Navigation

Author Archive | Joel Poindexter

Why Local Matters

By on May 9, 2013 in Nullification

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce again presented a plan earlier this year that attempted to liberate grocers in the state to sell wine and liquor. Soon after, they presented a bill to the legislature, hoping to liberalize the state’s regulation of alcoholic beverages. This is a regular occurrence, although it’s entirely unnecessary, given the recent history of alcohol legislation in the state of Kansas. If all of this seems strange to you, allow me to provide a little context.

Kansas has a storied history of alcohol prohibition; it was the first state to enact such a government program. Voters first moved to prohibit alcohol in 1881, and such restrictions continued until 1948 when again, a majority of Kansans voted to lift some prohibitions. Of course the 21st Amendment was adopted fifteen years prior, but that was of no concern to the legislature, who never considered the amendment, and to this day has not ratified it.

Carrie Nation made a name for herself in Kansas, helping to start a chapter of the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement. She began with harassing saloon owners and consumers of alcohol and within a short period was destroying their property. Wielding a hatchet, she would march into a saloon and attack the bar, before smashing as much of the stock as she could, to prevent the consumption of alcohol. Nation claimed to have been called to do this, and during her career of “hatchetations,” as they came to be known, was arrested dozens of times. Continue Reading →

4

Left and Right Agree to Disagree

By on January 2, 2013 in Federalism

After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.

First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.

But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big. Continue Reading →

18

Making a Mockery of the Bill of Rights

By on December 28, 2012 in Big Brother

If ever one needed a cogent example of why relying on the federal government to comply with the constitution and protect the liberties of the people is hopeless, the senate just gave one. Robert Wenzel reports over at his EconomicPolicyJournal that in a 79 to 12 vote, the senate rejected an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (the actual name of the bill!), H.R.5949, that would have extended 4th Amendment protections to electronic communications.

Prior to the vote Rand Paul spoke on the floor urging passage of the amendment:

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people should be secure in their persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Somewhere along the way, though, we became lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. We allowed Congress and the courts to diminish our Fourth Amendment protection, particularly when our papers were held by third parties.

I think most Americans would be shocked to know that the Fourth Amendment does not protect your records if they’re banking, Internet or Visa records. A warrant is required to read your snail mail and to tap your phone, but no warrant is required to look at your e-mail, text or your Internet searches. They can be read without a warrant. Why is a phone call more deserving of privacy protection than an e-mail?

This amendment would restore the Fourth Amendment protections to third-party records, and I recommend a yes vote.

Now, forget for a second that only 12 senators agree that warrants (which are of dubious merit in practice anyway) should be required for government agents to read your e-mail correspondence. Just consider the need to write laws in order to enforce existing laws. The Bill of Rights is a farce, as this episode clearly shows. If the 4th Amendment meant anything, there would be no need to amend an act amending another act, to protect the 4th Amendment!

Instead of hoping this kind of chicanery is going to do anything to defend the liberties of the people, states and local governments should interpose on behalf of citizens. Refusal to provide logistical support to federal authorities during investigations and raids will go a long way in combating this sort of breach of due process. If nothing else, it will send a strong message that such machinations are unacceptable.

41

Some Advice for Military Contractors (and other Government Employees)

By on October 11, 2012 in Military

Over at Red State, Eric Erickson has concluded that the law means nothing. This revelation is nothing new for Tenthers, who’ve long understood the futility of relying on the federal government to solve problems created and compounded by the federal government. Specifically, Erickson was writing on the cuts to military spending that sequestration is supposed to bring, should congress fail to arrive at some agreement to bilk the taxpayers a little but more come January, 2013.

This threat of cuts to the Sacred Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex, forever praise its name, has many on the Right foaming at the mouth about the need for fiscal restraint, but in the proper way. I mean, let’s get real, how could anyone seriously suggest any cut to the Pentagon? This subject truly is the third rail. At least we hear rhetoric about reforming social security or Medicare on occasion, but military spending is strictly off limits.

Never mind that many of these now-outraged Republicans voted for sequestration when they agreed to the debt ceiling compromise last fall. And so what if John Boehner said he liked 98% of what was in that bill; we cant be derailing the MICC’s gravy train; not now, not ever. Especially with unemployment being what it is, cutting military spending will surely force tens of thousands of more folks to seek unemployment benefits in the coming months. Continue Reading →

0

Hold His Feet to the Fire? Please

By on September 25, 2012 in Politicians

Republicans have all but acknowledged that Mitt Romney is not a conservative, and that he is no different in substance than Barack Obama, and they have settled. Some, those still in denial, steadfastly hold on to his rhetoric, but most have accepted that their nominee is so zealous for political power that he has no qualms about playing either a progressive or conservative, so long as he wins an election. It seems then, that Romney will change his rhetorical tone just as quickly as he’ll spray tan for Univision on Wednesday, and scrub it all off for 60 Minutes on Sunday.

In a near-textbook case of denial, many on the Right have acknowledged all of this, but insist that voting for him is still the “lesser of two evils,” and what’s really important is “defeating Obama.” Their answer is to simply hold “Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire” once Obama’s gone.

But what is “holding his feet to the fire,” what does it look like (aside from the obvious connotation with torture, repression, and despotism)?

More to the point, how do activists hold a president’s feet to the fire? After all, he has the power to drone us all to death with the stroke of pen, and make us buy stuff, even if we don’t want to. I’ve given this some thought and have concluded that it can’t be done; you’d have to be living in some bizarro-world to think otherwise.

For instance, if they (the Republicans, Tea Partiers, and anyone else planning to vote Empty Suit 2012) think they’re going to hold his feet to the fire, why don’t they hold Obama’s feet to the fire now, what’s stopping them?

