IntLib Quote of The Day

"I can't get over the "Statue Of Liberty Holding An Automatic Weapon" logo on that blog. Libertarians are so damn cute!" - Jimbob at Metafilter

The logo is a hit! Hey, Jimbob, the IntLib logo can be bought on any sort of t-shirt or knick nack at the IntLib Cafe. Link in the masthead...

Liberty Dollar Wins Grand Prize for Security Printing

It sure has been a big month for NORFED and the Liberty Dollar. First all the hoopla falling out of the US Mint's absurd pronouncement that the Liberty Dollar was 'illegal', which resulted in a ten times increase in traffic to the Liberty Dollars website, and a concurrent increase in orders.

We here at IntLib saw almost 30,000 hits on this site from the four articles we've done so far on this story (links at the bottom of this article), from over 25,000 unique individual browsers. Three of our four articles became popular hits at Digg.com, reddit.com, and have been linked to by many other sites.

Now we hear that, in an age when Federal Reserve Notes are being counterfieted at will by international criminals like the North Koreans, the Liberty Dollars printed warehouse receipt certificates have just won a Grand Prize for Document Security at the DMIA's Peak Awards 2006, to be presented at Print Solutions 2006 conference and show, October 3-5, near Chicago at Donald E. Stephens Convention Center, Rosemont, Illinois.

Now Liberty Dollar Certificate holders can be secure knowing that their warehouse receipts are using the most secure printing technologies available to the commercial printing market, to prevent counterfieting, fraud, and dilution of the money supply. Printed by Verify First Technologies and Pro Document Solutions, the certificates went up against the best printed media from around the world.

"The contest was for the whole world and it covered checks, stock certificates, bonds, gift certificates, basically everything that would need to be secure," said NORFED founder Bernard von Nothaus in a prepared release, "Just another sign that the Liberty Dollar is a winner."

Liberty Dollar University and Anniversary
This year's Liberty Dollar Uuniversity 11 will feature the latest Liberty Dollar happenings with a Meet/Greet at 6:00 PM on Wednesday, October 25 and concludes with lunch on Saturday, October 28 in Skokie, Illinois.

The Liberty Dollar celebrates its 8th Anniversary this coming October 1st and this LDU11 will be an extra good one, according to its organizers. In addition, the Annual RCO Congress will follow it on Saturday afternoon. All RCOs are encouraged, to attend the RCO Congress.

LDU11 will be held at the Comfort Inn Northshore-Skokie, 9333 Skokie Blvd, Skokie, IL. Reservations at the hotel by calling 847.679.4200. Mentioning the Liberty Dollar is necessary to receive a room discount. The conference is $200 for Associates and free for RCOs. Attendees must call the NORFED office at 888.421.6181 to make their reservations, as walk-ins will not be accepted.

Regarding the upcoming 8th anniversary of the Liberty Dollar, von Nothaus had this to say, "For those who thought we would not last 30 days... they were wrong. For those who think we will not last 30 more days... they will probably be wrong too. I sincerely do not think that it is possible to bar people from using gold and silver between “consenting adults.” Our country is nearing a crisis point, a Decisive Moment, on many fronts. It is time for everyone who believes in the US Constitution and a Republican form of government to take action... before it is too late. Please take as much action as possible. There is safety in numbers and there are a lot of people who support the Liberty Dollar as it has become the rally point for similar ideals. Let your voice be heard!"

BACKDATE:

• US MINT Claims NORFED Are Federal Criminals


• US Mint v NORFED: The legal case


• NORFED Fires Back At US MINT


• Liberty Dollar Says NO to US Mint

Barry Hess, Libertarian for Arizona Governor

The Arizona State University Web Devil has coverage of gubernatorial candidate Barry Hess, with the typical "not a snowballs chance" journalistic cynicism:

We at IntLib got to chat with Barry this evening to get his position on the issues.

Hess says that Janet Napolitano has made a mess of the states educational system, and the Republican candidate is merely Democrat-lite with some Christianity mixed in. Libertarians are really resonating with people who are fed up with the "business as usual".

"We're having a good go of it and the major media is realizing we're having an impact. Where candidates always say 'I'm god, you need me', I'm just acting as a carrier for the message of liberty."

For education, Barry will be drastically improving the public school system but not the established infrastructure. Currently 40% of students graduate functionally illiterate in AZ. Barry wants to focus on the progress of the individual students rather than building schools. He would issue a laptop computer to any Arizonan regardless of age, with access to a central testing certification program. Like New Hampshire's "Real World Learning", Hess thinks that people are capable of learning anywhere, and shouldn't be limited to government approved buildings.

Kids who cut up in class and are suspended would be responsible for taking their lessons at home via laptop. Barry would end the forced zombification of students with prozac and ritalin. He would heavily emphasize parental involvement in student progress, particularly with kids exhibiting special needs for extra attention. Parenting begins in the home, not the schools. "We need to bring critical reasoning skills back into the curriculum, enabling kids to become citizens capable of spotting the illogic in politicians."

"We used to have to teach people what a libertarian was. Now, in AZ, people want to know what the difference is between Republicans and Democrats, cause they don't see one."

Barry is confident that he will make a significant impact this year. The only people who disregard the validity of Libertarians in Arizona are the MSM and the christian fundamentalists. His campaign has received a lot of publicity and endorsements, and is expecting some major ones in the next few days.

Barry wants to roll eminent domain back to the original Constitutional basis, of using it only when a property owner uses their resources to harm another.

He agrees with abolishing all victim disarmament zones, including schools and airliners, adopting "Vermont carry". He would stop REAL ID, though both major parties in the legislature seem to be for it.

Barry would limit car registrations to $10, with no graduated fees any longer. He would, most importantly, abolish the state income tax, and defy the Federal Income Tax enforcement within the state, likely through ending the use of employers as tax agents. "We have already successfully sued against their use of notices of liens and illegal conversion, we got 20,000 notices thrown out of the county records with one lawsuit."

