American Freedom Party: Earthquake In Europe Coming To America?

Much of the surprising election earthquake in Europe revolves around the Schengen Borders Code. This regulation allows unchecked movement of populations between member countries in the European Union. In effect, French borders were erased (as were other EU nations) and their sovereignty was lost. Much of the immigration was from poorer EU countries to wealthier EU countries. And there was an increase in organized criminal gangs from Romania and elsewhere.

Schengen Borders Code

Irrespective of nationality, any person may cross the internal borders at any crossing-point without checks being carried out. The police may exercise their powers in border zones in the same fashion as elsewhere in their territory, provided that this is not equivalent to the exercise of border checks.

EU countries must remove all obstacles to fluid traffic flow at road crossing-points at internal borders.

Where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, an EU country may exceptionally reintroduce border controls at its internal borders for, in principle, a limited period of no more than thirty days. If such controls are to be reintroduced, the other EU countries and the Commission should be informed as soon as possible. The European Parliament should also be informed.

The EU is broken and a failure. Nationalists in the United States face the same issues: an unchecked southern border; an unchecked movement of undocumented aliens; organized criminal gangs and drug trade; a loss of border control and a subsequent erosion of our sovereignty. The American Freedom Party wants enforcement and a return to our traditional American values and culture. Join us!

Nationalists In Europe

Nationalists won the day, besting every conventional party in France, Great Britain, Denmark, and Greece, and posting notable scores in Sweden, Germany, Hungary, and elsewhere. In a European Union bitterly riven by economic and financial crises, high unemployment, and anemic economies, populist parties—which trade on finger-pointing at everything from the euro currency and EU regulations to migrants and Islam—at the very least claimed bragging rights.

France’s far-right National Front has won a nationwide election for the first time, as far-right parties across Europe caused a political “earthquake,” with a string of victories in voting for the European Parliament.

The National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, notched up 24.95% of the vote in France, according to official estimates, well ahead of mainstream parties UMP and the Socialist Party. Le Pen said the win showed that people want to see change in Europe.

France’s Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls said the result was “more than a warning. It is a shock, an earthquake.”

Right-wing parties also gained ground in the UK, Denmark and Austria, according to projections posted on the European Parliament’s official elections website.

Euroskepticism Is Nationalism

Right-wing parties and other so-called right-wing parties and other so-called Euroskeptic groups who oppose the European Union are gaining ground, said Simon Usherwood, an expert on European politics at the University of Surrey.
“I think what’s really changed is you’re seeing a lot more groups on the edges, particularly with the far right, who are going to be much more of a feature of the next five years of the parliament,” he said.

So what does that mean?

“They don’t have enough votes to stop legislation going through,” Usherwood told CNN, “but what they will get, particularly on the far right, is the time for speaking in debates, the chairmanship of certain committees, which means that they’re going to have much more of a platform on which they can sell their message to voters.”

In France, which has 74 seats in the European Parliament, the National Front won 24.95% of votes, according to official estimates, coming in ahead of the center-right UMP, which scored 20.8%, and President Francois Hollande’s Socialist Party, which came in third with 14%.
Even though the vote was for a regional legislative body, the potential impact on France’s national political landscape was clear on Sunday. The results sparked stunned reactions from some French politicians and triumphant victory speeches from others.

The UK Independence party and France’s far-right Front National stormed to victory in European elections on Sunday night, as populist and nationalist parties across the continent dealt a heavy blow to the European project.

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader, said the result represented an “earthquake”, while Marine Le Pen, the FN leader, said that there had been a “massive rejection of the EU”; mainstream politicians struggled to come to terms with what had happened.

Manuel Valls, the French socialist prime minister, called the FN victory “a shock, an earthquake that all responsible leaders must respond to”, as President François Hollande prepared to convene his cabinet to discuss the result.

In Britain, Labour was battling with Tories for second place , with the opposition party expected to just edge it. Nick Clegg, the pro-European Liberal Democrat leader who confronted Mr Farage in two televised debates on Europe, was set to lose most of his 12 MEPs. By 2am the Lib Dems had won just one seat, with London results delayed. Danny Alexander, Lib Dem Treasury minister, said the results were “pretty awful”.

Source

73 thoughts on “American Freedom Party: Earthquake In Europe Coming To America?

  1. NewFederalist

    Well Geez, is it SO wrong for Europeans to wish to protect their cultural heritage? It doesn’t seem to me that Saudi Arabia allows ANY Christian churches at all and they deny women virtually ALL basic rights. Some of the so called “extremist” parties which won seats are crackpot Nazis but others appear to me to be just trying to fend off a hostile takeover of their way of life. Am I missing something?

  2. William Saturn

    That’s not what his argument “boils down to.” That’s an incredibly disingenuous way to characterize the comment. There was no judgment made.

    I agree with New Federalist.

  3. Nicholas Sarwark

    This part of the source article got left out of the IPR repost:

    There are no better people to run America than European American people. European peoples should be able to organize and advance their own interests just like every other group.

    Racism is a non-starter with me.

  4. William Saturn

    Can you explain why? Or do you, without any thought, automatically believe racism = evil?

  5. NewFederalist

    Wow! I guess PC has now come to the LP? I would never have thought that possible.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    William, I certainly equate racism with evil. It’s so strange that you keep defending it here. Can you explain why you don’t consider it a bad thing to expect behavior from a whole group of people, based on what other members of their group may or may not have done?

  7. Joshua Fauver

    William I don’t recall Nicholas ever calling racism evil, though he may very well hold that belief he did not express it here and now. What he said was, and I quote, “Racism is a non-starter for me.” (In case you don’t believe me feel free to look just above your last comment.) Though as far as an explanation why he has distaste for racism I think it’s obvious. He’s a civil libertarian. That means he (as well as myself) do not ascribe to the philosophical bend from which racism derives. Collectivism. That means we don’t view people as members of collectives. We do not categorize people into groups based of an ancestral place of origin or based off of the color of their skin. People are people. Along the same lines we do not view the rights which people possess through the lens of collectivism either. Meaning we do not believe in women’s rights, men’s rights, gay rights, African Americans’ rights, etc etc etc. We believe, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote in our nation’s Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I would point to the use of the phrase, “all men” You see we have certain unalienable rights as a condition of existing, not on the condition of being a member of some collective. (other than the collective of humanity of course.)

  8. William Saturn

    I never defended racism. However, it is nothing more than a logical fallacy. It is not evil. Slavery is evil. Eugenics is evil. These are not the same as racism. And to Joshua’s point, collectivism is not necessarily evil either. These views exist. Pushing them under the surface and closing your mind to them without thinking is not the proper way to defeat logical fallacies. A while back Vernon plagiarized a pro-racism post and I challenged him to debate over his viewpoint. He hasn’t responded.

  9. Cody Quirk

    Shame on you racist bastards for comparing yourself to legitimately right-wing populist parties of Europe that only want to protect their borders, culture and way of life and have nothing to do with race!
    …Except for Golden Dawn maybe.

    You are comparing shit and fresh fruit here; the only American third parties that these European parties have much in common with are those constitutionalist/principled conservative parties and not the jokes that you are!

  10. johnO

    This party hasn’t won anything. Golden Dawn, National Front (France), NPD (Germany) and Jobbik (Hungary) have won seats. All these do have race as central to their platform. Blood, be it Greek, French, German, Magyar(?) for Hungary must be pure. Blah, Blah, Blah. etc.

  11. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “I never defended racism. However, it is nothing more than a logical fallacy. It is not evil. Slavery is evil. Eugenics is evil. These are not the same as racism. And to Joshua’s point, collectivism is not necessarily evil either. These views exist. Pushing them under the surface and closing your mind to them without thinking is not the proper way to defeat logical fallacies. A while back Vernon plagiarized a pro-racism post and I challenged him to debate over his viewpoint. He hasn’t responded.”

    Really, Billy? Racism isn’t evil? Tell that to the families of generations of slaves. Tell that to Holocaust survivors. Tell that to people who suffered under Jim Crowe, who were bullied by George Wallace & Bull Connor. Tell that to the young black boys & brown boys sentenced to prison for drug crimes while the rich white boys who do just as much dope go free. Tell that to the family & friends of Trayvon Martin.

    Billy Saturn, go into a black neighborhood, and tell them racism isn’t evil. I dare you.

    “William, I certainly equate racism with evil.”

    So do I, and so does anyone else with more than two brain cells. I can’t believe that, in 2014, we’re debating that. It almost makes me weep for the future, but then I remember that Billy’s a product of the past. My generation knows the inherent evil of racism, sexism, antisemitism, and homophobia. Must be why Billy is so down on my fellow millennials, they don’t share his disturbed, twisted worldview.

  12. Jill Pyeatt

    Well, I am NOT a product of your generation, Jed. I’ll be 59 in July. However, I completely agree with everything you said, so I don’t think someone’s age is a good excuse. Of course, I have no clue how old William Saturn is. I actually don’t know much about him at all, except that he hovers here and doesn’t contribute much unless he objects to something another writer has done. That certainly is his right, I suppose.

  13. William Saturn

    Jed,

    Views cannot be evil. Acts can be evil. You clearly misunderstood my comment.

    Watch Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. A future devoid of logic and reason and full of misunderstanding is truly troubling.

  14. Jed Ziggler Post author

    Jill:

    “Well, I am NOT a product of your generation, Jed. I’ll be 59 in July. However, I completely agree with everything you said, so I don’t think someone’s age is a good excuse.”

    My apologies if my comments were implying that age was an excuse, that wasn’t my intent.

    “Of course, I have no clue how old William Saturn is. I actually don’t know much about him at all, except that he hovers here and doesn’t contribute much unless he objects to something another writer has done.”

    I won’t say that, I believe he’s responsible for our banner image, which is brilliant, and I enjoy his interviews. I don’t like him in general though. I admit that.

    “That certainly is his right, I suppose.”

    Under the first amendment, maybe, but it’s not appreciated.

    Billy:

    “Views cannot be evil. Acts can be evil. You clearly misunderstood my comment.”

    Racism is not a view, nor is it a “logical falicy”, because there is no logic in racism. Racism is inerrant hatred, and hatred is evil, and an evil that leads to even greater evils.

