Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Howard Stern's the Immoral One???

Marc Stevens

Infinity Boadcasting was given a "proposed forfeiture"by the so-called “FCC.” This was because Howard Stern did a show alleged to be "lewd and vulgar, and that it appeared to have been used to pander, titillate and shock."

Excuse me, but who’s really in the wrong here?

Let’s examine how both Howard Stern and the so-called “FCC” do business using two objective standards:

1) Is the service provided voluntarily or violently; and

2) does the provider deliver the customers what was promised.

Howard Stern and his associates provide services to their customers on a mutual voluntary basis. As far as I am aware, Howard Stern has never used physical violence or threats of physical violence to get any of his customers. The people who pay Howard do so voluntarily, as do the people who listen to him. Just as important, people are free to not listen to Howard.

Howard Stern does not, to my knowledge, employ armed men to force people to listen to his show. If Howard did, I’m sure no reasonable person would argue that is a “moral” way of doing business. I think rational people agree doing business at the barrel of a gun is, at best, “immoral.” At the very least, most would agree it’s not the way civilized people do business and certainly not the way they would want to become a customer.

Does Howard Stern provide the service or product he promises to give? Given the fact he is voluntarily renewed, I would say he does.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the manner in which Howard Stern does business; it’s “moral,” civilized and honest. Howard does business on a voluntary basis and delivers what he promises.

Now let’s look at the so-called “FCC” and see if they are consistent with these two objective standards.

Like the United State government, the “FCC” is just a group of men and women. The protection of “Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a service they claim to provide. Do the men and women doing business as the United States government, including the so-called “FCC,” provide their services on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis? Do you have a free choice whether you are a customer or not? Of course we aren’t. Even if you don’t want the service, payment is compulsory. Unlike Howard Stern, you cannot just “turn off” the men and women doing business as the United States . I guess you can try, but not without risking getting killed.

Contrary to the way Howard Stern does business, the men and women doing business as the United States do employ armed men to make sure you pay. The so-called “FCC,” the United States government, provide their services at the barrel of a gun; there is nothing voluntary about it.

Howard Stern allegedly did something that “appeared . . . to pander, titillate and shock." Okay, and what’s the intent of those so-called “laws” providing for the “forfeiture” of homes and prison sentences for people who do not pay for the wonderful services the men and women doing business as the United States provide? Isn’t that to induce fear and terror?

Which is “immoral,” something meant to “pander, titillate and shock” offered on a voluntary basis you can turn off, or something imposed violently meant to induce fear and terror you cannot turn off without the risk of being killed?

Do the men and women doing business as the United States deliver what they promise i.e., protection of “Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness”? Remember 9/11? The truth is the men and women doing business as the United States government have no duty to protect anyone, and there is plenty of evidence of this.

“The constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616.

If your car gets stolen, can you sue the police department or the “state” for failing to protect you? The men and women doing business as the United States government acknowledge no duty to protect anyone. If they do acknowledge an alleged duty, then how was it created? Duties and obligations are not created by violence but by voluntary agreement. Unless their “protection” is offered freely on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis, there is no duty to protect. Remember, compulsory “protection” is supposed to be a crime, not a legitimate way of doing business. I think it’s called racketeering.

The men and women doing business as the United States government violently impose themselves on their pretended customers and don’t keep their promise to protect. Big surprise: violent people not keeping their word.

The so-called “FCC” fails both objective standards. Howard Stern does business on a voluntary basis and keeps his word, while the FCC does business violently and doesn’t keep their word. Who is the “immoral” one here? And this does not take into account the value Howard Stern creates as opposed to the so-called “FCC,” which creates nothing of value it can voluntarily trade. You may hate Howard Stern and his show, but no rational person can dispute the fact he creates value people are willing to voluntarily pay for.

Stripped of guns and violence, the so-called “FCC” is nothing more than a group of men and women with nothing to voluntarily trade and no way to force themselves on others. Compare that with the value Howard voluntarily creates and has created over the course of his career.

Just imagine the men and women doing business as the United States government on equal footing with Howard Stern. No guns, no violence or threats of violence to their pretended customers. Imagine if the men and women doing business as the United States government had to provide their services on a voluntary basis like Howard Stern.

But let’s not leave out the “morality” of those who support the so-called “FCC” and/or file “complaints” to it about Howard Stern. This issue is settled with the following question:

Do you have a right to pick up a machine gun to stop Howard Stern from voluntarily doing business with his customers?

Who’s wrong here? Is it those who rely on violence to do business, those who, directly or indirectly, violently force their opinions on others, or those who create value and trade voluntarily?
email.gif - 574 Bytes

24, 2004

this column in the forum

is the author of Adventures In Legal Land, the controversial
and humorous new book that exposes the government hoax. 
He can be reached at

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

"...To the MOON, Alice!"

Below is a good message that I received today:

"By my (unaudited) calculations, a stack of $100 bills would stretch from
Washington, DC to Denver, or at least to western Kansas. (1452 miles). I'm
using 250 bills per inch.

If laid end-to-end, six-inch $100 bills .... darn. I just looked at my
calculations again, and I'm off by a factor of 10. I thought we were just
about to get to the perogee of the moon's orbit. Instead, we've blown beyond
by 10x.

