Virginia Libertarian

LegalTimes.com - This Is My Land

Anyone whose home or business is liable to confiscation if he criticizes the government, or joins an unpopular church, or refuses to quarter troops in his house, or declines to testify against himself, does not really have these basic rights.

These principles came together for Robbins in 1993, when he bought a ranch in Wyoming, not knowing that the previous owner had agreed to give the Bureau of Land Management an easement over the land. BLM agents, however, had neglected to record the easement, so when the purchase went through, Robbins got the land free and clear.

Realizing their mistake, the agents ordered Robbins to sign over the easement, and when he refused, they grew belligerent. “The federal government doesn’t negotiate,” one official told him. Instead, they promised that Robbins’ refusal would “come to war” and that they would give him a “hardball education.” Then they began a vendetta against him that would last to the present day.

They cancelled his right of way over government-owned land, repeatedly harassed the guests at his ranch, cited him for minor infractions while letting similar violations by his neighbors go unnoticed, and brought him up on criminal charges of interfering with federal agents during their duties. The jury acquitted him after deliberating for less than 30 minutes.

After enduring years of such treatment, Robbins sued, arguing, among other things, that the BLM agents had violated his Fifth Amendment right to exclude others from his property. The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed, but the government asked the Supreme Court to reverse in Wilkie v. Robbins. “No court,- said Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief, has “ever recognized a constitutional right against retaliation . . . in the context of property rights.”

Simply unbelievable. If you have been proven to be in the wrong (i.e., your retaliation is against the law), then why should you not be held accountable for your actions that have brought harm to another individual?

Townhall.com::Regulating Interior Designers::By George Will

In New Mexico, anyone can work as an interior designer. But it is a crime, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison, to list yourself on the Internet or in the Yellow Pages as, or to otherwise call yourself, an “interior designer” without being certified as such. Those who favor this censoring of truthful commercial speech are a private group that controls, using an exam administered by a private national organization, access to that title.This is done in the name of “professionalization,” but it really amounts to cartelization. Persons in the business limit access by others — competitors — to full participation in the business.

Being able to control the number of one’s competitors, and to dispense the pleasure of status, is nice work if you can get it, and you can get it if you have a legislature willing to enact “titling laws.” They regulate — meaning restrict — the use of job descriptions. Such laws often are precursors of occupational licensing, which usually means a mandatory credentialing process to control entry into a profession with a particular title.

This is purely and simply another way (another of which is unions) for a small group of people to control the actions of a much larger group for their benefit or profit.  Almost all government regulations are used to restrict access by the public to goods or services that would otherwise be available at much lower cost.  These regulations don’t even necessarily provide any benefit to the public, as the so-called “designers” are not demonstrably better or worse at designing interiors than those not licensed.  It just means that they now charge higher prices.  Want more examples of this kind of regulation?  Look at any profession that has a “licensed” version, accountants, lawyers, doctors and the like.  Does this mean that they are any better at these professions that someone unlicensed?  I dare say they would not be, but it’s not legal to find out, as you can’t practices law without passing your states bar exam, you can’t practice medicine without a license.  Does this licensure even guarantee you some kind of minimal performance on the part of the licensee?  No, there are hordes of bad doctors out there, who after having their license revoked by one state just move on to another and get licensed there, and I won’t even go into the lawyer arena.  If you want a system that works, you have to look outside of government, someone’s reputation in the area is a much better judge of their qualifications than whether or not they are licensed by some government entity.  Take a look at the software industry, for example.  Someone in this field isn’t even required to have a college degree to be able to find a high paying job, as long as they are able to prove their experience and knowledge in the field.  There are certifications available in the field, but they are all issued by private organizations or companies, and these will only get you so far on a job interview.  If you put on your resume that you are certified in an area by Microsoft, that may get you in the door for an interview, but you had better actually know your stuff when you get there, as there are far too many people who memorize the questions on the exams just to get their certification.  In this areana, experience in the field counts for far more than education or certification do, which is as it should be. My point here is that were government to restrict this profession like they are doing some others, then all those high-schoolers out there that can put together a pretty damn good web site would no longer be able to do so, and you would have to shell out $200-$300/hour for someone to now do what you can get for peanuts from someone looking to gain experience in the field, as the entry barrier would keep most people out.  I could expound upon this for pages in the medical arena, but I will save that for another time.

