But What is a Price Anyway?

Before I get into by thesis, I quickly want to go over what a price is or what it represents. To quote Wikipedia:

In ordinary usage, price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for goods or services.

A price represents how much someone is willing to give up to receive something else. If you were to buy a suit from a tailor for $100, this means that you value the suit more than you value $100. The tailor may charge you $200 for the suit and you refuse to buy it. This means you value $200 hundred dollars more than the suit. Perhaps you offer to pay him $50 for the suit and the tailor refuses sell. He values keeping the suit over having an additional $50. At some point you will both reach a number that both parties can agree on and an exchange will take place. So if you buy the suit for $100 dollars, that is the price of the suit in dollars. (We must observe that both parties believe they are going to be better off after the exchange because they both value what they are receiving more than what they are giving up. This shows us that although prices can be measured, the actual value that people apply to goods or services cannot be measured. If all goods had a measurable, real value no one would exchange anything. If 1 suit was always “worth” more than $100, no one in their right mind would sell a suit for $100. But since some people may value a suit more than $100, and some people may value a suit for less than $100 we must observe that all value is subjective. Value can only be given, not inherently possessed.)

Now since the market is full of many people with many different value scales (a rank of preference for having certain goods more than others), we will end up with many differences on what people think the price of something should be. Even goods that appear to be so similar can be valued completely differently. One person may value a pound of Swiss cheese over a pound of mozzarella. Producers wants very high prices so they can make a lot of money off what they are selling while consumers want low prices so they can buy more with the money they earn. At high prices producers will make more of their goods so they can make money off them and consumers will buy less goods because they cost so much. The opposite holds true, low prices make consumers buy more (i.e., “More bang for your buck”) and producers make less. Based off what producers of goods are willing to sell for, and what consumers of goods are willing to buy for, the market will adjust itself until one price rules over any given good. This is called the Market Equilibrium Price or the Market Clearing Price. It is the point where supply equals demand, a point where there should be no surpluses (Due to high prices) or shortages (Due to low prices). That is called the The Law of Supply and Demand, it is what sets prices.

Prices Organize Society’s Production

So as we can see, the price of a good determines how much of it will be produced and consumed. This applies for more than just one good. An entrepreneur can choose to enter into any business he wants. If you were an entrepreneur and wanted to earn a lot of money running a business, would you pick an industry to enter where the prices of the goods you produced were low? Earning you little return for your investment? Probably not. High prices tend attract new producers into the high price markets (Or will cause producers of other goods to switch to the production of the high priced good). This is turn will increase the amount of goods in that market causing the price to drop. Again, the opposite is true as well. Markets full of low priced goods may lose producers as they shift their production into more profitable sectors, thus decreasing supply and raising prices. And as the law of demand states, higher prices leads to less consumption, lower prices to higher consumption. This back-and-forth motion of prices leads to market stability and the market equilibrium price shows what society wants to produce and consume.

The market is incredibly complex. As shown above, shifts in prices can completely change how we function as a society. Let’s make a short example to illustrate how the shift in the price of one good can have very far reaching, and often un-seen consequences: Shawn’s Allegory of the Pencil.

My allegory goes like this: A grand deity came down from the skies and told all the people of the USA that #2 pencils are evil. Shocked by the existence of this deity and following his word, most people (save for a bunch of non-believers) stop buying pencils. This causes the price of pencils to plummet, and as we know, the #2 company and all other pencil producers are going to reduce their output of pencils or completely stop making them. That is obvious. The price of the pencil drops, so pencil makers stop making them. Yet, this fluctuation goes much deeper than just pencils. For the most part, your standard #2 pencil is made out of four things: Wood, Rubber, Aluminum, and Graphite. This drop in the supply of pencils also means that there is a drop in demand for all four of its components. If the drop is sufficient enough, or made up a large part of the wood, rubber, aluminum, or graphite company’s revenue, those industries would have to either decrease their production of those goods or shift into the production of other goods. The wood companies would cut less wood, plant fewer trees, buy less saws,etc. The graphite company will mine less, buy less drills and equipment. The same goes for the aluminum and rubber industries. All four may have to fire workers they no longer need, sell off unused equipment and buildings. Some capital, such as large industrial wood saws have no other purpose that cutting wood. So what would become of assets like that? Should they be ripped apart and scrapped for other uses? Or simply left there waiting for a rise in wood prices so they can be used again? What of the trucking companies that shipped all of these goods? Or the stores that sold pencils? Or the paint they use on pencils? Producers and consumers will organize the new lines of production based off prices. The market will be forced to adjust itself now that a change of prices has rippled through the economy. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not. But change is ever present, no industries will last forever, there will always be a replacement for something that seems irreplaceable. New industries will arise, old industries may change.

Now although this probably wont happen to the good #2 pencil any time soon, it illustrates how all goods are somehow interconnected. Price fluctuation can effect entire countries.

So…How are Prices a Form of Communication?

As the first part of this article showed, prices are formed by our subjective valuations of goods. Prices embody our preferences, and although we may not literally “speak” though prices, their measurement is a reflection of our value and thus is a medium of information. My allegory showed us how prices can effect whole industries, this effect is that of mass public choice. We simply act on our values (buying certain goods over others), and prices reflect this. So if price’s reflection of our preferences and views organize society, and without this price mechanism how can society be organized? How do we know what should be produced, how much of it, over how much time, where it should be produced, in what method should it be produced, and when it should be produced? The answer is simple: we don’t. The only way society can function is through what I would call Mass Preferential Communication. The embodiment of human value and thought put into measurable numbers; numbers used to organize everything. 

I hope everything has made sense so far, because now I wish to show what can happen when prices, and by extension, communication are hampered by outside forces.

So as we can see, the price of a good determines how much of it will be produced and consumed. This applies for more than just one good. An entrepreneur can choose to enter into any business he wants. If you were an entrepreneur and wanted to earn a lot of money running a business, would you pick an industry to enter where the prices of the goods you produced were low? Earning you little return for your investment? Probably not. High prices tend attract new producers into the high price markets (Or will cause producers of other goods to switch to the production of the high priced good). This is turn will increase the amount of goods in that market causing the price to drop. Again, the opposite is true as well. Markets full of low priced goods may lose producers as they shift their production into more profitable sectors, thus decreasing supply and raising prices. And as the law of demand states, higher prices leads to less consumption, lower prices to higher consumption. This back-and-forth motion of prices leads to market stability and the market equilibrium price shows what society wants to produce and consume.

The Effects of Coercion on Free Formed Prices

We had, up to this point, assumed that all prices formulated were done so in a state of freedom. That is to say, there was no coercion or threat against us that may have changed what we sought to buy or produce. However, the world does not work that way; government is an ever present reality that constantly interferes with market activity. This interference has consequences for all of us. I can separate these into two forms: Socialism and Mixed Market Intervention.

