If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of?

Radar · 12-05-2002, 01:11 PM

If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of?

By Harry Browne

The Homeland Security bill is now law – following in the footsteps of all the new government intrusions of the past 14 months. And as concerns are raised about the new powers of the government, we continue to hear the familiar refrain, "If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to fear. These restrictions are necessary to catch terrorists, but they won't hurt innocent people."

Sure.

The well-known phrase, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," could easily be reworded to read, "I'm from Congress and this program will turn out exactly as we promise it will."

Government has failed to educate our children properly, it has made a mess of our health-care system, it can't balance its budget, it can't keep its spending in line, it can't keep drugs out of its own prisons – but we're assured that it will run a squeaky-clean homeland security program.

It's bad enough that government wastes so much of our money, but it's even worse that almost anyone could wind up in prison – even someone who has committed no act of violence against anyone else. Look at the hundreds of thousands of pot-smokers who took seriously the statement that "a woman [or man] has a right to control his own body."

The guilty and the innocent

Why should we think the so-called War on Terrorism will be conducted with more regard for individual rights than anything the government has done up to now?

And yet, no matter how bad the government's record, whenever Congress passes a new piece of draconian legislation, we're assured that only the guilty will be hurt by these laws.

If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection against government agencies that have the power to do what they think best – or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing do whatever he has to do in order to get it.

In fact, it is almost always the innocent – not the guilty – who suffer most from government's intrusions.

Tell the most unprejudiced businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn't discriminate.
Tell a homeowner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken – or contrived – drug raid.
Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a "taxpayer compliance" audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties.

Being innocent doesn't allow you to ignore the government's demands for reports – or to say "No, thanks" when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home – or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you.

How laws go wrong

How many times have we seen the following pattern?

[list=1][*]The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, gun deaths, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern Of The Month.
[*]A tough new take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place.
[*]The guilty make it their business to understand whatever new policy might affect them – and they take steps to sidestep the inspections and background checks, and to keep their property out of reach of asset forfeiture laws. The innocent know little about such laws – having been told they have nothing to fear – and are surprised and helpless when some zealous law-enforcement agency, looking to pad its arrest and prosecution records, moves in on them.
[*]After the dust settles, the initial "problem" continues unabated, because the guilty have slipped through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and dangers. If they're lucky, they suffer only from having more reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War On ________ (fill in the blank). But those who aren't so lucky may wind up in prison – as have thousands of non-drug-using individuals who were convicted on drug charges.
[*]Needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed.[/list=1]

When government force is used to solve social problems, we all suffer and nothing good is ever achieved. But coercion is wondrously effective at harming the innocent. All our lives are diminished.

Even worse, every year, a few million innocent people suffer special burdens – greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights allows the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them – even though they've committed no crimes.

I hope you never become one of them. But no one can guarantee that.

wolf · 12-05-2002, 01:16 PM

Well, I'm kinda afraid of spiders ...

Oh, wait, that's not what your post meant.

Unfortunately entirely too many people have the "i'm not doing anything wrong so 'they' won't bother me" blinders firmly installed on their worldview.

Tobiasly · 12-05-2002, 01:28 PM

I'll be the first to stand up and say the war on drugs has been and will always be a complete and total failure. But I don't consider terrorism a "social issue".

Radar · 12-05-2002, 01:39 PM

Attacking our civil rights in the name of security isn't a new idea. It's been done for hundreds if not thousands of years. Our founding fathers knew full well the dangers involved with this ideology.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I just don't get people who think that in order to stop others from taking our freedom we must allow our government to take it first.

And the worst part is these intrusions on our lives and civil rights don't even provide the security they promise. If we didn't have our military spread out all over the world in a show of offensive force like the Roman Empire trying to bully everyone else for our own imperialistic ends, we wouldn't have as many people wanting to attack us.

If our military was here in America doing their job as a DEFENSIVE force rather than an OFFENSIVE one spread out all over, we'd have almost no worries.

Why do we need a homeland security department? Our military has only one purpose and that's to defend American ships and American soil. Not to be the police of the world, not to settle disputes among other nations, not to defend our allies, not for humanitarian aid missions, and certainly not to overthrow the leaders of other sovereign nations because we don't like them.

If the homeland security department is supposed to defend American soil, what's the military for? Defending the empire?

headsplice · 12-05-2002, 02:16 PM

Harry Browne for P in 2k4!