YouTube - Vote Different

Not that I think Obama is a good choice, but it’s really hard to do worse than Hillary.

nofearSingapore: Organ trading? What next?! Is there nothing sacrosanct?

Just because there is willing buyer-seller scenario, it is not true that nobody loses. Humanity loses, as this will be just the top of a slippery slope where the worth of a human life will then only be measured in terms of dollars & cents.Once we accept that this is so, we can even go as far as to say that even if he donates both kidneys and dies, it is acceptable, as long as the compensation is mutually agreeable. The difference between one kidney and two kidneys ( plus death) is now just more X dollars. The sanctity of life is not anywhere in the equation, so you can just ignore it?

I don’t understand this seeming reluctance by people to measure the value of a life.  We do it all the time.  I take you to the example I have seen posted by many, many others (emphasis mine).

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, some 43,443 people were killed on the nation’s highways in 2005. If Congress were to enact a 10 miles per hour national speed limit, we’d save thousands of lives each year. You say, “Williams, that would be stupid and impractical!” My response to you is: But look at all the lives that would be saved. What you really mean by stupid and impractical is that preventing thousands of highway fatalities is not worth the cost and inconvenience that would result from having to poke along at 10 miles per hour. Of course, calling a 10 miles per hour law stupid and impractical is a more socially acceptable way of saying those saved lives aren’t worth it.

Now, if we are willing to judge the value of life against time, and time is money, why this reluctance to place a monetary value on life.  Ask yourself this question.  If a stranger approached you and said “I need X dollars to have an operation or I will die.”  Now, to make this really a pincher, you are the only person that can provide X dollars to them.  How much would X have to be in order for you to say no?  Everyone has their price, would you sell everything you own in order to help this stranger?  Now, lets change it somewhat, say this person is a relative, one that you know, but not too closely.  Now what is the value of X?  How about for your brother/sister, or one of your parents, or your spouse, or one of your children?  It’s hard to be honest with yourself here isn’t it?

Now we go one more small step, since it is all about money, as the Queen of England ( or some VIP like that) needs a kidney, as without her the whole UK would be without a monarch ( or some stupid excuse like that), so why not just take a homeless hobo’s organ ( or both) and transplant them into her. Dispense with the farce of paying him ( or his estate) as no one will notice his absence.

Now, this presents a different situation than the ones posed above.  The initial paragraphs presume a voluntary transaction between individuals, which I believe should be allowed.  If I want to sell one of my kidneys for $50,000, no one should prevent me from doing that.  If I want to sell both for $10,000,000, that should be my choice as well, even knowing that I would die.  Perhaps I would find the value that the money would bring to my family more important than my life, and that should be my decision to make, not anyone else’s.  This other scenario, boiled down, is theft and property damage (to the body).  This should be handled as any other theft and property damage claim is handled in a free-market society.  Now if the “hobo” were a willing participant in the exchange, the problem is solved.

Townhall.com::Regrets for slavery::By Walter E. Williams

I can personally relate to the Virginia General Assembly’s declaration. My great-grandparents were slaves in the Virginia cities of Chase City and Newport News. The General Assembly’s statement of regret for slavery means absolutely nothing to me. If anything, it’s nothing less than a cheap insult and capitulation of white delegates to black hustlers. Possibly, the whites who voted in support of the declaration were mau-maued into it or they felt guilt over our history of slavery. In any case, they should know that their actions mean little in dealing with the day-to-day plight of many black Virginians — which has nothing to do with slavery.

The next time the Virginia General Assembly gets into an apologetic mood and wants to pass another resolution aimed at its black citizens, here are my suggestions: The Commonwealth of Virginia apologizes to its black citizens for not protecting them from criminals who prey upon them and make their lives a daily nightmare. The Commonwealth also apologizes for our government-sanctioned school system that delivers fraudulent education, thereby consigning many of its black citizens to the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

Here you go, the next time our stupid politicians want to waste time and money with silly apologies, how about apologizing for something that matters NOW.