Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Queensland gold – gold maps

 Minerva Reefs  Comments Off on Queensland gold – gold maps
Jun 152016

Pikedale (32km north-west of Stanthorpe). Records show that the auriferous reefs were small but fairly rich. They were worked by small parties, and were generally abandoned about the 30m level. No general statements can be made regarding future prospects of these mines as the factors leading to their closure are unknown. Near Warroo 32km further west, a gold-bearing lode was exploited to a reported depth of 60m until local smelting became unpayable. Texas (85km by road west of Stanthorpe). The old Silver Spur Mine, 11km east of Texas, produced considerable amounts of silver, lead, gold and copper, the zinc contents remaining in the slag dumps. Existing workings, to 152.5m depth, offer possibilities for further prospecting, but unwatering and reconditioning would be necessary. In recent years interest has been displayed periodically by various mining organizations. Warwick Fields. Warwick (256km by rail or 161km by road south-west from Brisbane) is the base for the following gold fields Talgai (34km west-south-west), Leyburn (45km north-west), Canal Creek (45km south-west), Lucky Valley (19km south-east), Palgrave (34km south-west) and Thanes Creek (39km west). With the exception of Canal Creek, which was purely an alluvial field, the history and present condition of these old fields are very similar. They have been practically worked out as far as alluvial gold is concerned. In the primary deposits, payable gold values occur in narrow shoots in small fissure veins which could not at the time of working be profitably followed much below 30m Where there is reason to believe that the shoots were not worked out further prospecting in depth might be justified. Moreton District. The low-grade gold deposit at Kingston (24km south of Brisbane) was worked for a number of years by a syndicate, but is now deserted. Gold occurrences near Ormeau (48km south of Brisbane), and Camp Mountain (16km west) do not offer much inducement for further prospecting. North Arm (117km by rail north of Brisbane). The discovery of auriferous quartz reefs in a hitherto unproductive series of volcanic rocks was made in 1929. Company operations were carried on till 1938 within a relatively small area, but all efforts to locate workable auriferous deposits further afield resulted in failure. It is of interest to record that the free gold is so highly alloyed with silver that it is almost white in colour and is associated with the rare mineral naumannite (selenide of silver). Gympie (170km by rail north of Brisbane) The highly auriferous reefing area at Gympie was confined to a heavily faulted strip about 3km long by 1km wide This small area has been responsible for a large proportion of the fields production. Operations were ultimately continued to depths of considerably over 600m on the Monkland end of the field. The mines of the main belt form an extensive connected group, now filled with water. Owing to the prohibitive expense involved in dewatering and reconditioning these mines, it is doubtful whether any of the connected group of workings can be deemed worthy of further consideration. Since the decline of major mining operations -about 1917, numerous attempts have been made to exploit blocks of shallow ground. Relatively few of these attempts have met with success. Far-many years production was maintained by cyanidation of old tailings, but this has now ceased. Mary Valley (south from Gympie). Alluvial and surface gold deposits were originally worked on a small scale near 1mbil (40km by rail from Gympie) and a small production has been won intermittently from quartz veins occupying minor fissures in granite. Glastonbury (13km west of Gympie). Gold-bearing quartz reefs occupying fissures occur in altered sedimentary rocks near a granite contact. They vary in thickness from a few cm to about 1m. The output from the field has not been large. Small-scale operations were formerly conducted by a company which operated a small battery and concentrating plant. Yabba Goldfield (32km north of Kilcoy); also known as the Jimna field. It was essentially an alluvial field, and is credited with rich returns in the early years from deposits on Jimna and Sandy Creeks. Reef-mining followed on a small scale for some years with two plants on the field. A few small reefs carrying fair values have been worked in recent years. Kilkivan (72km by rail and 48km by road west of Gympie). On this old goldfield, restricted but rich shallow alluvial deposits were worked and reefing followed. There has been little gold production for about sixty years, but a few men have been engaged near the town and on the Gold Top provisional field, 8km distant. Copper deposits were worked to a small extent at an early period at Mount Coora, Mount Clara and Black Snake. Re-opening of an old cupriferous gold lode at Black Snake in 1939 resulted in productive operations, with crushing, tabling, flotation and cyanidation plant on the ground, till 1949. Recently, several deposits in the area have been the subject of Departmental investigation by drilling. At Tansey Creek near Goomeri, an auriferous formation had been worked to a depth of 87m when work ceased in 1942. Recent dewatering and sampling indicated erratic distribution of values in the bottom workings. Marodian Goldfield (13km north of Kilkivan) Alluvial gold was found on Colo Flats and at Yorkeys Hill. Little work has been done on the field for many years. Nanango (209km by road north-west of Brisbane, and 27km from rail at Kingaroy), Gold deposits near the town, at the Seven-mile diggings (alluvial only) and also at Scrub Paddock (32km north-east) were worked at an early stage in the States history. The last period of marked activity included an attempt by an English company to work a group of auriferous copper veins at Scrub Paddock. Despite intermittent prospecting over the wide area available, no discoveries of note have since been made. Prospecting of small auriferous reefs and leaders has been carried out near Emu and Possum Creeks in the Blackbutt area without marked success. Small deposits of silver-lead and of gold-bismuth have been worked near Mount Langan in the same area. Proston, (116km by rail west of Gympie), Some gold prospecting has been carried out in the Boondooma area, some 32km west of Proston, but nothing of importance has been recorded. Gold and antimony have been prospected at Glenbar (40km south-west of Maryborough). Biggenden (87km by rail west of Maryborough), A deposit of magnetite at Mount Biggenden was worked intermittently for its gold and bismuth content until 1938. Paradise Goldfield (13km north-west of railway at Degilbo), Stanton-Harcourt Goldfield (18km north of Degilbo, and Mount Shamrock Goldfield (19km west-north-west of Degilbo). These three small goldfields were worked towards the end of last century. Apart from a small amount of prospecting, little work has been done for many years. A little gold was also won on the Chowey, Mount Steadman and Gebangle fields a few kilometres further west. In the Mundubbera district gold prospecting was formerly carried on at d**ehead (29km west) at Hawkwood (48km west-south-west) and at the old Brovinia diggings (64km south-west of Mundubbera) but no discoveries of significance have been made. Eidsvold Goldfield (224km by rail from Maryborough). A group of auriferous fissure deposits was extensively worked between 1888 and 1900. An unexpected collapse of the field followed failure of values in the deeper levels of the principal mines. Although the reef formations proved to be persistent in depth subsequent efforts railed to locate workable shoots. Activity since 1906 has been limited to intermittent small-scale operations. On St. Johns Creek, 26km south-west of Eidsvold, large quartz lodes have been worked spasmodically for antimony and gold. Cracow Goldfield (95km by road west of Eidsvold). Discovered in 1931, this field for some years has been the only major producer of gold in Queensland, apart from Mount Morgan. Total output of fine gold to the end of 1974 was nearly 19 000kg most of which came from the Golden Plateau mine. Long narrow ore-shoots in quartz-calcite veins were worked at the Roses Pride and Klond**e mines to depth of 40m and 45m respectively. At Golden Plateau a zone of quartz deposition up to 76m wide and nearly 800m long occurs beneath a sandstone capping. Several irregular tabular ore-shoots have been mined and the lowest productive workings are at the 252m level. Diamond drilling was successful in locating additional ore-shoots within the mine leases. In the Bundaberg district, mining for copper and gold has been carried out extensively at the Tenningering field (108km from Bundaberg, with Mount Perry as its centre), and Boolboonda field (90km from Bundaberg). Gold reefs have also been worked at Reids Creek. There has been very little mining in recent years although prospecting is being continued by several groups. Lode rutile has been found as shoad in the foothills of Mount Perry and traced to limited outcrops. A little gold has been won from a deposit at Swindon (22.5km east of Mount Perry), from which coarse alluvial gold was shed, but there is little prospect of other than small-scale production. THE STANTHORPE DISTRICT (GSQ Report 64) Gold was first discovered at Lord Johns Swamp (Lucky Valley Goldfield) in 1852. In 1863 rich but limited alluvial gold was uncovered on Canal Creek. Following close on the Canal Creek discovery were further finds at Talgai (Darkies Flat 1863-64), Thanes Creek (1869), Pikedale (1877), Leyburn (1872), and Palgrave (1877). Canal Creek was an alluvial goldfield only, where as both alluvial gold and reef gold were won from Talgai. Thanes Creek was primarily an area of reef mining; at Pikedale and Leyburn little or no alluvial gold was won. Little is known of the Palgrave field. The period of principal production was prior to 1905. Attempts at revival of reef mining in the 1930s were only moderately successful, and did not survive for long. Any future prospects appear to lie in further development or known reefs below the old shallow workings.

Alice River (or Philp) Gold and Mineral Field.

Gold was discovered in the upper reaches of the Alice River in 1903 by the prospector thingyie. From 1904 to 1909 mining was virtually confined to the Alice Queen and Peninsula King reefs, and since 1917 the field has received little attention. The total recorded production from 1903 to 1917 is 3.3kg of gold from about 2800 tonnes of ore, together with 14kg of alluvial gold. Between 1904 and 1909 the Alice Queen reef produced about 37kg of gold from 1570 tonnes of ore, and the Peninsula King reef about 31.1kg of gold from 632 tonnes of ore.

The two reefs lie within 1.5km of each other on a north-north-westerly line. The Alice Queen mine in the north is in a vertical quartz reef between 1 and 2m wide and over 100m long (Cameron, 1906). Of the two shafts, the southerly was 34m deep in 1906. The quartz from the mullock dump contains small grains of pyrite and stibnite. Felsite d**es trending south-southeast cut the altered Kintore Adamellite to the west of the workings. The Peninsula King reef is 0.5 to 1m wide. In 1906 several shallow shafts had been sunk along the line of the reef.

In the Potallah Creek Provisional Gold Field

only one reef, the Perseverance, has been recorded. It is situated in fine-grained schist of the Holroyd Metamorphics about 1km west of a stock of Kintore Adamellite. According to Cameron the reef trends north and is 75cm wide at a depth of 12m. The only recorded production is 18.26kg of gold from 593 tonnes of ore in 1903-04. A shaft was sunk at Potallah Creek in 1946; the reef at a depth of 33m is reported to have been 2m wide with a grade of 15.6g of gold per tonne.

Jensen recorded a small number of gold occurrences in the Potallah Creek area. Production of 0.16kg of gold is recorded from Olain Creek in 1914 (probably OLane Creek, 13km north-north-west of the Potallah Creek shaft).

Hamilton Gold and Mineral Field

A sma1l rush followed the discovery of gold by thingyie at Ebagoola early in 1900. Gold was found farther south near the Lukin River in the following year. Peak production was reached in the first year when about 470g of gold, 342kg from alluvials, was recorded. Mining virtually ceased during World War 1 and has been sporadic since. Total production from 1900 to 1951 was 291.58kg, made up of 1371.63kg of reef gold from 34196 tonnes of ore, 682.41kg of alluvial gold, and 237.54kg from the treatment of 19 256 tonnes of tailings.

Mining at Ebagoola was centred about the old townsite. The Yarraden mining area, about 15km south-southeast of Ebagoola, extends for 8km from the Lukin River southwards to Spion Kop; it does not include Yarraden homestead. Gold occurs principally in numerous quartz reefs.

Ball reported that the reefs in the Ebagoola area trend roughly north along the contact between the older granite (Kintore Adamellite), which he considered to be metamorphosed, and the schist and gneiss to the east (Coen Metamorphics). He believed that the reefs were related to the newer granite (Flyspeck Granodiorite); in the Yarraden area the reefs occur within the Flyspeck Granodiorite. In the Ebagoola area quartz occurs as leaders, veins, or compound reefs.

The leaders are up to 15cm wide and occur mainly in shrinkage cracks in the granite. Although they are of limited length or depth, and are seldom rich in gold, most of the alluvial deposits were probably derived from them. True fissure reefs, such as the Caledonia and All Nations reefs, occupy shears along the contact between the metamorphic and granitic rocks. The compound

fissure veins are associated with acid d**es, or with beds of quartzite, such as the May Queen reef.The water-table is generally at a depth of less than 20m in the dry season, and consequentlysulphides such as pyrite, arsenopyrite, galena, and stibnite are found almost at the surface. Mining was generally not profitable at grades below 47g of gold per tonne.

The most productive workings in the Ebagoola area were the Caledonia, Hamilton King, MayQueen, Hit or Miss, Violet, Hidden Treasure, All Nations, and Golden Treasure. In the Yarraden area the two most important reefs were the Golden King and Savannah. According to Cameron, the Golden King reef trends roughly north, dips vertically, and ranges from 15 to 40cm wide; it was worked over a length in excess of 300m to a maximum depth of 65m. Mining was almost continuous between 1901 and 1915, and was resumed in 1917 and 1921.

Recorded production is 239.84kg of gold from 7699 tonnes of ore. The Savannah reef lies about500m east of the Golden King and dips steeply west. It is more than 30m long with a steep southerly plunge. Mining was carried out to a depth of at least 38m. Between 1901 and 1907 and in 1912 a total of 2761 tonnes of ore yielded 156.51kg of gold. Attempts to reopen the mine in 1939-40 were unsuccessful.

*Minor production in 1930s included.

Other reefs of importance in the Yarraden area were; the Lukin King with a total production between 1901 and 1926 of 63.73kg of gold from 1631 tonnes of ore, the Gold Mount which yielded 2.99kg of gold from 781 tonnes of ore between 1901 and 1921, and thc Hiaki (or Haikai) which produced 39.22kg of gold from 1622 tonnes of ore between 1909 and 1918.

Alluvial mining was mainly restricted to the Ebagoola area and most of the production was before 1910. The gold was coarse, and was derived mainly from eluvial deposits shed from nearby reefs and leaders.

The Coen Gold and Mineral Field

was proclaimed over an area of 95km2 in 1892 and enlarged to 480km2 in 1898. Alluvial gold was discovered at Coen in 1876 and in 1878 there was a small rush from the Palmer River, but few miners stayed more than two weeks and the workings were abandoned in the same year. In 1880 Chinese miners attempted to work the alluvium without success.

In 1885 land was taken up for mining silver, and machinery was erected in 1886, but productive

reef mining did not start until 1892. Between 1893 and 1899, 16689 tonnes of ore crushed at Coen yielded 888.1kg of gold. Ball visited the field in 1900 and recorded mining activity at Coen town, at The Springs 15km to the south-east, and at Klond**e 13km north-east of The Springs.

According to Ball the reefs are from several centimetres to 1.5m thick, and generally trend north-west to north, with a steep dip. Most of them are fissure veins composed of quartz, but a few consist of siliceous slate; some of the poorer reefs contain pyrite or arsenopyrite.

The most successful mine was the Great Northern. About 1km south-east of Coen township; it has produced about three-quarters of the gold won from the field. Other productive reefs near Coen, which were mined mainly before 1900, were the Daisy, Hanging Rock, Homeward Bound, Lankelly, Long Tunnel, Trafalgar, and Wilson reefs. Between 1894 and 1899 the Great Northern mine yielded 230.85kg of gold with a high silver content from 4394 tonnes of ore. In 1900 activity at Coen came almost to a standstill when the Hamilton goldfield was opened, but gold continued to be won at Coen for many years, mainly from the Great Northern and from the treatment of tailings with cyanide.

The total recorded production of reef gold at Coen from 1892 to 1916 was about 2333kg, of which 2172.86kg came from the Great Northern mine, including 412.4kg from the treatment of 20 000 tonnes of tailings and mullock. The total amount of ore recorded between 1812 and 1916 was 28 185 tonnes, of which 26 234 tonnes came from the Great Northern mine. After 1910 production fell off rapidly, and in 1914 only 7 tonnes of ore was mined.

The Great Northern mine was reported to have been worked to a depth of 150m, but little work was done at that depth. The north end of the No.4 level, somewhere below 54m, was reported in 1909 to be 78m from the shaft. The reefs in the lower levels ranged in width from 75cm to 1.2m. After 1909 production came from small rich leaders in the hangingwall and footwall above the No.3 level possibly at 54m. Little is known of the mine after 1914, but attempts were made to reopen it as late as 1949.

Mining was carried out at The Springs, 15km south-east of Coen, from the early 1890s to about 1901. The main reefs were the Westralia, where 455 tonnes of ore were crushed for 19.56kg of gold in 1901, the Goolha Goolha, the Rothwell, and the Sirdar, where 207 tonnes of ore produced 13.41kg of gold beween 1898 and 1901. This part of the Coen Field was abandoned during the rush to the Hamilton goldfield in 1900 and 1901.

At the Klond**e, 13km north-east of The Springs, the Springfield reef yielded about 40kg of gold from 366 tonnes of ore between 1898 and 1902. The Klond**e lodes trend roughly north and occur in schist and gneiss of the Coen Metamorphics near their contact with the Lankelly Adamellite.

The workings at Coen and The Springs lie within or adjacent to the Coen Shear Zone. The zone extends for about 27km south-east of Coen and lies largely within the Lankelly Adamellite and along its southwest margin. The schistose sheared adamellite contains a little pyrite and arsenopyrite. Quartz reefs are common along the shear zones, and in the south they are up to 5km long and 100m wide. Most of the mullock dump at the Great Northern mine, which lies in the shear zone, consists of a breccia composed of fragments of silicified granite set in a matrix of white quartz; the country rock is sheared Lankelly Adamellite. The quartz and gold were probably deposited from hydrothermal fluids introduced after the rocks were sheared.

In the Blue Mountains,

40km north of Coen, which are not included in the Coen Gold and Mineral Field, gold was mined from some time before 1934 until 1951. The gold occurs in narrow quartz veins in granite. The total recorded production in 1935, 1938-46, and 1948-51 is 33.53kg of gold from 950 tonnes of ore; of this 17.5kg from 593 tonnes came from mines operated by Blue Mountains Gold N.L., principally the Golden Ladder and the Convict. One of the other major producers was the Yarraman mine. No mines were operating in 1967.

A small number of leases have been held in recent years in the Leo Creek area, 30km north-east of Coen, but no production is recorded. In the Nullumbidgee area a few kilometres to the north 3.5 tonnes of ore yielded 0.40kg of gold.

The small Lochinvar Provisional Goldfield on Tadpole Creek, about 18km southwest of Coen, is situated in Kintore Adamellite. The only recorded production is 2.2kg of gold from 50 tonnes of ore in 1904.

Rocky River Gold and Mineral Field

Alluvial gold was discovered in the Rocky River, 32km north-east of Coen, in 1893 by Lakeland. Reef mining began on Neville Creek (location unknown) in 1896 and the field was proclaimed in 1897. Between 1896 and 1901, 951 tonnes of ore yielded 142.64kg of gold. Interest waned in 1901 following the discovery of the Hamilton goldfield, but it revived for a short time in 1910 and 1911 when 57 tonnes of ore yielded 8 77kg of gold. Jack noted that only four people lived on the field in 1914, and there were no returns that year. No mines were located in 1967.

Hayes Creek Provisional Gold Field.

Jack recorded traces of gold in Hayes Creek, 60km northeast of Coen, during his 1880 expedition, and the area was later visited by thingyie and Campbell during a prospecting journey to Lloyd Bay in 1907. Shepherd records that the Hayes Creek field was discovered in 1909, but this probably refers to the start of reef mining on the Golden Gate claim.

Production has been small and spasmodic. In 1909 production from the Golden Gate claim was 37 tonnes of ore which yielded 6.81 kg of gold and a further 1.71 kg on cyanidation. In 1911 production from the field was 3.18 kg of gold from 21 tonnes of ore. Production in 1914 was

1.14kg of reef gold and 0.37kg of alluvial gold. The field was deserted in 1915. Some prospecting continued until 1938, and between 1938 and 1942 some 150 tonnes of ore were crushed for a yield of about 6kg of gold. In the early 1950s small parcels of ore are reported to have yielded between 80 and 120g of gold to the tonne, and one 4-tonne crushing returned 0.2kg of 850-fine gold.

Shepherd noted four sets of workings at the main centre at Buthen Buthen. At the Theodore lease a quartz reef between 30 and 35cm wide was exposed for 65m, with a strike of 140 and dip of 47 to the south-west; the reef contained a little pyrite and arsenopyrite. The 20cm reef on the Diana Lease contained pyrite and a little free gold; on the Campbell and Buthen Buthen leases Shepherd saw only shallow trenches and small shafts. At Companimano Creek, 6km south-south-west of Buthen Buthen, a quartz reef 90cm to 1.2m wide contained gold, galena, pyrite, and arsenopyrite.

The reefs in the Hayes Creek field are situated in a northerly trending shear zone in Kintore Adamellite; the valleys of the Lockhart and Nesbit Rivers follow this zone. In 1964 the valley of the Nesbit River between Buthen Buthen and Kampanjinbano (Companimano?) Creek was investigated as an alluvial gold prospect, and an almost enclosed basin on Leo Creek, 8km southwest of its junction with the Nesbit River, was also tested, but little gold was found.

Wenlock Gold and Mineral Field.

Gold was discovered in 1892 at Retreat Creek, a tributary of the Batavia (Wenlock) River and later at the site of Bairdville. Further prospecting, mainly between 1905 and 1911, disclosed several small alluvial deposits at Downs Gully, Choc-a-block Creek, and other nearby sites. The amount of gold produced up to 1910 has been estimated at 93 kg. In 1910 an aboriginal prospector named Pluto located a large lead at the base of the Mesozoic sediments overlying the Kintore Adamellite; the locality became known as Plutoville and was rushed by miners from Coen and Ebagoola. According to Fisher the early workings covered an area of about 350m2, and consisted of shallow alluvium and small reefs, which were worked to a maximum depth of 5m. Morton mentioned a shallow lead of cemented wash with rich gutters at the workings. Total recorded production from Plutoville is estimated at 190kg of gold. The Main Leader about 5km north-east of Plutoville was discovered in 1922 It consists of a narrow quartz reef with payable gold for over 300m along strike. The discovery became known as Lower Camp and later as Wenlock. Fisher described the Main Leader as a north-westerly trending fissure reef, with a few cymoid loops, which dips at 60 to the south in the north and 35 in the south. In the south it is cut by the Main Reef, a quartz reef over 6m wide.

The average width of the Main Leader is 20cm, and its walls are slickensided. It contains free gold to a depth of at least 100m, or about 30m below the water-table. Connah stated that the Main Leader is composed of quartz with a distinctive white and blue banding, and ranges in thickness from 2 to 45cm. Short rich shoots with a northerly pitch are common, and coarse particles of gold are evenly distributed in the reef, with a few rich local concentrations. Fisher estimated the average grade at about 50g of gold per tonne. The Main Leader occurs in Kintore Adamellite and is overlain by Mesozoic sediments and alluvium. The deep leads at the base of the Mesozoic sediments on the west side of the Main Leader also contain gold. Connah found that the main deep lead was a narrow rich gutter which spread out into a wide drainage channel trending west-south-west.

