"Please Don't Shoot Me," Man Begged Before Cop Shot and Killed Him → skypig357: john-paul-jonesing-for-liberty: everythingsks: arizonagunguy: laliberty: arizonagunguy: laliberty: Moments before a Mesa, Arizona, police officer killed Daniel Shaver with five shots from an AR-15, Shaver was on all fours, pleading with officers not to shoot him, according to a newly released police report from the incident. Shaver, a twenty-six-year-old from Texas, was killed on January 18. Philip Brailsford, the two-year Mesa Police Department officer who allegedly killed him, was fired from the department and charged with second-degree murder. Shaver was staying at a Mesa La Quinta Inn on a work-related trip when he was killed, according to a local ABC affiliate. The police report (viewable in full here) alleges that officers received a call about a man pointing a rifle out Shaver’s fifth-floor hotel window. According to the police report, the officers who responded asked Shaver and a woman he was with to exit the room. Shaver exited, then raised his hands and dropped to his knees. An officer told him to lay on the ground, and he did. He was “obviously compliant and offered no resistance at that point,” the report reads. Then, Shaver was ordered to put his hands behind his head, cross his legs, and not move. If he moved, the officer told him, he would be considered a threat, and “may not survive it.” The officers then ordered the woman Shaver was with to crawl towards them, and ordered Shaver back to a kneeling position. “If you do that again, we’re shooting you. Do you understand?” an officer asked him, apparently referencing Shaver’s failure to immediately raise his hands as he kneeled. “No, please don’t shoot me,” Shaver replied. At around this point, according to the report, he began sobbing.

Officers ordered Shaver to crawl toward them, and he complied, “audibly sobbing” as he did so. As he crawled, he briefly moved his hand toward his waist and back toward his body, and Officer Brailsford began shooting. “The movement of SHAVER’s right arm in the recording was a very similar motion to someone drawing a pistol from their waist band,” the report reads. However, it continues, “SHAVER’s underwear were clearly visible and it appeared his shorts had fallen partially down his leg at that point. SHAVER’s motion was also consistent with attempting to pull his shorts up as they were falling off.” Monique Portillo, the woman who was with Shaver, told police that she was also staying at the hotel on business, and that she and a male coworker had met Shaver in the elevator. Shaver invited them to do shots in his room, and when they arrived, Portillo asked Shaver about a case in the room, which she thought might contain a musical instrument. Shaver opened it, revealing the rifle and a dead sparrow. He told her Portillo that he worked for Walmart and that his job was to kill birds that made their way into the store. (The store does apparently employ people to shoot and kill birds.) Shaver and the other man began playing with the rifle, according to Portillo, pointing it out the window as they did so. Luis Nunez, the other man, left the room to call his wife before police arrived, Portillo said. The report’s detailed description of Shaver’s death is sourced from an interview with Portillo and from body camera footage from one of the officers, which Mesa police have not released. Both state prosecutors and Brailsford’s defense attorneys are arguing that the footage should remain sealed. BuzzFeed News notes that Laney Sweet, Shaver’s widow, recorded a conversation in which a prosecutor told her she could view the body camera footage, but only if she did not speak to the media about it. She declined, and uploaded audio of the conversation to YouTube. Sweet also said in the video that prosecutors told her they planned to offer Brailsford a plea deal for negligent homicide—a lesser charge.

It’s not black vs white or rich vs poor or red vs blue or young vs old; it’s the state vs us.

This is retarded. An officer arrives to a scene about a guy pointing a rifle out a fucking window. Do you know how many times people “give up”, cry, and plea, only to pull a gun on an officer? Hundreds of times. This guy would be alive if him and his fuck head friends didn’t fuck around to begin with. And just followed the officers orders. If your pants are falling down let them fall down. If a cop tells you to not make a certain move, don’t make that move. Now this cop was freaking out thinking he potentially has an active shooter on his hands and if him and the victim had proper communication, this man wouldn’t have lost his life, and the cop wouldn’t be going to jail for murdering some one. This was a fucked up situation all around. @skypig357 any input? “Comply or die,” particularly when someone is clearly prone and subdued, is a horrendous edict fit only for those with a reptilian intellect. The cop’s statements leading up to the shooting suggests this was the road that cop was hoping to travel from the start.

