By any objective standard, there’s undoubtedly a growing and determined initiative to disarm American citizens. Restrictions, taxes, regulations, and outright prohibitions continue to form a more strangling grip on the firearms industry. Those of us who value firearms for professional, sporting, enthusiast and defensive purposes naturally see the benefits of rallying to a unified cause whereby strength in numbers means a louder voice and more resources to fuel the message. For more than a century the National Rifle Association has been an effective advocate of the second amendment, but in recent years, their lack of sound, explicit principles has become abundantly clear, and will inevitably undermine their essential purpose - it already has.

Individual Rights and America

America’s founding essence is individual freedom. As correctly and explicitly prescribed in the Declaration of Independence, freedom is achieved by establishing a government that protects individual rights to life, liberty and property.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Of course, one’s right to life is the bedrock to any political right regardless of context, but without freedom and property, one really doesn’t maintain the means to sustain his life. Without freedom to think and act, one cannot take the steps necessary to gain knowledge or earn a living. Without rightfully possessing the results of such thought and action in the form of property, one cannot survive in a self-sufficient manner.

Maintenance of each of these rights logically necessitates the sovereignty of the others. If you encroach upon one, you encroach upon them all.

Does The NRA Understand Rights?

Last year, I contacted the NRA-ILA challenging their position in the Florida HB 503 decision. This case centered on an Employer in Florida who prohibited the possession of firearms by employees on company grounds. The NRA, in an astonishingly short sighted manner, sided with the employees, and against the employer - the property owner.

According to the NRA, the employer’s property rights - to determine particular policies which pertain to their legal property - were trumped by the employee’s right to life. Not only is their position presented in an anti-business hue ( phrases such as “Big Business”, “corporate giants” ) that Karl Marx would find comforting, such a stance ignores three crucial facts:

1) No individual has the right to be on the private property of others without prior consent and compliance with any predefined, mutually agreed upon terms. Those who violate this principle are trespassing.

2) Employees of a business are subject to contractual terms which may or may not subject their presence to a particular set of stipulations. An individual seeking employment with a particular employer is free to accept such stipulations, negotiate the terms accordingly, or choose to seek employment elsewhere.

3) Most importantly, the right to property is a fundamental prerequisite to the right to bear arms - arms being a specific type of property - and as indicated above, any movement that undermines property rights also erodes the right to life and liberty.

The NRA-ILA politely rejected my arguments, insisting that the employee’s right to life trumps any trespassing, contractual, or property owner restrictions - a tremendous evasion of the voluntary aspect of employment and the sanctity of property rights.

At Least They’re Consistent

I still get NRA notifications and in just a few minutes browsing the NRA-ILA I stumbled on yet another stance by this “defender of rights” which displays ignorance of the concept of rights.

This time the position is that renters should be immune to a landlords restrictions regarding firearms on leased property. From the NRA’s “Outrage Of The Week” notification:

This week’s second outrage (read about the first outrage of the week here) comes to us via Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper (D), who recently issued an official opinion that landlords can prohibit law-abiding tenants from possessing their legally-owned firearms within the leased premises of their rented apartments, even if the tenants have a valid carry permit!

…

Denying law-abiding citizens their right to self-defense in their home is simply outrageous, not to mention unfair [to whom?] and possible dangerous. [emphasis and comments added]

The error in this statement should be obvious - it’s not their home. They’re renters… leasing property owned by another individual. As such, just as in the case with employers and employees, renters are subject to mutually agreed upon contractual terms. They can accept those terms, negotiate those terms, or seek housing elsewhere. Concerning fairness, denying a landlord the right to determine their own lease stipulations would be unfair.

Without Principles, Crusades are Futile

Many people don’t appreciate my criticism of the NRA, either siding explicitly with their position or citing my observations as insignificant tradeoffs in the quest to defend the right to bear arms.

Why abstain supporting 90% of a cause over 10% that you disagree with?

My response is that adherence to fundamental principles is a vital necessity and that these errors cannot be taken lightly. That 10% strikes a root that will utterly annihilate any benefit from the remaining 90%. What good is the right to bear arms if the abolition of property rights leads to a total destruction of the firearms industry and eventually a total economic collapse? At that point, we’ll have neither rights nor guns.

