Criminal Intent

In a Libertarian Utopia, there would be no national borders. People would be able to travel freely from country to country and have the same job and business opportunities in one country as they do in another.
But we do not live in a Libertarian Utopia, and there is no country in the world that has open borders. An open border has to be a two-way affair, where one can find needs and opportunities with equal ease on either side. An open border is not a one way portal.
It is not a matter of temporary security that there are immigration laws and criteria for crossing an international border, but one of preservation. In a free society, these laws and rules are neither xenophobic nor racist, but are to ensure that a person is not entering a country to escape prosecution for a crime, or to commit a crime. A person who crosses a border legally is either a tourist or a legitimate immigrant, while a person who sneaks across a border is an invader.
A person who is in a country illegally and who works or otherwise establishes commerce in that country is doing so illegally. Any money or material goods that person takes or earns is in an underground economy that is outside the law, whether that person pays taxes or not. Therefore, if such money that the person has procured illegally is used in a transaction, that transaction is also illegal.
Ideally each state should have the sovereign right to its own laws and regulations, but the fact is that a person who crossed an international border illegally is still a criminal in any state. If states such as North Carolina and Arkansas accept tuition fees from border incursionists, then the transaction is illegal.
What I am saying here is that it is wrong to favor those who came into the country illegally over those who did the paperwork and made the necessary arrangements to come into the country. A person who lives in Colorado, and is a legal resident, would have to pay out of state tuition to go to school in Arkansas, yet a person who is in the country as a result of a border incursion not only can pay the tuition with illicitly procured money, but can do so at the reduced rate given to residents of the state of Arkansas.
Granted there are unjust laws in this country, but ignoring a law does not negate it. Negation of an unjust law must be done within a court of law or by legislation. Making a law to create a loophole around a law is not negation, as it does not directly repeal the law for which the loophole was created. In effect, the state government of Arkansas, by accepting tuition money from a criminal at large, is guilty of harboring a criminal.
Immigration laws are not racist. They do not distinguish between the nationality or race of any persons who wish to enter the country. It is more racist to assume that immigration laws apply only to certain people. In this case, "political correctness" is criminal.

The Atrocity at Home

You're driving down the highway, and, up ahead you see flashing red and blue lights. The traffic slows to a standstill, and you wait in line, wondering if there are prison escapees or other criminal fugitives in the area. When you finally get to the roadblock, a man with a badge and a gun approaches your window, and says "Show me your license and registration, please."
As you collect the required documents the "public safety" officer takes a visual look around inside your car, and you realize that it is you they are looking for.
What, you may wonder, is the reason for this detention and search? Where is the probable cause?
The government charges that the probable cause is that you are driving a car, and that you might, therefore, be driving while intoxicated, under the influence, or that you may be using or transporting illegal or illicit substances in the passenger compartment of your vehicle.
Of course, the government may find probable cause in everything you do. If you are walking down the street, you may be eluding arrest, because, if you have nothing to hide, why aren't you driving a car? If you are living by yourself, you could be a social deviant. If you are living and breathing, you might plotting to kill someone. There is plenty of probable cause, when the criteria are so vague.
In the states--all but eleven--that utilize these sobriety check points, the ratio of actual DWI offenders to innocent detainees is approximately less than one in 800, according to Barry Noreen of the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Noreen comments on the questionable constitutionality of sobriety check points:

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints are constitutional, and that remains the law of the land, even though the Fourth Amendment supposedly protects citizens from being detained without probable cause.

Is it conceivable the high court could be wrong? Remember, a unanimous court once upheld the internment camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry. In Plessy v. Ferguson, it created the “separate-but-equal” justification for racial segregation.
Sure, the Supreme Court could be wrong again.

In 1990, the court defended checkpoints where the average delay for innocent citizens was 25 seconds. Today, the Colorado Springs Police Department’s Web site says three minutes is an acceptable guideline.

It’s hardly reassuring that the Bill of Rights will be suspended for just three minutes.

The return to the State harvested from the sobriety check points is too low to justify the cost in time and money. Law enforcement resources are being mishandled in manning these check points.
Wouldn't it be easier to catch DWI offenders by patrolling traffic and looking for such tell-tale signs as excessive weaving, erratic turns, speeding, excessively slow driving, or running stop lights or stop signs? Just because a person is in a car, doesn't mean that he or she is irresponsible for his or her actions, any more than living and breathing means that we could commit a crime.

Why Do We Have Laws?