Barry is a dedicated libertarian of principle, who is very effective communicating the message, but at the same time good at networking with a "big tent". He has spoken a number of times at the Goldwater Center, and is best of friends with Don Goldwater, who recently lost the Republican Primary, as well as Minutemen chairman. David Nolan, founder of the LP, former LP Presidential candidated Michael Badnarik, as well as radio personalities Ernie Hancock and Charles Goyette have endorsed Hess. He even has endorsements from professional wrestlers Sean Morley (aka "Val Venis") and Glenn Jacobs (aka WWE's "Kane"). He has obtained endorsements from Republicans like runner Lynn Petronella, and should be receiving more in the future.

He has the endorsement of The International Libertarian.
Hess For Governor 2006
P.O. Box 6011
Glendale, Arizona 85312
Telephone (602) 843-3827
Fax: (602) 843-0897

Professor Sunstein to Speak on 'Libertarian Paternalism,' Oct. 5

Legal scholar Cass Sunstein will deliver a lecture titled "Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron" at Princeton University, 8 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 5, in McCosh 50.

Sunstein, a professor of jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, advocates libertarian paternalism as a concept that legitimizes private and public institutions' attempts to steer personal choices without infringing on individual liberty. His lecture will offer examples in many areas, such as government and private entities helping consumers, victims of discrimination and poverty, workers and those at risk from natural disasters.

Sunstein's principal research interests include administrative law, environmental law, welfare law, jurisprudence and constitutional law. He has written numerous books, including "Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America" (2005) and the forthcoming "Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge" and "Are Judges Political? An Empirical Investigation of the Federal Judiciary."

Sunstein's talk, designated as the Walter E. Edge Lecture, is part of the University’s Public Lecture Series.

We would encourage libertarians in the Princeton area to attend to see just what Prof. Sunstein means by "libertarian paternalism": whether he means giving choices that encourage people to act in their own long term rational self interest, or whether he wants to give biased choices that financially coerce people into acting in a politically correct way, or, worse yet, more of the same old all or nothing, one size fits all style of New Deal government repackaged with a new schtick.

The NHLA has seen big government paternalists up here in NH trying to repackage their nanny state programs in libertarian buzz words. We suspect that Sunstein's lecture will be more of the same, particularly given his past opposition to originalism in Constitutional interpretation, but we are open to being pleasantly surprised.

NY Libertarian Candidate Demands Debate Time In Cornell

By Steven Xian
Sep 27 2006
The Cornell Daily Sun

While masses of Democrats and Republicans hustled and bustled into Bailey Hall to hear the heated debate between gubernatorial candidates Eliot Spitzer and John Faso yesterday evening, one group was left out in the Ithaca cold.

“We have no choice and we have no voice!” exclaimed one of the many signs held by the Cornell Libertarians and Ithaca Libertarians gathered outside of Bailey Hall, protesting the exclusion of Libertarian candidate John Clifton from the debate.

The League of Women Voters of New York (LWVNY), which sponsored the debate, ignored Clifton’s demands for an inclusive debate with third party candidates. As a result, Clifton took matters into his own hands and came all the way from New York City to Ithaca in protest.

“This is a puppet show stunt by the Democrats and Republicans!” Clifton declared.

“All Faso and Spitzer have to do is call each other on the phone and set up an inclusive debate. But instead, third parties are marginalized by [the bipartisan] structure,” he said.

One might ask, what is the Libertarian school of thought?

“The commitment to the individual and individual rights is a primary theme,” Clifton explained.

The basis of this political philosophy is the maximization of individual rights and minimization of the role of the government. An ethic of self-responsibility is emphasized and thus, forcing an individual to provide aid to another, as in the case of welfare, is wrong, according to Libertarians.

Accordingly, one of the issues on Clifton’s platform is ending of the restaurant smoking ban, which limits an individual’s choice as to whether or not to smoke. Data shows that this policy has hurt the business of many New York restaurants, especially those bordering states without a restaurant smoking ban.

“If there’s one restaurant in New York and just another one not too far across the border line, and somebody want to smoke, where do you think he’ll go?” Clifton asked.

Also on his platform is the elimination of the state income tax, beginning with those making less than $75,000 a year. This falls in line with libertarianism because “all taxation is theft,” Clifton explained.

On the issue of education, Clifton advocated creating more options for educating youth. He emphasized giving teachers more direct control of how things are run and taught rather than relying on the Department of Education, “which has more bureaucrats than Europe.”

“There is too much compulsion … and parents should take sovereignty in deciding how their children are educated,” Clifton said.

Yet despite his clear platform, Clifton was not invited to yesterday’s debate. Why, one might ask?

“Third parties are politically unessential. They rarely get more than a few percentage points and they lack a large constituent base,” said Alex Bulanov ’09, who describes himself as Republican.

Jennifer Ng ’08, a Democrat, thought along similar lines.

“The last time a third party candidate was elected governor of New York was back in 1800’s,” she said.

Libertarians, however, have different reasons for their exclusion.

“I think the major party candidates are afraid to have other voices heard and that’s why I think they exclude third party candidates,” said Nigel Watt ’10, who was among those protesting.

Curry Taylor, vice president of Cornell Libertarians offered his view: “I think it’s clear from the people protesting with us here today that there aren’t a lot of choices in the two major parties. We’re not happy with the fact that John Clifton was excluded today and we haven’t been given a satisfactory reason why.”

A simpler explanation was offered by Evan Mulvihill ’09.

“The League of Women Voters can’t count past two,” he said.

And indeed, for most students at Cornell University, two is the norm and third parties are essentially discredited and invisible. But with a platform that includes the lowering of the legal drinking age to 18, who wouldn’t give the Libertarian party at least a second glance?

Libertarian Ejected From Public Festival In Kansas

Joshua Seiden, Staff Affiliate September 28, 2006
The Johnson County Sun

City officials want to know why police ejected Jason Peck, Libertarian candidate for the 24th District in the Kansas House, from the Mission Arts and Eats Festival.

