the Liberty Essays

People Like Me

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:38:04 -0700

Libertarians are difficult to peg

People like me pose quite a conundrum to folks that think it is easy to pigeonhole political views. We are pegs that don’t fit into the normal holes. What? You want to exercise your rights under the second amendment? You must be a right-wing conservative. Probably a Republican. Hold on--you also want government to stay out of your bedroom? Left-wing liberal!

Hardly. I won’t say there is a middle ground because that’s not where Libertarians live. We are not moderates, not Republicrats. We love freedom. We believe that there is nothing in this world more important than the right to make your own decisions in your own way--the right to live your life as you see fit. Over the centuries, people have fought and died for freedom, raising this simple concept above the importance of even life itself. Nobody ever fought and died for social security. Nobody ever fought and died for a Constitutional definition of marriage. No, freedom’s importance far outweighs the everyday political footballs we constantly toss back and forth.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

The Party of Peace

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:32:39 -0700

Peace isn’t about using force

As is usually the case during a military action, the hawks and the doves have emerged and the debate rages. These foul are often arranged along party lines, with the Republicans tending to be hawks and Democrats claiming the moral high ground as the party of peace.

But are they really? Sure, many Democrats have spoken out against the war in Iraq and they have a track record of trying to disarm the general population through various “gun control” initiatives, but does that make for a peaceful party?

Liberals want to feed the hungry. They want universal health care. They want to help the disadvantaged through social programs that provide education and job training. Sounds like motherhood and apple pie, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, Democrats are not exercising their first amendment freedom of speech to enlist support for these measures. They are not going door to door looking for like-minded thinkers to provide financial and logistical support in a direct campaign to accomplish these objectives. Instead, they are resorting to physical force.

That’s what we do when we pass a new law, we use physical force to impose our collective will. What are the consequences of disobeying the law? You can be approached by the police, arrested, and perhaps jailed. Being arrested and jailed is to be forcibly separated from your property and your liberty--at gun point if the police feel so inclined.

So, the liberal approach is to impose a vision for society on each of us under threat of force. So much for the moral high road.

There is a political party that truly stands for peace AND freedom. A fundamental tenet of the Libertarian party is non-aggression. That means that, although I may want your cooperation in feeding the homeless guy at the end of the street, I will not force you to do so. It means that I have no right to tell you how to live your life, how to educate your children, or what you should eat. I can certainly exercise my freedom of speech to educate or encourage you, but as a responsible adult, you choose your own path.

Am I proposing anarchy? Not at all. Another fundamental tenet of libertarianism is that no one is permitted to infringe on the fundamental rights of another. Each person has an inherent right to defend their rights against aggression, too, which is why you’ll see libertarians fighting against those “gun control” measures with unbridled passion. Libertarians do not rely on the government for personal protection that it is unable and unwilling to provide.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

The Constitutional Shield

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:54:11 -0700

Protection from others--including your government

One way to look at the Constitution is as a protective shield for our individual freedom. The authors saw two potential threats to our freedom, the government and each other (external threats to our freedom are to be dealt with by the federal government, whose job it is to “...provide for the common defense...”). Our first line of defense is the Bill of Rights--the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

Although it is important to protect us from each other, the government is a far more powerful threat to your freedom than your neighbors simply because of it’s size and strength. In an 1819 letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, Thomas Jefferson said,

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

Clearly, Jefferson saw the power of government as the greatest threat to personal liberty. Daniel Webster spelled it out even more explicitly when he said,

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Examples of the assumption of authority with good intentions abound. Nowhere does the Constitution empower the federal government to tell you what substances you may smoke, ingest, or inject into yourself, but that hasn’t prevented Washington from spending billions of dollars and destroying tens of thousands of lives in a vain effort to rid the nation of narcotics. Why? Because drugs are bad for you!

Nowhere does the Constitution give the government the power to tell you when or how you may die, but that hasn’t stopped well-intentioned lawmakers from making it a crime to assist someone in ending their lives or, in many locales, even ending your own life. What does this amount to except one group of people using the power of government to force their will upon another group? Isn’t this just the sort of thing the Constitution is supposed to prevent?

United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, ruling in Olmstead vs. United States in 1928, said,

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent...the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”

Some would argue that the Constitution is a living document, that the authors intended for it to evolve along with the new nation that it established. Usually, these people are simply looking for ways around the parts they don’t like.

