Keith Halderman
Because she tried to help mitigate the government black-market imposed high cost of marijuana for her self and her friends the Tallahassee police were able to blackmail her into participating in the very dangerous sting operation that took her life without informing either her attorneys or her parents.
Upon discovery of her body the police immediately called a press conference with the intention of blaming Hoffman for her own death. Her attorneys responded to this cruel farce by stating that, “Bringing to light the victim’s criminal charges, her alleged faults during a sting operation, and repeatedly addressing the fact, in so many different words, that the Tallahassee Police Department is not responsible for the death of Rachel Hoffman did nothing to inform the public about what truly happened the night of the drug sting. It did nothing to inform the public about what is going to happen to the individuals who killed her. It did nothing to inform the public about what policies and procedures are in place to protect a confidential informant before they engage in a police drug sting. The only purpose this information served was to both attack a woman who has been taken away from society in a ruthless, reckless, and vicious manner, and to allow her family to watch it all on television while they are still reeling from the shock of their loved ones death.”
Rachel Hoffman was more than just a marijuana user she was also an activist with organizations such as Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) trying to decriminalize marijuana and prevent the type of tragedies that took her own life. Despite the callous indifference shown by the national media and the public at large she will not be forgotten. Her mother has set up the Rachel Morningstar Foundation to continue her work.
There is no better illustration that drug prohibition is a vicious, unjust, expensive, and evil policy than Rachel Hoffman’s story.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Keith Halderman
Scott Horton called the work hilarious during his radio interview with John Cusack today. Also, the clips they played made some devastating points.
David T. Beito
David T. Beito
Here are the rules:"Contest is open only to legal US residents, over the age of 18 with children in either elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted."
The folks at Subway, of course, have every right to set their own contest rules but why did they make this particular exclusion? Was it suggested by someone at Scholastic Parent and Chld Magazine?
David T. Beito
In this recent testimony before the Alabama State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Rev. John E. Smith gives his version of what happened after eminent domain was used to take the one hundred year old Evergreen Baptist Church. In exchange, the state gave the congregation land to build a new church.
When construction was underway, however, the city sent a bill of $80,000 charging the church for a new water main. As a result, Smith says that the church is being pushed into bankruptcy and the members are falling away.
The testimony of Smith's wife Gail (about half way into the youtube) is particularly passionate.
David T. Beito
David T. Beito
A teenager in London received a summons under the Public Order Act. His alleged crime was to call the Church of Scientology a" cult."
Hat tip Jacob Sullum.
Mark Brady
“Should Britain and France have stayed out of the war? No, emphatically. But we should have declared war on Germany only when we could win. By 1943, Hitler's forces were being ground down by the Red Army, and we would have had every chance of defeating the Germans in western Europe.
“As someone who was so affected by our war with Japan, I am more interested in the consequences of the British government's misguided decision. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor, the most significant event of my life, if Britain and France had not declared war on Germany in 1939? I suspect not. The attack was a desperate gamble prompted by the American oil embargo, which would be lifted only if the Japanese withdrew from China. The oil that Japan eyed so eagerly was in the Dutch East Indies, but deterred by a strong British, French and Dutch presence, the Japanese might well have yielded to American demands and withdrawn from China.
“The Japanese tanks that I saw rolling into Shanghai on the day of the attack might have been moving in the opposite direction. The lives of millions of Chinese and Asians would have been spared, along with thousands of British soldiers in Burma and Singapore.”
Go here to read Ballard’s essay Secrets of the Emperor’s Bunker and his revisionist perspective on the Second World War.
And Sokurov's The Sun is a must-see movie.
Robert Higgs
Okay, okay, you are saying. Nothing is more humdrum than another exposure of a hypocritical congressman–naturally Fossella specialized in socially conservative positions that appealed to his many Catholic constituents. But such always-gratifying revelations have a larger lesson to teach us: a member of Congress will not be forgiven a personal peccadillo, but he may with complete impunity commit the greatest crimes–grand larceny, mass murder, arson, and every other species of abomination–by authorizing and funding their commission by government agents. Indeed, not only may a member of Congress act as an accessory to great crimes, he is expected to do so, and rewarded lavishly by the public with re-election to office and all the honors and aggrandizements that accompany his entrenchment in that occult and wicked temple known as the Capitol. S
Steal a hundred dollars, go to jail; steal a trillion dollars, go on to fame and fortune as a public servant. Kill one man, go to the gas chamber; kill a million people, go on to well-paid retirement at public expense and big bucks on the lecture circuit. Alert children are learning these lessons, and acting accordingly when they become old enough to run for election to public office.
