I’ve become firearm enthusiast. I like the engineering, I like the power, I like the security. Firearms are a tribute to the focus of mans mind on the endeavor to protect his life.

A particularly uncomfortable confrontation in the street out front of our rental house in 2006 prompted my official foray into the world of firearms. We were building our current home and had the opportunity for very cheap and flexible rent through a colleague of my wife. Every deal is a tradeoff and in this case the trade was cheap rent for a somewhat shady locale. There are areas in most towns referred to as the wrong side of the tracks - this home would have been built on the tracks. One side of the street was warm and pleasant, the other dark and risky.

I grew up like many guys with BB and Pellet rifles. We lived on several wooded acres so plinking targets, cans or birds out in the back yards was no big deal. Growing up in a small rural suburb meant I had family and friends that were avid outdoorsman, and through them I gained experience with shotguns and rifles. My father had both and a revolver, but I never really paid much attention to them. He instilled a healthy sense of fear, both in the inherent dangers of guns and especially the dangers of me tampering with his guns. I remained very distant, if not isolated from deadly weapons from my early teens until a few years ago.

A few hair-raising stares in downtown Charlotte on dark early mornings as I walked in from the parking lot initiated my curiosity. The booming, lowered and tinted thug-mobile pugnaciously blocking my driveway at the rental house one late winter night was the deciding factor that led me to a serious approach to self-defense.

I have a tendency to take on new endeavors in a very dedicated manner and this one would be no exception. I very quickly recognized that a firearm in incompetent hands is a liability that can ruin lives. I joined a few ranges, one near work, and one near home and began training a few days per week. I soaked up as much info as I could find. I tapped into a new realm of industry, culture and controversy. I also started to really enjoy shooting and the mechanical aspects of maintenance and part upgrades. I learned that like any market, there were niche offerings for specialize purposes. There are pistols small enough for effective concealment, there are those with upgraded components and tailored for accuracy, there are those optimized virtually every situation one could be in requiring such power at their disposal. As a natural progression I started to look into the rifle market. There are traditional bolt-action rifles and there are the modular, military inspired tactical rifles. The latter are far more interesting to me. The AR-15 platform is a very innovative and flexible weapon. In addition, it’s also the weapon of choice for those who’d prefer me not have the ability to defend myself with deadly force. It’s a powerful, customizable, all-purpose and pleasantly engineered source of anxiety for the irrational - I’ll take two of those.

I must get to the point.

I’m going hunting this year for the first time in 20 years. I’m excited - not necessarily about killing an animal, but about the exercise as a whole. The excitement of being outdoors, gearing up to face the weather, acting covert, relying on the technological masterpiece in your hands, the rush of the kill, and the reward of food to show for it in some cases. Depending on the game, there are some I’d actually prefer not to kill. Deer, I appreciate, but if we’re talking about an undeniably ugly and unappealing beast such as a bore, fox or coyote - I’ll have absolutely no reservations about their elimination.

I carried a vague awareness of restrictions around hunting. I knew there were certain times of the year that hunting with particular types of weapons was common. What I had been naively insulated from was the tyrannical invasiveness of our game laws. Given the overreaching club of Government in all other areas of our lives, why would it surprise me that essentially I have to ask the state permission to act within my proper role on the food chain?

I’m required a license to hunt or fish. I can’t go kill a varmint without paying a fee to the State. Even after which I’m only privileged to kill so many, and only during very brief time periods. What weapon I use to kill is restricted. What caliber I use is restricted. What time of day I do so is restricted. The sex of the animal I claim is restricted.

Does the state own all the animals? Or, do animals have rights? What a brilliant concoction of Environmentalism and Gun Control! And consider the potential revenue stream - subjective law always proves to be an adequate means to control men and loot their pockets.

The animals are either property, or they have a right to life. Which is the State implying? All arguments supporting these laws are founded in one of these foundations, neither of which can hold their weight on either moral nor practical grounds (the moral always is the practical).

Laws should be based on rights.

• There is no specific right to have an ample supply of game for hunting.
• Animals have no rights.
• Man has a right to his life, liberty and property.

Who’s right to what am I forcefully violating by hunting according to my own terms? Men have the right to their lives, their liberty and their property - all three of which are violated by this perversion of justice. Hunting to eat, freedom to do so at my discretion and the right to do so unchallenged on my on land are all three dependent on the consent of the State. Once again, another sick inversion of the proper role of government. The supposed protector of rights is the violator.

