add_filter( 'auto_update_plugin', '__return_true' );add_filter( 'auto_update_theme', '__return_true' );

Category: Liberty

Self-ownership and its attendant characteristics

The Gun Lobby Counts Off

From The Libertarian Enterprise, November 1995

In a recent issue (October 10, 1995) of CrimeStrike News (the NRA/ILA newsletter from their “war-on-crime” department) there appears an article attacking the “anti-incarceration lobby”. This article contains the seed of some serious problems for the NRA in terms of self-defense — at least the defense of their stated position. 

The article, entitled “Violent Offenders Outnumber Drug Offenders In U.S. Prisons”, cites statistics provided by Dr. Allen Beck of the Bureau of Justice Statistics that show that the number of inmates incarcerated for violent offenses is much larger than the number of those incarcerated for drug offenses. Apparently the NRA feels that the “anti-incarceration lobby” has been shading the truth by asserting that drug incarcerations outnumber violent crime incarcerations. The BJS figures quoted are as follows: the number of inmates locked up for violent offenses is up from 173,300 in 1980 to 394,500 in 1993; the number of inmates in state prisons for drug convictions rose from 19,000 to 186,000 between 1980 and 1993. 

Tanya Metaksa, the NRA/ILA’s chief lobbyist, says, in the NRA’s article, “The anti-incarceration lobby has been twisting the truth for years. The fact is, the majority of criminals in prisons are violent offenders, not harmless petty thieves. And even if it were true that many people who ‘don’t belong in prison’ are in prison, that would be an argument against the law that sent them to prison wrongly, not the prison itself. …” 

I agree with Mrs. Metaksa 100%. And I certainly don’t speak for the “anti-incarceration lobby” — heck, I don’t even know who they are. But I will take exception to the NRA’s unstated implication that, because of the numbers quoted, the premise of the war-on-crime system model for incarceration as espoused by the NRA (and others) is valid. From the BJS data that the NRA themselves quote, it would appear to me that there is something fundamentally wrong (and getting “wronger”) with a system of justice that appears to find it easier to fill the prisons with perpetrators of victimless crimes than it does to punish those who are the true predators. 

Let me offer a couple of observations. First, the numbers quoted appear to be only for state prisons — but a number of drug crimes are ‘federalized’. Do the BJS numbers reflect incarcerations in federal prisons as well? And, if not, how would inclusion of those numbers affect the NRA’s assertions? 

Number two, and more importantly, take another look at the numbers provided. In 1980, violent crime incarcerations outnumbered drug incarcerations by just over 9:1. By 1993, that ratio had dropped to just over 2:1. So, the pace of incarceration in fact HAS increased far more rapidly for drug offenders than for violent criminals. Expressed another way, incarceration for violent crime increased 228% between 1980 and 1993. Incarceration for drug crime increased 979% during the same period. 

We all seem to agree that we are not collectively satisfied with the number of incarcerations for violent crimes, nor with the degree of punishment for those who are successfully imprisoned. The trends would seem to suggest that the war on drugs has been effective, if in no other way, in escalating the number of incarcerations for drug crimes. 

Whether or not this has had a negative effect on the number of incarcerations for violent crimes is problematical. Perhaps, though, it is logical to assert that, for the past decade and a half, if the enforcement emphasis has been shifted toward victimless crimes, and the resources available for enforcement have remained relatively constant, then we can conclude that there has in fact been a reduction in enforcement of laws against violent crime. Maybe a simple solution would be to concentrate on violent crime and de-emphasize (dare I say de-criminalize?) victimless crime? 

Now before I’m attacked for being “soft on crime”, let me offer a couple of qualifications. I oppose the coercive sale of drugs to kids and the drug dealers’ practice of conning kids into working as ‘mules’ to reduce their own risk — not to mention a whole raft of other behaviors practiced by drug dealers. (Of course, decriminalization of drugs makes those problems — and the street corner dealers themselves — go away.) 

Also, let me state that I am wholeheartedly in favor of punishing criminals for their offenses against individuals. I do however prefer a punishment system that extracts restitution over one that provides hotels, health spas, and taxpayer-funded advanced educations to the convicted. 

So let me caution the NRA and all the rest of the tough-on-crime groups: it is easy to persecute drug users, gun owners, cigarette smokers, separatists, religious sects, tax resisters, and other perpetrators of crimes against no one. It is a lot harder to devise a system that reduces the incentives to commit crimes, focuses on crimes that have victims, and punishes offenses through restitution. It’s also easy to look at the numbers, and miss seeing the forest for counting the trees.

At This Point, What Difference Does It Make Anyway?

The AZ senatorial race is important for reasons having nothing — and yet everything — to do with Kyrsten Sinema or Martha McSally.

First, let’s consider the two candidates, in an imagined vacuum: all other factors not considered, which candidate — on her own merits alone — should have won? On the one hand, we have McSally, a retired USAF combat veteran, only the second Republican ever to represent a southern Arizona-based district in the U.S. House of Representatives, who has an excellent reputation in the House, especially after her second term. On the other, we have Sinema, a Chuck Schumer protege, the first openly bisexual member of Congress, who is a former Green Party activist, opposes capitalism, and who was once labeled by the Arizona Democratic Party as “too extreme”?

Second, consider the state of Arizona as a whole: would you have expected the result to favor a progressive or a conservative? Like most states that are somewhat wistfully called “purple”, the overall political history has been conservative. Even Sinema, ever the political pragmatist perhaps, has been chastised by the Democrat powers-that-be as leaning too far to the right, even of supporting — gasp! — Trump the majority of the time.

Now consider the outcome: the election was very close, and McSally’s concession was almost certainly a calculated move to protect her short-term political future, with her eye on the Senate seat being vacated (sooner rather than later, perhaps?) by John Kyl. Unlike races in Mississippi (run-off) and Florida (WTF knows?), the outcome manages to both mean something in one sense and nothing in another.

One final note regarding outcomes: undecided outcomes favor the Democrats, regardless of specifics. Each gives the unprincipled leaders of that party an opportunity to blame Trump for every negative aspect of the election while managing to keep the MSM (their useful idiot mouthpieces) braying ‘coverage’ of the infighting as other more important issues compete for distant second-level attention.

So, gentle reader, when all is said and done, do you still think that elections (both this and future) and voting really matter? Or is the outcome controlled and manipulated by the money men and the power brokers? The logical conclusion seems inescapable: like never before, the people truly have no voice in the matter, and government of, by, and for the people has in fact long since perished from the earth.

The sheriff’s a …

This is what happens when you don’t vote red. Shame on Wake County (and Mecklenburg before her)!

I’m taking votes on just how long we will have to wait before we begin to pay the price?

And if you are inclined to consider any contrary evidence to your plans, Sheriff Baker, check with the family of Kathryn Steinle.

Gab and the Boomers

[Author’s note: Gab has been much in the news around these parts for days. As of this writing, the site is still MIA. We continue to pray for its return, uncensored and healthy.]

#Gab is far from perfect for a variety of reasons, but it is still better than any rival, for a variety of more important reasons. There is one relevant thing that strikes close to home that I would like to discuss here.

Among the many cohorts on Gab is an unorganized militia of Boomer-haters. Being a Boomer, I am bewildered, incapable of understanding the anathema. The gist of the focus seems to be that Boomers, unlike any generation before or since really fouled things up.

I am in the vanguard of those who despair for our culture, though my reasons are far more diverse. One of them, I admit, is my impression that certain of my peers stopped growing intellectually in roughly the early ’70s. So I suppose that is why I do not dismiss the “Boomer Busters” (hereafter “BBs”) outright.

I do, however, think that there is a truth kernel that the BBs must acknowledge. Anyone who has no adult memories of the year 1968 has no standing to judge the Boomer generation. There is much to be learned from an examination of that seminal year. As a handy summary reference, I direct you to Pat Buchanan’s excellent column, “Is This Worse Than ’68?”