During the festival's second night, Peck conversed with event goers and distributed campaign literature. Peck said no one objected until Councilwoman Suzie Gibbs approached him with a Mission police officer.

"They told me that I had to leave and that if I came back they would cite me for trespassing," Peck said. "I don't know if the decision came from a higher-up or what."

Gibbs did not respond to messages left on her residential and mobile phone voicemails, nor e-mail. She also could not be reached at City Hall.

Mayor Laura McConwell said in a press release that city officials should not have ejected Peck.

"This is a very unfortunate turn of events and I want to personally apologize to Mr. Peck for the way he was treated," McConwell said. "Mr. Peck should not have been asked to leave this public event. Mr. Peck was within his rights to be campaigning during the Arts and Eats Festival."

McConwell said that Mission is conducting an investigation and has contacted the District Attorney's Office and the League of Kansas Municipalities for guidance.

Peck said he wants assurance that such an incident will not occur again.

"I've got a lawyer who is going to be in contact with them to explain to them why what they did was wrong and also to ask for something in writing to us (stating) that it won't happen again," Peck said. "Otherwise, we're going to file suit."

Peck said city officials silenced his freedom of speech.

"I guess the bottom line with me is that this is a First Amendment issue and I'm really kind of surprised that there's anybody out there, particularly in the City Council, that doesn't understand that," Peck said. "It's disappointing to me that it has to come to this point."

Those who wish to express their opinion to Ms. Gibbs can reach her here:
Suzanne (Suzie) Gibbs:
6432 Reeds Drive, Mission, KS 66202
(913) 671-8564
sgibbs@missionks.org
(Term Expires 2010) <-- This means someone needs to run against her.

Jason Peck:
Currently Jason works as a Senior Programmer / Analyst for Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company. When not working, he enjoys spending time with his family, (Alice Scott, her daughter Sarah Padilla, his son Kenneth and his daughter Krystal). He is a motorcycle enthusiast, a lifelong competitive shooter, hunter, fisherman, and enjoys all types of outdoor activities. A US Army veteran, volunteer firefighter/EMT, Peck has also been involved in JayCees, NMSS, and established one of the first volunteer youth programs at the Johnson County Juvinile Detention Center in 1996.

Jason plans on focusing on the following priorities during the upcoming campaign.

• Continue efforts to pass a constitutional amendment preventing eminent domain abuse. Jason strongly supports HB 5025, a firm resolution to protect private property owners' rights.
• Introducing legislation to allow Kansas to opt out of "No Child Left Behind" and regain control of its public schools.
• Introducing legislation to eliminate the sales tax on food products. This is a regressive tax on the poor and elderly, and the income tax rebate intended to offset the tax is ineffective.

Congressional Incumbent vs Libertarian in CA 7th

By Jennifer Gentile /Staff Writer
TheReporter.com

The race for the 7th Congressional District seat this November is a face-off between a congressional veteran and an avowed Libertarian.

Camden McConnell, the Libertarian in the race and a structural engineer by trade, is running against Democratic incumbent George Miller, who has served in Congress since 1975.

Miller, after graduating from Diablo Community College and San Francisco State University, earned his law degree from the University of California, Davis. The father of two is originally from Richmond and now resides in Martinez with his wife, Cynthia.

McConnell, 64, was born in Fort Bliss, Texas. The 64-year-old McConnell graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point as a second lieutenant in the Army Corps of Engineers. He also holds a master of science degree from the University of California, Berkeley. After his military service, which included tours in Vietnam, McConnell began a 16-year career as a structural engineer.

The married father, who has lived in Pittsburg since 1983, belongs to the Structural Engineers' Association of Northern California and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

McConnell said his philosophy is in line with the nation's founding fathers.

"I agree with the founding fathers that each man is entitled to own himself, his property and all that he produces and may dispose of all as he determines to be in his best interest without interference from the collective entity known as government," McConnell tells potential constituents on is Web site, www.camdenfor congress.org

In an interview Monday, McConnell said Libertarians favor smaller government, both in size and expense, and are against laws that inhibit the economy and citizens from making their own choices. The biggest difference between him and his opponent, he said, is their perception of government.

"I think we need to end the uncontrolled growth of government," McConnell said.

When government is in the hands of professional politicians from either of the country's major parties, McConnell said, it has a tendency to become out of control.

"Our country is broken," having strayed very far from the vision of limited government, personal liberty and respect for property rights held by the framers of the Constitution," the candidate said. "I want to help set it right."

Depending on the voter, Miller's experience could help him or hurt him in the election. According to a biography posted on his Web site, www.house.gov/George Miller, some of the congressman's primary issues are education, labor and the economy. He continues to serve on the House Resources Committee and founded the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. He is also the Senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

The congressman was also among the four authors of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Miller "did not endorse every aspect of this bipartisan bill," according to the biography, "but some of its most important features came directly from some of Miller's earlier legislative efforts, such as improving teacher quality, holding schools accountable for the education of all children, and the need to provide greater financial resources to schools to meet the new goals."

One issue the candidates do agree on is the war in Iraq. McConnell said, "It was wrong for us to go there," and Miller has called the war "a historic blunder with tragic consequences."

"There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein," Miller said during a speech on the House floor. "The administration used fear to scare this country into war based upon those lies. He (Bush) refused to properly prepare for the war or for its aftermath. And now, our soldiers, their families, and our Nation are paying the enormous price of this President's tragic blunder."

McConnell said that in the eyes of many Libertarians, Martin Van Buren was one of the finest presidents in the nation's history. He was under great pressure to go to war with Mexico and Britain during his tenure, but resisted.

In the case of Iraq, McConnell said he would favor withdrawal.

Jennifer Gentile can be reached at vacaville@thereporter.com.

UK Abrogates '5th Amendment' Over Speeding Tickets

They say that the American Revolution was ignited over a piddling few pence tax upon tea, or stamps on papers or some such, but this story is further evidence that Britain is descending into outright fascism.