No one denies he and his co-workers weren’t knuckleheads for playing with a rifle (no doubt a small caliber if it were intended to shoot sparrows) out of a building window. And if he had been shot while brandishing said rifle out of the window, this would be a completely different scenario. But an intelligent human with a badge would have a better assessment of who and what is an actual threat. It’s pretty clear the prone, wimpering man without a record laying on the ground with his underwear showing isn’t hiding a rifle down there or anywhere. That officer never saw a weapon. He only had a third-hand report of one. It is completely irresponsible to jump from that to killing for a hand motion. This should be obvious to anyone whose only response is to defend cops at all times. That he was fired - an extraordinary step considering the general lack of accountability and various protections from liability enjoyed by police - should speak volumes. I’m not sure if you’ve been involved in law enforcement for any period of time but it’s hard to understand why cops do certain things if you haven’t been there yourself. People of all shapes sizes genders color and ages have shot police. Who’s to say this man wouldn’t shoot an officer? The man was wearing shorts over his underwear (like most people do) and criminals have crawled towards cops (with a gun in their waistband behind their back) complying, then drawn their gun and fired at officers. Just because it was 3rd hand doesn’t mean the officer should let his guard down. This cop was trigger happy yes. I’m not saying he was right for shooting this guy. I agree with the charges brought forth against the officer for his actions. But with people trying to gun down police at every chance they get, cops are on edge. People fake hurt all the time just so they can get close to a cop to hurt them. Im with AZ on this. I’m not. You don’t get to shoot people out of fear they may do something. You shoot only when lethal force is justified. If y’all need a refresher on what is justified lethal force you may want to revisit one of @skypig357‘s lectures on the subject. I may criticize his common use of the legal standard in some cases but here it’s entirely applicable. “Do you know how many times people “give up”, cry, and plea, only to pull a gun on an officer”

That’s not justification for lethal force. Ever. The threat has to be apparent, and active. Lethal force is only justified until the threat is gone. Once the threat is gone, any further action is just retribution or literal execution. A reasonable officer would believe the subject had means, opportunity and intent to commit violence likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. That’s the standard, and one I very much agree with. It’s robust and not easily met but also not impossible to reach. And point of fact, it doesn’t have to be active. It can be threatened, even. But you are very much right about once the threat is gone the force must stress This case is kind of on the cusp. I don’t like the force, but it’s not completely wrong either, as the elements can be argued here A “reasonable officer,” maybe - but that’s only because their standards are lower than everyone else apparently. There’s no way a “reasonable human” would “believe the subject had means, opportunity and intent to commit violence likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.” It seems fairly clear based on all the facts presented that this prone and whimpering man laying face down on the ground was no threat. And as I stated previously, the officer had not seen a weapon on this man. It was a third-person account of a weapon. There was reason to be cautious, to be sure, but there is absolutely nothing that suggests that this weeping man presented a real threat to anyone while face down on the ground surrounded by cops. If cops aren’t capable of reading human behavior and understanding basic social cues, then perhaps they shouldn’t be armed and interacting with people? The only one with “the means, opportunity[,] and intent to commit violence likely to cause death or serious bodily injury” in this scenario is the officer who ultimately did (you know, the one holding an actual weapon on a person, making lethal threats, and then following through). There was no apparent or active threat that required a lethal response. Again: that he was fired and charged - extraordinary steps considering the general lack of accountability and various protections from liability enjoyed by police - should speak volumes. And if the video, which does exist, clearly absolves the officer, I have no doubt we would have seen it already. The fact that the video not only hasn’t been released but the widow would only have been allowed to see it under the explicit instructions to not speak to the media about it - coupled with, again, the fact that despite countless protections the cop was charged and the prosecutors offered a plea of negligent homicide - should inform the average outsider plenty on Brailsford’s culpability. If your position, in general, is that cops deserve greater respect (somehow? as if sweeping adulation and genuflection from the majority coupled with myriad legal protections and generous pensions isn’t enough?) - coming to the defense of even those who are clearly in the wrong will not endear the skeptical to your side.

Furthermore, to skirt so close to painting a picture of nigh-infallibility amongst police can only embolden the leftist gun-grabbers in believing that average citizens needn’t be armed. Otherwise, the lesson here is clear: comply or die. No doubt the founding principles of the land of the free… (Source: laliberty, via skypig357)

"Please Don't Shoot Me," Man Begged Before Cop Shot and Killed Him → arizonagunguy: laliberty: Moments before a Mesa, Arizona, police officer killed Daniel Shaver with five shots from an AR-15, Shaver was on all fours, pleading with officers not to shoot him, according to a newly released police report from the incident. Shaver, a twenty-six-year-old from Texas, was killed on January 18. Philip Brailsford, the two-year Mesa Police Department officer who allegedly killed him, was fired from the department and charged with second-degree murder. Shaver was staying at a Mesa La Quinta Inn on a work-related trip when he was killed, according to a local ABC affiliate. The police report (viewable in full here) alleges that officers received a call about a man pointing a rifle out Shaver’s fifth-floor hotel window. According to the police report, the officers who responded asked Shaver and a woman he was with to exit the room. Shaver exited, then raised his hands and dropped to his knees. An officer told him to lay on the ground, and he did. He was “obviously compliant and offered no resistance at that point,” the report reads. Then, Shaver was ordered to put his hands behind his head, cross his legs, and not move. If he moved, the officer told him, he would be considered a threat, and “may not survive it.” The officers then ordered the woman Shaver was with to crawl towards them, and ordered Shaver back to a kneeling position. “If you do that again, we’re shooting you. Do you understand?” an officer asked him, apparently referencing Shaver’s failure to immediately raise his hands as he kneeled. “No, please don’t shoot me,” Shaver replied. At around this point, according to the report, he began sobbing.

