#i love when people completely misinterpret libertarian socialism

[brightlotusmoon]

Life's More Complicated than the Non-Aggression Principle | Libertarianism.org

How far below the surface should property rights in land extend? How high into the sky? To what extent can an owner of land bind future owners and restrict their ability to sell? Specifically, is fee tail an enforceable type of ownership? Is the rule against perpetuities a restriction on the rights of ownership or a protector of those rights’ integrity? Can ownership of land be lost by abandonment, or is the rule of adverse possession an impingement on property rights? If possession of land was acquired by force, how much time must pass and how many times must the land change hands before the rights of the original owners and their descendants are extinguished and the current possessors are deemed the legal owners? When do duties to indemnify the dispossessed for their losses expire?

What about pollution or other nuisances? If any physical invasion of another’s property constitutes an unlawful trespass, then things look grim for industrial civilization: a single molecule of effluent blown from my factory smokestack across your property constitutes a violation of your property rights. Such an interpretation leads to absurd outcomes, as even photons from my indoor lighting may constitute trespasses as they cross your yard. But if we forsake a bright-line rule, where do we draw the line? The common law of nuisance regards as actionable only “unreasonable” interference with quiet enjoyment of one’s property. How to give content to that weasel word?

And what about actions that create the risk of harm or evince the intention to cause harm? If you are trying to build a nuclear bomb in your garage next door, do I have a right to complain? If you shoot at me in the street but miss, have you committed an offense against me or is it no harm, no foul? Is planning a crime itself a crime? If so, how far must the planning proceed before an infraction has been committed?

What about unintentional harms? If some action of yours leads to harm, are you culpable no matter what? Or do you have to be negligent for your actions to violate the rights of the person you harmed? How does one define negligence? Here the common law punts again with its weaselly standard of “lack of reasonable care.”

What about children? Negative rights of security against aggression aren’t enough for kids; they need someone else to care for them. What is their legal status? What are the obligations of their parents? What happens if their parents fail to meet those obligations?

Finally, what about remedies? What social institutions will enforce rights and protect people against aggression? Here the indeterminacy of the NAP is glaringly apparent, as libertarians who claim it as their pole star are divided over whether a government with a monopoly over enforcing laws is necessary. Minarchists claim that, without government, the NAP is a dead letter; anarchists retort that a government is unnecessary and its establishment runs directly counter to the NAP. Minarchists think that anarchy is utterly impractical; anarchists think limited government violates the NAP and is impractical itself to boot as government won’t stay limited. Whatever the merits of their respective cases, the NAP won’t settle the matter.

[mfranklin21ahsgov]

Election 202 Presidential Candidates Assessment

 Green Party (Howie Hawkins / Angela Nicole Walker)

Monitor and Prosecute White Racist Terrorists

Federal Investigations of Local Police Misconduct

Community Control of the Police

End Mass Incarceration—Treat Drug Abuse as a Health Problem, Not a Criminal Problem

Legalize Marijuana

Decriminalize Personal Possession of Hard Drugs

Drug Treatment on Demand

Decriminalize Sex Work

Fight Corporate Crime

End Warrantless Mass Surveillance

Pardon Whistle Blowers and Political Prisoners

I agree strongly with pretty much everything on this list but there are a couple that I think could be worded a little bit better or I am just misinterpreting what it says. The one that bugs me the most is, “End Warrantless Mass Surveillance” because I can’t tell if it is saying there should be camera like in the streets because people don’t consent to them? If that is the case, then I do not agree with that at all because I think cameras are necessary to catching crime and maybe even preventing crime because they know they will be on camera. I really like the what they are saying about the policemen and how they have to be held accountable for their actions and just because they are are policemen, it doesn’t mean they just have the right to do anything with no consequences. I think legalizing weed would be smart because it is proven to be not as bad for you as alcohol and people don’t become aggressive so maybe people will make the switch to weed as they already are.

The beliefs of these candidates to coincide with the beliefs of the rest of the political platform which would be expected in my opinion because if they didn’t then why wouldn’t the candidates just run under a different party unless they knew they couldn’t compete with Biden and Trump.