    “Watch Mike Judge’s Idiocracy.”

    Already have. One of my favorite movies.

    “A future devoid of logic and reason and full of misunderstanding is truly troubling.”

    A future devoid of logic & reason is a breeding ground for evil, especially racism, which is a rejection of all logic & reason in favor of blind hatred. Again, this is really simple stuff. You should already know this.

  15. William Saturn

    Jed maybe it’ll be better if you hear it from Webster:

    Racism – “the belief that some races of people are better than others”

    Fallacy – “a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea”

    Nothing in your final paragraph is inconsistent with anything I have said. But you still seem to argue that somehow my position promotes racism. The opposite is true. You say I have a “disturbed, twisted worldview,” but I am only arguing for people to understand why racism is wrong and to question their presumptions. For example, I am much more appalled by Vernon’s plagiarism than I am by his racism. Plagiarism is theft. Racism is flawed reasoning. Racism is not The Holocaust, Slavery, etc. Those were evil, inhumane acts, but their happening is no more related to Vernon’s racism than devout religiosity is to 9/11.

    I full-heartedly agree with your final paragraph, but the trend is happening because of the failure to identify and understand what racism really is. Racism is much more pervasive in popular society than you realize (i.e. rap music) and in fact, you have employed racism in this very discussion. Do you see the racism (albeit minor) in your own post:

    “Tell that to the young black boys & brown boys sentenced to prison for drug crimes while the rich white boys who do just as much dope go free.” – Shouldn’t this be a rich-poor dichotomy? Why insert race when poor whites are also doing time and rich minorities go free?

    “Billy Saturn, go into a black neighborhood, and tell them racism isn’t evil. I dare you.” – Are you assuming there will be some kind of violent reaction in a black neighborhood? Why?

  16. langa

    I disagree with the idea that hatred is inherently evil. I think this is false for multiple reasons.

    First, in many cases, hatred is justified. For example, I would never blame a slave who hated his master, a rape victim who hated her attacker, etc.

    Second, even if the hatred is irrational and unjustified, it is still only evil if it is acted upon. What matters in determining right and wrong is what people actually do, not what feeling they have somewhere “deep down” inside. That’s why good intentions don’t excuse evil actions.

    Getting back to the original article itself, I applaud the European move toward freedom of migration, and I hope (though I’m not optimistic) that America will follow suit. One of the items in the World’s Smallest Political Quiz used to talk about the right to freely cross borders, but it was unfortunately removed, probably in an effort to pander to right-wing xenophobes.

  17. Cody Quirk

    Only the hardcore parties like the NPD, Golden Dawn, and the BNP have race as part of their platform- THE UKIP, FRENCH NATIONAL FRONT, FINNS PARTY, DANISH PEOPLES PARTY DO NOT!

    The AFP are morons to compare themselves to these legitimate nationalist parties.

  18. johnO

    I think old man Le Pen of National Front (France) doesn’t like Jews and Muslims. Now, I agree his daughter is a “little” bit more polished. She may have put a happy face on the party but I’m not convinced with past history. UKIP is a good eurosceptic party and more libertarian. Finns and Danish Party sounds good hopefully goes UKIP way than Golden Dawn way.

  19. Bondurant

    Europeans are reactionaries in elections more than Americans are. Wherever radical left-wing policies rule, the hard right will surface and vice versa.

  20. Nicholas Sarwark

    William is right about one thing. Racism is a belief. It’s a stupid belief and those who hold it tend to be assholes. But being an asshole or having a stupid belief doesn’t make you evil, and the belief itself doesn’t rise to the level of “evil” for me.

    Evil is when people act on those beliefs to harm others. So racism is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for that kind of evil.

    It’s still a non-starter for me, but I agree with Jonathan Rauch, as set forth in “Kindly Inquisitors,” that no good comes from prohibiting views. Far better to have them out in the open, subject to debate and, when appropriate, ridicule.

  21. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Why is the desire for an Anglo-Saxon England, a Gallic France, or a Magyar Hungary racist — yet the desire for a Jewish (by blood) Israel, with laws to keep it that way, a legitimate form of Western style democracy?

    Yes, Israel defines its Jewishness largely by blood. You can be an atheist, but if you’re at least 25% of “Jewish blood,” you have the right to immigrate to Israel.

    Now, I’m not defending the racist parties of Europe, but it seems to me that Israel (and the Muslim theocracies) are in the same boat. The racist parties of Europe, the Muslim nations, and the Jews of Israel, all want the same thing for their respective groups. But only Israel gets a free pass in polite company.

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow–great observation, RTAA. I admit I don’t get why Israel gets such special treatment from the US. I know that even my comment will upset people. I just don’t get it..

  23. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “I admit I don’t get why Israel gets such special treatment from the US.”

    Because we’re tied at the hip to Israel militarily, because they’re the only non-Muslim state in the Arab world (which means a great deal when we keep bombing Muslims), and because Israel is the Jewish state, and in a post-Holocaust world, it’s a big, BIG no-no to go against the Jewish state.

  24. NewFederalist

    Very well said, RTAA! I tried to make a similar point but was kicked to the curb as being racist.

  25. Deran

    I’m not seeing the racism of the “Muslim theocracies”? I see them being utterly reactionary and counter-progressive. And I am aware of the past role of Arabs in the east African slave trade. But, for instance, Iran’s persecution of minorities is more focused on religious minorities and “apostacy” and naughtiness. Same in Saudi Arabia, to my knowledge. I know there are ethnic prejudices in Sudan between “Arab” Sudanese and “African” Sudanese. But that is not an issue of race that is endemic to ‘Islamic theocracies’. imo. It seems to me that all forms of intolerance are all intolerance, but I think each form of intolerance can have unique charecteristics.

  26. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt June 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    Wow–great observation, RTAA. I admit I don’t get why Israel gets such special treatment from the US. I know that even my comment will upset people. I just don’t get it..”

    It is not that hard to figure out.

    1) Look at how much money the pro-Israel lobby spends buying off American politicians. One example is AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington DC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee ).

    2) There are lots of moronic Christians in this country that buy into the “God’s chosen people” bullshit, and they think that there is some kind of religious duty for the US government to support Israel (as if it is in the Constitution that the US government should support any other country, which it is not in there), and that they should use government to impose their warped religious views on everyone else.

    Anyone who thinks that Americans should have the proceeds of the taxes that they pay go to support a foreign state is either an idiot, or has some kind of loyalty to said foreign state, in which case they should not be allowed to vote. There ought to be criminal penalties to any government official that attempts to divert any portion of the government’s budget to any foreign state, be it Israel or any other nation.

  27. Andy

    langa May 31, 2014 at 5:42 am “Getting back to the original article itself, I applaud the European move toward freedom of migration, and I hope (though I’m not optimistic) that America will follow suit. One of the items in the World’s Smallest Political Quiz used to talk about the right to freely cross borders, but it was unfortunately removed, probably in an effort to pander to right-wing xenophobes.”

    The former question on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz said PEACEFUL people crossing borders.

    Tell me, are you concerned about the political ideologies of many of the foreign people coming into the USA today?

    What percentage of the foreign people coming into the USA would you say are libertarians, and/or small government Constitutionalists, and what percentage of them would you say prefer a socialist welfare state, strict gun control laws, and other policies which are at odds with libertarianism and/or the US Constitution?

    What do you think of the results of this survey conducted by the Pew Research Center?

    http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/

    “75%
    Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significantly lower among the public at large.

    When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government which provides more services than a smaller government which provides fewer services.

    Some 75% of Hispanics hold this view; just 19% say they prefer a smaller government.”

    Here is another survey from Gallup:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155333/hispanic-voters-favor-gov-involvement-solve-problems.aspx

    “Hispanic Voters Favor Gov’t Involvement to Solve Problems

    Hispanics split on whether government should promote traditional values

    by Frank Newport

    PRINCETON, NJ — The majority (56%) of Hispanic registered voters in the U.S. believe the government should ‘do more to solve our country’s problems.’ This is more than the 37% of all American registered voters who say the same. Hispanic voters born outside the U.S. are even more likely to favor government intervention than those born in the U.S.”

    Do you agree or disagree that the right to keep and bear arms is the lynchpin for having any semblance of a free society? Do you agree or disagree that if we lose the right to keep and bear arms in this country, or have it become so strictly regulated that it will make a revolt against the government impossible, that freedom in this land known as the USA will be doomed?

    If you agree with me, that the right to keep and bear arms is an essential element of having a free society, and therefore that it is highly important that this right is preserved, and that any laws that restrict this right ought to be repealed, then we are on the same page.

    What percent of foreign people coming into the USA actually believe in the right of regular people to keep and bear arms, and what percentage of them favor strict gun control laws?

    Have you ever been to a gun show? I’ve been to many of them myself, and in multiple states as well. If you have been to a gun show, what observations have you made about the composition of the crowds at gun shows? What are the ethnic backgrounds of most of those who attend gun shows, and in what country were they born?

    Anyone who is not blind and not a moron knows the predominant composition of most of the pro-gun rights people in the USA.

    Most of the pro-gun rights people in the USA are people whom would be derided as being “rednecks,” but I’ll tell you what, if it were not for American “rednecks,” we would have already lost the right to keep and bear arms in this country.

    If you believe in freedom, and therefore believe that the government in the USA is way too big and needs to be scaled back drastically, or out right eliminated, then you damn well ought to be concerned about the political ideologies of the people who come into this land mass in which we live.

  28. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Mainstream Christianity (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, mainline Protestantism) teaches that Christians (of both Jewish and Gentile origin) are the New Israel, and hence, the chosen people. That those who reject Jesus also reject Abraham. (John 8:38-40).

    It’s mostly those Evangelical Christians who adhere to Dispensationalism who believe that the modern state of Israel, or that Jewish “blood,” has any theological significance.

    Mainstream Christianity teaches that all men and nations are equal before God, and that all are called to Christ.

    However, many mainstream Christians are ignorant of their own religion. They don’t study theology, and they imagine that TV preachers (many of adhere to some sort of Dispensationalist “last days” lunacy) represent mainstream Christianity.