Not only have Americans split the atom, they have–mirabile dictu–split their moral sense. Countless actions for which any ordinary person would be denounced to the heavens will serve to sustain a lifetime’s political career. Lie, cheat, and steal and your friends will condemn and abandon you, but do the same on a hugely greater scale in your capacity as a public representative and the voters will stand by you to the end.
Just don’t father an out-of-wedlock child. That’s so vile!
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
While I think the primary focus of libertarian activism should be on rendering society ungovernable (via education and building alternative institutions) rather than on electoral politics, unlike my more austere agorist comrades I still see libertarian political campaigns as serving a legitimate and useful auxiliary role – and so I still care about the fate of the Libertarian Party, whose presidential nominating convention begins this week.
It looks like the convention will decide not just the nominee but the future of the party: will it return to its principles by nominating a radical libertarian like Mary Ruwart (my preference – see my statement on her endorsements page) or Steve Kubby, or will it allow itself to be highjacked by the right, the result for which Bob Barr’s forces appear to be scheming? (See this press release from the party’s founder about the shenanigans of the Barr forces.) This may well be the starkest choice the party has faced.
Barr is positioning himself as the natural continuator of the Ron Paul Revolution; but for all my problems with Ron Paul he is far more solidly libertarian than Barr, who favours an aggressive foreign policy (albeit in Latin America rather than the Middle East) and still supports drug prohibition (albeit at the state rather than the federal level). It will be ironic if the Ron Paul Revolution, by bringing disaffected Republicans into the LP, contributes to the effective destruction of the Libertarian Party.
Agorist Demerit Count: 2
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
The purpose of copyright, according to the Constitution, is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Exactly how interfering with freedom of education is supposed to do that is a bit of a puzzle.
Particularly egregious is the argument that noncommercial copying is really commercial copying because if it weren’t provided for free, then a lot of people would probably be willing to pay for it. One could use the same argument to prove that all sex is prostitution.
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
I see that a film dramatisation of the Waco massacre is in the works. The good news is that the producer of the documentary Waco: Rules of Engagement is involved, which presumably means that the film will take an anti-government stance.
Mark Brady
Thus concludes Matthew Syed on the Mosley affair.
For those who don't follow the world of motor-racing or, for that matter, the recent adventures of Max Mosley, understand that he is the younger son of the late Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, and his second wife, Lady Diana Mosley, one of the Mitford sisters. Doubly embarrassing, therefore, when it was claimed that Max liked to act out sadomasochistic fantasies on a Nazi theme.
Rod Liddle defends his right to privacy here."Those complaining most loudly about his alleged behaviour ought to worry that one day the bedroom door might be opened on their private passions."
Steven Horwitz
My two questions were a drop in the bucket compared to the total and utter takedown of the book administered by Johan Norberg in a new Cato Policy Briefing entitled"The Klein Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Polemics."
I'm not going to snippet it as the whole thing deserves to be read as a masterful, well-footnoted, response to Klein and others like her. If you have friends who are talking about Klein's book, send them Norberg's piece.
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted on Austro-Athenian Empire]
Charles has an excellent post today on patriarchy, rape, and the distinction between voluntary and spontaneous orders – extending some of the themes of our libertarian feminism piece from 2004.
Radley Balko
The premise: Public health activists petition the government to block out the sun.
Aeon J. Skoble
You know, it occurs to me that several of my publications over the last few years have described me as being the author of a forthcoming book called"Freedom, Authority, and Social Order." As I note in the video, that was the working title of Deleting the State, so the five of you who have been patiently awaiting the release of the former can stop. This is that book, but with a different title.
Anthony Gregory
As with government control generally, the power of the state to prevent or regulate immigration is grounded in the doctrine of collectivism. When governments build walls or fences around politically-defined boundaries, they are doing what all other property owners do: staking out their claims to everything contained within. It’s just an extension of the earlier ritual of explorers planting flags on the shores of newly-discovered lands and claiming them for one monarch or another. From China’s"great wall," to Hadrian’s wall, to the Berlin wall, to current efforts to install a fence across the Mexican-American border, governments have built barriers that restrain both their own people and those seeking entry. The principle that allows this to occur is that the state enjoys some collective ownership interest that differs from – and is in conflict with – individual property claims. The state, through no other principle than the coercive force that defines it, is able to transform itself from an agency of protection into a principal interest to be protected!