Socialism

Socialism is a a society where the means of production are owned by the state (or in stateless socialism, by everyone). Socialism prohibits the formation of prices, because in socialism there cannot be any meaningful exchanges. Thought experiment: Your body is like socialism, one entity owns all of itself. So right now, if you were to sell yourself your shoe, how much would you charge yourself? $5? $100? $100,000,000?…It wouldn’t matter. The “price” wouldn’t reflect any sort of preference of goods, it would be just an internal transfer with an arbitrary number attached to it. You couldn’t value your own shoe more than your own $5 since you have both of them. No price could be formed, and without formation of prices, how do we know how much of something should be made? Without many people buying and selling property from each other, how can society organize production? In Socialism, production is based off what central planners think society needs, not what people want. So a socialist society would suffer from immense inefficiency. What economist Ludwig von Mises called the Economic Calculation Problem.

Mises states that Socialism is impossible. That it can never work. Yet, many people will argue that point saying, “Preposterous! Even if Socialism is less efficient than Capitalism, the USSR still lasted more than 70 years! How is that an impossibility?” This is easy to figure out, the USSR was not the only country on earth, and although it was “socialistic” it still existed in a world full of prices. It still traded with other nations. So although socialism stops the true formation of prices, the USSR could somewhat rationally allocate itself to a degree due to external prices affecting it. Much like how you would set the price of your own shoe based off what the normal price for that kind of shoe is somewhere else. Heck, Nikita Khrushchev himself once said that “Even if the whole world will become Socialist, Switzerland will have to remain Capitalistic to tell us the price of everything.” It is ironic that the most anti-capitalistic society imaginable cannot exist if not for capitalism and its prices.

Prices convey our values. They communicate our preferences. Without that communication how do we know what is to be produced? How can a mute person speak about his wishes? He can’t.

Mixed Market Intervention

As opposed to Socialism, which inhibits the formation of prices, Mixed Economies (Generally free markets with government intervention) have functioning price mechanisms. Most modern nations, including the US, are mixed economies. Unlike socialism which is easy to notice and define, a mixed economy can range from near socialistic to almost completely capitalistic (i.e., no government intervention at all). It all depends on the degree at which the government interferes with the market. Regulation, taxation, subsidies, bans, cheap credit, and altering the money supply are all ways in which prices can be distorted. I will quickly touch up on some of them and explain in slightly more detail the most important ones.

Regulation: Regulations vary immensely is size and complexity. In its most simple form, regulations are federal, state, or local rules by which they limit what businesses and people can or cannot do. You can divide regulations into two main categories (Categories I made up for simplicity’s sake): Negative and Positive Regulations. Negative regulations consists of rules that stop business from doing certain things. For instance, regulations that toilet and shower head producers must follow that only allow a certain amount of water flow per minute. Positive regulations are rules that force business to do things it otherwise wouldn’t do. For example forcing business to pay for workers healthcare or benefits. All of these have some sort of effect on prices. Negative regulations often lead to inefficient products (toilets that clog, etc.) and a waste of resources (Using more water to flush more often) while positive regulation adds undue costs to conduct business (paying for a workers health coverage) that wouldn’t have existed without the regulations. I’m not going to say whether they are good or bad (Not here anyway), I’m just observing the fact that they do have effects.

Taxation: Far more obvious than regulation, taxation is the direct transfer of money from private hands to government hands. Depending on what kinds of taxes are levied, certain good may increase in price, like from a tariff on foreign goods, or increase the cost of business so much that companies are forces to raise the price of their goods in order to make money (i.e., corporate taxes, etc.)

Bans: Bans are easy, they simply diminish the supply of goods. If these goods are still desired, people will find ways to produce them (Cocaine and other illicit drugs). The danger is that banned goods often, but not always, attract some shady people into their markets and suffer in quality due to lack of competition and arbitration. No one goes to the cops because the drug dealer sold you a bad batch of weed.

Cheap Credit/Alteration of the Money Supply: This is a major category of market intervention, and I touched up on the details of it in one of my previous articles but I will cover it really quickly due to it’s importance. Alterations in the supply of money are easy to discuss. As all things go, the laws of supply and demand are what sets prices. But when most, if not all, goods are measured in one other good (Money) the supply and demand for that universally accepted good are very important. If the supply of money increases, then generally speaking, the price of most goods will increase (because all goods are measured in dollars, the “dollar to other goods” ratio will rise, causing relative prices to rise), the inverse is true, a decrease in the amount of money will lead to a general fall in prices. This affect is obvious. Cheap credit, although a form of money creation, is slightly more difficult to figure out.

I’ll give a quick summary of the effects of cheap credit creation: The Federal Reserve decreases the Federal Funds rate (National Interest Rates) and/or prints new money and lends it to banks. This new low (and artificial) interest rate leads businesses to take out loans they otherwise would’t have taken and invest it in long term growth projects. So as all this money flows in certain sectors of the economy, asset prices in these sectors tends to grow and as we learned above, producers will shift their production into these sectors of the economy. This is how the bubble forms. As most long term investments typically involve the capital goods industries and real estate, bubbles are almost always formed in these sectors. Eventually, these producers realize that there is not enough resources, people, equipment, capital, and real savings to complete all the projects they started. So they need to stop what they are doing and tear down what they started, fire workers who should never have been hired, and stop using equipment that never should have been bought/used. This is where the bubble pops, i.e. the recession. This is Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

As we can see, mixed economies can and do intervene in free market affairs. This always leads to distortions in the economy and people’s suffering. Due to active markets in these countries, most people enjoy a relatively high standard of living, when we can communicate our preferences to each other we enjoy a functioning economic equilibrium. Whereas socialism is a mute man trying to speak his values, mixed economies are akin to having certain letters or words banned. Functionally muddling or bogging down our ability to communicate our preferences effectively.

Free Prices = Free Speech/Expression = Free Markets = Freedom

As I hope I have shown, prices, which are formed through us acting on our preferences, are a form of societal communication. If my idea holds true, then attacks on free formation of prices (and by extension the free market) are attacks on the freedom of speech and expression. Price fluctuations have real effects that can ruin relationships, businesses, and people’s lives. And although the meddling is sometimes hard to observe the effects are no less immoral. State coercion is an assault on the free choices of people, it redirects wealth and power into politically favored hands and serves to undermine individual liberty.

The first amendment to the Constitution in probably one of the most violently defended ones. Whereas stereotypical liberals couldn’t care about the second amendment and stereotypical conservatives don’t seem to care much for the fourth or fifth (at least for immigrants anyway), the first amendment is normally endorsed by all. The fervor with which we defend the 1st should extend into our defense of free markets. People so often look at government oppression as brown shirts, mustachioed dictators, and guns pointed at innocents that we forget that subtle attacks on our pricing system, the system of free choice and expression, erodes all we hold dear. It is in the market, in each other, that we improve our lot in life and exist in peace. The state is the opposite this, it relies on the use of force to achieve aims; it undermines our choices; it choose for us what we do or do not want. If one believes that the “People” are who should run society, that democratic institutions best serve the masses, and that working together betters everyone then the market is where you should throw your support.

