Back in November, just before the election, I wrote about who I was not going to vote for. With rare exception the Republicans got the knife as frequently as the Democrats. On my list of those not worthy of my consideration, I included one, Steve Daines, running for the lone Montana Congressional seat to replace Denny Rehberg (who I didn’t vote for in the Senate race even though I couldn’t stand his opponent). My reasoning was this: Continue reading
Howdy! I have been meaning to blog about Ron and Rand Paul for sometime now.
On Ron I wanted to go into his “offensive” twitter comment about serial kil…ah…er…SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, as well as the RonPaul.com controversy. I wrote a post about the first one but it lead me down a different path that involved writing nine, yes, NINE, other posts. And on the trademark dispute I barely even got started before those other projects consumed my time. Now these are stale issues and it may not even be worth posting on them, though I will be looking for an opportunity to do so, either with new developments that arise in those cases, or separate issues that I can cleverly tie into. We’ll see. Continue reading
The Tenth Amendment Center has an Action Alert for the State of Montana. You can see that here. There is a bill that needs cosponsors by tomorrow at noon, so if you live in Montana and are interested contact your representative via the link provided. The bill is intended to nullify, in the State of Montana, the Indefinite Detention Provisions of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Nullification may seem silly and ineffective right now. But when your Congressmen and Senators can’t get the legislation right (preferably by not writing any new legislation, but yeah right) it is the next line of defense. Continue reading
Most gun rights advocates, even the ones who know that government is not the creator of rights, would say that the Second Amendment is where the right to keep and bear arms comes from. And you would think that we could, for the sake of argument, and because we know that most of them believe that rights are endowed by the Creator and all men are created equal, etc., etc., just drop the issue that they are technically incorrect about the idea that our legal right come from the Second Amendment, because we are all on the same side (on this issue). Right? Continue reading
My person has been commandeered for the purposes of deliberating on the facts and the law of a case, of which I have not been fully informed of all the details. I am fully informed of my rights/duty, however. I wrote a great piece over here that I hope you will check out. There are two polls for you to vote in as well. It would be nice if everyone voted before tomorrow morning, but it would still be cool if the votes still trickled in throughout the week. Even if I don’t base my decision on what the voters want, it would be nice to know what people think, even after the fact.
The feud has to do with their respective stances on intellectual property, but seems to have spilled over into very petty nitpickery of late. Tucker criticizes IP as monopolistic. Wenzel defends it as no different than private property. I think that economics* and Natural Law Theory are on Tucker’s side and that Wenzel, like most anyone on at least one issue, has his blinders on. In a related debate between Kinsella and Wenzel, I see the same thing going on. My comments touch on this a little, but also briefly on the distinctions between Anti-IP Natural Law anarchists (Tucker, Kinsella, Hoppe), Pro-IP Natural Law anarchists (Rothbard and Wenzel), and certain minarcists (in this specific case, the Theonomist, Gary North, but for other minarchists that support IP, look to the Objectivist school of Ayn Rand, and for minarchists that despise IP, start with this wonderful article), as well as the similarity between Rothbard’s “Pro-IP” views and certain later Rothbardians’ “Anti-IP” views. This similarity resides in their agreement that the human will trumps contracts. So, technically, even Rothbard was Anti-IP where enforcement of copyrights as contracts amounted to “voluntary slavery.”