Officers ordered Shaver to crawl toward them, and he complied, “audibly sobbing” as he did so. As he crawled, he briefly moved his hand toward his waist and back toward his body, and Officer Brailsford began shooting. “The movement of SHAVER’s right arm in the recording was a very similar motion to someone drawing a pistol from their waist band,” the report reads. However, it continues, “SHAVER’s underwear were clearly visible and it appeared his shorts had fallen partially down his leg at that point. SHAVER’s motion was also consistent with attempting to pull his shorts up as they were falling off.” Monique Portillo, the woman who was with Shaver, told police that she was also staying at the hotel on business, and that she and a male coworker had met Shaver in the elevator. Shaver invited them to do shots in his room, and when they arrived, Portillo asked Shaver about a case in the room, which she thought might contain a musical instrument. Shaver opened it, revealing the rifle and a dead sparrow. He told her Portillo that he worked for Walmart and that his job was to kill birds that made their way into the store. (The store does apparently employ people to shoot and kill birds.) Shaver and the other man began playing with the rifle, according to Portillo, pointing it out the window as they did so. Luis Nunez, the other man, left the room to call his wife before police arrived, Portillo said. The report’s detailed description of Shaver’s death is sourced from an interview with Portillo and from body camera footage from one of the officers, which Mesa police have not released. Both state prosecutors and Brailsford’s defense attorneys are arguing that the footage should remain sealed. BuzzFeed News notes that Laney Sweet, Shaver’s widow, recorded a conversation in which a prosecutor told her she could view the body camera footage, but only if she did not speak to the media about it. She declined, and uploaded audio of the conversation to YouTube. Sweet also said in the video that prosecutors told her they planned to offer Brailsford a plea deal for negligent homicide—a lesser charge.

It’s not black vs white or rich vs poor or red vs blue or young vs old; it’s the state vs us.

This is retarded. An officer arrives to a scene about a guy pointing a rifle out a fucking window. Do you know how many times people “give up”, cry, and plea, only to pull a gun on an officer? Hundreds of times. This guy would be alive if him and his fuck head friends didn’t fuck around to begin with. And just followed the officers orders. If your pants are falling down let them fall down. If a cop tells you to not make a certain move, don’t make that move. Now this cop was freaking out thinking he potentially has an active shooter on his hands and if him and the victim had proper communication, this man wouldn’t have lost his life, and the cop wouldn’t be going to jail for murdering some one. This was a fucked up situation all around. @skypig357 any input? “Comply or die,” particularly when someone is clearly prone and subdued, is a horrendous edict fit only for those with a reptilian intellect. The cop’s statements leading up to the shooting suggests this was the road that cop was hoping to travel from the start.

No one denies he and his co-workers weren’t knuckleheads for playing with a rifle (no doubt a small caliber if it were intended to shoot sparrows) out of a building window. And if he had been shot while brandishing said rifle out of the window, this would be a completely different scenario. But an intelligent human with a badge would have a better assessment of who and what is an actual threat. It’s pretty clear the prone, whimpering man without a record laying on the ground with his underwear showing isn’t hiding a rifle down there or anywhere. That officer never saw a weapon. He only had a third-hand report of one. It is completely irresponsible to jump from that to killing for a hand motion. This should be obvious to anyone whose only response is to defend cops at all times. That he was fired - an extraordinary step considering the general lack of accountability and various protections from liability enjoyed by police - should speak volumes. (Source: laliberty, via arizonagunguy-deactivated201805)

