The Court of Public Relations

YouTube member, anti-state activist, (and Free State Project member) SamIam has produced an excellent 34-minute, 26-second documentary entitled The Court of Public Relations, in which he showcases the difference between government allegedly solving market needs and the free market truly solving market needs. A lot of the footage in the documentary shows Sam in a local Texan municipal court combating an officious government judge, a government prosecutor, and two law enforcement "government" officers.

The case involves Sam being hauled into court by the state for speeding on a public "government" road. The claim, by the judge, is that he was going 62 MPH over the 45 MPH speed limit. The officials at the courthouse coerce Sam (or at least try to coerce him) to enter a plea (they were enticing him to plead "guilty," but Sam refuse to partake in the process).

Sam appeared before the judge, attempted to ask him "a few questions." The judge refused to allow him to ask his questions and, in a series of ludicrous and farcical statements, the judge refused to comply with Sam's request to have his questions answered. The judge, at one point in the film, entered a "plea of not guilty" on Sam's behalf. Then Sam asked, "Am I required to understand the nature and cause of the proceeding against me?" The judge said, "No, sir. I'm just not going to put up with it. I'll just have you enter a not guilty plea." Sam refused to enter the not guilty plea, and the judge declared to him, "You don't question me, sir."

Watch the documentary in its entirety. It just shows how inherently vile and diabolical government is, especially within its own foundations:



[H/T to Free Talk Live's Ian Bernard who posted this on his FreeKeene.com blog.]

Oliva on Sandefur and Kinsella

Oliva continues his bizarre, false attacks on me (last one noted here):

My Last Post Ever…

…about Kinsella and Sandefur. To sum up the two divergent poles of “libertarianism”:

Kinsella: True libertarians never take any action to advance liberty.

Sandefur: True libertarians murder every man, woman and child who doesn’t share his worldview.

He is partially right about Sandefur--he's referring here to Sandefur's devotion to mass-murderer Lincoln and war perpetrated by big Western states against bad smaller states. But the way he wrote it is an exaggeration even of quasi-libertarian Tim Sandefur's views (and strange given his recent praise of Sandefur--here, here, and here).

He's wrong about me--I am not opposed to taking action to advance liberty. I don't even oppose suing the states in federal courts to try to vindicate my rights. I would do it. I simply maintain that outsider analysts should be honest. That's all. I might argue for incorporation as a plaintiff, because I want the feds to stop a state from hurting me. My argument might even persuade the court. (As I noted in my last reply to Oliva, "I of course support any victim of any state crime using another state against the offending state. If I were on the receiving end of a bad state law, sure, I'd use every argument in the book to try to persuade a federal judge to strike it down.")

But bhat does not mean it's honest or correct for a libertarian to say the court's interpretation of the Constitution is accurate, or that that feature is a libertarian one that should be part of any federal constitution.

As for this being his "last post" on me and La Sandefur, well, I remember when he "retired from blogging (2)." Uh, yeah. He has also given up (how does one do that?) "being a libertarian" -- see here.

Oliva's behavior of late is bizarre--attacking me for no reason, after years of friendly interaction. See e.g. here. Pro-Mises Instute, then against, now pro again; pro-Kinsella, now anti-; pro-Sandefur, now anti-; "libertarian", then "no longer". Wow, what a ride.