BLOGS - Page 6 of 40 - The Advocates for Self-Government

Home » BLOGS

Learn By Doing


Learn By Doing


“Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.” – Benjamin Franklin

He’s right! The best way to learn is to get involved, and just do it.

learnWhile reading books, watching videos, and listening to speeches can deliver a positive learning experience, I learn best by doing.

On top of that, there is nothing more motivating than my being told that I can’t do something. In that, I’m sure that I’m not alone.

Ten years ago, I’d never stuffed envelopes for a candidate or a political organization, let alone run for office (or won re-election). The majority of what I learned didn’t come from books, videos, speeches, or seminars. It came from “getting my hands dirty” in the actual work necessary to achieve something in the political realm.

Whether we’re talking about planning outreach events, executing political rallies, strategizing for campaigns, or general knowledge about politics beyond where to vote, I found the most useful knowledge came when I followed Nike’s advice and just did it.

Were there stumbles along the way? Sure.

Real-world experience, however, trumped anything I’d read, seen or heard, because I was learning by doing. I didn’t have the biases and handicaps of others, because as I worked to forge my own way, I researched best practices from a variety of sources. Often, those best practices found themselves at odds, depending on the source, so examining them without the distortion of a lens helped me find the best path.

As libertarians, we are often hear that we can’t win an election, influence public policy, or that we’ll move society in a libertarian direction. When I hear things like that, I’m motivated to prove them wrong. Thus far, I’ve done all three.

What can you accomplish if you just do it?

We Are Changing Lives


We Are Changing Lives


Not to exaggerate things, but life-changing moments happen every day. With every interaction, we act in a way that can change someone’s life. We have the potential to use this for a variety of outcomes, whether positive, negative, or neutral. The best part is WE influence the outcome.

When we consider that we might be the first libertarian those we encounter ever meet, we have an opportunity to make an awesome first impression.

ChangingAs libertarians, we should embrace the opportunity to change people’s lives for the better. We can open others’ eyes to a world where peace, prosperity, and liberty thrive, rather than living in the shadow of a government that dictates to us our lives and actions. Do you remember how your life changed when you embraced libertarianism?

So, how can we share that experience with everyone?

We can change lives by making a positive impact on everyone we meet, and this doesn’t happen strictly at outreach booths. It isn’t even hard to accomplish. The key is being aware that every interaction is potentially life-changing and acting accordingly to make each of them positive for others.

When we adopt a mindset that we are ambassadors to libertarianism with everyone we meet, we are always “on.” That mindset shift to make a positive impact attracts people to you, and you can be a shining example to them of what it means to be a libertarian.

This approach not only augments our outreach beyond scheduled events, we create other ambassadors for our actions as they are attracted to us. By building relationships with those we attract, we can also add the fun of fellowship to the mix. A fun-loving, positive group of people engage others and bring more into their circle. That growth breeds further growth, and a cohesive, attractive group of people will continue to grow in their size and influence.

As our peer groups grow in this manner, we’ll continue to add more libertarians to the fold. In turn, that means a more libertarian mindset as we continue toward the critical mass necessary to impact society as whole, going beyond our pockets here and there. We’ve built quite a movement, and we need to continue it’s growth, winning over hearts and minds to bring about a freer society.

As we’ve discussed before, libertarianism won’t suddenly catch on, taking hold all at once, with one election or one law being passed, like you might flip on a light switch. While the light of liberty shines bright for you and me, there are many for whom it’s quite dim.

Let’s turn up the dimmer switch to brighten their lives too.

Former Felons Could Benefit from Free Markets Too


Former Inmates Could Benefit from Free Markets Too





That all changed when he answered an ad on Craigslist.


“Applebee’s saved my life,” he said.



The result is quite concerning.





Drug War: CO Residents Treated as Criminals in Neighboring States


Drug War: CO Residents Treated as Criminals in Neighboring States


Colorado was the first state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana. But while freer drug markets have also helped to boost other aspects of Colorado’s economy, issues associated with other state-run agencies were never fully addressed, mainly how law enforcement’s long-lasting love affair with targeting drug users and dealers hasn’t really changed.

Traffic StopEver since recreational marijuana was made legal, Tech Dirt reports, law enforcement agencies in neighboring states inched closer, considering any road coming out of Colorado a “drug corridor.”

Due to this approach to drug-related law enforcement, several unconstitutional stops and seizures have been taking place at the borders surrounding Colorado.

Recently, one of the incidents in which out of state officers attempted to send innocent travelers to jail turned sour—for the Kansas police.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a traffic stop carried out in Kansas was unconstitutional because the driver involved did not commit a crime by traveling from a state where marijuana is legal. After all, Tech Dirt adds, “it isn’t against the law to conspire to perform an act that is legal in another state.”

The incident that prompted the court’s decision involves Peter Vasquez. Originally, Kansas Highway Patrol officers claimed they pulled him over because his vehicle’s temporary tag was unreadable. But moments after his tag was verified, officers launched an expedition to find out whether the Colorado resident had any illegal substances in his vehicle.

While Vasquez was in the car, one of the officers told the second agent that Vasquez was “notably nervous,” urging the officer to “get a feel for him” to see “how nervous” he was. Once the second Kansas officer returned, he allegedly said Vasquez was “scared to death.” After checking Vasquez’s insurance and noticing he had added two new cars to his policy, one of the officers assumed Vasquez had been transporting illegal drugs. That’s when the K-9 unit was called.

During a quick interrogation, officers learned Vasquez owned a boutique, and that the newer car he had bought was given to his girlfriend. Once Vasquez told the officers he was moving to Maryland, they urged the driver to disclose the location of his belongings. Vasquez answered that he had already moved most of his belongings.

After issuing Vasquez a warning, officers continued to pressure him to give them consent to search the vehicle. But the attempts were fruitless. As a result, the officers decided to consider his stand was enough to prove Vasquez had something to hide.

Because one of the officers believed Vasquez was “probably involved in a little criminal activity,” they arrested him.

Once the dog was summoned, it failed to bark at anything in the vehicle. Nevertheless, cops went further, searching the vehicle on their own anyway. They also found nothing.

After the ordeal was finally over, Vasquez sued the Kansas Highway Patrol officers over their illegal search.

In their defense, officers involved claimed that the fact Vasquez was driving alone at night in a “known drug corridor” made him a suspect of taking part in illegal drug activities. Officers also claimed that, the fact Vasquez’s back seat “did not contain items” the law enforcement duo expected to see “in the car of someone moving across the country,” and the fact he seemed nervous, where all reasons for them to arrest him.

Thankfully for Vasquez, the judge ruled the officers’ conduct unreasonable and unconstitutional.

While this is a victory for this one individual, it’s disturbing to learn that law enforcement agencies see residents of a state where marijuana is legal as “instant criminals.”

When looking for what the drug war has accomplished over the years, look no further. Officers now consider anyone from Colorado a potential suspect. Even if drugs aren’t involved. That, and that alone, is what the drug war has produced.






















How Much Is Liberty Worth?

in Liberator Online by Brett Bittner Comments are off

How Much Is Liberty Worth?


Recently, I found an interesting piece on Seth Godin’s blog about the fear of giving.  As libertarians, we have a reputation of acting in our own self-interests (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  This is a reputation very much deserved, as it aligns with our beliefs with regard to individual liberty and personal responsibility, but it also accurately portrays our giving, political and otherwise.

As individuals we act in our own self-interest, but as a group, we fail to adequately fund groups and candidates in line with our principles or invest in entrepreneurial efforts that decentralize authority.  The analogy used in that piece about giving was one that showed that in an emergency situation, one rarely considers the cost of action:

‘If you are walking by a pond and you see a child drowning, do you save her? What if it means ruining a very fancy pair of Italian shoes?’ Okay, if we assume the answer is yes, then why not spend the cost of those shoes to save 20 kids who are starving to death across town or the world? There’s really no difference. Or by, extension, invest in research or development that solves a problem forever… The issues are proximity and attention.

As we face the ever-growing threats to our liberty, it would seem that those active in the liberty movement, whether as an “R”, “D”, “L”, “I”, or anyone else who has “seen the light,” would be clamoring to give money to local groups, statewide and national organizations, candidates running for office, and activists that work against the two-headed snake of Big Government. Are we in an emergency situation today?

Godin points out the success of the Mormon church (as well as many of the Christian religions) as they set a standard for how to become and remain a member in good standing with regard to financial matters:

The Mormon Church says, ‘tithe’. Loosely paraphrased, they say, ‘10% is a lot, and 10% is enough.’ This is actually very smart, because they’ve created a difficult but achievable standard, a way to be a member of good standing in their tribe.

When my dad ran the local United Way drive as a volunteer, he pushed for one percent. ‘One percent isn’t a lot, but it’s enough.’

My first question to you is “How much is enough?”  If I asked you to contribute a certain percentage or a dollar amount to support the cause of liberty, what would that number be? (I’m honestly soliciting your feedback here:

Additionally, do you think that the these groups and candidates ask for donations often enough?  Do they ask too much?  Or just the right amount?

I would be remiss not to ask that you support The Advocates for Self-Government with this opportunity, so please do give as much as you can.

My final question for you to consider is this:  How much is Liberty worth?

How much is Liberty worth?

Who’s On Your Short List?

in Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online by Chloe Anagnos Comments are off

Who’s On Your Short List?


American industrialist and businessman, J. Paul Getty, wrote in his book, “How to Be Rich,” that:

“…it has always been my contention that an individual who can be relied upon to be himself and to be honest unto himself can be relied upon in every other way.”

TeamworkAs one of America’s most successful entrepreneurs, Getty’s soundbites about living richly are definitely something to take to heart.

In the full year I’ve been outside the comforts of university life, I’ve learned more about the importance of reliability than I ever thought I would. At first, I learned how to rely on myself and my own skills when I moved a few hundred miles away from my family. Then, I learned to rely on those around me, which helped me create a new support system. Now, I work each and every day to be someone that others can rely on.

It is my hope that I’m on many “short lists.” Meaning, if a friend, family member, or co-worker had something important they needed help with, that I would be on their short list of people to call.

For example, I received a phone call from a college friend that I haven’t seen since graduation. She was in the Indianapolis area and wanted to know if she could potentially stay with me in case she was too tired to make the long drive home after a few meetings. I was  humbled that she thought of me – during my undergraduate years, I tried my very best to make sure that those around me knew that I could be someone who they could depend on.

Sometimes though, I drop the ball – I’m only human. We all are.

But even if people that occasionally drop the ball are honest with themselves and with others, as Getty mentions, it makes a difference.

I unfortunately can count on more than two hands (and two feet) the number of times I have encountered those who appear to be reliable, but end up doing more harm than they do good.

Even worse are those who use outlets like social media to gloat about how they used their time and talents “for good” without realizing how badly they set back the team, group, or project.

There was a saying that became popular during my last year in college:

“When I die, I hope [class project group member] lowers me into my grave so that they can let me down one last time.”

Although it’s hilarious (and morbid), think about it.

Do your actions make others want you on their short list? Or are you just going through the motions?

Oakland Officers Fail to Find Suspect Through Surveillance so Feds Step In—All Without a Warrant

in Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off



In Oakland, California, feds were caught helping local police departments to spy on suspects without warrants. And in at least one instance, the individual targeted, Purvis Ellis, wasn’t even the main suspect in the murder case that led to his capture.

OaklandAccording to Tech Dirt, court documents obtained by Ars Technica show that the Oakland Police Department used stingray technology without seeking a warrant first against Ellis in 2013. The use of the device was deployed in order to catch the suspect who had been associated with the attempted murder of officer Eric Karsserboom.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stingrays “are invasive cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information.”

Oakland police attempted to use an older version of the device in 2013 to find one of the suspects in the attempted killing of a police officer, but officials were unsuccessful. They then reached out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), asking federal agents to step in. Promptly after, FBI officials were able to locate the suspect using a more advanced stingray technology.

But despite the successful operation, state and federal officers failed to follow the constitution, ignoring the need for a warrant.

During the suspect’s trial, both the FBI and the Oakland PD stated that they didn’t need to obtain a warrant at the time due to “exigent circumstances.” In the FBI case, officials also claim the warrant requirement was not in place at the time of the operation, making the evidence obtained through surveillance tactics less likely to be tossed by a judge.

Nevertheless, news sources were finally able to report on this story since the judge presiding over the suspect’s prosecution ordered the government to submit detailed information on how Ellis was located. But despite the commotion surrounding Ellis, he has not been accused of actually shooting the officer, prompting privacy advocates to wonder whether the police has used the same surveillance tactics in other similar cases, targeting individuals who have not been accused of a crime and going to the lengths both the FBI and the Oakland PD went to keep this a secret.

Two years after the 2013 incident, the Oakland Police Department tried to secure a grant from the Department of Homeland Security in order to upgrade their stingray technology, suggesting that local police had been invested in this type of surveillance tactics long after the Ellis case. The technology local officials had at the time was unable to locate the suspect, but the latest system used by the FBI got the job done pretty quickly.

But details regarding why the suspect was targeted and why only his phone was intercepted were never revealed. All we know up until now is that two law enforcement agencies suspended the potential suspect’s rights to privacy, even as they knew that he hadn’t shot the officer.

Whether Ellis was directly involved in the attempted murder remains a mystery. But what should also be addressed in this case is the fact that individuals who haven’t been formally accused of a crime nor charged are being targeted by both local and federal law enforcement agents who continue to ignore the unconstitutionality of their actions.

States have been pushing their own anti-federal surveillance laws as the nullification movement initiated by groups like the Tenth Amendment Center gains more ground. But the American individual’s privacy rights won’t be truly upheld until federal agencies have been stripped of their surveillance powers.

Drug War Makes Criminals Out of California Physicians


Drug War Makes Criminals Out of California Physicians


To those who are born and raised in the City of Angeles, stories of violence set in motion due to poorly written drug and health-related laws aren’t particularly unique.

PillsOver the decades, Southern California has been in the news over instances of police brutality against minorities, wrongful killings by the police, deadly gang fights, and police union scandals. Los Angeles has also been the backdrop of countless gangster rap songs and videos, as well as the actual setting of several real life criminal conspiracies, so it’s not a surprise that even physicians are now being arrested for working directly with drug gangs.

According to a local NBC affiliate, two doctors working out of the Lynnwood area in South Los Angeles were arrested and charged for selling prescription drugs “without medical purpose.” The two physicians surrendered to federal authorities this past Friday and were later released on bond after appearing on court.

They were allegedly linked to gang members who were also arrested on the same day.

The United States Attorney’s Office’s Central District of California claimed that both physicians were “significant suppliers of drugs to a street gang.” Some of the drugs they allegedly helped gang members obtain include Vicodin, which is also known as Norco, Xanax, and Soma. The opioids, psychoactive, and barbiturate-like drugs were all prescribed “at or near maximum strength,” the report states.

One of the charged physicians was allegedly involved in these transactions between 2011 and 2015. The second doctor was accused of signing purposeless prescriptions in 2014 and 2015.

While the operation that led detectives to the gang members associated with the Lynwood doctors targeted East Coast Crips involved in California burglaries, officers looked into the relationship between the physicians and gangsters after learning that both doctors “served as large-scale sources of supply to [gang] members and associates.”

The doctors were allegedly caught after a series of undercover operations, meaning that officers or cooperating witnesses approached both physicians asking for these prescriptions. In most cases, officials stated, doctors failed to examine patients.

As the nation goes through one of its toughest drug epidemics in history, putting countless of drug users and addicts in morgues over tainted batches of opioids, stories like these remind us that, if there’s a market, even if the demand is for something considered illegal, there will always be someone willing to break the rules. Why? Because financial incentives often push otherwise decent people into breaking the law.

Even gang members are drawn into a life of crime over the promise of high turnouts for little work, even if the risks are also high. They might have never wanted to be part of a criminal gang, but when faced with the decision of becoming rich fast—even if it’s just a promise—they change their minds.

In a free society, these incentives also exist, but without prohibition, addicts and those who provide them with their drug of choice have freedom to do so in a peaceful manner. In the black market sprung out of prohibition, gangs use force to maintain contracts and fight over territory. They are also not worried about branding, making it easy for them to set morals aside to produce bad batches of whatever drug customers are after. In a free market setting, the opposite is true.

Also, addicts are more likely to be safe in an environment where drug consumers aren’t stigmatized. In a free society untainted by prohibitionist laws, drug users are more likely to look for help. Under the current laws, addicts are often afraid of being arrested—for a good reason. This fear pushes them deeper into their addiction, and the consequences are often deadly since they often become dealers themselves to sustain their habit.

Compassion can only exist in a society where people are free to develop their own sets of values. When forced upon us, morals are ignored. But when all we have is freedom, consumers and their welfare hold the key to good business practices.

Why make criminals out of inner city kids and doctors when you can put an end to the drug war?​

Give Them Hope!

in Liberator Online by Brett Bittner Comments are off

Give Them Hope!


I took the opportunity to see the movie Sausage Party (REMINDER: THIS MOVIE IS NOT SAFE FOR KIDS) over the weekend. While filled with raunchy adult humor and innuendo, near the end of the film, there was a line of dialogue that struck me as important for our conversations with those who aren’t libertarians yet… Give them hope!


Conversations about politics right now center around how terrible both old parties’ candidates for president are, and we have a terrific opportunity to discuss libertarian ideas in the vacuum without any good ideas.

In the movie, there is a moment when the lead character can shatter an entire belief system (and does) to share the truth. He has two choices: he can disrespect their beliefs as he tears down their entire way of life, or he can offer them hope as he shows them the truth. At first, he adopts the former, yet moves toward the latter as he sees no fruit borne by his first efforts.

As libertarians, we should strive to adopt the second route.

We are LITERALLY the only people who can offer a world that is peaceful, prosperous, and free.

We need to offer the hope that outcome provides as we bring more people toward our way of thinking.

Think about it for a minute… We’re opening their eyes to something that goes against what the authoritarians have been touting their entire lives. We can either persuade them gently and bring them into the fold, or we can disrespect everything they’ve known their entire lives and lose them.

Those who want control and to use force over others build up the tool they use… The government.   They portray it as the only way to do anything, regardless of consequence. Our ideas and beliefs run counter to that, and that change is often hard to swallow after a life filled with being taught what we know to be false.

So, when we work to change hearts and minds, we can do so with a welcoming elegance and grace, shepherding our new brothers and sister in liberty to embrace what we already do, or we can do so clumsily and without lasting effect.

In the Nation’s Capital, Drinking in Large Groups Can Get You Fined




Busybodies are always trying to figure out a way to control our lives in ways never seen before. In Washington, DC, the obsession is turning into a mental health epidemic—among bureaucrats and their supporters only.

DrinkingAccording to, DC has decided to target groups that organize pub crawls. Because drinking in large groups is apparently dangerous.

Claiming to have safety in mind following a host of different pub crawls organized in the city this past year, DC officials are targeting these same pub crawl organizations, saying that bringing large groups of tourists to local restaurants and pubs to boost the local economy is just too much.

Instead of letting the community benefit from tourism, DC officials want fewer groups to organize pub crawls in the region, forcing gatherings of over 200 people to register with the city before hitting the town. These groups have to pay officials $500 for the privilege of getting an OK from the local government to operate, and organizers must also have a security plan set up. Oh, and never mind the holidays! DC will not give you an OK to operate for those sacred drinking dates.

According to Reason, the new rules also dictate ho pub crawls can be advertised, forcing organizers to add a warning saying “you must be 21 or older to participate” on every piece of pub crawl marketing material. Organizers must also add a line encouraging the use of public transportation.

But before this debacle took place and the city decided to “take action,” organizers were simply required to submit a registration. With the new requirements in place, the number of organized pub crawls in the nation’s capital is already starting to drop.

But despite the criticism, DC officials seem focused on letting this new set of rules stay in place. Even if that means local businesses will hurt as a result.

According to, new impositions have created another set of problems, especially if government officials find an issue with you and your buddies participating in unregulated or unlawful pub crawls. Restaurants and pubs that aid unregulated groups under the new rules could be fined.

To Jon Gabel, an executive with event organizing company Joonbug Productions, the city’s new rules could hurt local businesses by both keeping people away and forcing restaurants to turn down customers.

He told the Washington City Paper that his pub crawls saved their lives in several occasions. A local restaurant manager agreed, saying that the new rules are “definitely going to impact a lot of businesses.”

In DC, large pub crawls have been part of the scene for several years, but it was only during 2015’s Halloween pub crawl that residents and law enforcement began to push for different rules. Nevertheless, reports that incidents or arrests were too few or unimportant.

With the new rules in place, local business owners are afraid of the future, especially considering that since its implementation, at least four events were canceled.

The Drug War Has a New Target: Poor, White People


The Drug War Has a New Target: Poor, White People


In one of my latest articles for The Anti-Media, I explain that the rate of incarcerated whites in the United States is higher than the total incarceration rates of most other countries across the globe.

HomelessAt 466 per 100,000 citizens in jail—the rate of white individuals currently serving time in American prisons—the United States would still be in the top ten list of top jailers globally. And as pointed out by The Washington Post’s Keith Humphreys, the rate of blacks in prison has been in steady decline over the past decade, while the number of white prisoners—both male and female—continues to rise.

The explanation for this fact is simple: The drug war hasn’t stopped.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the crack cocaine epidemic that swept major urban areas across the country was met with “tough on crime” policies, forcing oftentimes nonviolent drug law offenders to go to jail for life. Blacks account for 80 percent of federal crack cocaine convictions but whites and Latinos account for more than 70 percent of powder cocaine convictions.

As the movement spearheaded by libertarian-leaning organizations asking for mandatory minimum reforms and drug legalization gains popularity among liberals and conservatives, more states begin to review their drug laws, helping to change incarceration rates locally while giving first-time and nonviolent offenders a chance to get their lives back on track.

But as another drug epidemic takes the streets of both urban and rural America, another group begins to feel the heavy weight of misguided government policies.

West Virginia is the number one state in the country for fatal drug overdoses. The state also has the highest rate of babies born with some dependency on opioids.

Just recently, the city of Huntington, WV saw 26 overdoses in a matter of hours, prompting news organizations to call the city the heart of America’s opioid epidemic.

According to The Washington Post’s Keith Humphreys, there are two underlying issues that have been putting whites in jail at a greater rate.

First, “changes in drug use and enforcement over the past 15 years” may be playing a part. But “[m]ethamphetamine, prescription opioid and heroin epidemics” have also impacted “whites more than did the crack cocaine epidemic.” In states like West Virginia where over 93 percent of the population is non-Hispanic white, there’s an increased push to toughen drug-related laws, prompting enforcement organizations to respond accordingly.

But as we’ve seen with the crack cocaine epidemic and the US government’s war on drugs, increasing penalties for drug law offenses does not work.

All Americans, whether they are white or black have only one obstacle in their everyday fight for freedom and peace, and that is government’s heavy-handed, immoral interventionism. The time to identify the beast and speak openly about it is now.

Homeland ‘Security’? Gov’t Wants to Collect Travellers’ Social Media Info

in Foreign Policy, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty, Property Rights by Alice Salles Comments are off



In Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises writes that tending toward “a transgression of the limit” of the application of violence is a natural impulse among professionals who use violence in their line of work, even if the particular application of violence is seen as legitimate.

These transgressions are seen everywhere, from instances of police brutality to the ever-growing presence of law enforcement agents on our borders and airports.

SmartphoneNow, this transgression is entering another realm, making way for law enforcement to have an even more formally accepted online presence.

According to a new Department of Homeland Security proposal, officials are considering asking visitors entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program to disclose information pertaining to their social media presence.

If the DHS has its way, visitors would have to fill out a form with links to their Twitter, Facebook, and other online applications. According to the DHS, the collection of this information would “enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional tool set which analysts and investigators may use to better analyze and investigate the case.”

But the wording in this new proposal is broad enough to allow officials to dig at will, increasing the risk of abuse of power—a surveillance issue that has already been associated with 4th Amendment violations in the past. To privacy advocacy organizations like Restore The 4th, this new transgression is everything but legitimate.

In a press release, the organization explained that the DHS new proposal is toxic.

In a letter addressed to the US Customs and Border Protection, the group along with “over two dozen human rights and civil liberties organizations” outlined the program’s “disproportionate risks, excessive costs, and other serious shortcomings.”

According to the letter, the DHS will be further invading individual privacy, putting freedom of expression at risk if this proposal is implemented. Furthermore, the federal government would have to worsen the national debt due to the high cost of implementation. The maintenance of this program would also cost taxpayers greatly, Restore The 4th added, and these costs “appear to be unaccounted for in the DHS Paperwork Reduction Act statement.”

The advocacy group also claims that the DHS would ignite the expansion of the surveillance state by opening a new window into the traveler’s private life. If implemented, this new rule could impact particular groups of travelers, allowing law enforcement to refer to their racial and religious bias in order to do their job.

Restore The 4th explains:

“This ‘disparate impact will affect not only travelers from visa-waiver program countries, but also the Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans whose colleagues, family members, business associates, and others in their social networks are exposed to immediate scrutiny or ongoing surveillance, or are improperly denied a visa waiver because of their online presence.’”

The letter urges CBP to dismiss the DHS proposal altogether. ​

Should we ban tobacco instead of drugs?

in Ask Dr. Ruwart, Drugs, Liberator Online, Personal Liberty, Victimless Crime by Mary Ruwart Comments are off

Should we ban tobacco instead of drugs?


QUESTION: I am a long time supporter of ending the war on drugs. I advocate treating drug abuse the way we treat alcohol abuse, as a health and not a legal problem. I find that many of the people that I deal with who oppose the war on drugs and support legalization of marijuana want to outlaw tobacco. I try to tell them that the war on tobacco will be just as successful as the war on drugs, but they insist that it go ahead. They point out that tobacco is deadlier than pot. I point out that heroin and LSD are as dangerous as tobacco, if not more. What suggestions do you have to answer the pro war on tobacco people?

CigaretteANSWER: The power to ban something “bad” is also the power to ban something “good.” Cannabis was listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia for many years before it was “outlawed” via the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. As a result, this incredibly useful and inexpensive natural drug has been largely unavailable in the U.S. for the last 80 years.

By outlawing tobacco, alcohol, or any other substance, we pave the way for other “wars” based on political or economic gain. Special interests will lobby Congress to outlaw their competitors, just as William Randolph Hearst lobbied for hemp/cannabis prohibition so that his wood pulp forests would be used for paper manufacture instead of hemp.

The nicotine in tobacco is thought by some to be the most addictive substance known. If someone can’t stop smoking, isn’t it a health problem too? Why not treat it as such?

Don’t Just Depend On A Piece Of Paper

in Education, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online by Chloe Anagnos Comments are off

Don’t Just Depend On A Piece Of Paper


This week, I participated in a panel discussion for new students beginning their college careers at my alma mater, Ball State University. I shared my experiences on campus, talked about leadership, how to find the right job after graduation, and what I am doing now with The Advocates for Self-Government with the Class of 2021 C.L.A.S.S. participants.

Ball StateDuring the Q and A portion of the panel, a student asked if earning my degree was more important than the professional experience I gained by completing internships during undergrad.

This is what I told him:

I wouldn’t be where I am professionally without the networking I did as an undergrad. Networking led to internships which led to my professional career. However, the journalism, history, graphic design, and political science classes I took gave me the technical skills I needed to succeed in professional clubs and internships.

In other words, I don’t think that it is important for students to depend on a piece of paper alone. A degree in a subject that one is truly passionate about is great – but it’s not the be-all and end-all of your education.

I have friends that never earned a college degree but have incredibly successful careers. I have other friends that have multiple degrees and are stuck in jobs that make them miserable.

My advice to college students is to take advantage of every single opportunity this upcoming school year and throughout your college career.

Do your best in your classes and ask for help when you need it. If there is a professional club on campus that is relevant to your major, attend a few meetings. If your department is hosting an alumni mixer, GO, and introduce yourself to professionals. Ask for their business cards and keep in touch.

One of my favorite quotes comes from actress Tina Fey:

“Say yes and you’ll figure it out afterwards.”

College is where you’re supposed to take risks, learn, and GROW personally and professionally.

Now, get out there and grow.

California: Closer to the End of ‘Policing for Profit’


California: Closer to the End of ‘Policing for Profit’


California has just taken another step to nullify a federal rule over its unconstitutional nature.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the California Assembly passed a bill that would keep state officials from using civil asset forfeiture to seize private property without due process while also effectively preventing federal agents to do the same in the Golden State.

Police StopSenate Bill 443 was introduced last year, and it was a response to the growing trend against civil asset forfeiture taking over the country. Organizations like FreedomWorks and Tenth Amendment Center are some of the leaders in this area, helping state legislators have access to reform ideas that render the federal rules unenforceable.

According to the libertarian justice firm Institute for Justice, civil asset forfeiture is “legal plunder,” because the practice gives federal and state law enforcement agencies the power to take a person’s property or assets, even if the owner hasn’t been arrested or convicted of a crime.

After passing the state Senate last summer, the bill failed in the Assembly. But once Assemblyperson Chris Holden made a motion to reconsider, the bill was placed in the inactive file and then brought up for a vote in the full Assembly on August 15.

If the bill is signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, the loophole in California law that allows officers to refer to federal agents in civil asset forfeiture cases in exchange for a portion of assets seized will be gone. Equitable sharing has been the only issue with California’s civil asset forfeiture laws, which are considered to be some of the strongest in the country. But up until now, the local protections against the practice meant nothing if federal agencies were involved.

Between 2000 and 2008, federal agents doubled their equitable sharing earnings. By the end of 2008, state officials across the country had helped the federal government seize about $400 million through the program.

With SB443, state prosecutors would be prohibited from going around restrictions imposed on state officials by passing cases off to the federal government. While this is good news, the bill still isn’t perfect.

If the amount seized is above $40,000, SB443 would allow state prosecutors to refer to federal officials under the equitable sharing program. The state could also have access to a portion of the assets seized if the owner of the property is convicted in a related criminal activity.

Despite its potential shortcomings, SB443 goes a long way to roll back federal intervention in local law enforcement activities, removing the financial incentive often tied to the practice.

Will other states follow?

Taiwan Streets: a Case of Free Markets in Action


Taiwan Streets: a Case of Free Markets in Action















Great Idea! Now, Can You Make It Happen Without Force?




In order to reach more people, persuade them to adopt a more libertarian outlook, and keep them looking to reject the force of government intervention in our lives, we need to continue to build rapport and challenge their authoritarian beliefs in a friendly and non-confrontational way.

We often recommend building rapport with those you’re looking to persuade to adopt a more libertarian philosophy/worldview/lifestyle. That can be a difficult thing to do when discussing real world political issues, rather than asking some philosophical questions about who is best equipped to make decisions.

With that in mind, here’s a terrific way to build rapport with the people you’re talking with in a way that doesn’t alienate them. When they talk about a particular program or idea, focus on the outcome they desire and point out that the outcome is a good one. Typically, we are in agreement about the outcomes, whether they are prosperity, peace, a well-educated populace, safety and security, or happy lives. 

Next, you can congratulate them on a great idea!

As they bask in the compliment, you can begin asking if they want to make that happen without using force. Force, after all, is a very powerful thing, and is something that libertarians believe should not be initiated, rather it should only be used in response or self-defense.

forceBy praising them for their idea, we reinforce that we ARE listening to them, rather than waiting for our “turn to speak.”

By asking them questions, we SHOW genuine interest in their opinion or belief in an idea.

By asking how they might accomplish that outcome without using force, we LEAD them to come to the libertarian solution on their own.

Rather than start an argument or a fight about something where we agree on the desired outcome, we can engage in a useful dialogue that could very well end up changing the way they think about things… In a good way, without using force.

Once we’ve achieved some success, we can move on to other areas in a similar vein. It might take a few more conversations, as they may need time to reconsider how to get to our shared desired outcome, but without using force.

To accomplish making society freer and more libertarian, we have to change hearts and minds, because the people have the power. Acts of legislation are about 20-30 years behind the mainstream thinking of the people, so by winning over the people, we can already be living a libertarian life when the state finally catches up to us.

Adding a Private Element to Public Schooling Boosts Diversity

in Economic Liberty, Education, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Personal Liberty by Alice Salles Comments are off

Adding a Private Element to Public Schooling Boosts Diversity


During the 2016 Amplify School Choice event promoted and organized by the nonprofit news organization Franklin Center, bloggers and journalists from across the country had the opportunity to visit two public schools in the Denver, Colorado area.

While the event brought several options of schooling to light, one of the programs most speakers focused on is known as a charter.

StudentsCharter schools are public schools. What makes them uniquely different from traditional schools is that they share a private element with for-profit organizations.

Instead of being run like a public school, charters are given the freedom to refrain from following regulations imposed on traditional schools, allowing leadership to resort to different educational methods. Charters usually hire teachers who are not unionized and often use unique educational techniques, giving students with special needs an opportunity to adapt.

But because these schools are publicly funded, students who would otherwise be stuck in the neighborhood’s traditional school are given the opportunity to choose.

Charters, which are often smaller, are able to work with students in a more direct way than traditional school teachers can. And low-income families with access to the charter option are often thankful in the long run.

During a conversation with Bill Kurtz, the CEO of DSST Public Schools—a local charter—we were lucky to get to know three DSST students, all who happened to be the children of immigrants.

According to Kurtz, the idea behind DSST is to boost the community. “As you can see,” he told the audience of bloggers and journalists, “the school is very diverse. [It] largely mirrors the population of Denver.”

With a 100 percent success rate in sending students to college, DSST stands out for the diversity of its students and its success rate in following its mission. But during the conversation, Kurtz didn’t go into the economic or praxeological reasons why his school excels in bringing diverse people together.

In the book The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory Of Diversity And Freedom, author Chandran Kukathas contends that the state has no place promoting any set of values. Kukathas argues that, if the government imposes values by force, individuals will feel compelled to rebel or to act against their conscience.

The author adds that the “most important source of human motivation is principle—or, better still, conscience. … not because conscience always overcomes or overrules other motives … [but because conscience is] what we think should guide us.”

In an environment where private elements come together, eliminating the need to follow the values imposed by a governmental body, individuals are compelled to follow their heart, so to speak.

Adding the private element to a traditional school removes many of the impositions traditional educators, parents, and students are often faced with, boosting efficacy and yes, diversity. Not only because schools might be effectively targeting minorities, but because children stuck with bad educational choices due to their zip code are now given the opportunity to choose.

Students may come from a variety of backgrounds, but they also resort to charters because they have specific goals in mind: get a better education.

Schools with the private element are freer to experiment, giving students who are willing to follow their style an opportunity to grow while “weeding out” those who are not particularly fond of that school’s mission.

In the traditional school system, a child’s fate is set by his or her zip code. But where choice abides, so does conscience. And that’s why the removal of value imposition through government often produces great results.

Pick the Middle Seat


Pick the Middle Seat


If we’ve not met, you may be unaware that I am a big guy. I also travel a lot.

For my comfort, that means making sure I sit by the window or on the aisle on a plane.

middle seatComing back from Las Vegas last month, I didn’t check in early enough for my flight to get a low boarding number on the airline that uses “cattle call boarding.” That meant a middle seat for four hours.

While kicking myself for not checking in sooner, the realization of the opportunity this presented hadn’t hit me yet. This was an AMAZING opportunity for outreach.

Most of the time, sharing such close quarters with complete strangers makes them great friends by the time we get to our destination. I know about their job, family, pets, etc., and they know a lot of the same stuff about me. There is typically a seed for Liberty planted somewhere in our interaction.

By sitting in my preferred seat next to the window, I limit my opportunity to the person sitting in the middle, unlikely to hold any real conversation with the person sitting on the aisle.

On the flight home, the three of us discussed politics, freedom, and the upcoming election in a very honest and civil manner. Both now have a different view of libertarian thought and are actively considering how much more often freedom is the answer.

Since, I’ve had at least one conversation with them both, as they had further questions about libertarianism and asked about resources for learning more. Obviously, I offered the Liberator Online, this column, and our online store.

What might happen if we all picked the middle seat and seized the opportunity to double our outreach efforts?

Page 6 of 40« First...45678...203040...Last »