Anyone surprised?

Can you imagine our founder’s response to the notion that what was a staple of survival in their time has now been criminalized? America, as they envisioned and died for, no longer exists.

A particularly repulsive violation of property rights is the saga brewing near my hometown in Clemmons, NC. This swirling storm of pragmatic tyranny and economic ignorance has now climaxed into a court hearing. My exposure to this silly soap opera is courtesy of my father, a Novant Health employee for over 30 years. Essentially the dispute revolves around bureaucrats and those cowards who leverage them, namely Baptist Hospital, forcefully violating the property rights of another private entity - Novant Health. Novant seeks to build a new community Hospital - Baptist and the bureaucrats object because Baptist wants to also build in the same region. Competition creates value, so this can only mean higher quality service for residents in the area right? Oh no, when you stir a giant pot of pragmatism with a collectivist stick, the only results are force and economic decay.

The political details of the dispute are irrelevant, so I won’t waste any time documenting them here. Here are the only relevant facts.

• Two hospitals are competing for the same geographic region.
• In any private endeavor, the individuals funding the venture stand to profit or lose their own resources.
• In a market free of coercion, consumers solicit the services which provide the most value.
• In a free country, property rights are sovereign and not to be trumped by the state - regardless of what collectivist tenet they scream.

In denial of all of the above facts, for some reason the State of North Carolina assumes the power to grant or deny growth in the Health Care industry. Through some magical analysis void of economic or moral merit they compute the sovereignty of property rights under the guise of a Certificate Of Need.

From the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation:

The North Carolina Certificate of Need Law prohibits health care providers from acquiring, replacing, or adding to their facilities and equipment, except in specified circumstances, without the prior approval of the Department of Health and Human Services. Prior approval is also required for the initiation of certain medical services. The law restricts unnecessary increases in health care costs and limits unnecessary health services and facilities based on geographic, demographic and economic considerations.

I must interrupt here. In a competitive market, free of external meddling, there would be no unnecessary increases nor services void of adequate demand. An unnecessary increase is an opportunity for a competitor to have an advantage. Businesses that aim to prosper avoid such mistakes. To the contrary, this law is directly responsible for unnecessary increases due to the fact that it stifles competition and inhibits the logical flow of capital.

The fundamental premise of the CON Law is that increasing health care costs may be controlled by governmental restrictions on the unnecessary duplication of medical facilities. To accomplish its purpose, the CON Law provides that “no person shall offer or develop a new institutional health service without first obtaining a certificate of need.” All new hospitals, psychiatric facilities, chemical dependency treatment facilities, nursing home facilities, adult care homes, kidney disease treatment centers, intermediate care facilities for mentally retarded, rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, hospices, diagnostic centers, and ambulatory surgical facilities must first obtain a CON before initiating development. In addition, a CON is required before any upgrading or expansion of existing health service facilities or services, which involves a capital expenditure above specified minimums.

Administration of the CON Law is entrusted to the Department of Health and Human Services. The Certificate of Need Section in the Department’s Division of Health Service Regulation is responsible for its implementation. Anyone desiring a certificate of need must apply to the CON Section, and furnish information upon which the Section can find that the application is consistent with specified “review criteria.” The Section may approve or deny an application outright, or it may approve the application with such conditions, as it finds necessary to bring the project into compliance with the mandated criteria.
Summary of the CON Process

The following narrative provides a brief summary of the CON process. Applicants and other interested persons should always refer to the applicable statute (G.S. 131E, Article 9, 175-190) and administrative rules (10A NCAC Subchapter 14C)for more complete information.

