Posted by adam.dada on July 23rd, 2008
By A.B. Dada
On slashdot this morning was an article with the same title above: Videogame Labeling Law passed in New York. Their article states:
A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games that are already rated, as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010. The law has caused an uproar with civil rights groups who claim that such a law is unconstitutional. A legal challenge is already in the works by the New York Civil Liberties Union who cite that similar laws that have been brought to courts in California, Illinois, Minessota, and Washington state have been deemed as unconstitutional. NYCLU legislative director Robert Perry also says that the ‘new law is a “back door” way of regulating video game content.’
While many additional libertarians, civil or otherwise, will be crying foul against this law, I posted the following as a comment:
Is it confusing to anyone why such a law would be deemed unconstitutional? It makes no sense to me. If they’re crying “1st Amendment violation!” we should note instantly that this is not the U.S. Congress passing a law infringing on the freedom of expression. This is a State-level body declaring their right, via the 9th and 10th Amendments, to regulate speech.
Now some of you are saying “Whoa, Mr. Anarchy says it’s OK for States to regulate speech!” According to the U.S. Constitution, they can. If their own State Constitution has a declaration of what they can’t do, and I hope many States do, then they should be bound by that. But if the People of a State decide that they want their speech regulated and restricted, nothing in the U.S. Constitution should prevent them from deciding it’s OK to be nannied to death by their State governments.
I’m all for dismantling the State, piece by piece, top-down, but in this case, I don’t see what the issue is. As long as the U.S. Congress does not try this tactic, as far as I know, it’s constitutional, and people will get what they deserve at the State level.
The U.S. Constitution is a series of rules that govern what the Federal government can do and what it can’t do. It does not cover the individual States. If the plebes of New York wish for their government to regulate their expressions, so be it. The U.S. Constitution does not limit New York’s power to destroy the inherent rights of the citizens of New York.
Of course New York’s Constitution might restrict their own government’s ability to infringe on the freedom of expression, but I have not read New York’s Constitution to see what their limits on government are.
If you support the U.S. Constitution, you should see that this law has nothing to do with the U.S. Congress, Judicial Branch or Executive Branch.
Posted by adam.dada on December 17th, 2007
By A.B. Dada
At a church I was making a delivery at this weekend, an assistant pastor mentioned to me that he’s hearing more and more about Ron Paul, but still hates his foreign policy. He asked me the status quo neoconservative question: “Don’t you think it’s wiser to take the war over there than to bring the war over here?”
My answer was: “No. Bring the war over here.”
He was shocked. Literally floored. With his mouth agape, and before he could respond, I told him I’d post a blog post for him, and him alone, but share it with the public. I think it’s a worthy post to share with others, because it opens up a realistic eye to this so-called war, and the definition of “them.”
When many think of “them” bringing the war to us, they think of 9/11. 9/11, a tragic event, an event that could have been prevented with less government, not more. No government in the world can prevent guerilla attacks. It isn’t possible. Yet private organizations can, and do, prevent outbreaks of mad people every day. I saw a drunk youth booted out of a shopping mall by armed guards once. It was fast, and no rights were violated. When 9/11 happened, my claim to fame was that I foresaw the event just 7 months earlier. I ran an email newsletter read by around 2000 people. I was ranting and raving about the inability of the airlines to monitor security, about the inability of pilots to arm themselves, about how ridiculous it was that pilot doors weren’t even locked (a year before 9/11, I witnessed an old lady accidentally open the flight-deck). Before 9/11, few listened. They felt secure. The day after 9/11, I was stuck in San Diego, and I received hundreds of emails asking me how I knew there would be an attack. My response was: “Because government got in the way.”
Terrorist attacks are infrequent even in the Middle East. We hear about all the ones that happen, but if you were to plot them out on a world map, you’d see they mostly happen in the same 2 or 3 locations. What is unique about those locations is the massive oversupply of government agents in those areas — agents there to supposedly secure the area. Yet just miles away from the most popular place for terrorists to attack, you see peaceful private citizens going about their lives: going to movies, eating fast food, shopping, living. The common sign is not where the terrorists are, but where uninvited agents of war exist.