Turns out that laws to do with the notorious highway cameras, and their application toward catching speeders has a problem: identifying the drivers.

See, since a camera records the speed without human supervision, a car caught speeding is brought to court without any human witnesses to the violation, ergo nobody can testify against the accused.

Secondly, determining who IS the accused can often be a problem, particularly at night or in clement weather. Seeing as how there is a lack of a human accuser, car owners brought to court based on photos of license tags have resorted to refusing to identify who was driving, i.e. 'taking the fifth' as we say here in the US. While Britain doesn't have a Constitution like ours, our 5th Amendment is based on a long established English common law right against self incrimination.

The state has thus fined car owners for refusing to testify, a violation of their right to not speak.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Despite rapidly mounting evidence that speed cameras have proved to be a deadly mistake, government appears to be incapable of seeing the damage that's being done."

He went on: "The so-called 'right to silence' is ancient and worthy. I am certain that speed cameras have made our roads considerably more dangerous by diverting attention from more important safety factors."

A Department of Transport spokesman said: "The UK Government does not accept this claim and is vigorously defending this case. We are confident of its defence, which has been upheld in the UK courts."

We shall be watching.

NH House Commission Hearing on RFID Wednesday

COMMISSION ON THE USE OF RADIO FREQUENCY TECHNOLOGY (HB 203-FN,
Chapter 165:1, Laws of 2006), Room 304, Legislative Office Building (behind the state house)
Concord, New Hampshire
10:00 a.m. Regular meeting.

Rep. Sam Cataldo, CASPIAN Founder and "Spy Chips" author Katherine Albrecht, and others will be appearing as RFID commission members for this public hearing regarding Radio Frequency IDentification technologies, with an eye toward formulating regulations to prevent the violation of NH citizens' privacy or other rights with these technologies.

If you care about your privacy and the future of your freedom, you'll attend this meeting to contribute your opinion and hear what the commissioners have determined to date. This is an issue of importance to all libertarians and others who care about their privacy rights. Don't let the state seize your privacy in the name of security.

NH House Plays Stupid

If you read the blog yesterday, you saw that today was going to be a special session of the New Hampshire House to consider what to do about fixing the Primacy Effect problem that we got thrown out by the state supreme court, along with an attempt to consider a state constitutional amendment to strip the court of power to legislate education finance policy.

As predicted, they voted not to deal with the education issue. We'll go through the election now with both parties having an issue to drum against their opponents, while they themselves are to blame for not solving the issue permanently.

However, the really remarkable bit of idiocy was to accept Secty of State Bill Gardner's idiotic proposal to answer the state supreme courts ruling in Aitkins vs. Gardner, by simply giving the primacy effect to people whose names start with letters other than "A". Yeah, that dumb.

Gardners proposal was to alphabetize the list of candidates, rather than place the previous winning party's candidates first, but to get around the Court's admonition against alphabetization by starting with the letter "K" instead of "A". Of course, that this just gives the primacy effect vote bonus to people with K last names rather than A last names did not seem to occur to these idiots.

And, of course, Ralph Aitkins, the Democrats, and the LPNH will take them back to court to make them pull their heads out of their asses and do it right, but that will take at least another year to bring back to court.

Karl Dickey Calls For No Sales Tax On Hybrids, Solar Panels

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA , September 25, 2006 – Karl Dickey, Libertarian candidate for State Senate stated today, “When elected to the State Senate I will sponsor a bill to eliminate the state sales tax on all automobiles that are rated at having gas mileage above 40 mpg. I drive a hybrid vehicle and feel others should enjoy the tax benefits and the gas savings benefits associated with driving these vehicles. In addition, the bill will include language to eliminate sales tax on all solar collection devices and wind turbines, whether for business or personal use.”

Mr. Dickey would like to see Florida ’s government budget reduced by taking in less taxes and eliminating the sales tax on alternative energy source is just one way he intends to see that happen. This sales tax exemption will be a savings of $1,800 for a $30,000 vehicle that is rated to get over 40 mpg. The tax break will not be limited to only hybrid vehicles, but any vehicle at that rating. Most homes that convert to solar and/or wind energy have a typical cost of $20,000, of which approximately $15,000 is in materials. The sales tax exemption would save the home owner approximately $900 in their conversion costs.

Mr. Dickey concluded, “We need to become more independent in our energy consumption and why here in Florida , the Sunshine State , we are not utilizing the sun’s energy to its fullest potential is beyond me. Our government has failed us again by not being forward-thinkers; this is a program that should have been enacted in the 1970’s.”

Contact: Karl Dickey
5970 SW 18th ST #331
Boca Raton, FL 33433-7197
Phone 888-298-6837
Fax 561-362-4229
www.dickey2006.org
vote4karl@gmail.com

Rare session begins today

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
Manchester Union Leader

Concord – Supporters of a constitutional amendment to remove education funding issues from the control of the judiciary will have their say today - and then, barring an unexpected turn of events, will go home disappointed.

The House and Senate will meet at 1 p.m. in a rare special session, but an education funding constitutional amendment is not expected to go very far - probably no further than being brought up in a debate over the rules of the session.

The session was called after a group of conservative legislators petitioned for it to deal with the makeup of the state's general election ballots. The ballots were ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court in July. The court said that by listing the candidates of the party that won the previous gubernatorial election first, they were discriminating against members of the other party and independents.

The court also outlawed the practice of alphabetizing the names of multiple candidates for the same House seat.

Secretary of State William Gardner set up a new ballot that rotates the party candidates throughout the state, giving Republicans, Democrats and independents or third-party candidates an equal chance to appear in the left column.

Gardner also revamped the alphabetized portion of ballots by drawing the letter "K" to replace "A" as the first letter of the first candidates for the House in each district. Gardner's' system then returns to standard alphabetizing in what has become known as his "K-A-B-C" makeup.

