no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: American Politics

A Right Not Exercised is a Right Lost

October 10th, 2009

Justin Holmes gets “pulled over” for the non-crime of rollerblading, and rightly refuses to identify himself to law enforcement.  When asked why he’s being detained, the officer cites some local ordinance that prohibits rollerblading, which ordinance probably does not exist.

No matter, Justin’s exercise of certain rights guaranteed by the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to the U.S. constitution (and probably most State and Local legislation, too) are construed as “disrespectful”, so you see where this is probably going.  Fortunately, Justin stood his ground and shot this awesome footage to Vimeo.

(It’s a long video, Don’t show ID in New York State! so I’ve summarized some important exchanges below.)

The female officer (second on-scene) pulls out all the stops, with the “You could be a pedophile” line.

Female LEO: The reason why we ask you… thing is, why we ask that, is part of our job is to fight criminals. And we don’t know if you are, just by looking at you… When we encounter people, we gotta make sure they’re not wanted… So we run their name, it’s that simple…This particular situation is just to make sure that you’re not someone wanted, some pedophile that’s wanted, OK, that you’re not a fugitive of justice. [Justin has refused to present identification] We have to take your word for it?

Justin: Take my word for it, that’s right. In a free society, that’s right.

Eventually, I guess, they decide that there are no dangerous rollerblading pedophiles named Justin Holmes in the New York area, but he’s not going to get off that easy.  At one point, the male officer tells Justin to take off his skates and walk home without his shoes on. He asks whether he can skate on the sidewalk, and is told that he cannot. The male officer repeats, that “there is an ordinance.” Remember this lie.

Justin: I do need to know the number of the ordinance.

Male LEO: I’m not going to bother with that because I’m not going to charge you with it.

This is also very interesting, telling, actually, because SOP dictate that “disrespectful” folks like Justin are subject to additional charges like “resisting arrest” or “obstruction”.

The encounter culminates in an attempt to “run him out of town.” At this point, the officer has already informed Justin that rollerblading is illegal in the Village. He’s even said that it’s illegal to do it on the sidewalk (highly suspect). Justin says that he’s prepared to walk, to which the officer says he wants him out of town, the quickest, safest way possible—the clear implication being that Justin should skate his way out of town.

Male LEO: I don’t want you in this village. So I’m gonna be the nice guy and make it so you can get out of this village in the easiest safest and quick way, you tell me what that is…

Justin: I would like to simply skate on the sidewalk but it’s not clear to me if that’s legal.

Male LEO: Then do it and get out of here.

Justin: Is that legal?

Male LEO: I didn’t say it. Do it and get out of here. ‘Cause I really don’t want you in this village.

Justin is understandably confused, and again inquires about the legality of such behavior. The officer refuses to positively respond to Justin’s reasonably inquiries.

At 26:12 the female LEO says that it is indeed legal, very legal.

If rollerblading in the street really is illegal in Port Dick, then these officers collectively wasted about an hour and twenty minutes arguing with  someone who in their opinion was “ignorant” and “disrespectful” during a justifiable detention, and they’re simply going to let him skate his way out of town?

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the smell test: If you’re going to let the guy walk under these circumstances, then why detain him in the first place?  You wouldn’t, unless you were just flexing your badge; being an asshole just because you can be an asshole and nobody will do anything about it.

The only logical conclusion is that Justin didn’t do anything against the law, and the officers knew it.

Some people say, “Well Justin should’ve just shown his ID to the cops, this could’ve all been over in a few seconds if he had just complied.” But it could’ve all been over, in fact the entire encounter need never have occurred, had the officer simply stopped him briefly and said, “Hey kid, it’s not safe and/or illegal to skate in the street, stay on the sidewalk and have a safe trip home.”

Pax Obama: War is Peace

October 9th, 2009

The news lines are buzzing with reports that Obama was just handed the Nobel Peace Prize.  Seriously.  This is not a joke.  The accomplishment worthy of Nobel, according to the Prize Committe, is “Diplomacy” lolwut?  The full citation from the Nobel committee includes such gems as:

Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

There is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about a Statesman practicing “diplomacy”. So it seems that Obama has been literally handed the Nobel Peace Prize for the singular virtue of not being George W. Bush.