Undertoad · 12-05-2002, 04:53 PM

Harry Browne will not run for President in 04. He's all about the bling bling. A hobbled national LP with dwindling membership is not fertile fundraising grounds, especially if your second round was so much crappier than your first.

Radar · 12-05-2002, 05:03 PM

Harry Browne isn't about the "bling bling". He's a wealthy investment banker and doesn't need the money. Unlike socialists like the Republicans, Democrats, and Green party who begged for federal matching funds, Harry Browne is the only candidate in American history that qualified for federal matching funds and refused to take them on principle because it would make him just as corrupt as the other parties.

And for your information the Libertarian party is the fastest growing party in America, has more members in elected offices than all other third parties combined, and isn't linked to special interest groups like those other parties. Also the major two parties are shrinking as more and more of their members wake up to the reality that there's virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both attack our civil rights. Both increase the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government.

Harry isn't running because he's getting a little old to do it again. His showing at the last election is hardly representative because many people crossed party lines to make sure GWB didn't get elected only to find out the election was fixed by Jeb.

There are plenty of great Libertarian people who would make a better president than any in the last 100 years. I like Bill Masters a lot and would love to see him run in 2004 or 2008.

elSicomoro · 12-05-2002, 05:22 PM

I'm going with Mickey Mouse next election...

Undertoad · 12-05-2002, 05:25 PM

Yes. So wealthy that he couldn't afford to pay his staff, after only attending a dozen state conventions in 1999, spending over $1M in donated campaign money, and temporarily stopping the campaign.

He won't run in 04. The clique is discredited. Perry Willis is gone. Dasbach is quitting. The Howell campaign left a big stinking turd in Massachusetts.

You don't want me to pull rank on you soldier. You don't know who you're talking to.

Radar · 12-05-2002, 05:27 PM

I envy democracy in Russia now. The people choose their own leader without an electoral college to work as a middle-man to screw things up. They also automatically get the choice 'NONE OF THE ABOVE" on their ballots. If "none of the above" wins a new election is forced and the original candidates can't take part.

hermit22 · 12-05-2002, 05:30 PM

I think I'm going to go potted plant.

slang · 12-05-2002, 05:31 PM

<h4>Radar</h4>

When I was living in Mi, there was a state rep that was a libertarian. He was not from my district and I can't remember his name. He was occasionally referred to on local radio as "Representative NO". He voted no on nearly everything.

RN voted for 2 bills in his term. One was for the the reduction of state congressional pay!

For the most part RN was totally useless, he voted against everything, but we need more RN's now. We need US Senator Nos.

<h4>We need a "President No"</h4>

Radar · 12-05-2002, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Yes. So wealthy that he couldn't afford to pay his staff, after only attending a dozen state conventions in 1999, spending over $1M in donated campaign money, and temporarily stopping the campaign.

He spent millions on his first bid for the presidency and was only going to use donated funds for the second election. And he would not accept any corporate donations or any private donations of more than $1,000 per household per year. It's a matter of integrity and principle.

Quote:

He won't run in 04. The clique is discredited. Perry Willis is gone. Dasbach is quitting. The Howell campaign left a big stinking turd in Massachusetts.

There's nothing discredited in the LP. Dabasch is leaving for personal reasons. And Carla Howell got 45.4% towards getting rid of state income tax in Taxachussets. That's an amazing accomplishment. And the Republicans who supposedly want to lower taxes and have smaller government came out strongly opposed to getting rid of state tax. What a shocker!

And I'm all about the LP. I don't think you know who you're messing with either.

I see Bill Masters as a great guy and think he'd be great to lead this country.

SLANG: A Libertarian president would use a truckload of pens to veto everything that passed their desk. A Libertarian would veto anything that wasn't specifically listed in the constitution and work to get rid of the unconstitional parts of government already around.

We've got waaay too many laws. So many that our elected officials call themselves "law makers". I'd much rather have a law eraser than a law maker.

slang · 12-05-2002, 05:39 PM

"And Carla Howell got 45.4%"

AND, she'd make Mass safer by throwing out all the stupid gun laws.

Have I crossed the line into nuisance yet?

Undertoad · 12-05-2002, 05:50 PM

Carla Howell got 1% and her cloudy boyfriend got 19% for Senate in a two-way race and you know it. The Green party candidate beat Howell like a rented mule, getting three times as many votes. Even your spin point is a loser at 45%.

