The Economist's Cookbook

Many of the more "left-libertarian types" might disagree with me. In fact I know some of them will. With all of the fervor over the whole Prop 8 thing in the People's republic of California, there has been quite the outcry over this. I see this on some of the blogs I read all the time. Frankly I'm sick of seeing it. It's not that I have anything against people who bet for the other team. I just don't care about the issue. And here is why:

1.) If you take the Anarcho-Capitalist (Market Anarchist) view there shouldn't be a government so leave it up to the movements of private contract enforcement to decide what they will and won't enforce, combined with the fact that the churches/religious organizations could do as they pleased in the same field. There I gave the AnCap line. Now for the more practical one.

2.) Marriage has, for a stupidly long time had religious subtext. It was a union brought together by the gods/God. Trying to make marriage a secular institution is ... an end-run around the issue at best. SO I have a better idea. Let's separate the religious nature of marriage from the legal and "official" nature of mutual contract between two individuals. This would do several things. It would shut up the religious right about a Federal Amendment banning Gay marriage. And it would let all of this play out on a smaller level, whether that be state, locality, or individual religious institutions.

Have the governments of both states and the Feds recognize any Civil Union Contract between two voluntary people that desire the legal/official rights and responsibilities of a couple etc.

Make marriage the sole area of religious institutions. Some institutions are already willing to marry homosexuals, others are not. Why not get the government out of marriage and let it go? Let the churches etc. fight it out amongst themselves. The simple fact of the matter is that this would allow straight or gay couples to get married, legally unionized, and any combination thereof, with no Federal WARRRGARBLE over the debate about who can and can't get married.

Free up competition in the market for unions/mates/marriages and let the chips fall where they may.

There, solved that problem. I doubt that many of the Liberals or Left-libertarians will agree with me, but that's okay. I don't need their approval to be right.

While the AnCap position is a logically consistent one, it simply isn't possible to go from massive statism to rampant Market Anarchy overnight. It's a process and smaller steps toward a better, more free, world are better than standing in our respective towers of intellectual fortitude shouting heretic at one another.

Well ... the 9th Circuit Court of appeals has done it
again. This is quite frightening. Courtesy of the DEA, of course.

So we can watch you from traffic or CCTV cams, we can track you through OnStar without your consent. They can now attach a GPS to your car and watch you where ever you go.

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

Really? So... trespassing no longer applies to others? Or is it only okay for agents of the state when they are watching you ... the little guy?

FlexYourRights.org has put up their "10 Rules For Dealing With Police Encounters" on youtube.

This is split up into 4 sections. I'm sure that most liberty activists know these rules and know your rights, but it never hurts to brush up, just in case you have to use them. I have refused to consent to a search. The officer didn't like it, but I was allowed to leave. So review them! With thousands of laws, legal codes etc. you never know what might be illegal these days. So know your rights, be respectful (difficult to do, but entirely necessary) and calmly assert your rights.
Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Remember the cops are NOT your friend. It doesn't matter how well intentioned they may be. They are not on your side.

Stay safe and stay smart.

Here is the story from the Boston Globe.

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

Oy, seriously? Oh it's okay everyone they have to have "reasonable suspicion". I guess if you're black, or your car is modified, or you're drunk and your sober friend is driving you home, or maybe you're a concealed carry permit holder, or maybe you're just minding your own business.

Next thing on the Government "to-do" list: Roadside body cavity searches "for the officer's protection" of course.

Yay America, Bend over and spread your cheeks, the Government requires this "for your own protection."

And people wonder why the libertarians are buying up as many guns as they can get their hands on...

Police set to step up hacking of home PCs

Allow me to quote from the article:

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.

Yup. It's just a matter of time before this is shoved down the collective throat of the US people for reasons of "Fighting Terrorism" or "Controlling Dissension/Sedition".

Really England, How far you've fallen.