There was a violent riot at UC Berkeley where Breitbart agitator Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak. Milo’s event was canceled and he was whisked away by security.
Now, I am not a big fan of Milo’s belligerent and in-your-face style, which he seems to use to intentionally provoke people. And I don’t agree with his apparent support for Donald Trump’s national socialist agenda. But I do believe in freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of thought and conscience. And as long as the owners of the property or the administrators of the University authorized his appearance then others should be respectful and let him have his event.
But what happened was not a matter of “protest” that caused Milo to be whisked away. The gang of marauders who were setting fires, destroying property, breaking windows and beating up on innocent people were not “protesters.” They were not “leftists” or “anarchists.”
They were apparently outside agitators and infiltrators. They were nothing but thugs. Criminals. Barbarians and monsters.
One of the planks of Murray Rothbard’s “Right-Wing Populist Program,” in a 1992 article republished today on LewRockwell.com, is to “Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals,” in which Rothbard suggests that “Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment…” and he does add, “subject of course to liability when they are in error.” But this is not realistic, given that he is talking about government police, and it would be the government that would be determining the “errors” or lack thereof. And we know how that works out 99% of the time.
Instead of suggesting to further empower the government police as judge, jury and executioner, Rothbard should have suggested that the citizens should be “unleashed,” by repealing all gun control laws in which government and its enforcers have disabled the people and made them defenseless to those violent thugs and marauders, assaulters and murders. In the aforementioned situation at UC Berkeley Milo Yiannopoulos and his entourage of flunkies and security goons, and any of the people who wanted to attend his event, should have the freedom to be armed for self-protection if they want to.
Now, I’m not advocating a kind of “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral” situation, because that is not O.K., obviously. What I mean is the freedom to be armed or not be armed by one’s own choice, concealed or openly carrying, and one can keep one’s status private. That would mean that no one would really know who is or isn’t armed, not even the government police. When criminal thugs, or wannabe criminal thugs don’t know whether prospective victims are armed or not, then chances are, given what cowards criminals and thugs are, they will choose to not take the risk of attacking someone which would risk possibly the criminals and thugs getting their heads blown off.
Sadly, the gun control people don’t understand such common sense. They are delusional and really believe that criminals and thugs who are intent on robbing someone, beating people up or murdering them, will otherwise obey laws against gun possession. The deluded ones would rather a society of disarmed and defenseless victims, and only the government’s goons would have the weapons. As I noted, we know how that has worked out. Not good.
So regarding the rioting and violence at UC Berkeley, UC administrators such as its loony-leftist President Janet Napolitano should be advised to discontinue making their campuses dangerous “gun-free zones.”
The rest of the planks of the “Right-Wing Populist Program” in Murray Rothbard’s article are pretty good, toward a freer, safer society. Alas, a lot of people are indoctrinated to believe that further empowering government is the way toward a “freer” or “safer” society. But no, it is the government, its bureaucrats and its enforcers who are the worst trespassers, invaders and violators of the persons and property of innocents.
And it is nice to see more Rothbard again, although it is not radical enough as far as I’m concerned. For instance, the U.S. Senate will now be considering Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. If I were a U.S. Senator, I would not vote to confirm Gorsuch. Why? Because he is as much a statist as the current 8 Justices on the High Court.
If I were a Supreme Court Justice, I would vote to overturn just about all the laws and policies which come before the Court, because the enforcement of most of those laws and policies violates the persons or property of innocent people who are not suspected of actual criminal acts. One example was an 8-1 decision that even “liberals” on the Supreme Court upheld, government police breaking into a home because they either smelled marijuana and/or heard someone inside the home flushing the toilet, which implied “destroying evidence.”
According to the L.A. Times, “Residents who ‘attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame’ when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.”
But I would say “evidence of what?” Possession of marijuana? Who is the victim? You see, the real victims in that case (and many other cases) are the residents of the home that was criminally broken into and who were criminally abducted, detained and thrown into a cage. The actual “crime” the enforcers’ victims were committing was disobeying arbitrary government edicts. There are thousands and thousands of unjust and immoral laws on the books, which any government agent can use to criminally violate the persons or property of innocent victims under color of “law enforcement.”
So, if I were a Supreme Court Justice I would vote to overturn those laws and policies. Regarding the aforementioned drug laws I would ask, What moral authority does the government have to control what an individual puts into his or her own body? And if we must point to the very flawed U.S. Constitution, I would ask, where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to prohibit or regulate drugs (or cars, or environmental matters, etc.)? In most cases of “law” enforcement, the enforcers are the ones who are acting criminally against innocent people who have harmed no one.
If I had to show that a law or policy was “unconstitutional,” I would point to the Ninth Amendment, which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork compared the Ninth Amendment to an “inkblot.” Bork was a majoritarian who did not believe in private property rights or self-ownership of the individual. (I’m glad that Bork got “Borked,” by the way.)
The “rights” referred to in the Bill of Rights are natural, inherent rights that we all have as human beings, which preexist the formation of any government. So obviously the Constitution can’t possibly enumerate ALL the rights that individual have, which come from their basic natural rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, ” as referred to in the Declaration of Independence. That is why the writers of the Bill of Rights included the Ninth Amendment.
But, given that very few or no “jurists” in the “mainstream” would ever agree with me on those issues, if I were in the Senate I would vote to confirm only those who do agree with me, and who probably would agree that there shouldn’t even be a “Supreme” Court in the first place. I can see voting for Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, Becky Akers, Butler Shaffer, and William Grigg, as I am convinced that they would come down on the side of the innocent victims of the State.
They would also probably vote to overturn all gun-related laws which violate the inherent, natural rights of the individual to defend oneself from the attempted violence perpetrated against them by others, such as what we have seen at recent riots including the one at UC Berkeley.