Since the deadline for nominations was only about two weeks after Obama took office earlier this year, we can surmise that he was nominated based on what he was trying to do.  Up until that point, (other than order drone missile attacks on some goat-herders in rural Pakistan) he hadn’t done a goddamn thing.  Never you mind, though.

Thorbjorn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, said the president had already contributed enough to world diplomacy and international understanding to earn the award.

“We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.” [NYT]

With no respect due this mockery, Mr. Jagland’s two sentences here are at odds with one another, and with reality. Let’s consider Obama’s record.  During the course of the past nine months, Obama has presided over the following reality:

  1. Afghanistan has not been liberated after nine years of U.S. intervention (with no end in sight).
  2. Obama’s “diplomacy” involves giving Afghanistan back to the Taliban.
  3. Obama has been escalating American commitment in Afghanistan, and today, the morning on which his Peace Prize is announced, he is scheduled to commit another 40,000 soldiers to that godforsaken quagmire.
  4. Approximately 3,000 civilians have been killed by U.S. forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan between February and August, 2009.
  5. Obama has increased the number of drone missile attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan; ordering his very first murders via drone attack in Pakistan, a mere three days after assuming the Presidency. 
  6. Obama protects war criminals, sanctioning war crimes and violating the Geneva Convention rules.
  7. The U.S. still maintains and staffs approximately 700 military bases throughout the world. [wiki]

This is by no means an all-inclusive list of actions and records, any one of which I would think, ought to remove one from consideration for any prize named after peace.  Welcome to 1984.

Taxation is Theft: Elaine Brown Sentenced to Life in Prison

October 5th, 2009

In slave states like America, production is a crime which must be remedied by onerous taxation.  Defiance is met with extortion and violence.  Case-in-point: for the “crime” of not paying taxes Elaine Brown has been handed a sentence that amounts to “life in prison,” according to this post on Infowars.com.

No matter how you slice it, in point of fact, Ed and Elaine Brown are guilty of either earning income (i.e., selling goods and.or services to people who voluntarily buy said goods and/or services) or owning/operating a corporation which does same. In reality, there are many millions of people who “don’t pay taxes” or don’t pay “their fair share”. These free-riders are variously: government employees, state-sponsored corporations (i.e., most if not all corporations), welfare victims, etc., all of whom produce nothing of any value, and therefore pay no net taxes.

The Browns, in literal point of fact, are guilty of producing. That is all.

Ed and Elaine Brown responded to the charges brought against them with “tax protester statutory arguments,” arguing in-short that the “government had not presented any law requiring them to pay income taxes.” There are a lot of statutory arguments, most of which fall under the IRS umbrella of “frivolous” defenses, which as far as I can tell means;

Many people find these defenses compelling, and we (the IRS) are sick of trying to respond to each of these defenses, therefore we label the lot of them ‘frivolous’ and deny defendants from appealing to basic human decency henceforth.

If the Brown’s statutory defense really were a sufficient defense, the government would simply draft and approve a law which required people to pay taxes on their individual wage-incomes. The flaw in the Brown’s argument is that they concede that “if there were a law” they would abide it. .

In the comments on Infowars, there are a lot of commenters saying that a tax on income is legal, as long as it’s not a tax on wages. The repeat the lie that a tax on corporate income is perfectly legit. Pore through 600 stupid comments debating the “legality” of robbery, if you want to get dizzy, for example:

Some people just don’t know the law…There is tax. Only on Corporate/Business Income. Tax on personal labor wages IS ILLEGAL

To the rest of You: Give it up, brush up on your pocket Constitution.

You, sir, are exactly wrong.

For the record, it doesn’t matter whether a tax on wages is “legal” because as a rule, the various taxes on wage-income are handled as though they are legal and case law has been adjudicated in such a manner as to render impotent the “statutory” defenses like those raised by the Browns. So it doesn’t matter if they’re “legal” or not, the law has proven powerless to uphold itself.

The only appropriate tax rate is zero, and the only real argument is not whether income taxes are “legal” but rather, whether they are proper.

No man in his individual capacity would be justified in extracting “taxes” from any other man. And what would not be tolerated of any man ought not be tolerated of any men.

I submit, therefore, that taxes are not proper, and that taxation really is theft, the substantive difference (as the saying goes) is that the thief doesn’t pretend to have your best interests in mind when he robs you.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics