You can read [...]]]> I sent a letter to the editors of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram with regards to the widely publicized suspension of a local high school student wrongly accused of marijuana use in the wake of his father’s death. It had been more than a year since I last wrote to the editors.

You can read more about the latest flap on the DFW Alliance of the Libertarian Left’s blog, among other places. Below is the letter I sent last week.

Regarding the story of the suspended high school junior exonerated of using marijuana (See “Grieving student who was accused of marijuana use is allowed back in class,” Thursday), a lot of people will be hand wringing the school administrators, but they will ignore the more underlying problem of trying to prohibit consensual acts, where there are no victims to make a complaint. Criminalizing consensual behavior enables big-government policies to invade honest people’s personal lives.

The use of government force and planning — fascism, really — to change behavior has not worked that well in the past. Maybe, that’s why 40 years after the war on drugs began, the government is in continuous need of more sacrifices of our liberties and our income. The war on marijuana can only be sustained by criminalizing peaceful users of their right to property, by abusing taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars, and by sacrificing the privacy of us all.

To those of us who respect the peaceful decisions of others, let me remind you that returning our privacy and property rights do not require us changing the law. We only have to make it irrelevant.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching [...]]]> I attended the Wake Up America Tea Party in Fort Worth on Saturday as part of a nationwide tea party event. While volunteering at the Campaign for Liberty booth, I got a lot of positive reaction talking with attendees about conventional constitutional ideals.

I knew there would be a fair share of Republicans hitching onto the liberty message, so I thought it was important to present a more comprehensive small-government message, even if I do not subscribe to those views myself. Mostly, I emphasized the importance of decentralizing political power and scaling back American foreign policy.

I was there with Debbie McKee, the CFL state coordinator in Texas, and her daughter Adrienne. Our most popular item was CFL’s newly released pocket constitution that included the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky and Virginia nullification resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

A few people scoffed when the saw Ron Paul’s Revolution or End the Fed on our table. We also had Bruce Fein’s new book American Empire. (I have not read Fein’s book, but here is an interview with Scott Horton on Anti-War Radio.) However, many more I spoke with expressed that they thought the government’s belligerent foreign policy was doing more harm than good.

The most talked-about speakers were Bridgette Gabriel, who preached the dangers of “Islamic supremacism,” and conservative commentator Ann Coulter. They received the loudest applause lines I heard from the booth outside the auditorium. From a post on “The Whited Sepulchre,” Gabriel asked all the military veterans to stand and take an applause, which garnered a thunderous applause. The veterans obediently remained standing well into her speech.

Debra Medina, the founder of We Texans, spoke of the declining freedom in Texas. She said that Texas has went from a top-10 state in terms of economic freedoms and has fallen 23 spots to 31st in the nation since Rick Perry has been in governor’s office. Despite an impressive showing against establishment candidates in the Texas Republican gubernatorial primary, Medina had a distinctly less friendly reception because she highlighted that conservative rhetoric does not match the empirical evidence of a decade of Republican rule in Texas.

A few minutes before I was planning to leave, a man who described himself to me as a “constitutional conservative” wandered to the CFL booth and said he did not want to listen to Coulter. I gave a sympathetic nod. He said that he wanted nothing do with the Coulter and went on the explain that she attends meetings with pro gay-rights groups. That, he said, was unacceptable.

He talked about the source of this information, and how a website had been tracking Coulter for the past 18 months. As I recall, he went on to say “There is no place in the Republican Party for homosexuals or anybody with them.” From my reading of the state party platform, he is probably right. I guess he felt comfortable confiding this nugget of bigotry with those of us at the booth.

I kindly asked if he supported making it illegal to practice homosexuality. Without hesitating, he said he would and that it already is according to the Bible. I asked, then “would you think that all sins should be made illegal under political government?” So I asked about divorce. I went on the say that the Bible calls divorce a sin, and I asked if he thought it should be illegal too.

He danced around the question, so I asked again. He said that couples who have underwent counseling before marriage and before splitting up should be allowed to divorce on the condition that they would forfeit custody of their children to already-married couples.

After some prompting, he reiterated that the Republican Party was a party for Christians only, and that I would have to do some “soul searching” before becoming a genuine Republican, which I have no desire of becoming anyway. He said I should become a Democrat instead. I didn’t bother telling him, but neither sound that appealing. I should have told him, “Fuck You (Very Much).”

Completely devoid of historical evidence, he then went on to explain for a second time that libertarianism and socialism were spawned by Karl Marx in “his communist books” and the political environment of revolutionary France.

Tea Party Reflections

The tea party has no founding principles on which the movement is based, and most of its grassroots members are political newcomers who have a deep-seeded resentment for the direction that the country is going. It does not take long to realize that the government has been royally screwing up, and not just for the last 20 months.

Originally, the tea party movement was focused on excessive government spending as a reaction to the bailouts of the same large financial bodies that enabled the current economic collapse. The loudest voices were crying “Socialism” when Barack Obama was just adding to the same policies of his predecessor. Even still, so long as the movement was a reaction to fiscal mismanagement, there was some possibility that it would affect positive policy changes. But more and more, the tea party has less to do with battling run-away spending than it does with embracing cultural conservatism. The undertones of the currently embodied movement are based in the fears of white Christians of losing political power, fear that the same government many white Christians have exploited to their own advantage will be turned against them. “To take back our country.” That is the root cause for the present wave of backlash against Muslims and immigrants.

A poll [PDF] published in March from the University of Washington said that those who strongly support the tea party had more hostile views of gays, racial minorities and immigrants. On average, tea party supporters consistently thought less of the intelligence, trustworthiness and work ethic of blacks and Latinos than did the average Republicans. In a separate poll [PDF], and for all their talk about liberty, supporters of the tea party were far more likely to favor indefinite detention without trial of anyone accused of a crime, less privacy, and racial profiling. They were also less supportive of equal rights.

Even for the self-described constitutional conservative I talked with, he was more than willing to set aside any pretence of a modern society for an opportunity to enforce his morality on peaceful people. The momentum I witnessed Saturday will springboard into big electoral gains for Republicans, including many of the same responsible for this mess, in the mid-term elections. It will not amount to many policy changes for more liberty. No major tea party candidate is calling for cuts to any of the largest expenditures, not the military empire nor entitlement programs like Social Security.

It is a sad reality, but the ditching of any libertarian sentiments is inevitable so long as tea partiers are concerned with gaining the reins of power instead of abolishing that power altogether.

Katy and I passed out a different brochure [PDF] this time, “A Primer for Prospective Jurors.” We think it [...]]]> For July’s Fully Informed Jury Association activism, I helped distribute about 270 brochures to potential jurors and some county employees. It seemed to be a light jury day. Otherwise, we could have reached more people.

Katy and I passed out a different brochure [PDF] this time, “A Primer for Prospective Jurors.” We think it is more professional looking in addition to providing some useful tips on answering private questions during voir dire.

Some of the common questions about jury nullification are also addressed in the brochure. For example, “Once on a jury, must I use the law as given by the judge, even if I think it’s a bad law, or wrongly applied?” There are also historic examples of jury nullification being used to right a wrong, like the trial of William Penn.

Following our previous outreach event, FIJA donated about 1000 copies of literature and other merchandise, so we should be stocked up for a good while. We will set another event for next month. I know I said this last time, but I will make time for a training session sometime for any newcomers who like to attend FIJA events in the future.

In the video (above), I was returning home from a day of political activism in Dallas a few weekends ago, when I was met by a census worker at the location at which I was present. We had an interesting conversation. Without any provocation, he talked about the proverbial gun in [...]]]>

In the video (above), I was returning home from a day of political activism in Dallas a few weekends ago, when I was met by a census worker at the location at which I was present. We had an interesting conversation. Without any provocation, he talked about the proverbial gun in the room and said that I was compelled to answer his questions. He did not believe that compulsion was made by the threat of force, however, because he did not have the police in the driveway. I think I answered that OK, but I need to better expose the violence behind him nonetheless. Looking back, that is a point I should have continued to harp on.

I mostly asked questions about my “legal” obligations and the consequences for not participating in the census. One question I was meaning to ask is what the legal obligation the federal government had to me.

(For privacy reasons, I removed mention of the street address from the beginning of the video.)

Well, we had parked the car and were walking up just as the local Worldwide Marijuana [...]]]> I don’t make it to Dallas all that often for activism events, but the May 1 event was worth the effort. We had a marijuana re-legalization rally at high noon and an immigration rally in the same afternoon.

Well, we had parked the car and were walking up just as the local Worldwide Marijuana Rally that took place in some 300 cities was just beginning. I would guess there were about 300 to 400 people there. Katy and I distributed almost every flier we printed. The basic message was that consensual behavior should not be the domain of government. We explained that the only way to enforce laws against consensual behavior, such as drug use, would be to instill a massive police state that intrudes on our privacy. The flier said, “We don’t need to change the law. We just need to make it irrelevant.” It said that “ultimately to disarm government coercion,” we need new strategies and social arrangements for how society is organized. It seems that at least one of us talked with or handed fliers to most of the people.

After a half an hour or so, we began marching to the famous grass knoll on Elm St. Some people from DFW NORML, the group which organized the effort, talked for about 20 minutes. I didn’t smell anything in the air, but some did report seeing people light up. When we got back to the original rallying point, people were milling around. We got honks from bus drivers, other drivers and even a thumbs-up from a Dallas traffic enforcement officer on his bike. Everybody seemed to like our message about getting government out of our personal lives.

We tried framing the issue in terms of just letting people be free. We talked with Emo kids, a guy who said he was undergoing chemotherapy (that was really touching) and business owners. It was a really diverse crowd. I’ve uploaded some pictures to Meetup. I even got a photo of an unofficial Ron Paul 2012 shirt.

One disappointing thing happened just as we were leaving about 1:30 p.m. We crossed the street and were on the sidewalk next to the Cabell Federal Building. We were not there more than 30 second while deciding where to get lunch when were approached by a Dallas police officer. She told us that we could not stand on federal property, which apparently includes the sidewalk. The short discussion, in which I was threatened with arrest, is on YouTube now. I was planning to ask her if she was aware of Oath Keepers, but she rode off on her bike.

After a brief lunch, we headed to the immigration rally just a few blocks away. We didn’t march as originally planned, but we met at the endpoint at Dallas City Hall. From a distance it was difficult to say which side was which because the pro-amnesty side had more American flags.

Immigration Rally

The rally was sparked by the passage of a new draconian anti-immigration law passed in Arizona. We went in hopes of promoting a pro-liberty spin on open immigration.

Many people asked to take a picture with Katy’s sign, which said, “The principles of liberty have no borders.” (She was expressing that the principles of liberty apply to all people, regardless of their heritage or place of birth.) We arrived before the marchers, so there were just a thousand or so people there. I counted at least a dozen mounted police and maybe 30 other officers around the event.

Katy and I began passing out our flier, and the police were immediately suspicious of us. I think they were trying to overhear what I was saying to make sure we were not starting a confrontation.

We handed out nearly 400 immigration fliers, which read, “Immigration restrictions usurp the natural right of individual autonomy …. Most immigrants escaping tyrannical governments know firsthand the importance of liberty, and they remind us all of the importance of preserving that liberty.” It continued, “This new Arizona law is rewarding government failure with more government power.” When talking with people, our basic lines were that resources should be spent to investigate violent people who have violated the rights of others and that we wanted peaceful families left alone.

I think it was important to bring a liberty message to that crowd. We wanted to express that these ideas are friendly to all people. It was a really festive atmosphere. People were having a good time with their families, the weather was perfect, and music was playing in the background. Once the marchers arrived, the whole place swelled with people, and it was easy to get lost in the crowd.

The counter protest was also entertaining, though the police prevented us from crossing sides. My favorite sign said, “Illegal immigrants are not legal.” One guy’s sign said, “Illegal is a crime.” Another listed the snitch hotline to “Report Illegals.” A few times, I saw they had huddled around some speaker, I presume. It was difficult to understand what they were saying.

All in all, we passed out about 600 fliers, took lots of photos, and met even more friendly people.

In a sense, ALL is an effort to draw a distinction [...]]]> The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is an aggregate of Rothbardians, mutualists, voluntaryists, anarchists, agorists, extreme minarchists, and others united in opposition to statism and existing forms of coercive and irrational institutions. The newest group of ALLies has formed here in the Metroplex.

In a sense, ALL is an effort to draw a distinction between the two aspirations of those who support the non-aggression principle. As many have said, a voluntary society may well be a more closed society, where discrimination and petty hierarchical social structures are more prevalent. Left libertarians oppose the use of institutionalized power over others by encouraging an open, rational society.

The use of the word “left” is necessary to make a connection to historic nature of classical liberalism and to reject the libertarian merge with modern conservatism. (That is not to say that the modern left is any less authoritarian.) Unfortunately, the need for “libertarianism” with an adjective is the result of past compromises of principles. A recognition of left-libertarianism makes the use of certain political tools more profitable than others and makes other strategies, like electoral politics, muted by comparison.

The ALL Web site has some good resources as well. To learn more about DFW ALL, go to the About Us page.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who [...]]]> Honest to goodness, I intentionally avoid handing literature to government bureaucrats just so that I can avoid the hassle, but they just won’t leave me be.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who asked me to leave. Luckily, I got most of our interaction on video. My friends at the other end of the block later told me that the same officer told them they had to leave county property. They wrote down his name, but I forgot to ask them how to spell it. The same officer confronted me about five minutes after filming the video and asked me for my name and contact information. He said he wanted it in case the footage was made public. I told him I was a private person, so I refused. I almost began filming again when he just walked away as I said “On the job means on the record.”