Fight against intervention. Fight against the attack on our prices. Defend our freedom to express ourselves and speak our minds.

Defend the most fair, democratic, and ethical institution ever devised: The Market.

Back in April of 2011, assuming the docket sheet has the correct date, Mark was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment by the Philadelphia Police Department and the case proceeded to trial for preliminary arraignment.

In October of 2011, Mark was found not guilty on both accounts.

Today, 2/14/12, Mark filed a federal civil rights lawsuit with the help of his lawyer and the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

The complaint can be viewed here and the press release can be viewed here.

When I first caught view of the flashing blue lights indicating the initial instigation of the agents’ hostility, I felt an instinctual pang of dread (despite the confidence I hold in the peaceful nature of my personally constructed policy of ethics). Immediately, I shrugged it off, and took some pleasure in noticing that before I had had time to even consciously assess the predicament, I had reached for the iPad in my messenger bag and opened its video camera application.

In an attempt to express the invaluable knowledge that has protected myself and others from many of the potential abuses of power by the hands of the working agents of the state, it is perhaps necessary to the reader for me to emphasize the imperative necessity of having a camcorder with both audio and video capabilities on hand at all time. In a modern society where the rigged bureaucratic system of control (and unfortunately, the justice system as a whole) tends to favor those working on behalf of such an illegitimately obtained system of “authority”, a video camera is by far the most powerful tool of self-defense available to the common victim of governmental aggression. Even if one is still brutalized and/or kidnapped and caged by a badge-wearing hired gun of the state, in the long term it is ultimately wiser for a victimized individual to be able to provide legitimate and viable evidence in court of any mistreatment(s) that may have resulted (and nearly always do[es] result) in any encounters with workers in the field of “law enforcement”. And despite the staggering numbers of the many judges that tend to ignore the misdoings of officers due to their friendly allegiances to one another, with a good enough lawyer, such video evidence could potentially make or break a pending legal case. This potential usage of such footage to defeat aggressions by the irrational lawmakers, as well as the agents who enforce their corrupt and draconian policies, can sometimes (perhaps even very often) be the saving grace of a would-be victim of governmental aggression. For this reason, having a camera on hand at all times is quite obviously essential (especially for those particularly inclined to engage in acts of civil disobedience) to the preservation of one’s well-being. And with the advancements in modern technology, many recorders have become light in weight (as well as small enough) to be transportable at all times with little to no inconvenience to the bearer.

One other key point to be emphasized here is the unprecedented recent circuit court ruling in the case of Glik vs. Cunniffe. Glik had unwittingly happened to witness and film via his camera phone the excessively violent beating and arrest of a nearby man by a Boston police officer. In a police state such as I happen to unfortunately live (and I do indeed speak for myself as an individual in this instance), this would be hardly surprising. However, Glik was promptly arrested for “wiretapping”, and thus began a lengthy legal battle that nearly cost him his freedom for the rest of his waking life. And all of this debate occurred over an entirely non-violent action (but hey, when 86% of the prisoners in the united states are in confinement for non-violent crimes, that notion is anything but shocking as well, sad though it may be to have to accept). In a world where a select few are privy to the false authority and illegitimate extra rights granted by official government costume garbs, it’s hardly far-fetched to entertain the notion, however briefly, that maybe this unethically privileged class of men would dislike any possibility of being held accountable for their misbehaviors. And in a system where the gang members are all buddies, from the judges to the enforcers, down to the lowliest of meter maids, it’s even easier to imagine that maybe they might look out for each other, as friends in any other profession might very well do.

And while it has become increasingly uncommon (and in fact, even rare) that justice is fairly and honestly delivered by the robed ringleaders who reign mightily supreme from their pedestals at the forefront of every court, a beacon of respite from the encroachments of the state was thrown to the citizens of the land mass commonly known as America like a bone scrounged from the unsightliest dregs of the end of the night’s unwanted table scraps. The court ruled, almost bafflingly, that any individual still maintains his or her first amendment right (a word which here means, “privilege”) to audio and video record public officials while they conduct their publicly funded duties. To fancy a court ruling that not only obeys the constraints of the structure of law that established the very existence of the “justice” system in the first place (the long-forgotten and now mystically fabled national relic known as the United States Constitution, which you can probably stll pay to see in a museum somewhere alongside various other ancient artifacts and a plethora of other dead things) is a stretch for many to imagine. The even stranger prospect that any such court ruling might even side with the liberating bare-minimum principles of basic human natural law is an even more foreign concept that is yet more difficult for me to even begin to attempt to wrap my head around, as I am shamelessly and vocally faithless concerning the potential for any conceivable benefits to come about as a result of the state and its coercive “services”. But perhaps I’m beginning to sound redundant, as my stance on the matter has probably already been inferred by the readers of this article (should there have been any readers at all).

Regardless of my opinions, the final ruling issued by the courts read as follows: “[A] citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”

I feel (as unhappy as I am to have to admit it) as though this legislation has managed to sustain for all of the subjects ruled by government what is essentially a privilege–and perhaps only a temporary privelege, at that. Such government-granted permission may merely be a temporary luxury, perhaps doomed only to become as fleeting as any other permissions that have been granted and then once again prohibited by the state (for some examples of this irrational behavior, consider alcohol, aspartame, and ephedra). And given the fleeting nature of the many temporary liberties allotted out to the public by the state and its bureaucrats, the reality that such an essentially self-protective right to record could inevitably be snatched away by treacherous hands that are at their best desperate for more money and at their worst, greedy for more power can be most favorably deemed a slippery slope into the trenches of a larger and more authoritarian government. Naturally, stronger words could (and perhaps ought to) be used, but I’ll leave that for the reader to discern for his or herself.

So, embracing our momentarily-granted privelege (one which is really just a manifestation of the natural law inherent in all individuals) to record, we immediately began filming as the officer stepped out of his cruiser and moved towards the passenger side window, safely off the road and standing cozy on its shoulder. I rolled my window down and stuck my iPad as close as I could to his face so as to appear as intent upon filming as possible, though not personally intimidating. The tactic appeared to work; he seemed nervous.

After muttering some jargon about the many reasons he pulled us over, he handed me some paperwork and requested that I pass it over to Kelly (the vehicle’s owner and operator). I did so, and we opted to press the officer with a few further questions.

“Hey, what’s your name and badge number?” Kelly inquired, to which he merely stuttered that it was “written at the bottom of the complaint” before beginning to turn away.

“Hey, can I ask you one question?” she continued, but he had already turned to make his escape. I’m unsure as to whether or not he even heard us as we asked him that question.

We laughed uproariously and prided each other in our deflection of the efforts of this particular “public servant”. Sure, Kelly received a ticket, but who knows what might have happened, had we been less prepared and mentally equipped to deal with such authoritarian harassment? The point is that the camera kept us safe, and often serves to protect many others from the worst instances of aggression at the hands of the exceptionally priveleged individuals capable of enforcing the will of the state.