Some of the candidates who brought the original lawsuit two years ago were dissatisfied with "K-A-B-C" and returned to court last week. Judge Carol Ann Conboy questioned whether that "K-A-B-C" is any less discriminatory than the original system. An attorney for the candidates who sued the state two years ago suggested moving to a system of "K-L-M-N."

The judge withheld a ruling pending today's action.

As a result, debate is expected today over the "K-A-B-C" system as opposed to "K-L-M-N."

Senate President Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, said the Gardner bill will be taken up by the Senate first. He expects it to pass.

But before that happens, members of both bodies will have a chance to debate the rules of the session.

That is when proponents of an education funding constitutional amendment will have a chance to make their cases, in an effort to counter the state Supreme Court's threatened takeover of the system next summer.

Read the rest of the story...

Rep. Bass Staffer Posed On Liberal Blogs

By SCOTT BROOKS
Union Leader Staff
5 hours, 22 minutes ago

An aide to U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass used a government computer to post political messages under a pseudonym on several blogs whose creators support his Democratic challenger.

The staffer posed as a liberal in a series of online postings that commended the Republican incumbent and downplayed Paul Hodes' chances in this November's election.

Groups Launch Sudan Mutual Fund Screening Tool

Here's something I picked up off PR Web that seems appropriate to libertarians who want to control whether their money is invested in companies that do business in the Sudan with the genocidal regime there. Don't let your money finance the worst coercers out there.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) September 26, 2006 -- The Sudan Divestment Task Force and Invested Interests have created the first online tool allowing individuals to screen their mutual funds for investments in companies supporting the Sudanese government. Initiated and perpetuated by the Khartoum regime, the first genocide of the 21st century, rages into its fourth year in the country’s vast Darfur region. Although many companies operating in Sudan contribute positively to the underprivileged by building vital economic infrastructure, numerous Sudan experts agree that certain "worst offending" companies are clearly contributing to Sudan’s capacity to carry out genocide while imparting little or no benefit to Sudan’s citizens. By targeting this select set of "worst offending" companies investors can remain consistent with principles of socially responsible investing while minimizing or eliminating unintended harms to Sudanese civilians.

The Sudan Screening Tool, using data provided by the Sudan Divestment Task Force, provides visitors with a report detailing the names, dollar value and percent of total assets invested in offending companies. Sudan divestment data has previously been available only to large institutions. The Sudan Screening Tool allows for any mutual fund investor, approximately 57 million U.S. households, to actively participate in Sudan divestment.

To learn more about the atrocities in Sudan or the case for Sudan divestment, visit the website of the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

To discuss the Sudan Screening Tool and other resources available for Sudan divestment, the Sudan Divestment Task Force will be presenting a live web conference for investors and financial professionals on September 27th, 2006 from 1:00p.m.-2:00p.m EDT. For more information or to attend the conference, please contact the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

About the Sudan Divestment Task Force:
As the national clearinghouse for the Sudan divestment movement, we are actively involved in dozens of campaigns across the country at the university, city and state levels. The Sudan Divestment Task Force has developed a unique approach to divestment, focusing its efforts on the most egregiously offending companies in Sudan. This approach, termed targeted divestment, helps maximize impact on the Sudanese government, while minimizing harms to innocent Sudanese citizens and US investment returns.

Contact: Jason Miller at (415) 225-2134

So Much For the Somali "Ungoverned"

A few years ago, a group of the bunkertarian wing were touting Somalias status as a "failed state" as proof that an ungoverned anarchy can exist in todays world, while more pragmatic minds such as myself and Jason Sorens, state that the ongoing violence there argues against the present utility of an ancap state, at least in that part of the world. Those voices seem to have gone quiet recently, as it has become oh so evident that this "ungoverned state" has become prey to a Neo-Taliban, likely funded by the same Wahabbist fanatics that gave Bin Laden his start.

Leeson and Stringham attempt in their 2005 paper, "Is Government Inevitable?", to dispute the claims by Randall Holcombe in "Goverment: Unecessary but Inevitable" that anarchy is inherently impossible to maintain and thus libertarians should focus on establishing minarchist libertarian governments to preempt the inevitable attempt by the strong to force a less desirable government on the weak.

They argue firstly that just because a civilized anarchy has never existed (the handful of anarchic societies in recent history constitute the most primitive societies around living in generally undesirable marginal terrain), doesn't mean it is impossible any more than one could claim in 1500 AD that democracy was impossible because none had existed up to that day. This is fair, but simplistic: democracies did exist prior to 1500, so far back as ancient Greece, Sparta, and the Roman Republic. The most civilized society that was most minimalist in government was the medieval Icelanders, as David Friedman has written of, and even they had their priests, their lay-judges and their Althing.

The arguments get weaker from there. They then try to posit that if it is inevitable for an anarchy to fail, as Holcombe claims, they argue that for the same reasons that an anarchy would fail, so would a weak minarchy fail.

He [Holcombe] maintains that stronger agents will be tempted to use force against the weak and impose government on them. Because some are stronger than others they will see that using force is cheaper than trade. While parts of the argument may have truth, they do not establish the inevitability of the state. To arrive at Holcombe’s conclusion, two special assumptions are necessary.

1. First, strength must be so disproportionate that the strong face little downside for engaging in conflict. This assumption may be unrealistic. Imagine what would happen if everyone were of similar strengths. If one stood a fifty percent chance of losing any fight, as long as fighting entails costs, the use of force would not be the income-maximizing strategy.

The problem with this simplistic assumption is that, even if you made the hypothetical assumption that all players started out exactly equal, such material equalities would rather quickly change to match the relative strengths and weakenesses of each unique individual. Some individuals would grow wealthy on their own productivity or skill in trade, while others would fall behind, as is the natural order of competition in the free market. Further, individuals readily group and coalition to gain an advantage over others, a condition repeatedly proven both in the real world every day, and particularly in the anarchic reality television show, "Survivor", and its clones, where we regularly see socially intelligent players building alliances to vote others "off the island", and tribes competing against one another for precious resources.