  29. langa

    Andy, studies show that most black people also favor big government. Does that mean we should round up all the black people in America and send them back to Africa? Is that the correct path to liberty?

  30. Andy

    “langa June 2, 2014 at 7:58 pm
    Andy, studies show that most black people also favor big government. Does that mean we should round up all the black people in America and send them back to Africa? Is that the correct path to liberty?”

    I did not say anyone should be rounded up. This is not practical. Ideally, all Democrats, Republicans, socialists, fascists, or anyone else who is not a libertarian, would be expelled from the USA, since they do not live by the non-initiation of force principle, which means that they are not peaceful people, but since this is not possible, I think that in order to establish a free society, libertarians should separate ourselves from non-libertarians, perhaps by taking over New Hampshire, or some other state or counties, or perhaps somewhere else (maybe an island somewhere, or a floating city in the ocean, etc…).

    As for immigrants who come in this country, my experience in talking politics with thousands of them, is that the majority of them have no f’ing clue about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and that a large percentage of them do not really believe in individual freedom. There are exceptions to this of course, and I gladly welcome all immigrants who really came here for freedom (and I’ve had some of them tell me that they were actually disappointed when they found out that the USA is not as free a place as they thought that it would be).

    So I only support immigrants who actually believe in individual freedom, as in they advocate free market economics, the right to keep and bear arms, no entangling alliances with other nations (including wherever it is that they came from), legalized vices (drugs, gambling, strip clubs, porn, prostitution), no Affirmative Action programs, free speech (including so called “hate speech,” or any speech that people find offensive), freedom of religion (and freedom from religion), etc…

    I have talked to many immigrants who support such anti-freedom measures as gun control, rent control, food stamps, Affirmative Action, Social Security, banning gay marriage, the War on Drugs, government healthcare, banning gambling, censorship (of movies, television, books, the internet, etc…), foreign aid (usually to wherever it is they are from), foreign military intervention (if they think that it benefits wherever it is that they are from), etc…

    Oh, and I’ve encountered some immigrants who are very racist. I have encountered racist Hispanics, racist Jews (both immigrant and American), racist Middle Easterners (Arabs, Persians, etc…), racist Asians, racist Armenians, etc…

    I just find it to be nauseating that there are libertarians out there who naively think that we should celebrate the very immigrants who want to take away their freedom, or maybe they are so ignorant that they actually believe that all immigrants come here looking for freedom, when REALITY is that the many of them do not.

    I’d say that only a minority of immigrants in general could be described as libertarians or small government constitutionalists, and as a group, I’d say that they are LESS pro-freedom on average than Americans are (especially since few of them support gun rights, one of the most important freedoms that there is).

    These anti-freedom immigrants become American citizens, which means they get to become registered voters, after which they can vote to take your freedoms away.

    I really think that what this country has been turning into is a big part of the problem, as in as this country turns more and more into a welfare/police state, it will attract more and more of the type of people who want to live in a welfare/police state.

    I think perhaps the only way for a libertarian society to work, and to have any chance at staying a libertarian society, is that there’d have to be some kind of enforceable contract to live in or enter the libertarian society, which I call The Libertarian Zone, which would spell out what the libertarian society is, and would prohibit the signers of the contract from initiating force and fraud. People who violate the libertarian contract would face deportation from The Libertarian Zone. The contract to live in The Libertarian Zone would have to be signed by all immigrants, as well as all of those born in The Libertarian Zone, although children would not have to sign until they become adults (the age of adulthood would have to be voted on by the initial signers of The Libertarian Zone contract). If the child turned adult refuses to sign The Libertarian Zone contract, they would be deported. I just have a hard time seeing a libertarian society working or lasting if it is filled with too many people who are not libertarians, which is why we do not have a libertarian society in this country right now.

  31. Andy

    I have gathered petition signatures at 34 gun shows across this country, plus I helped man a volunteer outreach table at another gun show (as in just outreach, no petitions).

    Pennsylvania (5 guns shows for petitions, one gun show for just volunteer outreach)

    Maryland (2 gun shows)

    Virginia (one gun show)

    North Carolina (one gun show)

    Alabama (4 gun shows)

    Indiana (one gun show)

    Iowa (one gun show)

    Arkansas (2 gun shows)

    Texas (one gun show)

    Oklahoma (one gun show)

    Nebraska (one gun show)

    North Dakota (2 gun shows)

    New Mexico (2 gun shows)

    Arizona (6 gun shows)

    California (4 gun shows)

    Even in large cities like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Phoenix, Arizona, the majority of people at gun shows are white male “rednecks.” Now I’m not saying that all of the people at gun shows are libertarians, because they are not, but I have run into at least a few libertarians at every gun show I’ve ever worked. Even for the ones who are not libertarians, they at least get it right when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, and without this right, WE LOSE EVERYTHING ELSE.

    I’m not religious, but THANK GOD FOR REDNECKS!

    LYNYRD SKYNYRD – GOD & GUNS

  32. Andy

    Hank Williams, Jr. – “Country Boys Can Survive” (Official Music Video)

  33. Nathan Norman

    The Libertarian Zone: Sign the contract or be forcibly deported; Pass the Smallest Political Quiz or be forcibly deported; Think pure libertarian thoughts or be forcibly deported; lose an election or be forcibly deported.

  34. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “The Libertarian Zone: Sign the contract or be forcibly deported; Pass the Smallest Political Quiz or be forcibly deported; Think pure libertarian thoughts or be forcibly deported; lose an election or be forcibly deported.”

    No, that’s just Andy. I welcome political dissent, even that I find dangerous. If you don’t have the freedom to be against freedom, you are not free.

  35. langa

    I did not say anyone should be rounded up. This is not practical. Ideally, all Democrats, Republicans, socialists, fascists, or anyone else who is not a libertarian, would be expelled from the USA, since they do not live by the non-initiation of force principle, which means that they are not peaceful people, but since this is not possible, I think that in order to establish a free society, libertarians should separate ourselves from non-libertarians, perhaps by taking over New Hampshire, or some other state or counties, or perhaps somewhere else (maybe an island somewhere, or a floating city in the ocean, etc…).

    It is also impractical to try to keep people out, unless you put up a Berlin-style wall, and I certainly don’t think any libertarian would support that. Also, I don’t think it’s desirable or possible to try to achieve libertarian ends through non-libertarian means.

    As for immigration, I used to be against it. In fact, back when I took the Quiz for the first time (back in high school), the old question about crossing borders was one of only 2 questions that I did not answer in a libertarian fashion. Back then, I did not personally know many immigrants, as I lived in a very small town, and most of my opinion of them was based on what I had heard from the media. So, I assumed that most of them were either criminals or freeloaders.

    My opinion changed after I lived for several years in apartment buildings where the vast majority of my neighbors were immigrants (some legal, some illegal). I soon discovered that immigrants are really no different from anyone else; some of them are good, some of them are bad. Some of the politest, most hard-working people I have known have been immigrants. On the other hand, some of the laziest, most obnoxious people I have known have also been immigrants. Of course, I could say the same things about native born Americans, as well.

    I will note that while the media exaggerates the number of criminals and freeloaders, there are some of those among the people that come here. But if we got rid of the Drug War and all the free “social services”, there would be no incentive for these “bad ones” to come, and the only ones who would come would be those that work hard and contribute to society. Problem solved.

  36. langa

    By the way, while I’m certainly no expert on country music, I have always thought this is one of the most libertarian songs around:

  37. Andy

    Although the majority of pro-gun rights advocates are men, there are women out there who are strong advocates of the right to keep and bear arms as well, and like the men, a lot of them would be derided by the media for being “rednecks”.

    Here’s a song by a pro-gun right lady, which has lyrics which represent her pro-gun rights views.

    Miranda Lambert – Gunpowder and Lead

  38. Andy

    “Jed Ziggler Post author June 3, 2014 at 10:46 am said: “No, that’s just Andy. I welcome political dissent, even that I find dangerous. If you don’t have the freedom to be against freedom, you are not free.”

    You don’t get it, Jed. The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there are too many people in this country who do not believe in liberty.

    I’ve never been to Porcfest (the annual summer libertarian festival in New Hampshire from the Free State Project), but I’ve heard accounts from people who have attended it, and they said that it is great, because it is like a mini-libertarian society. What makes it a libertarian society? The only people who go to Porcfest are libertarians!

    People can be free to disagree on a lot of issues, and this is fine. The problem is when people use force, most often in the form of government, to FORCE their views on to others. Now it is one thing to use force against a person who is violating the non-aggression principle themselves, such as a person who believes that they have a right to steal your car, but it is another thing to use force against a person who is not violating the non-aggression principle, as in they have not initiated any coercive acts of violence or destruction of property, nor have they stolen anything or defrauded anyone.

    People who are not libertarians do not really believe that individuals have the right to disagree, because they want to use government to force their views on to others, even when the people whom they are forcing their views on are not doing anything to harm anyone else. So this is why it is dangerous to liberty to have people around who do not believe in liberty. People who do not really believe in liberty DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT TO DISSENT, as in they do not believe in “live and let live.”

    I think that Lysander Spooner was right way back in 1867 when he wrote, “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,” in that the Constitution is not a valid contract, because nobody living signed it. There is also the fact that the Constitution still established a coercive government.

    Kenneth Royce, also known as “Boston Tea Party,” wrote a book called “Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance With Big Government,” where his premise is that the Constitution was a coup, as in the real purpose of the constitutional convention where the Constitution was drafted, which was supposed to have been held to merely to amend the Articles of Confederation, was to create a strong national government, which is what has lead to the mess that we are in today.

    Regardless of whether or not Kenneth Royce is correct with his assertion about the Constitution, the fact of the matter is that nobody today signed it, and most people today, even those who hold elected office, and those who work in government, do not have a freaking clue what the Constitution says or means.

    Even with the flaws present in the Constitution, I think that we can all agree that if it were actually followed, we’d have a society that is a lot more free right now than it really is. Well how can you expect people to follow a document that most people have never read, or only read part of years ago, and therefore do not really understand it? Do you think that if everyone had to sign the Constitution, or some kind of document that laid down the guide lines for living in this country, that a lot more people would take the time to read and understand what said documents says, especially if there were some kind of penalty clause in it for violating it?