Boomers were shaped by 1968, especially the politically active ones. Many of them have been involved actively or passively in Democrat party politics since then. Many others who had not already done so in the previous half-decade became hypersensitive to the underlying ‘religion’ of that party.

The Democrat Party seniors of today fondly recall 1968 and long for the excitement and the (foolishly mistaken) belief that they were going to change the world for the better, against all odds.

Those people, the BBs should despise. But they must despise even more the useful idiots of succeeding generations who have bought into the Democrat cult creed and who are the ones acting on it on the front lines of the current culture clash.

Unlike Mr. Buchanan, I think it remains to be seen whether this 50th anniversary year will be worse. Right now, it clearly is not. But there’s plenty of time after November 6th for it to make a strong run on the record.

And to my #GabFam, I say “Speak freely, but do please know of what you speak.”

Today’s Links

A modest collection of articles that you may wish to read.

Troogle?

Rich Logis proposes an elegant solution to the problem of censorship of some factions in social media:

Politicians aren’t saviors or messiahs, and this includes Trump. Devoutly secular worship of government––the belief that the State, capital S, is God––is inherent in the Democratic Party’s ideology and marketing. However, Trump could redefine what it means to be a man of the people.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/29/president-trump-makes-platform-hell-break-social-medias-stranglehold/

Logic

Angelo Codevilla on the logic of the current political revolution:

In 2010, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Angelo Codevilla reintroduced the notion of “the ruling class” back into American popular discourse. In 2017, he described contemporary American politics as a “cold civil war.” Now he applies the “logic of revolution” to our current political scene.

Our Revolution’s Logic

“Caravan” Contradictions

Victor Davis Hanson examines an invading army a “refugee caravan” (proving even an ignorant carpetbagger can occasionally be right about some things):

For some reason, the caravan is a paradox, a contradiction and an irony of many thousands who are quite eager to violate U.S. law, to make claims upon their would-be host without serious reflection about why they are leaving one nation and demanding entrance into another—with the full expectation that their new home has no right to demand that all would-be guests fleeing lawlessness should first abide by laws.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/28/caravan-contradictions/

Proud Boys, Proud Boys, What’cha Gonna Do?

“The Derb”:

So the question arises: Are we moving into a zone where street fighting between political groups becomes normal?

https://vdare.com/articles/proud-boy-persecution-shows-street-fighting-has-arrived-in-america-next-the-military

This Cannot Stand

Whether you like Gab, dislike it, or have never heard of it, this should be your fight. If not now, it will be much worse later. Educate yourself while you still have the freedom to do so.

From gab.ai/home this morning:

Gab has spent the past 48 hours proudly working with the DOJ and FBI to bring justice to an alleged terrorist. Because of the data we provided, they now have plenty of evidence for their case. In the midst of this Gab has been no-platformed by essential internet infrastructure providers at every level. We are the most censored, smeared, and no-platformed startup in history, which means we are a threat to the media and to the Silicon Valley Oligarchy. 

Gab isn’t going anywhere. 

It doesn’t matter what you write. It doesn’t matter what the sophist talking heads say on TV. It doesn’t matter what verified nobodies say on Twitter. We have plenty of options, resources, and support. We will exercise every possible avenue to keep Gab online and defend free speech and individual liberty for all people. 

You have all just made Gab a nationally recognized brand as the home of free speech online at a time when Silicon Valley is stifling political speech they disagree with to interfere in a US election. 

The internet is not reality. TV is not reality. 80% of normal everyday people agree with Gab and support free expression and liberty. The online outrage mob and mainstream media spin machine are the minority opinion. People are waking up, so please keep pointing the finger at a social network instead of pointing the finger at the alleged shooter who holds sole responsibility for his actions.

No-platform us all you want. Ban us all you want. Smear us all you want. 

You can’t stop an idea. 

As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online. Thank you and remember to speak freely. 

Andrew Torba, CEO Gab.com

See also Francis’ excellent take:

http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2018/10/its-war-to-knife-time.html