For example, those that wish to restrict the private ownership of firearms have to get past that pesky phrase, “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” How can that be done? Why you “interpret” the phrase! You take something else the document says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...” and you twist it to mean that only the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately for these folks, the Bill of Rights does not address the rights of the government or the militia, it very clearly identifies the holder of these rights as “the people,” a phrase used throughout the Constitution to mean one and only one thing: you and I.

These are dangerous words you are reading. You see, those in power don’t want to relinquish that power--certainly not to the likes of you and I. This type of attitude was foreseen by historian Charles A. Beard when he said,

“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

Check Your Rights at the Door

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:48:14 -0700

Onboard an aircraft you have no rights

In 2004, I checked in for a flight from Miami to Phoenix. Unfortunately, the new requirements for baggage screening take so long that I was told my luggage could not make my flight. OK, so I’ll get home and you can send the bags to me, I thought. Not any more, you have to travel with your bags.

I proceeded to the security area and was asked to remove my laptop computer from its bag before sending both through the X-ray machine. The operator saw something she didn’t like and I was flagged for a detailed check. I was not only asked to submit the computer and its bag for a chemical test, but I was forced to remove my shoes and wait while they were examined by fingers protected by latex gloves. As I sat there, a little old lady was waiting for her turn to be scrutinized.

At the gate, I watched as randomly selected people were pulled aside and a wand waved over their bodies looking for inappropriate quantities of metal, no doubt. Sitting on the plane, and despite the rigors I had witnessed, I thought about how completely insecure I felt.

Lack of Security
While I was pondering that feeling, a major newspaper was busy sending reporters to 14 different cities to attempt to board flights with various banned items, including weapons. Every single one of the reporters successfully boarded aircraft with their contraband. Some security, huh?

We are deluding ourselves if we think that these ever more intrusive security measures will make us safe--it is impossible for any company or government to provide that for us. Every security mechanism devised by humans can be defeated by humans and there will always be someone out there sufficiently motivated to try.

Second Amendment
The Constitution recognizes your right to defend yourself, your family and your nation against aggression. The authors of that document went so far as to include the second amendment, which guarantees you at least one means of doing so. Believe it or not, you are under no legal or moral obligation to be a victim. The funny thing is, you check that right at the door when you board an airliner.

First Amendment
It doesn’t stop there. Recently, a woman was removed from an America West Airlines flight because she made a joke about the possibility that the flight crew could be inebriated. Was her comment in poor taste? Probably, but did she pose a threat to the passengers and crew of that aircraft? Doubtful. Apparently your first amendment right to freedom of speech is also checked at the door. We already know that making jokes or comments about bombs or hijackings at airport security checkpoints is not permitted--what does that say about the government’s faith in their own screening procedures?

Fourth Amendment
The fourth amendment guarantees you the right to be secure in your person, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, but what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure? According to the Constitution it must be conducted under the authority of a search warrant that is supported by an oath or affirmation of probably cause. When was the last time an airport security screener provided you with a court-issued search warrant describing the items to be searched and the reason for doing so? Check another right at the door.

Fifth Amendment
The fifth amendment prohibits the government from depriving you of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and yet airport security people have been confiscating nail clippers and sex toys with abandon. At some airports they are nice enough to mail them back to your home for you, though, so I guess that makes it OK.

Rights, not Privileges
It is important to note that the U.S. Constitution does not create these rights nor provide them to you--it merely recognizes them. The Declaration of Independence is quite clear on this point when it says, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

I guess they meant to say, “...unless they are on an airplane.”

Violating the Constitution
If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, how can the Federal Aviation Administration make rules that violate it? It happens because we allow it. We give tacit approval to Washington bureaucrats to violate the Constitution each time we let a new rule slide by. We convince ourselves that more government restrictions and more intrusion into the lives of law-abiding citizens will somehow stop the bad guys from hurting us. But it won’t. There is only one way to be safe, happy and free, and that is the way that the country’s founders envisioned--a strong, educated and responsible citizenry that has the means and the will to protect itself.

Rights Make us Strong
We talk about trading rights for safety, about giving up liberty in the name of increased security, but this is completely backwards. Our rights make us strong and keep us safe. Giving up those rights and placing our fate in the hands of bureaucrats and government officials leaves us powerless in the face of aggression.

