The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, September 04, 2004

Break the Law Legally...

Aaron's Note: The following is from Rex Curry and has been spread around a few Internet forums. I thought it appropriate, fun, and a great idea!

As a libertarian attorney, I am often asked about legal ways to do things that are normally illegal in the U.S. or in some states. One way to evade the U.S. police state is to travel. Vacations are a fun time to leave the U.S. and break as many U.S. laws as possible (but not really breaking the law because U.S. laws don't normally apply in foreign countries). It can be a fun time to leave your home state and break as many home-state laws as possible in another state (whenever friends visit from New York City we fill the car with guns and take them out shooting). Another example: Cuban cigars can be bought in most foreign countries (the U.S. police state prosecutes its citizens with felony charges for importing Cuban cigars). Gambling is enjoyed (gambling is illegal in much of the U.S. and the only reason Florida has any land-based casino gambling is thank goodness for the Indians). Grand Cayman has a turtle farm where humans can handle sea turtles (the U.S. police state prosecutes its citizens with felony charges for merely handling sea turtles). Grand Cayman serves turtle burgers and turtle fritters and turtle anyway it can be prepared (that's illegal in the U.S. and they will confiscate your turtle purchases). Mexico lets you walk on top of Mayan ruins (that is probably an arrestable offense in the U.S. police state). At the Grand Canyon, the Hualapai Indians will let people do things that would result in arrest or hassling by federal bureaucrats. Cruises are a great time to proselytize about liberty. Take T-shirts and caps that read "Say No to Searches" and "My socialist Slave number is 262-00-6302" and "More government means you need more guns" and "" all visible at Your audience is captive. And here's a neat trick: every time a boat photographer wants to shoot you, say "yes." Your shirts and caps will be sprinkled throughout the photo gallery and every single passenger will see them. And join in the videotaped activities that the cruise line replays constantly on the TV.

Nothing ruins a vacation like the government, and especially the U.S. police state. They demand your papers coming and going and they want the asinine U.S. Customs form 6059B (19 CFR 122.27, 148.12, 148.13, 148.110, 148.111, 1498, 31 CFR 5316) upon your return. You can be held prisoner for hours waiting in the heat for your government to let you go home. Everyone is fuming all over the boat about the local gestapo, and that is the perfect time to walk all the way around each level of the boat and then switch your shirt and cap and do it again, over and over, until the prisoners are released. Who knows, your shirts and caps might incite a riot.

AMSTERDAM: It has personal freedoms found almost no where else. and

ARIZONA: Reject government tours of the Grand Canyon. Embrace the Hualapai River Runners & Indian Reservation.

GRAND CAYMAN ISLANDS: tasty sea turtles and conchs, but no caimans!

LONDON: they need guns.

KEY WEST: see the Curry Mansion on the local tour and learn about the rich history of Curry Capitalists. and and

NEW YORK CITY: capitalism!

PHILADELPHIA: liberty seems so long ago.

TAMPA: discover it's heritage of freedom. Meet local libertarians, and enjoy boating, skiing and wakeboarding on the Hillsborough River. and and

YBOR CITY: don't let hysterical perversionists destroy it.

COZUMEL: May I ruin Mayan ruins? Yes! Learn about the libertarian heritage of cities and countries worldwide. Discover anarcheology in your own backyard. Laissez-faire is everywhere.

Schedule speaking engagements. Let an undefeated media debate champion help your local group.

(For more information on libertarianism see Rex Curry at and

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Friday, September 03, 2004


Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Let Americans provide their own security


Gun-control laws, like all ill-advised measures, have unintended, often unfortunate, consequences. This is especially true in the post-Sept. 11 environment.

Recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge upgraded the nation's alert status because of credible intelligence that several financial buildings in New York City, Newark, N.J., and Washington, D.C., are intended terrorist targets. Immediately, heavily armed, submachine-gun-toting government agents surrounded the buildings -- five in all -- and tightened security in the area.

Our founders' wisdom

What about other potential targets? While federal, state and local police were guarding these buildings, who was guarding the thousands of other potential targets nationwide? How long can this level of security be maintained at these five buildings? What if the terrorists wait until the extra security is removed and then act? What if they strike at unguarded buildings somewhere else?

This is where the wisdom of our founders comes into play. They advocated a nation-at-arms where everyone who wished would be armed. They went so far as to guarantee this right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As men of wisdom, intelligence and education, they knew that no one can always predict the type of threat that the nation might face. So they prepared for every eventuality by providing not only for national and state military (and naval) forces but also for an armed populace.

Why? Beyond the obvious need to counterbalance government gone awry, they understood that point defense is better than area defense. That is, a building, farm house, home, bridge or road intersection is easier to defend with few people than is a collection of buildings, farm houses, homes or a wider geographic area. Since national and state forces are, by their very nature and numbers, insufficient to provide point defense of all such structures and places, it stands to reason that the owners or inhabitants of these structures and places would be in a better position to guard and defend them. Besides, they would have a vested interest in doing so.

Cornering the enemy

The national and state forces would then be free to conduct offensive operations to subdue any hostile force rather than scatter its limited resources throughout the country attempting to defend inadequately everyone's home or business. A potential enemy would also be faced with defeating several layers of defenders and suffering the continued resistance of the populace if the organized forces were defeated, as in Iraq today.

However, gun control has made point defense of every possible target difficult if not impossible. If citizens were free to procure whatever firearms they desired without interference from government, as they should be, then the owners and occupiers of homes and businesses could provide their own high level of security using whatever weapons they considered appropriate, such as submachine guns. Government forces could then concentrate their limited resources in manpower, funds and equipment to seek out and destroy the terrorists without having to worry about guarding every possible static structure that a terrorist might attack.

We have ample evidence of how successful point defense by owners and inhabitants can be. During the Los Angeles riots of 1992, following the acquittal of the policemen charged with beating Rodney King, the National Guard and police refused to engage the looters and rioters. But several merchants -- mostly Korean -- used semiautomatic ''assault rifles'' with highcapacity magazines to successfully fend off the looters and save their businesses.

Arm, train the public

Also, in 1999, a man armed with a handgun took three hostages at a shooting range in San Mateo, Calif. An employee took a gun from the range and shot the gunman, freeing the hostages. According to the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms funded by the Justice Department under President Clinton, between 1.5 and three million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others every year. Point defense by armed citizens works very well.

Instead of hamstringing people with myriad gun-control measures, governments at all levels should encourage them to arm and train themselves. Funds for homeland security would thus be better spent, American military and security forces relieved of an impossible task and homeland security enhanced.

Benedict LaRosa, a historian and writer, serves as a policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Monday, August 30, 2004


Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Utah Freedom Activist Newsletter

A new issue of the Utah Freedom Activist Newsletter is now available:

Got comments? Email me, dammit!