Pro-Liberty News and Opinion | Libertarian Voluntaryist

Originally written for digitaljournal.com visit the link and vote for the story to improve its visibility.

On May 11 the US Post Office is raising the price of stamps by 2¢. Even in the face of increasing prices, many people will argue that the Post Office is necessary because a private organization could never perform these functions for a similar cost. The story of Lysander Spooner, however, might rekindle the debate over the necessity of a monopoly Post Office.

WHO WAS LYSANDER SPOONER?

Lysander Spooner is an obscure figure in American history. He is so forgotten, in fact, that his voluminous Collected Works has remained out of print for many years. The six-volume collection, which contains 36 works, can be found used on sites like Amazon.com for upwards of $400. This current obscurity, however, does not mean that he was an unimportant figure.

Spooner achieved many great things in his lifetime including his active campaigning against slavery and the publication of his most famous work titled The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1846), which influenced the likes of Fredrick Douglas. One of his lesser-known ventures, however, was his creation of the American Letter Mail Company, which was a private mail delivery service that was meant to compete directly with the United States Postal Service.

Spooner was born on January 19th 1808 at a farm in Athol, Massachusetts. He studied law under John Davis, who would later serve in the House of Representatives and Senate and as Governor of Massachusetts, and Charles Allen, who would serve in the House of Representatives. Spooner, however, never attended college. Under state law, non-graduates were required to study under attorneys for five years, while graduates were only required to do so for three years. Spooner, however, saw this law as unfair and he therefore flaunted it, setting up his own practice in Worcester, Massachusetts after only three years. He also viewed the regulations as unfair discrimination against poor individuals who might not be able to afford attend school.

Spooner’s legal career turned out to be a disappointment, as his radical writings seemed to have driven customers away. He also attempted to make a living as a real estate speculator, but that venture failed as well. Spooner decided to move back to his father’s farm in 1840. His time spent as lawyer, nevertheless, was not a total waste, as it would eventually aid him in his future court battles over his private mail delivery company.

Spooner’s most well known book, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, was published in 1846. The book was very influential at the time, inspiring such prominent individuals as Fredrick Douglas. Douglas was originally a disunionist abolitionist who believed that the United States Constitution legally recognized and enforced the oppression of slaves. He would later come to accept the pro-Constitution argument, citing Spooner’s arguments as his rationale.

From the time the book was published to 1861 Spooner actively campaigned against slavery. He provided his legal services to escaped slaves, often free of charge, while also publishing pamphlets on the concept of Jury Nullification. This theory provides that a jury may find a defendant innocent despite their violation of the letter of the law, if they believe that said law is inherently unjust. Spooner presumably believed that informing the public about this idea would allow them to find escaped slaves innocent even though they violated the law.

Previous to the publication of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery Spooner founded the American Letter Mail Company as a direct opposition to the United States Post Office. Today, many Americans believe that it is a necessity to have a government sanctioned monopoly organization, such as the Post Office, deliver the mail. They will argue that a private company could never fulfill such a daunting task as delivering the mail across the entire country without charging outlandish prices. Not only does Lysander Spooner’s saga prove this mentality wrong, it also shows that the government is just as likely over charge for the delivery of mail as a private corporation.

Read the rest of this entry »

H.R. 414 , cleverly named the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, is sponsored by Peter T. King who is the representative for New York’s third district. The law would ensure every cellphone makes a sound when the camera function is being used.

If passed, the law will require “any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera’s phone. Prohibits such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone. Treats the requirement as a consumer product safety standard and requires enforcement by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).” In other words, the tone would be considered, by the government, as a safety feature and disabling it would violate safety standards set up by the CPSC.  

Judging by the name of the law, it may have been proposed as a measure to combat the recent trend of taking “upskirting” pictures with camera phones. 

Looking at recent cases of police brutality, however, might reveal a more sinister side effect that could occur if the proposed law is passed. 

Take, for instance, the San Fransisco Bay Area BART incident (video below) where a police officer shot a man, who was on the ground and possibly handcuffed, in the back. The officer’s excuse is that he meant to pull out his taser, but grabbed and fired his handgun instead. A gun, however, is much heavier than a taser, and he should have realized the difference. 

Later news came out revealing that the cops at the BART station were confiscating the phones of people whom were using them to take pictures of and video record the incident. Luckily, many of the people who were recording the incident were on the train and it left before the officers could collect their phones. 

If all of these cellphones were making clicking noises as they recorded it would have been much easier for the police to identify those that were being used to obtain evidence of the incident. 

Whatever the reason behind the proposed law it is clear that the House of Representatives should be focusing on more pressing issues like the state of the US economy.

Article originally published on digitaljournal.com

Check out the story here:

Britain is considering a ban on “happy hour” discounts at bars and restaurants to curb drinking, a spokesman said Saturday, as health advocates warned that a rise in liver-related deaths among young people may signal a future epidemic.

So they think this will curb drinking?  Probably not.  People will just have to spend more money on alcohol now, which could be devastating in tough economic times.

Lawmaking bureaucrats in a St. Louis area town are considering passing a bill that will ban swearing in bars. Bureaucrat Richard Velt proposed the bill after hearing complaints about bad bar behavior.

The law would also ban table dancing, drinking contests and profane music.

Presumably, ground-level dancing will still be allowed which leads me to wonder why a dancers elevation makes a difference in the eyes of the state. Maybe table dancing is more dangerous because the distance to the ground is larger making a fall more likely to cause injury. At least the government is there to protect them now.

MSNBC reports:

The proposal would ban indecent, profane or obscene language, songs, entertainment and literature at bars.

It looks like the jukeboxes and playlists of many bars are going to need some revamping. Plenty of the songs played in bars have lyrics that someone will find undoubtedly “indecent, profane or obscene.” And that is the problem with this law: it is subject to interpretation.

If someone finds your words to be offensive you could be subject to punishment. So much for free speech on private property.

I also wonder how such a law would be enforced. Are we now going to have undercover police officers scouring bars for profane language, table dancing and offensive music? Would they be more useful to the public if they were out looking for real criminals?

It looks like those who want to use profane language will just have to step outside, but then again, shouldn’t the smokers also have the right not to be offended?