    One of the flaws in the Constitution as that there is no penalty clause in it. I had an idea a while ago for a penalty clause in the Constitution that would say something like, “It shall be legal for anyone to engage in acts of violence, including violence resulting in death, against any elected or appointed government official, at any level, who violates any section of the Constitution.”

    Do you think that government officials would be more careful about abiding by the Constitution, if they knew it was a legitimate legal defense for somebody to beat them or murder them if they violate the Constitution?

    The Constitution really does not go far enough in protecting individual liberty. This is why ultimately, coercive government should be abolished. There should be no taxes. Individuals should interact with each other on a voluntary basis.

    Why is this not the way it is now? Why do we not have a voluntary society? Why do we not at least have a coercive government that is small, and strictly adheres to what is written in the Constitution?

    The reason we do not have either a voluntary society, or a small government which is limited by the Constitution, is because there are too many people among us that fall into one of three categories:

    1) They are sociopath control freaks.

    2) They are people who prefer to be lead around like sheep by sociopath control freaks.

    3) They are not sociopath control freaks, and they do not necessarily prefer to be lead around by sociopath control freaks, however, they do not possess the will to do anything to stop the sociopath control freaks, so they just “grin and bear it” (so to speak).

    There are people who are freedom fighters, such as those of us who are in the Libertarian Party, as well as those who are working toward more freedom in other ways. but we are greatly outnumbered by the other three groups. The people who are in groups 1 and 2 are the enemy, especially group 1. The people in group 3 are either apathetic, or they sympathize with our way of thinking, but they do not realize it yet, or they realize it, but they think that the situation is hopeless, so they do not do anything, or they are afraid to do anything.

    I really do not see any way that we can achieve liberty, unless we get away from groups 1 and 2. Libertarianism is just not compatible with the people who are in groups 1 and 2. The people in group 1 are especially dangerous. These are the people who would try to destroy a libertarian society if we were successful in creating one somewhere.

    There are certain people in this country and world, who will never accept libertarianism, no matter what we do. The only things that we can do is get away from these people, and defend ourselves, with violence if necessary, if they come near us.

    We will never achieve a libertarian society, as long as we are outnumbered by Democrats, Republicans, socialists, communists, fascists, monarchists, or whatever other form of collective control systems you can imagine.

    This is what lead me to the concept of a Libertarian Zone, or Libertarian Zones. This would be a place, or places, where people who are not sociopath control freaks, and people who do not like being lead around by sociopath control freaks, can come together and live in voluntary cooperation (kind of like Porcfest, but year round, and hopefully on a bigger scale). There’d have to be some way of spelling out what the terms to live in or visit the Libertarian Zone were, and there’d have to be some mechanism for enforcing those terms. This is what lead me to the idea of the Libertarian Zone Contract. Entrance to the Libertarian Zone would not be based on race, ethnicity, or anything else beyond political, or more accurately, philosophical ideology. The ideology would be spelled out in the contract, which would be the same for everyone, and everyone would have to sign. The penalty for not signing would be ejection from the Libertarian Zone. Perhaps everyone in the Libertarian Zone would have to post some kind of bond, and then if the Libertarian Zone Contract is broken, there would be randomly selected jury, participation on which would also be voluntary (since the price for liberty is eternal vigilance, I think that most people who live in the Libertarian Zone would welcome the opportunity to serve on randomly selected jury). If the randomly selected jury finds that a person did indeed violate the Libertarian Zone Contract, bounty hunters would be able to collect the bond which the individual posted to enter the Libertarian Zone (anyone in the Libertarian Zone could be free to collect the bounty as a bounty hunter), by forcibly ejecting the offender if necessary. If the offender is particularly nasty, and refuses to leave, bounty hunters will be free to use deadly force against them. Given that there will be no laws against self defense in the Libertarian Zone, a really heinous Libertarian Zone Contract violator, such as a rapist or a murderer, would not likely get very far, because many people in the Libertarian Zone would likely walk around armed. Nobody would be forced to own or carry a gun, but I’d bet that many people would chose to do it. There would be no War on Drugs and no welfare state, both of which breed crime, and there’d be no laws preventing people from owning or carrying guns, or knives or swords or mace or tasers or other weapons for self defense, I don’t think that crime would be a big problem, even more so given that every individual would have to read and sign a contract that says that they agree to not engage in coercive acts of violence, theft, fraud, or destruction of property, and that if they violate this contract, they will be forced to leave the Libertarian Zone, and they will be forced to pay restitution prior to leaving, and that depending on their actions, violation of the contract could result in their death, or severe bodily injury, since many of the residents of the Libertarian Zone will chose to carry weapons and will be well trained in their use. I think that the Libertarian Zone would be a nice and prosperous place to live, and that once people were in it, and once they signed the Libertarian Zone Contract, which would be short, and in basic terms that most people could easily understand (if a person was retarded and not capable of understanding the Libertarian Zone Contract, they would have to be a ward of a Libertarian Zone Contract signer, as in a Libertarian Zone Contract signer would have to sign for them and would be responsible for caring for them), that most people would want to stay in the Libertarian Zone, and would be careful to not initiate force or fraud.

    The Libertarian Zone is an idea I’ve been kicking around for a long time for how a Libertarian Society could be achieved, given the reality that there are some people in this world who are severe obstacles to having a libertarian society.

  39. Jed Ziggler Post author

    “You don’t get it, Jed. The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there are too many people in this country who do not believe in liberty. ”

    GOOD. I welcome the debate.

    “One of the flaws in the Constitution as that there is no penalty clause in it. I had an idea a while ago for a penalty clause in the Constitution that would say something like, ‘It shall be legal for anyone to engage in acts of violence, including violence resulting in death, against any elected or appointed government official, at any level, who violates any section of the Constitution.’

    Do you think that government officials would be more careful about abiding by the Constitution, if they knew it was a legitimate legal defense for somebody to beat them or murder them if they violate the Constitution? ”

    That is truly, purely terrifying. Not just no, HELL NO.

    “We will never achieve a libertarian society, as long as we are outnumbered by Democrats, Republicans, socialists, communists, fascists, monarchists, or whatever other form of collective control systems you can imagine. ”

    If you don’t allow those people in your society, then it’s not free.

    What you envision is as disgusting and putrid as communism & fascism. I do not support it. Not in the least.

    We will have a libertarian society, and we will have it because it will win in the arena of ideas. I will accept nothing else.

  40. Andy

    Jed Ziggler said: “That is truly, purely terrifying. Not just no, HELL NO.”

    What is so terrifying about this? Government officially regularly beat, imprison, and sometimes even kill people, and this is often done in the name of things that are outside the confines of the US Constitution. So why not turn the table on them, and have an amendment to the Constitution which specifically says that it is OK for regular people to do this to government officials who violate any section of the Constitution?

    This is like the right of revolution, which is specifically listed in the New Hampshire Constitution.

    If it is OK for groups to revolt against government for violating their rights, then why not make it OK for people to do this on an individual basis as well?

    “If you don’t allow those people in your society, then it’s not free.”

    I totally disagree. This is like saying that you are not free if you do not allow a rapist in your house, or a carjacker in your car.

    These people can enter the Libertarian Zone, IF the sign the Libertarian Zone Contract which says that they will be ejected if they violate the non-aggression principle, and that depending on what they do, they may have to pay restitution, and they may end up suffering bodily injury or death.

    “What you envision is as disgusting and putrid as communism & fascism. I do not support it. Not in the least.”

    Well then you don’t have to live in the Libertarian Zone. You can live in the statist zone with all of the sociopath control freaks and their mindless sheep followers.

    “We will have a libertarian society, and we will have it because it will win in the arena of ideas. I will accept nothing else.”

    How in the hell are you going to change the minds of people who are committed to be control freaks or the followers of control freaks? These people do NOT listen to facts or reason. They do not give a rat’s ass about your philosophy. These people can not be reasoned with, the only thing that they understand is the barrel of a gun or the point of a spear.

    I think that the most realistic scenario for libertarians to be able to live in a libertarian society is for libertarians to separate themselves from all of the non-libertarians. Have something like Porcfest, but just have it last year round.

  41. paulie

    By the way, while I’m certainly no expert on country music, …

    I listen to lots of kinds of music, country being one. These songs are as far as I know not political; I just like them.

  42. Deran

    ” These people can not be reasoned with, the only thing that they understand is the barrel of a gun or the point of a spear. ”

    Wait, this sounds an awful lot like some sort of authoritarianism? And how can people be predetermined to have one ideology or not? People learn ideologies. Theya re not born with them already in their minds. I would think if your ideas produce more freedom, selfdetermination and personal control over ones life, as well as causing prosperity, won’t people then become interested in your ideas? Or are these ideas that only white men of a certain age can comprehend and agree to?

    I think the idea of sending away political dissidents is sometimes called Fascism or Communism? Does not seem very libertarian capitalist to me? I’m not a libertarian capitalist, but from what I read, this sounds more like Sarah Palin or Joe Stalin?

  43. paulie

    Well Geez, is it SO wrong for Europeans to wish to protect their cultural heritage?

    By government force? Yes, it is.

    It doesn’t seem to me that Saudi Arabia allows ANY Christian churches at all and they deny women virtually ALL basic rights.

    And does this somehow make xenophobic political parties in the continent that spawned the Crusaders, Hitler and other such loveliness any less reprehensible?

    Some of the so called “extremist” parties which won seats are crackpot Nazis but others appear to me to be just trying to fend off a hostile takeover of their way of life. Am I missing something?

    Probably, you are, yes. The ones that appear to be just trying to “fend off a hostile takeover” are chock full of nazis, and you don’t have to dig very deep to find them. And all of the crackpot nazis put a “fend off a hostile takeover” fig leaf on themselves. Some just do a slighly better job on the PR front than others.

  44. paulie

    Can you explain why?

    Yes. That doesn’t mean that I have to, though, unless the mood happens to strike me.

    Or do you, without any thought, automatically believe racism = evil?

