A month or so ago I caught a news segment about a guy named Will Staton who found himself targeted by gang members because he left bottles of water out for his neighbors. Why? Because his neighbors happened to be born on the other side of an arbitrary political boundary that they were trying to cross, and the gangsters belonged to a gang known as the United States government.
Staton’s reward for helping others? Gangsters in suits calling themselves prosecutors tried to make him $5,000 less well-off and place him under their surveillance (i.e. probation) for five years. These thugs wrote that Staton’s “actions are not about humanitarian efforts, but about protesting the immigration policies of the United States, and aiding those that enter illegally into the United States” – proof that Staton was targeted specifically because his actions differed from the dictates of higher-up gang members based in Washington DC.
To clarify: one group of people threatened to violate the rights of an individual (steal his property and violate his privacy) because that individual acted in ways the group and their friends in DC don’t like.
When, despite their intimidation, Staton refused to agree with this gang, they threatened he “knowingly littered” which they claimed entitled them to $100,000 of Staton’s money and the ability to surveil him for five years. In the end, Staton was told to pick up litter for 300 hours and that he would have to check-in with them on a regular basis for a year.
And this is the gang that so many people continue to support? One that claims a right to the property and privacy of individual’s seeking to help their neighbors? I, for one, don’t support these gangsters and I hope you too will join the growing number of individuals who are taking a principled and moral stand against this great fiction.
Pete Eyre is the Outreach Consultant at 
You do realize that national borders are not “arbitrary political boundaries”, right? At least they are no more arbitrary than your fences are “arbitrary geological obstructions” between your neighbor’s house and yours. They are established according to agreements between two bordering nations and ought to be as binding as contracts between two individuals.
As for this “gang” you speak of, this “gang” is constitutionally empowered to protect the borders of these United States (it’s one of its few limited powers), which includes making sure bad people cannot come through, either with an army or without. A private citizen aiding his “global neighbors” violate this border is not working for freedom or to be a good neighbor: freedom in this country is best preserved when we can make sure that people coming into this country respects its rule of law and can be successfully assimilated into its culture of individual freedom, and please, good fences make good neighbors. Stop breaking down the fences that allow us to be good neighbors with Mexico (and Canada).
Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel good
Hey man,
Save some Kool-Aid for the others! No need to drink the whole gallon yourself.
“constitutionally empowered”! That cracks me up. So if I write a cool letter giving myself power to do anything I want and get a bunch of other people to sign it in return for giving them power too, I can do anything I want to people who didn’t sign it??? AWESOME!!!
“Consent of the governed”. We do not give our consent!
There might be a legal case for enforcement – but since the government itself from the highest levels on down encourages, facilitates, and aids illegal immigration in a host of different ways – it should surely seem that this case was about political posturing and not really about law enforcement. Same thing with drug laws the war on terror and many others – governments lose the moral, legal, and practical basis for prosecuting people when the government itself is guilty of the same damn thing, albeit on a much larger and tax funded scale.
Byung Kyu Park Who empowered this creature you speak of called “United states”? Who gave them this territory? Better yet, who gave them dominion over me, or Will Staton, or you for that matter? I did not give them this power, they force it on me.
Who empowers the federal government? The Constitution, ratified by original 13 colonies, and agreed to by every new state joining the United States of America. While the Constitution does derive its power from the people and the powers it grants the federal government is few and limited, those powers that are granted should be respected. The Constitution (or, more generally, constitutional rule) is the basis for individual liberty and rule of law in this country.
If you cannot respect the Constitution—even the portions you as an individual do not agree to but somehow cannot get your fellow men to amend through the legal process—then you are, in the end, advocating for the gang/mob rule: rule by the strong, right by contest of force.
You can call the government by any childish names you want. But anarchism isn’t the best defender of individual freedom, if freedom is what you want.