The relevant question is not whether some are more powerful than others but whether power is so lopsided that the strong face few risks by engaging in conflict. Consider again the state of global anarchy in which we find ourselves. Poer is more evenly distributed between sovereign states in the international arena than between individuals in New York’s Central Park....It is merely to point out that the presence of asymmetric power is insufficient to prove that world government is inevitable.

Firstly, it is improper to automatically assume that violent conflict is the only means to achieving lopsided power. Commerce and trade make inequality inevitable, and inevitably lead to assymetries of force in any plenum without an arms control regime. A more accurate elucidation would be whether potential gains of force outweigh the potential losses, versus the more mundane risks of peaceful trade.

In Central Park, one sees binary engagements: where generally one or both sides comprises a single individual with one life that the individual values highly, and so the risk of loss of life makes risk of engaging in conflict a totality, particularly when overpowered or outnumbered. While this makes victims less enthused about being victimised, it emboldens thugs to form alliances or become empowered by strength or weaponry. In the international arena, leaders rarely if ever are personally at risk and so feel less loss at engaging in conflict, but it is easier to purge a leader from office than to kill him or her. The fact that puny states such as Monaco and Andorra live peacefully next to much larger nations disproves Leeson and Stringham's assumptions here.

2. The second assumption required for Holcombe’s conclusion is that weaker individuals cannot find private solutions to transform the incentives of the strong to plunder.

There are of course many such solutions: private arms, voluntary militias. However, Leesom and Stringham choose some particularly bad examples.

Traveling middlemen who connected European exporters on the coast of Angola and the producers of these exports in the remote interior of Africa were substantially stronger than the producers with whom they interacted. Additionally, no formal authority policed the interactions between the members of these two groups—they interacted in the context of anarchy. Middlemen thus faced a strong incentive to violently steal the goods they desired rather than trading to obtain them.

The argument presented by Holcombe suggests that these middlemen would establish government over producers, but the historical record indicates that they did not.

Not so. Travelling traders such as described maintained their professions for their lifetimes. If they violently stole the producers goods every trip, the producers would in fact organize a government to prevent them, even to force the traders to pay higher rates for product. In fact, this has been historically the case, where feudalism arose to protect farmers and skilled tradesmen from roving exploiters. So, rather than establish government over the producers, the traders sought to maintain the state of anarchy in order to protect their own pocketbook against higher prices and punitive taxes of states organized by producers. This maintenance of a Nash equilibrium was stable only so long as more rapacious marauders did not compete for the same goods. Greater competition for more scarce goods would have resulted in force and conflict, and inevitably government.

Why? Producers devised several informal institutions for transforming the incentive of stronger middlemen from banditry to exchange. One institution they employed was middleman credit. Producers decided not to produce anything so that if middlemen came to plunder their goods, there would be nothing for them to steal. After having incurred a costly trip to the interior to plunder producers, middlemen who approached producers and found nothing to take faced two options. They could either go home empty handed, or they could agree to exchange with producers on credit.

Because the former choice involved certain losses and the latter involved the prospect for profits, middlemen agreed to credit agreements with producers. Middlemen would pay up front and producers would agree to harvest the goods and make them available at some point in the future. The use of credit not only prevented middlemen from plundering producers, it also created a strong incentive for them to protect these producers from the predatory behavior of other middlemen.

But isn't this an imposition of force by the producers on the trading middlemen? Isn't this establishing the middleman as an party interested in protecting "their producers" from other marauding middlemen, and thus, a Private Protection Agency, ergo a minimalist government? The producer has transformed the middleman into a public servant.

Furthermore, the sort of enlightened anarchy as L&S would have us believe is the situation is not stable. Middlemen could easily decide to collude against producers. Producers cannot simply not produce permanently, they must produce an excess for themselves to endure the dry season, or winter, as the case may be. Taking the surplus of an uppity producer or two merely creates free land for the middleman to sell to a younger son from some distance away, while "proving" the "inevitability" of working for "the man".

L&S then criticize Holcombe's assertion that a preemptive libertarian state will trump the formation of a thuggocracy, however as I describe above, with producers forming a local government to impose better prices on middlemen, how the trend toward government breaks depends on who is doing the breaking. L&S assume that any such preemptive government cannot be formed without political agents, that it takes some special class of person to form a state and maintain it, a full time specialization, however this claim is unsupported by many examples of minimalist government, from the small town meeting structure of 19th century New England (and still exists in many locales), to the Icelandic All-Thing, to the Folk-Moot, and other forms of seasonally convened voluntary government with a part-time constabulary organized under a militia structure.

Indeed, the militia structure and town meeting form of government is quite stable, going back to before the time of the Norman conquest to the time of the Danelaw in England, up to the present day in many locales. In England, the original structure was constituted by an elected Shire Reeve (aka Sheriff) who commanded all able bodied yeomen in the shire or county. Under him were constables, one for every 20 yeomen (a 'yeoman' being essentially a "Hey, Dude!", or general private individual, i.e. citizen). Town meetings evolved as meetings of the yeomen of the town, who selected their "select men", who were the constables.

While this structure is organically evolved, it has analogs in many other societies under different names and is generally universal, almost as much as the concept of the shaman. So, for this reason, L&S' assumption that a specialized class of political agents is necessary for government is quite false.

Then L&S really make a mistake,

Couple ruler self-interest with superior strength that Holcombe describes, and can there be any hope for limits on government? Rather than creating the minimal state as Holcombe desires, these political actors will deliver much more than anyone bargained for. If we agree with Holcombe that government is created by force, then why would we assume that its creators will produce the minimal state?

One way out this dilemma, to which Holcombe points, is if citizens are strongly unified against the will of the political agent. In this case the political agent will be forced to consider the desires of the public. But realize now that Holcombe is not relying on constitutional constraints as the main check on government but instead relying on ideology.