1. Allocation of Beds — At the beginning of each calendar year, a new State Medical Facilities Plan is published by the Medical Facilities Planning Section of DHSR which sets forth the maximum number of health service facility beds, by category, that may be awarded by the Certificate of Need Section (CONS).
2. Review Schedule — In order for competitive applications to be reviewed at the same time, the CONS has adopted a system to review applications according to a batched review schedule. Under this system, applications for similar services in the same geographic area are reviewed at the same time. Review schedules are found in the State Medical Facilities Plan.
3. Pre-Application Procedure — Each applicant submitting an application must submit a letter of intent (LOI) to the CONS no later than the date the application is due. Most applicants submit an LOI as the first step in the application process. In response to an LOI submitted before the beginning of the review period, the CONS forwards a letter to the applicant that indicates whether a CON review is required. If so, the CONS explains the category in which the application will be reviewed, provides the beginning review dates for that category and provides the necessary application forms. An applicant may meet with representatives of the CON Section for a pre-application conference to discuss any questions relative to the CON process and application forms.
4. Application Submittal — Applications must be received by 5:30 p.m. on the fifteenth day of the month immediately preceding the beginning of the applicable review period. In instances when the 15th day of the month falls on a weekend or holiday, the filing deadline is 5:30 p.m. on the next business day. The filing deadline is absolute. After an application is submitted it may not be amended, however, the CON Section may request that an applicant submit clarifying information. The CONS reviews each application to determine if it is complete. An application is deemed complete if the correct fee is paid and the original signature page is provided. If an application is deemed incomplete, within five days the CONS will notify the applicant of the items needed to make the application complete.
5. Public Comment Period — During the first 30 days of the review period, any person may file written comments or letters of support concerning the proposals under review.
6. Public Hearing — A public hearing is no longer required to be conducted for each proposal under review. However, under certain circumstances as set forth in G.S. 131E-185(a1)(2), a public hearing is required to be conducted by the CONS in the service area affected by the application no more than 20 days from the conclusion of the written comment period.
7. Application Review — The CONS has from 90 to 150 days to review an application for a certificate of need. Each application is reviewed against G.S. 131E-183 Review Criteria and any applicable criteria and standards in the administrative rules. All written comments and presentations at the public hearing are also taken into consideration by the CONS during the review of an application. An application must be conforming or conditionally conforming with all applicable criteria and standards in order to be approved.
8. Appeals of Decision — Within 30 days after the date of a decision any affected person may file a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The administrative law judge must make his recommended decision to the Director of the Division of Health Service Regulation within 270 days after the petition is filed. The Director then makes the final agency decision, which may be appealed to the N.C. Court of Appeals.
9. Monitoring — After the certificate is issued, the CONS will monitor the development of the project through review of progress reports submitted by the applicant. In accordance with G.S. 131E-189, the CONS may withdraw a certificate if the holder of the certificate fails to develop and operate the service consistent with the representations made in the application or with any conditions the CONS placed on the certificate of need.
[emphasis mine]

In other words, property rights are subservient to some common good far superior than the rightful wishes of mere individuals, and derived from an intuition only possessed by the State.

From a moral standpoint this is an egregious perversion of justice. The purpose of Government is to protect individual rights, not to violate them. This law in its entirety is a blatant violation of property rights.

From an economic standpoint this is ridiculous nonsense. So what, if there is a hospital built on every block? The beauty of the free market is the just law of competition. The entity that provides the most value, which in this case could be comprised of any combination of innovation, technology, convenience, price or even the quality of the sheets on hospital beds, or the temperature in the rooms, will have rightfully earned the most market share. Any entity that can’t compete will cease to exist. If Novant and Baptist want to build Hospitals across the street from each other, as Forsyth Medical Center and WFUBMC virtually are, then the market will decide who prevails. A free market involves choices. Choices have consequences. A good choice profits, a poor choice destroys. These are two entities with vast financial resources, all of which can be lost with poor decisions. They are run by individuals who have proven to their superiors a knack for making intelligent business decisions. They have rightfully earned their resources. They are intelligent individuals with the right to utilize such resources as they see fit according to their reason. If they choose poorly, the market will punish them. If they choose intelligently, they and their customers will profit. If this is where and how they rightfully choose to utilize their property and resources, no entity has any moral right to intervene.

Are we to assume that the state (whose members have little to nothing at stake for incorrectly squashing Novant’s intent), through some unfathomable means, contends to know more about this particular market and the financial specifics than the qualified professionals at Novant (whose livelihoods depend on excellence) making the decisions?

When a right is violated, we may not be able to trace out in advance the destructive consequences that will come, but they are inevitable. This colossal waste of resources is a shining example. Novant Health, the entity that will either profit or fail on their own accord, can rightfully start a new business venture wherever they please. No bureaucratically endorsed “certificate” should be needed.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription.

To those who oppose Novant tell me this - Whose right to what is being forcefully violated by Novant starting this new venture? By what right does the State have any say in the matter?

To those who have said “If you don’t like it, fine change the law. Until that happens, then Novant has to obey the law just like everyone else.” How many lives are you willing to throw away waiting for an unjust law to change?