    Not choosing to explain something to your satisfaction doesn’t mean that a position is without any thought or automatic. It can simply be a rational preference for using the time to do something better, such as clipping my nails, organizing my socks, counting stars, downloading porn that I am unlikely to live long enough to watch much less enjoy, calculating pi to the millionth place…you get the idea.

  45. paulie

    Wow! I guess PC has now come to the LP?

    Opposing racism isn’t only “politically correct,” it actually is correct. Collectivism is for insects, mental and otherwise.

  46. paulie

    I never defended racism. However, it is nothing more than a logical fallacy. It is not evil. Slavery is evil. Eugenics is evil. These are not the same as racism.

    Don’t be dense. We are discussing political parties here. They don’t just want to be peacefully racist and enjoy the company of their fellow racists, they want to use government force to put their racist views into law.

    And to Joshua’s point, collectivism is not necessarily evil either.

    Voluntary collectives aren’t necessarily evil. Government laws which punish or reward people based on their membership or non-membership in collectives are. It is the latter which is the agenda of racist political parties, regardless of their level of slickness, polished image or deceptiveness.

  47. paulie

    “Tell that to the young black boys & brown boys sentenced to prison for drug crimes while the rich white boys who do just as much dope go free.” – Shouldn’t this be a rich-poor dichotomy? Why insert race when poor whites are also doing time and rich minorities go free?

    Because racism absolutely does play a part in the disparity with which people from different backgrounds are treated in the criminal “justice” system. Yes, perceived class/income background does too, but not in isolation.

    “Billy Saturn, go into a black neighborhood, and tell them racism isn’t evil. I dare you.” – Are you assuming there will be some kind of violent reaction in a black neighborhood? Why?

    People who have been on the receiving end of massive amounts of racist government policy and societal racism tend to react violently when someone seems to justify, excuse, minimize or deny the reality of it. It is not just black folks though; you may have gotten a violent reaction from some Jews in nazi ghettoes and concentration camps if you told them nazism is’t evil, for instance. Why would you presume there was something racist buried in Jed’s statement here?

  48. paulie

    Getting back to the original article itself, I applaud the European move toward freedom of migration, and I hope (though I’m not optimistic) that America will follow suit. One of the items in the World’s Smallest Political Quiz used to talk about the right to freely cross borders, but it was unfortunately removed, probably in an effort to pander to right-wing xenophobes.

    Agreed, and it was most definitely in an effort to pander to right-wing xenophobes. No question about it.

  49. paulie

    UKIP is a good eurosceptic party and more libertarian.

    More being, of course, a relative term.

    They oppose migration freedom and support greater military spending, for two examples (there are many others) of how they are not libertarian.

  50. Andy

    Jesus fucking Christ, some people just don’t get it.

    Deran June 6, 2014 at 12:05 am said: “Wait, this sounds an awful lot like some sort of authoritarianism? And how can people be predetermined to have one ideology or not? People learn ideologies.”

    There are studies that indicate that people are born with certain personalities traits, but whether or not political philosophy is a case of nature or nurture, or some combination thereof, this is not relevant to the discussion.

    I’ve been involved in this stuff since 1996. I’ve talked to a lot of people about politics, all over the country. When I say a lot of people, I’m not exaggerating. Try working as a petition circulator on a full time basis for 14 years and in 33 states. Then on top of this, there is all of the many, many, many hours spent engaging in volunteer activism, debating politics online, etc…

    I came to the conclusion years ago that there are some people who are going to understand and accept the concept of individual freedom, while others do not. Sure, some might come around at some point, but others are a lost cause. You will not change them. They are either authoritarian control freaks, or they are people who prefer to be lead about by authoritarian control freaks.

    Have you ever had confrontations with the police, or government bureaucrats, or just die hard Democrats or Republicans or others brands of hardcore statists? I’ve had many of them. These people do NOT respond to reason or logic, and they often times DO NOT EVEN FOLLOW THE LAWS WHICH THEY CLAIM TO UPHOLD. I have literally had multiple instances where I had copies of the law with me, and tried to show it to them and they would not even look at it, or where I tried to read it to them and they would not listen.

    If you went to Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, do you’d have been able to talk active Nazis and active communists to stop being Nazis or communists? Do you think that any of them would have given a shit about your philosophy? Do you think that if you wen to North Korea right now that you’d be able to get Kim Jong-un to become a libertarian?

    “Theya re not born with them already in their minds. I would think if your ideas produce more freedom, selfdetermination and personal control over ones life, as well as causing prosperity, won’t people then become interested in your ideas?”

    Some might, but I think that there are people in this world who are a lost cause. You could set up a model libertarian society somewhere and they’d try to destroy it.

    Some people in the world DO NOT WANT FREEDOM. They want to control others, or they want to be controlled by others.

    This may sound odd to libertarians, because to the libertarian, freedom is what makes sense, but to the authoritarian control freak and their mindless sheep followers, freedom sounds like a “crazy” idea and it is authoritarianism which makes sense.

    “Or are these ideas that only white men of a certain age can comprehend and agree to?”

    I NEVER said that only white men of a certain age can comprehend the concept of freedom. I think that there are at least some people who believe in individual freedom in ALL races, ethnic groups, nationalities, ages, etc…

    I” think the idea of sending away political dissidents is sometimes called Fascism or Communism? Does not seem very libertarian capitalist to me? I’m not a libertarian capitalist, but from what I read, this sounds more like Sarah Palin or Joe Stalin?”

    I’m talking about libertarians forming a voluntary community. There would be certain conditions for living in the libertarian voluntary community, which I call The Libertarian Zone. The conditions would be to up hold libertarian principles. This would be spelled out in a binding contract which everyone who joins The Libertarian Zone has to sign to join. Don’t want to sign the contract, then fine, go live somewhere else. Nobody would be forced to live in The Libertarian Zone. The purpose of the contract is so that everyone knows what the terms are for living in The Libertarian Zone, which is to abide by the non-aggression principle. Violate the non-aggression principle, and you have violated your contract, and are no longer eligible to live in The Libertarian Zone.

    This is really not that much different from a condo association. When people purchase a condo, they sign a contract and agree to abide by the rules of the condo association. If they violate those rules, depending on what they do, they could face being tossed out of the condo association.

    The Libertarian Zone concept would be like a condo association, only on a much larger scale, hopefully.

  51. paulie

    Why is the desire for an Anglo-Saxon England, a Gallic France, or a Magyar Hungary racist — yet the desire for a Jewish (by blood) Israel, with laws to keep it that way, a legitimate form of Western style democracy?

    I’m not a fan of any nation-state, nor of coercive democracy any more so than any other species of coercion. However, the desire for a Jewish Israel comes from the history or expulsions, dispossesion, persecution, pogroms, forced conversions, legal discrimination, slavery, and mass murder that Jews dealt with in exile for thousands of years.

    I’m not aware of anything remotely similar that Anglo-Saxons, French people or Hungarians have suffered, are you?

  52. paulie

    Tell me, are you concerned about the political ideologies of many of the foreign people coming into the USA today?

    No more so than I am concerned with the political ideolgy of those born in the US.

    To justify immigration policy on the basis of surveys in a collectivist justification.

    And there is no valid justification for the state to act as if it has some legitimate ownership rights in all property within its claimed borders.

    Such an implied property right is necessary to prevent mutually voluntary arrangements, e.g., between employers and employees or tenants and landlords which violate statist migration control edicts.

    But, if we accept such a property stake for the state as justified, it opens the door for the state to claim many of its trespasses against us as being legitimate; after all, it is only exercising the property rights that any property owner would against those on its property when it tells us how to behave, what to pay it for rent for existing within its borders, and so on.

    If we don’t accept such a property right of the state as being justified, however, the question of formulating state policy to control immigration on the basis of how various groups of people respond to surveys is moot, because no such state policy could ever be justified no matter what.

  53. William Saturn

    Because racism absolutely does play a part in the disparity with which people from different backgrounds are treated in the criminal “justice” system. Yes, perceived class/income background does too, but not in isolation.

    The disparity in crime among races is related to socio-economic disparity. I do not need to reference the countless studies that come to this conclusion.

    Does socio-economic disparity have anything to do with race?

    “No” says Morgan Freeman, “It’s a good excuse for not getting there.”

    Why would you presume there was something racist buried in Jed’s statement here?

    It is certainly racist to make generalizations about propensity for violence of one race as a reaction to words spoken. Blacks may agree with me as Morgan Freeman does, others may simply laugh, yell, or ignore. Violent reaction is possible. But it’s also possible in a so-called white neighborhood. Perhaps lower income neighborhoods have a propensity for violence because of the prevalence of crime among lower income peoples. Jed did not say that. Instead he referred to low income neighborhoods as “black” neighborhoods and inferred there would be a violent reaction to words spoken.

  54. paulie

    So I only support immigrants who actually believe in individual freedom, as in they advocate free market economics, the right to keep and bear arms, no entangling alliances with other nations (including wherever it is that they came from), legalized vices (drugs, gambling, strip clubs, porn, prostitution), no Affirmative Action programs, free speech (including so called “hate speech,” or any speech that people find offensive), freedom of religion (and freedom from religion), etc…

    It depends on what you mean by support. I don’t support any individual having anti-liberty views, but they do have the right to have them. I don’t agree with them having a “right” to put such views into law. Where the person happens to have been born just doesn’t enter the equation, and can’t, unless you presume a part-ownership by the state (at a minimum) of all property within its claimed borders.

    I have talked to many immigrants who support such anti-freedom measures as gun control, rent control, food stamps, Affirmative Action, Social Security, banning gay marriage, the War on Drugs, government healthcare, banning gambling, censorship (of movies, television, books, the internet, etc…), foreign aid (usually to wherever it is they are from), foreign military intervention (if they think that it benefits wherever it is that they are from), etc…

    Same goes for native born citizens. And even if all immirants were 100% anti-liberty, which is far from being true, that does not magically give the state a power it does not legitimately possess otherwise.

    Oh, and I’ve encountered some immigrants who are very racist. I have encountered racist Hispanics, racist Jews (both immigrant and American), racist Middle Easterners (Arabs, Persians, etc…), racist Asians, racist Armenians, etc…

    Of course. And this has nothing to do with them being immigrants. Large numbers of all kinds of ethnic groups, regardless of where they are born, are racist. None of this justifies government immigration restrictions.