P.S. New Hampshire state constitution has this thing called “right of revolution”. I won’t claim that people have forfeited this right to the federal government—but it is for the people to decide whether the government has become so oppressive that it needs to be overthrown, not a few disgruntled individuals who want to break a few laws that they don’t agree with—without going through the legal process to try to change these laws.
My goodness, the entire land area of the United States is under federal jurisdiction and “subject to the Constitution” due to it being taken and held by force of arms. That is gang rule—rule by the strong.
Without just claims to the Earth’s surface by individual human beings there can be no just system of social organization. A group of people with guns cannot ethically or morally lay claim to a large area of the planet by force and exclude the rest of humanity from it.
And I, who find myself in this United States land area do not give my consent to be governed by those who claim the right. I guess you will tell me I should leave? That you are part of the gang who, through force, wish to exclude all human beings from the land area that has been unjustly claimed by your organization?
Your little Constitution holds absolutely no power over me. Your bloated federal government has no legal jurisdiction over me. Only the lethal force behind it compels me to play by the rules and live as an unfree person in an occupied land.
Telling me I have to respect a set of rules that you like or else be assaulted is pretty presumptuous of you, don’t you think? After all, am I living on a piece of land that you have any claim to whatsoever? And you are going to presume to tell me what the rules are on my property? Oh, that’s right—human beings cannot own property, only abstract, imaginary organizations called government can. And you get to act like an important kingpin and, through your organization, you get to tell me what rules I have to follow—or else.
I guess the Constitution does not allow a single, powerful tyrant to run the show, but rather millions of petty little ones.
It is your opinion that the only way to have a civil society is through the threat of violence by an organization with a monopoly on force. It is also apparently your opinion that constitutions bestow rights upon human beings.
I would have to say that I don’t agree with you.
Did I ever sign this constitution? Or sign any document saying that I would A) abide by the constitution and B) use the courts as my only recourse?
You cannot bind me to something I never agreed to, to do so is called slavery.
Who are “the people” as opposed to “disgruntled individuals”?
Is Byung Kyu Park suggesting that illegal immigrants should not be given liquids once they arrive in America? When the ICE cops bust Mexicans should they not feed them since this aides them?
I fail to see how Will Staton is really doing anything wrong. Even if you take the position of Byung Kyu Park regarding the border, it is a hard case to make that Staton is aiding illegal immigrants in their “crime” by setting out bottles of water. I’ve heard the water in Mexico isn’t the best, but it is absurd to say that Mexicans are hopping the border just because Staton is giving away good water.
If the government agents are really so concerned about people crossing the border, why aren’t they dealing with that as opposed to hassling Staton? Maybe they just want to make America such a horrible place to live, Mexicans will not want to come here.
If the Constitution has any value, the thug’s claims that his actions were “about protesting the immigration policies of the United States” should that not be 1st amendment protected political speech? They then are saying we are punishing him BECAUSE he is exercising his rights.
Way to go Constitution/nation lovers. “The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” ~Lysander Spooner.
Byung – thanks for your comments. To address the question you posed which likened “national borders” to fences between houses – first I’d posit that such a comparison is incorrect. As others have already pointed out, the former relies on force while the latter does not. This issue comes down to property rights. While the owners of the house are contractually bound (they have a deed etc.) “national borders” are not. I know I didn’t sign the all-powerful constitution which you cite as justification for the rights-violations committed. Have you? Has anyone alive today done so? No. How then, can it be a legally binding contract to you or me anymore so than a contract signed between your father and a business associate or two random strangers?
Xaq already quoted Spooner but if you have time/interest I’d encourage you to check out his “Constitution of No Authority” http://jim.com/treason.htm
Individuals have the same rights no matter where they happen to be born.
To continue, you noted that “freedom in this country is best preserved when we can make sure that people coming into this country . . .” Who is this “we” you speak of? The majority? The mob you so vilify?