Republican Party (Donald Trump / Mike Pence)

-As we all know by now, Donald Trump loves his “Men in Blue”, which I respect, but there is one problem. Donald Trump will rarely admit something they have done is wrong when in reality, they do a lot of things wrong and they need a quick reform and that would just be a start to getting this country to come closer together but he is a very stubborn person and will likely never do that. Donald Trump has given money to cities to help them restore their equipment when in reality, what they need is longer, stricter, harder, and better training. Students should not be criminalized for what they believe in.

I agree with Donald Trump in the fact that policemen are very important. I personally do not think policemen are doing more harm than good on the individual basis, but the many people are perceiving this whole situation is that all policemen are bad because a few cops are and with social media, the bad videos are obviously going to go viral much quicker than the good videos. With this being said, the few bad cops are making all the good cops look bad and so people could say that “policemen are doing more harm than good” but I think policemen get too bad of a reputation because of a few sick and cruel cops. I am not agreeing or disagreeing because didn’t put this on his website, but policemen definitely need more training and it needs to be harder to become a policeman. I do not understand why he can’t see that even with the few bad cops, people are just asking for a change and they aren’t getting it so they will continue to be angry.

This website agrees with the republican website and I wouldn’t even be surprised if the people who made the Republican Party website helped out with the Donald Trump Website and vice versa.

Peace and Freedom (Gloria la Riva / Sunil Freeman)

End mass incarceration and police brutally and end racism.End mass incarceration of oppressed and all working class people. Fully prosecute all acts of police brutality and violence. Free Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal and all political prisoners!

After reading through the rest of their ideals, it is really difficult for me to say that I would identify with this group or agree with them. I don’t think very much time was put into this website because one of their points was just, “end racism.” Ok... and how are you going to do that? That is what I want to know. I can’t say everyone, because there are always exceptions, but 99.9% of the United States wants to end racism. Saying that doesn’t help whatsoever. They gave no suggestion on how to end racism but if for some reason they were elected all of the sudden racism would just end? This website sort of gets on my nerves the more I read about it. This is sort of off topic, but one of the points made on this website is  “Shut down all U.S. military bases around the world—bring all the troops, planes & ships home.” In my opinion, this is just super dumb. Yes, nobody likes war, but if you shut down all the military bases everywhere then all of the United States citizens will be at risk and people will come tot he United States to attack. It seems as if whoever wrote this website doesn’t think that there are still bad people in this world except for cops. I don’t see how a platform can have so much hate towards policemen but yet have faith in the rest of the world to not harm our citizens. I could have interpreted this whole thing wrong but it was really weird reading this and thinking that people actually believe in it. I do agree for the most part about the criminal justice though.

For the most part, this website agrees with the party platform but the party platform website was much broader than this website. This website went into like a few specific case scenarios but didn’t really cover the overarching theme.

 American Independent (Rogue de la Fuente “Rocky” Guerra / Kanye Omari West)

-Dear Mr. Rocky de la Fuente, The issue I am concerned about isc riminal justice.  I am concerned about this issue because because it is a very big issue in 2020 and different candidates want to handle it in different ways.  I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class.  Please clarify your stance on this issue.  Thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Sincerely, Mitchell Franklin

mitchell.franklin21@auhsdschools.org

(Yes this was sent, I just put it here so I could fill the space with something. If he responds, then I will edit this blog post)

Libertarian (Jo Jorgensen / Jeremy “Spike” Cohen)

-We claim to be the “Land of the Free” but yet we lead the world in incarcerations. This is not to say that we should should just start letting people out of jail, but she thinks that if the crimes are not violent and if they are are drug related, then those people need help more than anything which I completely agree with. Putting them in prison will just make them even worse and maybe even turn violent. There should be no law that prohibits a person from owning an object. Whether that object is a gun, or if it is a drug. If there is no victim, there will be no crime which means she will decriminalize everyone who falls underneath that umbrella.