theheartofapatriot asked: How do libertarians feel about the UN? Should we withdraw our involvement with them and remove their headquarters from the USA? bonniekristian: Eh, I think that depends on the libertarian. Many are suspicious of supranational organizations like the UN because of sovereignty concerns—i.e. as nonresponsive and unrepresentative as our government can be, at least the lawmaking body is theoretically under citizens’ control. With something like the UN, there’s at least one step of removal for the American ambassador, and obviously we have no control over all the other nations’ representatives and goals. So there’s a justified wariness, I think, of the UN’s ability to influence domestic policy in particular. (Of course, sometimes this suspicion operates regardless of true threats.) At the same time, however, some libertarians may like the UN in the sense that it creates formal space for diplomacy as an alternative to war, or because of the UN’s involvement in things like the Geneva Conventions, which—in theory, anyway—ban stuff like torture and indefinite detention. I would guess that libertarians who place a higher value on federalism would be more likely to oppose the UN, while those who are more interested in protecting individual rights irrespective of what level of government is doing that protection would be more likely to approve of at least some of the UN’s functions. But I’m interested to see what other libertarians have to say about my guess/this issue in general, so reblog with your own views! I would guess that libertarians who place a higher value on federalism would be more likely to oppose the UN, while those who are more interested in protecting individual rights irrespective of what level of government is doing that protection would be more likely to approve of at least some of the UN’s functions.

That’s a bit of false framing, with the assumption being that the UN is successful at “protecting individual rights,” which is certainly not the case. Further, there are those of us who value protecting individual rights and, if necessary, will pit one “governing body” against another to achieve those ends but we also recognize that the smaller and closer the body is to the individual the more sensitive it will be to the individual’s demands. A super-governmental entity - that engages in all sorts of international misdeeds is far more receptive to the demands of the politically powerful than any individual subject. This is evident in how the UN serves as a surrogate for countless hostilities and aggressions and corporatist protectionism around the globe (not to mention the U.N.’s efforts with regards to climate change and gun control). Instead of another entity that may protect individual rights, it’s another entity that could and does violate individual rights.

Yes, I’m aware that welfare programs do not always achieve their intended goals, and yes, I agree that alternative forms of assistance would work better, but given the way in which government policies have harmed lower-skilled workers and are responsible for their poverty, the right sequence of reform is to open up opportunities to heal their legs before we take away whatever crutches they might have, even if said crutches aren’t very effective. — Steve Horwitz (via hipsterlibertarian) hipsterlibertarian: laliberty: A noble sentiment, but I can’t pick the order - I must simply snap at every opportunity. And it would be morally unacceptable to actively continue an injustice if an opportunity to end it presents itself simply because a greater injustice exists. Either one is against aggression and in favor of consent or one isn’t. I understand that there are minor victories within certain frameworks that are themselves inferior to the overarching goal - say, lowering taxes instead of ending them, or allowing gay marriage instead of eliminating the state’s involvement in marriage altogether - but this is not the argument made. Welfare programs are not only predicated on theft, they undermine societal pressures to alleviate poverty, they create schisms between communities and fan the flames of class warfare by generating resentment, they breed opportunities for corruption and increase political control. The Welfare State, which supposedly functions as a “safety net” for individuals in unfortunate circumstances by providing them assistance (mostly financial), is not only wasteful and corrupt when run through the bureaucratic, palm-greasing sausage-factory that is the state - it also has been shown to function as an impediment in allowing the downtrodden to escape from the cycle of poverty and dependence. It is, in fact, one of the many ways government hurts the poor. I don’t disagree, of course, with your conclusion that these programs are “one of the many ways government hurts the poor,” or that they tend to produce corruption and all other sorts of social ills. But I’m still with Horwitz about the importance of humane timing. I’ve always liked Ron Paul’s comments on this subject: While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help—churches and private charities. Furthermore, I suspect all of us—you, me, Horwitz, and Paul—support a far faster dismantling of the welfare state than is remotely on the table politically, and in terms of real life proposals actually coming out of Washington, we’d probably have little or no disagreement. (After all, any discussion of actually ending these programs at any pace is at this point basically fantasy.) But my conviction is that in some hypothetical situation where libertarians got to edit the state at will, it would be necessary to allow adequate time for people who legitimately do need assistance and/or new economic opportunities to get their situation figured out before they’re left without the state support they’ve been told to expect. I’m not saying this is something that needs to take 20 years—but I am saying it can’t take 20 days, and it also shouldn’t be the very first order of business. Theft to fund welfare programs is bad, but in the short term of our hypothetical transition period, instantly turning helpless people out on the streets without allowing time for a robust alternative system of private, voluntary support to develop is worse. Although we have a lot of common ground here, I must disagree with your conclusion. If we can’t end certain state aggression until “a robust alternative system of private, voluntary support” develops despite the fact that the advancement of such a system is impeded by said aggression then all change is thus rendered impossible. Again, I wholly understand prioritizing. I almost offered that Ron Paul quote myself to further reiterate that I understand the argument. And if someone gave me the option of cutting a billion dollars in warfare spending, corporate handouts, or welfare support for the poor - the welfare spending would certainly be my last choice. But it doesn’t work like that. We have to seize every opportunity to neuter leviathan whenever possible. If we pass up an opportunity because greater injustices exist, we will be effectively neutering ourselves. And, incidentally, in this theoretical (and grossly unlikely) scenario of instantaneously ending support for the “helpless,” the theft of the rest of us would presumably also be instantaneously ended. Productivity would necessarily skyrocket when people discontinue being tax leeches (this includes politicians, bureacrats, and other government bums) and enter the private (productive) sector. Keynesians warned at the end of World War 2 that the returning soldiers, along with the sudden end to all the war spending, would cause grave unemployment and economic calamity. Instead, we saw the greatest rise in human productivity the world had ever seen. Similarly, the returning of resources to those who both have most to gain and lose will no doubt increase wealth production. And the more there is, the more there is to give - more jobs, more charity, more opportunity, more wealth. It would also force families and communities - those closest to, and thus most intimately familiar with, the “helpless” in need of assistance - to be more involved (and with the end of state theft and interference in peaceful, mutually beneficial exchange, they’d be better equipped to do so). That’s far more helpful than continuing the cycle of dependency and poverty. Realistically, it is unlikely that we will be offered the chance to end any major government program overnight. Such instant change usually happens only when the system itself fails. But if it were to happen, there’s no reason any libertarian should suggest pumping the brakes. Can we make priorities and plot out best-case scenarios? Absolutely, and we most certainly should! Our ultimate means of affecting societal change is to change minds - and that requires understanding what people most value or what injustices are most grave at any given time. Our own time and abilities are scarce and thus we must make most effective use of them. But we should not lose track of what matters, of the ultimate goal. Because if we change our demands to half-measures, then our effectiveness dwindles. One doesn’t make a cold tub of water warm by adding warm water - hot water is needed. As Murray Rothbard points out: “He who confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether. By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate goal, and therefore the point of being a libertarian in the first place. If libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will?” This argument relative to yours is nuance, as I nevertheless understand being measured in our approach. For one, we must ensure that we are not misinterpreted as being callous. The issue of welfare spending is a particularly difficult one, as the average citizen is unlikely to be well-versed enough in economics, philosophy, history, and sociology to understand that we are advocating for a better life for the poor and needy. Our wishes are to improve all our lives - especially the least among us. But we mustn’t partially abandon principles and allow for the continuation of some aggression as not only acceptable but necessary. When “lesser evils” (such as supporting state hegemony as a means of gradualism) trump non-aggression, we have lost everything we stand for and shuttered our ability to create the peaceful and productive and cooperative society we are all capable of.