He has suggested that the extension of the channel beyond the workings is down thrown by a fault trending south-east. This may be the continuation of a post-Cretaceous south-easterly trending fault, downthrown to the west, which was mapped in 1967, 13km south-east of Wenlock. Total production from Lower Camp is estimated at 1089kg.

The Wenlock field was deserted during World War II. The claims along the Main Leader were amalgamated in 1946, but operations ceased again in 1952, partly as a result of flooding in 1950. Prospectors have continued to be active around the field, and in 1964-65 it is reported that 87.09 kg of gold were obtained from 2 tonnes of picked specimen stone.

Gold was first produced from the Claudie River Gold and Mineral Field

in 1933, the field was proclaimed in 1936. The gold was mined at Iron Range, Scrubby Creek, and Packers Creek. Shepherd (1939) gives the total production from 1935 to June 1938 as 17 331kg of gold from 6104 tonnes of ore and 1067 tonnes of tailings. Iron Range produced 13 421kg from 3753 tonnes of ore, Scrubby Creek 33.65kg from 1984 tonnes of ore and 1067 tonnes of tailings, and Packers Creek 544kg from 376 tonnes.

The largest reef, Gordons Iron Range, yielded 1084kg of gold from 2568 tonnes of ore. The average yield from the rest of the field was 162g per tonne. The field closed in 1942 for the duration of the war. A little mining was carried out after 1945, and between 1950 and 1953 the Cape York Development Co. attempted without success to develop a few of the mines at Iron

Range. Total recorded production from the field between 1934 and 1942 is 333.12kg of gold from 17100 tonnes of ore and 3221 tonnes of tailings. Production since the War has been small, but a little gold is still obtained from a mine at Packers Creek. At Iron Range the gold occurs in quartz veins and lodes in schist of the Sefton Metamorphics,

while at Scrubby Creek and Packers Creek the gold-bearing lodes and veins are in the Weymouth Granite. At Iron Range, the deposits are large but low grade in the iron-bearing schist, but small and rich in the adjacent iron-free schist (eg. the Iron Range reef); the reefs occur along fault lines in the schists.

South-east of Iron Range some of the reefs are parallel to the schistosity and others have components both along and across the schistosity; short ore shoots occur where the reefs intersect.

North of Iron Range the lodes, such as the Peninsula Hope and Northern Queen, are composed of crushed sericite schist with quartz stringers. Broadhurst & Rayner suggested that in the primary zone the ore shoots will prove to be lenses of silicified schist impregnated with sulphides, chiefly arsenopyrite. Rayner noted the discovery of a wide body of sulphide ore on the Peninsula Hope lease at Iron Range, and a CSIRO report on the treatment of arsenical gold ore from the Peninsula Hope mine gave the head assay of the ore as 18.2g of gold, 1.8g of silver, 4.4% arsenic, 20 7% iron, 9.79% sulphur, and less than 0.05% copper. The sulphides are arsenopyrite and pyrite, with some altered pyrrhotite and traces of chalcopyrite, sphalerite, and gold. The gold and sulphide minerals at Iron Range may have been introduced by the Kintore Adamellite, as elsewhere in Cape York Peninsula, or by the Weymouth Granite.

Gold was discovered in the Possession Island Gold and Mineral Field

in Torres Strait in 1896, and production began in 1897; Jackson described the mines he visited in 1901. All the workings are near the north-west coast, east and north-east of the monument to Captain Cook. Mining was carried on until 1906 when the leases were abandoned. Attempts were made to reopen the workings in 1919, and again in 1934-35, but without success. Recorded production between 1897 and 1905 is 155.42kg of gold from 7245 tonnes of ore, including some returns for the Horn Island Gold and Mineral Field. Four tonnes of ore yielded 0.09kg of gold in 1919.

Jackson noted that the main workings were located on two almost vertical reefs about 230m apart, which trend south-south-east. The reefs consist of quartz veins, up to several centimetres thick, in a matrix of fractured and altered welded tuft; the veins contain a small quantity of sulphide minerals. Jackson also noted severa1 shafts and small cuts, and records that a sample of ore, composed of vein quartz with galena and pyrite, assayed 57.95 g of gold and 33.9g of silver to the tonne.

Copper-staining associated with limonite has been noted in the chloritized and silicified welded tuff northeast and southwest of the abandoned workings. Northeast of the workings some galena and pyrite have been observed in joints. Alluvial gold was discovered in the eastern part of Horn Island in 1894 and the Horn Island Gold and Mineral Field was proclaimed the same year. Reef mining began in 1895 or 1896 in an area of about 0.5km2, 1km inland from the east coast. The mines are situated in altered and silicified porphyritic microgranite to the south of a stretch of sandy alluvium. Recorded production is 31.07kg of alluvial gold between 1894 and 1896, and 176.67kg of gold from 16 904 tonnes of ore between 1896 and 1900. The recovery of gold declined sharply in 1900, and by 1901 the field was almost deserted.

Most of the reefs are steeply dipping and trend east-southeast or southeast. They consist of closely spaced quartz veins in altered microgranite. Sulphide minerals were found in many of the reefs only 3m below the surface. Pyrite and galena are the most common sulphides, but some of the reefs also contain sphalerite and two contain chalcopyrite. The average yield decreased from 30g per tonne in 1896 to 20g per tonne in 1900. Sporadic production continued on a small scale until 1919, and prospecting went on at intervals until 1966.

Australian Selection Pty Ltd drilled three holes to depths of about 75m in 1963, but did not consider the prospect payable; an ore concentrate assayed in 1961 yielded 750g of gold and 440g of silver per tonne. In 1965 overburden was removed and 120m3 of alluvium were taken for sampling but the results are not known.

A visit to the mines in 1968 revealed a large open cut, probably on the Welcome reef, about 100m long by 50m across, and a smaller open cut, in the vicinity of the Dead Cat claim, with a timbered shaft in the bottom. In the smaller open cut the porphyritic microgranite is yellowish green and intensely altered; it is cut and silicified by numerous quartz veins. The altered rock contains small patches of sulphide minerals. In the larger pit the microgranite is less altered and contains fewer quartz veins; the sulphide minerals occur in small veins. Pyrite and galena are common, and chalcopyrite and a little wolfram(?) were also observed.

Elsewhere, minor amounts of gold are reported to have been won on Hammond Island between 1907 and 1909, and possibly until 1919, and on Thursday Island in the 1930s.

Extract from Bureau of Mineral Resources Bulletin No. 135:


Mining activity is recorded to the north-west of Cordalba on the southern side of the Burnett River. The area has been a small producer of gold and silver.


No official records are available prior to 1933, but it is reported that the Wild Irishman Mine was worked as early as 1883. Mount Ideal, near Cordalba, was prospected about 1895. Most mining activity took place in the 1930s.


Gold mineralization is recorded from three mines -Wild Irishman, Bull Ant, and Mount Ideal. The Wild Irishman Mine, 13 miles north-west of Cordalba, was first worked about 1883, but was soon abandoned. The lease was taken up again in 1933. The country rock consists of very altered, sheared sediments (Biggenden Beds) with quartz veins, intruded by aplite and granite of probable Permian to Triassic age. The intrusive rocks are sheared. Discontinuous reefs consist of vitreous quartz with minor iron oxide and arsenopyrite. They range in thickness from 18 inches to 2 feet. The reef system is parallel to the Electra Fault and appears to be cut off in depth by a parallel fault. In 1934, 80 tons of ore yielded 51.2oz of gold.

The Bull Ant Mine, 11 miles north-west of Cordalba, was prospected in the late 1890s. The reef consists of quartz and iron oxide; the country rock is sheared sediments (Biggenden Beds) with quartz veins. The mine is on a very wide shear zone. Low gold and silver values are recorded.

Mount Ideal Mine is on the west bank of Woocoo Creek, 2 miles south-west of Cordalba. The reef was probably worked about 1895. The country rock consists of altered sediments (Brooweena Formation) containing masses and veinlets of quartz with pyrite, arsenopyrite, and a little gold. Mineralization is confined to a faulted area of 40 feet by 100 feet. Gold values were found to be associated with siliceous material which formed only a small part of the mineralized zone. No workable ore bodies were located.


Three proclaimed mining fields and one provisional mining field lie within the Sheet area. Gold was also found in a number of other areas and some gold deposits were located outside proclaimed fields. Most of the gold was mined from reefs; however, alluvial gold was won from the Hungry Hill -McKonkey Creek -Coonambula area. Except for the lodes of the Cracow area, virtually all the gold occurrences are associated with the granitic rocks of the Permo-Triassic Rawbelle Batholith.

The auriferous quartz reefs occur in these rocks or in the adjacent country rocks. They are largely confined to the eastern and south-eastern parts of the batholith and the nearby Eidsvold Complex. The reefs occur in the less acidic phases, which may represent the oldest parts of the batholith. They do not appear to occur in any preferred structural orientation. Many of the reefs in hornfelsed country rocks are associated with acid or intermediate dykes and occur relatively near the contact with the batholith. Except for the Cracow lodes, the mineralization has been of minor importance.

Cracow Mining Field

Payable gold was discovered in 1931 by C. Lambert and partners, working under an incentive from the Government. Several mining companies operated the field and gold was won from the Golden Plateau, Golden Mile, Roma North, Roses Pride, Golden West, Dawn, Lamberts Surprise, Revival, and Klondyke. All but one mine had closed by the end of 1951. The Golden Plateau mine, operated continuously by Golden Plateau N.L. since 1933, is the only major producer and for many years Golden Plateau and Mount Morgan have been the only important gold producers in Queensland.

The total production to the end of 1972 was 1 453 144 tonnes of ore milled for a yield of 18314.33kg of gold and 19 036.29kg of silver. Average grade is approximately 12 9 per tonne. Annual production figures are listed in thee table.

The gold deposits occur in andesitic volcanics of the Lower Permian Camboon Andesite. The regional strike is north-north-west and the dip 25 west. The volcanics unconformably overlie acid volcanics of the Carboniferous Torsdale Beds which are intruded further to the east by Upper Carboniferous granitic rocks and the Permo-Triassic Rawbelle Batholith. The unconformity is exposed approximately 4km east of the Golden Plateau mine. Rhyolite dykes are associated with some of the gold mineralization; the remainder is localised by fault zones. The age of the dykes and the faulting is not known; however, a Late Permian to Early Triassic age of mineralization is considered most likely.

Although several small lodes have been worked on the Cracow field, gold deposition was confined mainly to the Golden Plateau lode system which Brooks (1965) considered to form a faulted link between the White Hope lode on the west and the Golden Mile lode on the east.

Within the Golden Plateau lode, irregular tabular ore shoots have been mined discontinuously over a length of 693m, a width of up to 15m. and to a depth of 252.5m. The lode system is terminated abruptly on the west by the north-north-west striking Golconda Fault and on the east by a fault of similar strike. These faults were probably initiated prior to ore deposition, but post-ore movement has also taken place.

The gold occurs as gold-silver alloy in a quartz gangue. Primary gold is seldom visible to the naked eye, even in high grade ore. Small quantities of sphalerite, chalcopyrite, pyrite, galena, bornite, and hessite are present.

The Golden Plateau lode is regarded as a hydrothermal replacement deposit. The mineral assemblage and gold fineness suggest that ore deposition took place near the base of the epithermal zone. Ore deposition seems to have been controlled by faults, and in many places appears to be related to rhyolite dykes. Brooks notes that nearly all ore shoots have one wall defined by a fault plane or fault zone. In the eastern section of the mine, ore shoots often occur adjacent to a rhyolite dyke, or they may be confined between a fault and a rhyolite dyke. The mineralization is Post-Lower Permian (Camboon Andesite) and pre-Jurassic ( Precipice Sandstone).

Between 1960 and 1971 diamond drilling by the Queensland Department of Mines on behalf of Golden Plateau N. L. resulted in the discovery of a major oreshoot in the Golden Plateau area and the proving of depth extensions of the main Roses Pride oreshoot. This major oreshoot has been the principal contributor to the production of gold and silver from the Golden Plateau mine since 1965. In 1969 Golden Plateau N. L. deepened the Roses Pride main shaft and drove a level a distance of 208.5m at a depth of 74m to follow up drilling results. In view of the marginal grade of the ore the company did not proceed with production.

Eidsvold Mining Field

Gold was discovered in the Eidsvold area in 1858, but early activity was spasmodic. The first prospectors claim was taken out in late 1886 over an area of land near the wor kings at Eidsvold head station on the north bank of the Burnett River. Initially . the mining activity was centred on Mount Rose ( later Eidsvold) and Craven Town, 5.6km south-west of Mount Rose on the Burnett River. The Eidsvold Goldfield, which included an area of 28.5km centred on Eidsvold, was proclaimed in 1887.

Gold was mined continuously in the field from 1887 to 1914, with the peak production in the period 1893 to 1900. The maximum gold produced in one year was 426.80kg in 1892. With the discovery of payable gold at Cracow in 1931, interest in the Eidsvold field was renewed, and gold was mined intermittently until 1950. The total recorded production between 1886 and 1950 is 3011.91kg of gold from 90 025 tonnes of ore.

The mineralization occurs in the granitic rocks of the Upper Permian to Lower Triassic Eidsvold Complex and in isolated areas within adjacent Lower Permian(?) hornfelsed sediments and volcanics of the Nogo Beds. The gold occurs in quartz reefs. Hydrothermal solutions from the reefs have resulted in the kaolinization of feldspars up to a few metres from the contacts.

The main reefs, Mount Rose, Stockman or Lady Augusta, Craven, and Maid of Erin, are all located in the Mount Rose area, just west of Eidsvold. Rands noted that the majority of reefs strike north-west to north-north-west and dip easterly at angles from 20 to 45 . The reefs consist of quartz and minor associated pyrite, chalcopyrite, and sphalerite (Maid of Erin reef), stibnite and cassiterite (Stockman reef), galena (All Nations reef), molybdenite ( Moonlight reef), and arsenopyrite.

The Mount Rose reef strikes east-north-east and dips 25 south-easterly. Rands reported the reef to average 75 cm in width, and consist of layered quartz, and interbedded clayey material, with the best gold occurring in the quartz.

The Lady Augusta or Stockman reef strikes north-west and dips 22 north-east, with the principal part of the reef dipping 65. Rands noted that the Empress Shaft on the Lady Augusta reef line was sunk to 247m, cutting through the probable extension of the Mount Rose reef at a depth of 119m. The Lady Augusta reef averaged 9 cm in width, but varied at depth from 15 to 20 cm. Generally, the gold occurs in hanging wall leaders in association with quartz and calcite. Rands also noted the occurrence of massive stibnite in a shaft south-east of the Augusta mine (523m due south of the court house and 91m north-east of the outcrop of the Lady Augusta reef).

Rands reported that the north-west-striking and shallow dipping Craven reef has a thickness of 18 to 20 cm and an average gold content of 122g per tonne. The Maid of Erin reef strikes north-west with a north-easterly dip and is approximately 1.2m wide. It contains little quartz and occurs at the contact between granite and diorite. The Lady Minerva reef. striking north-east and dipping approximately 27 south-east has an average width of 8 cm in the underlie shaft. Rands described the Lady Rose reef, which outcrops 362m north of the outcrop of the Mount Rose reef, as a 30 cm wide quartz vein with copper staining in an altered granitic formation within the granite.

During the early years of development of the Eidsvold field, prospecting parties discovered gold occurrences in several adjacent areas. The Queen Bee and Mount Jones prospecting claims were granted in 1887 for areas on the Burnett River, approximately 14.5km north of Eidsvold head station. Considerable development was undertaken, but the only recorded production was that for 1889 when a crushing of 10.16 tonnes of ore yielded 1.41kg of gold.

The Lady Amy claim, approximately 1.2km west of Eidsvold, was located on the line of a fissure in granite marked by a white kaolinized band striking 80 and dipping 15 south. In contact with this kaolinized band is a brown limonitic band up to 1.8m thick, which contains little quartz, but hosts the gold mineralization. A sample from the south-easterly dipping gold bearing formation yielded 4g of gold per tonne.

St John Creek Mining Field

Gold was discovered at St John Creek in 1888. This discovery, at first in alluvium and later in reefs, produced a drift in population from the dwindling Craven Town areas to the St John Creek area. The 5km2 goldfield situated 26km south-west of Eidsvold, was gazetted in 1890.Few reports on the area exist. The two main mines on the field, Perseverence and Burnett Squatter, were worked intermittently between 1888 and 1937. The total recorded production from the field since 1888 is 313.03kg of gold from 15 669 tonnes of ore milled. Peak production was achieved in 1890 when 98.35kg of gold were obtained from milling 7574 tonnes of ore.

Continued here:

Queensland gold – gold maps

 Posted by at 3:29 pm  Tagged with:

Utopia – New World Encyclopedia

 New Utopia  Comments Off on Utopia – New World Encyclopedia
Jun 152016

Utopia is a term denoting a visionary or ideally perfect state of society, whose members live the best possible life. The term Utopia was coined by Thomas More from the Greek words ou (no or not), and topos (place), as the name for the ideal state in his book, De optimo reipublicae statu deque nova insula Utopia (Louvain, 1516).

Utopianism refers to the various ways in which people think about, depict, and attempt to create a perfect society. Utopian thought deals with morality, ethics, psychology, and political philosophy, and often originates from the belief that reason and intelligence can bring about the betterment of society. It is usually characterized by optimism that an ideal society is possible. Utopianism plays an important role in motivating social and political change.

The adjective “utopian” is sometimes used in a negative connotation to discredit ideas as too advanced, too optimistic or unrealistic and impossible to realize. The term Utopian has also been used to describe actual communities founded in attempts to create an ideal economic and political system. Many works of utopian literature offer detailed and practical descriptions of an ideal society, but usually include some fatal flaw that makes the establishment of such a society impossible.

The term Utopia was coined by Thomas More from the Greek words ou (no or not), and topos (place), as the name for the ideal state in his book, De optimo reipublicae statu deque nova insula Utopia (Utopia Louvain, 1516). The book is narrated by a Portuguese traveler named Raphael Hythlodaeus, who criticizes the laws and customs of European states while admiring the ideal institutions which he observes during a five year sojourn on the island of Utopia.

Did you know?

Utopia is a perfect society, where poverty and misery have been eliminated, there are few laws and no lawyers, and the citizens, though ready to defend themselves if necessary, are pacifists. Citizens hold property in common, and care is taken to teach everyone a trade from which he can make a living, so that there is no need for crime. Agriculture is treated as a science and taught to children as part of their school curriculum; every citizen spends some of his life working on a farm. The people live in 54 cities, separated from each other by a distance of at least 24 miles. The rural population lives in communal farmhouses scattered through the countryside. Everyone works only six hours a day; this is sufficient because the people are industrious and do not require the production of useless luxuries for their consumption. A body of wise and educated representatives deliberates on public affairs, and the country is governed by a prince, selected from among candidates chosen by the people. The prince is elected for life, but can be removed from office for tyranny. All religions are tolerated and exist in harmony; atheism is not permitted since, if a man does not fear a god of some kind, he will commit evil acts and weaken society. Utopia rarely sends its citizens to war, but hires mercenaries from among its warlike neighbors, deliberately sending them into danger in the hope that the more belligerent populations of all surrounding countries will be gradually eliminated.

Utopia was first published in Louvain in 1516, without Mores knowledge, by his friend Erasmus. It was not until 1551, sixteen years after More’s execution as a traitor, that it was first published in England as an English translation.

Although some readers have regarded Utopia as a realistic blueprint for a working nation, More likely intended it as a satire, allowing him to call attention to European political and social abuses without risking censure by the king. The similarities to the ideas later developed by Karl Marx are evident, but More was a devout Roman Catholic and probably used monastic communalism as his model. The politics of Utopia have been seen as influential to the ideas of Anabaptism, Mormonism, and communism. An applied example of More’s utopia can be seen in Vasco de Quiroga’s implemented society in Michoacn, Mexico, which was directly taken and adapted from More’s work.

The word utopia overtook More’s short work and has been used ever since to describe any type of imaginary ideal society. Although he may not have founded the genre of utopian and dystopian fiction, More certainly popularized it. Some of the early works which owe something to Utopia include The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella, Description of the Republic of Christianopolis by Johannes Valentinus Andreae, New Atlantis by Francis Bacon and Candide by Voltaire.

The more modern genre of science fiction frequently depicts utopian or dystopian societies in fictional works such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) Lost Horizon by James Hilton (1933), “A Modern Utopia” (1905) and New Worlds for Old (1908) by H. G. Wells, The Great Explosion by Eric Frank Russell (1963), News From Nowhere by William Morris, Andromeda Nebula (1957) by Ivan Efremov, 1984 (1949) by George Orwell, and The Giver (1993) by Lois Lowry. Authors of utopian fiction are able to explore some of the problems raised by utopian concepts and to develop interesting consequences. Many works make use of an outsider, a time-traveler or a foreigner, who observes the features of the society and describes them to the reader.

Utopian thought is born from the premise that through reason and intelligence, humankind is capable of creating an ideal society in which every individual can achieve fulfillment without infringing on the happiness and well-being of the other members of society. It includes the consideration of morality, ethics, psychology, and social and political philosophy. Utopian thinking is generally confined to physical life on earth, although it may include the preparation of the members of society for a perceived afterlife. It invariably includes criticism of the current state of society and seeks ways to correct or eliminate abuses. Utopianism is characterized by tension between philosophical ideals and the practical realities of society, such as crime and immorality; there is also a conflict between respect for individual freedom and the need to maintain order. Utopian thinking implies a creative process that challenges existing concepts, rather than an ideology or justification for a belief system which is already in place.

Two of Platos dialogues, Republic and Laws, contain one of the earliest attempts to define a political organization that would not only allow its citizens to live in harmony, but would also provide the education and experience necessary for each citizen to realize his highest potential.

During the nineteenth century, thinkers such as Henri Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Etienne Cabet in France, and Robert Owen in England popularized the idea of creating small, experimental communities to put philosophical ideals into practice. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels recognized that utopianism offered a vision for a better future, a vision that contributed much to Marxism, but they also criticized utopian writers’ lack of a wider understanding of social and political realities which could contribute to actual political change. Herbert Marcuse made a distinction between abstract utopias based on fantasy and dreams, and concrete utopias based on critical social theory.