No, not really. Holcombe is relying on the self interest of the citizens multiplied by their greater numbers, and the fact that the 'agent' has to live among his neighbors. A greater problem is such an agent making a career of the use of force and convincing a bloc of yeomen that they can profit from the rest by supporting his tyrancy.

If one accepts the hypothesis that ideology can trump government force, anarchy becomes a sustainable socio-economic organization, which is just the opposite of what Holcombe wants to argue. Ideology, after all, is what libertarian anarchists such Hummel (1990; 2001) believe can stave off the violent formation of the state.

The problem with this assumption is based on the idea that an anarchical group in conflict cannot be beaten by a more well disciplined force of yeoman militia commanded by an officer corps, however part time it may be in its training. This assumption is inherently false.

The creation of preemptive limited government in Holcombe’s argument faces another serious problem. If we assume that stronger agents will always use strength to overtake the weak, what prevents stronger authoritarian states that devote most of their resources to military build up from overtaking societies with preemptively created limited governments?

That is a question answered by events such as the American Revolution.

Now, applying that to the present situation in Somalia, we have two main forces: a provisional government organized by the UN with little support from the warlords, and no effective authority outside the one city it is based in, versus the Islamist militia that gives warlords the option of joining or dying. The Islamists now control Mogadishu and other major cities, and are imposing Sharia upon a society that has over the past decade of anarchy imported a lot of western luxuries in exchange for the export of the khat drug to western nations. The UN allied government is now isolated from the sea, and will inevitably fall to the Islamist forces, whereupon a state will have been created out of an anarchy.

Going back to the first page of L&S' paper, where they state categorically, "Somalia is essentially stateless, and despite predictions that new government would immediately reemerge, has effectively remained so since its government dissolved in 1991. (Little, 2003)," we now see that their own assumption, that a decade of nongovernance constitutes a stable anarchy, is equally unsupportable.

Retired Justice Nadeau Squares Off Against Four Governors

Here we are, folks, in the ring for the semi-occasional toss-off between the NH Judiciary and the Legislature over who gets to set, and has the courage to set, state education funding policy.

Four former state governors (Sununu, Gregg, Merrill, and Benson, Republicans all) have come out in favor of a State Constitutional Amendment to limit the courts authority to legislate on education, if not bar broad based taxes to pay for them permanently. So has former Supreme Court Justice Chuck Douglas.

Today, retired Supreme Court Justice Nadeau came out against a Constitutional Amendment today, putting the onus on the legislature to decide what an adequate education is, taking it as a given that it is accepted by the people that the Constitution entitles a child to "an adequate education" paid for by the state (Nadeau was, of course, on of the majority in the infamous Claremont case).

Seems to us that the advantage is with the amendment crowd, but don't let that stop the newspapers from ballyhooing it as a nose to nose fight. The real question is whether the legislature has the votes to pass an amendment or just delay the inevitable for another year while playing chicken with the Court, daring it to make the decision that they cannot make.

The problem in the legislature, of course, is that the Democrats are generally in favor of an income tax, even though they can't admit to it publicly in most districts. Those that do will come under serious attack by their opponents in the election campaign underway. Leaving the decision to the courts is the easy out for anyone scared of standing up for themselves before the electorate, rather than riling up an organized campaign to oust them.

One thing the legislature hasn't considered: NH is not a right to work state. The Supreme Court Justices serve at the pleasure of the legislature, and there is no law requiring cause to fire someone here, nor are the justices members of the state employees union....

Follow what leader? In Concord, there are none

The Manchester Union Leader, Sept 25, 2006

WHAT A BUNCH of political leaders the people of New Hampshire have.

The state Supreme Court tells the legislative and executive branches how they have to fund education and by when - despite having no constitutional basis whatsoever for doing so - and the leaders of the other two branches say, "Yes, sir!"

There won't be any profiles in courage written about these elected officials.

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson famously responded to Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Worcester v. Georgia, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

That is the kind of attitude Granite Staters expect in their elected leaders. Instead, we have leaders who say, "The Supreme Court has made its decision; I'm going apple picking."

Sure, they say they oppose a broadbased tax. They say the people's elected representatives have the constitutional authority to set education policy. But what do they do about it?

Nothing.

The Supreme Court has put New Hampshire on the road to a broadbased tax. Tomorrow legislators have the chance to change direction. But they won't. They'll use the convenient excuse that there is not enough support for a constitutional amendment.

Well, of course there isn't if no one bothers to lead.

NH Newspapers Announce Constitution Day Essay Contest

The New Hampshire Union Leader, Foster's Daily Democrat, The Citizen of Laconia, the Concord Monitor and the Keene Sentinel are sponsoring a statewide Constitution Day Essay Contest.

The contest was developed in response to a federal law mandating schools to teach about the U.S. Constitution in September.

"We're excited to offer this unique opportunity for New Hampshire students and teachers," said Teresa Robinson, community relations manager for the New Hampshire Union Leader. "We hope to make this an annual contest."

The contest kicked off on Sept. 18 and asked students to write a short essay about the First Amendment. All responses must be postmarked by Oct. 6.

The essay question was developed by Associate New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice James Duggan, and details about the contest can be found at www.unionleader.com/nie.

"The Constitution Day essay contest gives students an opportunity to think and write about important questions that are fundamental to our democracy," said Duggan. "I am pleased to be part of the project and I am looking forward to reading what the students have to say."

Each newspaper will select a winner in each of two age categories, and those finalists will go on to be read and judged by Duggan.

The statewide winners, along with the winners from the individual newspapers, will be honored at a reception at the New Hampshire Supreme Court in November. Winning students will have the opportunity to read their essays. Families of the winners and their teachers will also attend.

For information, contact Teresa Robinson 668-4321, ext. 506 or e-mail trobinson@unionleader.com.

Eminent Domainia VI: Video of Lauren Canario Arrest, Police "Victimized"

Caleb Johnson submitted this video to YouTube:


As you can see, Lauren did not resist arrest, she merely did not cooperate. However, police are now claiming she "victimized" them, with one asserting that having to carry her injured his back. Poor boy!