Novant should adamantly defend their unquestionable right to build where and how they please. They should dismiss CON laws as arbitrary and unjust violations of property rights. Any other defense is pragmatic and futile. With regards to Baptist - attempting to stifle competition by leveraging a bureaucracy beyond its proper scope is despicable. To do so in a scenario where lives are literally on the line is beyond contempt.

The purpose of a Hospital or related Health Care endeavor is to extend or enhance the lives of individuals. When entities compete to do exactly that the individual wins. Conversely, with every red-tape detour, every regulation, every “certificate” or any endeavor, other than health care, that these entities invest their resources in, the quality and value of their product is diminished. The end result is less care for a patient’s dollar. The same people pushing these senseless regulations in one conversation are the ones who’ll complain about the cost of health care in another - costs driven up by a meddling government in private affairs. The money wasted on this pathetic circus could have been invested in some valuable aspect of Novant’s business plan.

Rights violated, time and money wasted, political bickering interfering with innovation and productivity… sounds awfully familiar. Will we ever learn?

People do… sometimes with a gun. In the same sense, Government as such, is not the enemy as Lew Rockwell claims. A Government steered out of scope and wrangled with irrationality is the enemy. The institution in its proper form is vital to a free nation.

There are no conflicts of interest between rational men, but there will be differences of opinion. There are conflicts of interest amongst irrational men, and freedom affords ample opportunity to act on such interests. We deem Government the institution to which we grant the authority and necessary means (police, military) to arbitrate amongst men an objective code of laws based on our rights to life, liberty and property. A Government that acts within this boundary is the official and crucial embodiment of a sovereign nation.

What are the alternatives? Only mob rule in varying forms. Different groups battling each other for control of the corrupted vessel. The guidelines meant to ensure against the legal civil war that exists in our country have been molested, disfigured and tossed out as old fashioned notions. Today in America we’ve abandoned objective law in favor of criminalizing virtually any pragmatic whim. There are laws dictating how I water my lawn, how I fasten my son in the car, how much water my toilet can hold, what I can ingest in my own body in my own home, the condition of my automobile, where Hospitals can be built, what medicines I take, that cable must be digital, that employers have no right to set wages for the jobs they facilitate, and when, where, or how I can shoot a wild animal in a forest on my own private land.

This manifestation of the state is the enemy. This runaway train dictating almost every detail of our lives is what must end if America is to prevail. We must return to objective law. We must establish a complete separation of the state from economics, religion, education, and business. This country is only a dwindling fraction of its potential as long as these irrational perversions of justice continue.

Senator, and certified collectivist mobster, Joe Biden thinks income redistribution is “patriotic.”

Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to “take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Under the Democrats’ economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday that, in his words, “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.” [emphasis mine]

Patriotism is another word, along with selfishness, of which the meaning has been munged by and within the context of altruist-collectivist discourse. The corrupted, yet commonly accepted definition is to possess an unyielding loyalty to a nation as a whole, without any explicit stipulations. Such a vague definition enables the media and politicians to throw the term around loosely as it fits their objective. However, the term originated as a very specific representation of those who spearheaded the American Revolution - a movement destined to form a nation void of economic or religious tyranny, exactly where our word-bandits wish to take us as quickly as we’ll allow them.

Contrary to the hijacked revision, as an advocate of freedom, justice, rights and the sovereignty of the individual, and one living in a nation which was founded upon such tenets, patriotism implies maintaining a respect and dedication to preserve the revolutionary sentiments of the men who started this republic.

By this correct definition, progressive compulsory taxation is unjust, irrational and brutally immoral.

Senator Joe, on the other hand (like all four of our presidential/vice-presidential candidates), is an altruist-collectivist who holds no objection to sacrificing one man to another, especially when he can conjure a practical justification for doing such. To any individual who maintains it, and to the extent that he adheres to it, the altruist-collectivist mindset is unequivocally destructive. For an individual to force the cancer of self-sacrifice upon others is undisguisedly evil.

Self-destruction is tragic, mandating suicide on others is monumental depravity.

Twisting the philosophical currency of an honorable term into a meaningless and deceitful buzzword is intellectual fraud. The pattern of taking a concept of virtue, gutting its essence and using the label as a cloak for nonsense is very common. In the sprint to obliterate what was the greatest country, the obliteration of language proves to be a invaluable asset.

Facts:

• Objective law is such that punishes or objectively precludes violation of an individual’s right to life, liberty or property.
• The Earth has no value outside of facilitating man’s survival.
• Government’s sole and only legitimate purpose is to protect individual rights.