Property rights are under attack from every conceivable angle in America, the two cases above included. This country cannot exist once they are destroyed. To the extent the sanctity of property rights are encroached upon, this country slides immeasurably closer to oppressive tyranny. The essence of any variant of collectivism (Socialism, Fascism, or Communism) is the obliteration of property rights in favor of collective ownership of resources. We must salvage and protect property rights at any opportunity, not toss them aside in a hypnotic “right to bear arms” stupor.

This latest issue reaffirms the NRA’s lack of principles. Without a principled ideology, any movement is destined for inconsistency and failure. I hate to say it, but with friends like the NRA, who needs enemies? They’re unwittingly aiding the cause of the groups seeking to drag America into stagnant misery.

I should be clear - the NRA has promoted and prevailed many just causes, but regardless of their achievements, even monumental ones, negligence in the realm of fundamental principles will absolutely offset and undermine their stated mission.

You can fix every shingle on a roof but if you ignore (and exacerbate) the tremendous crack in the home’s foundation your shingles are irrelevant.

Individual Rights and The Proper Role of Government

Until the NRA adopts a rational and consistent defense of the fundamental rights to life, liberty and property, they cannot be effective defenders of any other implementation of those rights - especially the 2nd amendment which relies on all three.

The purpose of Government is not to force employers or landlords to adopt rational gun policies (which can only be done by effectively communicating a rational philosophy), but to protect our fundamental rights from encroachment by force or fraud. Objective law is based on a standard to punish and preclude forceful encroachment of individual rights (life, liberty, and property); in the above cases, neither employers nor landlords were forcefully violating the rights of others. Until the NRA abstains from promoting legislation that violates this prescription, they are helping to destroy America - regardless of how honest their intentions.

I urge any of you who support the NRA to voice your concern about this blatant and potentially devastating inconsistency in their advocacy. Until they rectify such a tremendous contradiction, they cannot be justly considered as true allies of freedom or Capitalism.

I certainly hope they refine their course; we desperately need a unified voice in defense of our rights - including the second amendment.

Imprisoned over orchids…

The subtitle of the article above laments the festering state of American jurisprudence stemming from lack of an objective standard of law.

Needed: A ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness

That ‘clean line’ to determine lawfulness is individual rights. Objective law is based on a standard to punish and preclude forceful encroachment of individual rights (life, liberty, and property). If that standard is abandoned, there is no logical limit to what can be criminalized - the result is mob rule.

A mob fueled by pragmatism can rationalize prosecution for just about anything.

A recent story from Michigan depicts an egregious attempt by the state to regulate babysitting which leads to an unavoidable question: To what extent will America condone state involvement in parenting?

The victims in this particular scenario seem only to be concerned with the specific limitations of how the state can regulate child care, but the far more important question is, should the state have any say in the matter of private child-care arrangements?

When you fail to argue on principles, in favor of quibbling over superficial details of implementation, then the possibility of any objective determination of where to draw the line is discarded. Once you throw out the map, there’s no telling where you’ll end up – especially when all passengers compete for their turn to steer the car.

This is yet another symptom of America’s suicidal march into the bowels of socialized education. Once the principle (that the state has a right to our children) is conceded, there is no way to decide the proper extent. If it’s proper for Government to establish compulsory education according to their standards, why start at age 5? Why not pre-school? Why not daycare?

If parents are incapable of adequately providing intellectual guidance according to the state, why not regulate all supervision? Why allow any parental involvement? Why not seize the child just after weaning and just have the parents send in a monthly check?

Better yet, socialize it by calling it free and make it a mandatory element of payroll tax for everyone.

This Orwellian nightmare shouldn’t sound far-fetched considering it’s based on the exact premises of public education - only applied consistently. If America continues to tolerate Public Schools in principle, we should expect more and more of the above.

Children are not property of the state. In a free society, individuals properly have the right to enter into voluntary contractual agreements for child care according to their own wishes, and according to their own financial capabilities. Child care providers, like all other market entities, stand to erect or erode a positive reputation for quality care based on objective standards – those of the parent (the customer). That reputation vouches for their service record objectively.