    I just find it to be nauseating that there are libertarians out there who naively think that we should celebrate the very immigrants who want to take away their freedom, or maybe they are so ignorant that they actually believe that all immigrants come here looking for freedom, when REALITY is that the many of them do not.

    Of course not all immigrants come looking for freedom, but many do, and even if none did that still would not make legitimate any state action that would not otherwise be legitimate.

    For example, my father is an immigrant and he is a typical (in his views) leftie (now retired) college professor. Does that make him any less entitled to be in the US than the many ideologically very similar (ex-) professors who happened to have been born in the US? I don’t see why.

    And certainly, he has some views that are worse than the “rednecks” at gun shows. But then again he has some views that are better. For example, he is for separation of religion and state, and many of them are not. He generally opposes US wars, bombings, invasions and occupations overseas, and they generally support them. He supports equal rights for gay people, and many of the good folks buying guns or gawking at them at gun shows would just as soon have gay people rounded up and gassed. He supports a multipartisan political system, and a pretty good chunk of the gun show crowd would not allow anyone except Republicans to be on the ballot. And so on. So why should he be any less entitled to be here than they are? Yes, he would take away their gun rights. And many of them would take away his right to not bow to their twisted version of their deity, or to have freedom of speech, or to not have had me drafted into the army, or for some of them, even to exist at all as someone who is not what they consider white.

    So why should he be any less entitled to be here than they are, even if we were to accept your premise that those who are anti-liberty have less right to be here?

    Of course, I wouldn’t have been here either (and, I was not always libertarian, even in the US).

  55. William Saturn

    It is not just black folks though; you may have gotten a violent reaction from some Jews in nazi ghettoes and concentration camps if you told them nazism is’t evil, for instance.

    The key word in the above is “may.” Anyone may react violently to any statement of anyone else. As for your analogy, I stand by my comments and relate them to the analogy. Nazi views are not evil. Nazi acts are evil. There is a major difference between views and acts.

  56. paulie

    The disparity in crime among races is related to socio-economic disparity.

    It’s not a disparity in crime, it’s a disparity in how people are treated when they have commited the same crimes (at every step of the process), as well as how different but similar crimes are treated. Crack cocaine is treated much more harshly than powder cocaine. White collar theft is treated much more leniently than blue collar theft. And there are massive racial disparities at every step and level of law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration even when controlling for economic factors.

    Violent reaction is possible. But it’s also possible in a so-called white neighborhood.

    What? In what world would lower income whites react violently to you saying that racism is not a problem in this country, which is what IIRC Jed hypothesized you may get your ass kicked for by blacks?

    Perhaps lower income neighborhoods have a propensity for violence because of the prevalence of crime among lower income peoples.

    There’s no shortage of crime among high income people. It’s treated very differently, though.

    Instead he referred to low income neighborhoods as “black” neighborhoods

    No, he specifically referred to black neighborhoods, based specifically on something related to race. It doesn’t pass the laugh test to say that the reaction would be the same in a poor white neighborhood to that exact same statement. Granted, you would be less likely to get your ass kicked by Bill Cosby, George Jefferson and Tiger Woods for saying something stupid than by a bunch of people with little to lose, but you might get a mean dog chase you off the property and halfway down the street to the sound of laughter and derision.

  57. paulie

    I have gathered petition signatures at 34 gun shows across this country, plus I helped man a volunteer outreach table at another gun show (as in just outreach, no petitions).

    Heh. I would have thought it was more than that.

    Pretty sure I have worked more shows than that just in Alabama alone, not even counting all the ones I did in the other states.

  58. William Saturn

    “Granted, you would be less likely to get your ass kicked by Bill Cosby, George Jefferson and Tiger Woods for saying something stupid than by a bunch of people with little to lose,”

    Exactly. The difference in reaction is based on socio-economic status, not racial status.

  59. paulie

    It is also impractical to try to keep people out, unless you put up a Berlin-style wall,

    Or even then. Many people successfully fled East Berlin, which was a tiny and very well guarded enclave.

  60. Andy

    “paulie June 6, 2014 at 1:18 am

    ‘Tell me, are you concerned about the political ideologies of many of the foreign people coming into the USA today?’

    No more so than I am concerned with the political ideolgy of those born in the US.”

    This is covered under my Libertarian Zone Contracts. I already acknowledged that there are people who are born in a given land territory who do not believe in and/or live up to the principles of liberty, therefore, under the Libertarian Zone Contracts, people who are born in the Libertarian Zone would have to sign Libertarian Zone Contracts upon reaching the age of adulthood (this age would have to be decided upon by the group of first settlers in the Libertarian Zone). Parents would be responsible for their offspring until they reach the age of agreed upon adulthood. Let’s say that it is 18 for sake of discussion. Upon reaching the age of 18, the now adults born in the Libertarian Zone would have a choice, either sign the Libertarian Zone Contract, or they would have to move out of the Libertarian Zone.

    The Libertarian Zone Contracts would apply to both those born in the Libertarian Zone, as well as to those who immigrate to the Libertarian Zone. This eliminates the problem of native born people who do not believe in freedom, as well as the problem of immigrants who do not believe in freedom.

    “To justify immigration policy on the basis of surveys in a collectivist justification.”

    The immigrants who are compatible with the concepts of individual freedom would be welcome. The ones who favor gun control, government welfare programs, Affirmative Action, foreign aid or military intervention to favor their native land, censorship, etc…., would not be welcome, and would not be granted the “right” to vote.

  61. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ve had an interesting (and very civil) discussion going on on my Facebook Page for three days now. It concerns a meme as to whether illegal immigrants should have the right to get drivers licenses. I posted it with a comment that, yes, I thought they should. Isn’t is everyone’s wish that immigrants work and assimilate? How can that happen without the ability to drive?
    There are good arguments for and against, and of course many argue that requiring a license is itself illegal. These are complicated issues.

  62. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt June 6, 2014 at 10:57 am
    I’ve had an interesting (and very civil) discussion going on on my Facebook Page for three days now. It concerns a meme as to whether illegal immigrants should have the right to get drivers licenses. I posted it with a comment that, yes, I thought they should. Isn’t is everyone’s wish that immigrants work and assimilate? How can that happen without the ability to drive?
    There are good arguments for and against, and of course many argue that requiring a license is itself illegal. These are complicated issues.”

    Yes indeed this is a complicated issue. One complication often ignored (as you indicated) is the constitutionality of drivers licenses. Research that I’ve done on the issue indicates that drivers licenses were only meant for people who are engaging in commercial driving, such as a truck driver, a cab driver, a bus driver (like a city bus, or Grey Hound, or something like that), and that drivers licenses were not meant for regular people who just want to drive, because driving is a right, not a privilege.

    The government changed this as a way of extorting money and exerting more control over people.

    I’ve long that that DMV’s (Department of Motor Vehicles – known in some states by different names, such as RMV’s (Registry of Motor Vehicles), etc…) were big scams, especially the part about having to get your license plates renewed, as if license plates “expire” like a carton of milk or a loaf of bread? License plates do not really expire, it is just that the government needs an excuse to extort more money out of people, so they claim that your plates have “expired” and that you need to renew them, or else face getting pulled over and getting handed a fat ticket and possibly having your car impounded.

    Incidentally, my grandmother started driving at the age of 13, back before drivers licenses and license plates were even invented. She drove until she was in her mid 80’s, and she never got into an accident in her life. She was not one of those people who never went anywhere either, as she drove on long trips to places like Florida, California, and Canada.

    Just imagine if a 13 year old was driving today without a drivers license or license plates on the car. People would probably freak out and the cops would get called. I bet she didn’t wear a seat belt back then either. Oh, the horror!

  63. Andy

    “paulie June 6, 2014 at 2:13 am

    ‘I have gathered petition signatures at 34 gun shows across this country, plus I helped man a volunteer outreach table at another gun show (as in just outreach, no petitions).’

    Heh. I would have thought it was more than that.

    Pretty sure I have worked more shows than that just in Alabama alone, not even counting all the ones I did in the other states.”

    No, there were a few others that I attempted to work, but I either was denied access, and/or had the police called on me and threated with arrest before I could collect any signatures.

    Most gun show promoters are cool with petitions, but there are a few that are major league assholes.

    I had one gun show promoter in California call the cops on me to try to get me kicked out when I was working on the Recall Gray Davis petition (note that Gray Davis was a big government Democratic Governor of California who was not good on gun rights) so it was rather surprising that a gun show promoter would try to kick me out for getting signatures on this, but this lady (yes, it was a female gun show promoter) was a real bitch. This happened at the Ventura Fairgrounds in the city of Ventura (which is a nice city, by the way). I had a table set up outside the gate where people entered the show, and right behind me was an National Rifle Association booth and a Gun Owners of America booth. When the lady promoter came out and started yelling at me to leave and saying that she was going to call the police on me, I refused to leave, and I cited the California law that said that I had a right to be there. She would not listen and then she got on the phone and called the police. While this was happening, the NRA guys were saying stuff like, “You’d better listen to the lady and get out of here. The police are going to take you to jail.” I replied that I knew my rights, and that I was not going to leave, and that this lady should be ashamed of herself as a gun show promoter for infringing on my first amendment rights when I was using those rights to protect her 2nd amendment rights. A few minutes later, the fairgrounds manager came out, and she explained to the lady gun show promoter that I did in fact have a legal right to be there, and you should have seen the shocked look on her face. She then put her hand over her face and did not say anything else and bolted straight back inside the gun show and I did not see her again for the rest of the two day event. The Ventura Police NEVER even bothered to show up (because they knew that I was right).

    After this incident with the nasty lady gun show promoter was over, a guy came out from behind the Gun Owners of America booth and said something like, “Wow, I really like the way that you handled yourself in that situation.” That guy was Sheriff Richard Mack. He then invited me to join Gun Owners of America, which I did, and he gave me a Gun Owners of America t-shirt.