So I welcome the idea of bringing the war over here, for many reasons:
1. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of innocent casualties that occur. I find it horrific that our government doesn’t keep track of how many innocents are murdered during our dalliances in foreign lands. I want to know. I think I have a right to know. It’s a more important fact than how many enemy combatants are killed. I also think that by not killing innocents, we’ll anger far fewer people. Blowback’s a mean enemy.
2. Reducing our foreign aggression would reduce the amount of money we spend on military games. It’s a massive figure, and when money matters get large, I have a law I wrote: “The bigger a monetary amount grows, the less understandable it is to common people.” When I mention to someone that a $100 car radio was stolen at the mall, they understand. When I mention that billions of dollars a year are stolen because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policy, they look like they didn’t hear me. Big numbers mean little connection to reality for most people. So I’ll put it this way: the U.S. government has to tax 10,000,000,000 people (about the size of the world’s population) $100 each to pay for the Iraq war. That’s 10 billion people paying $100 each. It’s staggering, since it takes a few hundred years for a single person to count up to a billion. They still don’t understand.
3. Reducing our foreign aggression will definitely reduce the amount of hatred aimed at the U.S. government. I’ll be in the Middle East with my wife on December 27th, less than 15 miles from Iran. We’re going shopping and sightseeing, and we’ll eat good food. I’ll take photos. It’s not a bad place to be. The people I know in the Middle East are constantly shocked at our saber-rattling, and many of them can’t understand why “we” hate “them” — most of the countries we supposedly hate looked very much like our own home towns. The photos you see in the paper and on TV would be akin to someone going to the California desert and calling it America. It’s called lying.
4. I know my neighbors in Illinois. Most of them are packing heat. That’s what a conservative area calls for: people using their God-given inherent right to protect their homes. I’d love to see any army, organized or not, try to walk 5 miles into the U.S. The U.S. army would be ridiculously undermanned if it had to repel an enemy attack. The U.S. private citizens would not be. We have 300 million adults in the U.S. We’re spending $1 trillion on a war that we’re losing, just as we’ve lost every war since the day after WWII ended. $1 trillion divided by 300 million adults = $3333 per adult. That’s more than enough money to arm every adult with a single firearm and enough ammo to last years. Personally, I gave up my gun ownership beliefs, but that’s the wonderful aspect of freedom: if the enemy has no idea who is armed, they’re less likely to attack. John Lott’s great book “More Guns, Less Crime” showcases how towns with few gun restrictions are the safest, and towns with heavy gun restrictions are the most dangerous. Criminals know what the laws are, and they know that the average resident will follow them. Why rob in a town with many legal guns when you can rob in a town with strict gun laws?
Seriously, bring it on. I know my neighbors wouldn’t stand for it. It doesn’t matter who attacks, because the minute a madman goes on a rampage, I can see 50 million or 100 million Americans not standing for it.
It’s a good answer. Let people hate us for our freedoms, our Imperialism, our love of Britney Spears, our use of trans-fat laden foods, or even our ice cream variety. What are they going to do? Come here? If they do, there is only two groups to blame: the attackers, and those who pretend to defend us.
We can defend ourselves. We don’t need the police (who can’t defend anyone while they write their traffic citations and play Dog the Bounty Hunter with those who jump bail on a minor pot charge). We don’t need the Army. All we need are individiuals who understand that they may be called to defend their families, their home, their neighbors and their towns. No one can destroy freedom except those voted to protect it. And if you’re familiar with the past 90 years, you understand that is exactly the case. 9/11 should have been responded to by returning more rights to individuals. Instead, we chose the wrong people.
Posted by adam.dada today
Posted in QuickLinks | No Comments