Conversely, when the state oversees and regulates child care, that objective reputation is replaced with the subjective approval of the state, an artificial facade of quality based on subjective standards that are potentially incompatible with those of the parent.

Many parents unwittingly assume that “state approval must vouch for something!” Yes, parents should consider the conditions for childcare diligently regardless of the state, but phony state approval urges them to shortcut the process under the premise that government is looking out for them.

I’m aware of countless horrifying examples of Daycare establishments, which bear the state approved mark of acceptability, where the conditions are such that I wouldn’t leave my dog in their care. Children wander around in waste-soiled clothing, snot running from their nose, essentially unsupervised by mindless sloths chatting on their iPhone is a common sight in supposedly state-regulated facilities. Very few offer security measures which could prevent any motivated scoundrel from walking off with a child. Just like in other markets, the state regulation has destroyed the notion of an objective reputation that only a free-market can provide, and should be considered irrelevant as metrics of quality or value.

This type of intrusion should be opposed on the basis of individual rights - specifically, a parent’s right to control the education, care and upbringing of their children.

By what right can the state tell a parent or caregiver how many children they can manage effectively? Such terms are properly agreed upon by parents and the caregiver. So long as the terms of service are properly disclosed and adhered to, that agreement is sovereign.

An individual has the right to choose who, where, and on what terms their child can be cared for. The state has no moral, logical, or economical base for involvement the matter.

The role of government is to protect individual rights through the enforcement of objectively defined criminal law. In For the state to be involved with any other aspect of childcare, commercial or private, is beyond the proper scope of government.

Yep, the next chapter in the most blatant story of economic ignorance in history gets under way. Anti-trust, the American hallmark of self-destructive and senseless tyranny, is rearing its obnoxious head again - this time to aggravate Apple and AT&T.

The Department of Justice has started an informal review of the exclusive arrangements that limit handsets such as Apple’s iPhone to particular wireless communications companies, according to people familiar with the matter.

The inquiry follows consolidation in the US wireless industry that has left four operators accounting for more than 90 per cent of the country’s wireless subscribers. This has left them with the market power to carve out exclusive deals with makers of the most popular handsets, making it hard for smaller rivals to compete and leading to higher prices for mobile services, according to rivals. [emphasis added]

Hmmm, so the resources and market position that AT&T and Apple have earned should be sacrificed to the needs of smaller rivals? Only in altruist-collectivist-statist-wonderland.

Apple, as the creator and producer of the iPhone, has the right to sell it to whomever under whatever terms they choose. Likewise, AT&T has the right to distribute and market products of their choosing; also according to whatever terms they choose. In sum, Apple and AT&T have the right to work together under whatever terms they agree upon. Any law that trumps their right to do so is unjust, irrational, subjective law.

So long as a market is left free from Government intervention, new competitors will step in if prices are set higher than the market will tolerate. If AT&T’s exclusive contract to sell the iPhone is leveraged to charge more than the market will bear, other competitors like Google and Blackberry will have an opportunity to seize a share of the market. Apple’s rightful purpose in business is to make money, not to provide phones as a charitable cause. Likewise, AT&T’s purpose is to make money, not to dole out phone service to the needy. If any relationship between these two companies results in prices that are higher than what the market will bear, consumers will spend their money elsewhere.

Thanks you meddling idiots, but we can take care of ourselves - no brilliant Government intervention is necessary.

Tack one more nail in the American coffin. The rights-trampling frenzy continues with restaurant and bar owners being the latest victim burnt on the collectivist mob-rule stake as The People’s Republic of North Carolina has finally passed their precious smoking ban.

A similar attempt failed a few years back, but the statist yearning to rule by force is insatiable. This debate emphasizes the typical degree of concrete-bound, irrational thinking that consumes most of our population. If we were to extract the essentials from the average opinion supporting this law, we’d discover a criteria template that could justify any law imaginable. However, when the facts are considered, the silly, evil, and obtuse nature of this law is abundantly clear.

Relevant Facts:

1. Freedom: In a rational, civilized society, individuals are free to choose which establishments they patronize. Virtually all supposed justifications for this pathetic abuse of power evade or ignore this fact completely.

2. Property Rights: In a rational, civilized society, property owners are free to determine their own smoking policies. This is the core issue at hand.

