The Freedom Bulletin

In case you missed it, Jeff Jacoby wrote an excellent piece in the Globe last week arguing (among other things) that people shouldn’t need a license from the government in order to drive:

“Maybe the real question is why the state should license drivers in the first place. It’s one thing to require would-be motorists to enroll in driver’s-education classes and to be tested on their knowledge of safe driving practices. And of course anyone getting behind the wheel of a car is liable for damage caused through negligence or irresponsibility. But to condition driving itself on governmental permission? And to extort a chunk of money every few years to keep that permission current? By what right?

It’s no answer to say that driving can be dangerous or that roads are public property. Drinking bourbon, building campfires, and playing ice hockey can be dangerous too, but you don’t need Big Brother’s say-so before you can do them. And if drivers have to be licensed because they use public roadways, why shouldn’t bicyclists, joggers, and skateboarders be licensed as well?”

I’ve mentioned this idea a couple times, and I’m glad to see a mainstream writer/commentator think the same thing.

Essentially any activity can be dangerous; activities just differ in how dangerous they are. Driving is significantly more likely to cause injuries to others than walking down the street, but it is possible (although extremely unlikely) that you could, for example, accidentally walk into someone and startle them to much that they have a heart attack. This isn’t an argument to require licenses for walking, but in favor of giving everyone the right to act as they please, as long as they do not violate the rights of others. If you hurt someone or destroy their property while driving, then yes, you certainly should be required to compensate them. But as long as what you are doing is not actually harming other people, you should be allowed to do it without having to pay money or get a license from the government.

Julian Assange did a great interview with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone magazine in its issue to be released next month. He talks about his legal problems in Sweden and potentially the U.S., alleged WikiLeaks source Pvt. Bradley Manning, who recently had a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to court-marshal him, the mainstream media, the military-industrial complex, crazy stalkers, and more.

My favorite part of the interview is when Assange was asked who his most important supporters are. He responded:

“John Pilger, the Australian journalist, has been the most impressive. And the other is Dan Ellsberg … Ron Paul did come out and make an impassioned and rational speech. It has not been the soft liberal left, the pseudo left that has defended us. In fact, they have run a mile. It has been strong activists who have a long record of fighting for what they believe in, both on the libertarian right and on the left.”

It’s great to see that these two defenders of liberty respect and support each other. And it’s great, after WikiLeaks has too often been lumped into the same category as Democrats and liberals, to see Assange associate himself with libertarianism. To read the rest of the interview, click here.

Sometimes it seems like there are more and more bad things happening in the world with respect to individual liberty – from the medical system to gun control to surveillance cameras to tax increases – and certainly a great deal of The Freedom Bulletin is dedicated to pointing out and fighting back against these injustices. But I thought it would be cool to point out some of the good things that have happened in the past week or so, some of the small and not-so-small victories for individual liberty:

Cuba legalized the purchase and sale of cars last Wednesday.

The town of Northampton, MA might allow households to have up to 12 chickens instead of just 3.

One week ago, New York eliminated the requirement for people to take eye tests when they renew their driver’s license.

Australia decided to allow women to serve in all roles in the armed forces, including on the front lines, which is a great decision in my opinion because only people’s abilities should determine what jobs they are allowed to do, not their gender.

The King of Saudi Arabia decided to allow women to vote and run for office in future elections.

Several states are relaxing their alcohol laws. For example, Atlanta might repeal its ban on alcohol sales on Sunday, and people touring the Jack Daniels distillery in Tennessee might be allowed to sample the whiskey.

Massachusetts is (hopefully) getting close to allowing casino gambling. The state senate is debating a bill to allow three casinos and a slots parlor after the house passed a similar bill.

The Death With Dignity ballot initiative in Massachusetts is getting a lot of publicity lately. Dr. Marcia Anell wrote an excellent opinion piece about it in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Through the years, the federal criminal code has grown and grown, shrinking the number of things people are allowed to do and shrinking the amount of liberty Americans enjoy. The Wall Street Journal had a great article the other day about the growing list of federal crimes, and the lack of mens rea – or criminal intent – required:

For centuries, a bedrock principle of criminal law has held that people must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty. The concept is known as mens rea, Latin for a “guilty mind.”

This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.

Read the rest at the Wall Street Journal.

Today is the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that changed America. In speeches, articles, and on TV, people remark about how America has triumphed because it is just as united as it was before, just as strong, just as safe. But in all the discussion of the anniversary of 9/11, I have heard hardly anyone mention freedom or liberty.

Is America as free as it was before September 11, 2001? Sadly, no. Far before 9/11, the federal government passed various laws that violate people’s rights, but in the past ten years, many people have used the horrific terrorist attacks as an excuse to rob Americans of even more freedoms.

In November 2001 the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration were created. Just a month later, when Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airplane with bombs in his shoes, the government reacted by punishing everyone, requiring us to remove our shoes in order to board a plane. Then in March 2005 they banned lighters from planes. In April 2006, when a plot was discovered involving liquid bombs, the government again punished everyone by banning liquids. In December 2009, after a would-be terrorist hid a bomb in his underwear, this punishment of everyone was taken to new levels, as the government accelerated, and still continues to accelerate, the deployment of scanners that reveal people’s naked bodies beneath their clothes.

Efforts to track and monitor more and more aspects of people’s lives extend beyond airports. Due in part to the Patriot Act, passed the month after the attacks, the federal government analyzes bank records (and is trying to expand this tracking to prepaid cards), phone calls, computer activity, and more in what the ACLU’s Carol Rose sums up as a “vast, secret domestic spying infrastructure aimed at ordinary Americans.” Security cameras are everywhere, giving law enforcement a permanent record of people’s movements on streets, in stores, and on public transportation. People can be singled out for additional surveillance for activities as benign as taking photos, taking notes in public, or having unusual viewpoints. It is becoming impossible to buy anything, use a computer, or even leave your house without your actions being monitored and logged.

Plus, those people unlucky enough to be declared “enemy combatants” can be imprisoned indefinitely and even tortured without being charged with any crime.

To destroy individual rights and freedom is to destroy America, which is giving the terrorists victory. As James Alan Fox writes, ”By curtailing our freedoms and inconveniencing ourselves any more than is necessary, we play right into the hands of our enemies.” And Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights accurately wrote that the loss of our liberties ”destroyed many more lives than those lost in the attack.”

There are some reasons for hope, however. The TSA is deploying scanners that do not show people naked, planning eventually to let people keep their shoes on, and generally moving towards a strategy of assessing each person’s security risk instead of trying to make terrorist attacks physically impossible. We have managed to prevent, so far, the implementation of a National ID card, as well as, for the most part, increased gun control. And in general I have noticed a growing number of everyday people, politicians, commentators, and organizations that support liberty.

These changes are a step in the right direction, but we can not let them be the only steps. Americans must resist at all costs the gradual erosion of our liberties. We must not let the events of September 11, 2001, permanently change the ideals of freedom that America was founded upon. Let’s remember the 2,996 people who lost their lives 10 years ago, and also remember liberty.

For a fantastic speech by Congressman Ron Paul on this topic, check out my post from a year ago.