Eminent Domainia V: Local Resident `victimizes' Connecticut Police

by Caleb Johnson
The Keene Free Press

It's a tough job standing up for freedom. Just ask Lauren Canario. Canario, a current resident of Winchester, moved to New London, Connecticut from Las Vegas immediately following the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. In Kelo, the Court decided that the town of New London could seize Suzette Kelo's home and sell it to a private developer. Canario moved to New London to help the local residents by engaging in civil disobedience to oppose this tyrannical action by the New London government.

On the morning of September 22, Canario was arrested by the New London Police department as she peacefully read a book in front of one of the homes that was being boarded. She is being held on $5000 bail. I called Lt. Ackley of the New London Police Department to speak with him regarding Lauren's arrest. For those who wish to contact Lt. Ackley personally, his phone number is 860-447-5281.

Lt. Ackley informed me that Canario has not been `cooperative', apparently refusing to be fingerprinted or to move where she is told to move. She is also maintaining her right to remain silent. He told me that he has been victimized by her, as he has been forced to carry her where they want her to be, resulting in him hurting his back.

Of primary interest to me, as a concerned member of the press, is that Canario be treated well. Although denying my request to inspect the facilities and meet with the prisoner, Lt. Ackley expressed shock that anyone would doubt that Canario is being treated well. “Why wouldn't she be treated well?” he asked me. As of this moment, Keene Free Press has been unable to verify that New London is ensuring Canario's basic human rights.

Lt. Ackley is responsible for setting Canario's ransom price, but balked when I suggested that he could lower it to $0 and free her. “Why should I do that?” he asked. “Perhaps because she is non-violent and there is no victim in this case?” I suggested to no avail.

As long as individuals can accept the painfully stupid concept that there can be a crime without a victim, Americans will be forced to endure more and more of this ill-treatment. It is unfathomable that individuals in America can be considered criminals for peaceful acts of civil disobedience. American leaders often condemn other countries for holding “political prisoners,” yet America has yet to remove the plank in its own eye, as American police are no less likely than anywhere else to hold someone captive as a political prisoner.

These actions continue only as a direct result of our consent. As long as any populace continues to respect “the Law” regardless of how antagonistic that law is to fundamental rights, we will continue to experience tyranny. When Americans realize that it is within their power to stand up to immoral laws, then we shall finally realize the American dream of freedom.
Last Updated ( Saturday, 23 September 2006 )

S Dakota: Judicial Accountability Amendment Rising in Polls

The Dakota Voice reports that Amendment E, the controversial state constitutional amendment on the ballot this year, is rising in public support, with 67% support, and 13%+ "unsure. With less than 20% opposition to the amendment, it appears that they will meet the necessary supermajority threshold in this election.

Amendment E allow creation of a citizen's oversight committee or special grand jury which would hear complaints of alleged judicial misconduct against judges. If a judge is found guilty three times of having engaged in judicial misconduct, he or she would be removed from office and could never serve in any judicial capacity in South Dakota again.

Democrats say they will support the measure by 69.8%, Republicans by 62.2%, Independents by 72.5% and all three Libertarians polled said they would support the amendment.

Democrats made up 32% of the total surveyed, Republicans 46%, Independents 21% and about 0.6% Libertarians. In the June 2006 primary, the breakdown of registered voters for South Dakota was 47.68% Republican, 37.97% Democrat, .22% Libertarian, .07% Constitution, and 14.06% "other."

The West River area leads East River support with 74.2%, but East River comes in at a considerable 65.1% support.

The 18-29 age group leads in support at 71.3%, with the least support from the 65+ age bracket at 65.2%.

Males support the measure slightly more than females (68.9% to 65.3%), with the greatest support among income brackets at 73.8% for the $50-75K range.

The religious breakdown has Catholics with the greatest support at 70.8%, Protestants at 63.2% and “other” supporting the measure by 74.2%.

Amendment E marks the first major victory for the group known as JAIL 4 Judges, if it passes. JAIL4Judges is a common fixture at many libertarian events around the country. They regularly appear at the Free State Project's Porcupine Freedom Festivals, the largest libertarian gathering in the country, as well as state LP conventions, etc.

Bill Stegmeier of South Dakota Judicial Accountability, the primary proponent of the JAIL Amendment, has had an uphill battle to get the amendment on the ballot. In attempting to pass it through the legsilature, the amendment was unanimously voted down by every legislator and state senator, out of fear that such an amendment would be extended to hold every public official under scrutiny of citizen committees (we can only hope, eh?).

Stegmeier says the normal process for addressing judicial misconduct is insufficient because of the doctrine of judicial immunity which prevents judges from being sued for their official actions. Whether this state constitutional amendment will survive a likely challenge in the US Supreme Court, as have prior state constitutional amendments, like the Colorado anti-gay measures, remains to be seen.

Hungarian Protests Reach Seventh Day

According to VOA, Hungarian protesters, who we had reported last week were setting fire to the state television building, remain in a state of protest in the main square of Budapest, demanding the resignation of Socialist Prime Minister Gyurscany's government, for its years of lying about economic information in order to remain in power.

Pal Schmitt, a member of the European Parliament from Hungary's center-right opposition party, Fidesz, told demonstrators that the prime minister has caused a moral crisis in his country.

He says the upcoming municipal elections on October 1 will be a referendum on the government's performance. He says they will be an opportunity for the left and right wing to in his words "declare their belief in justice sincerity, peace, quiet and Hungary's development."

Gyurscany earlier closed his Socialist Party headquarters, as it had become a focus of some of the most violent aspects of protesters. If this means he is unable to campaign effectively, and if his grip on state television is removed, then the Socialist party could be toppled, even though recent polls show the party retains a majority of support.

Fidesz is Hungary's Right-Libertarian Party. The Alliance of Free Democrats, whose members are generally left-libertarians who split from Fidesz, is currently in coalition with Gyurscany's lying Socialists.