Episode 386 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following news stories: from USA Today, “‘Vigorous’ self-defense laws likely prevented homicide charges in Breonna Taylor’s death, experts say” (Wikipedia entry on Breonna Taylor’s death, Reason’s coverage); from Wave3 News, “Jon Mattingly: Officer involved in Breonna Taylor shooting sends candid email to LMPD colleagues”; from NBC New York, “DOJ Designates New York City as an ‘Anarchist Jurisdiction'”; from Alarabiya, “Turkey sentences female politician to prison for calling Erdogan ‘enemy of women’”; and from Next City, “Atlanta’s Trying to Support, Not Punish, Its Teenage Water Vendors” (Full council report).
In June, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order providing for sanctions against persons who “have directly engaged in any effort by the [International Criminal Court] to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States.”
Episode 358 welcomes back Chris Jenkins to chat with Skyler on the following topics: their Jurassic Park movie favorites, in order; movies during the 2020 pandemic; social distancing verse physical distance and whether something more sinister is afoot; Samuel Konkin III’s agorism and counter-economic strategies for starving the state of tax revenue; civil disobedience; challenging the state’s jurisdictional claims (and a bit on Skyler’s recent experience with his Airbnb, found here); gumming up the gears of state action through courts and in raising the costs of their bureaucratic enforcement; Utah allowing community service in lieu of paying traffic fines and where that law originated; unschooling and homeschooling as agorist action; and more.
As you no doubt know by now, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has chosen US Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) as his running mate. You’ve probably also noticed the first salvo of Republican attacks on Harris: She’s “not really black,” and she may not even be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution to hold the office of president or vice president. No one sane or intelligent finds either of these attacks convincing.
This episode features a talk by activist radio host and anarchist Marc Stevens from 2010. He talks about undermining the factually non-existent state by challenging any and all claims of jurisdiction, that their laws apply to anyone, anywhere.
On August 11, 2014, officers from the Caldwell, Idaho Police Department asked for Shaniz West’s permission to enter and search her home. They were looking for her ex-boyfriend. West authorized the search and handed over her keys. Instead of entering and searching the home, though, the police brought in a SWAT team, surrounding the building. “[P]olice repeatedly exceeded the authority Ms. West had given them,” a lawsuit she filed complains, “breaking windows, crashing through ceilings, and riddling the home with holes from shooting canisters of tear gas, destroying most of Ms. West and her children’s personal belongings.”
On November 29, FBI agents arrested hacker and cryptocurrency developer Virgil Griffith. His alleged crime: Talking. Yes, really. The FBI alleges that Griffith “participated in discussions regarding using cryptocurrency technologies to evade sanctions and launder money.”
Text messaging isn’t manslaughter, any more than it’s rape, robbery, or driving 60 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone. Nor is possession of a doll or a mole or birthmark “witchcraft” as fantasized in 17th century Puritan New England.
The USA PATRIOT Act provides a textbook example of how the United States federal government expands its power. An emergency happens, legitimate or otherwise. The media, playing its dutiful role as goad for greater government oversight, demands “something must be done.” Government power is massively expanded, with little regard for whether or not what is being done is efficacious, to say nothing of the overall impact on our nation’s civil liberties.
While I’ve spoken about this many times, it keeps coming up so I figured I would do a formal analysis. I’m well-aware this will have no impact on those who use this tactic to avoid discussion, such as lawyers and bureaucrats; this is for those who may be victims of this pernicious method of shouting down a valid argument. Ironically, as will be shown, it’s those screeching “frivolous” that are usually raising a truly frivolous argument. Yelling frivolous is a distraction technique, don’t be fooled by it.