I encourage each and every individual out there to act in a similar fashion when confronted with such outrageous displays of ill-gotten power. Using a camera, and the as-yet-upheld inherent right to record public officials as they go about their duties, individuals have an oppurtunity to effectively prevent instances of aggression at the hands of government officials. And while this method may not be perfect, it is as its very least the best defense one can take to resist oppression, tyranny, and the runaway abuses of an agency that holds the utmost monopoly over the use of violent force. Good luck to all, and please keep filming–police accountability can be achieved in our time.

As unlucky as I seem to have been regarding my maintenance of the basic anonymity (or the unfortunate lack thereof) to remain unlisted in the government’s registers as being an established “drug user”, there was interestingly enough no complaining party involved in any of my present legal disputes. In fact, other than the police themselves, no one would even have known that I was a marijuana user at all. However, the decision on behalf of the officers involved to search my house while I was unknowingly at work had a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of this particular “visit” to my home by the agents of the state. I am presently being charged with marijuana possession (of an amount that was entirely negligible–nary enough to even fill a pipe), with an added “paraphernalia” charge for good measure. I face thousands of dollars in state-imposed fines for this alleged “crime”, and–as I’ve already mentioned–up to a year in prison (though my lawyer tells me that any jail time is unlikely, which is comforting, although the fines remain inconvenient and unjust, to say the least).

What is perhaps most interesting about my case, however, was the manner in which the so-called “contraband” was seized from my home.

In the interest of brevity, the conditions setting the stage for the invasion of my home and the theft of my private property were as follows (and are abbreviated here with regards to the length of this article). Running late for work and unable to find my keys, I opted (rather than facing the reproaches of my managers for tardiness) to leave the front door of my former condo unlocked. I was working as a waiter at the time, and had anticipated a relatively short lunch shift; I expected to return home within a matter of mere hours. I assumed that, based on the conditions of my neighborhood (which was, frankly, a well-kept, middle class suburban utopia), the likelihood of my house being robbed seemed slim to none, and the potential for any other act of intrusion seemed equally as unlikely. I certainly did not expect that such an invasive act would soon be perpretrated at the hands of the “authorities”, anyway–in retrospect, had I known, I would not have left my house unlocked or unattended.

As it turned out, the latch on my front door was faulty to the point of failing to serve its purpose (which is, naturally, to remain closed for an extended period of time, all the while unattended). As a new tenant, I was regrettably unaware of the latch’s sorry condition, and so thought little of it as I left for work. However, in a most unfavorable turn of events, it would come to pass that the door was to be blown open by a gust of wind while I was still at work, all the while in that instance still blissfully ignorant to the fact that my downstairs neighbor (perhaps in a misguided attempt to serve as a “model citizen”) was calling the police to address the situation. The officers arrived as summoned, and proceeded to enter my home (having received neither an invitation nor a warrant on my behalf or on the behalf of the state itself). While I unknowingly worked, catering to the requests of hungry restaurant patrons, so too worked the agents of the state, who proceeded to search my home to the most thorough extent possible. Granting themselves the utmost of liberties (which included, though were not limited to rifling through my bedroom drawers and seizing my private property), the officers were able to obtain the evidence–however illegitimately gleaned as it may well have been–necessary to arrest me, not long before the authorities would then proceed to “summon” me to appear in court, whereupon it would be determined how much more should be stolen from me (this time in the form of money extracted through fines). Prohibited or otherwise, my voluntary possession and recreational use of a naturally-derived intoxicant (which bears mentioning to possess the potential to facilitate seemingly infinite beneficial medical applications) was later used as supposed grounds to attempt to extort vast sums of money out of me in addition to the flagrant initial theft of my property committed by state officials. But despite the hefty size of my fines, what is most significant in magnitude is the blatant dismissal of legality displayed by the officers as they conducted their “official duties”.

As the Constitution of the United States of America reads verbatim, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” With regards to the issuance of a warrant, not only was there no probable cause cited for the necessity of such an intrusive order, but the entire due process of law required to conduct such a search was neglected altogether–no warrant was ever issued concerning my home, my personal effects, or my case whatsoever. Furthermore, the law requires that in order for an officer to enter a home without a warrant, he or she must have explicit permission from a resident (preferably the homeowner himself) to do so. As I have mentioned previously, I was absent from the home (as was my roommate, who was also at work that day). The only other party that was present for the arrival and entry of the police into my residence was the downstairs neighbor–the woman who had called the police in the first place.

According to New Jersey (the state in which the events of my legal plight transpired) case law, it is illegal for police officers to enter a commercial building after its operating hours on the sole grounds that the establishment’s door happened/happens to be open. Additional New Jersey case law cites that even if an open 911 call has been placed (meaning that when dispatchers answered the call, the calling party was silent), police still lack the proper jurisdiction to enter the residence for any reason. In other words, lacking both an invitation to enter the house (as should rightfully have been delivered by either myself or my roommate) as well as a formally-issued warrant, the officers had no legal grounds to not only search my house and its possessions, but even to enter it in the first place. Unfortunately, no specifically citeable article of case law serves to confirm this set of conditions in the state of New Jersey–my best hope is that my case might serve to protect other individuals similarly victimized by the runaway actions of the state and its agents. However, as the date of the case’s trial is still pending (at present, it is set for Valentine’s Day), it remains to be seen how the courts will handle such a dispute between myself and the enforcers of this, and other, state-imposed restrictions. I can only hope for the best, and in this scenario, the best that I could hope for would be that the evidence against me will be suppressed on the grounds that it was illegally obtained. Hopefully, the $400 I have already had to spend in exchange for the services of an attorney will remain the net total of my resulting expenses. In either event, I’m losing time and money, but $400 certainly seems petty compared to many of the other present-day sentences that non-violent drug users and distributors face each day in America.

As the war on drugs rages on, increasing numbers of individuals are finding themselves directly affected by its destructive potential. It’s no secret that the vast majority of prison inmates are presently being held captive for non-violent, drug-related offenses–the practice has managed to feed not only the parasitical racket of the modern jail circuit, but has also fattened the pockets of officials of the highest and lowest of ranks. Judges and officers of law enforcement alike have managed to sustain the funding for their unjust rule through such avenues as the drug war–traffic violations and similarly punishable (though non-violent) discrepencies provide further funding for the perpetuation of these injustices. In fact, it is difficult (if not impossible) to imagine a wealthy and functional state without the generous provisions absorbed coercively by the unfair and aggressive penalties that it imposes upon peaceful individuals in order to generate revenue and counter its business competition for alcohol sales. Despite these disheartening conditions, there is, perhaps, some hope that can be brought to light as a result of the perpetuation of such an unjust, oppressive, and downright greedy organization and its intrusive policies. If there is anything to be gained from the massive bureaucratic experiment commonly deemed the “war on drugs”, it is the solace in knowing that should society come to refute any possibility that a victimless action could possibly be considered criminal in nature, the state would assuredly collapse due to its own suddenly-inadequate funding. This possibility, that the individuals comprising society at large could one day come to embrace the slogan, “No victim, no crime!”, and in doing so reduce state revenue significantly enough to effectively bankrupt it, is what fuels me in my ongoing crusade against the tyranny of government. That I might live to see the realization of such an ideal is my greatest aspiration. Until then, the best I can do is try to teach myself so that I might teach others the ways of freedom–the exchange of such crucial ideas is the best defense one has against the injustices of a system that perpetuates the irrational and destructive practice of imposing penalties for peaceful and victimless actions.