Utopianism is considered to originate in the imaginative capacity of the subconscious mind, which is able to transcend conscious reality by projecting images of hopes, dreams, and desires. Utopian ideas, though they may never be fully realized, play an important role in bringing about positive social change. They allow thinkers to distance themselves from the existing reality and consider new possibilities. The optimism that a better society can be achieved provides motivation and a focal point for those involved in bringing about social or political change. Abolitionism, womens rights and feminism, the Civil Rights movement, the establishment of a welfare system to take care of the poor, the Red Cross, and multiculturalism are all examples of utopian thinking applied to practical life.

The harsh economic conditions of the nineteenth century and the social disruption created by the development of commercialism and capitalism led several writers to imagine economically utopian societies. Some were characterized by a variety of socialist ideas: an equal distribution of goods according to need, frequently with the total abolition of money; citizens laboring for the common good; citizens doing work which they enjoyed; and ample leisure time for the cultivation of the arts and sciences. One such utopia was described in Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward. Another socialist utopia was William Morris’ News from Nowhere, written partially in criticism of the bureaucratic nature of Bellamy’s utopia.

Capitalist utopias, such as the one portrayed in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress or Ayn Rands The Fountainhead, are generally individualistic and libertarian, and are based on perfect market economies, in which there is no market failure. Eric Frank Russell’s book The Great Explosion (1963) details an economic and social utopia, the first to mention of the idea of Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS).

Political utopias are ones in which the government establishes a society that is striving toward perfection. These utopias are based on laws administered by a government, and often restrict individualism when it conflicts with the primary goals of the society. Sometimes the state or government replaces religious and family values. A global utopia of world peace is often seen as one of the possible inevitable ends of history.

Through history a number of religious communities have been created to reflect the virtues and values they believe have been lost or which await them in the Afterlife. In the United States and Europe during and after the Second Great Awakening of the nineteenth century, many radical religious groups sought to form communities where all aspects of people’s lives could be governed by their faith. Among the best-known of these utopian societies were the Puritans, and the Shaker movement, which originated in England in the eighteenth century but moved to America shortly after its founding.

The most common utopias are based on religious ideals, and usually required adherence to a particular religious tradition. The Jewish, Christian and Islamic concepts of the Garden of Eden and Heaven may be interpreted as forms of utopianism, especially in their folk-religious forms. Such religious “utopias” are often described as “gardens of delight,” implying an existence free from worry in a state of bliss or enlightenment. They postulate existences free from sin, pain, poverty and death, and often assume communion with beings such as angels or the houri. In a similar sense the Hindu concept of Moksha and the Buddhist concept of Nirvana may be thought of as a kind of utopia.

Many cultures and cosmogonies include a myth or memory of a distant past when humankind lived in a primitive and simple state of perfect happiness and fulfillment. The various myths describe a time when there was an instinctive harmony between man and nature, and mans needs were easily supplied by the abundance of nature. There was no motive for war or oppression, or any need for hard and painful work. Humans were simple and pious, and felt themselves close to the gods. These mythical or religious archetypes resurge with special vitality during difficult times, when the myth is not projected towards the remote past, but towards the future or a distant and fictional place (for example, The Land of Cockaygne, a straightforward parody of a paradise), where the possibility of living happily must exist.

Golden Age

Works and Days, compilation of the mythological tradition by the Greek poet Hesiod, around the eighth century B.C.E., explained that, prior to the present era, there were four progressively most perfect ones.

A medieval poem (c. 1315) , entitled “The Land of Cokaygne” depicts a land of extravagance and excess where cooked larks flew straight into one’s mouth; the rivers ran with wine, and a fountain of youth kept everyone young and active.

Scientific and technical utopias are set in the future, when it is believed that advanced science and technology will allow utopian living standards; for example, the absence of death and suffering; changes in human nature and the human condition. These utopian societies tend to change what “human” is all about. Normal human functions, such as sleeping, eating and even reproduction are replaced by artificial means.

All links retrieved January 13, 2016.

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Follow this link:

Utopia – New World Encyclopedia

 Posted by at 3:29 pm  Tagged with:

Introduction to Eugenics – Genetics Generation

 Eugenics  Comments Off on Introduction to Eugenics – Genetics Generation
Jun 152016

Introduction to Eugenics

Eugenics is a movement that is aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race. Historically, eugenicists advocated selective breeding to achieve these goals. Today we have technologies that make it possible to more directly alter the genetic composition of an individual. However, people differ in their views on how to best (and ethically) use this technology.

History of Eugenics

Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

In 1883, Sir Francis Galton, a respected British scholar and cousin of Charles Darwin,first used the term eugenics, meaning well-born. Galton believed that the human race could help direct its future by selectively breeding individuals who have desired traits. This idea was based on Galtons study of upper class Britain. Following these studies, Galton concluded that an elite position in society was due to a good genetic makeup. While Galtons plans to improve the human race through selective breeding never came to fruition in Britain, they eventually took sinister turns in other countries.

The eugenics movement began in the U.S. in the late 19th century. However, unlike in Britain, eugenicists in the U.S. focused on efforts to stop the transmission of negative or undesirable traits from generation to generation. In response to these ideas, some US leaders, private citizens, and corporations started funding eugenical studies. This lead to the 1911 establishment of The Eugenics Records Office (ERO) in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The ERO spent time tracking family histories and concluded that people deemed to be unfit more often came from families that were poor, low in social standing, immigrant, and/or minority. Further, ERO researchers demonstrated that the undesirable traits in these families, such as pauperism, were due to genetics, and not lack of resources.

Committees were convened to offer solutions to the problem of the growing number of undesirables in the U.S. population. Stricter immigration rules were enacted, but the most ominous resolution was a plan to sterilize unfit individuals to prevent them from passing on their negative traits. During the 20th century, a total of 33 states had sterilization programs in place. While at first sterilization efforts targeted mentally ill people exclusively, later the traits deemed serious enough to warrant sterilization included alcoholism, criminality chronic poverty, blindness, deafness, feeble-mindedness, and promiscuity. It was also not uncommon for African American women to be sterilized during other medical procedures without consent. Most people subjected to these sterilizations had no choice, and because the program was run by the government, they had little chance of escaping the procedure. It is thought that around 65,000 Americans were sterilized during this time period.

The eugenics movement in the U.S. slowly lost favor over time and was waning by the start of World War II. When the horrors of Nazi Germany became apparent, as well as Hitlers use of eugenic principles to justify the atrocities, eugenics lost all credibility as a field of study or even an ideal that should be pursued.

CLICK HERE to learn more about eugenics in modern times

The rest is here:
Introduction to Eugenics – Genetics Generation

 Posted by at 3:24 pm  Tagged with:

Neoliberalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Liberal  Comments Off on Neoliberalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 132016

Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since the 1950s,[2] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[5] Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7] The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 200708 one of the ultimate results.[13][14][15][16][17]

The definition and usage of the term has changed over time.[6] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[18] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term “neoliberal” heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[6] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[6] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[19] The impact of the global 2008-09 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[20]

The German scholar Alexander Rstow coined the term “neoliberalism” in 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann.[21][22][23] The colloquium defined the concept of neoliberalism as involving “the priority of the price mechanism, free enterprise, the system of competition, and a strong and impartial state”.[24] To be “neoliberal” meant advocating a modern economic policy with State intervention.[25] Neoliberal State interventionism brought a clash with the opposite laissez-faire camp of classical liberals, like Ludwig von Mises.[26] While present-day scholars tend to identify Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand as the most important theorists of neoliberalism, most scholars in the 1950s and 1960s understood neoliberalism as referring to the social market economy and its principal economic theorists such as Eucken, Rpke, Rstow, and Mller-Armack. Although Hayek had intellectual ties to the German neoliberals, his name was only occasionally mentioned in conjunction with neoliberalism during this period due to his more pro-free market stance. Friedman’s name essentially never appeared in connection with neoliberalism until the 1980s.[6] In the sixties, use of the term “neoliberal” heavily declined.[6]

For a while around 1983 there was an entirely different group for which one member (Charles Peters) used the term “neoliberal.” In 1983 Peters published “A Neoliberal’s Manifesto.”[27] However the terminology quickly died out for this group.

Elizabeth Tandy Shermer argues that, “Academics (largely left-wing) started using neoliberalism in the 1970s to describe and decry a late twentieth-century effort by policy makers, think-tank experts, and industrialists to condemn social-democratic reforms and unapologetically implement free-market policies.”[28] Other academics note that neoliberalism has critics from across the political spectrum.[29]

During the military rule under Augusto Pinochet (19731990) in Chile, opposition scholars took up the expression to describe the economic reforms implemented in Chile after 1973 and its proponents (the “Chicago Boys”).[6] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy.[6] In the last two decades, according to the Boas and Gans-Morse study of 148 journal articles, neoliberalism is almost never defined but used in several senses to describe ideology, economic theory, development theory, or economic reform policy. It has largely become a term of condemnation employed by critics. And it now suggests a market fundamentalism closer to the laissez-faire principles of the “paleoliberals” than to the ideas of the original neoliberals who attended the colloquium. This leaves some controversy as to the precise meaning of the term and its usefulness as a descriptor in the social sciences, especially as the number of different kinds of market economies have proliferated in recent years.[6] In the book Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction, published by Oxford University Press (2010), the authors argue that neoliberalism is “anchored in the principles of the free-market economics.”[15]

According to Boas and Gans-Morse, neoliberalism is nowadays an academic catchphrase used mainly by critics as a pejorative term, and has outpaced the use of similar terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and “market reform” in much scholarly writing.[6] Daniel Stedman Jones, a historian of the concept, says the term “is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises”[30] Nowadays the most common use of the term neoliberalism refers to market-oriented reform policies such as “eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers”, and reducing state influence on the economy especially by privatization and fiscal austerity.[6] The term is used in several senses: as a development model it refers to the rejection of structuralist economics in favor of the Washington Consensus; as an ideology the term is used to denote a conception of freedom as an overarching social value associated with reducing state functions to those of a minimal state; and finally as an academic paradigm the term is closely related to neoclassical economic theory.[6] The sociologists Fred L. Block and Margaret R. Somers claim there is a dispute over what to call the influence of free market ideas which have been used to justify the retrenchment of New Deal programs and policies over the last thirty years: neoliberalism, laissez-faire or just “free market ideology.”[31]

Other academics, such as Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton, assert that neoliberalism is a political philosophy which seeks to “liberate” the processes of capital accumulation.[14] American professor of political science and Democratic socialist Frances Fox Piven sees neoliberalism as essentially hyper-capitalism.[32]Robert W. McChesney, American professor at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and co-editor of the independent socialist magazine Monthly Review, claims that the term neoliberalism, which he defines as “capitalism with the gloves off,” is largely unknown by the general public, particularly in the United States.[33]Lester Spence uses the term to critique trends in Black politics, defining neoliberalism as “the general idea that society works best when the people and the institutions within it work or are shaped to work according to market principles.”[34]

In the 1930s, the mood was decidedly anti-liberal. The worldwide Great Depression brought about high unemployment and widespread poverty. The crisis was widely regarded as the failure of economic liberalism. To renew liberalism a group of 25 liberals organised the Walter Lippmann Colloquium. It held only one meeting. At Paris in August 1938 it brought together Louis Rougier, Walter Lippmann, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Wilhelm Rpke and Alexander Rstow among others. Most agreed that the liberalism of laissez faire had failed and that a new liberalism needed to take its place with a major role for the state. However Mises and Hayek refused to condemn laissez faire. But all participants were united in their call for a new project they dubbed “neoliberalism.”[35] They agreed the Colloquium into a permanent think tank called Centre International dtudes pour la Rnovation du Libralisme based in Paris.

However there were deep disagreements that broke up the movement. Deep differences separated ‘true (third way) neoliberals’ around Rstow and Lippmann on the one hand and old school liberals around Mises and Hayek on the other. The first group wanted a strong state to supervise, while the second insisted that the only legitimate role for the state was to abolish barriers to market entry. Rstow wrote that Hayek and Mises deserved to be put in spirits and placed in a museum as one of the last surviving specimen of an otherwise extinct species of liberals which caused the current catastrophe (the Great Depression). Mises denounced the other faction, complaining that Ordoliberalism really meant ‘ordo-interventionism’.[36]

Most historians emphasize that neoliberalism began accelerating in importance with the founding of the Mont Pelerin Society, in 1947 by Friedrich Hayek. The Colloque Walter Lippmann was forgotten.[37] The new society brought together the widely scattered free market thinkers and political figures. “Hayek and others believed that classical liberalism had failed because of crippling conceptual flaws and that the only way to diagnose and rectify them was to withdraw into an intensive discussion group of similarly minded intellectuals.”[38] With central planning in the ascendancy world-wide and few avenues to influence policymakers, the society served to bring together isolated advocates of liberalism as a “rallying point” as Milton Friedman phrased it. Meeting annually, it would soon be a “kind of international ‘who’s who’ of the classical liberal and neo-liberal intellectuals.”[39] While the first conference in 1947 was almost half American, the Europeans concentration dominated by 1951. Europe would remain the “epicenter” of the community with Europeans dominating the leadership.[40]

Neoliberal ideas were first implemented in West Germany. The neoliberal economists around Ludwig Erhard could draw on the theories they had developed in the 1930s and 1940s and contribute to West Germanys reconstruction after the Second World War.[41] Erhard was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and in constant contact with other neoliberals. He pointed out that he is commonly classified as neoliberal and that he accepted this classification.[42]

The ordoliberal Freiburg School was more pragmatic. The German neoliberals accepted the classical liberal notion that competition drives economic prosperity, but they argued that a laissez-faire state policy stifles competition as the strong devour the weak since monopolies and cartels could pose a threat to freedom of competition. They supported the creation of a well-developed legal system and capable regulatory apparatus. While still opposed to full-scale Keynesian employment policies or an extensive welfare state German neoliberals’ theory was marked by their willingness to place humanistic and social values on par with economic efficiency. Alfred Mller-Armack coined the phrase “social market economy” to emphasize the egalitarian and humanistic bent of the idea.[6] According to Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse, Walter Eucken stated that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time”.[6]

Erhard had always emphasized that the market was inherently social and did not need to be made so.[43] He had hoped that growing prosperity would enable the population to manage much of their social security by self-reliance and end the necessity for a widespread welfare state. By the name of Volkskapitalismus there were some efforts to foster private savings. But although average contributions to the public old age insurance were quite small, it remained by far the most important old age income source for a majority of the German population. Therefore, despite liberal rhetoric, the 1950s witnessed what has been called a reluctant expansion of the welfare state. To end widespread poverty among the elderly the pension reform of 1957 brought a significant extension of the German welfare state which already had been established under Otto von Bismarck.[44] Rstow, who had coined the label “neoliberalism”, criticized that development tendency and pressed for a more limited welfare program.[43]

Hayek did not like the expression “social market economy”, but he stated in 1976 that some of his friends in Germany had succeeded in implementing the sort of social order for which he was pleading while using that phrase. However, in Hayek’s view the social market economy’s aiming for both a market economy and social justice was a muddle of inconsistent aims.[45] Despite his controversies with the German neoliberals at the Mont Pelerin Society, Ludwig von Mises stated that Erhard and Mller-Armack accomplished a great act of liberalism to restore the German economy and called this “a lesson for the US”.[46] According to different research, however, Mises believed that the ordoliberals were hardly better than socialists. As an answer to Hans Hellwigs complaints about the interventionist excesses of the Erhard ministry and the ordoliberals, Mises wrote, “I have no illusions about the true character of the politics and politicians of the social market economy.” According to Mises, Erhard’s teacher Franz Oppenheimer “taught more or less the New Frontier line of” President Kennedy’s “Harvard consultants (Schlesinger, Galbraith, etc.)”.[47]

In Germany, neoliberalism at first was synonymous with both ordoliberalism and social market economy. But over time the original term neoliberalism gradually disappeared since social market economy was a much more positive term and fitted better into the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) mentality of the 1950s and 1960s.[43]

In the 1960s, Latin American intellectuals began to notice the ideas of ordoliberalism; these intellectuals often used the Spanish term neoliberalismo to refer to this school of thought. They were particularly impressed by the social market economy and the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) in Germany and speculated about the possibility of accomplishing similar policies in their own countries. Neoliberalism in 1960s meant essentially a philosophy that was more moderate than classical liberalism and favored using state policy to temper social inequality and counter a tendency toward monopoly.[6]

In 1955, a select group of Chilean students (later known as the Chicago Boys) were invited to the University of Chicago to pursue postgraduate studies in economics. They worked directly under Friedman and his disciple Arnold Harberger, while also being exposed to Hayek. When they returned to Chile in the 1960s, the Chicago Boys began a concerted effort to spread the philosophy and policy recommendations of the Chicago and Austrian schools, setting up think tanks and publishing in ideologically sympathetic media. Under the military dictatorship headed by Pinochet and severe social repression, the Chicago boys implemented radical economic reform. The latter half of the 1970s witnessed rapid and extensive privatization, deregulation, and reductions in trade barriers. In 1978 policies that would reduce the role of the state and infuse competition and individualism into areas such as labor relations, pensions, health, and education were introduced.[6] These policies resulted in widening inequality as they negatively impacted the wages, benefits and working conditions of Chile’s working class.[50][51] According to Chilean economist Alejandro Foxley, by the end of Pinochet’s reign around 44% of Chilean families were living below the poverty line.[52] In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein argues that by the late 1980s the economy had stabilized and was growing, but around 45% of the population had fallen into poverty while the wealthiest 10% saw their incomes rise by 83%.[53]

Two decades after it was first used by pro-market intellectuals in the 1960s, the meaning of neoliberalism changed. Those who regularly used the term neoliberalism in the 1980s typically applied it in its present-day, radical sense, denoting market fundamentalism.

In 1990 the military dictatorship ended. Hayek argued that increased economic freedom had put pressure on the dictatorship over time and increased political freedom. Many years earlier, in The Road to Serfdom (1944), Hayek had argued that “economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends.”[54] The Chilean scholars Javier Martnez and Alvaro Daz reject that argument pointing to the long tradition of democracy in Chile. The return of democracy had required the defeat of the Pinochet regime though it had been fundamental in saving capitalism. The essential contribution came from profound mass rebellions and finally old party elites using old institutional mechanisms to bring back democracy.[55]

In Australia, neoliberal economic policies have been embraced by governments of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party since the 1980s. The governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating from 1983 to 1996 pursued economic liberalisation and a program of micro-economic reform. These governments privatized government corporations, deregulated factor markets, floated the Australian dollar, and reduced trade protection.[56]

Keating, as federal treasurer, implemented a compulsory superannuation guarantee system in 1992 to increase national savings and reduce future government liability for old age pensions.[57] The financing of universities was deregulated, requiring students to contribute to university fees through a repayable loan system known as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) and encouraging universities to increase income by admitting full-fee-paying students, including foreign students.[58] The admitting of domestic full fee paying students to public universities was stopped in 2009 by the Rudd Labor Government.[59]

The Austrian School is a school of economic thought which bases its study of economic phenomena on the interpretation and analysis of the purposeful actions of individuals.[60][61][62][63] It derives its name from its origin in late-19th and early-20th century Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others.[64] Currently, adherents of the Austrian School can come from any part of the world, but they are often referred to as “Austrian economists” or “Austrians” and their work as “Austrian economics”.

Among the contributions of the Austrian School to economic theory are the subjective theory of value, marginalism in price theory, and the formulation of the economic calculation problem.[65] Many theories developed by “first wave” Austrian economists have been absorbed into most mainstream schools of economics. These include Carl Menger’s theories on marginal utility, Friedrich von Wieser’s theories on opportunity cost, and Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk’s theories on time preference, as well as Menger and Bhm-Bawerk’s criticisms of Marxian economics. The Austrian School differs significantly from many other schools of economic thought in that the Austrian analysis of the observed economy begins from a prior understanding of the motivations and processes of human action. The Austrian School follows an approach, termed methodological individualism, a version of which was codified by Ludwig von Mises and termed “praxeology” in his book published in English as Human Action in 1949.[66] Mises was the first Austrian economist to present a statement of a praxeological method. Since that time, few Austrian thinkers have adopted his approach and many have adopted alternative versions.[67] For example, Fritz Machlup, Friedrich von Hayek, and others, did not take Mises’ strong a priori approach to economics.[68]

During the early 1950s, Murray Rothbard attended the seminar of Mises at New York University and was greatly influenced by Mises’ book Human Action.[69][70] The Volker Fund paid Rothbard to write a textbook to explain Human Action in a fashion suitable for college students; a sample chapter he wrote on money and credit won Misess approval. As Rothbard continued his work, he enlarged the project. The result was Rothbard’s book Man, Economy, and State, published in 1962. Upon its publication, Mises praised Rothbard’s work effusively and, for Mises, uncharacteristically.[71]:14 Rothbard founded the Center for Libertarian Studies in 1976 and the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1977. He was associated with the 1982 creation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and was vice president of academic affairs until 1995. During the 1970s and 1980s, Rothbard was active in the Libertarian Party. He was frequently involved in the party’s internal politics. He was one of the founders of the Cato Institute, and “came up with the idea of naming this libertarian think tank after Catos Letters, a powerful series of British newspaper essays by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon which played a decisive influence upon America’s Founding Fathers in fomenting the Revolution.”[72]

The former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, speaking of the originators of the School, said in 2000, “the Austrian School have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country.”[73] In 1987, Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan told an interviewer, “I have no objections to being called an Austrian. Hayek and Mises might consider me an Austrian but, surely some of the others would not.”[74]Republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul states that he adheres to Austrian School economics and has authored six books which refer to the subject.[75][76] Paul’s former economic adviser, investment dealer Peter Schiff,[77] also calls himself an adherent of the Austrian School.[78]Jim Rogers, investor and financial commentator, also considers himself of the Austrian School of economics.[79] Chinese economist Zhang Weiying, who is known in China for his advocacy of free market reforms, supports some Austrian theories such as the Austrian theory of the business cycle.[80] Currently, universities with a significant Austrian presence are George Mason University, Loyola University New Orleans, and Auburn University in the United States and Universidad Francisco Marroqun in Guatemala. Austrian economic ideas are also promoted by bodies such as the Mises Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education.