3. Role of Government: In a rational, civilized society, the proper role of Government is to protect individual rights from forceful encroachment. Instead, this law relies on initiation of force by Government.

4. Objective Law: In a rational, civilized society, laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on an individual’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. Whenever considering any law or regulation, justice demands we ask “whose right to what is being forcefully violated?”, and if there is no clear and objective answer, then justice is not the motive at hand. In this context, where smoking is permitted by the owner and other individuals are free to leave, no one’s rights are forcefully violated.

Irrelevant Misconceptions:

“The issue is smokers vs. non-smokers…”

This issue is about the rights of property owners. The owner of a restaurant or bar has the right to determine his own policies regarding smoking. This law imposes on the property owner, not the customers. See #2.

“When you serve the public you forfeit your property rights.”


Perhaps in a collectivized, mob-rule nation ignorant of the concept of rights, but not in a free country. Individuals conducting commerce are traders - not servants. They are offering a value in the form of a product or service that other traders can choose to consume or not, depending on whether they find the value offered as beneficial in proportion to the cost. These two individuals, the traders, are the only two who should rightly decide on the details pertaining to their barter. If a consumer is unhappy with the product or service offered they are free to seek consumption elsewhere, and the seller must adjust his offering to remain in business. The only proper function of Government in the barter is to enforce contractual obligations breached by force or fraud. Any other Government intervention in this voluntary transaction is illegitimate and a violation of one or both of the trader’s rights. Only the competition of a free-market can rightly and justly promote change in the seller’s offering. In a rational and just society, this rule applies to any and every aspect of the business and barter. The fact that we’ve set precedent for such encroachment with OSHA, FDA, zoning, wage and countless other regulations does not justify yet another blatant disregard for the sanctity of property rights. See #1-4.


“Smokers don’t have the right to smoke anywhere they choose.”

This is correct, but the decision to allow or prohibit smoking is up to the property owner and no one else. See #2.

“Do you smokers have the RIGHT to harm other people just because you think it’s ok to smoke around them?”

Of course not, there is no such thing as a right to harm others, but this question evades the fact that the “victim” is free to leave an environment where conditions (including second-hand smoke, noise, temperature, food quality etc.) aren’t suitable. See #1.

“This ban is guarding the public safety.”

See #1 and #4.

“It’s a darn shame that a law had to be passed to prevent the inconsiderate nicotine addicts from spreading their disease and stench while ruining ones meal.”

If their lack of consideration offends you, you’re free to leave. See #1 and #4.




“Studies show that {insert any fact supporting the negative impacts of second-hand smoke} is harmful.”


See #1.

“An owner that accepts non-smokers does not reserve the right or choice to put the life of the non-smokers family in danger of death due to lung cancer to satisfy the addiction of a smoker.”

Their lives are only in danger if they choose to be present in such conditions. See #1.

These are only a handful of the common justifications used by advocates. As I hear new ones I’ll add them to the list along with a proper debunking.

Conclusions:

There is no just basis to support a smoking ban on private property - only emotion-driven rationalizations that undermine the rule of law, and scoff at the American essence. Objective law requires for an individual’s rights to be forcefully violated. So long as one’s presence in such establishment is voluntary, force is absent, and any legal intervention represents an injustice.

If all private restaurants and bars closed their doors (the appropriate response to this and any other meddling in business), how many days before this fascist tripe would be repealed? The first day they’d call their bluff. The second day they’d call an emergency session with expedited Governor sign-off so all the statist thugs in Raleigh would have a place to grab lunch, and this wretched idea would never be brought up again.

Do I look forward to the first Sunday morning I enjoy a completely smoke-free breakfast at Cracker Barrel? You bet I do. But, for that reality to come into fruition through an anti-American, rights-stomping, emotion-driven law is hideous. I’d rather endure smoky meals for the rest of my life to hang on to the smell of freedom than condone such a contemptible mob-rule measure. Precisely because this is happening in America, the first nation founded on justice and freedom, we truly are in the golden age of injustice.

Gun owners continue to shoot their own feet - this time in Texas.