The Parliament’s move was made in response to European Union and International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands that the Greek government display a “clear commitment” to enforcing the repayment of its debts. Should any doubts of such motivations linger in the minds of these international lenders, they have threatened to withhold the bailout money from Greece altogether. Without receiving the massive loans being proposed, which amount to a grand total of roughly $170 billion, Greece will inevitably cross the threshold of debt into default status and be rendered unable to make good on repayments of the money it has borrowed.

The EU and IMF have recently expressed dissatisfaction with the Greek government’s present level of austerity enforcements, and in turn have issued the ultimatum that has prompted the decision by Parliament to further reduce government spending and social programs, meanwhile increasing its rates of taxation tremendously. Referencing the allegedly lax enforcement of the austerity measures already in place in Greece, Socialist Parliament member Sofia Yidannak had this to say: “The delays [in enforcement] have our own imprint…we have finally learned that you have to pay back what you have borrowed.

The new measures, passed on Monday, February 13, 2012, seek to cut 15,000 public sector jobs, as well as lower Greece’s minimum wage by a whopping 22%. The reception by the people of Greece to the program’s proposal has been overwhelmingly negative, and mass demonstrations, looting and rioting, and countless altercations between police and the protestors have begun as of Sunday, February 12, due to the public’s discontentment and government-induced oppression. In Athens, over 100,000 protestors have taken to the streets, and the scene has quickly turned ugly as demonstrators have begun looting and militant police forces have been deployed, resulting in numerous and predictably violent altercations.

Described as the worst riots in Greece since 2008, the casualties have unfortunately been numerous. At least 55 protestors have been arrested, and police have reported that around 150 shops have been looted and that 34 have been set ablaze. Dozens of police have been injured in clashes with the mobs, perhaps justifiably in response to their efforts to stifle the people of Greece’s free speech and outward dissent. Tear gas, among many other crowd control tactics, have been utilized by Greek law enforcement, and the scene is undeniably chaotic.

Despite the backlash prior to its passing, the bill was urgently approved the following day amidst the social unrest, perhaps in order to ensure that the measures could be enacted as law before the people of Greece could prevent this from happening. Of the 278 members of Parliament who voted on the issue, 199 voted in favor of passing the new austerity measures. Those who opposed it have since been expelled permanently from the ranks of Greek Parliament.

Strangely enough, however, some have found the promise of a second bailout of Greece to be reassuring. The idea that Greece will accept the bailout rather than default on its debt has restored many investors’ confidences for a variety of reasons. The primary origin of this boost in financial morale stems from the possibility that a Greek default could very likely jeopardize the status of the entire euro itself as being a viable currency. Prior to the passing of the bill, investors have been leery about the stability of the euro, dumping many of their euros into the market in exchange for other assets and currencies that appear to be more stable in the long-term. The same has happened in gold markets; consequently, gold prices fell as wary investors sold their reserves and decreased both the price of and market demand for the precious metal. However, the decision by Parliament to move ahead with the new austerity program, as well as the second bailout, has apparently reassured investors into buying again, and the sudden spike in gold prices is reflective of this subsequent new wave of gold purchases.

But gold is not the only financial instrument that has suddenly seen an increase in market value following the enactment of the Greek austerity bill. Asian shares, silver prices, and the value of the Australian dollar have also started to climb. Again, this is as a result of the restored confidence in the euro now that it is no longer threatened by the potential of a Greek default. As unnatural as this ego-boost in the world of finance may be, having resulted from the actions of government interventions in the market and made possible through centrally-controlled and printable fiat currency enforced at gunpoint and mandated to be the EU’s sole “legal tender”, countless individuals accept these irrational practices wholeheartedly. Many even advocate them.

To quote Phillips Futures analyst Ong Yi Ling’s reference to expectations of how high the price of gold will manage to climb, “For gold to break the $1,800 level, we need more [austerity and bailout] measures, I would say.” Tragically, it is obvious that many people, including respected investors and analysts, expect this sort of market meddling, value distortion, crackdown on freedom and personal finances, extension of debts, and generally fraudulent economics and even it. Most importantly, however, the people of Greece are continuing to express contrary sentiments, and rightly so.

It is both challenging and interesting to speculate for how much longer the euro and other printable, governmentally-enforced curriencies (including the United States’ own dollar, the Federal Reserve Note) which lack a foundation of assets to back them will continue to be valued in the marketplace. I suspect and hope that it will not be for very much longer.

For inevitably, as the bubbles that are made possible by such volatile, exclusively-controlled, and essentially worthless currencies continue to be created and are then subsequently unraveled–undoubtedly leaving economic destruction and poverty in their wake–I anticipate that individuals all around the world will continue to catch on to the understanding that these (and many other) problems have been devised and perpetuated by those who created and enforced the use of manipulable currencies in the first place: central banks backed by government force. Greece, for instance, has already discarded the insane notion that bailouts and the further increasing of debt in general could ever provide a solution to their woes. And while it is most certainly unfortunate for the people of Greece that they should come to serve as the early recipients of an invaluable (if cruelly delivered) lesson about the destructive consequences of meddling money with the coercive and illegitimate “authority” of government, it is regrettably necessary.

Perhaps a positive outlook to take on this issue could be that as additional bailouts are imposed by the IMF, various national governments, and other similarly corrupt institutions, the people of the world will begin to witness the failings of these tactics to revive a national (and/or global) economy. The people of Greece are already well aware of the fact that another bailout isn’t going to save them, especially if it comes at the cost of their personal financial stability and individual liberty (as they have already experienced and presently expect will happen if another bailout is successfully imposed upon them). But when will the time come for the remainder of the people of the world?

My hope is that it will be sooner rather than later, and that if nothing else, the tragedy in Greece will serve to accelerate such a much-needed transition to more rational ideas about money and freedom. As the world continues to take notice of the futility of the proposed “solutions” being rationalized and violently imposed by the Greek government (and predictably, various other governments in the future), I am confident that people everywhere will inevitably come around to understanding the importance of liberty in the marketplace. And as their very prosperity, happiness, and quality of life and freedom depends on it, it is irrational and pessimistic to feel otherwise.