One of the worst arguments against ending prohibition I have ever heard came a few weeks ago, during a discussion of the subject between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera. O'Reilly, an ardent prohibitionist, blurted out, "If we legalize murder, then we could shoot more people."
Now, before we jump to the conclusion that O'Reilly is a homicidal psychopath who would murder people if there weren't a law, it must be understood that he is actually a paranoid sociopath who bellieves there should be a law governing every aspect of our lives, from what we watch on television or listen to on the radio to the top salary corporate officers should be paid. O'Reilly seems to be one who believes that
we are basically evil, and will do harm to others or ourselves unless everything we do is strictly regulated. He truly believes that laws prevent crime.
He is, of course, wrong, as are so many others. From the very beginnings of civilization, when it was discovered that it is better to ally with others rather than killing or stealing from them whenever encountered, it has been deeply ingrained in our very Being that it is wrong to kill, rape, or steal from others, or otherwise trespass on the person or property of others. We know, in our very Spirit, or, if one is an Atheist, in our deepest subconscious, that these are crimes against Nature, and that repercussions are inevitable.
There are, however, a small percentage of those in society who are missing the basic moral reasoning most of us possess. These individuals do not have the ability to consider the consequences of their actions. In the earliest times, they were taken out of society by retributive actions by the family or clan leadership of the wronged. Thus were the laws of Nature enforced--to every action, a reaction; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. With the advancement of civilization came the rule of law.
There are two kinds of laws--just and unjust. Just laws are those that establish a code for dealing with criminal acts against Nature. Unjust laws are those that create new crimes and are therefore, in themselves, crimes against nature.
Laws, traditionally, were never intended to create or prevent crime--we know that, law or no law, crimes are committed. Rather, laws were created in order to set a code by which retribution could be realized without leaving it in the hands of those who may kill the wrong person or wrongfully accuse others. Laws could be said to keep the peace by setting an order of punishment or retribution, thus preventing large scale family feuds or clan wars. In modern civilization, laws for crimes against Nature are necessary to remove the social and/or Spiritual devients and depraved who commit crimes from society.
As civilization grew, so did government. Laws became a tool for adding more wealth to governmental coffers, or for controlling the thoughts and actions of the general populace. At various times, in various societies, it has been a crime to be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Property of those individuals or societies were confiscated by the governments which outlawed their religions, and the practitioners were often tortured before they were killed. Such laws are, in themselves crimes against Nature in that they attempt to suppress the natural tendency of our kind to find Spiritual growth and strength. Nature Itself has enacted retribution against those governments which had such laws--most of those governments have fallen, and those that continue to suppress the Natural inclination toward the Spiritual, will inevitably fall. Law or no law, these religions have perservered and serve the Spiritual needs of the majority of the Earth's human population, while the governments that have enacted laws against Nature serve nothing.
Toward the end of the Nineteenth Century A.D., governments began to realize the value of demonizing so-called vices and creating "victimless" crimes against them. Under such laws, government coffers could be vastly increased by confiscating property, exacting fines, and by receiving pay-offs and campaign contributions from the crime lords whom the laws enabled.
The demonization of alcoholic beverages culminated in 1929, when an ammendment to the Constitution of the United States was passed and it became illegal to purchase, sell, possess, manufacture, or transport such products within the United States. Subsequently, individuals who were missing the Natural awareness of right or wrong rose in power as they sold the "illegal" products to the masses, and murdered those who would compete with them or prevent them from plying their trade. Politicians happily accepted bribes, kickbacks, and contributions from these individuals, and the Federal government gladly confiscated property and exacted fines from those who chose not to pay such bribes. The law did not prevent people from imbibing alcoholic beverages, it only created more crime. By 1934, the crime and corruption rates had become so high, and the civil disobedience of the general alcohol consuming public had become so widespread, that the government had no choice but to repeal the prohibition ammendment.
To backtrack somewhat, the earliest known by-product of agricultural cultivation is beer. As civilizations grew, the water supplies became poisoned, with bacteria, viruses, and harmful parasites, so distilled and fermented beverages became a necessary alternative to water. Wine frequently appears in the oldest of scriptures and writings of nearly every culture. Even where water was palatable, the value of alcoholic beverages in the social context was well known. The main reason alcohol prohibition did not work is because alcoholic beverage, in most cultures, have become a part of human nature.
Vices which traditionally do not involve murder, theft or rape, such as the use of psychotropic drugs for recreation and meditation purposes, are also part of Nature, having been used from the earliest times of civilization by shamans and others to increase the depth of thought. It is human nature to seek ways of looking at things in different ways, or to induce Spiritual awareness or awakening. Marijuana has long been a medium for doing so. In addition, marijuana has been used for various medicinal purposes, and to this day is an accepted therapy for eating disorders and glaucoma, as well as its use in pain distraction therapy.
It must be noted here that the use of either alcohol or marijuana should be in moderation and with prudence. Self-responsibility is the key phrase here, and over use of any substance is unnacceptable. Operating a vehicle or machinery while under the influence is unnacceptable, as is attempting to work in potentially dangerous or hazardous situations.
After alcohol prohibition was repealed, there was a loss of income for those who had profited from the underground economy prohibition had created. The demonization of marijuana had begun long before, with claims that it caused people to steal, that it incited young people to have sex, thus being a contributor to unwanted teen pregnancy, that it made "black men desire white women," all scientifically unfounded. The financial aspects of alcohol prohibition had served well--families such as the Kennedys who profitied from the prohibition are still financially and politically powerful today--so it was easy to create a new prohibition. Marijuana use was not as widespread as alcohol use, so there would not be as much backlash by the general public. The Controlled Substance Act of 1936 began a prohibition which is still in effect today.
As in the case of alcohol prohibition, the marijuana prohibition has created an underground economy rooted in violence and anti-social behavior. Likewise, the government gains wealth through confiscation of personal property and fines. It is estimated that nearly eighty million Americans use marijuana, which only increases the strength of the underground economy as long as prohibition is in effect. Law enforcement officers are constantly placed in life threatening situations, as was the case in the gang wars of the early 1930's. The kickbacks, however, are different in that they are indirect. There is no proof that our politicians are being corrupted by the drug lords directly, so we can not imply that there is such corruption. However, there is still much money to be made legitimately under prohibition--manufacturers who produce law enforcement technology have much at stake in prohibition, and they can influence votes and campaign donations. No matter what else happens in the world, politicians can always take a stand by decrying the horrors of drugs being sold to and used by children. They disregard the fact that if there were no prohibition, the distribution of marijuana could be better controlled and less likely to fall into the hands of children. To all appearances, the financial gain realized by continuing prohibition is worth more than dealing with the victimization created by prohibition.
But Nature always corrects Itself. After more than seventy years of prohibition, more people use marijuana now than ever. Voters in nearly every state that have had legalization of medical marijuana on a ballot have passed such laws, even in the face of severe opposition from the Federal government. It is not a matter of if, but of when the marijuana prohibition is repealed. Common sense and Natural law will eventually prevail.