While it may seem like a positive advancement at face value, the Texas Senate bill is an unjust effort - as are all similar measures. Any law that trumps property rights can only lead to the inevitable erosion of self-defense rights, since firearms are, in fact, a specific type of property.

When employees are hired they voluntarily agree to a specific set of terms set forth by the employer. Unfortunately, many employers include irrational guidelines pertaining to firearms on their premises, however, the sanctity of property rights demand that we respect those guidelines.

As an individual in a free society, we can accept those tenets or refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

For government to encroach upon a property owner’s wishes, within the context of a voluntary relationship according to voluntary terms, is an unjust trampling of the American essence. Telling a property owner that he must allow weapons on his property is no different in principle than telling a restaurant owner he must not allow them - both destroy property rights.

Such bills are short-sided attempts which in effect chop down the tree to get to the apple.

Well-intentioned proponents of these measures claim that employees have property rights that trump those of the employer.

…your property rights end at my car doors. That car is MY property, not yours.

It is your property, but it’s subject to my terms when you’re on my property. You are free to accept and accommodate (or violate, as I’ve done in the past), or you may refuse and seek employment elsewhere.

If you don’t want to chance what could be in your employee’s cars on your property, you have a remedy. Don’t allow any parking on your property. However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

That’s certainly one option. Or, you could rely on contract law and property rights by simply specifying restrictive covenants in an employment contract.

However, your property rights should not dictate what can be in those cars since the interior is NOT YOUR PROPERTY AND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO YOUR CONTROL.

Like I said above, if the restriction is “no firearms”, then the context is irrelevant. “No firearms” doesn’t mean “no firearms except for where you have an emotional (or even practical) justification for them”, it means “no firearms”, regardless of how you rationalize it.

Keep in mind, I completely disagree with these types of restrictions, but I’m much more adamantly opposed to using government force to counter them in a way that can only injure the cause of freedom.

Property rights must adhere to a hierarchy to some degree - a chain of command amongst voluntary participants - where each link (acting as a host) possesses the right to impose restrictions on the next (acting as the guest) according to voluntary terms.

An example of the same principle taking place one step down the chain could entail you and a co-worker driving to lunch in your car. You would be fully justified in restricting him from getting in your car with a bag of cocaine (or a copy of The Communist Manifesto) in his pocket despite the fact that the coat he’s wearing is his property. He can either choose to accept your rules, or abstain from the ride or even the relationship. What he can’t do however, is hire government to force you to allow him in your car with whatever he chooses, just because he chooses it.

I urge any freedom loving individual who values his right to self-defense to strongly oppose any legality that disrespects our rights to life, liberty or property.

UPDATED: To add thoughts resulting from the comments here.

In yet another inevitable attempt to regulate existence, thermal imaging cameras can now be used to detect any citizens who insist on using more energy than nanny-state environmentalist deem appropriate.

Thermal imaging cameras are being used to create colour-coded maps which will enable council officers to identify offenders and pay them a visit to educate them about the harm to the environment and measures they can take.

Perhaps council officers could benefit from certain education as well - namely the concepts of man’s rights to life, liberty and property, private property.

‘We do a lot on domestic energy conservation already and realised it would be useful to see if any of the homes which were particularly hot were properties where people had not insulated their lofts.

‘We were also able to look at very cold properties and think we might have picked up people on low incomes who are not heating their homes because they cannot afford to.’

This new statist weapon is not only useful in cracking down on subjective-law criminals, but also for identifying wealth redistribution targets - an egalitarian swiss-army knife, if you will.

Lib Dem group leader Stuart Beadle added: ‘Cameras are in place all over today and we have to accept them. So long as the right guidelines are in place and it will bring benefits, I think the scheme is a good thing.’

Of course, we must remind ourselves that these planes, cameras and all the logistics involved are metaphysical facts and must be conformed to as such. And, according to Beadle this is a good scheme, although he neglects to mention whose standard of value his assessment is based on. I doubt the individual who rightfully produced the wealth to pay for such technical luxuries as heat and electricity will appreciate the pestilence of government enviro-thugs offering their “friendly advice”.

Altruist-collectivist-environmentalist-nanny-statism - such is the manner by which a society implodes into stagnant misery. Hatred of life, hatred of man, hatred of wealth, and hatred of reality is the moral of this story.