Self-determination is defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “The state of being free from the control or power of another…without external compulsion. The act or power of making one’s own choices or decisions.” Within the definition of self-determination is the essence of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle (NAP). This essence is clear in several key phrases such as “free from the control or power of another” and “without external compulsion.” Self-ownership, the foundation of the NAP, is also clear in the definition of self-determination. If you own yourself, you have the right to direct your life without external compulsion or violence as long as you’re in accordance with the NAP. Self-determination is a tool for libertarianism and for the NAP to execute itself through. It is self-ownership in action.

While many may not see any self-determination as an important or current issue, it has become a defining issue specifically in the long and historical African-American struggle for equality, and the black community through hip-hop illustrates this desire for self-determination.

The scene is set—the blighted inner-city, the handiwork of the state, run-down public housing projects, crumbling public schools with no options, public playgrounds that double as trash dumps and needle bins, all with a predatory police state carting the majority of the young men away to jail. The promises of civil rights never realized, the unintended consequences of government intervention killed the spirit of the community. More importantly, these government reforms made minorities dependent, and dependent people can never have self-determination. Growing up in these conditions can lead to a feeling of repression and silence in individuals, which in turn can build interesting and powerful cultural movements.

One of these movements is the rise of hip-hop, a genre of music that emerged from the Bronx in the 1970s. Hip-hop speaks not only of reality, such as the hopelessness and pain of the ghetto, but also of hope and of the search for self-determination and peace. Establishing a history for self-determination in hip-hop music is Chuck D from the rap group Public Enemy, who claims that “Hip-Hop began with an emphasis on ‘knowledge of self’ and connection to community, family, and love.” This shows the philosophical beginnings of hip-hop, which began in the 1970’s as unrest in inner cities was reiterated from the period during the civil rights movement. Marginalized groups of young black men morphed into a different kind of freedom fighter and hip hop was born. “Pain, oppression, and art, and in this case hip hop, came not only from the Vietnam War, but from the oppression of the streets…the oppression of not being able to have a stake in your own future. It came from the oppression of not getting a proper education created their own language of the streets.” This quote emphasizes the pain that hip-hop was birthed out of, the emotional beginnings of rap. Individuals were looking for self-determination, and the youth began telling their story to those who would listen.

In the song Knowledge of Self (Determination) or K.O.S., Talib Kweli opens up the song with a call to take hold of self-determination, “So many emcees focusin’ on black people extermination. We keep it balanced with that knowledge of self, determination.” The song illustrates the reality of the poor communities, “I feel the rage of a million niggas locked inside a cage.” All while pushing self-determination, “At exactly which point do you start to realize, that life without knowledge is, death in disguise? That’s why, knowledge of self is like life after death.” Showing the urgency of the here and now struggle for self-determination, the duo raps, “You get out of jail with that knowledge of self-determination.”

In the Nas song “I Can,” he raps while emphasizing prestigious jobs that you could have if you work hard because, “It takes much practice.” He tells the children who accompany him in a choir chorus, “Nobody says you have to be gangstas, hoes.” Reminding them to read and do more, to change the globe, “Ghetto children, do your thing. Hold your head up, little man, you’re a king.” By reminding the children of noble African history, he reminds them that they can have self-determination, “then learn to survive until they gain control…you can be anything in the world.”

In The Roots song “The Fire,” the group pushes for power of choice and to continue on an individuals path for a better life, “I realize I’m supposed to reach for the skies, never let somebody try to tell you otherwise…I never show signs of fatigue or turn tired cause I’m the definition of tragedy turned triumph.” This song emphasizes the control and power that one should have in their life, specifically in the line “never let somebody try to tell you otherwise.”

These three songs illustrate the historical struggle for self-determination, empowerment, and the struggle to release those in need from outside compulsion and violence. The human desire for self-determination is a libertarian struggle that must be met everyday, and hip-hop is a legitimate expression of those fighting in that struggle.

“We can’t afford to be spectators while our lives deteriorate. We have to truly love our people and work to make that love stronger.”  Assata Shakur

The Republican Party seems to be gearing up for a Romney nomination, who, by the way, is pretty similar to President Obama in a lot of ways.

Rather than nominating someone like Ron Paul, who reaches out to a vast array of people, which is what the Republican Party will need to beat Obama in 2012, they seem content with a Republican liberal who accomplished everything most Republicans scream about today, while he was the Governor in Massachusetts.

To name some of the gripes most Republicans have today, and I believe they’re right in having issues with these, let us look at a few things that the guy they’ll likely nominate to run against President Obama has done while Governor in his state.  Romney signed state mandated health insurance into law, signed an assault weapon ban into law, signed tax increases into law, and appointed liberal justices, to name a few things.

Sound awfully similar to the liberal in the white house?  I’m not surprised one bit.  The Republican Party of 2012 has become so diluted that it’s almost impossible to distinguish a big government Republican from a big government Democrat.

Vote for liberty!

That is all for today.

Again, the United States has seen fit to show their complete and utter disdain for democracy and free, peaceful assembly by openly selling arms to a nation that is openly dedicated to using those arms on innocent protesters. These same protesters are fighting for the same democracy and human rights that the United States loves to “export”. Maybe it’s because the Bahraini people are fighting for democracy that will be practiced and shared by good relations and diplomacy (rather than sanctions and bombs) that it somehow behooves the United States to support the Bahraini government’s decision to violate even the most basic of human rights, the right to life. Reports of murders, torture, and imprisonment of protesters have been simultaneously numerous and gruesome; several organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Doctors Without Borders have condemned the Bahraini government for its human rights record during the uprising.

In other news, allegedly, the State of Israel is not thrilled with the lack of action on the part of the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is, of course, an unsurprising reaction from a country that seems to want nothing but war, war, and more war for good measure. Despite my incredibly harsh criticisms of Israel, I’m all for respecting their sovereignty. Of course, everyone knows that as soon as Israel makes a single move against Iran, the United States won’t be far behind. I would argue that if the United States actually respected Israel’s sovereignty, Israel wouldn’t have the nerve to go up against Iran. An off-color remark I made to a friend, “I hope they know they’re actually going to be up against armed resistance” resulted in a sad, almost “it’s a shame” chuckle from the both of us. Such is the sad state of affairs between the United States and its friends in the extremely turbulent Middle East.

The current situation with Iran is extremely bothersome to me. Almost no one I know, besides some of my similarly political friends, know about the Bahraini situation. The Iranian issue, however, has been reported upon in the mainstream and alternative media alike, with mixed responses. The liberal American media is seemingly all for a war with Iran, since, well, they only support wars waged by Democratic presidential administrations. Of course, the conservative, brown-hating American media is also all for it, since, well, less brown people equals paradise to the Fox News crowd. The international community’s reaction is mixed. The European Union, on the brink of catastrophe, has to support the similarly-burdened United States.