Let the Kool-aid wear off man!

12-05-2002, 01:11 PM	#1
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of? If you aren't guilty, what are you afraid of? By Harry Browne The Homeland Security bill is now law – following in the footsteps of all the new government intrusions of the past 14 months. And as concerns are raised about the new powers of the government, we continue to hear the familiar refrain, "If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to fear. These restrictions are necessary to catch terrorists, but they won't hurt innocent people." Sure. The well-known phrase, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," could easily be reworded to read, "I'm from Congress and this program will turn out exactly as we promise it will." Government has failed to educate our children properly, it has made a mess of our health-care system, it can't balance its budget, it can't keep its spending in line, it can't keep drugs out of its own prisons – but we're assured that it will run a squeaky-clean homeland security program. It's bad enough that government wastes so much of our money, but it's even worse that almost anyone could wind up in prison – even someone who has committed no act of violence against anyone else. Look at the hundreds of thousands of pot-smokers who took seriously the statement that "a woman [or man] has a right to control his own body." The guilty and the innocent Why should we think the so-called War on Terrorism will be conducted with more regard for individual rights than anything the government has done up to now? And yet, no matter how bad the government's record, whenever Congress passes a new piece of draconian legislation, we're assured that only the guilty will be hurt by these laws. If only that were so. The truth is that innocence is no protection against government agencies that have the power to do what they think best – or against a government agent hoping for promotion and willing do whatever he has to do in order to get it. In fact, it is almost always the innocent – not the guilty – who suffer most from government's intrusions. Tell the most unprejudiced businessman he has nothing to fear from the piles of forms he must file to prove he doesn't discriminate. Tell a homeowner he has nothing to fear when his property is seized by the government in a mistaken – or contrived – drug raid. Tell a taxpayer he has nothing to fear when the IRS drags him into a "taxpayer compliance" audit that eats up a week of his life, costs him thousands of dollars in accounting fees, and threatens him with unbearable penalties. Being innocent doesn't allow you to ignore the government's demands for reports – or to say "No, thanks" when a government agent wants to search your records, your place of business, or your home – or to refuse to observe regulations that were aimed at the guilty, not you. How laws go wrong How many times have we seen the following pattern? [list=1][]The press and politicians demand that something be done about violent crime, terrorist acts, drug dealing, gun deaths, tax evasion, or whatever is the Urgent Concern Of The Month. []A tough new take-no-prisoners law or policy is put into place. []The guilty make it their business to understand whatever new policy might affect them – and they take steps to sidestep the inspections and background checks, and to keep their property out of reach of asset forfeiture laws. The innocent know little about such laws – having been told they have nothing to fear – and are surprised and helpless when some zealous law-enforcement agency, looking to pad its arrest and prosecution records, moves in on them. []After the dust settles, the initial "problem" continues unabated, because the guilty have slipped through the net. But the innocent are left burdened with new chores, expenses, and dangers. If they're lucky, they suffer only from having more reports to file, less privacy, reduced access to products and services, higher costs, heavier taxes, and a new set of penalties for those who shirk their duty to fight in the War On ________ (fill in the blank). But those who aren't so lucky may wind up in prison – as have thousands of non-drug-using individuals who were convicted on drug charges. [*]Needless to say, the ineffectual law is never repealed.[/list=1] When government force is used to solve social problems, we all suffer and nothing good is ever achieved. But coercion is wondrously effective at harming the innocent. All our lives are diminished. Even worse, every year, a few million innocent people suffer special burdens – greater than those the government places on all of us. The dismantling of the Bill of Rights allows the government to disrupt their lives, confiscate their property, or even kill them – even though they've committed no crimes. I hope you never become one of them. But no one can guarantee that.

12-05-2002, 01:16 PM	#2
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Well, I'm kinda afraid of spiders ... Oh, wait, that's not what your post meant. Unfortunately entirely too many people have the "i'm not doing anything wrong so 'they' won't bother me" blinders firmly installed on their worldview. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

12-05-2002, 02:16 PM	#5
headsplice Relaxed Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 676	Harry Browne for P in 2k4! __________________ Don't Panic

12-05-2002, 05:30 PM	#11
hermit22 sleep. Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: So Cal. Posts: 257	I think I'm going to go potted plant. __________________ blippety blah bluh blah blah

12-05-2002, 05:31 PM	#12
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	<h4>Radar</h4> When I was living in Mi, there was a state rep that was a libertarian. He was not from my district and I can't remember his name. He was occasionally referred to on local radio as "Representative NO". He voted no on nearly everything. RN voted for 2 bills in his term. One was for the the reduction of state congressional pay! For the most part RN was totally useless, he voted against everything, but we need more RN's now. We need US Senator Nos. <h4>We need a "President No"</h4> Last edited by slang; 12-05-2002 at 05:35 PM.

12-05-2002, 01:28 PM	#3
Tobiasly hot Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Jeffersonville, IN (near Louisville) Posts: 892	I'll be the first to stand up and say the war on drugs has been and will always be a complete and total failure. But I don't consider terrorism a "social issue".

12-05-2002, 01:39 PM	#4
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Attacking our civil rights in the name of security isn't a new idea. It's been done for hundreds if not thousands of years. Our founding fathers knew full well the dangers involved with this ideology. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin I just don't get people who think that in order to stop others from taking our freedom we must allow our government to take it first. And the worst part is these intrusions on our lives and civil rights don't even provide the security they promise. If we didn't have our military spread out all over the world in a show of offensive force like the Roman Empire trying to bully everyone else for our own imperialistic ends, we wouldn't have as many people wanting to attack us. If our military was here in America doing their job as a DEFENSIVE force rather than an OFFENSIVE one spread out all over, we'd have almost no worries. Why do we need a homeland security department? Our military has only one purpose and that's to defend American ships and American soil. Not to be the police of the world, not to settle disputes among other nations, not to defend our allies, not for humanitarian aid missions, and certainly not to overthrow the leaders of other sovereign nations because we don't like them. If the homeland security department is supposed to defend American soil, what's the military for? Defending the empire?

12-05-2002, 04:53 PM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Harry Browne will not run for President in 04. He's all about the bling bling. A hobbled national LP with dwindling membership is not fertile fundraising grounds, especially if your second round was so much crappier than your first.

12-05-2002, 05:03 PM	#7
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Harry Browne isn't about the "bling bling". He's a wealthy investment banker and doesn't need the money. Unlike socialists like the Republicans, Democrats, and Green party who begged for federal matching funds, Harry Browne is the only candidate in American history that qualified for federal matching funds and refused to take them on principle because it would make him just as corrupt as the other parties. And for your information the Libertarian party is the fastest growing party in America, has more members in elected offices than all other third parties combined, and isn't linked to special interest groups like those other parties. Also the major two parties are shrinking as more and more of their members wake up to the reality that there's virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both attack our civil rights. Both increase the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government. Harry isn't running because he's getting a little old to do it again. His showing at the last election is hardly representative because many people crossed party lines to make sure GWB didn't get elected only to find out the election was fixed by Jeb. There are plenty of great Libertarian people who would make a better president than any in the last 100 years. I like Bill Masters a lot and would love to see him run in 2004 or 2008.

12-05-2002, 05:22 PM	#8
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	I'm going with Mickey Mouse next election...

12-05-2002, 05:25 PM	#9
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Yes. So wealthy that he couldn't afford to pay his staff, after only attending a dozen state conventions in 1999, spending over $1M in donated campaign money, and temporarily stopping the campaign. He won't run in 04. The clique is discredited. Perry Willis is gone. Dasbach is quitting. The Howell campaign left a big stinking turd in Massachusetts. You don't want me to pull rank on you soldier. You don't know who you're talking to.

12-05-2002, 05:27 PM	#10
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	I envy democracy in Russia now. The people choose their own leader without an electoral college to work as a middle-man to screw things up. They also automatically get the choice 'NONE OF THE ABOVE" on their ballots. If "none of the above" wins a new election is forced and the original candidates can't take part.

12-05-2002, 05:39 PM	#14
slang St Petersburg, Florida Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,423	"And Carla Howell got 45.4%" AND, she'd make Mass safer by throwing out all the stupid gun laws. Have I crossed the line into nuisance yet?

12-05-2002, 05:50 PM	#15
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Carla Howell got 1% and her cloudy boyfriend got 19% for Senate in a two-way race and you know it. The Green party candidate beat Howell like a rented mule, getting three times as many votes. Even your spin point is a loser at 45%. Let the Kool-aid wear off man!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)