The Chicago school of economics describes a neoclassical school of thought within the academic community of economists, with a strong focus around the faculty of University of Chicago. Chicago macroeconomic theory rejected Keynesianism in favor of monetarism until the mid-1970s, when it turned to new classical macroeconomics heavily based on the concept of rational expectations.[81] The school is strongly associated with economists such as Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Ronald Coase and Gary Becker.[82]

The school emphasizes non-intervention from government and generally rejects regulation in markets as inefficient with the exception of central bank regulation of the money supply (i.e., monetarism). Although the school’s association with neoliberalism is sometimes resisted by its proponents,[81] its emphasis on reduced government intervention in the economy and a laissez-faire ideology have brought about an affiliation between the Chicago school and neoliberal economics.[83][84]

The meaning of neoliberalism has changed over time and come to mean different things to different groups. As a result, it is very hard to define. This is seen by the fact that authoritative sources on neoliberalism, such as Friedrich Hayek,[85]Milton Friedman, David Harvey[86] and Noam Chomsky[87] do not agree about the meaning of neoliberalism. This lack of agreement creates major problems in creating an unbiased and unambiguous definition of neoliberalism. This section aims to define neoliberalism more accurately and to show how its evolution has influenced the different uses of the word.

One of the first problems with the meaning of neoliberalism is that liberalism, on which it is based, is also very hard to describe.[88] The uncertainty over the meaning of liberalism is commonly reflected in neoliberalism itself, and is the first serious point of confusion.

The second major problem with the meaning of neoliberalism is that neoliberalism went from being a purely theoretical ideology to become a practical and applied one. The 1970s onwards saw a surge in the acceptability of neoliberalism, and neoliberal governments swept in across the world, promising neoliberal reforms. However, governments did not always carry out their promised reforms, either through design or circumstances. This leads to the second serious point of confusion; namely, that most neoliberalism after this point isn’t always ideologically neoliberal.

Classical liberalism was revived in inter-War Austria by economists, including Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. They were concerned about the erosion of liberty by both socialist and fascist governments in Europe at that time and tried to restate the case for liberty. Hayek’s 1970s book, The Constitution of Liberty[85] sums up this argument. In the introduction he states: If old truths are to retain their hold on men’s minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generations.

Hayek’s belief in liberty stemmed from an argument about information.[89] He believed that no individual (or group, including the government) could ever understand everything about an economy or a society in order to rationally design the best system of governance. He argued this only got worse as scientific progress increased and the scope of human knowledge grew, leaving individuals increasingly more and more ignorant in their lifetimes. As a result, he believed it was impossible for any person or government to design the perfect systems under which people could be governed. The only solution to this, he believed, was to allow all possible systems to be tried in the real world and to allow the better systems to beat the worse systems through competition. In a liberal society, he believed, the few who used liberty to try out new things would come up with successful adaptations of existing systems or new ways of doing things. These discoveries, once shared and become mainstream, would benefit the whole of society, even those who did not directly partake of liberty.

Due to the ignorance of the individual, Hayek argued that an individual could not understand which of the various political, economic and social rules they had followed had made them successful. In his mind, this made the superstitions and traditions of a society in which an individual operated vitally important,[90] since in probability they had, in some way, aided the success of the individual. This would be especially true in a successful society, where these superstitions and traditions would, in all probability be successful ones that had evolved over time to exploit new circumstances.[91] However, this did not excuse any superstition or tradition being followed if it had outlived its usefulness: respect of tradition and superstition for the sake of tradition and superstition were not acceptable values to him.[92] Therefore, classical liberalism combined a respect for the old, drawn from conservatism, with the progressive striving towards the future, of liberalism.[93]

In emphasising evolution and competition of ideas, Hayek highlighted the divide between practical liberalism that evolved in a haphazard way in Britain, championed by such people as David Hume and Adam Smith, versus the more theoretical approach of the French, in such people as Descartes and Rousseau. Hayek christened these the pragmatic and rationalist schools, the former evolving institutions with an eye towards liberty and the later creating a brave new world by sweeping all the old and therefore useless ideas away.[94] Hayeks’s ideas on information and the necessity of evolving evolutions placed liberalism firmly on the pragmatic side against both rationalist socialists (such as communists and social liberals) and rationalist capitalists (such as economic libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists) alike.

At the centre of liberalism was the rule of law. Hayek believed that liberty was maximised when coercion was minimised.[95] Hayek did not believe that a complete lack of coercion was possible, or even desirable, for a liberal society, and he argued that a set of traditions was absolutely necessary which allowed individuals to judge whether they would or would not be coerced. This body of tradition he notes as law and the use of this tradition the Rule of Law.[96] In designing a liberal system of law, Hayek believed that two things were vitally important: the protection and delineation of the personal sphere[97] and the prevention of fraud and deception,[98] which could be maintained only by threat of coercion from the state. In delineating a personal sphere, individuals could know under what circumstances they would or would not be coerced, and could plan accordingly.[99]

In designing such a system, Hayek believed that it could maintain a protected sphere by protecting against abuses by the ruling power, be it a monarch (e.g., Bill of Rights 1689), the will of the majority in a democracy[100] (e.g., the US Constitution[101]) or the administration[102] (e.g. the Rechtsstaat). He believed that the most important features of such protections were equality before the law, and generality of the law. Equality meant that all should be equal before the law and therefore subject to it, even those decisions of a legislature or government administration. Generality meant that the law should be general and abstract, focusing not on ends or means, as a command would, but on general rules which, by their lack of specificity, could not be said to grant privileges, discriminate or compel any specific individual to an end.[103] General laws could also be used to transmit knowledge and encourage spontaneous order in human societies (much like the use of Adam Smith’s invisible hand in economics).[104] He also stressed the importance of individuals being responsible for their actions in order to encourage others to respect the law.[105]

Important practical tools for making these things work included separation of powers, the idea that those enforcing the law and those making it should be separate, to prevent the lawmakers from pursuing short-term ends[106] and constitutionalism, the idea that lawmakers should be legally bound about the laws they could pass,[101] thereby preventing absolute rule by the majority.

In the late 1980s, a practical statement of neoliberal aims was codified in the Washington Consensus.

Classical neoliberalism’s respect for tradition, combined with its pragmatic approach to progress, endeared it to conservative movements around the world looking for a way to adapt to the changing nature of the modern world. This saw it adopted by conservative movements, most famously in Chile under Pinochet, the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher[107] and in the United States of America under Ronald Reagan.

David Harvey suggests that Lewis Powell’s 1971 confidential memorandum to the US Chamber of Commerce, a call to arms to the business community to counter criticism of the free enterprise system, was a significant factor in the rise of conservative organizations and think-tanks which advocated for neoliberal policies, such as The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academia and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. For Powell, universities were becoming an ideological battleground and recommended the establishment of an intellectual infrastructure to serve as a counterweight to the increasingly popular ideas of Ralph Nader and other opponents of big business.[108]

The next important form of neoliberalism is economic neoliberalism. Economic neoliberalism stems out of the historical rift between classical liberalism and economic liberalism, and developed when the economically liberal minded co-opted the language and ideas of classical neoliberalism to place economic freedom at its heart, making it a right-wing ideology.[citation needed] Essentially, economic neoliberalism can be derived by taking the classical neoliberal definition above and taking the protected personal sphere to solely refer to property rights and contract. The liberal opposite of economic neoliberalism is modern liberalism, the corresponding left-wing ideology.[citation needed] The best known proponent of economic neoliberalism is Milton Friedman.[citation needed]

Economic neoliberalism is the most common form of neoliberalism, and is what is usually meant when a system is described as neoliberal.[109] According to Tayab Mahmud, quoting terminology from Anthony Carty

The neoliberal project is to turn the “nation-state” into a “market-state,” one with the primary agenda of facilitating global capital accumulation unburdened from any legal regulations aimed at assuring welfare of citizens. In summary, neoliberalism seeks unbridled accumulation of capital through a rollback of the state, and limits its functions to minimal security and maintenance of law, fiscal and monetary discipline, flexible labor markets, and liberalization of trade and capital flows.[110]

Economic neoliberalism is distinct from classical neoliberalism for many reasons. Hayek believed that certain elements that now make up modern economic neoliberal thought are too rationalist, relying on preconceived notions of human behaviour, such as the idea of homo economicus.[111] Paul Treanor points out that it is too utopian, and therefore illiberal.[112] David Harvey points out that economic neoliberalism is “theory of economic political practices”, rather than a complete ideology, and therefore, no correlation or connection needs to exist between a favourable assessment of neoliberal economic practises and a commitment to liberalism proper.[113] Likewise Anna-Maria Blomgren views neoliberalism as a continuum ranging from classical to economic liberalism.[114] A broad and, it is hoped, clearer restatement of the above is to point out that classic liberals must be economic liberals, but economic liberals do not have to be classically liberal, and it is the latter group that makes up the “new liberalism” of economic neoliberalism.[115]

Friedman’s chief argument about neoliberalism can be described as a consequentialist libertarian one: that the reason for adopting minimal government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. At the heart of economic neoliberalism are various theories that advocate the correctness of the economic neoliberal ideology.

Neoliberal economics in the 1920s took the ideas of the great liberal economists, such as Adam Smith, and updated them for the modern world. Friedrich Hayek’s ideas on information flow, present in classical neoliberalism, were codified in economic form under the Austrian School as the economic calculation problem. This problem of information flow implied that a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point (Hayek called this catallaxy), would be much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if it was completely efficient and was motivated to act in the public good.[116] In this view, the free market is a perfect example of such a system in which the market determined prices act as the information signals flowing through the economy. Actors in the economy could make decent decisions for their own businesses factoring in all the complex factors that led to market prices without having to understand or be completely aware of all of those complex factors.

In accepting the ideas of the Austrian School regarding information flow, economic neoliberals were forced to accept that free markets were artificial, and therefore would not arise spontaneously, but would have to be enforced, usually through the state and the rule of law. In this way, economic neoliberalism enshrines the role of the state and becomes distinct from libertarian thought. However, in accepting the ideas of self-regulating markets, neoliberals drastically restrict the role of the government to managing those forms of market failure that the neoliberal economics allowed: property rights and information asymmetry. This restricted the government to maintaining property rights by providing law and order through the police, maintaining an independent judiciary and maintaining the national defence, and basic regulation to guard against fraud. This made neoliberal economics distinct from Keynesian economics of the preceding decades.

These ideas were then developed further. Milton Friedman introduced the idea of adaptive expectations during the stagflation of the 1970s, which claims to describe why government interference (in the form of printing money) resulted in increasing inflation, as shop owners started to predict the rate of increase in the money supply, rendering the government action useless. This developed into the idea of rational expectations, which concludes that all government interference is useless and disruptive because the free market would predict and undermine the government’s proposed action. At the same time, the efficient-market hypothesis assumed that, because of catallaxy, the market could not be informationally wrong. Or, to paraphrase the famous quote of Warren Buffett, “the market is there to inform you, not serve you”.[117] Combined with rational expectations, this showed that, if all of the neoliberal assumptions held, markets would be self-regulating, and regulation would be unnecessary and disruptive.

Additionally, claims proliferated that the free market would produce the socially optimum equilibrium with regard to production of goods and services, such as the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and general equilibrium theory, which led to the further contention that government intervention could only result in making society worse off (see Pareto efficient).[original research?]

The rise of neoliberalism in the 1970s as a practical system of government saw it implemented in various forms across the world. In some cases, the result was not anything that could be identified as neoliberalism, often with catastrophic results for the poor. This has resulted in many on the left claiming that this is a deliberate goal of neoliberalism,[118] while those on the right defend the original goals of neoliberalism and insist otherwise, an argument that rages to this day. Nevertheless, neoliberalism has come under attack not only from the political left (social democrats), but also elements of the right (cultural nationalists) and myriad activists and academics.[29] This section attempts to provide an unbiased overview of this discussion, focusing on all the forms of neoliberalism that are not in any way neoliberal, but which have come to be associated with it, as well as the reasons for why this has happened.

One of the best and least controversial examples of “neoliberal” reform is in Russia, whose reforms in 1989 were justified under neoliberal economic policy but which lacked any of the basic features of a neoliberal state (e.g. the rule of law, free press) which could have justified the reforms.

The least controversial aspect of neoliberalism has often been presented by modern economists critical of neoliberalism’s role in the world economic system. Among these economists, the chief voices of dissent are Joseph Stiglitz[119] and Paul Krugman.

Both use arguments about market failure to justify their views on neoliberalism. They argue that when markets are imperfect (which is to say all markets everywhere to some degree), then they can fail and may not work as neoliberals predict, resulting in some form of crony capitalism. The two chief modes of failure are usually due to imperfect property rights and due to imperfect information and correspond directly to Friedrich Hayek’s assertion that classical liberalism will not work without protection of the private sphere and the prevention of fraud and deception.

The failure of property rights means that individuals can’t protect ownership of their resources and control what happens to them, or prevent others from taking them away. This usually stifles free enterprise and results in preferential treatment for those who can.

Not all members of a society may have equal access to the law or to information, even when everyone is theoretically equal under the law, as in a liberal democracy. This is because access to the law and information is not free as liberals (such as Hayek) assume, but have associated costs. Therefore, in this context, it is sound to say that the wealthy have greater rights than the poor.[120][121][122] In some cases, the poor may have practically no rights at all if their income falls below the levels necessary to access the law and unbiased sources of information, while the very wealthy may have the ability to choose which rights and responsibilities they bear if they can move themselves and their property internationally, resulting in social stratification, also known as class. This alleged tendency to create and strengthen class has resulted in some (most famously David Harvey[86]) claiming that neoliberalism is a class project, designed to impose class on society through liberalism. Economist David M. Kotz contends that neoliberalism “is based on the thorough domination of labor by capital.”[123] The emergence of the ‘precariat’, a new class facing acute socio-economic insecurity and alienation, has been attributed to the globalization of neoliberalism.[124]

Sociologist Thomas Volscho has argued that the imposition of “neoliberalism” in the United States arose from a conscious political mobilization by capitalist elites in the 1970s who faced two crises: the legitimacy of capitalism and a falling rate of profitability in industry. Various “neoliberal” ideologies (such as “monetarism” and “supply-side economics”) had been long advanced by elites, translated into policies by the Reagan administration, and ultimately resulted in less governmental regulation and a shift from a tax-financed state to a debt-financed one. While the profitability of industry and the rate of economic growth never recovered to the heyday of the 1960s, the political and economic power of Wall Street and finance capital vastly increased due to the debt-financing of the state.”[125]

Sociologist Loc Wacquant argues that neoliberal policy for dealing with social instability among economically marginalized populations following the retrenchment of the social welfare state and the rise of punitive workfare, increased gentrification of urban areas, privatization of public functions, the shrinking of collective protections for the working class via economic deregulation, and the rise of underpaid, precarious wage labor is the criminalization of poverty followed by mass incarceration.[126][127] By contrast, it is extremely lenient in dealing with those in the upper echelons of society, in particular when it comes to economic crimes of the privileged classes and corporations such as fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, credit and insurance fraud, money laundering, and violation of commerce and labor codes.[122][128] According to Wacquant, neoliberalism doesn’t shrink government but instead sets up a centaur state, with little governmental oversight for those at the top and strict control of those at the bottom.[122][129]

In expanding upon Wacquant’s thesis, sociologist and political economist John L. Campbell of Dartmouth College suggests that through privatization, the prison system exemplifies the centaur state:

On the one hand, it punishes the lower class, which populates the prisons; on the other hand, it profits the upper class, which owns the prisons, and it employs the middle class, which runs them.

In addition, he says the prison system benefits corporations through outsourcing, as the inmates are “slowly becoming a source of low-wage labor for some US corporations.” Both through privatization and outsourcing, Campbell argues, the US penal state reflects neoliberalism.[130] Campbell also argues that while neoliberalism in the US established a penal state for the poor, it also put into place a debtor state for the middle class, and that “both have had perverse effects on their respective targets: increasing rates of incarceration among the lower class and increasing rates of indebtednessand recently home foreclosureamong the middle class.”[131]

Neo-liberalism has been criticized by feminist theory for having a negative effect on the female workforce population across the globe -especially in the global south. Masculinist assumptions and objectives continue to dominate economic and geopolitical thinking.[132] Women’s experiences in non-industrialized countries reveal often deleterious effects of modernization policies and undercut orthodox claims that development benefits everyone.[133] Proponents of neoliberalism have often theorized that by furthering women’s participation in the workforce, there will be heightened economic progress, but feminist critics have noted that this participation alone does not further equality in gender relations.[134] Neoliberalism has failed to address significant problems such as the devaluation of feminized labour, the structural privileging of men and masculinity, and the politicization of women’s subordination in the family and the workplace.[135] The ‘feminization of employment’ refers to a conceptual characterization of deteriorated and devalorized labour conditions that are less desirable, meaningful, safe and secure.[136] Employers in the global south have perceptions about feminine labour and seek workers who are perceived to be undemanding, docile and willing to accept low wages.[137] Social constructs about feminized labour have played a big part in this, for instance, employers often perpetuate ideas about women as ‘secondary income earners to justify their lower rates of pay and not deserving of training or promotion.[138] The exploitation of female workers production centers is very widespread, women workforces are subject to high levels of control and surveillance, and worked under extreme measures to achieve production goals under the observation of their supervisors.[139] The privatization that comes along with neoliberal economic reforms for countries who want loans from western multinational corporations reduce public spending drastically and women are disproportionately affected because they depend on secure government jobs and public resources more often than men. When economic conditions deteriorate, women are culturally expected to fill the gap, in spite of few resources.[140]

Neoliberalism can also be seen as gutting liberal concepts under market values. Liberal feminism has seen the same effect with new definitions under neoliberalism using key liberal terms such as equality, opportunity, and free choice while displacing and replacing their content to individualized and entrepreneurial content.[141] The individualistic nature of this new feminism disavows the social, cultural, and economic forces producing this inequality, moving feminism from a structural problem into an individual affair. This hollows out the potential of liberal feminism to underscore the constitutive contradictions of liberal democracy and further entrenches neoliberal rationality and imperialistic logic.[142] The neoliberal shift in feminism neutralizes collective uprising and transfers the site of activity from the public arena to each individuals psyche. With no orientation beyond the self, feminism is not being steered towards the toppling of the political order or even coming to awareness of systematic male domination.[143] Liberal feminism when individualized rather than collectivized completely detaches from social inequality and consequently cannot offer any sustained analysis of the structures of male dominance, power, privilege.[144] Diana C. Sierra Becerra and Kevin Young, writing in the socialist journal Against the Current, argue the larger support in feminism for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016 (NOW and “Feminists for Clinton”) is an example of this shift in feminism towards neoliberalism considering that, in their view, Clinton has consistently favored policies devastating to most women and LGBT peoples.[145] They contend this shift reflects a narrowness of analysis, vision, and values that only apply to wealthy white women who share in the wealth from corporate capitalism and U.S. imperial power.[146]

In practice, less developed nations have less developed rights and institutions, resulting in greater risk for international lenders and businesses. This means that developing countries usually have less privileged access to international markets than developed countries. Because of this effect, international lenders are also more likely to invest in foreign companies (i.e. multinational corporations) inside a country, rather than in local businesses,[147] giving international firms an unfair competitive advantage. Also, speculative flows of capital may enter the country during a boom and leave during a recession, deepening economic crises and destabilizing the economy.

Both of these problems imply that developing countries should have greater protections against international markets than developed ones and greater barriers to trade. Despite such problems, IMF policy in response to crises, which is supposed to be guided by neoliberal ideas such as the Washington Consensus, is to increase liberalization of the economy and decrease barriers, allowing bigger capital flight and the chance for foreign firms to shore up their monopolies. Additionally, the IMF acts to increase moral hazard, since international involvement will usually result in an international bailout with foreign creditors being treated preferentially, leading international firms to discount the risks of doing business in less developed countries[148] and forcing the government to pay for them instead.

The view of some that international involvement and the imposition of “neoliberal” policies usually serves to make things worse and acts against the interests of the country being “saved”, has led some to argue that the policies have nothing to do with any form of liberalism, but hide some other purpose.[149] The most common assertion given by opponents is that they are a form of neocolonialism, where the more developed countries can exploit the less developed countries. However, even opponents do not agree. For example, Stiglitz assumes that there is no neoimperial plot, but that the system is driven by a mixture of ideology and special interests, in which neoliberal fundamentalists, who do not believe that neoliberalism can fail, work with financial and other multinational corporations, who have the most to benefit from opening up foreign markets. David Harvey, on the other hand, argues that local elites exploit neoliberal reforms in order to impose reforms that benefit them at the cost of the poor, while transferring the blame onto the “evil imperialist” developed countries,[86] citing the example of Argentina in 2001.

Mark Arthur has written that the influence of neoliberalism has given rise to an “anti-corporatist” movement in opposition to it. This “anti-corporatist” movement is articulated around the need to re-claim the power that corporations and global institutions have stripped governments of”. He says that Adam Smith’s “rules for mindful markets” served as a basis for the anti-corporate movement, “following government’s failure to restrain corporations from hurting or disturbing the happiness of the neighbor [Smith]”.[150]

In 2016, researchers for the International Monetary Fund, itself branded a neoliberal institution by critics,[151][152][153] released a paper entitled “Neoliberalism: Oversold?”. This said “There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.” However, it criticized some neoliberal policies, such as freedom of capital and fiscal consolidation for “increasing inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion.”[154] The report contends the implementation of neoliberal policies by economic and political elites has led to “three disquieting conclusions”:

Neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector,[156] rationalized by the narrative that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation.[157] The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson’s statement of the “Washington Consensus.”[158] The Washington Consensus is a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank).[159] Williamson’s list included ten points:

Between the 1930s and the late 1970s most countries in Latin America used the import substitution industrialization model (ISI) to build industry and reduce the dependency on imports from foreign countries. The result of ISI in these countries included: rapid urbanization of one or two major cities, a growing urban population of the working class, and frequent protests by trade unions and left-wing parties.[160] In response to the economic crisis, the leaders of these countries quickly adopted and implemented new neoliberal policies.

A study based on the transformations of urban life and systems as a result of neoliberalism in six countries of Latin America was published by Alejandro Portes and Bryan Roberts. This comparative study included census data analysis, surveying, and fieldwork focused in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. Predictions of the neoliberalism were extended to these six countries in four areas: urban systems and primacy, urban unemployment and informal employment, urban inequality and poverty, and urban crime and victimization. Data collected support a relationship between the economic policies of neoliberalism and the resulting patterns of urbanization.