“Today’s political climate does not allow the luxury of apathy,” Nine Inch Nails brainchild Trent Reznor said in a 2005 Q&A. With the last few years, the political climate has reached a fever pitch. More people are waking up, yet more want to be perennially asleep. I was never as politically outspoken as I have been over the last eighteen months. My sudden “interest” in politics has been met with a combination of friendship, mockery, and outright disdain. It seems as if every single “code word” has been tossed at me due to my political beliefs – “liberal”, “conservative”, “commie”, “socialist”, “pinko”, “libertarian”, “Constitutionalist”, “anti-American”, “antisemite”, “anti-Zionist”, “terrorist”. You name it, it has been directed at me.

It has seemingly become en vogue to categorize those critical of the United States as “anti-American” and then, by some twisted logic befitting Americans (and only Americans), somehow in bed with the terrorists. Uh oh. Not those pesky terrorists again! If you’re critical of American foreign policy…THE TERRORISTS WIN. More of that spooky language. More Manichaeism. “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” Combine that twisted logic with compulsory, tax-supported education and human services and you just about have a totalitarian state.

I joked a few weeks ago during a SOPA/PIPA conversation that Americans begged for their police state after 9/11 and once they realized it was here to stay, liberty suddenly tasted just a little less bittersweet. As we all know, Americans have great trouble with the Constitution. Fist-pumping, flag-waving cries of “USA! USA! USA!” have been replaced with “USA! USA! USA! If you need to revoke a few freedoms to keep me safe, do it!” I honestly could not understand why the reaction of people to SOPA/PIPA was as fiery as it was. I mean, we’re talking about keeping us safe. American logic dictates that keeping us safe equals relinquishing our rights.

I guess there’s only so much that can be done. We can hope for the best, but we’re going to end up having to prepare for the worst. I am still of the belief that the United States is a great country and a great idea, above all. However, I must disagree with…oh…what’s his name? You know who he is. The dude from Texas. The one who hates gay people. Oh, what’s his name?!? He wants to cut…what, three? No, five! No, two!

I must disagree with Governor Rick Perry. Faith didn’t make America strong. Liberty made America strong. And it can make America strong again if you really want it.

For those of us playing the home game, these are the legal defintions of terrorism as written by the members of the United States government. It’s a lot to read, isn’t it? Spooky language. Spooky language!

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/usc_sec_22_00002656—f000-.html

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002331—-000-.html

“That’s all well and good, Couchman,” you might say. “But why post this?” A personal anecdote should set the scene.

I was seventeen years of age on September 11, 2001. I was in the very beginnings of my junior year, taking courses in AP Physics (shudder), AP American History, trigonometry, and German language studies, among others which I have long since forgotten. Junior year in high school was a big time for me. An exciting time, even. SATs, college applications, “the world is your oyster”, and all that jazz. That held true until about forty minutes into my German class that morning. It was, to the best of my memory, around 10:40 in the morning. At that point, I could hear some faint noises outside of class. A few teachers walking intently to another room, perhaps. Soon after, we received an announcement over the public address system from the school’s headmaster.

We were told that two planes had crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, or WTC 1 and WTC 2, as they were known. Then, another plane had crashed into the Pentagon. Yet another had crashed into a small town in Pennsylvania. I didn’t know what to think. Classes effectively stopped for the rest of the day; periods were spent with various teachers listening to the radio or watching the reports on the local news. The impression we had was “yeah, the first plane was an accident, the rest were attacks.” To date, I have never been more frightened or unsettled. I was shocked. I didn’t live too far from Philadelphia, which is, as we all know, a big city. Could something have happened there? Maybe the country was going to be under nuclear attack. We didn’t know. How could we have known? I trusted my government without question in those days.

More than ten years later, I have a very different viewpoint of that day. It is not a viewpoint that is disrespectful to those who lost their lives, but it is a viewpoint that demands accountability on the part of those who knew this chain of events was going to happen and refused to take action. It is also a viewpoint that is designed to expose a dangerous hypocrisy.

The United States’ legal definition of terrorism is what I would call “convenient”. To the untrained observer raised on a diet of top 40, reality TV, and the mainstream media, it’s a whole lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo. To me, it’s a whole lot of whitewashing.

In 1953, it had been two years since Iran under Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh had nationalized its oil industry and cut the United Kingdom out of their oil profits. The British government, naturally, wanted a reversal of that decision as soon as possible. President Harry S. Truman was asked for his assistance in removing the democratically-elected Mossadegh from power. He refused. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower assumed the presidency in 1953, he was soon approached by the British government and given the same scenario. However, as the great Soviet “Red Scare” was the big danger of that period (and would be for another thirty-five years), the British government warned Eisenhower of a potential communist takeover of Iran being threatened by the Tudeh Party, which would be devastating to American and British interests in the Middle East. The United States and United Kingdom (by way of the CIA and MI6), with the blessing of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, overthrew the Mossadegh government and replaced it with an autocratic regime headed by Pahlavi himself, with the United States/Israel-trained SAVAK (National Intelligence and Security Organization) police force employed to suppress political opposition. The Tudeh Party found itself eliminated by the fascists and Iranian Nazi-sympathizers that fed the regime change. Estimated casualties from this action were between three hundred to eight hundred dead. Until his overthrow in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Pahlavi was instrumental in the torture and murder of thousands of other Iranians, and also attracted global attention for his human rights violations. The United States promptly ignored them.

In 1954, the democratically-elected government of Guatemala under Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán was similarly overthrown due to fears that a communist government would be a danger to American interests in Central America, as Guatemala was considered a potential puppet state of the Soviet Union. Over almost thirty years under an United States-friendly government, over 150,000 Guatemalans were murdered or disappeared.

In 1964, the democratically-elected government of Brazil under João Goulart was overthrown in a CIA-sponsored coup due to fears that the left-leaning Goulart was going to turn to communism. Under United States funding and tutelage, the democratic government of Brazil was replaced with a brutal military junta (and American puppet) that ruled until 1985. The Brazilian junta was criticized for grievious violations of human rights, including suppression of free speech, civil liberties, and artistic freedoms. The coup is known to have permanently damaged the United States’ reputation in Brazil.

In 1965, the government of Indonesia under Sukarno was overthrown by the combination of a failed military coup organized by Major General Suharto with the cooperation of the CIA, the United States government, and the British government as well as a series of planned assassinations of members of the Indonesian military under Suharto’s supervision. Blaming the assassinations on Sukarno and his connections with communist groups in Indonesia, Sukarno was removed from power and Suharto was named Acting President in 1967; he was elected to the office in 1968. The Indonesian “New Order” under Suharto became infamous for its violations of human rights; over five hundred thousand alleged communists were killed within months of Suharto assuming the presidency. More infamously, the Indonesian government occupied the newly-independent East Timor (formerly Portuguese Timor) from late 1975 until 1999, resulting in the deaths of over two hundred thousand Timorese civilians from executions, rapes, forced abortions, and starvation. The Indonesian military was funded and assisted by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia; all five countries ignored the Timorese genocide until MIT professor Noam Chomsky personally exposed the conditions in East Timor to the United Nations in 1978.

