Category Archives: Locke

The idea of civil forfeiture violates the basic ideas of property rights which form the basis of a government by consent. Although society, through a fairly elected government, has some responsibility to protect other members of society, a person’s property should not be taken arbitrarily by government officials without due process and without a legitimate government interest.

First, in civil forfeiture, a police officer may seize property the officer suspects has an illegal purpose. For example, this could include a house or car in which drugs are found even if the owner of the property was not involved in a crime. The forfeiture does not require any type of probable cause or conviction. Additionally, the government only has to have a civil, instead of criminal – beyond a reasonable doubt – level of proof. Current news reports are full of examples of greedy law enforcement officials using civil forfeiture laws to unfairly take property from citizens, even law-abiding citizens. A government which starts to take away property from its citizens has gone far beyond its limited purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.

To give a better understanding of the criticism of civil forfeiture laws, I have posted links to a video critical description by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight and articles from the liberal Texas Observer and the more conservative New American.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/20819-texas-representative-stands-up-to-civil-forfeiture

I agree that the government has some responsibility to protect members of our society. And, sometimes that means removing property that endangers law-abiding members of society. For instance, the government could lawfully destroy a house that creates some type of serious danger for others. As a result, in some cases, we have consented to government authority to take a person’s property, liberty and even life. But the authority to take a person’s life, liberty or property is limited by the consent of the governed. I know that these civil forfeiture laws were passed by an elected government, but this law has become a tool for the government to take property away from people who are not guilty of a crime. The only purpose in many cases is to create additional funds for the government. Law enforcement officials should not be allowed unchecked discretion to take a person’s property. Our government must be limited to protection of property rights, and discretionary civil forfeiture simply allows the government to take property from citizens and to give it to the government. It is very different from the protection of life, liberty and property which is the basic foundation – and limit – to a just government.

The reasonable limits to civil forfeiture laws are set out in our society’s basic contract, which is set out in our Constitution. The government may not take any person’s property without due process of law. Members of our society have natural rights, including the right to protect our property. We consented to give up some rights to form a limited government, with the main purpose of protecting our property laws. Now this government power is being used to unjustly take property from its citizens.

And finally, I understand that a person may forfeit his or her rights to property in certain situations. However, many of these civil forfeitures are done in the name of the War on Drugs. Often the forfeiture is claimed to be justified over small amounts of recreational drugs or paraphernalia, and sometimes even for cash in the house or car. Clearly, the amount of protection for society does not justify the taking of a person’s property.

Technology has been a true blessing as life has improved immensely with so many possibilities at the fingertips of consumers. Unfortunately, as the ease of life has increased, the safety of automobile drivers and passengers has decreased with the overuse of cellular phones by people at the wheel. While drivers believe using a phone as they drive is not necessarily an issue, they neglect to consider the other citizens on the road that they may be putting in danger. Even when not under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, a telephone-preoccupied driver places himself in danger and also infringes on the life of another.

When a man feels that his life, liberty, or property is threatened, he has the absolute right to declare a state of war between himself and his abuser. Even though a driver may have no wrong intention and does not purposefully mean to inflict harm on another, the simple act of him using a device that pulls his attention from the road indirectly infringes on another man’s rights. If a man chooses to place himself in danger with the distraction of a cellular phone, he must come to terms with himself that he is not only risking his own life, but the lives of other men and their wives and children. All living men are to be preserved as much as possible, as in the state of nature, and if one man feels threatened by another, the harmed, or the innocent, will be sanctioned.

The American government provides goods in the form of public roads and it is completely undeniable that we, as citizens under God, should treat roads and drivers with utmost respect and prevent danger. Because driving a car and using a cell phone, whether it be to send text messages or to speak on the phone, is so hazardous to multiple persons, it is without a doubt, an element of public discourse and demands involvement of state legislature. As cell phone use while driving occurs on government provided goods, public roads, the US government should be, and must be, involved in the prevention of the destruction of its citizens.

At this moment and time, sending text messages are punishable by law in 46 US states and in 37 states, all novice or teenage drivers under the age of 19 are banned from hand-held cell phone usage. It is understandable, of course, why it is that young drivers are unable to be entrusted with the task of driving while distracted. Young men, under the govern of their fathers with no land of their own, remain in the state of nature and are not experienced enough as their seniors who have been behind the wheel for years prior. Even as there are not many laws that completely ban the use of hand-held devices for adults as there are for young drivers, there are some select cities that have progressed in the prevention of harm.