The anti-freedom monkeys are in another flinging frenzy. They just can’t accept the notion that freedom enables individual variance in lifestyles. Couple this with complete ignorance of individual rights or economics and the result is their attempt to regulate existence.

I’m amazed at how quickly people will condone the trampling of others at whim. This little gem is one of the most offensive justifications I’ve heard.

Statesville resident Eric Lamberth, a smoker, said he supports the ban because he believes it would help him kick the habit. [emphasis mine]

Unbelievable - the condonement of Government tyranny as means to compensate for his lack of self-control and discipline.

Restaurants are private property. The property owners are the only individuals who can rightfully determine the smoking policies for their property. The purpose of Government is to protect individual rights from being forcefully violated. Since customers are free to choose whether they accept the smoking policies of a particular dining establishment or not - no rights are being forcefully violated. Any law that trumps an owner’s smoking policy prerogative is an unjust slap in the face of America’s essence.

Your rights end when you are unable to keep your smoke away from my nose.

Only if we’re on your property.

The typical debate surrounding this non-issue rests on a fundamental error. This issue is not about the rights of individuals to smoke, nor about a supposed “right” to fresh air; but rather the right of property owners to set the terms for acceptable behavior on their premises. There is no “right” to fresh air. The only right that applies to consumers in this scenario is your right to not be forced to be exposed to air quality that you find unacceptable. So long as an individual chooses to enter the property of others (as opposed to someone forcing them to be there) they do so under the acceptance of the owner’s terms.

This, like all economic issues, is one that a free-market would solve far more effectively. If consumer demand for smoke-free environments rose to the point where such an offering were profitable, then the market would supply such. Instead, our culture is oblivious to the concept of rights and their fundamental role in making America the most prosperous country in the history of mankind. Rights equal freedom and freedom has a brilliantly clear historical record of raising man’s standard of living. To the extent that we chip away at freedom by violating real rights in favor of supposed rights, we destroy what made America.

As Don Watkins of ARC put it:

This widespread war on smoking [sic] is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

Well said.

America’s recent Olympic mega-hero Michael Phelps is in the spotlight for apparently committing an atrocious act, one that Richland County, SC Sheriff Leon Lott finds offensive enough to consider legal repercussions.

“This one might be a lot easier since we have photographs [sic] and a partial confession. It’s a relatively easy case once we can determine where the crime occurred.” - The Sheriff

Did Phelps forcefully violate any other individual’s right to life? No.

Did he forcefully violate anyone’s right to liberty? No.

Did he forcefully encroach upon anyone’s right to property? No.

According to photo evidence, Mr. Phelps is guilty of consuming a particular substance that society doesn’t approve of.

Sure, his physical body is his property. Indeed, we are a supposed nation of freedom. Yes, his life is his responsibility.

However, America has now deteriorated into a luke-warm slosh of laws and regulations based on subjective whim. Considering how routinely our culture passively dismisses revolutionary ideas as platitudinous clichés, should there be any surprise in our betrayal of principles? John Adams’ optimistic vision has nearly met its full inversion by our continual descent towards a government of men and not of laws.

For reasons that no human can rationally articulate, our cannibalistic society has determined that regardless of where, how or when, Michael Phelps doesn’t have the right to his own body, and can only consume items which meet the state’s approval.

The arguments typically fall into two categories. The increased risk category, and the immorality of behavior category. Both are flimsy attempts to rationalize the initiation of force by Government.

The claim by the increased risk camp contends that under the influence of certain substances, an individual’s capacity to reason is inhibited, which increases their potential likelihood to encroach upon the rights of others. The statist answer is that we must mitigate this increased risk by regulating or restricting the behavior. This constitutes a wholesale violation of rights. Based on this logic, why not mandate regular sleep patterns, diet and exercise regimens and make the emotions of anger, jealousy and resentment illegal? Wouldn’t all decrease the potential likelihood that a man would violate the rights of others? If this should be our guiding premise, why not lock men in cages or crank up the slave labor camps? Wouldn’t such measures even further reduce the potential for man to offend? Yes, but doing so would constitute an initiation of force against man by government, which is contrary to both the founding principles of America and to reason and justice. Additionally, there are already numerous laws in place to punish every conceivable way an individual can violate the rights of others. Burglary, trespassing, assault, armed robbery, speeding, reckless driving, extortion, kidnapping, arson, manslaughter and murder are already codified into law. Any action an individual could do under the influence, he could do otherwise. Consistent enforcement of these laws is far better suited for a country bent on the cause of freedom, as opposed to continual erosion of man’s freedom to act in an attempt to make it impossible for him to breach the legal code.