Laws didn't prevent mass murder

The atrocity at Virginia Tech, yesterday, left thirty-three people dead, and at least twenty-three wounded. It is now known as "The worst mass-murder in the history of the United States. This is a time to wish peace and healing on the victims and their families. We would like to be able to avoid entering the debate as to why or how it happened, but the self-described "experts" are already pointing the finger of blame at everything from video games to the lack of gun control and a "violent society," and we feel compelled to state our feelings in the case.
We live in a world where there are people who have nothing in their state of being to tell them that it is wrong to take an innocent life. Such people have existed since the earliest time of history, going all the way back to the story of Cain and Abel. The fact of life is that there will always be someone who is out to kill people. There is no reason or rationale, and no cause. There will always be horror and tragedy such as that which happened at Virginia Tech. Although our natural state is to abhor acts which take the lives of others, there are those who do not fit in to our natural state.
Jack Thompson, a self-proclaimed "expert" on school shootings is an attorney--not a psychologist or sociologist--who claims that video games are behind all school shootings. The absurdity of such claims is evident in the fact that tens of millions of people have played video games such as "Doom," or "Grand Theft Auto," yet the percentage of these people who actually become killers is so small that Thomas may as well say that beer drinking is behind all school shootings.
Of course, all the gun control folks are claiming that our "gun" society is responsible for the actions of the killer, who has been identified as Cho Seung Hui, a South Korean National in the US on a student visa. Such people should be reminded that, though Virginia has a liberal weapons carrying policy, firearms are not permitted on school grounds or college and university campuses in that state. No law could have prevented the tragedy, unless there was one under which potential victims could have defended themselves. There was no way for the victims to defend themselves, in this case, while Seung Hui reloaded his weapons, which were not permitted on campus, and fired them over a hundred times. Think about it.