Maybe somebody with a more fertile mind than mine can make something of

Oh! Duh. Let's use $1000 bills. I calculated 217,803 miles. From my days as
an astronomy merit badge counselor, the moon's perogee is 220,000 miles.

Can somebody run these numbers and confirm them? And at this rate (see
recent budget history below), on what day will annual federal spending reach
the moon in $1000 bills?

To me, this just smells like a press release, if not much more -- the day
$1000 bills reach the moon.. Reagan used some statistics like this in 1980,
81 or 1984. It would be interesting to hear how we've regressed.

For completeness,

Clinton's last budget was $1.84 T (source KMOX radio, St. Louis)
Bush's first budget, before 9-11 and Jumpin Jim Jeffords when the R's had
the presidency and both houses, was $1.96 T, or $150 per MONTH more spending
for every family of size four in America (source, USA Today)

Then the budgets went to $2.12 (post 9-11), then $2.23, now $2.3. So Bush's
spending, from the party of limited government, is over $500 / month more
spending for a family of size four than Clinton's ever was.

The quants among us ought to be able to figure out the day this happens, and
we should make a splash with it."

Bob Sullentrup

(Good job, Bob. That should unmuddy the waters for any die-hard Republicans who still believe that the Republicans are the party of smaller government. In November, vote Libertarian - FT)

My Links are to COOL Sites!

On the left side of my blog, I have a list of links. These are some of my favorite site. I don't get paid anything for sending you to them, I just think you would enjoy them. Some of them, like Militant Libertarian, Civil Disobedience, Liberty Round Table, and Diatomaceous Earth belong to good friends of mine. That doesn't mean that they are not top quality sites - on the contrary, they are excellent. The reason that I mention it is to let you know the company I keep. Some of these folks live and breath political activism, while others are extremely passionate about the environment or becoming self sufficient. Take the time to visit them all, I bet that you will bookmark most of them.
The newest link, is actually a button. I just visited the Libertarian Rant Blog and it is awesome. Let me know which sites you like the best.

Monday, March 22, 2004

Empty Holster Gathering - My Invitation to Speak

I am very proud to say that I have been asked to be a "volunteer" speaker at the Opening Dinner in Denver for the Empty Holster Gathering JUNE 19, 2004. There will probably be 600 to 700 people at this dinner of fellow Patriots. The event is planned to kick off the Rick Stanley trial for that week of June 19-26, 2004. Rick and Michael Badnarik have already confirmed that they will be speaking, and several other notable freedom fighters will be asked to speak as well. Other speakers to be invited include Joe Banister, Peter Mancus, Bob Shulz, Devvy Kidd, John Turner, Alex Jones, Aaaron Russo, Irwin Schiff, Ron Paul, L. Neil Smith, Boston T. Party, Angel Shamaya, Erin Zellman, Ken Blanchard, Jack McLamb, Victor Thorne, Lisa Guliani, John Kaminski, Pastor Butch Paugh, Ron Loeber, W. Duke, Michael Caccioppo, Doug "Dayhorse" Campbell and Richard Mack.
Even though there is no pay for the engagement, it is an fantastic opportunity to participate in a historical event. I feel very fortunate to even be considered in the same company as those great patriots. I hope I will be able to make it and look forward to dining with such notable freedom fighters. I hope you will all make an effort to attend too. For more information about Rick Stanley, visit

Utah DMV and Me

Today I went to court to fight a ticket I received for driving with an expired license. You see, my license from another state expired two years ago. I have been trying to get a Utah license for nearly 4 years.
Anyway, I planned on going to court and pleading my case...explaining to the Judge WHY I have been driving with an expired license. I took the whole day off work, and even had two good friends come with me for moral support and as eye witnesses in the event that I was railroaded - not that I don't trust our judicial system, of course - but more of a precaution.
We instantly got a bad vibe about the place. My friend Dale even commented on the fact after just a minute in the waiting room. It was obvious that this was NOT a place where Justice is rendered, but a place where "they" show "us" who is in charge.
Before the court started, the DA called me into her office for a one on one. She asked me how I would like to plead to the charge of expired license and I said "not guilty." She said, "well, your license expired two years ago, so it seems pretty plain that you are guilty."
I explained that it wasn't quite that simple, and went into great detail about the circumstances leading to my driving with an expired license. The bottom line - she gave me a trial date. Can you believe it? I wasn't there for justice; I wasn't there to see a judge and resolve an issue. No, I was there to be intimidated by government employees to "roll over and just pay the fine...why fight it?" Every day, hundreds of folks weigh the cost of "fighting city hall" and just "pay the fine...go along to get along". Although the loss of revenue for the days lost wages is far greater than the "fine" that the courts want to extort from me, I can't bring myself to pay these blood suckers one penny more than they deserve. I'd like to go into greater detail, but for now, I will just end with this message: stop paying these theives and admitting to crimes that you are not guilty of out of convenience. Reschedule your court dates (I once continued a case repeatedly, for a year and a half. When I finally went to trial, I won in 10 minutes.), demand a trial by jury, have your day in court and let the judge and jury know that you will not just "roll over" any more. It's not the money, it the principal of the thing.

Disturbing Blog About Government Corruption

I just learned about an interesting Blog that was started by a political activist/investigative reporter. After reading several of the stories, I found the pattern of government abuses to be very disturbing. Visit the site and see how you like it.