The Humble Libertarian original

"No one is coming to save you." --Nathaniel Branden A woman discovers her controlling boyfriend has secretly bugged her cell phone, placed hidden cameras in her bedroom, and been reading her private emails. He refuses to admit wrongdoing and apologize. He even tells her he's doing it for her own good: "Honey, I'm doing this to protect you. I'm doing this because I love you." She should just tell him this is unacceptable and trust him to stop after she confronts him about it, right? Obviously wrong. Anyone who'd rather not end up putting the lotion on its skin before it gets the hose again would move apartments, get a new phone, change passwords, file a restraining order, and start carrying a Smith & Wesson. I'd probably adopt a couple pitbulls too. Spearheaded by digital privacy activists, today is The Day We Fight Back against mass surveillance. By "fight back" they mean do the literally most useless thing they could pos...

Human Fetus at 10 Weeks - Photo by drsuparna ( CC ) In the following essay I will address the issue of abortion and defend the pro-life position unemotionally, in a tasteful manner, and without reference to religious scripture to support my assertions. Plain reason and the evidence of science make the issue clear enough. My only demand of the reader is that you would also suspend your emotional predispositions and genuinely read and reflect on the validity of the propositions I make. The Argument Outlined My primary argument takes the following syllogistic form: IF: 1. Every human being has the right to live, which should be protected by law, AND: 2. From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings, THEN: 3. The unborn have the right to live, which should be protected by law. If one accepts the first two premises, then the pro-life position stated in the conclusion is inescapable. Surely, few people will have any qualms about the first premise. Human bein...

The whistleblowing website Wikileaks has begun releasing sensational information on the multi billion dollar global spying industry. The database contains hundreds of documents shining a light on the methods being used by secret services all over the world. Russia Today reports: Wes Messamore , Editor in Chief, T H L Articles | Author's Page

My desk has lately seen a plethora of material relating to the nefariousness of social networks. The current issues of my magazine subscriptions to The American Conservative , Chronicles , and Modern Reformation all have either cover stories or prominent articles about the downsides of social networking. My first blog entry for Young American for Liberty dealt with a new Missouri law that aims to police teacher-student communication on Facebook. After the fallout from the Anthony Weiner scandal, and more recently, the riots in London, it looks like the new bogeyman is social networking. It’s fashionable right now to blame the various social networks for current lapses in morality and any other social ills we might perceive. This isn’t too surprising. Whenever a new innovation is used to commit an ancient crime, the crime itself is overlooked and the new thing is what is scandalized. Mass murder is committed with an assault rifle and the gun controllers scream that assault rifles...

If you’re a libertarian rebel maybe you care about people being able to see the amounts of pornography you consume, your financial information or the time you spend on subversive anti-government websites. If you aren’t overt and proud of your anti-state leanings but would rather maintain an air of secrecy about your political beliefs then Mr. Rounds’ work is a great start. You can still absorb the content you’d like to and comment anonymously all without your information being sucked into some government database so bureaucrats and agents can keep an eye on you. Read more at Silver Underground . Ross Kenyon , Assistant Editor, T H L Articles | Author's Page

The holiday travel season this year revealed some of the real defects in the Transportation Security Administration’s new policy of subjecting select travelers to the “option” of going through airport strip-search machines or being subjected to an intrusive pat-down more akin to a groping. Anecdotes continue to come forth, including the recent story of a rape victim who was arrested at an airport in Austin, TX after refusing to let a TSA agent feel her breasts. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is working on the “next big thing”: body-scanning everywhere. This “privacy impact assessment” from DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate details a plan to use millimeter wave—a technology in strip-search machines—along with other techniques, to examine people from a distance, not just at the airport but anywhere DHS wants. Read the rest of Jim Harper's post at Cato @ Liberty.org Jim Harper is director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute Filed by Grant Davie...

More fun for area commuters: Last Thursday, DC Metro officials announced that "anti-terrorism teams" will immediately begin conducting random bag searches. Metro released plans for a similar scheme in October 2008, but never implemented it. That month, in an online chat with Washington Post readers, Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn was woefully short on straight answers. "Can I carry my pocketknife?" an Alexandria resident asked, "and what if I'm returning from the supermarket with lighter fluid for my grill?" Owners of "contraband" will be "subject to prosecution," Taborn replied: "If you are unsure of whether a particular item is contraband, you should seek legal advice." So budget that into your travel time. It's nice that the searches won't be as invasive as an airport porno-scanner or a Transportation Security Administration agent's cold rubber glove. But if ..... Read the Rest of the Gene Healy article...

We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the Wikileaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media. At its core, the Wikileaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information. No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and m...

Almost ten years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, why are we doing pat-downs and full body scans? Why now? Why ever? If the noise from Americans keeps up there might actually be a change in TSA policy. While that would be a marked improvement it still wouldn’t make up for yet another missed opportunity to have a public discussion about a problem in plain sight. If it seems like every time a racial minority claims they have been mistreated and the elites tell us we’re supposed to have a conversation about race, why can’t probing invasions of travelers’ private parts elicit a discussion on foreign policy? The full body scans and pat-downs are obvious violations of privacy, but these procedures didn’t appear ex nihilo . Americans have been subject to an increasing amount of security at airports and these controversial practices are only the logical outcome of what we’ve already been through. Richard Reid hid explosives in his shoes and now we all have to take off our shoes. Umar Farou...

The national furor over the TSA's new procedures — culminating in yesterday's " Opt Out Day " — has elicited the typical response from the bureaucracy and its apologists. Why, these invasive scans and "enhanced pat-downs" are only for your good, in order to ensure safe flying. You don't want another attack, do you? This is a false tradeoff. Especially in the long run, there is no tension between freedom and safety. If airport security were truly returned to the private sector, air travelers would achieve a much better balance of privacy and legitimate security measures." Read the rest of this excellent article by Robert P. Murphy here . Eric Sharp , Regular Columnist, T H L Articles | Author's Page

This week Ron Paul stopped by the Freedom Watch studio and presented a clear, cohesive view regarding the abuses of new TSA policies as well as the existence of the TSA itself. My favorite quotation from the interview: "I don't think of government as protecting private property; I think the Second Amendment protects your private property." Daryl Luna , Regular Columnist, T H L Articles | Author's Page

The growing revolt against invasive TSA practices is encouraging to Americans who are fed up with federal government encroachment in their lives. In the case of air travelers, this encroachment is quite literally physical. But a deep-seated libertarian impulse still exists within the American people, and opposition to the new TSA full body scanner and groping searches is gathering momentum. I introduced legislation last week that is based on a very simple principle: federal agents should be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. If you would face criminal prosecution or a lawsuit for groping someone, exposing them to unwelcome radiation, causing them emotional distress, or violating indecency laws, then TSA agents should similarly face sanctions for their actions. This principle goes beyond TSA agents, however. As commentator Lew Rockwell recently noted, the bill “enshrines the key lesson of the freedom philosophy: the government is not above the moral law. If...

Some have coined the new "enhanced safety measures" enforced by the touchy-feely TSA with the phrase, " getting gate-raped ". Now that deserves a song. Eric Olsen , Regular Columnist, T H L Articles | Author's Page | Website

"Opposition to new full-body imaging machines to screen passengers and the government's deployment of them at most major airports is growing. Many frequent fliers complain they're time-consuming or invade their privacy. The world's airlines say they shouldn't be used for primary security screening. And questions are being raised about possible effects on passengers' health... The machines — dubbed by some fliers as virtual strip searches — were installed at many airports in March after a Christmas Day airline bombing attempt. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has spent more than $80 million for about 500 machines, including 133 now at airports. It plans to install about 1,000 by the end of next year." Read the entire article at USA Today . Matt Collins , Regular Columnist Articles | Author's Page

The European Parliament is to vote on a deal that would allow the U.S. to access information on the bank transfers of European citizens. America says it's a necessary measure to track terror suspects. But critics say the proposal -- that's been discussed between the EU and U.S. for months now -- violates human rights. RT talks to Jan Philipp Albrecht, a Member of the European Parliament. Matt Collins , Regular Columnist Articles | Author's Page

In this excellent video, courtesy of the Silver Circle movie people, a pundit takes to the streets to demand (as Congressman Etheridge recently did) to know people's identities, asserting her "right to know." Sorry Congressman, looks like the people know the extent of their rights and the limits of your phony power. W. E. Messamore , Editor in Chief Articles | Author's Page

Check out this video of Jack Hunter vs Don Boudreaux in a discussion over illegal immigration. Personally, I see valid points on both sides of the discussion. I see illegal immigration as trespassing. However I also understand that a free market in labor should exist and that the government is not the best entity to determine the supply of labor necessary to meet demand. Watch video here . Regardless of whatever happens, turning the country into a police state (REAL-ID, E-Verify, PASS-Act) to deal with the illegal immigration issue is not acceptable. Matt Collins , Regular Columnist Articles | Author's Page

Think of it this way: as classical liberals, we understand that a bureaucrat in Washington could not possibly have enough information to correctly regulate the price or quantity of a good or service. This applies to labor markets, and immigration is essentially a function thereof. There's no way Washington or the state of Arizona can know how much immigration we really need. Only the free and voluntary interaction of people and enterprises in an unfettered market will result in the "right" amount of immigration to our country (that is to say- the amount which will result in maximum productivity and value for all parties involved). I actually believe however, that we are seeing more immigration than a free market would produce because of other policies that create market distortions. So to completely leave the matter up to the marketplace, we need to grant amnesty, end quotas and limits on immigration, and end the nightmarish bureaucratic processes for getting into the cou...

Video: This is a real advertisement from Pennsylvania advertising the state's tax amnesty policy. It's creepy as hell and you'd think a libertarian made it to criticize the government, but no- this is how the state wants you to see it. I've been saying this all along, but you don't have to take it from me anymore- even the government is telling you that you have something to fear about it...

By Daryl Luna, Editor at: *In Defense of the Constitution* An alarming movement is afoot in New York. Already New Yorkers are told what they can eat and how they can defend themselves (among other things). Now they may lose total control of their bodies. Legislation is being proposed that will create mandatory "organ donor" status for all residents of the Empire State. On the surface, this may not seem like a big deal. One may ask , "What's wrong with everyone being an organ donor?" But the issue is more than one of organ donor status; the mandatory nature of the legislation is what makes this bill so appalling. The decision to donate part of one's body is a personal one in which the government has no legitimate role. Aside from violating the decisions regarding one's own body, this law could easily violate religious liberty. A number of religions and religious sects have adherents who refuse to separate organs from the body based on religious...