Oh, but you see, Obama’s too much of an ideologue, he’s too immersed in his Marxist-Socialist-Leninist ways, he can’t be persuaded to change his ways, they’d reply.

OK. Continue Reading →

3

Smash the Etch-A-Sketch, Nullify Obamacare!

By on September 11, 2012 in Health Care

This past weekend Mitt Romney said that “there are a number of things that I like in [Obamacare] that I’m going to put in place.” Such a revelation is yet another example of why relying on federal politicians -particularly of the Republican persuasion – to restore human liberty is foolish.

Throughout the primary season Romney assured Republican voters that he was against the Affordable Care Act and, if he was elected president, would put an end to it. In June of 2011 he told CNN’s Piers Morgan that “if I’m president I will repeal Obamacare.” (The entire clip is full of gems, and worth watching, if you have the stomach for such things). He continued this promise throughout the debates, and used it a number of times to parry attacks from Rick Santorum on the issue.

That he’s now reversing his rhetoric should come as no surprise. Such flip-flopping is standard fare with Mitt Romney, as virtually everyone is aware; his YouTube collections of contradictory statements and backpedaling are impressive, if not comical for their sheer numbers. Now, this is not to say that other politicians don’t also have similar montages, plenty do, but what’s striking about Romney’s are that some go on for twenty minutes.

No doubt some conservatives and right-leaning independents are surprised and disappointed by this shift, Continue Reading →

1

A Fork in the Revolutionary Road

By on September 5, 2012 in Commentary

[This essay was first published on the author's personal blog]

Mitt Romney was officially made the GOP’s nominee last week and now the Ron Paul revolution is over. After nearly thirty years in public office the good doctor is gracefully retiring from politics, and while it’s not following a term in the oval office, he’s no-less started what may be the greatest mental brushfire in American history. And now with millions of people inspired by the message of liberty, the obvious question is “what’s next” for the remnant?

A number of writers and activists have weighed in on this topic and below is a collection of these valuable essays and commentaries with some of my own thoughts for the Paulbots and revolutionaries.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of the indispensable Antiwar.com, had this to say regarding the true nature of the republican party and their rules:

As for the rules governing the political process – they can be changed at a moment’s notice, and bent any which way, in order to facilitate this seizure. Ron Paul’s supporters in the GOP learned that the hard way, as the Romneyites used their control of the party bureaucracy at the state and national levels to retroactively change the rules in order to unseat duly elected Paul delegates. In Maine, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Oregon, Oklahoma, and elsewhere, the party bosses have disenfranchised Paul voters – closing down party caucuses, rejecting as delegates anyone under 50, and calling the cops when all else failed.

This description of how the convention was governed – and the primaries leading up to it – is precisely how the state works in general. It’s evil and corrupting, and ultimately founded upon violence and coercion. The GOP’s rules are in essence no different from the “Pirate’s code,” which is “more what you call guidelines than actual rules,” to borrow from the famous movie line. Continue Reading →

0

The Freedom to Gamble

By on August 17, 2012 in Big Government

I don’t follow sports directly; they don’t interest me much. I do follow sports indirectly though, because I follow politics. And anymore nothing is sacred.  So government gets involved in that too. Everything’s been perverted by government involvement. I wrote some time ago about the prospect of a few states bucking the Feds and allowing sports gambling, among them was New Jersey, and the inevitable push-back is underway.

NBC Sports is reporting that a confederacy of professional sports leagues and the NCAA have filed suit against New Jersey, in attempt to prevent the people of the state from gambling there legally. This is a clear example of a concept that Frédéric Bastiat described in The Law, in which one group engineers the legal code for its own benefit.

They, of course, do it under the guise of protecting the sport, but their motive is irrelevant, given that their means relies on State violence to achieve their ends. It’s immoral to coerce non-violent individuals into behaving in one way or another, and coercion is at the heart of every government action.

Of course this confederacy is able to use the government because the law, in Bastiat’s words, has been “diverted from its true mission,” which is protecting property rights, and now “it may violate property instead of securing it.” Continue Reading →

3

Decentralization as a Means of National Defense

By on July 23, 2012 in Uncategorized

In All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, author Stephen Kinzer describes the U.S./British operation that lead to the deposition of a popularly elected prime minister and the installation of a repressive dictator. Without going too far into the history of the affair, suffice it to say that Iran was a virtual colony of the British Empire for the better part of 100 years.

One way the British government achieved and maintained control over the Iranian people (and a number of their colonies, for that matter) was by working to diminish the role and power of regional tribes. Political authority was then vested in the hands of an Iranian monarchy, which was supported by the British State and subservient to it.

This is one reason among so many that people should always seek to preserve decentralized social order and government power. Not only will domestic tyrants look to gain control of the people in their own territory, but outside parties can use the government to exploit them as well. Continue Reading →

2

A View You Won’t Get Watching ‘Real News’

By on July 7, 2012 in Drug War

Jon Stewart, who is generally correct on most issues, despite having a distinct leftist bent, nails it with his “Of Vice and Men” segment. Enjoy.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Of Vice and Men – New York Weed Bill Dies & Chris Christie’s Veto Threat
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

It used to strike me as rather sad that our news satire programs always seemed to be the most enlightening and critical of all the mainstream news sources. I mean, we call them “fake news” and they’re anchored by comedians for goodness sake.

But considering that people under age 30 rely on the “fake news” as much as the “real news” for information, I’d say that’s a pretty damning indictment of modern “journalism,” and something for the liberty movement to be glad for. After all, we should laugh at the state and mock its institutions, including the propaganda wing.

3