In the area of urban systems and primacy two tendencies were revealed in the data. The first was continuing growth in total size of urban populations while the second tendency was the decline in size of the principal city with decreased migration flows to these cities. Therefore, when calculating the urban growth rate each of these countries all showed minimal or a significant decline in growth. Portes and Roberts theorize that the changes are due to the loss of attraction of major cities … due to a complex set of factors, but is undoubtedly a related to the end of the ISI era.[160] Although the relationship between the open-market and the transformation of urban systems has not been proven to be a perfect one-to-one relationship, the evidence supports the acceleration or initiation of these two tendencies following neoliberal changes.[160]

There was also a variation in the inequality and poverty in the six countries. While the majority of the population within these countries suffered from poverty, the “upper classes” received the benefits of the neoliberal system. According to Portes and Roberts, the privileged decile received average incomes equivalent to fourteen times the average Latin American poverty-line income.[160] According to the authors, a direct result of the income inequality is that each country struggled with increased crime and victimization in both urban and suburban settings. However, due to corruption within the police force it is not possible to accurately extrapolate a trend in the data of crime and victimization.[160]

The effect of neoliberalism on global health, particularly the aspect of international aid involves key players such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. According to James Pfeiffer,[161] neoliberal emphasis has been placed on free markets and privatization which has been tied to the “new policy agenda”, an agenda in which NGOs are viewed to provide better social welfare than that of a nation’s government. International NGOs have been promoted to fill holes in public services created by the World Bank and IMF through their promotion of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) which reduce government health spending and Pfeiffer says are an unsustainable source of foreign aid. The reduced health spending and the gain of the public health sector by NGOs causes the local health system to become fragmented, undermines local control of health programs and contributes to local social inequality between NGO workers and local individuals.[162]

In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS, claimed that the IMFs monetarist approach towards prioritising price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from scaling up long-term investment in public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to demoralising working conditions that have fuelled a “brain drain” of medical personnel, all of which has undermined public health and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries.[163]

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that “Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends.”[54]

Later, in his book Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression.

In his view, the voluntary character of all transactions in an unregulated market economy and wide diversity that it permits are fundamental threats to repressive political leaders and greatly diminish power to coerce. Through elimination of centralized control of economic activities, economic power is separated from political power, and the one can serve as counterbalance to the other. Friedman feels that competitive capitalism is especially important to minority groups, since impersonal market forces protect people from discrimination in their economic activities for reasons unrelated to their productivity.[164]

Amplifying Friedman’s argument, it has often been pointed out that increasing economic freedoms tend to rise expectations on political freedoms, eventually leading to democracy. Other scholars see the existence of non-democratic yet market-liberal regimes and the undermining of democratic control by market processes as strong evidence that such a general, ahistorical nexus cannot be upheld. Contemporary discussion on the relationship between neoliberalism and democracy shifted to a more historical perspective, studying extent and circumstances of how much the two are mutually dependent, contradictory or incompatible.

Stanley Fish argues that neoliberalization of academic life may promote a narrower and, in his opinion, more accurate definition of academic freedom “as the freedom to do the academic job, not the freedom to expand it to the point where its goals are infinite.” What Fish urges is “not an inability to take political stands, but a refraining from doing so in the name of academic responsibility.”[165]

Opponents of neoliberalism commonly argue the following points:

Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.

Critics sometimes refer to neoliberalism as the “American Model,” and make the claim that it promotes low wages and high inequality.[177] According to the economists Howell and Diallo (2007), neoliberal policies have contributed to a U.S. economy in which 30% of workers earn low wages (less than two-thirds the median wage for full-time workers), and 35% of the labor force is underemployed; only 40% of the working-age population in the U.S. is adequately employed. The Center for Economic Policy Research’s (CEPR) Dean Baker (2006) argued that the driving force behind rising inequality in the U.S. has been a series of deliberate, neoliberal policy choices including anti-inflationary bias, anti-unionism, and profiteering in the health industry.[178] However, countries have applied neoliberal policies at varying levels of intensity; for example, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) has calculated that only 6% of Swedish workers are beset with wages it considers low, and that Swedish wages are overall lower.[179] Others argue that Sweden’s adoption of neoliberal reforms, in particular the privatization of public services and reduced state benefits, has resulted in income inequality growing faster in Sweden than any other OECD nation.[180][181] In the 2014 elections, Swedish voters rejected the neoliberal policies of the center-right government which had undermined the social safety net and put the left-leaning Social Democrats back in power.[182] John Schmitt and Ben Zipperer (2006) of the CEPR have analyzed the effects of intensive Anglo-American neoliberal policies in comparison to continental European neoliberalism, concluding “The U.S. economic and social model is associated with substantial levels of social exclusion, including high levels of income inequality, high relative and absolute poverty rates, poor and unequal educational outcomes, poor health outcomes, and high rates of crime and incarceration. At the same time, the available evidence provides little support for the view that U.S.-style labor-market flexibility dramatically improves labor-market outcomes. Despite popular prejudices to the contrary, the U.S. economy consistently affords a lower level of economic mobility than all the continental European countries for which data is available.”[183] The rise of anti-austerity parties in Europe and SYRIZA’s victory in the Greek legislative elections of January 2015 have some proclaiming the end of neoliberalism.[184]

In Latin America, the “pink tide” that swept leftist governments into power at the turn of the millennium can be seen as a reaction against neoliberal hegemony and the notion that “there is no alternative” (TINA) to the Washington Consensus.[185]

Notable critics of neoliberalism in theory or practice include economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Michael Hudson,[186]Robert Pollin,[187] Julie Matthaei,[188] and Richard D. Wolff,[171] linguist Noam Chomsky,[158] geographer David Harvey,[189] Marxist feminist Gail Dines,[190] American scholar and cultural critic Henry Giroux,[191][192] journalist and environmental activist George Monbiot,[193] Belgian psychologist Paul Verhaeghe,[194] journalist and activist Chris Hedges[195] and the alter-globalization movement in general, including groups such as ATTAC. Critics of neoliberalism argue that not only is neoliberalism’s critique of socialism (as unfreedom) wrong, but neoliberalism cannot deliver the liberty that is supposed to be one of its strong points. Daniel Brook’s “The Trap” (2007), Robert Frank’s “Falling Behind” (2007), Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson’s “Social Murder” (2007), and Richard G. Wilkinson’s “The Impact of Inequality” (2005) all claim high inequality is spurred by neoliberal policies and produces profound political, social, economic, health, and environmental constraints and problems. The economists and policy analysts at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) offer inequality-reducing social democratic policy alternatives to neoliberal policies.

The invisible hand of the market and the iron fist of the state combine and complement each other to make the lower classes accept desocialized wage labor and the social instability it brings in its wake. After a long eclipse, the prison thus returns to the frontline of institutions entrusted with maintaining the social order.

Critics allege that neoliberalism holds that market forces should organize every facet of society, including economic and social life, and promotes a social darwinist ethic which elevates self-interest over social needs.[197] Santa Cruz History of Consciousness professor Angela Davis and Princeton sociologist Bruce Western have claimed that the high rate (compared to Europe) of incarceration in the U.S. specifically 1 in 37 American adults is in the prison system heavily promoted by the Clinton administration, is the neoliberal U.S. policy tool for keeping unemployment statistics low, while stimulating economic growth through the maintenance of a contemporary slave population and the promotion of prison construction and “militarized policing.”[198]David McNally, Professor of Political Science at York University, argues that while expenditures on social welfare programs have been cut, expenditures on prison construction have increased significantly during the neoliberal era, with California having “the largest prison-building program in the history of the world.”[199] The scholar Bernard Harcourt contends the neoliberal concept that the state is inept when it comes to economic regulation but efficient in policing and punishing “has facilitated the slide to mass incarceration.”[200] Both Wacquant and Harcourt refer to this phenomenon as “Neoliberal Penality.”[201][202]

The Clinton Administration embraced neoliberalism by pursuing international trade agreements that would benefit the corporate sector globally (normalization of trade with China for example). Domestically, Clinton fostered such neoliberal reforms as the corporate takeover of health care in the form of the HMO, the reduction of welfare subsidies, and the implementation of “Workfare”.[203]

Neoliberal policies advanced by supranational organizations have come under criticism, from both socialist and libertarian writers, for advancing a corporatist agenda. Rajesh Makwana, on the left, writes that “the World Bank and IMF, are major exponents of the neoliberal agenda” advancing corporate interests.[204] Sheldon Richman, editor of the libertarian journal The Freeman, also sees the IMF imposing “corporatist-flavored ‘neoliberalism’ on the troubled countries of the world.” The policies of spending cuts coupled with tax increases give “real market reform a bad name and set back the cause of genuine liberalism.” Paternalistic supranational bureaucrats foster “long-term dependency, perpetual indebtedness, moral hazard, and politicization, while discrediting market reform and forestalling revolutionary liberal change.”[205] Free market economist Richard M. Salsman goes further and argues the IMF is a destructive, crisis-generating global welfare agency that should be abolished.”[206] “In return for bailouts, countries must enact such measures as new taxes, high interest rates, nationalizations, deportations, and price controls.” Writing in Forbes, E. D. Kain sees the IMF as “paving the way for international corporations entrance into various developing nations” and creating dependency.[207] He quotes Donald J. Boudreaux on the need to abolish the IMF.

In protest against neoliberal globalization, South Korean farmer and former president of the Korean Advanced Farmers Federation Lee Kyung-hae committed suicide by stabbing himself in the heart during a meeting of the WTO in Cancun, Mexico in 2003. Prior to his death he expressed his concerns in broken English:

My warning goes out to the all citizens that human beings are in an endangered situation that uncontrolled multinational corporations and a small number of bit WTO members officials are leading an undesirable globalization of inhuman, environment-distorting, farmer-killing, and undemocratic. It should be stopped immediately otherwise the failed logic of the neo-liberalism will perish the diversities of agriculture and disastrously to all human being.[208]

Excerpt from:

Neoliberalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Principality of Sealand – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Sealand  Comments Off on Principality of Sealand – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 132016

For more information about the structure claimed by Sealand see HM Fort Roughs

The Principality of Sealand is an unrecognised micronation that claims Roughs Tower, an offshore platform located in the North Sea approximately 12 kilometres (7.5mi) off the coast of Suffolk, England, as its territory. Roughs Tower is a disused Maunsell Sea Fort, originally called HM Fort Roughs, built as an anti-aircraft defensive gun platform by the British during World War II.[3][4]

Since 1967, the decommissioned HM Fort Roughs has been occupied by family and associates of Paddy Roy Bates, who claim that it is an independent sovereign state.[3] Bates seized it from a group of pirate radio broadcasters in 1967 with the intention of setting up his own station at the site.[5] He attempted to establish Sealand as a nation-state in 1975 with the writing of a national constitution and establishment of other national symbols.[3]

While it has been described as the world’s smallest country[6] or nation,[7] Sealand is not officially recognised by any established sovereign state in spite of Sealand’s government’s claim that it has been de facto recognised by the United Kingdom[3] and Germany.[8] The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in force since 1994 states “Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf”.[9] Sealand was not grandfathered, and sits in British waters.

Bates moved to the mainland when he became elderly, naming his son Michael regent. Bates died in October 2012 at the age of 91.[10] Michael lives in England.[11]

In 1943, during World War II, HM Fort Roughs (sometimes called Roughs Tower) was constructed by the United Kingdom as one of the Maunsell Forts,[12] primarily to defend the vital shipping lanes in nearby estuaries against German Navy mine-laying aircraft. It consisted of a floating pontoon base with a superstructure of two hollow towers joined by a deck upon which other structures could be added. The fort was towed to a position above the Rough Sands sandbar, where its base was deliberately flooded to sink it on its final resting place. This is approximately 7 nautical miles (13km) from the coast of Suffolk, outside the then 3nmi (6km) claim of the United Kingdom and, therefore, in international waters.[12] The facility was occupied by 150300 Royal Navy personnel throughout World War II; the last full-time personnel left in 1956.[12]

Roughs Tower was occupied in February and August 1965 by Jack Moore and his daughter Jane, squatting on behalf of the pirate station Wonderful Radio London.

On 2 September 1967, the fort was occupied by Major Paddy Roy Bates, a British subject and pirate radio broadcaster, who ejected a competing group of pirate broadcasters.[5] Bates intended to broadcast his pirate radio station called Radio Essex from the platform.[13] Despite having the necessary equipment, he never began broadcasting.[14] Bates declared the independence of Roughs Tower and deemed it the Principality of Sealand.[5]

In 1968, British workmen entered what Bates claimed to be his territorial waters in order to service a navigational buoy near the platform. Michael Bates (son of Paddy Roy Bates) tried to scare the workmen off by firing warning shots from the former fort. As Bates was a British subject at the time, he was summoned to court in England on firearms charges following the incident.[15] But as the court ruled that the platform (which Bates was now calling “Sealand”) was outside British territorial limits, being beyond the then 3-nautical-mile (6km) limit of the country’s waters, the case could not proceed.[16]

In 1975, Bates introduced a constitution for Sealand, followed by a national flag, a national anthem, a currency and passports.[3]

In August 1978, Alexander Achenbach, who describes himself as the Prime Minister of Sealand, hired several German and Dutch mercenaries to spearhead an attack on Sealand while Bates and his wife were in England.[8] They stormed the platform with speedboats, jet skis and helicopters, and took Bates’ son Michael hostage. Michael was able to retake Sealand and capture Achenbach and the mercenaries using weapons stashed on the platform. Achenbach, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treason against Sealand[8] and was held unless he paid DM75,000 (more than US$35,000 or 23,000).[17] The governments of the Netherlands, Austria and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed his imprisonment, citing the 1968 court decision.[3] Germany then sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Sealand to negotiate for Achenbach’s release. Roy Bates relented after several weeks of negotiations and subsequently claimed that the diplomat’s visit constituted de facto recognition of Sealand by Germany.[8]

Following the former’s repatriation, Achenbach and Gernot Ptz established a government in exile, sometimes known as the Sealand Rebel Government or Sealandic Rebel Government, in Germany.[8] Achenbach’s appointed successor, Johannes Seiger, continues to claim via his website that he is Sealand’s legitimate ruling authority.[18]

The claim that Sealand is an independent sovereign state is based on an interpretation of a 1968 decision of an English court, in which it was held that Roughs Tower was in international waters and thus outside the jurisdiction of the domestic courts.[3]

In international law, the most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declaratory theories of state creation. The constitutive theory is the standard nineteenth-century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the twentieth century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires ‘diplomatic recognition’ or merely ‘recognition of existence’. No other state grants Sealand official recognition, but it has been argued by Bates that negotiations carried out by Germany following a brief hostage incident constituted ‘recognition of existence’ (and, since the German government reportedly sent an ambassador to the tower, diplomatic recognition). In the declaratory theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood. Therefore, recognition by other states is purely ‘declaratory’.[33]

In 1987, the UK extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles (6 to 22km). Sealand now sits inside British waters.[34] The United Kingdom is one of 165 parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (in force since 1994), which states in Part V, Article 60, that: ‘Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf’.[9] In the opinion of law academic John Gibson, there is little chance that Sealand would be recognised as a nation because it is a man-made structure.[34]

Irrespective of its legal status, Sealand is managed by the Bates family as if it were a recognised sovereign entity and they are its hereditary royal rulers. Roy Bates styled himself as ‘Prince Roy’ and his widow ‘Princess Joan’. Their son is known as ‘His Royal Highness Prince Michael’ and has been referred to as the ‘Prince Regent’ by the Bates family since 1999.[35] In this role, he apparently serves as Sealand’s acting ‘Head of State’ and also its ‘Head of Government’.[36] At a micronations conference hosted by the University of Sunderland in 2004, Sealand was represented by Michael Bates’ son James. The facility is now occupied by one or more caretakers representing Michael Bates, who himself resides in Essex, England.[35]

Sealand’s constitution was instituted in 1974. It consists of a preamble and seven articles.[37] The preamble asserts Sealand’s independence, while the articles variously deal with Sealand’s status as a constitutional monarchy, the empowerment of government bureaux, the role of an appointed, advisory senate, the functions of an appointed, advisory legal tribunal, a proscription against the bearing of arms except by members of a designated ‘Sealand Guard’, the exclusive right of the sovereign to formulate foreign policy and alter the constitution, and the hereditary patrilinear succession of the monarchy.[38] Sealand’s legal system is claimed to follow British common law, and statutes take the form of decrees enacted by the sovereign.[39] Sealand has issued “fantasy passports” (as termed by the Council of the European Union), which are not valid for international travel,[40] and holds the Guinness World Record for ‘the smallest area to lay claim to nation status’.[41] Sealand’s motto is E Mare Libertas (From the Sea, Freedom). It appears on Sealandic items such as stamps, passports and coins and is the title of the Sealandic anthem. The anthem was composed by Londoner Basil Simonenko;[42] being an instrumental anthem, it does not have lyrics. In 2005, the anthem was recorded by the Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra and released on their CD National Anthems of the World, Vol. 7: Qatar Syria.

Sealand has been involved in several commercial operations, including the issuing of coins and postage stamps and the establishment of an offshore Internet hosting facility, or ‘data haven’.[43][44] Sealand also has an official website and publishes an online newspaper, Sealand News.[45] In addition, a number of amateur athletes ‘represent’ Sealand in sporting events, including unconventional events like the egg throwing world championship, which the Sealand team won in 2008.[46]

Several dozen different Sealand coins have been minted since 1972. In the early 1990s, Achenbach’s German group also produced a coin, featuring a likeness of ‘Prime Minister Seiger’.[47] Sealand’s coins and postage stamps are denominated in ‘Sealand dollars’, which it deems to be at parity with the U.S. dollar.[48] Sealand first issued postage stamps in 1969, and issues through 1977. No further stamps were produced until 2010. Sealand is not a member of the Universal Postal Union, therefore its inward address is a PO Box in the United Kingdom.[49] Once it is mailed to Sealand’s tourist and government office, it will then be brought to Sealand. Sealand only has one street address, The Row.[50]

A Sealand mailing address looks like this:[50]

Bureau of Internal Affairs 5, The Row SEALAND 1001 (c/o Sealand Post Bag, IP11 9SZ, UK)

Sealand also sells titles of individual nobility including Lord, Baron, Count and those titles’ distaff equivalents. Following Roy Bates’ 2012 death, Sealand also began publicly offering knighthoods.[51][52]

In 2000, worldwide publicity was created about Sealand following the establishment of a new entity called HavenCo, a data haven, which effectively took control of Roughs Tower itself; however, Ryan Lackey, HavenCo’s founder, later quit and claimed that Bates had lied to him by keeping the 19901991 court case[clarification needed] from him and that, as a result, he had lost the money he had invested in the venture.[53] In November 2008, operations of HavenCo ceased without explanation.[54]

Sealand is not recognized by any major international sporting body, and its population is insufficient to maintain a team composed entirely of Sealanders in any team sport. However, Sealand claims to have official national athletes, including non-Sealanders. These athletes take part in various sports, such as curling, mini-golf, football, fencing, ultimate frisbee, table football and athletics, although all its teams compete out of the country.[55] The Sealand National Football Association is an associate member of the Nouvelle Fdration-Board, a football sanctioning body for non-recognised states and states not members of FIFA. It administers the Sealand national football team. In 2004 the national team played its first international game against land Islands national football team, drawing 22.[56]

Sealand claims that its first official athlete was Darren Blackburn of Oakville, Ontario, Canada, who was appointed in 2003. Blackburn has represented Sealand at a number of local sporting events, including marathons and off-trail races.[57] In 2004, mountaineer Slader Oviatt carried the Sealandic flag to the top of Muztagh Ata.[58] Also in 2007, Michael Martelle represented the Principality of Sealand in the World Cup of Kung Fu, held in Quebec City, Canada; bearing the designation of Athleta Principalitas Bellatorius (Principal Martial Arts Athlete and Champion), Martelle won two silver medals, becoming the first-ever Sealand athlete to appear on a world championship podium.[59]

In 2008, Sealand hosted a skateboarding event with Church and East sponsored by Red Bull.[60][61][62] Sealand’s fencing team is located in the United States, affiliated with the University of California, Irvine.

In 2009, Sealand announced the revival of the Football Association and their intention to compete in a future Viva World Cup. Scottish author Neil Forsyth was appointed as President of the Sealand Football Association.[63] Sealand played the second game in their history against Chagos Islands on 5 May 2012, losing 31. The team included actor Ralf Little and former Bolton Wanderers defender Simon Charlton.[64]

In 2009 and 2010, Sealand sent teams to play in various ultimate frisbee club tournaments in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands. They placed 11th at UK nationals in 2010.[65]

From early summer of 2012 Sealand has been represented in the flat track variant of roller derby, by a team principally composed of skaters from the South Wales area.[66]

Sealand played a friendly match in aid of charity against an “All Stars” team from Fulham F.C. on 18 May 2013, losing 57.[67][68]

On 22 May 2013, the mountaineer Kenton Cool placed a Sealand flag at the summit of Mount Everest.[69]

Coordinates: 515342.6N 12849.8E / 51.895167N 1.480500E / 51.895167; 1.480500

Read more from the original source:

Principality of Sealand – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 12:55 pm  Tagged with:

NACDL: Symposium Report: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on NACDL: Symposium Report: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age
Jun 132016

ABA Journal’s Blawg 100 (2015)

by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact / The Book

2003-16, online since Feb. 24, 2003


Fourth Amendment cases, citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions: U.S. Supreme Court (Home) Federal Appellate Courts Opinions First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit D.C. Circuit Federal Circuit Foreign Intell.Surv.Ct. FDsys, many district courts, other federal courts, other Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar Advanced Google Scholar Google search tips LexisWeb LII State Appellate Courts LexisONE free caselaw Findlaw Free Opinions To search Search and Seizure on $

Research Links: Supreme Court: SCOTUSBlog S. Ct. Docket Solicitor General’s site SCOTUSreport Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) Curiae (Yale Law) Oyez Project (NWU) “On the Docket”Medill S.Ct. Monitor: S.Ct. Com’t’ry:

General (many free): LexisWeb Google Scholar | Google LexisOne Legal Website Directory Crimelynx $ (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $ (4th Amd) $ F.R.Crim.P. 41 FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf) DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download) DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf) Stringrays (ACLU No. Cal.) (pdf)

Congressional Research Service: –Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012) –Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012) –Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012) ACLU on privacy Privacy Foundation Electronic Frontier Foundation NACDLs Domestic Drone Information Center Electronic Privacy Information Center Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.) Section 1983 Blog

“If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn’t, and they don’t.” Me

I still learn something new every day. Pete Townshend, The Who 50th Anniversary Tour, “The Who Live at Hyde Park” (Showtime 2015)

“I can’t talk about my singing. I’m inside it. How can you describe something you’re inside of?” Janis Joplin

“Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government.” Shemaya, in the Thalmud

“A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one’s attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced.” Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev’d Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

“The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

“Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment.” Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

“There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property.” Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

“The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has notto put it mildlyrun smooth.” Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

“A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable.” Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

“For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. … But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Governments purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

Libertythe freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentis as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark. United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

“You can’t always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need.” Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

“In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Catholic. Then they came for meand by that time there was nobody left to speak up.” Martin Niemller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men! —Pep Le Pew

Read this article:
NACDL: Symposium Report: The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age

 Posted by at 12:49 pm  Tagged with:

Germ Warfare Against America: Part IIIb – U.S. Government …

 Germ Warfare  Comments Off on Germ Warfare Against America: Part IIIb – U.S. Government …
Jun 122016

by Donald S. McAlvaney, Editor, McAlvaney Intelligence Advisor (MIA), August 1996

Unfortunately, the U.S. government and military have experimented on U.S. soldiers and civilians without their informed consent or knowledge on a number of occasions since 1945 and when caught or exposed, have gone into elaborate cover-up operations.