If you still think that stripping us of our God-given rights will make things better, ponder this: would the passengers and crews of the aircraft that crashed on that tragic day last September be here today if they had been allowed a fighting chance against their attackers? Rather than mourning their loss we would be celebrating the victory of our heroes over their assailants.

See Airline Insecurity for more on airline security and individual rights.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

Airline Insecurity

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:21:44 -0700

How secure are our airlines?

Airline security is a joke. Pick up any newspaper if you don’t believe that. Since September 11, 2001 there have been dozens of examples of accidental and deliberate breaches around the country, even as we scramble to tighten security to unprecedented levels. Despite the dogged efforts of government and industry officials, law-abiding citizens, copy-cat hijacker wannabes and downright crazies have passed through those impressive X-ray machines and electronic scanners and under the noses of trained dogs with everything from nail clippers to explosives. While we are busy inspecting the footwear of little old ladies, those that hate us are planning their next move.

You are deluding yourself if you think that these ever more intrusive security measures will make you safe--it is impossible for any company or government to provide that for you. Every security mechanism devised by humans can be defeated by humans and there will always be someone out there sufficiently motivated to try.

Government-provided airline security constitutes 24% of your ticket price, but what are you getting for that money? Recently a major newspaper sent reporters to 14 different cities and had them attempt to board flights with various banned items, including weapons. Every single one of the reporters successfully boarded aircraft with their contraband. Does that make you feel secure?

The federal government is increasing the number of Air Marshals in an attempt to improve security, but only a tiny number of flights actually carry one. Clearly, aircraft would be more secure if there were an Air Marshal on every flight, but what if there were two Air Marshals on each flight? How about a dozen? Imagine that every single passenger on each flight is an Air Marshal. How’s that for security?

How is that possible, you ask? Simple--empower every single passenger to protect and defend themselves and their fellow passengers. Today, you are stripped of your God-given, Constitutionally-recognized, right to defend yourself the moment you step on a plane. You are stripped of any means of protecting yourself and your family because the government believes that everyone is safer that way. Baloney.

See Check Your Rights at the Door for more on airline security and individual rights.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

The Power of the People

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:57:03 -0700

The power lies in you!

One way that the threat of terrorism has impacted the United States is that we have, once again, become a nation of paranoids. We do not trust our neighbors because the terrorists now pose as our neighbors, sometimes living among us for years before making their move. Many react to this threat by wanting to limit civil liberties--in essense, the “power” a person can possess--through legislation. Unfortunately, this approach also takes away our own power. Left essentially helpless, we then rely on the federal government to keep us safe--an impossible mission to task them with.

This thinking is not only wrong, it will ultimately undermine the reasoning behind this nation’s method of operation--the experiment in self-government will have failed. The founders saw the people as the ultimate source of power and control over it in the United States. Unlike other forms of government where the power is highly centralized, such as a monarchy or a socialist state, the power in this country would be widely distributed to prevent the tyranny and corruption that invariably comes from the concentration of power.

Because of this, it is critical that the people, you and I, be strong. A populace that is educated, informed, and empowered cannot be overthrown by any internal or external source. During World War II, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto himself said,

“To invade America is suicide - there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

Among the strongest words in defense of the power of the people were penned by Tench Coxe, writing as “the Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette in 1788:

“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Words like these threaten the power structure. Why, if enough of us wanted to take back our liberty there would be nothing that the bureaucrats could do to stop us. But then, I don’t think most of us want to live in a free country.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

The Destruction of Meigs Field

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:50:16 -0700

The mayor of Chicago exercises dictatorial power--where is the public outcry?

A National Treasure Lost to One Man’s Political Agenda

It took over two years for the Federal Aviation Administration to determine what pilots across the country have known all along--Mayor Richard Daley’s midnight bulldozing of beautiful Meigs field violated Federal law. Legitimate actions taken by legitimate governments are performed in broad daylight and with public scutany, not under armed guard in the middle of the night. In this case the air traffic controllers that worked in the Meigs tower didn’t even know the runway had been plowed under until they showed up for work the next day.

The group “Friends of Meigs Field” released this statement to the press at the time:

Chicago, IL - The City of Chicago today used surprise and shock tactics to start demolishing Meigs Field, the world-renowned airport serving downtown, ripping up runway without notice in the dark of night under police guard. “We are in shock,” said Rachel Goodstein, president of the Friends of Meigs Field. “The City of Chicago had agreed to keep Meigs Field open until 2026,” she said, citing a December 2001 agreement between Mayor Daley and Governor Ryan.

...The demolition came without warning, when dozens of heavy earth-movers descended on Meigs shortly after it closed at 10:00 P.M. Sunday night. The Friends of Meigs only received warning via news media inquiries. When Friends of Meigs representatives tried to visit the airport to talk to officials about the situation, they were turned away from the area by armed police.

“We understand that the City is trying to use ‘homeland security’ as an excuse to destroy Meigs without notice,” said Goodstein. “Of all of the possible things they could do, that’s the worst possible for public security. If there is a security issue at an airport, you work with the users to resolve it in the least disruptive manner, you don’t destroy millions of dollars of taxpayer property.”

The Friends of Meigs Field have repeatedly pointed out that-not only does Meigs Field regularly handle medevac flights and air-sea rescue operations for the lakefront and downtown high rises-it also is the facility responsible for control of all air traffic over downtown Chicago. “Meigs Field is what protects us from what the mayor fears,” said Goodstein.

The Mayor’s Handiwork

The taxpaying citizens of the city of Chicago should be outraged with their mayor. His illegal actions are now costing them $33,000, the maximum fine the FAA can levy in this case. You can be sure that Mr. Daley will not be paying the fine out of his own pocket even though the unilateral decision to destroy one of the most spectacular and important general aviation airports in the country was his and his alone.

“This vindicates what we’ve said all along,” said Steve Whitney, president of the Friends of Meigs Field. “Mayor Daley’s midnight massacre of Meigs was illegal. Good government doesn’t happen in the secret of night.”

But it doesn’t end there. The FAA is also investigating whether the city improperly used over $2.8 million in restricted federal aviation funds designated for airport improvement. According to documents filed by the City of Chicago in December, $2,887,462 in airport funds was spent to demolish Meigs and make way for a nature park. If found in violation, the city may incur additional fines of $8 million or more.

Why would anyone turn an established, high-rent, revenue-generating airport into a $10 million park? There are parks aplenty along Chicago’s lakefront. Perhaps the mayor believes that it will be easier to turn a park into commercial development than it would be an airport.

Let’s overlook the stupidity of such an action from a legal standpoint and instead focus on the safety aspects. Because the mayor failed to notify the FAA as required by Federal law, pilots from around the country were not informed during their pre-flight briefings that the field was, indeed closed. Some ended up landing on the adjacent parallel taxiway since they did not have enough fuel to divert to a suitable alternate airport.

What was Daley thinking?

Originally the mayor claimed that, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the airport posed a security risk to the city of Chicago. A risk the mayor claimed was so imminent that it the field had to be destroyed in the middle of the night under police guard. It didn’t take long for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to declare that his agency was never consulted regarding the security situation at Meigs and that he was personally disappointed at the field’s loss. Shortly after these comments the mayor recanted and acknowledged that he really just wanted a park there.

It is now public knowledge that Daley had planned to destroy the airport even before September 11th. He just plain lied.

I sent the mayor a letter about his actions (I was a little angry):

Mayor Daley,

I cannot express to you the outrage I feel at seeing photos of what you’ve done at Meigs field! Even when I am angry I try to show some modicum of respect for elected officials, but you deserve no such treatment. Your irresponsible, self-centered, short-sighted, incomprehensibly stupid and naive actions are nothing less than terrorism. Terrorists attack by surprise, as you have done. Terrorists destroy wantonly, as you have done. Terrorists lie, as you have done. Terrorists make deals they intend to break, as you have done. No one will believe your preposterous claim that this was done for security reasons because Meigs represented no security threat to your city whatsoever.

I used to be proud to tell people that I was from Chicago, but you have replaced that pride with shame. I am still in shock that in an allegedly democratic society one man--one pathetically self-centered man--can unilaterally order the destruction of a valuable public resource. You obviously don’t care about the people that used that airport to conduct business in your city. You obviously don’t care about the jobs and businesses you’ve forced out. You obviously don’t care about the airplanes you’ve stranded at the field. And you obviously don’t care about the safety of the pilots and passengers that could have been hurt or killed because you didn’t even warn the FAA before committing your crime. I almost wish that someone had landed on that runway and was just seriously enough injured to sue the crap out of you personally.

I have a lot of things on my to-do list, but you’ve caused me to add one more--assist those who will have you removed from your position. Surely someone who exhibits this type of emotional instability cannot be fit for the office of mayor. You are a disgrace to your city, your political party, and to the citizens of the United States.

Oddly enough, he never wrote back.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.

Disaster Management

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:18:44 -0700

Our response to disaster is often the real disaster

I’m angry. I’m angry about hurricane Katrina. I’m not angry at the hurricane, of course, it’s simply a phenomenon of nature. I’m not angry that it nearly hit New Orleans square-on, that’s another aspect of nature.

I’m angry at the people who could have left the city before the hurricane hit but didn’t.

OK, many of them don’t have the means to evacuate their homes. I understand that and they aren’t included in my anger net. But the rest of you...

So you’ve survived a lot of hurricanes in the past and the official predictions of doom and gloom never came to pass. So you think your little corner of the world will be spared. So you don’t want your house and property plundered by looters. All of these sentiments are easily understood, but if you are going to stay you had better make like the boy scouts and be prepared. That means plenty of water, food, ammunition and battery powered devices to last everyone you love plus a few strangers for several weeks.

I’m angry at the city fathers of New Orleans.

It’s no surprise to anyone that this disaster was going to happen, it’s been predicted for decades. Has the government of New Orleans been preparing for it? Obviously not. No effort was made to fortify the levees. No plan was in place for a mass evacuation. Nobody considered those that would fail to evacuate--wouldn’t that be part of a comprehensive plan?

Perhaps that WAS their plan--do nothing and rely on the rest of the nation to come to their rescue! Sure, why spend precious local funds on an expensive project that benefits the locals when we can get the federal government to bail out the entire city!

Once the disaster began it was immediately obvious that nobody in New Orleans was taking charge and making decisions. Victims were told to go one place, then another, then another. They thought that the Superdome would be safe but it obviously wasn’t. They should have known this before the disaster struck. They should have had a plan.

I’m angry at the National Guard and the Chief of Police.

Yes, there has been a lot of violence in the city since the hurricane hit, but violating the God-given rights of the citizens of New Orleans will not solve it! Disarming the law-abiding citizens of the city will not do a damn thing to stop armed criminals, that’s something that has been proven over and over again around the world. All it accomplishes is placing honest people at the mercy of the criminals in a city where even the officials admit they have lost control.

The effects are well documented. Check out these two videos:

ABC News
KTVU News

The first shows law-abiding home-owners in an area of the city that was not flooded being dragged from their homes, handcuffed, and stripped of their firearms for no reason whatsoever.

The second video, which is even more troubling, shows a little old lady’s home invaded by police who then physically attack her and throw her to the ground before disarming her and dragging her from her home. Great solution, guys, now we have yet another person in a refugee camp that needs to be cared for!

The New Orleans Chief of Police ordered the disarming of the public but guess what--he has no authority to abrogate the Constitution. The National Guardsmen that are marching through the streets are violating our highest law by depriving citizens of liberty and property without due process. For more information on the United States Constitution, the bill of rights, and the second amendment in particular, please visit the Freedom Site.

I’m angry at FEMA.

The title, Federal Emergency Management Agency implies, to me at least, the management of emergencies. During a recent interview, the head of the agency was asked why disaster victims were being referred to private agencies such as the Red Cross. The reply was that FEMA’s modus operandi is to put money into victim’s bank accounts and right now they don’t even have banks. Perhaps the agency should be called FRADA, the Federal Refunding After Disaster Agency.

FEMA is one more example of how dangerous it is to rely on the government for services that are outside of its charter (you won’t find disaster recovery listed in the United States Constitution).

I’m angry with the people of the United States (me included).

We like to think of ourselves as being the most technologically advanced, most powerful nation on earth and yet, 5 days after the hurricane struck, the television continued to carry picture after picture after picture of people begging and pleading for help. People crying out for food, water, and medicine. Where are the long caravans of semi-trucks rolling into the area hauling supplies and provisions? Where are the squadrons of helicopters and aircraft?

On the other hand, it has been reported by several news organizations that FEMA has been inundated with offers of assistance from citizens across the country but the relief effort is so disorganized they don’t know what to do with the help. What’s wrong with this picture?
The President himself has described the federal response as, “Inadequate.” Mr. Bush apparently has a knack for understatement.

I’m sure that in the long run the Red Cross and other private agencies will be the true heros in this story. They are the ones with the organization, the infrastructure, and the resources to do what’s needed when disaster strikes.

Copyright 2005-2009 by Michael J. Gibbs, all rights reserved.