In modern day America, there is an unfortunate emphasis on development as a culture, as a society, as a collective group, and as a country. To outsiders, this emphasis can be depicted as practical and necessary, yet there is an unjust dismissal of individuals at all ages. How, I might ask, is it beneficial to raise our own expectations of young children, who remain under the power of their fathers, who are not born with the capability of adult reasoning, to be responsible for a range of subjects and ideas that they may not be capable of understanding at a very young age? Now, I am not suggesting that all children are unable to master basic reading and counting, but it should be fairly evident that not all children’s minds develop at a similar rate as some may succeed at one subject while they struggle with others. I hope to bring into conversation the impact of curriculum based pre-school as a result of standardized testing and the possibility of straying from that in an attempt to strengthen both civil society and the common child.

As the country ages, the expectations for young children are raised and their childish nature is replaced with logic and although these beliefs are usually put into practice, I consider it to be a threat to man’s state of nature. For over fifty years, standardized testing has dominated US education as a means to assess knowledge from students as young as elementary school age. The idea that eight-year old children are expected to be examined at a standard national scale is understandable in order to monitor the nation’s progress as a whole, yet individualized growth is seen as unimportant. Childhood educator and author Erika Christakis advocates for unscripted pre-school as she states, “… teachers need to take the time to listen to children’s stories, to laugh with them… this kind of respectful observation of what children can (and can’t) do is rare in early childhood settings, where instead too many children receive calibrated doses of highly scripted, one-size-fits-all instruction on boring themes…” One-on-one contact, along with freedom to explore their own cognitive and creative abilities will keep children interested in school and lead to motivation that will push them to pursue higher education and contribute positively to civil society.

I have made the point that a child’s natural state of imagination and creativity is disregarded in the favor of logic, but this change can be combated if less structured play in the classroom was favored over usual class curriculums. The practice of pre-school play as opposed to a scripted curriculum encourages autonomy and acknowledges the obvious truth that we, as humans under God, are not created with equal abilities nor are we developmentally able to distinguish the letter ‘C’ from the letter ‘O’ at age four.

It is evident that pre-school education is an element of public discourse as an educated child grows and contributes to civil society as a future landowner, yet legislation concerning early childhood education fails to consider the negative and personal repercussions of such a high-stress environment on a young, impressionable mind. Education Expert Alfie Kohn states, “Imposing our will on them (on the basis of their immaturity) makes it less likely they’ll acquire the very social and moral dispositions whose absence we’ve used to justify such treatment.” At this moment in time, this nation’s early schooling prepares children for the obscene amount of exams they will endure in their near future, yet they are not taught and allowed to explore life skills. Through unscripted play, or exploration and skill mastery, a developing child in the state of nature will not only discover the power to reason and rationalize like the father before him, but he will also grow and contribute to the civil society he was brought into at birth.

Sources:

http://news.yale.edu/2016/02/09/preschoolers-need-more-play-and-fewer-scripted-lessons-says-early-childhood-educator-erik

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alfie-kohn/do-our-expectations-of-kids-aim-too-high-or-too-low_b_11874868.html

Last January a bill, H.R. 492, was proposed in the House that aimed to require women to “receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving consent to receive an abortion”. While abortion has been legal since 1973, there are still pushes to enact bills that threaten the right of women to be allowed their privacy in deciding to get an abortion. The issue of regulating abortion should be left in the private sphere, it does not threaten anyone’s freedom to life, liberty, and property. By invading the privacy of the woman by  forcing her to undergo an ultrasound before she is allowed to have an abortion, you are in turn impeding on her right to privacy.

One of our rights afforded in the state of nature is liberty, which I will relate to privacy. In the principle of personal liberty, the decisions one is afforded to make based on their standing in the state of nature, privacy is afforded as a right of every individual. The right of privacy is rooted in removing ourselves from the naturally occurring state of nature, to the chosen state of living inside a government. This government’s ruling is to make a better whole, and by ensuring that we have privacy, we are ensuring a better society and government in turn.

With this understanding of personal liberty, we can see that there should not be any regulations on a woman’s choice to an abortion, because it concerns only the woman and not the rest of the society in this decision. When a woman receives an abortion, she is choosing to end the pregnancy that is happening in her body, which is a completely private matter. This concerns no other member of society other than the mother, and should be treated as a private matter rested in the decision of the mother.Thus, any regulation placed on abortion is unfounded, because it should be treated as a private issue and should not be the concern of the government.

While bill H.R. 492 gained a good deal of attention at it’s unveiling, there are plenty of other similar bills that have been proposed before, with disastrous results. Republicans in Virginia proposed a mandatory ultrasound bill involving an invasive transvaginal procedure. And just a week before HR492 was introduced, House Republicans had to cancel a vote on a bill that aimed at banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with extremely narrow rape exceptions. We have seen time and again that outrage that comes with attempting to place regulations on abortions, because they are in the private sphere and should not be brought into the public sphere of legislature.

