And Then There Were None
And Then There Were None by Eric Frank Russell. Wonderful example of an anarchic society, clothed as a science fiction short story. "Freedom: I won't." Hehe. This version is white text on a black background. For black text on a white background, use this one. [MfM]
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - Can Freedom be Exchanged for Security? - More on how the government uses times of crisis to steal our liberties on the pretext of providing better security.
The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought after by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously-held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
M. Simon at JPFO - Drug War Koans - pithy, funny, short truths about the war on freedom, er... some drugs. Some good ones: [Mrs. K]
Do you support drug prohibition because it finances criminals at home or because it finances terrorists abroad?
When was the last time you heard of a shoot out over beer sales territory?
What is the most dangerous aspect of marijuana use? Getting shot by the police.
What is the difference between a pile of vegetables and a million dollars? Prohibition.
Benjamin Cashner at JPFO - "Uprising" Letter to NBC - one man's questions about NBC's show on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Hehe. [jpfo]
Joseph Sobran at LewRockwell.com - Doing Something - Mr. Sobran's shares and comments on his recent experience's at Dulles and O'Hare airports. [lew]
I suppose the real purpose of these measures is to make us feel that the government is "doing something" about terrorism, even if what it does has no discernible relation to addressing the problem. The pettier the precaution, the greater the vigilance.
Is this also the purpose of the war on Afghanistan -- to convince us that the government is "doing something"? We are assured that the war is going well, that raining bombs on a godforsaken country is somehow having an impact on terrorism -- though the terrorists we have to worry about are already living here, know what to do, and presumably don't need to be activated by orders from a cave in Asia.
Jacob G. Hornberger at the Future of Freedom Foundation - Emergencies, Military Tribunals, and the Constitution - commentary on GW's kangaroo courts. [lew]
But is all that what the Founders of our nation had in mind when they wrote the Constitution? Is it what our ancestors had it mind when they ratified it? I thought the purpose of the Constitution was to protect us from our own public officials and that its principles were immutable, emergency or not. If our public officials can ignore the Constitution, which they swore to uphold and defend, whenever they deem an "emergency" exists, then what good is it? And where exactly in the Constitution are our government officials, including the president, given the power to ignore its provisions just because a so-called emergency arises?
Sunni Maravillosa at Sierra Times - So You're Thinking of Buying a Gun - Some practical advice for the first-time gun buyer. [kaba]