1. AGENT ORANGE is perhaps the best known example of the U.S. military injuring or infecting its troops and then going into an elaborate cover-up operation which spanned over 20 years.

[ED. NOTE: Agent Orange was probably not an intentional experiment as much as a major mistake made by our military in VietNam].

Agent Orange was an herbicide widely used as a defoliant in the VietNam War that contains dioxin as a contaminant. Agent Orange accounted for over 60% of total herbicides disseminated over VietNam (11.7 million gallons of a total 19.4 million gallons). Upon returning from VietNam, thousands of Vets complained of neurological and mental problems, birth defects in children, and a host of mysterious medical problems. They also developed rare cancers.

For almost two decades, the U.S. government and the U.S. Army denied that there was any problem, telling the Vets they were suffering from stress and other psychological problems and that Agent Orange was not involved.

A class action lawsuit was filed by sick VietNam Vets in 1979 against the manufacturers of Agent Orange and was settled in 1984 for $180 million (no payments were received by the Vets until 1989 many were dead by that time). It wasnt until January 1991 over 15 years after the VietNam War that Congress finally authorized permanent disability benefits for Veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange and now suffer from one or two rare cancers.


The Orange County Register (11/19/92) wrote in an article entitled: Canada To Pay Victims of U.S.-Funded Brainwashing: The Canadian government has announced compensation for victims of brainwashing experiments that were conducted in the 1950s and 1960s with financing by the CIA.

The de-patterning experiments were carried out on about 80 people and who were drugged and subjected to electrical shocks and other experiments to clear their brains.

The experiments conducted at Montreals Allan Memorial Institute by psychiatrist Ewen Cameron from 1950 to 1965 were jointly financed by the Canadian government and the CIA.

The CIA wanted to learn about psychological de-programming and covertly gave Cameron money between 1957 and 1962. The rest was financed by Canadas health-care grants program.

The U.S. Justice Dept. reached an out-of-court settlement in 1988 that gave similar compensation to nine Canadians who sued the United States for their treatment under Camerons CIA-financed experiments.

The New York Times (11/19/92) wrote in an article entitled: Canada to Pay the Victims of Mind-Altering Treatment: Canada has agreed to compensate victims of psychiatric experiments carried out mainly in the 1950s and financed in part by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The experiments began after some prisoners returned from the Korean War brainwashed, and Western intelligence agencies began studies and experiments on the nature and possibility of mind control. An institute at McGill University in Montreal, headed by Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, a psychiatrist who died in 1977, was one of the centers where such experiments were carried out.

Now, the Canadian government says the 80 or so patients who underwent the so-called psychic driving treatment in Montreal, intended to wipe the brain clear of all trauma, can receive almost $80,000 each.

The patients at the Allan Memorial Institute at McGill were put into a drugged sleep for weeks or months, subjected to electroshock therapy until they were de-patterned, knowing neither who or where they were, and forced to listen repeatedly to recorded messages broadcast from speakers on the wall or under their pillows.

In October 1988, the Justice Dept. announced an out-of-court settlement with Velma Orlikow and eight other victims, a total of $750,000. John Hedley, a CIA spokesman, commented: Its a sad episode that happened more than 30 years ago, and the case is closed.

John Marks, a former State Dept. official whose 1979 book, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, called attention to the experiments, said that a CIA front called the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, funneled more than $60,000 to Dr. Cameron for the studies. Ottawa gave him more than $200,000.

The 11/7/88 New York Times carried an article entitled, The CIA and the Evil Doctor, which wrote: The Justice Department agreed last month to pay $750,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by nine victims of the Central Intelligence Agencys brainwashing experiments in the 1950s. The research was conducted by the late Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, one of the most famous psychiatrists of his time.

What caught the Central Intelligence Agencys eye was his comparison of psychic driving to techniques of coerced interrogation and brainwashing. Using one its front organizations, the agency solicited a grant application from Dr. Cameron and funded his work. With the CIA funds, Dr. Cameron continued his experiments. Using patients who came to him for psychiatric treatment, but without disclosing that he was experimenting, he tried to break through patients resistance to the taped messages.

To this end, he induced severe regression in the patients, using combinations of extremely intensive electric shock, barbiturate-induced sleep for up to 60 days at a stretch, sensory deprivation and hallucinogenic drugs. These techniques left patients dazed, confused, incontinent and often in a state of utter panic. The CIA funding was secret.

The article concluded: Let us be wary, then, not just of CIA abuses but of ambitious yet misguided experiments performed in the name of treatment.

The CIA and U.S. Army have experimented on a number of innocent victims using LSD. On 8/9/79, the Washington Star, in an article entitled: U.S. Agrees To Pay $1.7 Million To Veterans Given LSD, wrote: The government has agreed to pay one of the largest private claims in history $1.7 million to an Army veteran who was given LSD without his knowledge or consent18 years ago.

[ED. NOTE: in 1961]. After concealing the facts of the case, failing to give the serviceman follow-up medical care and then fighting his claim in court, federal officials said this week that they would support special legislation to aid James R. Thornwell. The 41-year- old black veteran, now living in Oakland, CA, has suffered from psychiatric disorders and physical pain ever since he was given the psychedelic drug during Army experiments in Europe.

Court records show that Thornwell was the only American among 10 persons who received LSD in a covert Army drug-testing program known by the code name Operation Third Choice. The purpose of the experiments was to test the value of the hallucinogen as a truth serum in questioning Army intelligence sources.

The relief bill for Thornwell would provide $1.7 million, more than twice as much as the $750,000 award made in 1976 to the family of Frank R. Olson. Olson, a civilian biochemist who worked for the Army at Fort Detrick, MD, jumped to his death in 1953 after CIA agents laced his drink with LSD.

Thornwell won a college scholarship awarded to the most outstanding black student in his high school class and went to South Carolina State College for one year. He was stationed in France, at the Army message center in Orleans, when he was given LSD.

A 1961 Army report says that Thornwell was interrogated with abusive and profane language, threatened with physical harm including death, referred to as a homosexual, not allowed to sleep blindfolded, handcuffed and, at pistol point, taken to a place where he was subjected to very painful treatment.

Operation Third Choice was one phase of a larger program of LSD experimentation begun by the Army in the 1950s. In another phase, the drug was given to volunteer at the Armys chemical warfare laboratories in the Edgewood, MD Arsenal.

The suicide or murder of Frank R. Olson, one of the nations top germ warfare scientists in 1953, is closely tied with the CIAs LSD/mind control projects under a super secret CIA mind control project called MK-UL-TRA (the purpose of which was to investigate how to modify an individuals behavior by covert means).

The Washington Post (11/29/94), in an article entitled, New Study Yields Little on Death of Biochemist Drugged by the CIA wrote: Scientists investigating the 1953 death of Frank R. Olson, an Army biochemist who plunged 13 stories after the CIA drugged him with LSD, announced yesterday that they doubted his death was a suicide but had uncovered no conclusive evidence to prove a murder.

Members of Olsons family, who live in Frederick, MD, did not learn until 1975 that he had been drugged. They later received a $750,000 settlement from the government.

Olson plunged from a room at the Hotel Statler on Nov. 28, 1953, nine days after the CIA gave him LSD without his knowledge. The experiment was part of a CIA program known as MK-ULTRA to study the effects of LSA and other drugs for intelligence and military purposes.

After learning he was given the mind-bending drug, Olson sank into a paranoid depression. He told his Army superiors he wanted to quit his job as one of the nations top germ-warfare scientists, and his family now says they believe he was slain because he had become a security risk.

The Los Angeles Times (9/29/76) wrote in an article entitled: LSD Death Compensation: The Senate passed and sent to the White House Tuesday a bill to pay $750,000 to the family of Army scientist Frank Olson, of Frederic, MD, who leaped to his death in 1953, after being given LSA as part of a CIA drug experiment. As the Washington Post (7/12/94) wrote: President Ford invited Olsons family to the White House in 1975, to personally apologize for the CIAs use of Frank Olson in an experiment without his permission. Also the government paid the family $750,000 to settle their claim that the CIA was responsible for what was then believed to be a suicide.

And regarding still another case, the Los Angeles Times (7/12/91), in an article entitled, Pentagon OKs Paying Ex-GI Given LSD, wrote: More than 30 years after an Army sergeant unwittingly submitted to experiments with LSD, the Defense Dept. has dropped its opposition to compensating him for health problems, lost income and behavioral changes. James Stanley of West Palm Beach, FL, 57, learned in 1975 that he had been given LSD to drink during interviews he underwent in the Army in 1958. He sued in 1977 for damages, but the Supreme Court rejected his suit.

[ED. NOTE: So whats the point of these articles on the CIA-US Army illegal LSD/mind control experiments on unsuspecting military personnel and civilians? It is that if they secretly and illegally experimented on soldiers and civilians in the past, with total disregard for their lives, they might do it again as in the Desert Storm War. The complete text of these articles can be retrieved at any large public library.

Two excellent books (for those wishing to do more study in this subject area) which analyze in depth and document these experiments are:

1) Journey into Madness: the True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse, by Gordon Thomas. Bantam, NY, 1989; and

2) The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: the CIA and Mind Control (The Story of the Agencys Secret Efforts to Control Human Behavior), by John Marks (co-author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence.


A 5/27/91 Los Angeles Times article entitled: Leukemia Victim Searches for Other Atomic Veterans, wrote: Richard Jenkins recalls staring with wide-eyed wonder as one gigantic mushroom cloud after another fanned into the blue skies above the West Pacifics Marshall Islands 33 years ago. At the time, Jenkins, now a custom boat builder, did not realize that the explosions would cast a pall over his life.

As a Navy radio operator aboard the destroyer Mansfield during the militarys nuclear testing, called Operation Hardtack, Jenkins was within a 30-mile range when 30 nuclear bombs were detonated in 1958. At 52, he now suffers from mild leukemia, live and kidney disorders and has undergone surgery for cataracts. He has also battled digestive tract problems and chronic fatigue off and on for the last 20 years.

It was not until 1988 when the Dept. of Veterans Affairs acknowledged that radiation from those explosions could cause leukemia and 12 other cancers that he found what he believes is the root of his medical trouble. Jenkins was one of about 200,000 military personnel who participated in 235 atomic blasts detonated after World War II in the West Pacific and Nevada. The government said that only about 1,700 of them were exposed to larger doses of radiation than now allowed under federal occupational guidelines for radiation workers.

[ED. NOTE: And the government would never lie to protect itself, would it?]

A federally-funded study released in 1985 showed that military witnesses of a single 1957 atom bomb explosion suffered abnormally high death rates from leukemia. The report also concluded that scientists cannot convincingly either affirm or deny that leukemia deaths are radiation-related. Nevertheless, legislation in 1988 established a link between veterans radiation exposure and health problems, naming leukemia and 12 other cancers for which the veterans can receive treatment and benefits.

Jenkins, Oscar Rosen (National Commander of the Association of Atomic Veterans), and others in the 4,000-member association say they were used as human test animals in experiments designed to measure their reactions to radiation exposure. We feel we were used as guinea pigs, Rosen said. The military calls them tests, but we call them experiments.

The military admits that it was testing the personnels psychological responses to the mushroom clouds they watched take shape, said Navy Capt. William J. Flor, who heads the governments effort at the Defense Nuclear Agency to contact atomic veterans. Although the military monitored individuals exposure to radiation during the nuclear blasts, the government does not acknowledge that it tested their physical endurance.

Operation Hardtack was a series of 35 nuclear tests in 1958, all but two of which were detonated in Eniwetok and the Bikini Islands in the Marshall Islands, government documents say. Jenkins was among about 300 on board his ship who were issued protective sunglasses and badges with film to register exposure to radiation.

The sailors stood on deck and watched atomic bombs explode from 15 miles away, Jenkins said. So they moved the ship closer and told us to go to the other side of the ship. When they returned to the side closest to the blast, paint had peeled back from the heat, he said.

The personnel had to wear the film badges on cords around their necks. When the film turned from black to a reddish color, Jenkins said, the sailors were taken off duty, washed down and detoxified. Then, he say, they were issued new badges and sent back to work. Their exposure was measured while they were on active duty, but no records were kept after their discharges.

Because Jenkins and other atomic veterans had injuries that did not show up for decades after their discharge, they would not otherwise have been eligible for VA benefits unless they were indigent, officials said.

This year, Jenkins was denied disability compensation by the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. His letter of denial said he was ineligible because he had not developed symptoms of any of the 13 cancers while on active duty. When you see the bumper stickers that says, One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day, Im living proof. It has ruined 20 years of my life.

[ED. NOTE: This writer has talked with, and had letters from families of men who were part of those nuclear radiation experiments. One woman told of her father and a number of his fellow troops being placed miles from the Nevada nuclear tests (i.e. from ground zero) with minimum protection. Her father later died of cancer, along with a number of his friends who underwent the experiments].


The Orange County Register (5/4/93) in an article entitled: Eskimos Used in 1950s Drug Tests, wrote: The U.S. government subjected more than 100 Alaskan villagers to radioactive drugs in the 1950s as part of a medical experiment to find out whether soldiers could better survive in arctic conditions, Cable News Network said Monday.

The CNN Special report said doctors hired by the U.S. military gave pills containing small doses of iodine to 102 Eskimos and Indians to measure its effect on their thyroid glands, but did not explain to them what they were doing.

No one know whether people suffered medical ailments from the testing because the military did not follow up with another visit.

Some of the people from six native villages in Alaska who were part of the tests told CNN they thought the military had been studying Alaskan diets.

Senator Frank Murkowski said he wants the government to investigate. The implication of people being used as human guinea pigs is something we simply have got to find the answer to, the Alaskan Republican told CNN.

The Los Angeles Times (5/4/93) carried a similar article entitled, Eskimos Got Radioactive Drugs in Medical Testing, Report Says, which wrote that: The U.S. military doctors did not explain to the Alaskans what they were doing.


On 1/19/95 The New York Times carried an incredible article entitled, Healthy People Secretly Poisoned in 40s Tests, which confirms that radiation experiments were run on unknowing U.S. citizens.

Some patients injected with small amounts of radioactive substances in experiments at the University of Rochester at the dawn of the atomic age were not terminally ill, according to documents unearthed by a Presidential panel. The findings contradicted statements by the experimenters that the patients had not been expected to live very long, said the panel, the Presidents Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which made the documents public today. The panel also said patients were not informed of the experiments.

In connection with the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb, at least 31 patients were injected with radioactive plutonium, uranium, polonium, americium or zirconium, the advisory committee determined.

Robert Loeb, public information director at Strong Memorial Hospital at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that the experiments had indeed been conducted there but all patients and researchers involved were now dead.

The investigating committee, a panel of ethicists, historians and scientists, was appointed by President Clinton to search all Government agencies for information about experiments on humans using radiation. The action came after Congressional hearings and a disclosure in 1993 by The Albuquerque Tribune of experiments in which plutonium was injected into 18 people.

After months of searching, the committee has collected about 200 cubic feet of documents that have led to a revision of the medical and ethical history of the early atomic era.

Stephen Klaidman, a committee spokesman, said, we have no idea that the subjects of these experiments were not terminally ill, not suffering from cancer, and may not even have been chronically ill. He added that they were doing experiments of unknown risk on people who potentially had a full, long life ahead of them.

At the University of Rochester, 11 patients were injected with plutonium; six or more were injected with uranium; and five were given polonium. At least nine other patients at other universities and hospitals around the country received similar single injections of radioactive substances.

Scientists did not choose terminally ill patients for the experiments at Rochester, as some of them said later, but selected relatively healthy hospital patients, including an 18-year-old-boy, to be injected with plutonium, uranium, and other radioactive substances, the documents show. The experiments were intended to show what type or amount of exposure would cause damage to normal people in a nuclear war.

The patients in the experiments carried out from 1945 to 1947 were never told they were being experimented on, according to reports, Dr. Patricia Durbin wrote for the Atomic Energy Commission in 1971.

[ED. NOTE: Would the U.S. government test dangerous radioactive materials on unsuspecting, unknowing U.S. civilians and military personnel? History confirms that they would and did! Would the U.S. government test biologicals on unsuspecting, unknowing U.S. civilians and military personnel? What do you think?]

Joyce Riley has said, I have verified that mycoplasma was used as a research item on private citizens by the University of Maryland in 1970. I have the actual ad from the newspaper back in 1970 that says it was a vaccine safety test. It says, If you would like to come to our pleasant surroundings and make $20 per day at the University of Maryland, etc. I have talked with participants in that test who are today very ill with GWI symptoms.

Scientists have been using mycoplasmas experimentally as a transmission agent because they are transferred very easily from man to man, woman to woman, throughout the population and it doesnt cause much of an immediate problem if you have a strong immune system. It is also being tested on prison populations (see the book: Drug Experimentation on Prisoner: Ethical, Economic, or Exploitative, by Peter B. Meyer, Lexington Books, 1975).

Follow this link:

Germ Warfare Against America: Part IIIb – U.S. Government …

 Posted by at 12:45 am  Tagged with:

What is a Victimless Crime? (with pictures) – wiseGEEK

 Victimless Crimes  Comments Off on What is a Victimless Crime? (with pictures) – wiseGEEK
Jun 122016

alibay19 Post 10

If bigamy, gambling, ticket scalping, riding bike without a helmet and if possible having sexual intercourse without marrying each other is a victimless crime, how can all this be explained?

Although it is believed that religion is the opium of the masses, I still believe that sentencing prostitutes and drug users is a very good idea.

What I don’t understand is how the prosecutor has standing in victimless crimes regarding the doctrine of Corpus delicti.

If the doctrine of Corpus delecti requires (rightly IMO) that “1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some intentional, knowing act as the source of the injury.”, then how does the prosecutor establish standing without a plausible victim.

Regarding Donald Bales assertions, that reasoning could be used to establish an all-pervasive totalitarian state that dictates the diets of all citizens, i.e., if the government can tell citizens what drugs they can use on the grounds that some drugs are injurious to public health, then they should also be able to tell everyone how much salt, fat, sugar etc each person is permitted to eat. Eating too much ice cream should carry an equal or greater sentence than smoking pot, because ice cream is quite demonstrably worse for one’s health.

How does a court acquire jurisdiction without an injury? There is case after case stating that an injury is a requirement for standing or corpus delicti.

Great article/definition Michael!

While I don’t smoke marijuana/hemp, I just don’t see (Constitutionally) how government can outlaw a plant.

It’s not manufactured like other drugs; it’s grown then dried (as far as I know). If the government just decriminalized this one “drug”, not only would it significantly reduce prison population and take pressure off of the judicial system, but it could again be manufactured for rope, clothes, fuel, paper, etc. (an estimated 50,000 products!) Of course the one manufactured is slightly different from the one smoked (lower THC?) but law enforcement can’t readily tell the difference so it’s all outlawed.

@mani65ng and Diwiyana: A victim is a person who is directly injured, destroyed, sacrificed, harmed, duped, mistreated, or oppressed by

@anon32602: Again you aren’t directly harmed by the people who use the ER; you are directly harmed by an agent (the government). It is the government that makes you a victim via unconstitutional agencies, laws, and statutes. Health care was better before the government got involved and it’s possible for it to be again, but not probable because of all the sheeple who don’t understand the Constitution, government’s role, economics, etc.

Now that emergency care in ER’s and admission to hospital is also mandated, behaviors that would seem to impact only the individual have to be viewed in a somewhat different way. Granted that alcohol or drug use or smoking do not harm me directly, still I will be forced to pay for the consequences of these personal acts but my tax dollars and by the increase in my health insurance premiums. So, in a sense, I become the victim (am harmed) by the acts of other individuals. A government that undertakes to provide cradle to grave care will inevitably be led to regulate the behavior of individuals who cause increased costs.

If the government doesn’t ask for it, citizens who

Some think that there should never be any bad consequences for bad behavior. That conflicts with the laws of nature-and nature will win every time.

Donald W. Bales

Prostitution unless spread by a criminal syndicate should not be criminalized but is in most all US states because we are a theocracy, not a democracy and have been controlled by religious tenets in blatant violation of our constitution (and it matters *not* that the silly word “God” appears in our bill of rights) as the already established theocracy demanded it: we are no different in *this* respect from Islamic regimes as in all theocracies, the last word is always the domain of a religious tyrant( priest rabbi. Imam, pastor-you name the miscreant- it matters little because these monsters are the criminals who enslave us insidiously and then abuse us one way or another. Our schools zero tolerance policy

criminalize an 81 Mgs aspirin exactly like a reefer. In reality neither is but academic stupidity certainly is and the school boards that dictate that sort of policy should be channeled to a maximum security prison as a temporary holding facility until we reopen Alcatraz where all prisoners will be put to hard labor for life, not less: control freaks are dictators who should not be allowed the freedom of criminalizing medicines. Control freaks are criminals who manage to pass a rule that paralyzes others.

Good definition! Of course, in arguments over whether or not a particular law should be removed from the books, people disagree about which crimes really are victimless. Some feminists, for example, argue that the prostitute actually is the victim of prostitution, even though she seems to be agreeing to the sex-for-money contract of her own free will. She presumably wouldn’t do it if she had other options. I don’t know how many actual prostitutes have been surveyed for their opinions on the topic, though. Lots of convicted criminals also like to argue that their victims really wanted to be victims and so weren’t truly victims anyway.

How are there no victims in victimless crimes?

Originally posted here:

What is a Victimless Crime? (with pictures) – wiseGEEK

Is Libertarian Gary Johnson a factor in Clinton-Trump matchup …

 Libertarian  Comments Off on Is Libertarian Gary Johnson a factor in Clinton-Trump matchup …
Jun 122016

Moments after he won the Libertarian Partys presidential nomination, Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, was handed a peace offering a replica of one of George Washingtons pistols by runner-up Austin Petersen.

You have my sword, and my gun, said Petersen.

Cameras rolling, Johnson accepted the gift. Then he watched Petersen tell delegates to oppose Bill Weld, the former Massachusetts governor Johnson had enticed to run for vice president, whose past views against marijuana legalization are seen as a deal-breaker for many orthodox libertarians.

Johnson is not so much about orthodoxy. In a snit as he walked out, he tossed the gun in the garbage. For days afterward, a busy network of libertarian blogs investigated the story, and got a confession. Fox News even ran with it.