On strategy and priorities, I must quote Rothbard generously: It necessarily follows, from our primary goal of victory [of liberty], that we want victory as quickly as possible. If victory is indeed our given end, an end given to us by the requirements of justice, then we must strive to achieve that end as rapidly as we can. But this means that libertarians must not adopt gradualism as part of their goal; they must wish to achieve liberty as early and as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, they would be ratifying the continuation of injustice. They must be “abolitionists.” The objection is often raised that abolitionism is “unrealistic,” that liberty (or any other radical social goal) can be achieved only gradually. Whether or not this is true (and the existence of radical upheavals demonstrates that such is not always the case), this common charge gravely confuses the realm of principle with the realm of strategy. As I have written elsewhere, by making such a charge they are hopelessly confusing the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable outcome. In framing principle, it is of the utmost importance not to mix in strategic estimates with the forging of desired goals. First, one must formulate one’s goals, which … would be the instant abolition of slavery or whatever other statist oppression we are considering. And we must first frame these goals without considering the probability of attaining them. The libertarian goals are “realistic” in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on their desirability. … The “realism” of the goal can only be challenged by a critique of the goal itself, not in the problem of how to attain it. Then, after we have decided on the goal, we face the entirely separate strategic question of how to attain that goal as rapidly as possible, how to build a movement to attain it, etc. Thus, William Lloyd Garrison was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His goal was the proper one, and his strategic realism came in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached. Or, as Garrison himself distinguished, Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend. (The Liberator, August 13, 1831) From a strictly strategic point of view, it is also true that if the adherents of the “pure” goal do not state that goal and hold it aloft, no one will do so, and the goal therefore will never be attained. Furthermore, since most people and most politicians will hold to the “middle” of whatever “road” may be offered them, the “extremist,” by constantly raising the ante, and by holding the pure or “extreme” goal aloft, will move the extremes further over, and will therefore pull the “middle” further over in his extreme direction. Hence, raising the ante by pulling the middle further in his direction will, in the ordinary pulling and hauling of the political process, accomplish more for that goal, even in the day-by-day short run, than any opportunistic surrender of the ultimate principle. … If the primary and overriding goal of the libertarian movement must be the victory of liberty as rapidly as possible, then the primary task of that movement must be to employ the most efficacious means to arrive at that goal. To be efficacious, to achieve the goal of liberty as quickly as possible, it should be clear that the means must not contradict the ends. For if they do, the ends are being obstructed instead of pursued as efficiently as possible. For the libertarian, this means two things: that he must never deny or fail to uphold the ultimate goal of libertarian victory; and that he must never use or advocate the use of unlibertarian means — of aggression against the persons or just property of others. Thus, the libertarian must never, for the sake of alleged expediency, deny or conceal his ultimate objective of complete liberty; and he must never aggress against others in the search for a world of nonaggression. For example, the Bolsheviks, before the revolution, financed themselves partially by armed robbery in the name of “expropriating” capitalists; clearly, any use of aggression against private property in order to finance the libertarian movement, in addition to being immoral by libertarian principles, would cut against those principles themselves and their ultimate attainment. At this point, any radical movement for social change, including the libertarian movement, has to face an important, realistic problem: in the real world, the goal — for the libertarian, the disappearance of the state and its aggressive coercion — unfortunately cannot be achieved overnight. Since that is the case, what should be the position of the libertarian toward “transition demands”; i.e., toward demands that would move toward liberty without yet reaching the ultimate goal? Wouldn’t such demands undercut the ultimate goal of total liberty itself? In our view, the proper solution to this problem is a “centrist” or “movement-building” solution: namely, that it is legitimate and proper to advocate transition demands as way stations along the road to victory, provided that the ultimate goal of victory is always kept in mind and held aloft. In this way, the ultimate goal is clear and not lost sight of, and the pressure is kept on so that transitional or partial victories will feed on themselves rather than appease or weaken the ultimate drive of the movement. Thus, suppose that the libertarian movement adopts, as a transitional demand, an across-the-board 50 percent cut in taxation. This must be done in such a way as not to imply that a 51 percent cut would somehow be immoral or improper. In that way, the 50 percent cut would simply be an initial demand rather than an ultimate goal in itself, which would only undercut the libertarian goal of total abolition of taxation. … But while the ultimate goal of total liberty must always be upheld and the state must be whittled down at every point, it is still proper, legitimate, and necessary for a libertarian movement to adopt priorities, to agitate against the state most particularly in those areas that are most important at any given time. Thus, while the libertarian opposes both income and sales taxes, it is both morally proper and strategically important to select, say, the income tax as the more destructive of the two and to agitate more against that particular tax. In short, the libertarian movement, like everyone else, faces a scarcity of its own time, energy, and funds, and it must allocate these scarce resources to their most important uses at any given time. Which particular issues should receive priority depends on the specific conditions of time and place. …