I also ran into county prosecutor Kevin Rousseau, who starred in the first FIJA event on Aug. 24. He was almost across the intersection when I called out, “Hey, Mr. Rousseau.” He kind of hung his head in disappointment and then asked for a copy of our literature. The bureaucrats seemed more interested in us than before. Another lady who had a government ID asked if I had a permit. I replied, “Yes, it’s called the First Amendment.” Although I don’t believe my rights come from the constitution, at least that right is theoretically protected from violation by the government. I met two men who identified themselves as county judges who asked for a copy. I asked if they would mind being interviewed, but both declined being on camera.

Except for the officer in the video, I think I was friendly to the government people. I feel I was too confrontational with the officer and not informative enough, and that is something I’ll need to get better at. After all, I forgive all of them for what they do to my neighbors and myself, and I always will. I just wished they would stop hurting peaceful people. If I had to do it over again, I would have offered him a hug.

For the uninitiated, the Campaign for Liberty is the outcome of the meteoric Ron Paul presidential run this last election cycle. The idea is to harness the grassroots momentum of the Texas Republican into a sustainable political force. Paul’s [...]]]> This Saturday was a mix of clarity and confusion, hope and despair, and fun and agony.

For the uninitiated, the Campaign for Liberty is the outcome of the meteoric Ron Paul presidential run this last election cycle. The idea is to harness the grassroots momentum of the Texas Republican into a sustainable political force. Paul’s supporters met in Minnesota during the Republican National Convention to devise this plan and agreed to hold conventions in each of the 50 states in early 2009 to decide what to do next. [Edit: Only Texas supporters are holding a convention.]

Each of the 31 Texas senatorial districts is holding meetings to elect delegates for the Texas CFL convention in late February. The Metroplex was first, and as a consequence there was confusion not only among the attendees but the organizers as well. This was my first real political toe-dipping, so I am significantly behind most others when it comes to the business of politics. And I am definitely humbled by the experience.

Everything is up for grabs right now. The CFL made it official that it has no intention of chartering state organizations, but rather liaison with quasi-independent state organizations to varying degrees. That range of cooperation itself is still being debated. An organization could, with approval, borrow the CFL name and likeness, or it could have little or no connection to the CFL. For me, that is the major question to be answered at the Texas convention in the next six weeks or so.

Approximately 140 people met at 9:30 Saturday morning in downtown Dallas with a real sense of optimism and disorientation. The original plan was for nearly 10 times that attend. But in the last few months, those projections have been cut in half many times over. There’s a cyclical drop in interest, especially after a loss. I think a contributing factor had to be the lack of communication on behalf of the organizers and the attendees.

From my perspective, it was well understood that the convention would break down into each of the senatorial districts. This had been stressed time and time again. But after the introductions and question-and-answer period, one organizer gave a short speech on why the yet-to-be-named Texas organization should not become an issues-oriented campaign. That is something I personally agree with, but any effort to be objective was totally disingenuous on behalf of the organizers. Another organizer attempted to make a motion to the non-deliberative body for additional donations. Soon a few in the audience were calling for motions during this period. Others didn’t know why they had to be split into senatorial districts at all.

The benefit of a central pre-convention for the Metroplex was to answer any confusion. But many if not all of the questions remained, and few more came about. If it had to be done all over again, it would have been simpler, cheaper, and faster just to organize 31 separate meetings before the state convention. Some of the most pertinent questions, like cost, date, location of the state convention are still yet to be finalized.

Back Home Again

I’m a newer participant, so this didn’t hit home for me as much. But many people commented just how much they missed being around other “Ron Paul people,” as they called it. A lot of resources have been committed to this effort, and it’s a positive note that it was not in vain.

There were three prominent points that were discussed in my senate district meeting. The first stressed why this liberty movement was so successful: its spontaneity and optimism. The second was that a successful strategy is going to have to inspire and and mobilize again those supports we have lost track of. Third, any strategy must express what an individual can do to make a difference. That could mean assigning a precinct to a person to distribute fliers or gather voter registration. We have to give people something to do and let them know they are not alone.

Debriefing

After the district meetings, many of which lasted until about 6 p.m., a lot of us Educators of Liberty folks met up to talk about what happened. We had missed our regular Saturday gathering so it was only proper.

So I’ve covered the clarity, confusion, hope, and despair I mentioned up top. The only real agony was sitting on my bottom all day, but it was worth it, and I got to eat some good BBQ for lunch.