It wasnt out of character, said Johnson. Maybe, what was out of character was doing it in a public way, where I kind of, sort of knew that it would be seen. In character would have been to do that in private. But to me, hypocrisy endorsing Johnson but not his running mate is the unforgivable sin.

Johnsons interpretation of libertarianism, and his sometimes surprising pragmatism on issues and alliances, raise a key question in an election year with two of the most unpopular major-party nominees in memory. Who would be hurt more by Johnsons candidacy: Democrat Hillary Clinton, or Republican Donald Trump?

Johnsons support of legal pot and his opposition to deportations could endear him to the left. His promise to sign any bill that lowers taxes could do the opposite.

[Gary Johnson is largely unknown but is drawing double digits in polling]

Polling is not definitive on the subject, but for Johnson, the bigger test is pulling support from anyone at all. One survey this week from Fox News gave him 12 percent of the vote in a three-way race with Clinton and Trump a decent showing for a candidate that most voters dont know, or dont know is a former governor, or don’t know is a presidential candidate. The key for Johnson is to continue to be included in national polls at all and to move that number up to 15 percent, so he qualifies for the fall debates.

Johnson, hawk-nosed and aerodynamically coiffed, is one of the least obviously power-hungry men to run for president. But he is not a pushover. Born in 1953, he founded a construction company while he was still in college. After it grew into the aptly named Big J Enterprises, Johnson had enough money to self-fund a 1994 bid for governor and win, in an oddball race where a third-party candidate got 10 percent of the vote. He promised to run the state like a business. On the trail now, he mostly talks about his gubernatorial years to boast about his 739 vetoes.

Every third Thursday of every month, Id have an open-door policy five minutes for anyone who wanted to call out waste, fraud, and abuse, said Johnson. Id do the same as president.

Decades later, Johnsons takeover of the Libertarian Party, and success in getting it to nominate Weld, was nearly as radical as Donald Trumps takeover of the GOP. The LP is a bastion of radical libertarianism, a home to people who would rather be pure than win an election. Just 12 years ago, the party handed its nomination to Michael Badnarik, a freelance constitutional lecturer who refuses to obtain a drivers license because that would mean using a Social Security number.

Johnson is an activist who imagines a Libertarian president yes, seriously, he intends to win using the executive branch to correct Congresss mistakes. Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and 1988 LP candidate who might be the countrys most famous libertarian, can hardly finish a paragraph without citing the Constitution.

Johnson refers to modern politics and the modern norms of presidential power. Asked how his presidency might begin, he starts by describing executive action, like reclassifying drugs (all of them) and ending the National Security Agency.

The NSA was created by executive order, Johnson said. Did you know that? By executive order, for a starting point, you could turn the satellites away from the United States. Johnson also sees no problem with signing statements, the extra language the executive might use to explain which parts of legislation he would not enforce. I dont imagine I would differ in that regard, given that it is a precedent.

Johnsons view of power, and the role of government, is not unique among libertarians. Since his first Libertarian bid, in 2012, he has described the partys platform as taking the best from both parties, combining fiscal tightness with social liberalism. He has favored legal gay marriage since 2011; during the Libertarian contest this year, he criticized religious liberty laws that would have allowed merchants not to serve gays.

Nearly every Republican, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), opposed President Obamas executive action to allow the children of immigrants to stay in the United States. Johnson supports it.

I happen to agree with what he did, said Johnson, though I dont know where executive orders stand in regard to the fact that hes broken up 3 million families. He has deported millions of people back to Mexico, and their families have stayed here. Thats something I would not have engaged in.

Johnsons view on the issue is rooted, he said, in the obviously positive goal of allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States.

Whether or not it was the right course of action or not, if it avoids deportation, yes, said Johnson. As a president, youre talking about gridlock with Congress. Executive orders have a way of stimulating legislation. I kind of, sort of thought that was his goal if you dont like this, pass a bill.

On policy after policy, Johnson comes off as more of a realist than the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, or the runner-up for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both of those men imagined a popular movement breaking through a gridlocked Congress to pass a presidents agenda.

Johnson assumes that libertarianism, as the oasis between the parties, is already popular. He knows, as pollsters know, that the two major parties have chosen candidates who are decidedly unpopular. When offered a slogan, or a swing-for-the-fences idea, Johnson suggests that a reality-based Libertarian president would find a solution.

In his interviews with the Washington Post two hours, over which he chided himself for saying at the end of the day too often Johnson responded to every idea by imagining what Congress might pass or an executive might get past it. The Federal Reserve, for example, could not be abolished the way many libertarians want; but it could be tacked in. He waved off the popular libertarian catch phrase taxation is theft.

It is theft, yes, but the reality is that were not gonna abolish taxes, said Johnson. I mean, if Im elected president, you can expect me to sign anything that reduces taxes. Asked about the old libertarian idea of a basic income replacing the welfare state an idea recently resuscitated by Charles Murray, the libertarian author and political scientist Johnson said the same thing. If thats legislation that gets passed hey, Im gonna look really seriously at signing it.

Conservatives, who at this point are more wary of Johnson than liberals, ask if hes simply too accommodating. The confidence that once inspired Johnson to walk around Zuccotti Park, seeking allies in the Occupy Wall Street movement, did not always lead to libertarian government in New Mexico. He vetoed as much spending as he claimed, but he also watched the state budget grow slightly faster than the national average.

In 2016, as a candidate, Johnson talks about balancing the budget but lacks the zeal of libertarians who think the state could be cut in half without consequence. Hed keep Social Security for current retirees. He wouldnt abolish the EPA, after learning in New Mexico how the government policed bad actors.

In the libertarian view, without the EPA, you as an individual could sue under the law, said Johnson. But not really. You dont have deep pockets to go up against Chevron.

Later, Johnson added that the government had its own mixed record. But the Libertarian Party platform focuses on the government, and only that, suggesting that the planet would be cleaner if the market would be allowed to work.

That thinking comes from a philosophical lack of faith in government that Johnson simply doesnt share. In his hunt for a libertarian center, he comes off as less angry about the state than many Republicans.

That cuts to the reason he might appeal to liberals. Asked if he, as president, would sign off on the killing of American citizens who join terror groups, Johnson responded with a horrified no. The state might work better if Gary Johnson got to run it, but no president should be trusted to wage foreign adventures unchecked. Not since Americas intervention in Bosnia, he said, had the country been right to get involved in war.

Johnson also said that the Islamic State is not an existential threat, noting that terrorism kills only 400 people per year.

Microphones get put in politicians mouths, said Johnson, and the reporters frame questions like: These atrocities are happening in Libya. Are you going to stand by idly, and watch this happen? The knee-jerk response is, of course Im not, without considering that by getting involved in Libya, the outcomes are going to be worse.

The rest is here:

Is Libertarian Gary Johnson a factor in Clinton-Trump matchup …

 Posted by at 12:44 am  Tagged with:

The Bahamas – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Bahamas  Comments Off on The Bahamas – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 122016

Coordinates: 2415N 7600W / 24.250N 76.000W / 24.250; -76.000

The Bahamas i, officially the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, is an archipelagic state of the Lucayan Archipelago consisting of more than 700 islands, cays, and islets in the Atlantic Ocean; north of Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic); northwest of the Turks and Caicos Islands; southeast of the US state of Florida and east of the Florida Keys. Its capital is Nassau on the island of New Providence. The designation of “Bahamas” can refer to either the country or the larger island chain that it shares with the Turks and Caicos Islands. As stated in the mandate/manifesto of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, the Bahamas territory encompasses 470,000km2 (180,000sqmi) of ocean space.

The Bahamas were the site of Columbus’ first landfall in the New World in 1492. At that time, the islands were inhabited by the Lucayan, a branch of the Arawakan-speaking Taino people. Although the Spanish never colonised the Bahamas, they shipped the native Lucayans to slavery in Hispaniola. The islands were mostly deserted from 1513 until 1648, when English colonists from Bermuda settled on the island of Eleuthera.

The Bahamas became a British Crown colony in 1718, when the British clamped down on piracy. After the American War of Independence, the Crown resettled thousands of American Loyalists in the Bahamas; they brought their slaves with them and established plantations on land grants. Africans constituted the majority of the population from this period. The Bahamas became a haven for freed African slaves: the Royal Navy resettled Africans here liberated from illegal slave ships; American slaves and Seminoles escaped here from Florida; and the government freed American slaves carried on United States domestic ships that had reached the Bahamas due to weather. Slavery in the Bahamas was abolished in 1834. Today the descendants of slaves and free Africans make up nearly 90% of the population; issues related to the slavery years are part of society.

The Bahamas became an independent Commonwealth realm in 1973, retaining Queen Elizabeth II as its monarch. In terms of gross domestic product per capita, the Bahamas is one of the richest countries in the Americas (following the United States and Canada). Its economy is based on tourism and finance.[9]

The name Bahamas is derived from either the Taino ba ha ma (“big upper middle land”), which was a term for the region used by the indigenous Amerindians,[10] while other theories suggest it derives from the Spanish baja mar (“shallow water or sea” or “low tide”) reflecting the shallow waters of the area. Alternatively it may originate from Guanahani, a local name of unclear meaning.[11] In English, the Bahamas is one of only two countries whose self-standing short name begins with the word “the”, along with the Gambia.[12]

Taino people moved into the uninhabited southern Bahamas from Hispaniola and Cuba around the 11th century, having migrated there from South America. They came to be known as the Lucayan people. An estimated 30,000 Lucayan inhabited the Bahamas at the time of Christopher Columbus’ arrival in 1492.

Columbus’s first landfall in the New World was on an island he named San Salvador (known to the Lucayan as Guanahani). Some researchers believe this site to be present-day San Salvador Island (formerly known as Watling’s Island), situated in the southeastern Bahamas. An alternative theory holds that Columbus landed to the southeast on Samana Cay, according to calculations made in 1986 by National Geographic writer and editor Joseph Judge, based on Columbus’s log. Evidence in support of this remains inconclusive. On the landfall island, Columbus made first contact with the Lucayan and exchanged goods with them.

The Spanish forced much of the Lucayan population to Hispaniola for use as forced labour. The slaves suffered from harsh conditions and most died from contracting diseases to which they had no immunity; half of the Taino died from smallpox alone.[14] The population of the Bahamas was severely diminished.[15]

In 1648, the Eleutherian Adventurers, led by William Sayle, migrated from Bermuda. These English Puritans established the first permanent European settlement on an island which they named Eleutherathe name derives from the Greek word for freedom. They later settled New Providence, naming it Sayle’s Island after one of their leaders. To survive, the settlers salvaged goods from wrecks.

In 1670 King Charles II granted the islands to the Lords Proprietors of the Carolinas in North America. They rented the islands from the king with rights of trading, tax, appointing governors, and administering the country.[16] In 1684 Spanish corsair Juan de Alcon raided the capital, Charles Town (later renamed Nassau). In 1703 a joint Franco-Spanish expedition briefly occupied the Bahamian capital during the War of the Spanish Succession.

During proprietary rule, the Bahamas became a haven for pirates, including the infamous Blackbeard (c.16801718). To put an end to the ‘Pirates’ republic’ and restore orderly government, Britain made the Bahamas a crown colony in 1718 under the royal governorship of Woodes Rogers. After a difficult struggle, he succeeded in suppressing piracy.[17] In 1720, Rogers led local militia to drive off a Spanish attack.

During the American War of Independence in the late 18th century, the islands became a target for American naval forces under the command of Commodore Esek Hopkins. US Marines occupied the capital of Nassau for a fortnight.

In 1782, following the British defeat at Yorktown, a Spanish fleet appeared off the coast of Nassau. The city surrendered without a fight. Spain returned possession of the Bahamas to Britain the following year, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris. Before the news was received, however, the islands were recaptured by a small British force led by Andrew Deveaux.

After American independence, the British resettled some 7,300 Loyalists with their slaves in the Bahamas, and granted land to the planters to help compensate for losses on the continent. These Loyalists, who included Deveaux, established plantations on several islands and became a political force in the capital. European Americans were outnumbered by the African-American slaves they brought with them, and ethnic Europeans remained a minority in the territory.

In 1807, the British abolished the slave trade, followed by the United States the next year. During the following decades, the Royal Navy intercepted the trade; they resettled in the Bahamas thousands of Africans liberated from slave ships.

In the 1820s during the period of the Seminole Wars in Florida, hundreds of American slaves and African Seminoles escaped from Cape Florida to the Bahamas. They settled mostly on northwest Andros Island, where they developed the village of Red Bays. From eyewitness accounts, 300 escaped in a mass flight in 1823, aided by Bahamians in 27 sloops, with others using canoes for the journey. This was commemorated in 2004 by a large sign at Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park.[18][19] Some of their descendants in Red Bays continue African Seminole traditions in basket making and grave marking.[20]

The United States’ National Park Service, which administers the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, is working with the African Bahamian Museum and Research Center (ABAC) in Nassau on development to identify Red Bays as a site related to American slaves’ search for freedom. The museum has researched and documented the African Seminoles’ escape from southern Florida. It plans to develop interpretive programs at historical sites in Red Bay associated with the period of their settlement in the Bahamas.[21]

In 1818,[22] the Home Office in London had ruled that “any slave brought to the Bahamas from outside the British West Indies would be manumitted.” This led to a total of nearly 300 slaves owned by US nationals being freed from 1830 to 1835.[23] The American slave ships Comet and Encomium used in the United States domestic coastwise slave trade, were wrecked off Abaco Island in December 1830 and February 1834, respectively. When wreckers took the masters, passengers and slaves into Nassau, customs officers seized the slaves and British colonial officials freed them, over the protests of the Americans. There were 165 slaves on the Comet and 48 on the Encomium. Britain finally paid an indemnity to the United States in those two cases in 1855, under the Treaty of Claims of 1853, which settled several compensation cases between the two nations.[24][25]

Slavery was abolished in the British Empire on 1 August 1834. After that British colonial officials freed 78 American slaves from the Enterprise, which went into Bermuda in 1835; and 38 from the Hermosa, which wrecked off Abaco Island in 1840.[26] The most notable case was that of the Creole in 1841: as a result of a slave revolt on board, the leaders ordered the American brig to Nassau. It was carrying 135 slaves from Virginia destined for sale in New Orleans. The Bahamian officials freed the 128 slaves who chose to stay in the islands. The Creole case has been described as the “most successful slave revolt in U.S. history”.[27]

These incidents, in which a total of 447 slaves belonging to US nationals were freed from 1830 to 1842, increased tension between the United States and Great Britain. They had been co-operating in patrols to suppress the international slave trade. But, worried about the stability of its large domestic slave trade and its value, the United States argued that Britain should not treat its domestic ships that came to its colonial ports under duress, as part of the international trade. The United States worried that the success of the Creole slaves in gaining freedom would encourage more slave revolts on merchant ships.

In August 1940, after his abdication of the British throne, the Duke of Windsor was installed as Governor of the Bahamas, arriving with his wife, the Duchess. Although disheartened at the condition of Government House, they “tried to make the best of a bad situation”.[28] He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as “a third-class British colony”.[29]

He opened the small local parliament on 29 October 1940. The couple visited the “Out Islands” that November, on Axel Wenner-Gren’s yacht, which caused controversy;[30] the British Foreign Office strenuously objected because they had been advised (mistakenly) by United States intelligence that Wenner-Gren was a close friend of the Luftwaffe commander Hermann Gring of Nazi Germany.[30][31]

The Duke was praised at the time for his efforts to combat poverty on the islands. A 1991 biography by Philip Ziegler, however, described him as contemptuous of the Bahamians and other non-white peoples of the Empire. He was praised for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in June 1942, when there was a “full-scale riot.”[32] Ziegler said that the Duke blamed the trouble on “mischief makers communists” and “men of Central European Jewish descent, who had secured jobs as a pretext for obtaining a deferment of draft”.[33]

The Duke resigned the post on 16 March 1945.[34][35]

Modern political development began after the Second World War. The first political parties were formed in the 1950s. The British Parliament authorised the islands as internally self-governing in 1964, with Sir Roland Symonette, of the United Bahamian Party, as the first Premier.

A new constitution granting the Bahamas internal autonomy went into effect on 7 January 1964.[36] In 1967, Lynden Pindling of the Progressive Liberal Party, became the first black Premier of the majority-black colony; in 1968 the title of the position was changed to Prime Minister. In 1968, Pindling announced that the Bahamas would seek full independence.[37] A new constitution giving the Bahamas increased control over its own affairs was adopted in 1968.[38]

The British House of Lords voted to give the Bahamas its independence on 22 June 1973.[39]Prince Charles delivered the official documents to Prime Minister Lynden Pindling, officially declaring the Bahamas a fully independent nation on 10 July 1973.[40] It joined the Commonwealth of Nations on the same day.[41]Sir Milo Butler was appointed the first Governor-General of the Bahamas (the official representative of Queen Elizabeth II) shortly after independence. The Bahamas joined the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on 22 August 1973,[42] and it joined the United Nations on 18 September 1973.[43]

Based on the twin pillars of tourism and offshore finance, the Bahamian economy has prospered since the 1950s. Significant challenges in areas such as education, health care, housing, international narcotics trafficking and illegal immigration from Haiti continue to be issues.

The College of the Bahamas is the national higher education/tertiary system. Offering baccalaureate, masters and associate degrees, COB has three campuses, and teaching and research centres throughout the Bahamas. COB is on track to become the national “University of The Bahamas” (UOB) in 2015.

The country lies between latitudes 20 and 28N, and longitudes 72 and 80W.

In 1864, the Governor of the Bahamas reported that there were 29 islands, 661 cays, and 2,387 rocks in the colony.[44]

The closest island to the United States is Bimini, which is also known as the gateway to the Bahamas. The island of Abaco is to the east of Grand Bahama. The southeasternmost island is Inagua. The largest island is Andros Island. Other inhabited islands include Eleuthera, Cat Island, Long Island, San Salvador Island, Acklins, Crooked Island, Exuma and Mayaguana. Nassau, capital city of the Bahamas, lies on the island of New Providence.

All the islands are low and flat, with ridges that usually rise no more than 15 to 20m (49 to 66ft). The highest point in the country is Mount Alvernia (formerly Como Hill) on Cat Island. It has an elevation of 63 metres (207ft).

To the southeast, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and three more extensive submarine features called Mouchoir Bank, Silver Bank and Navidad Bank, are geographically a continuation of the Bahamas.

The climate of the Bahamas is tropical savannah climate or Aw according to Kppen climate classification. As such, there has never been a frost or freeze reported in the Bahamas, although every few decades low temperatures can fall into the 35C (3741F) range for a few hours when a severe cold outbreak comes off the North American landmass. Otherwise, the low latitude, warm tropical Gulf Stream, and low elevation give the Bahamas a warm and winterless climate. There is only an 8C difference between the warmest month and coolest month in most of the Bahama islands. As with most tropical climates, seasonal rainfall follows the sun, and summer is the wettest season. The Bahamas are often sunny and dry for long periods of time, and average more than 3,000 hours or 340 days[45] of sunlight annually.

Tropical storms and hurricanes affect the Bahamas. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew passed over the northern portions of the islands, and Hurricane Floyd passed near the eastern portions of the islands in 1999.













The Bahamas is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy headed by Queen Elizabeth II in her role as Queen of the Bahamas. Political and legal traditions closely follow those of the United Kingdom and the Westminster system. The Bahamas is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations as a Commonwealth realm, retaining the Queen as head of state (represented by a Governor-General).

Legislative power is vested in a bicameral parliament, which consists of a 38-member House of Assembly (the lower house), with members elected from single-member districts, and a 16-member Senate, with members appointed by the Governor-General, including nine on the advice of the Prime Minister, four on the advice of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and three on the advice of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The House of Assembly carries out all major legislative functions. As under the Westminster system, the Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament and call a general election at any time within a five-year term.[48]

The Prime Minister is the head of government and is the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Assembly. Executive power is exercised by the Cabinet, selected by the Prime Minister and drawn from his supporters in the House of Assembly. The current Governor-General is Dame Marguerite Pindling, and the current Prime Minister is The Rt. Hon. Perry Christie, P.C., M.P..

Constitutional safeguards include freedom of speech, press, worship, movement and association. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature. Jurisprudence is based on English law.

The Bahamas has a two-party system dominated by the centre-left Progressive Liberal Party and the centre-right Free National Movement. A handful of splinter parties have been unable to win election to parliament. These parties have included the Bahamas Democratic Movement, the Coalition for Democratic Reform, Bahamian Nationalist Party and the Democratic National Alliance.

The Bahamas has strong bilateral relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom, represented by an ambassador in Washington and High Commissioner in London. The Bahamas also associates closely with other nations of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

Its military is the Royal Bahamas Defence Force (the RBDF), the navy of the Bahamas which includes a land unit called Commando Squadron (Regiment) and an Air Wing (Air Force). Under the Defence Act, the RBDF has been mandated, in the name of the Queen, to defend the Bahamas, protect its territorial integrity, patrol its waters, provide assistance and relief in times of disaster, maintain order in conjunction with the law enforcement agencies of the Bahamas, and carry out any such duties as determined by the National Security Council. The Defence Force is also a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)’s Regional Security Task Force.

The RBDF came into existence on 31 March 1980. Their duties include defending the Bahamas, stopping drug smuggling, illegal immigration and poaching, and providing assistance to mariners. The Defence Force has a fleet of 26 coastal and inshore patrol craft along with 3 aircraft and over 1,100 personnel including 65 officers and 74 women.

The districts of the Bahamas provide a system of local government everywhere except New Providence (which holds 70% of the national population), whose affairs are handled directly by the central government. In 1996, the Bahamian Parliament passed the “Local Government Act” to facilitate the establishment of Family Island Administrators, Local Government Districts, Local District Councillors and Local Town Committees for the various island communities. The overall goal of this act is to allow the various elected leaders to govern and oversee the affairs of their respective districts without the interference of Central Government. In total, there are 32 districts, with elections being held every five years. There are 110 Councillors and 281 Town Committee members are elected to represent the various districts.[49]

Each Councillor or Town Committee member is responsible for the proper use of public funds for the maintenance and development of their constituency.

The Bahamas uses drive-on-the-Left traffic rules throughout the Commonwealth.

The districts other than New Providence are:

The colours embodied in the design of the Bahamian flag symbolise the image and aspirations of the people of the Bahamas; the design reflects aspects of the natural environment (sun, sand and sea) and the economic and social development. The flag is a black equilateral triangle against the mast, superimposed on a horizontal background made up of two colours on three equal stripes of aquamarine, gold and aquamarine.