The major reason for putting forth transition demands is as a way station to ultimate victory; but, by studiously avoiding the raising of ultimate goals or principles, the opportunist, at best, short-circuits the ultimate goal, and betrays it by failing to raise the consciousness of the public in the explicit direction of the final goal. The ultimate goal will not be reached automatically, by itself; it can only be reached if a large group of adherents continues to hold high the banner of that ultimate, radical objective.

Related: To Whittle and To Smash (Source: bonniekristian, via bonniekristian)

Yes, I’m aware that welfare programs do not always achieve their intended goals, and yes, I agree that alternative forms of assistance would work better, but given the way in which government policies have harmed lower-skilled workers and are responsible for their poverty, the right sequence of reform is to open up opportunities to heal their legs before we take away whatever crutches they might have, even if said crutches aren’t very effective. — Steve Horwitz (via hipsterlibertarian) A noble sentiment, but I can’t pick the order - I must simply snap at every opportunity. And it would be morally unacceptable to actively continue an injustice if an opportunity to end it presents itself simply because a greater injustice exists. Either one is against aggression and in favor of consent or one isn’t. I understand that there are minor victories within certain frameworks that are themselves inferior to the overarching goal - say, lowering taxes instead of ending them, or allowing gay marriage instead of eliminating the state’s involvement in marriage altogether - but this is not the argument made. Welfare programs are not only predicated on theft, they undermine societal pressures to alleviate poverty, they create schisms between communities and fan the flames of class warfare by generating resentment, they breed opportunities for corruption and increase political control. The Welfare State, which supposedly functions as a “safety net” for individuals in unfortunate circumstances by providing them assistance (mostly financial), is not only wasteful and corrupt when run through the bureaucratic, palm-greasing sausage-factory that is the state - it also has been shown to function as an impediment in allowing the downtrodden to escape from the cycle of poverty and dependence. It is, in fact, one of the many ways government hurts the poor. (Source: bonniekristian)

Old School Automats are Back, Courtesy of the Minimum Wage circle-of-deimos: laliberty: From the New York Times: There’s a new quinoa restaurant in San Francisco — yes, quinoa restaurants are a thing in San Francisco, so that’s not what’s noteworthy. At this restaurant, customers order, pay and receive their food and never interact with a person. The restaurant, Eatsa, the first outlet in a company with national ambitions, is almost fully automated. There are no waiters or even an order taker behind a counter. There is no counter. There are unseen people helping to prepare the food, but there are plans to fully automate that process, too, if it can be done less expensively than employing people. … Last week, I was in a fast-moving line and browsed on a flat-screen monitor the menu of eight quinoa bowls, each costing $6.95 (burrito bowl, bento bowl, balsamic beet). Then I approached an iPad, where I tapped in my order, customized it and paid. My name, taken from my credit card, appeared on another screen, and when my food was ready, a number showed up next to it. It corresponded to a cubby where my food would soon appear. The cubbies are behind transparent LCD screens that go black when the food is deposited, so no signs of human involvement are visible. With two taps of my finger, my cubby opened and my food was waiting. The quinoa — stir-fried, with arugula, parsnips and red curry — tasted quite good. Whether a restaurant that employs few people is good for the economy is another question. Restaurants, especially fast-food restaurants, have traditionally been a place where low-skilled workers can find employment. Most of the workers are not paid much, though in San Francisco employers of a certain size must pay health benefits and in 2018 a minimum wage of $15.

This kind of thing is only surprising to someone who has never read Henry Hazlitt. This was going to happen no matter what the minimum wage is. And if you agree with this sentiment anyway, it means you admit that capitalism is now at a point in history where it is actively holding back technological progress.

What was going to happen? Automats? Why would anyone - much less greedy capitalists - invest the money in automated machinery and equipment if it is more expensive than labor? It is unequivocal that labor is made artificially more expensive through government fiat. In San Fransisco, the minimum wage just went up 14% on May 1st. And as mentioned in the original piece: “in San Francisco employers of a certain size must pay health benefits and in 2018 a minimum wage of $15.” So labor is made more expensive. Full stop. Now it is true that a consequence of advancing technology is improved capital goods that increase human productivity. Economic illiterates will view this advancement, like the shovel or steam engine before it, as causing unemployment (”like Mexicans, toasters and spoons are taking our jobs!!!1!”). But this increase of capital goods - made better and cheaper through time - means an increase in overall wealth, and greater access to said wealth. It leads to greater individual productivity (how much digging can one man do with his hands relative to a man with a spoon or a man with a shovel or a man with a backhoe?), which is the first step to progress. It leads to greater specialization (if it’s cheaper to buy food from a store, you don’t need to farm it yourself and instead you can follow your true calling and do what you are best at instead of spending your day just trying to survive). In truth, it is (free market) capitalism that is the greatest means of progress, technological or otherwise. (via mindflique)

sweet-tango-chill asked: So like what if your 'free market' chose socialism instead? Sure. Who am I to stop other people from living life the way they peacefully choose? I support consent in all things. That’s kind of the point.

That is, if the form of “socialism” you have in mind is not dependent on the state nor uses some other quasi-state form of social control. As I’m sure you know, there are varying definitions and interpretations of “socialism.” If your question has to do with the popular, more traditional form of socialism that is, in effect, central state planning and control. It is indeed incompatible with the consensual interactions foundational to a free market. This, I would object to. And, indeed, it would render your question meaningless since how can anyone freely choose something they do not consent to? A society of consensual interactions is the only civilized society. It’s important to note that society, for clarification, is not some static amorphous object; it is simply the interacting individuals in a given region at a given time. And the free market, relatedly, is the nexus of consensual interactions between those individuals. So if individuals choose “socialism” - whatever that might mean to them - I would have no objection so long as they don’t interfere in how others wish to live their lives, use their property, and consensually interact with others. Fundamental to all forms of socialism, however, is a rejection of private property. Property, though, is simply an extension of our life and choices. In the most fundamental, absolute, and profound sense we all own our selves - our lives, our bodies, our minds, our will, etc. After all, no one can even attempt to control another without first controlling themselves. So if we own ourselves, we can choose what to do with our selves so long as we don’t interfere with another’s ability to do the same. Obviously, because of the absolute way we own our selves to claim to own another is on its face illegitimate. (The initiation of aggression, then, is one person attempting to take ownership and control of another: assault, rape, slavery, kidnapping, murder, etc.) From this, if I decide to give up 40 hours to work at a hospital and in turn that hospital gives me 40 bananas, then those 40 bananas actually represent the portion of my life that I traded for them (40 hours). And if I, in turn, trade 2 bananas for a hot dog, then I own that hot dog just as much as I owned the 2 hours of my life I gave up for it. Indeed, if someone threatens me with violence to work 10 hours for them or they threaten me with violence to give them 10 bananas, it is functionally the same. So the foremost “right,” if we are to use that term, is one’s right to own one’s self. From this emerges our right to private property, and all other rights are a derivation thereof. And private property is an important prerequisite to productive progress. If you work in the private (i.e. voluntary) sector, you know that your job is a productive one because people have subjectively determined it as such and proven such determination through the act of voluntarily asking you (and paying you) to perform said job. I work in television. The producers pay me because they value my work and they prefer the fruits of my labor hours over what they pay me for them (and I prefer what they give me over any other uses of my time and talents). The producers, in turn, are funded because the studio likes the product we produce and believe to be better off with our product than what they pay. The studio funds the show because the network values the product. The network values the product because the viewers watch the product, which in turn allows the network to sell ads. The advertisers buy ads because they value the viewers’ attention and have determined such expenditures help lead to future sales. The consumers buy the advertisers’ products because they have determined, ex ante, that they would be better off with the product than with the money. Money which said consumers earned most likely by selling their time, talents, or property to willing buyers. This complex patchwork of voluntary interactions is part of what we refer to as the free market. It is the foundation of a peaceful and productive society. Note how, unlike with governments, there’s no threat of violence compelling people to make exchanges. This is how we can determine that government workers - even those who perform important functions that would nonetheless be fulfilled absent state coercion - are societal parasites. Their employment is predicated on the forced extraction of wealth of others - wealth that is mostly the result of time and labor. Which means that the non-government workers are indentured servants: portions of their lives are spent laboring for others without compensation. If 30% of my income is taken away without my consent, and that income represents the portion of my life that I labored to earn it, then that much of my life is in effect also taken away. I am, to that degree, a slave. Unfortunately, although a laissez faire (”libertarian” or “free market”) society by its very nature would allow for pockets of “socialism” or any other form of social organization and cooperation any individuals freely choose (however flawed one may think said pockets may be), “socialism” has historically shown that it generally leaves little room for dissenting opinion or ways of life and therefore does not extend the same courtesy.

Losing your gourd when someone hooks you to a leash isn’t really that much different than getting excited about getting a new version of the electronic equivalent: a mobile phone. Or your first credit card. Or a thirty-year mortgage. Or a job that confines you eight (or more) hours a day to an office doing something you you wouldn’t be doing, given the choice. Part of our capitalist system requires that we hold up these methods of enslavement as a symbol of social status. Otherwise, why in the world would we submit ourselves to them? What’s more, we convince ourselves that they actually represent freedom and power, rather than recognizing them for the bondage they actually place on us. — Worshipping the Chains that Enslave Us (via azspot) “enslavement”

(Source: patheos.com, via azspot)

reema-kaakarli: laliberty: Does the Minimum Wage Hurt Workers? A ridiculously oversimplified argument against the minimum wage. Some marginal workers will be cut, yes, but on the whole, the average minimum wage worker (where minimum wage workers only account for a tiny fraction of the labor force anyways) will be much better off without serious consequences to the employer. The minimum wage should NOT be federally mandated, however. Rather, it should be adjusted to the CPI of each state/county/region. That’s why a $15 minimum wage in San Francisco isn’t that crazy. Putting aside the cruelty of being completely unconcerned with literally the least productive (and therefore most poor) among us being forcefully disemployed despite the possibility of people willing to employ them, the idea that there are no consequences to the employer is utter nonsense. Why would McDonald’s, for example, invest millions in creating automated touch-screen interfaces and roll them out in areas with particularly high unemployment if increased labor costs don’t result in “serious consequences to the employer”? In fact, even you understand your counter-argument is nonsense since you already agreed that some people would be unemployed. I suggest acquainting yourself with these posts on the minimum wage. (Source: laliberty, via reema-kaakarli)

i-love-only-me: laliberty: My neighbors are rigorously debating what should be done with some private developer’s newly-acquired private property. I tried to offer the neighborly response… lmao what is this shit, look at this libertarian nerd Some of us believe in this thing called “consent,” and as such we don’t like when peaceful people are told how to live their lives. (Source: laliberty, via rembrandt-q-einstein-deactivate)

1a1iberty.tumblr.com → vivacalifas: I didn’t see anything wrong with that video. If you physically resist police like that they are authorized to use the minimum amount of force available to make you comply. When you’re still physically resisting 4 officers it’s perfectly okay for them to raise that minimum force which would be working dogs or other non-lethal capabilities. It doesn’t matter why, if the police tell you to do something it’s not hard at l to just comply and do everything they order you to do.

You call getting jumped by four cops and having a fifth throw a dog onto your neck resisting? “It doesn’t matter why, if the police tell you to do something it’s not hard at l to just comply and do everything they order you to do.” This might possibly be the most insane reply I’ve ever gotten. (Source: laliberty, via vivacalifas-deactivated20190329)