I agree with what Jo says because people are getting put in prison way too easily as if it is going to make them a better person. It is a known fact that putting people in prison will not make them a better person. In fact, more times than not, it makes them a worse person. What these people need is education. I disagree with the fact that all frugs should be legal. I think I interpreted that right from what she said because she said “owning an object should not criminalize anyone” but the fact of the matter is, with the worse drugs, people get addicted, then they resort to stealing which has a victim so why not just stop that from the beginning. I think they should but other than that, I really like her ideas of keeping the non violent people out of jail because it will only make them worse.

This is pretty much exactly what the party platform website said. Both this website, and the party platform liked to focus on having less people in prison and not convicting people of crimes that are not violent.

Democratic Party (Joe Biden / Kamala Harris)

-Today, too many people are incarcerated in the United States – and too many of them are black and brown. To build safe and healthy communities, we need to rethink who we’re sending to jail, how we treat those in jail, and how we help them get the health care, education, jobs, and housing they need to successfully rejoin society after they serve their time.

1. Our criminal justice system cannot be just unless we root out the racial, gender, and income-based disparities in the system.

2.Our criminal justice system must be focused on redemption and rehabilitation.

3. No one should be profiteering off of our criminal justice system.

I completely agree with all three of these main points. There was one more main point, but it was sort of summarized in the top section. The bottom one is really important. If people are making a profit off of incarcerating people (not the government because it is insanely expensive to house inmates) then they will want to keep having people incarcerated so that needs to stop, and if Biden is elected, his plan is to make sure that doesn’t happen. Another one is making sure the policemen are not being racist and if they are, they need to be punished because there is a very large number of black and brown people and part of that is because due to the people who arrest them in the first place.

This website is very similar to the Democratic website because these are the Democrats who are running for office. Both websites focused on focusing in on reforming the police foundation and incarcerating less people which is very important to a healthy community, state and nation

[prolifeproliberty]

The Handmaid’s Tale Actually Isn’t Terrible

I started (binge)watching The Handmaid’s Tale yesterday, and I was prepared to hate it. Everything I had heard and read about the show prepared me for thinly disguised liberal propaganda constantly bashing Christians, Conservatives, and Pro-Lifers. The premise, as I understood it, would be “this is what happens if the Christians/Conservatives/Pro-Lifers get their way.” This came especially from everyone who jumped straight to “Trump is going to make this come true.”

I was wrong, and so are a lot of the liberals who think that The Handmaid’s Tale supports their ideology.

Warning

If you haven’t watched the show, my warning to you is that rape is a constant theme in the show, and you will see multiple rapes per episode. Generally they are not physically violent, more on the side of coerced compliance. As such, these scenes are fairly “quiet,” which I think makes it all the more disturbing. Do not watch the show if that is something that will cause you significant emotional distress.

The Premise

The Republic of Gilead, a terrorist group of “Christian” fundamentalists, has taken over much of the United States. Other nations regard them much the way we regard North Korea. They are vaguely aware of the human rights injustices in Gilead, and have mostly responded with trade embargoes and other sanctions.

In the world where this takes place, infertility is a global crisis. Most women can’t get pregnant, and those who do often miscarry or give birth to babies who die soon after delivery. Gilead’s solution to this problem is to enslave those women who can have healthy babies and force them to act as surrogates for “the faithful,” aka the leaders. In a twisted misinterpretation of the Biblical story of Rachel asking Jacob to father children via her maid, these women are raped by the men they are assigned to while laying in the lap of the man’s wife. I honestly cannot overstate how disturbing these scenes are. Ugh.

But it’s not just the Handmaids who are enslaved. Virtually all citizens of Gilead have lost all of their civil and human rights, including the “elite” who appear to be living “the good life.” The government is socialist, in that it controls all means of production and distributes goods to the people through ration cards. There are shortages of many items, such that the characters get excited when the grocery store is carrying oranges. However, it is apparent that higher-up leaders can get things that lower-ranking party members might be denied. Jobs and marriages are also distributed by the government.