    I’ve always found that the Gun Owners of America guys are more pro-freedom than the NRA guys tend to be. I remember when Libertarian petitioner Bob Lynch and I were working a gun show in Phoenix, AZ back in 2000 to place Libertarian Party candidate for President, Harry Browne, on the ballot in Arizona as an independent (this was due to the split in the LP of AZ – we collected enough signatures to get Harry on the ballot, but he was kept off due to not winning the law suit over the petition deadline for independents), the gun show promoters said we had to stay in the parking lot. This was in the summer and it was freaking hot as blue blazes. Bob and I set up a table near the NRA booth and the Gun Owners of America booth. The Gun Owners of America guys were all cool and all of them signed the Libertarian Party petition. None of the NRA guys would sign because they were all afraid that we’d “take votes away” from George W. Bush. We did pretty good at this event, but the intense heat with no shade made it pretty damn miserable. I caked on a bunch of sun screen and I still got a sun burn anyway. I remember feeling like crap after the event was over. It was so hot on that black asphalt that the soles of my shoes melted. I remember running into some Republican at the show, who as I was trying to get him to sign the petition, he asked me what other issues Harry Browne advocated besides the right to keep and bear arms. I told him that he wanted to end the income tax and replace it with nothing, and to get the government out of Social Security, and to cut out any government spending that is not specifically authorized by the US Constitution. He replied, “George W. Bush wants to do the same thing!” I told him that that was not true, and he replied with something like, “Yes it is. George W. Bush will do these things if he is elected President. You can bet on it.” I then said, “OK, I will bet you $1,000 that if George W. Bush is elected President, that he will not do any of these things.” The guy agreed to the bet, but he refused to sign the petition, and then he walked away. Unfortunately, I did not get this guy’s contact information, because I’d like to collect my $1,000, plus interest, that he owes me from the bet.

    I’ve been denied access and/or had the cops called on me at a few other gun shows, like there was this total asshole of a gun show promoter at a show in Tulsa, OK, at the Tulsa Fairgrounds that called the cops on Paul and I for attempting to gather signatures on petitions to put Spending Limits on State Government and to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. I got the impression that he was an establishment Republican type, but whatever the case, the guy was a jerk. What really sucked about it was that the previous weekend, Paul and I had gotten signatures at a gun show at the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds, and we did not have any problems, the only bad thing was that it was a small show, so we did not get that many signatures. This show in Tulsa was a lot bigger, and we had driven all the way out there and paid for a motel room in Tulsa just so we could work that show. Like most of these shows, it was held at a government owned facility, and there was in fact a sign at the Tulsa Fairgrounds that thanked the voters of Tulsa for passing some bond issue which was used to renovate the fairgrounds. So we spent all that money on gas and getting a motel room out there (fortunately we only paid for one day) for nothing. This is one of the trials and tribulations of working on petition drives.

    I was in Arkansas in 2011, gathering petition signatures for the Libertarian Party of Arkansas. I was staying in the Little Rock area, but then I went up to Conway, and then to Russellville. I was going to go back to the Little Rock area, but I found out that there was a gun show coming up in some town north of Fayetteville, I think it was in Bentonville. I wanted to work that show, but I was concerned about driving that far and being denied access, so I sent an email to the promoter, explaining what I was doing, and how we support the right to keep and bear arms, and that I’d like to get a table at the show, and if he wanted to charge us for it that we could pay, or that I could just stay outside the show and ask people to sign the petition from the outside. I did not hear back from the guy, so I wasn’t sure what to do, so I figured that I’d head to Fort Smith, and work that city for a couple of days, as that would put me closer to Bentonville. There is a college in Fort Smith called the University of Arkansas Fort Smith which I had petitioned at in a past petition drive, but it was not that good, because it is a relatively large campus geographically, with a relatively small student body. The response to the petition was not bad, but given how slow it is, I’d rate it as one of the crappiest colleges I’d ever worked. The University of Arkansas in Fayetteville is better, but Paul and Bob Lynch had already hit that campus, and I think that they ended up having a nasty run in with the campus cops and bureaucrats which never did get resolved before that petition drive in 2011 ended.
    So I went to Forth Smith and worked that crappy college.

    There was also a TEA Party rally in Forth Smith in some park, and it was the lamest TEA Party out of the 3 that I worked. The other TEA Parties I worked were in Tucson, AZ in 2009, and in San Diego, CA in 2010. I did Libertarian Party at the one in Tucson in 2009, and I did OK. This was when the TEA Party was still new, and had promise, although I saw a sign of the bad things to come when I saw a big stage at that TEA Party, and heard a voice that sounded familiar coming from the stage. I walked up to the stage and there was nobody there. It turned out that the voice was Rush Limbaugh being played over loud speaker. I cringed. The TEA Party I worked in San Diego, CA in 2010 was better, as I had multiple ballot initiatives that appealed to the TEA Party crowd, and it was a pretty big crowd as it was an April 15th Tax Day Protest. I kicked ass at that TEA Party! There were mainstream Republicans in the crowd, but there were some libertarians there as well, both big L and small l. I ran into Mike Benoit from the LP of San Diego (he was there doing outreach). There was a younger guy that that was doing a pretty cool political rant over a megaphone. It turned out that he was the head of the Young Americans for Liberty club at the University of San Diego (which I found out is actually a Catholic school). He told me that Tom Woods was going to be a guest speaker there, and he invited me to come to the event where he was speaking and said that I could get petition signatures there. I went to that event and did very well gathering signatures, but I only got to work in a couple of short bursts, as people went in the event, and then as they rushed out. I saw part of the speech, and I was surprised that Tom Woods was as good of a speaker as he is, as I thought that he’d have good content, but would be a boring speaker. I felt kind of bad about walking out the speech early, especially since Tom Woods saw me walking out as he was speaking, but my mission there was to get petitions signed, so I prioritized that over listing to Tom Woods speak, and I needed to get set up in the hall and prepared for the inevitable burst of people out of the event. I know that I’d only have once chance to get them, and that if I missed that chance, the event would have been a waste. So I was prepared when the event ended, and I did quite well. I met another well known (in LP circles) San Diego Libertarian at that event who stopped and signed my petitions, in Richard Ryder, who is known as the Tax Crusader or something like that.

    Oh, but back to Fort Smith, yeah that TEA Party really sucked. This was 2011, and by this time the TEA Party had already been basically taken over by the Republican establishment, and since I was doing the Libertarian Party ballot access petition in Arkansas, the response was not as good, because a lot of people there were afraid that I was going to “take votes away” from Republicans. There were some positive responses there, but overall it was just not as good as I had hoped. One of the speakers was from Americans For Prosperity or Freedom Works and he was pushing this bullshit Republican line how everything was going to be OK just as long as Republicans took control of the House and Senate. There was some other guy who was a candidate for something, I think he was actually from Oklahoma or Kansas, and he got up and gave this speech where he did a lot of anti-Muslim ranting. There was a young local guy who owned his own business who gave a good speech about dealing with the local bureaucrats in Fort Smith, and he actually sounded pretty libertarian. I wanted to talk to him but he slipped out of the event before I had a chance. The rest of the speakers sucked.

    The other thing I tried to work in Fort Smith was the main public library. I was doing OK guy there until after being there for maybe an hour or two or so, I had a nasty run in with a maintenance worker. He came up to me and said something like, “We don’t allow any soliciting in front of the library.” I tried to explain what I was doing and show him the papers I had about the law and the court rulings. He would not listen or look at anything and he then threatened to call the police on me. I then said that I wanted to speak to whoever was in charge. He sent me to some office upstairs in the library. The person in the office was some kind of assistant to the head librarian, who had already gone home for the weekend. I talked to this person and they said something like, “You might be right, but I can’t given you approval to be here unless you get it approved by the Head Librarian, and she is not here.” I asked when she’d be back. She said on Monday. I then said that I’d like to leave her with photo copies of the papers about the law and the court rulings that say we have a right to collect petition signatures in front of public libraries, and I put my phone number on it and asked her to have the Head Librarian call me. She claimed that she would. So I left the papers and then I left the library.

    I then drove around Fort Smith a little bit to try to find another place to gather signatures, but it was getting late, and I figured that I was going to leave early in the morning to drive to the gun show in Bentonville, so I said, “Screw it.” and went back to the motel.

    When I got back to the motel, I turned on my computer and then proceeded to check my email. I noticed that I finally had gotten a response from the gun show promoter about the show in Bentonville. I opened the email and he said something like, “Sorry, we are sold out of tables.” I then wrote back, saying that I had my own table that I could set up outside the arena, or I could simply stand outside. I reminded him that I was not selling anything, and that I was just gathering signatures on a state mandated petition, and the candidates whom I was placing on the ballot were strong supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. Much to my surprise, the guy wrote me back shortly after I sent this message. His reply was, “If you show up and try to collect signatures outside the show, I will call the police on you and have you arrested.” I was angered, and shocked by his response, but perhaps I should not have been shocked. I then looked at this gun show promoters website again, and upon further inspection of the website, I found out that this promoter was the same gun show promoter who had called the police on Paul and I at the Tulsa Fairgrounds in Tulsa, OK, when we went there to try to gather signatures on Put Spending Limits on State Government and Stop Eminent Domain Abuse petitions. I thought, “THAT MOTHERFUCKER!!!!! THAT DIRTY SON OF A BITCH!!!!!! WHAT PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!” Man, I was pissed. I drove all the way to Fort Smith, just so I’d be closer to Bentonville, just so I could work that gun show, and this scumbag was threatening to call the police on me and to have me arrested just for asking people to sign a freaking petition so the Libertarian Party could place candidates on the ballot in Arkansas. WHAT AN ASSHOLE! I felt like writing the guy an angry response, but I decided to play it cool, so I wrote a response back saying something like, “Why would you call the police on somebody for engaging in their 1st amendment right by asking people to sign a petition, a petition which is to place candidates on the ballot who are strong supporters of the 2nd amendment, which is something that you should support?” The guy never responded. I thought about writing him an angry message after he did not respond to my question, but I did not bother. Then I thought, “I should just drive to Bentonville and work the outside area anyway. It is a government owned facility, so he does not have any legal grounds to tell me that I can’t be there.” Then I remembered that the police don’t always follow what the law says, in fact, it is my experience that the police seldom follow what the law says. I figured that the cops would probably be just as big as assholes as this gun show promoter, just like the cops in Tulsa were in my last encounter with this jerk, so I did not bother driving to the Bentonville to try to work the show.

