Here is a great video about libertarian ideals.  A lot of you may have seen it already, but its worth posting for those of you out there that may not have.  For better quality, check out the original flash animation.

A recent study conducted by MAPS.org shows that there are more ER visits per year for cheerleading accidents than there are for Ecstasy use. To quote the study:

I focused on Emergency Room (ER) visit data, the most common indicator of cost to public health. For example, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), in 1994–nine years after MDMA was criminalized, but the first for which data is available from SAMHSA– there were 253 ER visits as a result of Ecstasy use in the US. Meanwhile, according to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC), in 1994 there were 15,792 ER visits as a result of participation in organized cheerleading. By that measure, in 1994 cheerleading was 62 times more of a threat to our nation’s public health than Ecstasy use. Keep in mind that most users don’t know whether their Ecstasy is pure MDMA, so these statistics reflect the risks of using unregulated black-market Ecstasy, which often contains other substances and sometimes does not even contain MDMA.

To look at those numbers another way, in 2001, one out of every 152 organized cheerleading participants sought ER treatment, while only one of out of every 585 past-year Ecstasy users sought ER treatment.

There is also a graph comparing the two for each year from 1995 to 2004:

So I guess we all know what this means. It is time to start a prohibition on cheerleading. After all, the reason certain drugs are illegal is because the are ‘unsafe’ and this study clearly shows that cheerleading is far more dangerous to public health than MDMA. It seems that if the government is at all worried about the safety of its citizens then they should outlaw cheerleading. While they’re at it (since governments never seem to know when to stop), they might as well outlaw smoking and trans fat since these are also dangerous to public health.

Of course these are ludicrous claims. The government does not have the right to regulate what people can do with their bodies. They should not be allowed regulate cheerleading and they should not be allowed to regulate drug use. I just hope this study puts drug use into perspetive for those who think the government should have the right to regulate it. Just think about how you would feel if the government banned trans fats or cheerleading and you can see why the ‘war on drugs’ is the debacle that it is. People will get their fix (whether it be trans fat, cheerleading, or drugs) even if they have to go behind Big Brothers back to get it.

A Pittsburgh girl was recently arrested for taking nude photos of herself and sending them to people she met in chat rooms on the internet. Among her charges were possession of child porn (for having the pictures stored on her hard drive), sexual abuse of children (for taking the pictures of herself) and dissemination of child porn (for distributing the pictures).

In America, the Land of the Free, a minor is not allowed to take nude pictures of herself. Not only is it not allowed, but it is considered to be child porn, and the act of taking the pictures is considered child abuse. A minor can actually be charged for sexually abusing herself. Whats next? Is masturbation going to be considered child molestation for minors?

Also, don’t forget that a child porn charge makes her a sex offender at the ripe, old age of fifteen. That means that she faces the stigma of being put in sex offender databases for the rest of her life. Some places require that sex offenders live a certain distance from schools, parks, and churches. Will her parents have to move her if they live to close to any of those places? Or will the state just take her away?

Next thing you know, a 17-year-old is going to be arrested for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old. Oh wait, that already happened.

I recently stumbled across a great article by Stefan Molyneux entitled, “The Gun in the Room“, over at LewRockwell.com. I highly suggest reading the whole thing. The first paragraph is as follows:

One of the most difficult – and essential – challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out “the gun in the room.” In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a “euphemism umbrella” to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.

The article then goes on to explain how every political debate can be boiled down to pointing out the gun in the room. If someone supports taxes, point out the gun in the room. If someone supports the war on drugs, point out the gun in the room. The list goes on. Molyneux uses the public school system as a good example. The debate is not about whether or not public schools are a good thing, but rather, whether or not I am allowed to disagree with the idea of a public school system without the fear of being shot. This is not the case. If I do not believe that publicly funded schools should exist and, in turn, do not pay my property taxes I will be shot. Sure, that outcome may not be immediate, but it will happen when the government tries to take my house and I am prepared to defend it. So the next time you are in a political debate with someone who hates liberty, simply point out the gun in the room and urge them to take out all the bullets. Then, you might be able to get somewhere with them.

Wiretapping is now the least of your worries. According to Fox News, the FBI is now using cell phones to eavesdrop on conversations. They can now remotely connect to the phone, activate the mic and listen to what is being said in the area. The only way to absolutely avoid this is by removing the battery from your phone. It may also be possible to cover the mic with something when you are not using it. This is ridiculous. The government is becoming more invasive day by day. Big Brother here we come.

According to maltaStar.com, Italian Doctor Mario Riccio switched off the life support of his patient Piergorgio Welby in order to allow him to die peacefully. Welby was suffering from muscular dystrophy and was unable to move his body. At this point, he was reduced to communicating by blinking his eyelids. Welby asked authorities to be euthanized, a process which is illegal in Italy and much of the world, but was denied. He even went as far as writing a letter to the President of Italy. His efforts, however, were futile.

According to the article:

Even though the plea was turned down, Dr Riccio might have found a legal loophole that permitted him and his staff to allow Welby to die, even though the doctor rejects it was a case of euthanasia.

“In Italian hospitals therapies are suspended all the time, and this does not lead to any intervention from magistrates or to problems of conscience,” Dr Riccio told reporters, following Mr Welby’s death late on Wednesday.

“This must not be mistaken for euthanasia. It is a suspension of therapies,” he told a news conference in Rome. “Refusing treatment is a right.”

Let me reiterate that last statement. Dr. Riccio said, “Refusing treatment is a right.” While I agree with this statement, is it not true that someone’s right to do what they want with their life more important. Yes, the doctor has the right to refuse treatment to whoever he wants, but he also has the right to perform any service that he wants. If there is someone who wants to be euthanized and the doctor is willing to perform this service, then what business does the government have meddling in the affairs? Laws that prohibit people from doing what they want with their life, even if that means ending it, are wrong and need to be abolished. I never understood why eutanasia was illegal in the first place. I guess it is just another case of legislating morality.

Welby’s death has stirred up some controversy and some groups are hoping to bring legal charges against Dr. Riccio. If he is found guilty, he could face up to 15 years in prison.