Everyone is under near-constant surveillance through a network of state spies and neighbors who will report you for fear of being “complicit.” Interrogations are conducted using cattle prods, and guilty verdicts are reached by a judge asking the accuser to swear he’s telling the truth and then saying the equivalent of “well, okay, if you say so.” Death sentences are handed down and carried out almost instantaneously. 

Religion

An emphasis is placed on the religious aspect of Gilead society. As mentioned before, the Handmaid system is based on Rachel asking Jacob to father children through her maid. The characters have call-and-response greetings and phrases that come from Scripture or general Christian language. It can be very tempting to consider Gilead “Christians Gone Wild.”

However, there is something very interesting that disrupts this interpretation that I noticed in the very first episode. There are no clergy. Anywhere. No pastors, no priests except one who has been executed for his crimes, presumably speaking against the state. We see a church being demolished, and two Handmaids talk about churches they knew from “before” that have been destroyed.

What this tells us is that no Christian church got on board with Gilead. No churches, no clergy, nobody. This is a case of a relatively small group of absolute nut jobs managing to take over the government and control the masses through fear and brainwashing.

The show also makes it clear over and over again that all of the Scripture used by Gilead to justify their actions is taken completely out of any context whatsoever. The Rachel, Jacob, and Bilah story used to justify the Handmaid system is a prime example. The people of Gilead treat this story like a direct command from God to rape women so you can have children. It is so incredibly not that. Really, the whole story, in context, is a warning about why polygamy is a terrible idea. God never condones Rachel’s solution to her infertility, and in other places He explicitly condemns similar situations, such as when Sarah tells Abraham to sleep with Hagar.

Most importantly, the characters in The Handmaid’s Tale leave out of the story the part where Jacob gets mad at Rachel for even suggesting the idea, and she has to talk him into it. His first reaction to her suggestion is the right one: “Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, ‘Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?’“ (Gen 30:2). The end of Genesis 29 tells us that God made Rachel barren and made Jacob’s other wife, Leah, fertile to protect her. Jacob loved Rachel and hated Leah, so God let Leah have children so Jacob would have to treat her better. When Rachel proposes having Jacob impregnate her servant, she is trying to circumvent God’s will.

We also see instances where only part of a verse is quoted, such as “Blessed are the meek,” which is used to tell the Handmaids to “know their place.” Offred, the main character, finishes the verse in her head: “for they will inherit the earth.” The Handmaids are reminded to “remember their Scripture,” which seems to refer to selected fragments of verses used to control them, as they are not allowed to read the Bible (or anything else) themselves. In fact, the only Bible I’ve seen in the show so far is kept in a locked box by the Commander, only taken out for the “ceremony” (the monthly ritual rape intended to impregnate Offred). At this point, only the verses about Rachel, Jacob, and Bilah are read, and then not the complete passage. The Commander reads Genesis 30: 1, 3-5 (King James Version), skipping verse 2 that talks about Jacob being angry because Rachel was trying to circumvent God’s will.

Civil Liberties

I think the big warning for us is not about “religion run wild.” It’s about our civil liberties and the dangers of socialism. In fact, I think The Handmaid’s Tale makes an excellent case for Libertarianism. We see this in how the Republic of Gilead manages to take over the country and strip the people of their rights. They do this through coordinated terrorist attacks which destroy all three branches of government (they bomb Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court and basically kill everyone) and convince the people to give up their rights and submit to martial law.

Once this is achieved, Gilead leaders take control of the banks and essentially all industry very quickly and in a very strategic way. They ban women from having jobs or owning property all at once, freezing every woman’s bank account and credit card before the people realize what’s happening. They start shooting protesters and anyone who opposes them, shutting down resistance before it can get organized.

Offred remarks in the show on how she didn’t see this coming because she wasn’t paying attention. She had her own life and her own problems, and she didn’t speak up or take action when her rights were taken away. In fact, it is made clear that most people didn’t realize what was going on until it was way too late. In this story, the complacency of Americans with tyranny and their disregard for their own rights was America’s downfall.

Gilead happened not because of religion or Conservative ideology. It happened because people were willing to give up their liberty for a promise of temporary safety. They ended up with neither.