms. I believe that there should be limitations on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; and there should be storage and safety requirements for high explosives and poisons.
What I will not allow, ever, under any circumstances; is the government to disarm me without just cause; and no law arbitrarily disarming the populace could ever be just, under any circumstances.
There are 70-80 million gun owning household in this country; perhaps as many as 200 million people with guns in their homes. If only 1% of gun owners feel as I do thats at least 700,000 active resisters, perhaps as many as 2 million… and somehow I think it’s more than 1%.
The entire United States armed forces, and every cop in America couldn’t do it.
I’m no conspiracy nut, or separatist, or exilist or milita crazy etc… I’m a veteran, a husband, a father, a churchgoer and an upstanding member of my community.
I took an oath to defend my country, and my constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I intend to do so. Anyone who would pass or enforce such a law has become a domestic enemy of my country, and my constitution.
I WILL kill to defend my rights; and your rights; and everyone else’s rights. I will kill cops, I will kill soldiers, I will kill politicians; I will kill anyone who attempts to abrogate our fundamental rights in such a way; and I have no reservations about dying in the process.
Some things are worth dying for.
I am no radical; I simply recognize that the first step to mass extermination is disarmament; it has been in all cases in recorded history, and will continue to be so. History did not magically disappear, and change human nature with it, when world war two ended. The only proof against mass slaughter, genocide, and democide is an armed and educated populace. It always has been, and always will be.
I am not advocating the violent overthrow of the united states or it’s government; but I tell you right now, if the supreme court decides that we don’t have the right to bear arms in our own defense, against any who threaten us; then the second American revolution will be a heartbeat away.
Now, what I don’t understand, is why this is thought of as a radical proposition. To my mind, we should all feel this way.
“There Oughta Be A Law”: A conversation with someone who just doesn’t get it
A few months ago, Arizona passed a statewide comprehensive smoking ban in all work places and public gathering spaces excepting those that earn 51% or more of their revenue from tobacco.
Essentially, as of May first, it will be illegal to smoke in public in Arizona, except on the sidewalk (away from bus stops), in your own car, in a private club, or at a smoke shop. Whether this law will then encompass the trend and new alternative to cigarettes, vaping, we don’t yet know. However, it’s safe to say for the likes of the Volcano vaporizer that isn’t portable, these laws won’t restrict such a product, as it will more than likely be within a private home or a smokeshop.
My wife and I went to a casual Mexican restaurant in Scottsdale for lunch today; and when we asked to be seated they asked us the normal question, “Smoking or Non-Smoking”. A bystander said “Ahh no more smoking as of May first thank god”.
I answered “Non-Smoking”, and then I turned to the gentleman who had spoken and said “Well sir, I don’t smoke, and I would prefer to not have people smoke around me, but this law is a bad thing”.
The gentleman responded “Why’s that?”
“Well sir” I replied “It’s a violation of property rights”.
“Property rights? How can it be a violation of property rights. I just don’t want people smoking around me when I eat”.
“Sir, It’s a question of self determination. A private property owner should be able to determine on his own, whether people can smoke on his property or not. If the government can tell you that people can’t smoke on your private property, they can tell you anything”
“Ok” he replied “I understand what you’re saying and I agree with it as far as it goes; but I don’t want people smoking around me”.
“Well sir, then you should choose non-smoking sections” I countered.
“I do; but why should I have to put up with other people smoking around me at all?” he asked; seeming genuinely puzzled how I (as a non-smoker) could disagree with him.
“Sir” I politely and patiently explained “It’s not your property, it’s not your decision; or the governments for that matter. If you don’t want people smoking around you, you can always go to restaurants that don’t allow smoking. If it is profitable for restaurants to make such restrictions, then they will do so”.
“Some of them already do, and I don’t see why they all shouldn’t”.
At this point I’d given up on the idea that the person could see the problem with what he was saying, but I gave it one more effort responding with “Why should the government, or you for that matter sir, decide what a private property owner can do with his property?”
“But smoking is bad. I just don’t like it. I don’t want people smoking near me”; was his final argument (actually his first, final, and only argument).
He just didn’t get it. He didn’t understand why the government shouldn’t step in and force a private property owner to do whatever HE personally wanted them to do. He thought it was entirely reasonable that his preferences should be made into law, and should infringe on the rights of the property owner. As far as he was concerned, because he didn’t want people smoking around him he ate, then no-one should ever be allowed to smoke in a restaurant.
As we were about to be seated I turned and made one final statement: “Sir, d’you know what the most dangerous words in the English language are? ‘There oughta be a law'”
