no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

What Part of “Public Servant” Don’t You Understand?

August 27th, 2011

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is allowing his personal opinions (as an opponent of legalization) to interfere with his obligation as a public servant and elected official. Ostensibly, he is in office because of the people who voted for him (via the Detroit Free Press).

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals was declared a statewide precedent by Attorney General Bill Schuette, an opponent of the 2008 voter-passed law legalizing marijuana for medical use.

“The court made it clear that these dispensaries, these pot shops, have to be closed down,” he said.

As a result of the recent ruling, dispensaries throughout the state shut their doors. The unlucky ones were raided by law enforcement and several people were arrested. There have been several robberies carried out on these establishments thus far, perpetrated by law enforcement officers and now backed by the Attorney General’s opinion, acting in direct contravention to the will of the people they purport to “serve and protect”.

Unfortunately for the people, Attorney General Bill Schuette doesn’t give a damn about them, he is more interested in flexing his political power to support his own agenda.

If my ire sounds familiar, it should. I said essentially the same thing about Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, over three years ago.

It is simply not excusable for any public official to publicly campaign against the will of the people, nor to direct policy in direct opposition thereto.

Doing so ought to be considered an immediate and irrevocable act of resignation; as they are demonstrably unfit for their duties as public servants if they are unwilling to at least tolerate non-violent activities that were overwhelmingly approved by the public. And yes, if you’re keeping score, a 60-40 margin is overwhelming.

Mr. Schuette, the people have spoken and they have essentially mandated the exact fucking opposite. You don’t get to tell the people what they want. It’s the other way around.

So either do your job, or quit.

 

 

 

 

LulzSec is On YOUR Side

July 21st, 2011

I read an article about the recent breach of NATO by LulzSec, which is the latest battle, if you will, in an ideological war between governments who rely on lies, secrecy and fear, and activist hackers who want to expose these criminals for what they really are.

But where the article was good, the comments were abysmal.  One shining example of unthink was MidWestMom’s  exhibit of a brainwashed person’s thought process (these are the people who vote to elect the criminals, so it is no wonder we get what we get).

Doesn’t matter what information the hackers found….their actions are illegal. They knowingly & purposefully committed a crime…

…[W]e should consider the age-old question: Does the end justify the means? If we answer Yes to that question, aren’t we equally as guilty in the crime? And doesn’t that indicate our standards are just as low as those who work to destroy our rights, our government and our country. How can we demand our government adhere to our laws and our constitution if we ourselves condone selected violations of the same?

Setting aside the double-standard and non sequitir, this is not about whether “the end justifies the means” (but if you’re keeping score at home, yes, sometimes it does), the real question is whether we have the right to challenge unjust authority.

The people who are “working to destroy your rights”, your enemies, are in ur guvermint makin’ ur lawz.

When they have taken away or diluted the legal means to challenge their authority, when in courts they have stacked the deck against the common man, in favor of their own interests and those of their lobbyists, when they ignore the rules intended to bind them in our service, the only available means of recourse are by process of elimination, “illegal”.

The LulzSec, WikiLeaks, Anonymous, etc., these organizations are on your side.

In Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn frequently cited a Russian proverb:

If they’re not fucking you, don’t lie down and ask for it.

Well it’s a little to late for that because they’ve got the opporunity and they’re taking full advantage of it. Naturally, the people who are fucking you have created “laws” and “rules” to establish the “order” which ensures you will always be the fuckee and they will always be doing the fucking. And although it may not always be prudent to resist, it is by no means wrong to resist, no matter what their law says.

If you can’t make that distinction between what is right and what is legal, then you deserve whatever fucking they decide to give you.

 

 

Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in America

July 19th, 2011

As the old saying goes, “Desperate times call for desperate measures,” and there are few times more desperate for a majority of laborers living hand-to-mouth, than being put out of work en masse. Adamic’s well-researched, but surprisingly easy-to-read Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence In America demonstrates the desperate side of the labor struggle which is rarely, if ever, taught in classrooms.

Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence in AmericaAs strikes and “riots” are often portrayed in the media as unprovoked violence against the employers or scab workers, and haphazard destruction of the employers’ properties, Adamic will not let the reader ignore that in many (most?) cases, it is the the monopolists and the concentrated Big Business who are directly responsible for the opening salvo (i.e., hired thugs to bust the strikes, agents provocateurs, corrupt politicians, etc.). He also notes that while many attempts at labor organizing were demonized and even prosecuted as illegal interference with commerce, etc., the duplicitous nature of the American legal system often ignored equally heinous interference with commerce when done on behalf of organized Big Business.

Dynamite also presents a fairly compelling argument as to why organized laborers believe in a “right” to their jobs, which if you accept it, means that scab laborers would be guilty of violating that right and to some degree deserving of reactions as would any common criminal who violated you otherwise. This was an argument I had not previously encountered, but and it was definitely an “Aha!” kind of moment when I picked up on it.

Adamic is unabashedly anti-capitalist, so his character descriptions tend to favor the champions of labor, and make the enemies of labor seem characteristically repugnant. That said, he keeps a fairly even keel and is not afraid to highlight labors shortcomings, infightings, especially weak leadership, a “We’ll get ours and damn the rest” mentality (which he condemns as a byproduct of capitalism) , failures of the AFL as well as the politicking and racketeering scandals which plagued early labor organizations and it would seem, doomed them for the future.

Although Adamic does not explicitly endorse “dynamite” as a means to achieving labor’s goals, I think he is without a doubt sympathetic to its use; at least under certain desperate circumstances the majority of which cannot be blamed on the working classes.

If you’re a left-leaning libertarian or a big-L libertarian of the American persuasion, or even fancy yourself an “anarcho-capitalist” then this book will definitely give you pause to reconsider some of your positions. Otherwise I’d recommend it for anyone interested in the history of the American labor struggles, or anyone looking for an alternate account of this history.

Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence In America is available via Amazon.com.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics