Stand by for Police Brutality

When Cop Watching isn't enough

So many times when you watch a police brutality video or see a report of it in the news you see or hear about witnesses that stood and watched the entire event, some even capturing it on cell phone cameras. One thing that always stands out to me is that no one intervened to keep the officers from inflicting more injury or death to suspects. I understand the fear of involving yourself when in the midst of police making arrests, but at some point the thought has to become, "Will I just stand here and watch these cops beat a man to death?"

Eric Garner's death in New York City, caught on cell phone video, had many people as witnesses to police using tactics that ended up killing the man, but yet they stood by and watched. Helplessly, many say, people are forced to watch acts of savagery and murder at the hands of police, but why? Is it fear? Is it a sense that police are suppose to be a force of protection and service to a community. Is it the sense of authority that people dare not question police policy, procedure, or practices. Who were the police protecting in Garner's case? He was selling loose cigarettes; untaxed, singles to customers and passerby's.

Why didn't the story that a man who was close to the incident was able to save his life by intervening in the attack surface? Because it didn't happen. Multiple people sat by and watched it happen.

The same is true of a woman beaten by a California Highway Patrolman. A motorist stopped to record what was happening but made no move to actually stop the law enforcement officer from assaulting the woman. And again recently with an officer who is seen striking a homeless man who was not resisting the officer with any force.

I do commend those that film these altercations and abuses,I feel that Cop Blockers and Cop Watchers have added a great deal into the issue of abuse and corruption by law enforcement, but I also feel that we need to move past just filming and start intervening when we see these abuses.

Explaining Libertarian Bumper Sticker Philosophies

There are numerous short sentences and chants that come from libertarians. Most of them simple and direct but even the most simple in terms seems to get lost to some. So I am here to help work out what these few slogans for libertarian minded folks mean. To do this I will throw out my own definitions well as link into others who have written on these topics as well.  

End The Fed

This was a favorite of the Ron Paul followers (myself included) for almost the entire 2012 campaign. It is the title of a book authored by Dr. Ron Paul in 2009 and a position that Dr. Paul holds adamantly. To many outsiders (outside the libertarian mindset) it is a chant that holds very little weight as they may not comprehend the entirety of what the Fed is and what it does.

In brevity ending the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States would return money to a competitive and harder to manipulate tool of the economy. When the US Government needs money it borrows these electronic 1’s and 0’s from the ledger (with interest added) of the Federal Reserve, this debt is then sold by the Fed to foreign and domestic investors. The money supply is manipulated by the Fed by the practice of Quantitative easing and artificially held interest rates.

Paul says,”Inflation is the most vicious and regressive of all forms of taxation. It transfers wealth from the middle class to the privileged rich. The economic chaos that results from a policy of central bank inflation inevitably leads to political instability and violence. It's an ancient tool of all authoritarians. Inflating is never a benefit to freedom-loving people. It destroys prosperity; feeds the fires of war; & is responsible for recessions. It's deceptive & addictive, and causes delusions of grandeur. Wealth cannot be achieved by creating money by fiat. Depending on monetary fraud for national prosperity or a reversal of our downward spiral is riskier than depending on the lottery. Inflation has been used to pay for empires since ancient Rome. And they all end badly. Inflationism and corporatism engender protectionism and trade wars. They prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself for the predictable events and suffering that result.”

Source: End the Fed, by Rep. Ron Paul, p.134 Sep 29, 2010

End The IRS

The Internal Revenue Service, should be the most hated Government Bureau in existence, but it is anything but. It is actually one of the most protected and ideological inconsistent stances most American’s have. In essence most people want taxes, they feel they need taxes, they will in some cases say that one tax isn’t needed or warranted but will mostly follow it up with a new tax or higher tax somewhere else. It is this inconsistency that many libertarians try to remedy with the statement to Abolish the entire administration and codification of taxes across the board with no repentance. It is not an tenet of a free people to be forced to fund that which they see no value or that which they oppose on moral or other reason. Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation wrote in May of 2013, “One might propose to remove the government’s arbitrary power by ending tax exemption. But that would make the tax burden worse. And besides, politicians aren’t likely to agree, because they would be giving up the power to dispense favors that manipulation of today’s tax code affords.There’s a better way to go that’s demanded by liberty and justice. Since taxation is nothing less than the confiscation, under threat of force, of what belongs to productive individuals, it has no place in a free society. In other words, everyone should be exempt from income and other taxation. (Americans lived without income taxation for more than 125 years — except for ten years beginning during the Civil War.) If something can’t be accomplished through consent, contract, and cooperation — without aggressive force — we should ask whether it is worth doing.When the income tax was first proposed in America years ago, opponents always had the same word of warning: inquisitorial. How right they were.”

End The Wars

What can be said negatively about wanting to end all wars, but then there are some that would call us crazy and maybe we are, but if peace for all people isn’t worth the effort than nothing is. War is the most brutal display of nationalism and imperialism that this world has ever, and I hope will ever know. It is not the wish of every man to be at war with his neighbor as well as extended neighbors of the world. And it is not the wish of these men that they be pulled into a conflict of governments, to kill and to die, in defense of a government that has made enemies in the citizen's name. In 1973 Murray N. Rothbard sat for an interview for Reason Magazine. In this he responds, ” The State thrives on war – unless, of course, it is defeated and crushed – expands on it, glories in it. For one thing, when one State attacks another State, it is able through this intellectual bamboozlement of the public to convince them that they must rush to the defense of the State because they think the State is defending them.

In other words, if let’s say, Paraguay and Brazil are going to get into a war, each State – the Paraguayan government and the Brazilian government – is able to convince their own subjects that the other government is out to get them and loot them and murder them in their beds and so forth, so they are able to induce their own hapless subjects to fight against the other State, whereas in actual practice, of course, it is the States that have the quarrel, not the people. The people are outside the quarrels of the State and yet the State is able to generate this patriotic mass war hysteria and to call everybody up to the colors physically and spiritually and economically and therefore, of course, aggrandize State power permanently.

Most conservatives and libertarians are very familiar with – and deplore – the increase in State power in the American government in the last 50 or 70 years, but what they don’t seem to realize is that most of these increases took place in giant leaps during wartime. It was wartime that provided the crisis situation – the spark – which enabled the States to put on so-called "emergency" measures, which of course never got lifted, or rarely got lifted.”

With the call for the ending the wars the next point comes in...

Bring The Troops Home

It is well enough to call off the brutality and futility of war, from every angle, but yet another libertarian bumper sticker position is the return of all troops to their home countries. This is a call that comes from a few different angles. On the financial conservatism side it is not a strong position to say you oppose increased spending or taxation, and at the same time call for spending on the placement of military peoples or machines, bases and outposts. All of this of course comes with an enormous cost. The United States spends approximately $250 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets, and bases overseas. That includes the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the rebuilding afterwards as well as foreign aid to other nations.

From the standpoint of anti-imperialism one would have to look at the impact of having a base in every country and wars in many that do not yet have permanent residence. There are many that say that America is not Imperialistic but defined by the Merriam-Webster it makes the standard short saying true. Webster’s Definition : “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly :  the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence”

And of course with bringing the troops home the wars would naturally have to end and production could be diverted back into domestic consumables and international tradables instead of weaponry and foreign ventures.

End The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs, signalled formally by President Richard Nixon in 1971, has been the most costly war ever waged directly on the people of the United States. Costly not only in the monetary waste of enforcement but also in the lives ruined and ended in an effort to punish the decisions and behavior of the people. The War on Drugs is essentially by proxy a formal war of the freedom of people to harm them own self without harming any others. It is a war waged in suburbs, cities, towns and municipalities across the country and around the world. One of my favorite writers on this issue is Laurence Vance, he has written extensively on this subject and always seems to point out the obvious in new ways. An article published in August of 2011 laid out one of the best breakdowns of why the war on drugs is such an absolute failure in the effort to curb use or proclivity of possession and sale.

“ The war on drugs is a failure. It has failed to prevent drug abuse. It has failed to keep drugs out of the hands of addicts. It has failed to keep drugs away from teenagers. It has failed to reduce the demand for drugs. It has failed to stop the violence associated with drug trafficking. It has failed to help drug addicts get treatment.

But the war on drugs has also succeeded. It has succeeded in clogging the judicial system. It has succeeded in swelling prison populations. It has succeeded in corrupting law enforcement. It has succeeded in destroying financial privacy. It has succeeded in militarizing the police. It has succeeded in hindering legitimate pain treatment. It has succeeded in destroying the Fourth Amendment. It has succeeded in eroding civil liberties. It has succeeded in making criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Americans. It has succeeded in wasting hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. It has succeeded in ruining countless lives.

Clearly, the financial and human costs of the drug war far exceed any of its supposed benefits. Clearly, the drug war violates the Constitution and exceeds the proper role of government. And clearly, the drug war is a war on personal freedom, private property, personal responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, and the free market.”

These are but a few examples.

All the one liner responses and bumper sticker philosophy libertarians share do have meaning behind them and if we are to effect real change we need to be prepared to expose that true meaning of what we are saying. Making sure those we interact and conversate with are left with more than just a vague slogan of what libertarianism is is vital to growing support and cooperation for these goals. If people don’t know what you support or why you support it they cannot make a connection and start to bridge their own beliefs to yours.

Why Can't I Criticize Soldiers?

This week has seen the absolute pinnacle of nationalism and War Drum parades. All because of a movie, based on a soldiers life as he continued on an invasion of property and the killing of other human beings. My own view of it is to be critical of the act of War and the actions of those who were part of it, not everyone will share in this idea. Some will vehemently attack anyone who dares question the acts of soldiers. 

So I question: Why is it acceptable to criticize the act of war or the given reason for war, to criticize the politicians and Presidents who contrive the wars, but it is not acceptable to criticize the soldiers, who ultimately perform the actions in war? Why is it seen as unsavory or in the responses I usually get "unpatriotic" to criticize a person who has decided to cast off morals and principles, even religious doctrines, to do unspeakable things because they were ordered to do so?

I asked this question on my Facebook page and the responses varied from Emotional attachment, Mental Conditioning, Cognitive Dissidence and even it can be seen as a personal attack. I do agree with these answers but I add two more of my own; Nationalism and the Subjective View of Life and Foreign Ethnicity.

Personally I think the answers Emotional Attachment, Mental Conditioning and Cognitive Dissidence all go hand in hand. The mental conditioning that comes from what I wrote about last week; the War Culture. From the earliest of childhood all the way through the teenage years and into adulthood being inundated with images of war, compulsory deification of the war fighters and justification for their actions.It is almost mandatory to glorify the soldier and all that he does.
With slogans like "they are fighting for your freedom to say these things" and  " if it weren't for the troops we would all be speaking German/Arabic" (Whatever language the native speakers use in the particular region the military is engaged in at the time) Flag waving ceremonies, and recitation of the pledge of allegiance and the singing of the national anthem everyday for schoolchildren and even a host of other venues for those not in the schools. With that conditioning though comes the emotional attachment and in time the cognitive dissidence.
Of course we could include the point of Nationalism in this theory as well as it is the point of the conditioning and indoctrination to subvert any thought that the particular piece of ground you have been cosmically placed upon at birth is superior to all others and that all actions by the government or it’s military are somehow justified under the pretense of National Security or some other vague catchy slogan.

Cognitive Dissidence is a psychological term that refers mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. It is in this area we see the backlash from speaking against or questioning the acts of soldiers, politicians and leaders who act in immoral ways or inhumane ways. Though it seems that more people have an issue with the criticism of soldiers rather than politicians or even the given reasons for war.

After all of these I think another aspect to be looked at is the subjective value of life and of different ethnic groups. Everything in life has a value attached to it by every individual, that value is subjective to each of us, and even the value of life cannot escape this process. The mental conditioning and Nationalism that is taught aims to place in the minds of individuals a value of one life over that of another based on where those certain people are located and the relationship between the governments they live under. We have, in the past, seen this subjective value lead to horrendous things as apartheid, slavery and genocide. We have seen it again and again lead to wars between people. It is this that I find the most dangerous aspect of nationalism and of the kinds of conditioning that is taught. Ethnic differences do exist in this world and will exist in this world until the day some men can justify to the rest that a reason exists to eliminate the differences. We have seen it in the past and I fear we will see it again in the future.

Images like this is why I believe there is room for criticism

The last reply was that of “some may see it as a personal attack”. It isn't a personal attack, it is criticism of the persons actions being moral or immoral, humane or inhumane, justifiable or unjustifiable, and it is exactly this criticism that needs to take place in order for the person and the public to see that no matter what uniform you may wear, no matter what orders you receive, you ultimately make a decision to do those actions and if those actions in any other setting are to be seen as immoral, illegal, wrong, inhumane, or atrocious, they should be seen the same way regardless of orders or uniform.  

This should not be taken as a general attack on soldiers. There are many who serve in the military that do not perform these acts, and there are some that refuse. Some countries military's actually give this instruction to their soldiers. "A soldier has the ability to refuse any act that can be seen as inhumane or immoral and report the officer who voiced the order to him." With that ability comes a choice, they can or cannot perform this or simply let it go and do as they are told.

It is a shame, I believe, that we cannot have a rational discussion on these matters without the name calling and shunning of the critic, without the threats of violence. It is a lack of logical thought that has led the world to wars, genocides, apartheid, slavery, segregation, holocausts, and the widespread demolition of native ways of life and indigenous peoples. We need to stop with the fear of criticism, and a stop needs to be made by those that justify atrocities with nationalism or government service and orders. The actions that take place that lead to barbarity and cruelty will never come to an end if we are silent about them. If we do not speak up and call out the inhumanity that is taking place it will forever continue.

Some further reading in the field of Psychology in relation to this issue.

The Milgram Experiment  sought an answer to the reason why people will perform functions or actions when ordered to do so by someone they see as authority, if authority has been placed in them, and when the responsibility for the results of their actions has been removed or placed into the hands of someone else. It is a fascinating psychological study.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.

In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch Paradigm were a series of laboratory experiments directed by Solomon Asch in the 1950s that demonstrated the degree to which an individual's own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.

Recently VeteransNewsNow.com released this story of the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Where US service members would engage in sodomizing Iraqi boys in front of their mothers and other women. It is this kind of treatment that causes such concern for what these soldiers mental states are that they would engage in this brutality. You cannot just sweep this behavior under the "for your freedom" rug.

9/11's Legacy of Lost Liberties

Originally from the Opinion page of The Chattanooga Times Free Press. Authors name was not present. This is not an original work of mine.

"Eleven years have passed since al-Qaida used a band of box cutter-wielding terrorists to the attack the United States. Many people will take a moment to reflect on what America lost that day in Lower Manhattan, at the Pentagon and in a field in southern Pennsylvania. Far too few, however, will consider what was taken from us as a result of that day, not by terrorists, but by our own government.

America's losses on 9/11 were staggering. Gone were 2,996 lives, $100 billion in property, the New York skyline as we knew it and the sense of security that Americans enjoyed. All of those loses were brought on directly by al-Qaida and its 19 hijackers.

But the losses didn't end there. Americans lost liberties. We lost privacy. We lost trillions of dollars. In many ways, we lost any reasonable claim of a limited, constitutional government. And all of those things were taken, not by a group of hijackers, but by our own government.

In the days following 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., declared, "the era of a shrinking federal government is over."

Shortly after the attack, Schumer's prophesy became reality. A new era of big government was born in the wake of 9/11 that continues today, with no sign of shrinking.

---

The new era of big government can be tracked back to a 14-month period between September 2001 and November 2002. During that time, government launched the War on Terror, ratified the Patriot Act, founded the Transportation Security Administration and created the Department of Homeland Security.

On Sept. 20, 2011, George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, sparking military operations that have, to date, sacrificed the lives of 6,594 Americans and will ultimately cost taxpayers approximately $4 trillion, according to a report by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

Later, in an 18-hour period on October 12, 2001, both houses of Congress rammed through the Patriot Act. The act imparted the federal government with a disturbing array of new powers, many of which fly in the face of the United States Constitution. For example, the Patriot Act allowed the government to:

• Force records custodians, such a libraries, schools, social work institutions and Internet service providers to turn over records to the federal government without explanation or justification.

• Seize assets from charities, even without probably cause.

• Require the release of records from telecommunications and financial services companies without any court order.

• Spy on citizens using a Cold War-era statute designed for tracking the covert activities of Soviet agents.

• Imprison American citizens without proper due process.

On Nov. 19, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration was born. The bureaucracy, best known for harassing and molesting travelers in airport terminals, not only cost Americans a total of $60 billion since 9/11, but a number of lawsuits are winding their way through federal court claiming that the TSA's screening tactics violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

If that weren't bad enough, the TSA is also bad at doing what it was designed to do. The TSA is responsible for allowing 25,000 security breaches, according to House subcommittee on National Security chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

A year later, in November 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. Since it's founding, Homeland Security has cost taxpayers nearly $700 billion. The cabinet department has spied on Americans, been engaged in inappropriate data mining on American citizens and illegally intercepting mail. In addition, a Homeland Security database meant to track people who are considered threats to national security has been filled with members of groups that comprise about one-third of the American population, including pro-gun, anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-Second Amendment, anti-war and Tea Party activists, according to information compiled by the Cato Institute.

---

It was bizarre and disturbing when the government's response to 9/11, one of the biggest failures in the history of government, was to implement even more government.

Since 9/11, and largely as a product of the government's response to the terrorist attacks, the federal budget has doubled from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to $3.8 trillion today. To put it another way, in 2001, the federal government spent $6,752 per person in America. This year, the government will devour $12,090 for each American.

In fact, as hard as it may seem to believe today, the federal budget was balanced in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus left over. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 2012 budget will finish $1.1 trillion in the red.

The price tag of the federal government's response to 9/11, including domestic spending and the War on Terror is now estimated at over $5 trillion, according to The Fiscal Times. This money came from the pockets of taxpayers -- and will continue to for years to come. It also came from lenders, such as China, and from the printing press, which led to a devalued, inflated dollar.

The sheer number of people constituting the federal government workforce has grown dramatically, as well. From 2000 to 2012, the population of the United States has risen 11.7 percent. Over that same time period, the number of federal workers (excluding U.S. Postal workers) has increased from 1.78 million in 2000 to 2.21 million in 2012, or 24.2 percent.

Perhaps the worst result of government's response to 9/11 was the total disregard for Constitutional rights resulting, not only from the aforementioned Patriot Act, Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, but from the precedent that these bureaucracies set. Rights have been removed, rejiggered, ignored and trampled to the point that the Fourth Amendment has become a historical footnote, rather than an ironclad restraint on federal powers.

---

In the weeks and months after 9/11, it was poplar to declare "the terrorists did not win" as Americans returned to daily life, as if the American lifestyle was the reason for the attack. But it wasn't.

America wasn't subjected to terrorist attacks because America had too much liberty or too many freedoms. It wasn't because America was too rich or too powerful. The attacks, according to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida masterminds behind the terrorist attacks, were due to the U.S. military and economic sanctions against Iraq, the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia and America's support of Israel.

In that sense, the terrorist did not win. America has continued to trip over itself to defend Israel, even when Israel is the aggressor. The age of expansionist American foreign policy is still alive and well. In fact, the 9/11 attacks led to military action which cost a total of 300,000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to numbers compiled by OWNI, a French media website. In the terrorists' attempts to make U.S. to become more limited and less intrusive in its foreign policy approach, it's fair to say they lost convincingly.

But Americans have lost, too. That loss didn't come to terrorists or to radical Islam. That loss came to our own government.

The government has done what terrorists never could: take away freedoms, privacy and Constitutional rights that were fundamental to what it means -- or, more accurately, what it meant -- to be American. Government has multiplied in size and exploded in scope. It has taxed, borrowed and spent until it is forever impossible to restore federal spending to what it was before 9/11. While America was not defeated by 9/11, American principles have been beaten to death in the 11 years since.

While terrorists and American principles both lost badly in the wake of 9/11, there is one undisputed winner: big government."

The Real State of the Union

President Obama gave his 7th State of the Union speech  last night, January 21st 2015. After hearing these speeches year after year, president after president I have come to see them not as projections of what the actual state of the nation is, but rather an advertisement for things the president thinks he did well,

“ ...more of our people are insured than ever before...”

Well yeah, they kind of have to be, remember you made them criminals if they didn’t buy insurance.

Not mentioned in last nights remarks is the reality of the real state of the union.

What about the National Debt?

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2015 at 06:03:20 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 319,850,520

so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,565.23.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012!

Or maybe the amount of new regulations?

A little over 75,000 pages of new burdensome and restrictive regulations were imposed on US businesses. Each one a hinderance to the growth and expansion of businesses.

No mention of the prison population.

More than 1.57 million inmates sat behind bars in federal, state, and county prisons and jails around the country as of December 31, 2013. Many from victimless crimes.

We could go on with the rising tax rates, poverty levels, inflation, wasteful spending, the drug war, real wars and their destructive nature, the rate of returning soldiers committing suicide, the rate of bankruptcy and homelessness, the NSA…. And so on and so on.

The State of the Union has become nothing more than promises of future action and commercialization of past actions, not to give a statistical breakdown of how the nation is functioning.

Afghanistan War is Officially Over: The Take Away

13 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 1 day

The Afghanistan War is finally over at least in the sense that there will no more US combat missions for the time being. The take away from this ordeal is trillions of dollars (US) have been used and 2,356 American soldiers have died.  This is not to mention other nations service members that that died in combat. And it does not include the thousands of service members that commit suicide every year, an average of 22 per month in the US. These numbers do not include the medical costs to injured troops and the care they receive after injury. This does not include the pensions and retirements received by service members either. 

In September of this year (2014) a Bilateral Security Agreement was signed by the US and Afghan Governments allowing the US to continue funding, arming and training the Afghan Security Forces for another 10 years. 

"The deal stipulates long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and access to numerous bases and installations in the country, including facilities located in Bagram, home to the notorious U.S. military prison. The pact does not detail the exact number of U.S. troops to remain, but Obama has previously stated he plans to cut U.S. troops down to 9,800 by the beginning of 2015, then cut that number by half at the end of next year, with further cuts slated for the end of 2016. As of earlier this year, there were approximately 50,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, 34,000 of which were American." Writes Sarah Lazare, staff writer for CommonDreams.org

Also from that article.

According to Peter Lems, Program Officer at the American Friends Service Committee, "That's one of the biggest problems with the War on Terror since September 11: these wars don't end," said Lems. "We have this crazy situation where we have undeclared wars and, perhaps because of the nature of undeclared conflicts, it's easy to look at them as dissipating but never-ending."

The deal also allows the U.S. to pursue "counter-terrorism" missions as long as they "complement" those of the Afghan military and "authorizes United States government aircraft and civil aircraft that are operated by or exclusively for United States forces to enter, exit, overfly, land, take off, conduct aerial refueling, and move within the territory of Afghanistan." Critics warn that the stipulation is likely to allow the U.S. to continue its covert drone wars against the region, including neighboring Pakistan.

Under the agreement, the U.S. is to play a critical role in "advising, training, equipping, supporting, and sustaining" the Afghan military, as well as "developing intelligence sharing capabilities; strengthening Afghanistan’s Air Force capabilities; conducting combined military exercises." Many warn that "training" is in fact cover for holding onto bases and other geopolitical footholds.

According to Lems, this provision sets the conditions for long-term U.S. domination. "To have the U.S. fully fund that apparatus will lead to dependence, but also encourage Afghan officials to use force and violence the way the U.S. has," he said."

So while the US has decided to pull out a large proportion of the troops in the country, this deal allows more to stay and the continuation of the funding and arming of this foreign army. It also allows immunity to US forces still in the country. This is a hotly contested aspect of the US presence in Afghanistan. Since the beginning of Afghan campaigns US service personnel were granted a certain immunity to crimes against Afghan civilians, including murder. With an estimated 21,000 civilians killed since operations began it seems immunity is getting it's use. Sadly.

So the take away on Afghanistan is this.

The US has put it's citizens into deeper debt with it's central bankers. It has made millionaires of designers and builders of machines that maim and kill. It has subjected it's citizens to death in the name of war. And it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

From Minarchism to Anarchism

When asked in an interview Walter Block gave a list of 14 essential reads for the minarchist to follow into anarchist philosophy.

His list.

1. Block, Walter. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91—99

2. Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199

3. Heinrich, David J. 2010. “Justice for All Without the State.” The Libertarian Standard, May 6

4. Higgs, Robert. 2009. “Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now.” August 20

5. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23

6. Kinsella, Stephan. 2009. “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism.” August 20

7. Long, Roderick. 2004. “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections”

8. Molyneux, Stefan. “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives”

9. Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?” July 7;

10. Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; Free Online Version

11. Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982] The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. Free Online Version

12. Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy), Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

13. Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books

14. Tinsley, Patrick. 1998—1999. "With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95—100;




For the interview transcript including links to these works see here. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block165.html

Glenn Greenwald's "No Place to Hide:Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State

I was doing some online shopping today and was looking to buy a copy of Glenn Greenwald's newest book
No Place to Hide:Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. I had previously read his book How Would a Patriot Act? and thought it a thought provoking expose on the National Security Agency, the powers of the US and world governments ability and audacity to spy on every person on earth. So looking to buy his newest publication I approached it from a non-skeptic. But before I hit enter to purchase a new book for my own library I wanted to see what others had thought of his work.

It is marvelous to see the enlightenment that has come about in the past 8 years or so. My own philosophy has developed and changed, my skepticism of government grown to resentment and anarchism. To cast away the last remaining chain to hierarchy and outside governance takes a full deck of honesty with yourself about what you see and what you allow to be seen, it take diligence to not sweep the facts or evidence under anyone's rug. To be quite honest it takes a keen mind to develop the mindset that the government, any government that is forced upon people, used to subject those unwilling to its rule and its laws, to be taken by theft your personal wealth, to beg and clamor for freedom only receiving licenses and regulations, dos and don'ts, laws and mandates, it undoubtedly too large, too cumbersome and too tyrannous. It isn't a partisan issue, but a moral dilemma. One that must be faced headstrong and sooner rather than later. It is one large stand the citizens of the world MUST make to remain free in their own privacy, at least as much as is left to be.

I read the comments left by readers of this new book. It was uplifting to see that others see what I see, they believe what I believe, they think as I think.
Just some quick samples of the reviews left me with no doubt that this was a book I NEEDED to have in my collection.

The blurb on the book, the short details of what await the reader was fascinating...

"In May 2013, Glenn Greenwald set out for Hong Kong to meet an anonymous source who claimed to have astonishing evidence of pervasive government spying and insisted on communicating only through heavily encrypted channels. That source turned out to be the 29-year-old NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and his revelations about the agency’s widespread, systemic overreach proved to be some of the most explosive and consequential news in recent history, triggering a fierce debate over national security and information privacy. As the arguments rage on and the government considers various proposals for reform, it is clear that we have yet to see the full impact of Snowden’s disclosures.

Now for the first time, Greenwald fits all the pieces together, recounting his high-intensity ten-day trip to Hong Kong, examining the broader implications of the surveillance detailed in his reporting for The Guardian, and revealing fresh information on the NSA’s unprecedented abuse of power with never-before-seen documents entrusted to him by Snowden himself.

Going beyond NSA specifics, Greenwald also takes on the establishment media, excoriating their habitual avoidance of adversarial reporting on the government and their failure to serve the interests of the people. Finally, he asks what it means both for individuals and for a nation’s political health when a government pries so invasively into the private lives of its citizens—and considers what safeguards and forms of oversight are necessary to protect democracy in the digital age. Coming at a landmark moment in American history, No Place to Hide is a fearless, incisive, and essential contribution to our understanding of the U.S. surveillance state." Taken from the Amazon store page for the book.

And then a sample of the comments...

"It is 4 AM and I have just finished reading, in one sitting, the Kindle download of a book that I only intended to skim because I thought that I knew the full story. What was compelling was encountering the courage and decency of this whistleblower and that of the few brave journalists willing to honestly tell his story. That and the justifiable contempt for those in the housebroken media and compromised government who felt the need to besmirch the character of those willing to bear witness to crimes that almost everyone else in a position to know chose to ignore. The result is a page turner survey of just what the Snowden leaks tell us about the creation of the modern surveillance state and a reminder of the deep wisdom of this nation's founders in insisting on the Constitution's Fourth Amendment. This is a brilliant book that you will want to pass on to that neighbor absolutely convinced that the hollowing out of liberty has made us safer. Glenn Greenwald reminds us just why the Guardian and Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in publishing the documents that Edward Snowden made available and how outrageous it is that his effort to inform the public of attacks on their freedom has left this brave young man a hunted fugitive." From Reader Robert Scheer

A comment by a man only noted as Tony.

"A brief note before you purchase this book:

This is not a book written for the purpose of telling you the US government is watching your every step and every move, everyone knows that. And the author did not waste time replicating news articles you've already read through the media outlets. I finished this book within 5 hours, and thought it was well written and well worth your time.

Greenwald, one of the original journalists who revealed Snowden's leaks last year, did a remarkably good job on going over the history of U.S.'s surveillance tactics. In his new book, No Place to Hide, Greenwald briefly goes over his adventures/experience on meeting with Edward Snowden and revealing US's NSA surveillance program. Greenwald explains the difficulties and obstacles that were involved before the story went live, mostly by reluctant lawyers, and news agencies such as NYT and Washington Post. For those curious, Greenwald also explains in detail the true intentions of Edward Snowden.

Later chapters of the book reveal Greenwald's opinion on the recent NSA leaks, and his classification of US as a surveillance state.

Keep in mind that Greenwald was previously a columnist, and his writing style of a columnist is clearly seen throughout the book. This is not merely a book with facts, but a book with opinion, with logical and concrete evidence that not just the U.S., but other state actors are well, are progressing into what George Orwell wrote in his infamous 1984 novel (Orwellian state).

Greenwald ends the book by warning the consequences involved as we progress into the Orwellian state and the issue of journalists not being journalists, but being government puppets instead.

This is a highly recommended book for those who wish to read into detail one of the biggest government leaks in the history."

And then there is this from Reader "Jono"

"This has to be one of the most important books ever written -- a gripping, first-hand account of the events leading to the unveiling of the NSA's vast data collection program, chilling details of the program itself, the dangers posed by a world without privacy, as well as an indictment of the current state of journalism which serves to amplify government's message rather that to serve as its watchdog.

No Place to Hide is an absolutely fascinating read, occupying the intersection of politics, journalism, espionage in the digital age, and the sacrifice of our 1st and 4th amendment rights in the wake of 9/11 to paranoia and the the pursuit of hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts to "collect it all".

It's nothing less than astonishing to see the difference between the talking-head celebrity journalists who overpopulate our media outlets and parrot the usual talking points, and the truly courageous reporting of Glenn Greenwald. This book is required reading for anyone who aspires to be an informed citizen and serves as a cautionary tale of how fear and secrecy can be leveraged to steer government in ways that would never stand in the light of day."

There are many many many more comments, 607 to be exact at the time of this posting. Most of them praising the writer, Snowden and all the players in the attainment and distribution of this information. But there are, without any disappointment, those that defend the actions of the governments in their roles as what George Orwell author of the futuristic tyrannical novel 1984 calls them "BIG BROTHER".

I will be adding this book to the bookshelf very soon and will review it upon completion. 

America Does Not Have A "Free Market Capitalist" Economy

I say quite often that America does not have a Free Market Capitalist economic system and sometimes the befuddled looks I get from those that hear this provokes them to question what I mean by it. The answer is simple and can be broken down into two parts, the two definitions of what is being asked.

"What is a Free Market?" and "What is Capitalism?"

The answers to these two questions together with an understanding of the current mode of economic activity gives a clear indication that the statement, "America does not have a Free Market economic system" is true.

So what is a free market economic system?
Free Market principles point to an economic system where business are unfettered by regulation, licensing, special fees and taxation, a system where all manner of salable goods are on the market without prohibition or exclusion. It is a system where the buying habits of those consumers would drive the manufacturers and distributors to produce or stock items that were valued by customers and discontinue or remove goods that have lost favor or marketability and sales numbers. This provides that customers are able to actually drive the economy by their buying habits and wants, without the interference of an outside entity.

This would of course be in contrast to the current system of high regulation, increasing taxation, special licencing, educational requirements and so on the American system is plagued by. Economists who advocate this idea of unfettered markets, also see that allowing prices and wages to form naturally and the availability and manufacture of goods to lie in the interest of those who have the capability to produce and the want to produce in trade for profit is a nearly unfailing concept in the ways of maximum efficiency of producers as well as maximum favorable market conditions for consumers.

With this some may say that the deregulation of businesses will (could/would) lead to businesses being able to skirt environmental concerns, livable wages, price gouging, and so on. In response to this one can argue on the case of environmental concerns that the information that a retailer or manufacturer was damaging the environment, the consumers voice could be heard by lowering or altogether abandoning or boycotting the product, manufacturer and retailers and distributors. When profits and sales decrease a signal is sent that certain practices are not favorable or condoned. This is the aspect of "market self regulation".

On the issue of wages. Wages should be set by employer and employee. If in the scenario an employer is offering too little pay the potential employee can ask for more or refuse. By no means should the wage of any person be determined by anyone other than the laborer and the job provider. In the system we have now wages are set by government decree, in an attempt to make a fair wage government actually provides yet another hurdle for a prospective employee to jump in order to gain employment. If the set wage is too high for the business, they will refuse to hire. Minimum wage laws also hinder the ability of these businesses to adjust wages based on experience of each employee, there is always a floor that they cannot overcome. Again a control on the level of wages offered by businesses is not a Free Market principle. It is a system of control.

Pricing controls work similar to wage controls, being that wages are prices and vice-versa, it stands that any interference in the marketable value being set by someone other than the seller negates the definition of free market practice.

So what is Capitalism?

Capitalism is defined many ways depending on the social structure lense those defining it look through. To make this easier we can go with two differing opinions, one from Wikipedia (which I use because of it's high use of editing from other editors) and then a definition from the website WorldSocialism.org (including this one because it highlights the idea that the word has different meanings depending on who you ask and how they define it).
According to Wikipedia Capitalism is "is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.  In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."  This is the definition, or close to it, that most non socialists agree upon.

With this definition in mind we can see that there are a large number of businesses and services that are not privately owned, ran, or funded but are so called public services and are controlled by government, whether county, state, or federal, and are funded through taxation instead of consumerism. This leads me, to say that we may define America as a mixed economy, but definitely not a pure Capitalist economy.

According to the website WorldSocialism.org though Capitalism is something to be feared and abhorred based on their claim of worker exploitation. The definition they detail is,"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)"

They go on to say,"The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money by selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labor market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."

And with this in mind we can ask the socialist this question, "isn't the worker also a capitalist, as they value their time and effort less than the wage they are paid? If they did not value the wage more than the time or effort they would not work, as in a socialist society, goods are given freely based upon need and taken based upon production, or better said by their economic muse Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This proclaims that no matter how productive you are, your effort is only for the benefit for the others who wish not to work or do not perform as you do. What incentive does that leave to work hard, or even harder? What incentive does that leave to work at all? What incentive does that leave to create, to innovate, or to improve upon goods? If there is no benefit for someone to excel at a good or service it will be done at a minimum speed and quality.


With that being said we can look at the American economy as a partial capitalist economy and a partial socialist economy. There are many areas that the State has complete control over production or service. Roads, Schools, Protection Services, Old Age Insurance are a few of the largest and easiest to see. In that the capitalist is still beholden to government entities in order to start or continue in their business. We can also see THAT is in no way a "free market" system.