In the case of the mandatory ultrasound bill that would require that women “receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion”(Bassett), this bill clearly infringes on the personal liberty of the woman seeking an abortion because it interferes in the personal liberty afforded to the woman, and seeks to interrupt her decision to receive an abortion. The government has no right to infringe and regulate abortions, there is no precedent for these practices to be required. It is in the hands of the woman alone to decide the parameters of her pregnancy, because it does not affect anyone but her and should be regarded as a private issue.

Based on my aforementioned principle that abortion rights are a private issue, for the government to place regulations on abortion would go beyond the boundary of law, to tyranny.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/mandatory-ultrasound-_n_6535076.html

On April 1, 2016, Vaxxed premiered. It was a documentary aimed at proving the science behind the anti-vaccination movement that has gained popularity over the past 20 years. However, their science has been conclusively debunked, and the anti-vaccination movement puts others at risk. Not vaccinating your child is a public issue because it infringes on the freedom of that child and others, and needs to be discussed in the public sphere.

The issue of vaccinating children is a public issue because in the case that a parent chooses not to have their child vaccinated, they are potentially putting other people, children and adults, at risk for the diseases and viruses that they are not vaccinated for, thus violating mine and others freedom set forth by the laws of nature. Every person, when they submit to being governed are granted several rights that cannot be violated, their right to life, liberty and property.Those who choose not to vaccinate their children are infringing on the freedom of everybody else in society to remain safe within a reasonable degree. In going from a state of nature to a state of submitting to a government for the overall well being of the society, there are still some aspects that we are afforded as we are in the state of nature. One of these is the right to freedom, and while some may argue that means the freedom to choose whether or not to vaccinate their child, I argue that their choosing not to infringes on my freedom.

Under the laws of the governed, it is mandated that parents care for their children until they are old enough and mature enough to do it themselves. Parents have a responsibility as members of society to keep their children healthy under the law, until they can do so for themselves. Every parent in the state of being governed has the duty to keep their children safe in their formative years. I argue that vaccinating their child is a vital duty of the parents in relating this duty to keep their child safe until that child can do so themselves.

It is also worth mentioning that there is no conclusive data that has proven concretely that not vaccinating children benefits the child. The movement against vaccination is scientifically inconclusive and has been debunked time and again. The movement towards anti-vaccination started in the 1870’s but reared it’s head again in 1990 when a doctor, Andrew Wakefield, wanted to research to look into the relationship between bowel disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine. Since then, however, most of the claims that the anti-vaccination movement has made, such as their claim that vaccinations cause autism, have been debunked. This furthers my point that vaccination is a public issue not only because it relates to other people’s freedoms, but that we have no conclusive evidence that not vaccinating has any positive outcomes.

Vaccination is a public issue. It concerns the ability of one’s right to life, liberty, and happiness to be unnecessarily subjected to illnesses that can be easily prevented.

Sources:

Image from https://mic.com/articles/85725/7-biggest-lies-spread-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement-debunked-by-science#.uVrYi9NJghttp://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movementshttp://www.voicesforvaccines.org/growing-up-unvaccinated/

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements

http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/growing-up-unvaccinated/

Ever since I was born, sometime in like the 15th century, my favorite neighborhood in Austin, Texas has always been the lower Eastside. Though there is no factual evidence to confirm this, and historically speaking I probably feel the opposite, I just love the culture there! The Eastside has always been the most diverse place in Austin since I officially moved here in 2001, when I was like 400 y/o. However, I’ve noticed that change in recent years. I just need to set up a brief history of my experiences, however, before I begin this: turns out, I moved to the U.S. during the civil war, and then witnessed the entire history of racism and the systematic oppression of minorities in the U.S. including things like “The 1928 Master Plan” which served to move all the PoC population in Austin to the Eastside. Therefore, I believe that class-lines and race-lines often line up.

So, what I’m saying is that this gentrification taking place in East Austin is a matter of public discourse because it does not promote the protection of the life, liberty, and especially property, of the people of East Austin. Now, I’ve been around for a long time, obviously, so I know I blew up around the time that guy Thomas Jefferson sampled some of my works in his. However, I will remind everyone of my core principle: that everyone, regardless of class, race, gender has a right to Life, Liberty, and Property. I also have this thing about what should and should not be argued publicly and I’d like to say that the happenings on the Eastside deserve a public discourse, and maybe even an overdue peoples revolution!

There’s one specific incidence I want to discuss which I read about in The Austin Chronicle, a news source which embodies everything I, John Locke, love about my city (Go Riverbats!). The Chronicle argues that gentrification works to make real-estate developers extremely aggressive in certain neighborhoods. As a result of all of the revamping and construction which will then take place in a neighborhood deemed hot by developers, generally people of lower-socioeconomic class levels are forced to move out when the rent or property taxes go up due to all the commerce brought about by the new development. This in its self does not deserve to be the topic of public discourse. No one is dying, no one is necessarily stealing or illegally obtaining property, and the liberty to live wherever you want still exists as long as you can pay it. However, there is one particular case which took place in February of 2015 which deserve a public discourse: the destruction of my favorite piñata shop by F&F Real Estate Ventures. According to the Austin Chronicle the family owned shop was destroyed without any prior notice to the family, in order to make way for some SXSW infrastructure. This violates this family’s right to property! The fact that the Chronicle reports that all of this was done legally only strengthens my argument that this deserve a public discourse.

In fact, I think a lot of these racially charged issues deserve to be topic of public discourse on account of historical context:

I always say that government only exists with the peoples consent, and they make laws which are supposed to be rationality embodied. So that’s the very first problem we have to deal with here before we move on. I believe one racial issue, over all other issues, should not be a topic of public discourse, but instead a topic of revolution by the people. As I said before, I witnessed the civil war, and therefore I know that PoC are no longer regarded as slaves in the U.S. However, the U.S. government was established before the civil war, and therefore does not exist by the consent of all of the freed slaves who after the civil war began to live within that government. This in it self calls for a complete over throw of the government by all ex-slaves after the civil war, which we know never happened. The closest we came was Reconstruction, which was run by people who were not elected with the consent of most freed men. Laws began to crop up after the civil war then, which were not rational, such as laws limiting freed-men’s ability to give their consent to the U.S. government in the way that the U.S. government was set up to allow people to give their consent (Jim Crow). Political Society absolutely requires the consent of the governed to exist and it has never been given to an extent which satisfies me.

Some haters may say that I have also argued that governments may act on the consent of the majority, because gaining the consent of the whole is nearly impossible, and the majority of people did vote for ALL of this to happen. However, I argue that the racism felt by the majority of people in the U.S. was NOT a matter of public discourse in the first place and therefore should not have ever been discussed by the government and should definitely not have been included in any kind of policy.Legislation should only be made of issues that are public discourse.  These laws which promoted segregation and oppression were also tyrannical in the first place because they acted against the protection of the liberty, and property of PoC, as well as latently promoted the general public to act towards taking the right to life away.

Source:

Recently in North Carolina there has been much controversy surrounding the “bathroom bill,” also known as House Bill 2 or HB2. The bill, if passed, would require that restrooms in public institutions be single gender and require that a patron’s biological sex match the restroom he or she uses. The bill goes into even more discriminatory and potentially tyrannical issues; however, I only wish to address the prominent bathroom controversy.

First and foremost, creating legislation that would regulate which bathroom a person is allowed to use is an issue of private discourse, not one of public discourse, and we should not be attempting to pass legislation on the topic. Everyone has a right to life liberty and property, and public discourse addresses the protection of these rights and nothing more, for that is the job of the legislature. That is what we entrust to our government when we enter into a society. On top of this, any new law must be consistent with those previously in place, and the legislature mustn’t contradict itself, for in doing so, it would threaten the rights of its people.

Neither of these constraints on public discourse even begins to include one’s bathroom preference. Which bathroom a person uses does not infringe upon others’ right to life, liberty, or property. There is no potential of harm. Many argue that without restraints on who can use which bathroom there is a higher chance that sexual predators will exploit the freedom to gain access to victims, but there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim₁. Without a clear and present danger to citizens’ life, liberty, or property, the government has no right to legislate the issue.

There is also no precedent for denying someone access to a public space based on biological sex. There is precedent for protection against such discrimination, but no law has been upheld that prevents a person from having access to publicly funded space due to their biology; in fact, most attempts to do so have been struck down as unconstitutional. The people of the United States have come to see such biological discrimination as rule that is beyond right and reason to legislate. This is the definition of tyranny. Legislation that is outside the Realm of Argument falls into the Realm of Force. Passing this so-called “bathroom bill” would cross a line from consensual government to unacceptable despotic government.

I have made the case that legislating public bathroom use would be tyrannical, and I would now like to argue that believing the issue of regulated bathroom use a matter of private discourse does not prevent us from legislating protections against general discrimination.

Where legislation regulating which bathroom a person is allowed to use does not protect anyone’s right to life, liberty, and property, legislation that protects against biologically based discrimination does protect these rights. In the case of the transgendered community, discrimination poses a threat to their life, liberty and property. Trans people are more likely to commit suicide, experience homeless, and experience violence related to their gender identity than their cisgender peers₂. Here we see actual threat to the life, liberty, and property of a citizen. We also see precedent for anti-discrimination laws in civil rights and women’s rights. Leviticus 19:15 states, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” The practice of legislating to promote equality is set. Therefore, it is within the realm of public discourse to legislate protections against discrimination, and we should do just that.

1. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/15/477954537/when-a-transgender-person-uses-a-public-bathroom-who-is-at-risk
2. http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/Training%20and%20TA%20Center/FORGE_Transgender_Violence_Fast_Facts.pd
3. Header Photo: pixabay, free stock photo- no attribution required