Smash the State

And the young woman who labeled herself “the best slave” also clearly and beautifully demonstrates that it applies in only a very limited context.

What with all the military madness this country maintains, I’m rather surprised it took the winter Olympics to bring one of my favorite Rush songs out of the recesses of my memory:

I saw this article this morning and thought we might continue our discussion of the agora and its importance in our struggle for liberty. Kyle is a good friend, and a member of my FSW family - as well as a contributor to The Price of Liberty.

I expect that many freedom-loving individuals would answer that question in the negative; but some would aver otherwise, pointing to the power of a jury as a (perhaps “the”) remaining check on the state’s dominance. I’ve pondered that issue for some time—wanting to be convinced by the arguments, truth be told, but never making it that far. The primary obstacle is the vanishingly small role juries directly play in most people’s lives. How many adults are tapped for jury duty? Out of those who go, how many actually serve? How many times does an average person sit on a jury? I have no numbers to pin to those questions, but it should be clear that I am skeptical that an activity that at best probably commands only a few hours of a person’s life is going to be seen as enormously important to him.

Another assertion that would likely be offered is that juries can make or break laws—and that does affect many people, as we all live under the burden of the laws of our jurisdiction. But again, I have problems ... Jury nullification depends upon at least one informed, courageous person; and the voir dire process actively seeks to eliminate such individuals from juries. That person must also keep his intentions secret until deliberations, else a mistrial could be called. Even that doesn’t guarantee that a mistrial won’t happen.

But—and here’s the heart of the matter—all the jury power in the world won’t make a bit of difference if the judge plays fast and loose with his power in the courtroom. A judge has a variety of means by which he can skew a trial, including what he allows as evidence, lines of questioning the lawyers are allowed to pursue, and the instructions he gives to the jury before they retire for deliberation.

Some judges have apparently become so brazen that they will not allow the jury access to the actual law(s) under consideration in a case. Pete Hendrickson says that’s what happened to him in his recently-concluded trial with the IRS.

My friend Mike Gogulski apparently learned that lesson back in September, although he just published information about his unfortunate encounter with some Slovak policemen. As happens here in the USSA with disturbing frequency, Mike called them for help, and instead they turned on him.

I’m not sure what Mike intends to do from here, but he has requested support and I am giving it, by helping to publicize his story and archiving a copy of the report in case his web site is yanked. I can’t at present upload it here for sharing, but will happily email the PDF to those who request it. For now, it and other formats are available in Mike’s blog post I linked earlier; my dear friend Tom Ender has also archived Mike’s report.

If anyone wonders whether Mike is worth supporting, in addition to his fine blog I recommend reading my interview of him. Mike walks the walk, and surely is an inspiration to many.

That is probably not news to regulars here—after all, my interview of B.W. Richardson displayed my high regard of him; and I’ve pointed to several of his blog posts here. But if you’ve not been by Montag ... lately, take a mosey over there and you should easily see why I’ve titled this ramble thusly. He’s been on a powerful tear lately—and lest you think you can suss out my favorites based on my commenting pattern there, to that I say “Nay!” Of late I’ve been racing the heat as well as very busy, so I often let great bits slip by without comment.

But today’s post is simply too good to let pass, nor to keep to myself. Hie thee over there and bask in his inspiring words. Thank you very much, my friend.

That’s the claim of a recent Economist article, titled The Ungovernable State. While I agree with the author(s) somewhat (not knowing the details of California’s constitution nor governance systems, I’m trusting that the information in the article is at least nominally accurate), at a fundamental level California is not alone.

Well, not exactly. But the story’s encouraging, all the same.

Given how frequently I’ve been pointing to him of late, it probably comes as no surprise that I’m pointing to another essay by Peter Saint-Andre this morning.

To be blunt about it, the real problems aren’t the burst bubbles in the home mortgage market, in credit default swaps (CDS), in commercial real estate, nor in credit. It’s the systemic fraud masquerading as government policy that encouraged too much of the risky behavior that allowed bubbles to begin in the first place.

A Cryptohippie friend brought to my attention their recent report on the electronic police state. Quite intriguing, it is.

My weirdnesses are many; and today I reveal another one. Over the years I have spent a fair amount of time and brain-cycles mulling over proverbs, clichés, and sayings, trying both to understand them and to put them into an optimal context for myself. Sometimes that is much easier said than done ... and that’s certainly the case with this one. It’s bothered me probably from the first time I heard it.

In all honesty, I don’t know why I remember this date every year ... being all of eight years old when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on Kent State student protestors, killing four and wounding nine, I certainly can’t claim to have understood the event and its repercussions at the time. And yet ... when I was considering Ohio universities to apply to, only two were off the table for me: Antioch, because my mother forbade me from it (for reasons that she carried to her grave); and Kent State. More than likely hearing the Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young song Ohio with the refrain “Four dead in Ohio” seared the event in my mind more than the news of the day did.

However it happened, seared I was ... and while I usually just make mental note of the date, this year I’ve been thinking about the incident and its aftermath, in the context of today’s police state activities.

It can be very tempting—especially for those just testing the waters of political resistance in support of freedom—after considering the tangle of laws and regulations, the penalties for violating them, and those who serve the state in administering and enforcing them, to rethink one’s course. I can understand the urge to back down, to some degree: trying to conceptualize all of that sprawling power is daunting; and between steady streams of bad news [thanks, Joel] and stories of thug brutality both neophytes and seasoned activists might find it hard to draw a deep breath, and summon the will for another round. I don’t mean to play Pollyanna here, nor to pretend that such treatment only happens in other places, and to other people—but it is vitally important to understand that when we adopt this perspective of the state and its agents, we are too often falling right into their hands.

Okay, most of us have probably gotten our April 15 frustrations vented by now. I have a couple of recent stories to tell regarding other ways the state’s agents are coming up with to rob us.