In 1973, the democratically-elected government of Chile under Salvador Allende was overthrown in another CIA-sponsored coup over more fears that the similarly left-leaning Allende was going to turn towards socialism. President Richard Nixon was openly critical of Allende as early as 1970 and instigated plans to have him removed from power as soon as possible. The coup went through with a diminished CIA influence, but not before the CIA and the United States government had provided funding and assistance to members of the Chilean military as well as the ITT Corporation, which fostered dissent through the right-leaning El Mercurio, officially “owned” by Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company. Allende was overthrown on September 11, 1973 and is known to have committed suicide. A military junta, similarly a puppet of the United States, was installed under General Augusto Pinochet and ruled until 1990. Three thousand Chileans are known to have been killed under this regime (most famously, Nueva Cancion singer/songwriter Victor Jara), and tens of thousands more imprisoned or tortured.

In 1976, the democratically-elected government of Argentina under Isabel Martínez de Perón was similarly overthrown in a military coup and funded to the tune of fifty million dollars by the United States government, who knew that the coup would not succeed without violent repression. Until the government was dissolved and democratic elections were held in 1983, over ten thousands Argentinians were known to have been murdered or imprisoned.

Over the period of 1981-90, the United States government provided material and weapons aid to the Nicaraguan contras, who stood in opposition to Daniel Ortega’s FSLN (Sandinista National Liberation Front). From 1981 until 1984, the United States provided forty-three million dollars to the contras until a Congressional legislation, the Boland Amendment, banned all aid to the contras, who, by this point, had been categorized as a terrorist organization. The administration of President Ronald Reagan illegally continued aiding the contras by means of selling arms to Iran and using the profits to fund the contras, who had commenced acts of drug trafficking, of which the United States was also aware. The contras soon became infamous for grievious and gruesome violations of human rights, including kidnapping, torturing, raping, and murdering civilians, including women and children. The contras were dissolved under the cooperation of the United States with the reinstatement of democratic elections and the assimilation of the contras into Nicaraguan society in 1990.

These are some of the more notable examples of the United States government actively funding and supporting terrorist states or terrorist organizations with deadly, violent consequences.

The United States’ legal definition of terrorism is cleverly written. Under United States law, these acts are not considered to be illegal. However, under international law, as well as under statutes from the United Nations, these actions have been condemned as violations of international law, and, in some cases, examples of state terrorism.

Under the two sections of United States Code quoted above, the United States has quietly yet cleverly whitewashed its own contributions to human rights violations. The United States has summarily ignored rulings against the country by the International Court of Justice (Nicaragua v. United States) and has unsigned the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The United States has also ignored or openly resisted United Nations resolutions designed specifically to address issues of state terrorism on the part of Israel against Palestinians, as well as state terrorism on the part of Indonesia against Timorese.

The continuing situation with regards to abuse and torture of alleged terrorists and unlawful combatants by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Abu Gharib, Iraq, Bagram, Afghanistan, and several other CIA “black sites” has been openly criticized by the international community, as well as individuals within the United States government.

This article is not written to disrespect the victims of 9/11, but rather to call attention to the United States and its illegal War on Terror. I’ve shared this same information with several people I know personally, only to be greeted with “yeah, but they attacked us”. Understandable, yes. But the fact of the matter is that terror is not an enemy. Terror is a tactic and, unfortunately, it works. The current campaign on the part of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the members of NATO and the European Union only serve to make those entities look hypocritical to the rest of the world.

What is the reason for continuing the the Prohibition on Drugs? It is certainly not for the benefit of society. The Prohibition on Drugs, like the Prohibition on Alcohol before it, has only succeed in creating a violent black market.  Every arrest and prosecution only succeeds in driving up the price of drugs. The increase in profitability only entices more people into the black market.  The people who seem to profit the most by this Drug War are those who are paid to fight it.

The majority people who enter in the  drug  trade have the same characteristics as any other business person. They are simply looking to sell something that is profitable.  The violence that is associated with the drugs is a direct result of the illegalization of the drugs. A direct comparison would be prostitution. In places where prostitution is legal, there are no pimps, drugs or violence necessarily associated with prostitution. In places where prostitution is illegal, the true criminals seek out the trade and attach themselves to it. This is the natural effect of  banning anything that is widely desired. If laws where passed to outlaw chocolate you would see a violent black-market for chocolate develop over night and the price equal that of drugs.

There is ample evidence in places where various drugs are legal, like Amsterdam, that the legalization of drugs would not cause a catastrophic meltdown of society. In fact the statistics show that dug use there is no higher then in places where it is illegal.

So why keep it illegal???

Reason #1 – No one likes to admit they are WRONG. It would mean admitting that all the money paid to fight the drug war and lives lost was for nothing.

Reason #2- The huge, HUGE, economy that has developed around fighting the Drug War, prosecuting and imprisoning people.

Simply put… without a Drug War all those narcotics cops, lawyers and judges would have to find a way to make an honest living.  They have created their own jobs through this Drug War and now their main objective is to keep their jobs.  A similar parallel can be seen in  States that employee more cops for the purpose of  raising revenues though with tickets and tolls on the roads. They then issue quotas to those cops so they can keep their jobs or advance. This is not for the benefit of society, this is for the benefit of government and those associated with government. Indeed the Drug War has aided the monstrous expansion of Government. It is for this reason that those who love big government, support the Drug War.

This Drug War has resulted in a huge segment of your society being labeled as Felons… instead of Merchants. It has created wasteful “Incarceration Factories” for imprisoning people. Both the people in the prisons and those guarding them are not allowed to be productive.  The label “Felon” keeps them locked in the black market because in today’s age of instant background checks it is impossible to get a good paying  job after a conviction.  This serves to insure they return to the black market upon their release and provides repeat business for the “Law Enforcement Business”.

I estimate that we could reduce the  Police State by as much as 75% by legalizing drugs.  Those cops will have to find more productive work to do.  Months of surveillance to arrest Drug Merchants is not productive work. The Drug War has been a key tool for enlarging government and giving it more power. Legalizing Drugs would reduce the size of government and limit its control over people. The Governments main goal currently is not to serve people, but rather to control them.

The question then arises of what will happen to society with all the additional drug addicts. First, evidence from Amsterdam shows it will not be much more then  it is now.  Second, there is no better way to scare people off drugs then to watch their friend die from an overdose.  We have to get away from this mentality that the Government is somehow responsible for the actions of the individual. The cost of legalizing drugs (overdose related deaths) will be less then the cost that this drug war has been in both resources and lives. We have to be a little realistic. Nature never intended of every single human to die of old age. The Founding Fathers never  intended that the government they created alter the laws of nature.

Maintaining anti-drug laws just to keep vast armies of cops employed makes about economic sense as… employing one  crew to go around digging ditches and another one fill them in.

Note:  Permission to reprint, link and otherwise use is granted.