    I ended up driving up to Fayetteville, and meeting up with Paul and Bob. We worked a farmers market, the Fayetteville Library, and we did some random city sidewalk petitioning. Paul ended up riding back to the Little Rock area with me, and we met up with the Paxtons and some other people and went to see the movie, “Atlas Shrugged.”

    I was still pissed that I went back to Little Rock with less signatures than I thought I’d have because of that jackass gun show promoter.

  64. Andy

    There were also occasions where I was going to work a gun show, and I ended up not working it, either because I got there late and it was really slow, or, it was a really rinky dink gun show.

    When I was in Illinois a few weeks ago I drove to some small town to work a gun show. I can’t think of what the town was called, but it was like 45-50 miles south of where I was staying in Champaign. The town may have been Tuscola. I had actually moved up to the Normal and Bloomington area, due to the college in Champaign having too many students who were not registered to vote that it was frustrating (that campus had one of the lowest rates of in state voter registration that I’d ever seen), and then being threatened with arrest in front of the Champaign Public Library, and then being told that I’d be arrested if I went anywhere in Champaign other than the public city sidewalks, the few of which had any foot traffic contained mostly people who were not registered to vote in Illinois. After a long back and forth fax and phone tag battle with the Champaign City Attorney’s office, etc…, it was finally worked out that it was legal for me to gather signatures in front of the Champaign Public Library, as well as some other places, but it wasted over two weeks of my times, which probably cost me over 1,000 signatures, and on each petition, since I was working both Libertarian Party and Term Limits. I also got hassled in Urbana, but fortunately the folks in Urbana were far more reasonable than the folks in Champaign, as the Urbana situation was resolved with in a day, the only bad thing was that the locations I had in Urbana were slower than the ones in Champaign. So I saw that there was this gun show in Tuscola. I sent an email to the promoter. He was cool with what I was doing. So I decide to leave Normal, drive about 50 miles to the Champaign – Urbana area, so I’d be closer to where this gun show was. I get up early on Saturday morning, drive about 50 more miles down to where this show is, and I get there, and it turns out to be the most rinky dink gun show I’d ever seen. I was astounded at how small and slow it was. I had worked a rinky dink gun show in a town called Centre Hall, Pennsylvania, which was kind of out in the boonies, and I thought that was small, but that show looked big compared to this one. I sat there and watched it for a little while, with the hope that it would get busier. It didn’t. I figured that this show was so small, and so slow, that it would be a waste of my time to be there, so I left, and drove 50 miles back to Urbana and worked the Urbana Library and did a little bit of random city sidewalk petitioning there as well.

    So considering that I had been staying in Normal a few days prior to this, and I then drove 50 some odd miles to go back to the Urbana – Champaign area, and then drove another 50 miles to Tuscola for this gun show, and I then drove 50 miles back to Urbana, because the show was so small and slow that it was a waste of my time. This means that I drove over 150 miles, with NO gas reimbursement, for nothing!

    This is why petitions need to pay good money. Petitioners go through way too much bullshit.

  65. Andy

    “. I then said that I’d like to leave her with photo copies of the papers about the law and the court rulings that say we have a right to collect petition signatures in front of public libraries, and I put my phone number on it and asked her to have the Head Librarian call me.”

    Oh yeah, that Head Librarian from the Fort Smith Public Library never bothered to call me back, which is typical of government bureaucrats. I did not care that much because I had gone back to Little Rock anyway by that point.

  66. Starchild

    Andy – Something like your “Libertarian Zones” idea appears in the novel “The Rainbow Cadenza” by libertarian science fiction writer J. Neil Schulman. There’s a sort of libertarian country called Ad Astra (“to the stars” in Latin), originally the colony of a country on Earth, but independent following a war of secession at the time the novel takes place. Ad Astra exists on “a cluster of manufactured habitats situated in the LaGrange Two orbit one-sixth of the way out again past our moon”, and essentially requires anyone seeking legal resident status to agree to abide by certain libertarian principles. From the novel (pp. 128-129):

    “Since secession, the Astrans have relied exclusively on the Ad Astran Union’s General Lease for their social contract. All residents must be signatories to the Lease or local merchants will not house, feed, or in any way do business with them. An exception is made for children, the retarded, and tourists, whose presences are vouchsafed by a sponsor — a signatory to the Lease who agrees to take on their liabilities. Such liabilities may be insured, and are routinely taken on by tourist bureaus eager for business…

    As soon as Joan [the teenage protagonist of the story] had returned from the rest room, and Jaeger had arranged for their baggage to be sent on ahead, there was the matter of Joan’s legal status — child, tourist, or resident? Joan and Wolfgang discussed the matter with the Leasing Agent in the docking station’s shipping office. The agent, a dark-haired girl only a few years older than Joan, pointed to a copy of the Lease mounted on the wall, and asked Joan to read it to her aloud.

    ‘When in the course of human events –‘ Joan began, but the girl interrupted her. ‘You can read,’ she said.

    ‘Haven’t I seen that opening paragraph somewhere before?’ Joan asked.

    ‘Plagiarism is our second-largest industry,’ Jaeger told her.

    ‘What’s the first?’ Joan asked.

    ‘You are,’ the agent said, ‘unless you claim resident status.’

    ‘What’s involved?’ Joan said.

    ‘Signing the Lease,’ Jaeger said. ‘In essence, the Lease demands only one thing — that in exchange for the right to do business with people here, you agree to accept responsibility for any costs you incur at the expense of someone else. You agree that if you buy something on credit, you’ll pay for it. You damage somebody’s property, you reimburse them. You agree to do a job and don’t deliver, you absorb the cost of having failed to do it.’

    ‘What’s the most I can get stuck for?’ Joan asked.

    ‘If you murder someone, except in defense, you can become the property of their heirs.’

    ‘What if I don’t sign?’

    ‘Then,’ the agent said, ‘you buy a ticket out of here right now — the Merchant Association will risk lending you the ticket if you can’t afford it — or you find a sponsor to guarantee your debts.’
    ‘That would be I,’ Jaeger said. ‘But if I sign for you, I am your legal guardian and you have to obey any decision I make for you.’

    ‘Can they make me accept a guardian?’ Joan asked.

    ‘No one,’ the agent said, ‘can be prevented from signing the Lease on her own behalf, so long as she is legally competent — which you proved by reading the Lease — or unless she has an outstanding debt against her name which she refuses to honor.’

    ‘It doesn’t matter how long I stay?’

    The agent shook her head.

    ‘I can sign and be treated like an adult?’

    The agent nodded.

    ‘I can see why we Astrans don’t think much of tourists,’ Joan said, as she reached for a light pen to sign the Lease.”

    Adapting a concept like this to present-day countries on Earth like the United States seems ethically problematic, however. For one thing, the Ad Astra colony in “The Rainbow Cadenza” is human-created property, rather than naturally existing land.

    For another, it seems to be implied in the novel that the existing residents of Ad Astra are all cool with this Lease-based system (at least dissent among them is not mentioned that I recall, although it seems probable there would have been at least some dissent at the time the arrangement was adopted, given that the population of the space country is said to be about 50 million at a point in time about six decades after secession — I guess that’s something to take up with J. Neil Schulman).

    By contrast, the U.S. and other actual countries obviously contain lots of people who would not approve of such a libertarian social contract. Thus the system of ostracism-enforced compliance described in the novel would tend not to work, meaning that enforcing the system would require not just keeping people out who refused to sign the contract, but forcibly deporting people already within the jurisdiction who refused to sign, or if they were allowed to stay, practicing a nationalism-based double standard of discrimination against immigrants. Either of which would obviously (at least to me) be a violation of libertarian ethics.

    I think Paulie puts it very well in his comments on June 6, 2014 at 1:18 am [I corrected a couple typos]:

    “Tell me, are you concerned about the political ideologies of many of the foreign people coming into the USA today?”

    No more so than I am concerned with the political ideology of those born in the US.

    To justify immigration policy on the basis of surveys is a collectivist justification.

    And there is no valid justification for the state to act as if it has some legitimate ownership rights in all property within its claimed borders.

    Such an implied property right is necessary to prevent mutually voluntary arrangements, e.g., between employers and employees or tenants and landlords which violate statist migration control edicts.

    But, if we accept such a property stake for the state as justified, it opens the door for the state to claim many of its trespasses against us as being legitimate; after all, it is only exercising the property rights that any property owner would against those on its property when it tells us how to behave, what to pay it for rent for existing within its borders, and so on.

    If we don’t accept such a property right of the state as being justified, however, the question of formulating state policy to control immigration on the basis of how various groups of people respond to surveys is moot, because no such state policy could ever be justified no matter what.

    The idea that “there is no valid justification for the state to act as if it has some legitimate ownership rights in all property within its claimed borders” is key. In the hypothetical human-created giant floating cylinders of Ad Astra, such a justification could possibly exist (although I could not find mention in the novel of how property ownership in the space country is handled), but here on Earth in the real world, the “Libertarian Zones” concept would have no such premise going for it unless the zones were comprised strictly of legitimately acquired private property.

    In such limited cases however, the concept seems to me to have a great deal of legitimacy and potential, and might not be as science-fictiony as one might assume, but something that we could see actually being used in the near future:

    “The Seasteading Institute is a nonprofit 501(c)(3), working to enable seasteading communities – floating cities – which will allow the next generation of pioneers to test new ideas for government.”

    A banner on the group’s website announces that “The first floating city could be just a few years away.”

    (See http://www.Seasteading.org)

  67. Starchild

    So, to relate my comments above back to the original topic of this thread, neo-Nazis or others who “wish to protect their European cultural heritage” or whatever by establishing a “whites-only” country, could potentially have the opportunity in the not-too-distant future to do so peacefully, without violating the rights of migrants to freely move about the natural land surface of the earth.

    I expect that most people living in current European or North American countries would be only too happy to be rid of them.

  68. Pingback: Throwback Thursday: Andy Jacobs: The Libertarian Zone | American Third Party Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *