Posts Tagged ‘libertarian’

By R.C. Seely

“THE ENTIRE END CITIZENS UNITED team is heartbroken by the senseless loss of life in Las Vegas. To those grieving, please know that we are with you. Even in the face of such tragedy though, we must resolve to identify a new path forward. 

    At ECU, we believe our role in this fight is to call out the undue and devastating influence of the gun lobby in America . We all know the big money in politics corrupts our Democracy and nowhere is more clear than in the rejection of commonsense gun laws that could help our communities be safer.”

    That was a declaration made on October 2nd, 2017, shortly after the Las Vegas shooting by The End Citizens United campaign. This is common sentiment among those in favor of gun control. 

    The Progressive Turnout Project referred to not immediately advancing more strict gun laws as “ignoring the will of the people” and excoriated the Republican Party saying “tragedy after tragedy, the GOP has done nothing absolutely NOTHING but offer ‘thoughts and prayers’ to victims of gun violence.” Joe Biden called out the Republican Party for their “inaction” after the shooting.  

    Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Gary Johnson had this to say:

   “It is an unspeakable act causing unspeakable pain. As we would expect in this great country, the stories of horror and death are accompanied by inspiring stories of Americans doing what Americans do: Strangers saving the lives of strangers. First responders going into harm’s way. Thousands lining up for hours to donate blood, and millions of dollars pouring into funds for victims and their families.

 But sadly and predictably, the partisans on each side have already retreated to their respective trenches. Some laying blame on gun rights activists, and some of my fellow supporters of the 2nd Amendment refusing to even engage in a conversation.”

 

   I agree with that but it’s difficult to have a conversation with those who only offer demogogery. It doesn’t sound like they want to engage in a conversation. The activist group Some Of US, at least has a point, commenting about the recent push to deregulate gun silencers.

“Silencers would prevent a gun from making a loud popping–making it harder for the average person or even law enforcement to know when and from where shots are being fired.”

 

   I will give them credit for at least critical thinking but all the arguments against deregulating silencers are also valid ones in favor.

    If a gun owner at the scene had a silencer on their firearm and choose to act and ended the shooter’s life they would be more encouraged to do so. Say they took a shot and missed or only wounded the shooter, and another shot was necessary to end it. That anonymity would be a comfort in such a situation. The shooter would only want anonymity so they could get away and cause more chaos, and there has not been a recorded account of a shooter using one. A shooter wants chaos and a loud gunshot would provide that, these are not snipers remember, and many don’t care about hiding.

    The shooter having a silencer wouldn’t be as much of an asset as postulated anyways, the sounds of gun shots are not the best method for determining the location of the shooter. The visual clues, such as the blast from the muzzle or the trail from the bullet, are far more accurate. At best, it’s a pointless law but more than likely it’s causing more harm. 

    Many have been trying to determine the rationale for the violence. Was it because he lost big at the gaming tables? Was he slighted by a member of the hotel staff?

    The Las Vegas shooter scouted locations in Boston and Chicago as well, demonstrating a clear determination to kill multiple people and it didn’t really matter where. This was about ending as many lives as possible and making a name for himself, making him a clinical psychopath and making motivation a moot issue. Notority was all the motivation he needed. He also was planning more than the single incident–including a bombing similiar to the Oklahoma City bombing–but wasn’t counting on the efficiency of Las Vegas Law Enforcement. 

    Many criticize the media in all this, to a degree they are correct. If the media didn’t over-cover these tragedies it wouldn’t entice these glory-seekers of violence to commit such atrocities. On the other hand, such coverage probably saves lives too. Visitors and residents of Las Vegas knew to stay away from the area and they called loved ones in the city to make sure they were all right. Maybe limiting coverage wouldn’t be such a bad thought.

    Tougher gun laws are the answer and can make things worse and the control freaks in Washington know this, they have the CDC study on gun violence which was later replicated by Harvard University, and both had the same results. The largest source of deaths by guns are suicides, then the criminals and last the victims. 

    They are also ignoring the FBI statistics on violent crime, violence is at an all time low–even with the spikes during the Obama administration and this first year of the Trump administration. So what is going on here? 

    If legislators have access to all this data, why proceed do a pathway of obsolete laws? Because they are control freaks and they want you dependent on government services. But consider that a lot can happen between the time you call 911 for law enforcement or the ambulance. If you have the chance to end a violent shooting, you should do so rather than running like a scared rabbit. Otherwise this predator will treat you like a scared rabbit! If you can assist someone else after an accident, you should, or their death is on you. What’s more you have the right to buy a gun and you shouldn’t have to ask permission.

    We have to stop those with mental illness from getting guns though, is the most common response. Fine, I’ll discuss that, to start off we need to make sure that this is established as a case by case basis and strictly defined. According to many gun control advocates, even the desire for a gun is a mental illness. Sounds like they are unbiased and able to set realistic and fair laws in this issue. Mental illness is the problem but more strict laws on that demographic won’t do anything either, psychopaths and sociopaths generally are the most difficult to diagnose, they are exceptionally intelligent and easily manipulate others. Many doctors don’t even know they are being conned by them unless specifically trained to deal with them. Yet again, the laws would harm those who are innocent.

    Gun control has been tried many times in the United States, in different scales. The earliest attempts were simply cities, many in the mining and cattle towns during the heavy romantizing “Wild West” era. As the name implies, it wasn’t very successful and the criminals ignored the laws. Same as they do today. 

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. HE has also written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victims Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

“HUGH HEFNER WAS A CREEPY old pornographer. So why is the left celebrating him,” that was an article from conservative Ben Shapiro, shortly after Hefner’s passing. A little bit of an exaggeration there, Ben. The Washington Post‘s article covered the “darkside of Playboy” and the Time magazine headline “No, Hefner didn’t love women” doesn’t sound like the adoration they had of President Obama. Even Hitler was treated more amiably by Time getting the status of “Man of the Year.”

   Going through the articles about Hefner’s passing it was more of an accurate account of his life… or hit pieces. Not exactly the collective demonstration of support for the deceased life’s work. I find amusing and noteworthy is this bizzaro world level shift of perspective, by both sides. 

    Shapiro is generally a defender of Capitalism and at odds with radical feminists, but here he is on the same side. That’s curious. Oh, that’s right, it’s that whole personality morality versus Freedom of Speech thing again. As long as Shapiro sticks to moral preening I really don’t care, it’s if he calls for action that concerns me. If you look at porn, it makes no difference to me; if you find it degrading to women and disgusting, that’s fine with me too. It’s when the line gets crossed and another prohibition is suggested that I care–because such things are so effective anyway. 

    And they are, when it comes to increasing government control but sooner or later the censorship bleeds over to an area of expression that will affect you. That’s how it works, for a moralist conservative a prohibition on porn is the “crisis that can’t go to waste.” Did you find a seat next to Gloria Stenim? Maybe the two of you can have a nice little chat about your children or how all men are evil and deserved to be forcibly castrated. Expect her husband or the chosen “breeders.”

    I’m all for working with allies who you differ with on other issues but Shapiro and other moralist are on the wrong side of this issue, if not why would he have written an article with such hyperbole in the title alone. 

    At best, they considered him a Titan of Industry in his field, a statement that one would expect from Shapiro about anyone else… as long as they don’t violate his morals. The “leftists” for once are giving the businessman credit and the “consersative” is berating him. Stand back for a minute and think about that, it’s funny. 

    This is not a recent fight either, the struggles between the theocratic officials and expressives artists, was raging in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment and earlier. The leaders of early Christanity wanted to add blackbars to the greatest works of art because back then it was viewed as scandalous, not much has changed but this is America not Europe. We have the right express ourselves, all of us. The artists, the theocrats and the social critics–such as myself. 

    Anyone who tries to censor either side in this is in the wrong, I don’t know if Ben Shapiro would support such efforts. I would like to believe he wouldn’t but moralists rarely support freedom for those they disagree with. He supports restrictions on abortion (not just the ones on partial birth and ending federal funding, as I do), he supports the war on drugs, he supports licensing for marriage, and I’d imagine would support restrictions on sex and violence in media. Hey, Hillary Clinton supports that kind censorship, Sharipo can have a long talk with her after he’s done with Stenim. Just stay on topic or you’ll get the cold shoulder like John Stossel.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

CHINA HAS DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT A new prohibition in it’s “efforts to combat climate change” to phase out gas and diesel engine automobiles. While still in the planning stages, the projected timeline to no longer manufacture the vehicles is 2040. India, the UK and France have also signed on to similar policy changes. 

Then there was the Hand-in-Hand hurricane relief fund raiser. This is a good thing, using a free market approach to help others, but they had to ruin it with their environmentalist lectures. Stevie Wonder called climate change skeptics “blind” or “unintelligent.” Insult them and lecture them on how brilliant you are because you follow the crowd, and you’re surprised they don’t respond in a positive manner. Go figure. 

This is why I can’t support the Green agenda, the activist policy-makers see a problem and come up with a solution that will only make it worse. Not only is the ban on gas vehicles not going to solve the problem but the increased manufacturing of electric cars will make it worse. The manufacturing of an electric car creates more emissions than the gas vehicle would in it’s lifetime. And while the fundraiser did get $44 million how much could it have raised if they had kept it about the hurricane survivors and not the Green agenda? A GoFundMe effort got $6 billion and many other charities also totalled in the millions, all without the lectures.

So what is the proper course? Go to the free market; eliminate all energy subsidies and lift the restrictions on alternative fuels. Let the energy sector figure out the most efficient model of fuel production. Getting rid of gasoline cars is not the answer, a viable alternative fuel market is.

Lastly, stop with the attacks on those of us asking questions. With the money and power to be gained from supporting Climate Cronyism, it’s not irresponsible to doubt the “good intentions” of those asking us to sacrifice, especially when they appear to not be willing to do so. Pope Francis recently said that “man is stupid” in reference to those asking questions. Spoken like a true theocratic Authoritarian. Quit talking down to those you disagree with and try listening to them for once. Since a few of the policies of the green movement make sense from an economic standard, they might be surprised.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

ONE OF THE FIRST VIDEOS I DID FOR MY YouTube channel Americanus Libertae Television (ALTV) was an opinion piece about gay marriage titled “A Random Thought.” To summarize, I don’t care what two consenting adults do as long as both are fully informed. What do I mean by “fully informed?” In this case, transgenders have a moral duty to disclose they are transgender to potential partners. The video was done as a joke, thinking the idea that someone would hide this is aburd. I was wrong there.

    Within the LGBT community are extremists who believe keeping others in the dark about formally being a dude is acceptable. Let me see if I have this clear: The gay community has been fighting for decades against “don’t ask, don’t tell” and have been successful in this, only to impose it on those they wish to hook up with? Is this a fair assessment? 

    These few unreasonable malcontents are willing to push back their movement for sex, and they are not even considering how dangerous this position is. Think this through a little bit, when the relationship gets physical and the decieved find out the little secret–how do you think he will react?  Oh what a funny joke… That was a good one! More than likely he will be justifiably angry and turn violent. That would be gays getting hurt, and the tricked incarcerated needlessly for a secret they shouldn’t have been keeping anyway. That was why “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a bad idea, it stiffled the discussion about the issue of homosexuality. Just because it makes you uncomfortable, pretending it doesn’t exist, won’t make it go away. And it’s not unreasonable to conclude these extremists validate their actions because of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. They were forced to hide before, might as well capitalize on it now. 

    That’s also why Trump’s transgenders in the military ban should be thought through, what are the unintended consequences? One is that volunteers negate the need for the draft. As long as they wear the proper uniform in battle, let them fight. Besides, with the sentiments about homosexuals and women in the Middle East, seeing both in battle might deter a few fights. Hmmm… Maybe they are inferior but they got us on the retreat. The ban is currently the only justified reason for anger I can see. For the most part homosexuals are fairly well socially accepted. 

    While a fraction of the LGBT community supports the concept of “uninformed consent,” another wants to advance an policy that is even worse, to completely abolish consent entirely. Let’s take a bad idea and give it steriods! Essentially, this portion of the community is claiming it’s immoral for you to say no to their advances and you’re homophobic. That’s a good way to lose the support of the public. Homophobic is when voters support laws that are clearly discriminatory–bans them from employment opportunities because of being gay, “don’t ask, don’t tell”, or restrictions from adoptions–not making the distinction about who you let in your life and home. Not properly alarmed by this yet? Well, let’s just say every rapist and pedophile will be supporting this, because it’s the end of consent. That’s where this is heading.

    I personally support marriage equality, adoption rights for gays and the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” because such stances protect others rights to decide for themselves and avoids provable harm to others. The most ethical choice is not to defend simply your rights but everyone’s rights. The only purpose for these laws is to divide us anyway, to keep us from examining the laws that cause provable harm. While we’re talking about transgenders in the military, we’re not discussing “full disclosure.” Marriage equality gets a lot of attention and our consent laws continue getting eroded. 

    Finally to the gay community, in the past there were discriminatory laws against you but your movement has achieved a great level of social acceptance, enjoy that and don’t embrace these new policies. These “Transaggression” policies are a ticking time bomb to all that has been gained and the clock is ticking.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV and has written books on pop culture. The most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

NEVER HAS A PRESIDENT CAUSED SUCH A RUCKUS WITH mere rhetoric as Donald Trump. Take his “fire and fury” remark to North Korea, threatening to react in kind if North Korea turns violent towards the US or other nations. Oh no, he’s saying he will retaliate! How is that any different from say, “the red line” for Syria by Obama? And so far Trump hasn’t added any new military interventions, sadly he hasn’t ended any either, but he hasn’t added any. Ending a few would be a welcome change. 

    Many were led to believe that because of his inflammatory campaign trail soliloquies he was essentially declaring war with the world. Trade wars maybe, but military entanglements, not really. The only exception could be his comments about Mexico. Continually saying he would have “the wall built and Mexico would be paying for it,” is a promise I hope no one expects to come to fruition. Iran is a slight possibility, if he rescinds the nuclear deal made by the previous administration. Personally the major issue I had with the Iran deal wasn’t the sanctions being lifted, more that we would be paying for another country’s nuclear development. That’s simply insane.

    If he ends up going to war with North Korea, Iran, Mexico or any other new country–on top of the list of Middle East nations we are currently still fighting from the Bush adminstration’s “War on Terror”–he will simply be continuing the tradition of almost every US President. While most statistics I question, the ones claiming “the US has been at war 222 years out of the 239 of it’s existence” sounds about right. That’s 93% of our history in conflict with other nations and itself. 

    The “anti-war” presidents were not an exception, ask Lybia how much of a “peaceful president” Barack Obama was. It hasn’t been the same since Gaddafi’s assassination. How about Bill Clinton’s trek of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo? Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt reneged on their promises to keep the country out of the World Wars. No president kept the US out of Korea or Vietnam. Why not? To look powerful in the eyes of the rest of the world is a part of it but also to accomplish their agendas without any barricades. 

    Despite knowing better US citizens are not all that reluctant to trade liberty for security, and war is an excellent excuse for spending and putting those pesky rights on hold. Why should we need a legal writ or warrant before having our homes searched–call a whistleblower a subversive and it’s considered acceptable. If you’re critical of the government, that’s the case anyway isn’t it? So what if you disagree with a police action in another nation, you’re getting drafted. You’re now officially a slave of the US government and no longer own your mind or body. If Hillary Clinton had won it would be both your sons and daughters getting drafted. That kind of implies she may have intended to start a fight. So much for the peaceful anti-war progressives of the United States.

    Not to defend his decision but the point is, if Trump does go after North Korea he is no different than any other president. At least he has demonstrated restraint so far, hopefully that status remains the same and the president does not go to war with North Korea. Another president to adopt this policy was Reagan, he didn’t have to start a war with the soviets and he openly called them the “evil empire.” That’s a foreign policy that works. Not off the dictator and force American values down the throats of every nation. Let’s not stir the hornets nest any more and instead leave the hornets alone unless they provoke us. It’s difficult to defend the “land of the free” title when in a perpetual state of warfare.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, he most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

FEBRUARY OF 2017, ON THE WAY TO MY REGULAR workout a PT Cruiser with an Arizonia license plate hits into the driver’s side of my Mustang. At first it didn’t seem like a big deal–only appearing to be dented but still operable–on closer inspection it was far worse, the whole front of the car had shifted and the hood locked in place. The passenger side door scraping against the frame, when I opened it to get my bag, is how I found out. In short, the car that was paid off, that I  had for over ten years, what I considered really my first car, was totaled. That ended up being the least of my worries.

    Because of an error with the paperwork upon purchasing the vehicle, the title was in limbo. And when trying to figure out what had happened before, had lead nowhere. It’s difficult to raise hell when you don’t know where the foul up took place. Now back the present.

    So now I have two options: Wait for the settlement to get a new car, or get a new car now by borrowing the money for the down payment. Thankfully, I went the second route! The next couple of months were spent making phone call after phone call, multiple trips to the DMV, all because the dealership put the wrong bank down as the financier. The original financial institution petitioned for the loan turned it down and the mistake was never corrected. 

    Eventually the documentation that was needed was delivered, but not after being given the run around by both financial institutions, trying to cover their assets rather than deliver excellent customer service. Adding to the frustration was the day when–a couple months later–I got my first statement for the new car; before the settlement check! The insurance company kept calling about the missing title and I had to tell them, “I don’t have it or even know for sure where it is.” 

    Finally I got everything from the DMV and the Power of Attorney from the insurance company together and sent off. This headache would be over at last! A couple of weeks go by and another call from the insurance company–asking for the title! NO! You already have it! So thinking I got the wrong document–or that it was supposed to go to the DMV–I went back to the DMV, AGAIN! Just to discover that I had done everything right. So, I called the insurance company, AGAIN, only to find out that they had the copy of the title in their records. So I waited–expecting yet another problem to emerge. Then it happened, an email stating that the payment of $5,953 has been approved. Now it is over.

    So why am I telling you all this? Well, this is a site for social criticism and this is an event worthy of criticism! The anti-capitalists who read this will probably gloat. Oh look, this little libertarian, defender of free markets has to admit he was wrong. Yes! Actually, as a capitalist, I never said the market would solve all problems. Or that everyone in business are entirely ethical, many are not. Besides, part of what caused the complication was that there is a third party, in this case the DMV. That’s what happens when we invite federal “do-gooders” to try and fix things. They make them worse. When others get worked up about privatizing the post office, I’d prefer privatizing the DMV.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

ALONG WITH UBER AND AIRBNB, THE MONOPOLIES to traditional markets have another rookie to bring competition to another market–housing. Like other monopolies, the status quo titans are not giving up their power without a fight and the standard weapon of choice is the law.

    From Curbed.com, a housing business website:

“Despite the growing enthusiasm for tiny houses, it still isn’t easy to legally build them for full time use. Zoning laws and building codes by and large, require a minimum square footage for new construction homes, and progress to reduce that square footage is slow. 

Cities and towns that have started to accommodate tiny houses have typically been pushed by grassroots organizers asking government officials for changes to local building and zoning codes.”

    A little about “tiny houses” you should know, they are either a type of recreational vehicle or have a solid foundation like regular buildings. It’s the ones with the foundation that seem to have state legislatures in a frenzy. Many states are only allowing tiny houses to build within a tiny house community, if at all. The strict construction codes have mostly come from the same source, the International Residential Code (IRC) with such requirements as 70 square feet for room size and 7 foot tall ceilings, and a minimum 1,000 square feet for construction, all fairly common zoning guidelines. Also absurd for tiny houses.

    “Construction codes tell you how to build your home,”Andrew Morrison, of Tiny House Build says. “Zoning depends on where you build your home.” There are some states choosing to embrace the movement. Certain counties in the states of California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon and Texas–but again still check out the zoning laws beforehand since it’s only select counties within those states. For more information, the American Tiny House Association has compiled a list of state regulations and state chapter leaders. They might even be of assistance in getting a variance for your state or county.

    The state of Utah might be joining the list, all with the help of the Utah based legal activist organization, The Libertas Instititute. Along with the other economic and civil causes on their long list, the right to build on your property free from the zoning gestapo. With the trend of the smaller dwellings popularity with millenials a reevaluation might end up being more than something to consider, but a necessity. Options for housing could help reinvigorate the housing market for the demographic most cynical about the idea of being home owners. Because of the economic incentive and not just the novelty of tiny houses, it appears to be more than “just a trend.” And the first step is to reconsider is the zoning laws. “There’s plenty of momentum to continue changing zoning regulations at the local level. But there’s movement on the national level, too. Tiny house advocates are currently pushing to include a tiny house code in the International Residential Code,” explains Morrison.

    Adapting the zoning and construction regulations would not only make sense economically but is protecting the homeowner’s right to utilize their property in the manner best for their needs. Control obsessed state and county legislatures shouldn’t have more say about what is built on your property or how you use it than you do. If you live in a planned community you have certain bylaws you agree to, that’s a voluntary transaction. You can always leave if you want or petition the board and your neighbors to change the rules. But you still had the choice. With these sort of laws you are robbed of that choice, whether it’s a traditional home or tiny one.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has also written books on pop culture, his most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available on Amazon