Wouldn’t you agree that I have the right to say who comes onto my property, irregardless of if it offends you or a group in a far off city? Wouldn’t you agree that if you were a business owner and you voluntary reached an agreement with someone for them to come work for you that it doesn’t matter if that person happened to be born across town or across the world? That any third party interference with that contract violates both of your rights?
And what is this “rule of law” you speak of? Who decides that? Again, I’ll point to an external resource on this that can touch on this better than I, an essay by John Hasnas called “The Myth of the Rule of Law” http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Granting an individual or a group a monopoly on the use of force does not preserve or grow individual liberty but is a one-way ticket to tyranny. For more on this check out the Public Choice Theory overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts when/if you have time to respond.
I disagree. At one point in the past, establishment of border depended on a combination of force and agreement between sovereigns—while wars that change nations’ borders would inevitably involve force, any nation that would too frequently violate borders would earn suspicion of her neighbors and endanger her existence. Today (meaning after WWII), changes to national borders are matter of international agreements. Proof? Mexico and Canada exist! If it were a pure matter of force and not political agreements, U.S. would have no problem annexing those territories, and dare I say those territories have plenty of valuable resources, like oil and natural gas, that would justify the economics, although not morals, of invasion.
Finding no common ground between your philosophy and mine, I don’t think I can seriously comment on the rest of what you say, other than to speak ill of anarchism generally (as below):
So you reject Constitution as a supreme law of the land. You reject rule of law—especially relatively liberal laws of the United States (unlike Socrates, I don’t believe all laws are just—I however do believe most laws are just to the extent they do not violate fundamental individual rights). You reject anything that you didn’t put your personal signature on. And even when you do personally agree to a contract, you reject any external authority (such as police and army) that would enforce that contract.
I have hard time seeing anarchism as anything but adolescent chanting of “nyah, nyah, nyah”. Anarchism doesn’t appear to offer anything fundamental or lasting in and of itself—that is, its whole philosophy seems to consist of saying any kind of establishment or enforcement of law is wrong, so once those things are gone, what kind of principle would guide you especially in interaction between different people?
In case of libertarianism, property rights form the very basis of philosophy, independent of whatever other political philosophies and structures may exist. Everything should be traceable back to property rights. I personally accept the U.S. Constitution not arbitrarily but because it imposes few restrictions on property rights (and other rights derived from that) while, as empirically proven, protects them best with least use of force (and if I did not accept the U.S. Constitution, I would cease living in the U.S., or at the very least would not have become a naturalized citizen). I accept the federal authorities establishing rules on immigration and enforcing them because (1) no single individual can be held responsible, practically speaking, for result of influx of immigrants from other countries, so individual property rights do not apply; (2) large scale immigration can destabilize the society (which leads to endangerment of property rights; think of riots—what happens to property in riots?), so the state has compelling interest in controlling it, and in particular that influx of immigrants is at a low enough level for us to integrate them into our society. I do not want Eternal September happening in real life, in U.S.
So, unless you have (sound) philosophies of your own to present and defend, I am afraid that we will have no common point of reference to have a debate over. Whatever I say, you will say, “No, it ain’t so” using specious arguments and corner cases, and we will just run in an endless circle. I live in the real world and have better things to spend my time on.
Okay, lets try this argument, The constitution is made to bind us despite what we choose, therefore, it cannot be a source or a defender of freedom, as by its nature it takes that from you.
“I have hard time seeing anarchism as anything but adolescent chanting of “nyah, nyah, nyah”. ”
I have a hard time seeing Constitutional Worshiping as anything but adolescent chanting of “nyah, nyah, nyah”, myself.. but who said anything about anarchism? – read the article on here about why it’s not such a good word to describe what we’re talking about here.
If I’m free to control my property and do with it whatever I wish, so long as I don’t trespass, and I have never made any agreement to follow your constitution, state charter, local gang rules, whatever, then what obligates me to obey?
You avoid this question every time and just go on about some vague semblance of authority that the lawmakers asserted 200+ years ago… it doesn’t apply to anyone who doesn’t consent. Plain and simple.