This sickening story (via Gus Van Horn) details a perverse mockery of all of the above.  This is evil in as pure and vile a form as you’ll ever see.  In some jail a man sits harnessed by this culmination of putrid statism.

Anyone who’s not repulsed is partially responsible.

Dear Customer,
A+ Member Number: 12345678

An Open Letter to All Airline Customers
Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing
oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something
to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and
severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities.
To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread
economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are
taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our
customers.

Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces,
the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and
conservation. However, there is another side to this story because
normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly
regulated market speculation.

As if market regulations are an inalienable truth…

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by
speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking
delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil
futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are
known.

Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other
again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is
delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers
pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current
prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary
speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control
excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation.
However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been
weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these
limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more
disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these
reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the
economy to prosper.

Right… just a bit more regulation should do it.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve
this growing problem.

We need your help. Get more information and contact Congress by
visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com/sos.

Sincerely,

Robert Fornaro
Chairman, President and CEO
AirTran Airways, Inc.

Bill Ayer
Chairman, President and CEO
Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Gerard J. Arpey
Chairman, President and CEO
American Airlines, Inc.

Lawrence W. Kellner
Chairman and CEO
Continental Airlines, Inc.

Richard Anderson
CEO
Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Mark B. Dunkerley
President and CEO
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Dave Barger
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corporation

Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman, President and CEO
Midwest Airlines

Douglas M. Steenland
President and CEO
Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Gary Kelly
Chairman and CEO
Southwest Airlines Co.

Glenn F. Tilton
Chairman, President and CEO
United Airlines, Inc.

Douglas Parker
Chairman and CEO
US Airways Group, Inc.

What a damn shame to see all these successful businesses shooting their own feet by helping to cripple the very system that enabled their success. Their scapegoat fails the litmus test for legal reprimand because they (speculators) aren’t forcefully violating anyone’s right to life, liberty or property. To the contrary, any regulation of trading forcefully violates investors right to liberty and property. Outside of force or fraud, how they choose to spend their money is a rightful prerogative. These calls for legal action are calls for an inversion of the proper role of government. Government should protect investors, not force them to comply with arbitrary whims. Such is the manner of crumbling nations.

Yet another mindless antitrust crusade. I’ll be sure not to consider any AMD products for purchase from now on.

You should read the article, but this about sums it up:

In particular, the FTC wants more information on Intel’s practice of offering favorable pricing on chips to certain customers.

Sounds like smart business to me.

I’m overwhelmed with joy. I stumbled on this refreshing LTE in reference to the insidious “gun free” mentality. There are conflicting premises floating amongst the primary Objectivist circles. At times, the subject of guns, open or concealed carry, and objective laws pertaining to their uses and limitations seem almost taboo. Specifically, the question of what involving a firearm constitutes a threat of force.

I’m encouraged to find others who see reality as I do, and that I’m not intrinsically at odds with some obscure Objectivist tenet that I’ve yet to integrate.

The NRA is clearly not who I thought they were. To the extent that they persist in their crusade for Florida’s HB503 bill - a bill that enables possession of firearms on another’s property, and regardless of the owners discretion - the association has revealed themselves as unprincipled and obtuse warriors for a cause at any price.

Per their public statements and my private conversations with NRA-ILA staff, their claim that an individuals right to life trumps property rights. Their error is failure to distinguish the right to life, and the right to defend one’s life by use of deadly force courtesy of the second amendment. The former inalienably stands alone, while the latter assumes a corollary right - the right to property.

In the Florida bill, they are opposing the sanctity of property rights as they pertain to a situation where all involved parties are voluntarily present, and most likely bound (also voluntarily) under contractual terms. If an individual’s right to property is subject to the whim of political consensus, then what’s the NRA’s wildcard for excluding a specific type of property (firearms) from such whim? Based on their logic, a homeowner also should have no right to allow others to possess firearms on his property. How can the NRA not see how detrimental such precedent will be? Maybe not until gun owners property rights are trumped by the same premise that the NRA now blindly ignores when a new state bill crosses a Governor’s desk that deems firearm owners have no right to their property (firearms) because such right encroaches another’s right to life.

The counter claim that an employee’s automobile is shielded by his property right fails to consider the overall context. An employees car is (typically) their property, but that car is parked on the employer’s property. There has to be an authoritative hierarchy of rights, otherwise the employer would have no legal basis to tow an employees car from their parking lot. If an employer’s rules specify no weapons on premises, it doesn’t matter where or how, or what justifications, none are allowed - period. If you can’t/don’t accept those terms, attempt to negotiate or find a new job.

Laws and legal enforcement thereof should be based on rights. If an action doesn’t forcefully encroach on another’s right to life, liberty or property, or doesn’t objectively convey intent to do so, it shouldn’t be illegal. The biggest destroyer of personal freedom and economic prosperity are subjective laws - ones that ignore the above prescription. In this case, the employees right to property isn’t forcefully encroached because their presence is voluntarily acceptive of a particular set of stipulations. They are agreeing to a stipulation regarding their property right while present on the employers premises. Therefore, any law overriding this hierarchy is irrational and a detriment to our nation. Neutering a business owners right to enforce his preference to ban weapons is no different than government telling a restaurant owner, who’d otherwise allow weapons, that he can’t. The underlying principle is identical. If you support the fist case, you are supporting the second - you can’t have it both ways.

Not only are the NRA wrong in their stance on this measure, but by throwing phrases like big business and corporate bullies, they’re now bordering on class-warfare, anti-business rhetoric that would feel at home in any DNC stump speech. Heston would be so proud.

The result of any political stance void of explicit premises is nothing more than a pragmatic and likely contradictory opinion. To compromise a fundamental principal for the sake of one that relies on such is irrational. This case is perfectly illustrative of a misguided and ignorant crusade that will serve to undermine the more important cause. The NRA is doing nothing more than arming the enemy (the anti-gun crowd) with yet another avenue of battle. What a tremendous mistake.

I wish this were courtesy of The Onion.

A silly new bill strives to criminalize perception in the vein of thought crimes. Since we’ve pretty much abandoned a proper legal system (one prescribing law based on objective rules pertinent to the protection of an individuals right to life, liberty and property), prosecuting anyone for anything is now fair game.

This blob of insane, emotional drivel would make one who commits “visual sexual aggression” (looking at another individual while being conscious of a particular set of concepts) a felon. The chief do-gooder of this absurdity is Dawn Hill, a Democrat. Dawn enlightens us with her motive:

Her involvement started when Ogunquit Police Lt. David Alexander was called to a local beach to deal with a man who appeared to be observing children entering the community bathrooms. Because the state statute prevents arrests for visual sexual aggression of a child in a public place, Alexander said he and his fellow officer could only ask the man to move along.

“There was no violation of law that we could enforce. There was nothing we could charge him with,” Alexander said.

He attended a talk with Hill a week later and brought the case to her attention. Hill pledged to do what she could, Alexander said, and the result was a change through the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee in the House, which made the law applicable in both private and public places.

Alexander said he’s grateful Hill was willing to take up the cause, and is hopeful the measure will clear the Senate.

“I’ll be pleased that we were able to identify this flaw and take steps to rectify it,” he said.

Under the bill, if someone is arrested for viewing children in a public place, it would be a Class D felony if the child is between 12 to 14 years old and a Class C felony if the child is under 12, according to Alexander.

Hill said she believes the move was necessary to correct what she called a “loophole” in the state’s criminal law statutes. [emphasis added]

We can only presume the “loophole” Dawn refers to was the remnant of objectivity present in her state’s legal code.

I imagine it was terribly frustrating to know that such an atrocity (one individual looking at another one while he could possibly be thinking about something that, if enacted, could possibly be immoral or objectionable to some people) could occur to helpless children. In principle, we should consider expanding the protective scope of this measure to all people (with the exception of white, capitalist males or course). We must take the proper steps to protect individuals from the irreparable damage inflicted when others detect their existence while maintaining a forbidden state of consciousness. If we really wanted to be a catalyst for positive change, we could also ban indiscriminate auditory detection of humans under such mindsets.

With time, we can only hope this intuitive, and clairvoyant legal tactic will be the cornerstone for a litany of progressive laws that would enable government control of every thought, emotion, action and consequence of our lives. Society will then be well on its way to the utter domination of existence, identity and causality, abandoning its current status as a mere subordinate of reality.

In the interest of full disclosure, just yesterday, while in line at Dunkin Donuts, I actually pondered the taste of a sour cream doughnut without imagining paying for it. I admit it. It was wrong, and for the greater good, I’m willing to pay the consequences.