The second, even flimsier, justification for drug laws is the claim that such behavior is immoral. When faced with this justification one must ask according to what standard of values? If the justification is based on religious tenets, which is commonly the case, we should remind ourselves that America was founded as a safe haven from religious mandate, where one was free to pursue any spiritual cause, or none at all. To introduce religious premises into a secular legal system is contrary to the essence of America. If an individual deems consumption of particular substances as immoral, they are free to abstain from such actions. They are not free to enforce that abstinence on others. Coincidentally, the notion to establish religious ethics by legal mandate is the also the root of controversial blue laws, which are clear violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding - as no valid secular justification has even been conveyed.

It stands to reason that man has the right to take any action he chooses so long as it doesn’t objectively encroach upon any other individual’s right to life, liberty or property - by force. No force, no offense. Until American culture reverts to one that considers individual rights as the cornerstone to freedom and prosperity, we’re in a steady decline towards statism - which history illustrates as a bloody and miserable path.

While I have consumed substances which subjective law would deem illegal, as a general rule, I refrain from doing so because they inhibit my ability to reason and perceive reality. To condone any initiation of force against those individuals who do choose such consumption is unjust, immoral and precisely contrary to the proper role of Government.

I adamantly wish Michael Phelps would use this episode to publicly and proudly proclaim his right to use his body as he chooses - including consumption of any substance in any amount at any time.

Put on your mixed-economy goggles for this one…

The impending conclusion is that price fluctuation is not due to supply and demand. Note the mindset of these economically ignorant cannibals confused individuals.  What distinguishes real consumers (according to their mindset) from speculators? The difference is need. They use need as their qualifying attribute of a consumer.  The extent of ones need determines their position on the right-trumping social totem pole. In the mind of an altruist, speculators don’t need the commodities the way Bob the gas station owner does, and Bob doesn’t need it the way Joe the truck-driver does. Mr. Speculator is a greedy crook trying to make a profit.  He doesn’t need oil therefore he’s not deemed a proper consumer and shouldn’t be considered in the supply/demand equation.  Speculators are merely moochers feeding off the market and pursuing their selfish ends, while driving up the price for average Joe.  What the market needs, according to the spirit of this video, is Government force via regulation.

What exactly do they think Bob and Jo are using fuel for - charity?

The underlying premise here is that Altruism considers profit as selfish, so speculators are demonized for seeking a profit on commodities futures.  Profit seeking is unjustly denigrated as a flaw in the “free” market which should be corrected by Government force. Who’s right to what are they violating?  None, but in our age of subjective-law it doesn’t matter. They aren’t adhering to the altruist-collectivist playbook, so they must be led to the sacrificial altar.  This of course leads to the fundamental error, or evasion, with this story - the implication that oil price fluctuation is not due to supply and demand, but as a distortion by those greedy speculators buying up all the futures. Speculators bid (purchase) a particular quantity of stuff. That stuff is no longer available, .i.e., supply is reduced. When supply lowers independently of demand, the price goes up. Demand means consumption, regardless of what a consumer does with a product after consuming it. Speculators, even though they don’t actually obtain the product in tangible form, are qualified as consumers just as an individual purchasing gas for and automobile. The price fluctuation is due to supply and demand, and speculators are a component of such demand.

If principles matter, we should remind these clowns who moan about the evil speculators the next time they purchase real-estate, stocks, bonds or any other investment, that doing such is no different in principle than speculating futures.

Unless one can identify whose specific right to what is being forcefully violated by speculators then there’s no legitimate justification for regulating anyone.

This is the exact pattern and nature by which every market suffers erosion and inevitable destruction courtesy of Government meddling. The speculation market is surely on the government lynching radar.