Personal Liberty Laws for Whistleblowers?

Over the past few months, a name that has become well-known among Americans following politics is Edward Snowden.  Mr. Snowden caused shockwaves throughout the country with his leaking of information in regards to the NSA’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.  Supporters and detractors alike have had strong opinions on the matter, and the issue does not appear to be going away anytime soon.

Snowden’s ability to avoid arrest for these leaks has depended upon him finding sanctuary somewhere.  For the moment, he has been granted asylum in Russia (Author’s personal note: I remember when Russian whistleblowers came to the United States), much to the chagrin of the Obama Administration and former Bush Administration officials.  The thought that few, if any, have voiced is, what if Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers didn’t have to go outside the United States to find asylum?

When slavery was still legal in the United States, several northern states passed Personal Liberty Laws to combat the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA).  More than one version of FSA had been passed, the 1850 one being the most egregious, essentially allowing the kidnapping of a black person on the say so of an alleged owner.  

Details

Virginia: Act Now to Nullify Federal Gun “Laws”

Earlier this year, Virginia took the first step toward fighting unconstitutional federal violations of the right to keep and bear arms in the Commonwealth when 15 cosponsors introduced a Second Amendment Preservation Act in the state House. While HB2340 didn’t gain traction in the legislature, it set stage for further action.

And there’s Good news! You can still battle the feds at the local level.

What was most lacking – beyond political courage in the Commonwealth – was strong grassroots organization behind the Second Amendment Preservation Act well in advance. Next time, Virginia legislators will be on notice for months in order to get this important legislation passed.  With your work and dedication, liberty will win.

In order to take this to the next level and get a victory, your action is needed right now.  Starting today, and all the way through the rest of the year, local governments around the state need to be pressed to take action – passing legislation in support of the right to keep and bear arms and refusing to cooperate with the feds locally.  And at the same time, calling on the state legislature to do the same.  When the state is blanketed with local communities willing to nullify violations of the Second Amendment, the state legislature will be on notice.  Do your job, or else.

It’s going to take work to ensure that this is how things play out.  Here’s what you can start doing right now.

1.  Contact your local legislators – County, City, Town - and urge them to introduce an ordinance in support of the Second Amendment.

local ordinance here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/2nd-amendment-preservation-act/

2.  Become a local leader.   If you’re dedicated to the right and keep and bear arms

Details

Why We Need a Constitution

Cross Posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

Bear with me. We need some background before I get to my point.

In the article, “On Violence, Government, and Self-Deception”, I offered three possible philosophical stances on violence. Those were,

1.) Pacifism: No violence under any circumstances; 2.) Non-Aggression: Defensive violence is allowed, aggressive violence is not; 3.) The end justifies the means. Aggressive use of violence is allowed, “for the right reasons”.

I also noted that,

In order to develop a personal philosophy about government, one of the first requirements is to come to an understanding of one’s beliefs about violence. When is it OK to use violence and when is it not? This understanding is necessary because at it’s core, all of government is violence.

At the time, I described my own personal philosophy towards violence as “non-aggression”. My understanding of that phrase is similar to how it is stated by Tom Woods, here, “nobody should initiate aggression against anybody else“. Alternatively, wikipedia describes it, thusly, “In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others“.

Of course, taken to its conclusion, strict adherence to the non-aggression principle requires elimination of the state because taxation is a form of aggression. Knowing that, I have been aware of the contradiction between my actions and my beliefs when I promote state level legislation and adherence to the US Constitution at the same time as believing in the principle of non-aggression. I don’t like it when there is inconsistency between my beliefs and actions, so the attempt to resolve this conflict has been a frequent area of thought for me during the last few years.

Eventually, I came up with this simple thought experiment:

Details