The symbolism of the flag is as follows: Black, a strong colour, represents the vigour and force of a united people, the triangle pointing towards the body of the flag represents the enterprise and determination of the Bahamian people to develop and possess the rich resources of sun and sea symbolised by gold and aquamarine respectively. In reference to the representation of the people with the colour black, some white Bahamians have joked that they are represented in the thread which “holds it all together.”[50]

There are rules on how to use the flag for certain events. For a funeral the national flag should be draped over the coffin covering the top completely but not covering the bearers. The black triangle on the flag should be placed over the head of the deceased in the coffin. The flag will remain on the coffin throughout the whole service and removed right before lowered into the grave. Upon removal of the flag it should be folded with dignity and put away. The black triangle should never be displayed pointing upwards or from the viewer’s right. This would be a sign of distress.[51]

The coat of arms is like a theme statement that describes the Bahamian people. The coat of arms of the Bahamas contains a shield with the national symbols as its focal point. The shield is supported by a marlin and a flamingo, which are the national animals of the Bahamas. The flamingo is located on the land, and the marlin on the sea, indicating the geography of the islands.

On top of the shield is a conch shell, which represents the varied marine life of the island chain. The conch shell rests on a helmet. Below this is the actual shield, the main symbol of which is a ship representing the Santa Mara of Christopher Columbus, shown sailing beneath the sun. Along the bottom, below the shield appears a banner upon which is scripted the national motto:[52]

“Forward, Upward, Onward Together.”

The yellow elder was chosen as the national flower of the Bahamas because it is native to the Bahama islands, and it blooms throughout the year.

Selection of the yellow elder over many other flowers was made through the combined popular vote of members of all four of New Providence’s garden clubs of the 1970sthe Nassau Garden Club, the Carver Garden Club, the International Garden Club and the Y.W.C.A. Garden Club.

They reasoned that other flowers grown theresuch as the bougainvillea, hibiscus and poincianahad already been chosen as the national flowers of other countries. The yellow elder, on the other hand, was unclaimed by other countries (although it is now also the national flower of the United States Virgin Islands) and also the yellow elder is native to the family islands.[53]

By the terms of GDP per capita, the Bahamas is one of the richest countries in the Americas.[54]

The Bahamas relies on tourism to generate most of its economic activity. Tourism as an industry not only accounts for over 60% of the Bahamian GDP, but provides jobs for more than half the country’s workforce.[55] The Bahamas attracted 5.8 million visitors in 2012, more than 70% of which were cruise visitors.

After tourism, the next most important economic sector is banking and international financial services, accounting for some 15% of GDP.

The government has adopted incentives to encourage foreign financial business, and further banking and finance reforms are in progress. The government plans to merge the regulatory functions of key financial institutions, including the Central Bank of the Bahamas (CBB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission.[citation needed] The Central Bank administers restrictions and controls on capital and money market instruments. The Bahamas International Securities Exchange consists of 19 listed public companies. Reflecting the relative soundness of the banking system (mostly populated by Canadian banks), the impact of the global financial crisis on the financial sector has been limited.[citation needed]

The economy has a very competitive tax regime. The government derives its revenue from import tariffs, VAT, licence fees, property and stamp taxes, but there is no income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, or wealth tax. Payroll taxes fund social insurance benefits and amount to 3.9% paid by the employee and 5.9% paid by the employer.[56] In 2010, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 17.2%.[5]

Agriculture is the third largest sector of the Bahamian economy, representing 57% of total GDP. An estimated 80% of the Bahamian food supply is imported. Major crops include onions, okra, and tomatoes, oranges, grapefruit, cucumbers, sugar cane, lemons, limes and sweet potatoes.

The Bahamas has an estimated population of 382,825, of which 25.9% are under 14, 67.2% 15 to 64 and 6.9% over 65. It has a population growth rate of 0.925% (2010), with a birth rate of 17.81/1,000 population, death rate of 9.35/1,000, and net migration rate of 2.13 migrant(s)/1,000 population.[57] The infant mortality rate is 23.21 deaths/1,000 live births. Residents have a life expectancy at birth of 69.87 years: 73.49 years for females, 66.32 years for males. The total fertility rate is 2.0 children born/woman (2010).[5]

The most populous islands are New Providence, where Nassau, the capital and largest city, is located;[58] and Grand Bahama, home to the second largest city of Freeport.[59]

According to the 99% response rate obtained from the race question on the 2010 Census questionnaire, 91% of the population identified themselves as being Africans or afro-Bahamian, five percent (5% Europeans or Euro-Bahamian and two percent (2%) of a mixed race (African and European). Three centuries prior, in 1722 when the first official census of The Bahamas was taken, 74% of the population was African and 26% European.[60]

Afro-Bahamians are Bahamian nationals whose primary ancestry was based in West Africa. The first Africans to arrive to the Bahamas were freed slaves from Bermuda; they arrived with the Eleutheran Adventurers looking for new lives.

Since the colonial era of plantations, Africans or Afro-Bahamians have been the largest ethnic group in the Bahamas; in the 21st century, they account for some 91% of the country’s population.[60] The Haitian community is also largely of African descent and numbers about 80,000. Because of an extremely high immigration of Haitians to the Bahamas, the Bahamian government started deporting illegal Haitian immigrants to their homeland in late 2014.[61]

There were 16,598 (5%) of the total population are descendants of Europeans or European Bahamians at the 2010 census.[1]European Bahamians, or Bahamians of European and mixed European descent and form the largest minority, are mainly the descendants of the English Puritans and American Loyalists who arrived in 1649 and 1783, respectively.[62] Many Southern Loyalists went to Abaco, which is about 50% European.[63] A small portion of the Euro Bahamian population is descended from Greek labourers who came to help develop the sponging industry in the 1900s. They make up less than 1% of the nation’s population, and have preserved their distinct Greek Bahamian culture.

The official language of the Bahamas is English. Many residents speak the Bahamian dialect.[64] According to 1995 estimates 98.2% of the adult population is literate.

The islands’ population is predominantly Christian, with Baptists representing 35.4% of the population, Anglican 15.1%, Roman Catholic 13.5%, Pentecostal 8.1%, Church of God 4.8%, Methodist 4.2%, other Christian 15.2%,[5] other Protestant 12%, none or unknown 3%, other 2%[65] The “other” category includes Jews, Muslims, Baha’is, Hindus, Rastafarians and practitioners of Obeah.[66]

In the less developed outer islands (or Family Islands), handicrafts include basketry made from palm fronds. This material, commonly called “straw”, is plaited into hats and bags that are popular tourist items. Another use is for so-called “Voodoo dolls”, even though such dolls are the result of the American imagination and not based on historic fact.[67]

A form of folk magic (obeah) is practiced by some Bahamians, mainly in the Family Islands (out-islands) of the Bahamas.[68] The practice of obeah is illegal in the Bahamas and punishable by law.[69]

Junkanoo is a traditional Afro-Bahamian street parade of ‘rushing’, music, dance and art held in Nassau (and a few other settlements) every Boxing Day and New Year’s Day. Junkanoo is also used to celebrate other holidays and events such as Emancipation Day.

Regattas are important social events in many family island settlements. They usually feature one or more days of sailing by old-fashioned work boats, as well as an onshore festival.

Many dishes are associated with Bahamian cuisine, which reflects Caribbean, African and European influences. Some settlements have festivals associated with the traditional crop or food of that area, such as the “Pineapple Fest” in Gregory Town, Eleuthera or the “Crab Fest” on Andros. Other significant traditions include story telling.

Bahamians have created a rich literature of poetry, short stories, plays and short fictional works. Common themes in these works are (1) an awareness of change, (2) a striving for sophistication, (3) a search for identity, (4) nostalgia for the old ways and (5) an appreciation of beauty. Some contributing writers are Susan Wallace, Percival Miller, Robert Johnson, Raymond Brown, O.M. Smith, William Johnson, Eddie Minnis and Winston Saunders.[70][71]

Bahamas culture is rich with beliefs, traditions, folklore and legend. The most well-known folklore and legends in the Bahamas includes Lusca in Andros Bahamas, Pretty Molly on Exuma Bahamas, the Chickcharnies of Andro Bahamas, and the Lost City of Atlantis on Bimini Bahamas.

Sport is a significant part of Bahamian culture. The national sport is Cricket. Cricket has been played in the Bahamas from 1846.[72] It is the oldest sport being played in the country today. The Bahamas Cricket Association was formed in 1936 as an organised body. From the 1940s to the 1970s, cricket was played amongst many Bahamians. Bahamas is not a part of the West Indies Board, so players are not eligible to play for the West Indies cricket team. The late 1970s saw the game begin to decline in the country as teachers, who had previously come from the United Kingdom with a passion for cricket were replaced by teachers who had been trained in the United States. The Bahamian Physical education teachers had no knowledge of the game and instead taught track & field, basketball, baseball, softball,[73]volleyball[74] and football[75] where primary and high schools compete against each other. Today cricket is still enjoyed by a few locals and immigrants in the country usually from Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti and Barbados. Cricket is played on Saturdays and Sundays at Windsor Park and Haynes Oval.

The only other sporting event that began before cricket was horse racing, which started in 1796. The most popular spectator sports are those imported from United States such as basketball,[76]American football[77] and baseball[78] rather than Great Britain due to the country’s close proximity to the United States. Unlike their other Caribbean counterparts, cricket has proven to be more popular.

Dexter Cambridge, Rick Fox and Ian Lockhart are a few Bahamians who joined Bahamian Mychal Thompson of the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA ranks.[79] Over the years American football has become much more popular than association football, though not implemented in the high school system yet. Leagues for teens and adults have been developed by the Bahamas American Football Federation.[80] However association football, commonly known as ‘soccer’ in the country, is still a very popular sport amongst high school pupils. Leagues are governed by the Bahamas Football Association. Recently the Bahamian government has been working closely with Tottenham Hotspur of London to promote the sport in the country as well as promoting the Bahamas in the European market. In 2013 ‘Spurs’ became the first Premier League club to play an exhibition match in the Bahamas to face the Jamaica national football team. Joe Lewis the owner of the Tottenham Hotspur club is based in the Bahamas.[81]

Other popular sports are swimming,[82]tennis[83] and boxing[84] where Bahamians have enjoyed some level of success at the international level. Other sports such as golf,[85]rugby league,[86]rugby union[87] and beach soccer[88] are considered growing sports. Athletics commonly known as track and field in the country is the most successful sport by far amongst Bahamians. Bahamians have a strong tradition in the sprints and jumps. Track and field is probably the most popular spectator sport in the country next to basketball due to their success over the years. Triathlons are gaining popularity in Nassau and the Family Islands.

Bahamians have gone on to win numerous track and field medals at the Olympic Games, IAAF World Championships in Athletics, Commonwealth Games and Pan American Games. Frank Rutherford is the first athletics olympic medalist for the country. He won a bronze medal for triple jump during the 1992 Summer Olympics.[89]Pauline Davis-Thompson, Debbie Ferguson, Chandra Sturrup, Savatheda Fynes and Eldece Clarke-Lewis teamed up for the first athletics Olympic Gold medal for the country when they won the 4 100 m relay at the 2000 Summer Olympics. They are affectionately known as the “Golden Girls”.[90]Tonique Williams-Darling became the first athletics individual Olympic gold medalist when she won the 400m sprint in 2004 Summer Olympics.[91]

Articles relating to the Bahamas

International membership

View post:

The Bahamas – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 12:41 am  Tagged with:

International waters – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 High Seas  Comments Off on International waters – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jun 122016

The terms international waters or trans-boundary waters apply where any of the following types of bodies of water (or their drainage basins) transcend international boundaries: oceans, large marine ecosystems, enclosed or semi-enclosed regional seas and estuaries, rivers, lakes, groundwater systems (aquifers), and wetlands.[1]

International waters have no sovereighty, ergo is “Terra nullius” as any state controls it. All States have the freedom of: fishing, navigation, overflight, lay cables and pipelines, research and construct installations as artificial islands.

Oceans, seas, and waters outside of national jurisdiction are also referred to as the high seas or, in Latin, mare liberum (meaning free sea). The Convention on the High Seas, which has 63 signatories, defines “high seas” to mean “all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State.”[2]

Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state (if there is one);[3] however, when a ship is involved in certain criminal acts, such as piracy,[4] any nation can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. International waters can be contrasted with internal waters, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones.

Several international treaties have established freedom of navigation on semi-enclosed seas.

Other international treaties have opened up rivers, which are not traditionally international waterways.

Current unresolved disputes over whether particular waters are “International waters” include:

In addition to formal disputes, the government of Somalia exercises little control de facto over Somali territorial waters. Consequently, much piracy, illegal dumping of waste and fishing without permit has occurred.

Although water is often seen as a source of conflict, recent research suggests that water management can be a source for cooperation between countries. Such cooperation will benefit participating countries by being the catalyst for larger socio-economic development.[6] For instance, the countries of the Senegal River Basin that cooperate through the Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Sngal (OMVS) have achieved greater socio-economic development and overcome challenges relating to agriculture and other issues.[7]

restrictions on national jurisdiction and sovereignty

At least ten conventions are included within the Regional Seas Program of UNEP,[16] including:

Addressing regional freshwater issues is the 1992 Helsinki Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECE/Helsinki Water Convention)[20]

Original post:

International waters – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 12:41 am  Tagged with:

Seasteading – RationalWiki

 Seasteading  Comments Off on Seasteading – RationalWiki
Jun 122016

Seasteading is the libertarian fantasy of attempting to establish a society on (or under) the sea. Given that a large swath of the oceans are international waters, outside the jurisdiction of any one country, some people see seasteading as the most viable possibility for creating new, autonomous states with their own pet political systems in place.

Given that international maritime law doesn’t, as such, recognize ginormous boats or artificial islands as stateless enclaves or independent nations, diplomatic recognition, if the owners actually need it, is somewhat problematic.

Seasteading is inspired by real life examples of boat-based provision of services not legal in certain countries. Examples include casino boats (ships that, upon reaching international waters, open up their gambling facilities to passengers) and the organization Women on Waves,[wp] which provides abortion services in countries (such as Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Spain) where abortion is illegal or in which the rules are stricter than they would prefer. Another example is pirate radio stations, which got their name from the fact that many of them operated from boats in international waters.

Several seasteading projects have been started; only two have ever been completed (three if you count Sealand and its ‘Prince’), and the vast majority have never even really begun. It is quite possible that herding libertarians is difficult.

Some cryonicists are seasteaders, which implies truly remarkably compartmentalised thinking about the value of large, stable social structures.

As they age, some libertarians are realising that replacing government may be more work than they can personally achieve as actualised individuals.[1]Reason, of course, tells them not to stop thinking about tomorrow.[2]

With the exception of Sealand, there have been three seasteading projects that could be considered “successful” in any sense of the word.

The longest-lived and most successful was the “Republic of Minerva,” an artificial island in the South Pacific constructed by real estate millionare Michael J. Oliver and his Phoenix Foundation using dredged sand to expand the tiny Minerva Reef. The intention was to establish an agrarian anarcho-capitalist utopia; presumably the libertarian supermen would evolve past the need to drink, as there was no source of fresh water on the island. Minerva formally declared independence in 1972 and attempted to establish diplomatic relations with the surrounding nations, though it was mostly ignored. The small settlement lasted for approximately five months, until the government of Tonga sent a military expedition (along with a convict work detail, a brass band, and HRM King Taufaahau Tupou himself) to claim the island by force (or rather, re-claim it; the original reef had been considered a culturally important Tongan fishing region). In 1982 a second group of Libertarians tried to reclaim the atoll but were again forced off by the Tongan military. Since then, the project has collapsed, and the island has since been mostly reclaimed by the sea.

Unabashed, Oliver tried to funnel funds into various separatist groups and revolutionaries in the Bahamas and Vanuatu, but was met with extremely little success. Today, the Phoenix Foundation still chugs on, eyeing tiny islands like the Isle of Man and the Azores and grumbling to themselves.

Rose Island (officially the “Respubliko de la Insulo de la Rozoj”) was a 400-square-meter artificial platform in the Mediterranean founded by an Italian casino entrepreneur in 1968. It styled itself as a libertarian capitalist state with Esperanto as its official language, but was in fact little more than a tourist resort complex, and had virtually no space for permanent residents. The Italian government, seeing the project as nothing more than a ploy to avoid having to pay taxes on revenue from the resort, seized the platform with police a few weeks after it opened and destroyed it with explosives[3].

Operation Atlantis was an American attempt by Libertarian soap-magnate Werner K. Steifel to create an anarcho-capitalist utopia (noticing a trend here?) in the Bahamas by building a large ferro-cement ship, sailing it to its destination, anchoring it there and living on it. The boat was built, launched from New York in 1971, and (after capsizing once on the Hudson river and catching fire) taken to its final position in the Caribbean, where it was secured in place. Preparations were made for the residents to immigrate to their new floating city-state, but unfortunately for them it sank almost immediately.[4][5] After two more attempts and eventually pouring a lot of money into an island off the coast of Belize that he couldn’t get autonomy for, the project collapsed.

Libertarians are hardly the only people to try and colonize the ocean. China, for instance, has used a version of seasteading in order to enforce its claims on the Spratly Islands, an archipelago in the South China Sea that’s claimed in whole or in part by six nations (the PRC, the ROC, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei). They’ve been hard at work using land reclamation to build artificial islands with airstrips, piers, harbors, and helipads, which they say are for military “and civilian” use.[6]

The video game Bioshock[7] features what is probably the best-known example of a seastead in popular culture.

Read the original:

Seasteading – RationalWiki

Meet the Extropians | WIRED

 Extropianism  Comments Off on Meet the Extropians | WIRED
Jun 082016

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.

There’s been nothing like this movement nothing this wild and extravagant since way back in those bygone ages when people believed in things like progress, knowledge, and let’s all shout it out, now Growth!

The Handshake: Right hand out in front of you, fingers spread and pointing at the sky. Grasp the other person’s right hand, intertwine fingers, and close. Then shoot both hands upward, straight up, all the way up, letting go at the top, whooping “Yo!” or “Hey!” or some such thing.

This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Contact to report an issue.

You won’t be able to do this without smiling, without laughing out loud, in fact just try it but this little ceremony, this tiny two-second ritual, pretty much sums up the general Extropian approach. This is a philosophy of boundless expansion, of upward- and outwardness, of fantastic superabundance.

It’s a doctrine of self-transformation, of extremely advanced technology, and of dedicated, immovable optimism. Most of all, it’s a philosophy of freedom from limitations of any kind. There hasn’t been anything like it nothing this wild and extravagant, no such overweening confidence in the human prospect since way back to those bygone ages when people still believed in things like progress, knowledge, and let’s all shout it out, now Growth!

Their gung-ho attitude reflects the success of digital technology, which these days allows us to create at least in cyberspace anything conceivable. You can create your own simulated universe if you want to. What’s more, you can actually get it right this time: you can start at the bottom and remake things as you’d want them to be, as they should have been made in the first place, perhaps. The Extropians take that same attitude and apply it to the real world: they extrapolate out in every dimension, along every parameter, pushing technology to its outermost limits. When you do that, and when you take the results seriously, you find that some pretty outrageous stuff becomes possible.

Just how outrageous became clear at “Extro 1,” the first formal gathering of the clan, in Sunnyvale, California, in April 1994, where there were plenty of Extropian handshakes going around not to mention the hugs and kisses. This is not a doctrine of repressing your feelings, after all, or of being embarrassed about things.

Just a few months previously, at the “Extropaganza” at Mark DeSilets’s house in nearby Boulder Creek, the invitations had read: “Bring appropriate toys and gadgets, and a playful attitude. The house has a hot tub, so come prepared; please note that some clothing will be required in the tub, so as not to shock the neighbors with the sight of our transhuman physiques!” Romana Machado aka “Mistress Romana” software engineer, author, and hot-blooded capitalist, showed up dressed as the State, in a black vinyl bustier and mini, with a chain harness top, custom-made for her at Leather Masters in San Jose, California, for whom she does modeling work. She was in all that garb, carrying a light riding crop, plus a leash, at the other end of which, finally, her Extropian companion Geoff Dale, the Taxpayer, crawled along in mock subjection. The couple embodied Extropian symbolism, the State being regarded as one of the major restrictive forces in the Milky Way galaxy. These people hate government, particularly “entropic deathworkers like the Clinton administration.”

And so later on, when you threw off your inhibitions, shackles, chains, and clothes, and splashed around in the hot tub together with the VEPs on hand the Very Extropian Persons you could actually imagine that, here in the Santa Cruz mountains, the Extropians had discovered the secret of existence. You got a further inkling of what that secret was during Extro 1, which was decidedly more refined a gathering. It was the occasion for theory and reflection, for sober discussion of Extropian ideas. Like immortality, for example.

Early in the conference, Mike Perry, overseer of the 27 frozen people (actually, 17 are frozen heads, only 10 are entire bodies) submerged in liquid nitrogen at minus 321 degrees Fahrenheit (Cold enough for you?) at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a cryonics outfit in Scottsdale, Arizona, gave a talk saying that, contrary to appearances, genuine immortality was physically possible.

“Immortality is mathematical, not mystical,” he said.

Perry, with a PhD in computer science from the University of Colorado, might well think so. A rather gaunt figure, a little rumpled and slightly stooped, he’d worked out a scheme whereby if you make enough backup copies of yourself, then everlasting life can be yours forever, always, and in perpetuity.

He explained: some of the more submissive immortalists non-Extropian immortalists, in other words had worried about the possibility of their lives being terminated by accident, murder, or some other such form of radical unpleasantness. The way to get around that in the future, said Perry, would be to download the entire contents of your mind into a computer your memories, knowledge, your whole personality (which is, after all, just information) you’d transfer all of it to a computer, make backup copies, and stockpile those copies all over creation. If at some point later you should happen to suffer a wee interruption of your current life cycle, then one of your many backups would be activated, and, in a miracle of electronic resurrection, you’d pop back into existence again, good as new.

Well, this was a vision entirely agreeable to the audience, some 70 or so Extropic presences now basking in immortalist cheer in the main conference room at the Sunnyvale Sheraton. An infinitely long life span is just one small part of the greater Extropian dream, a package that involves the wholesale transformation of man, culture, and even of nature. The overall goal is to become more than human to become superhuman, “transhuman,” or “posthuman,” as they like to say possessed of drastically augmented intellects, memories, and physical powers. The goal is a society based on freely chosen social arrangements, on systems of self-generating “spontaneous order,” as opposed to massive legal structures imposed from above by the State. And the goal is to gain as complete control over the physical universe as is compatible with natural law.

An impressive program by any standard. But if the Extropians are right, off in the dim mist is a grand new order of things, one that is not so much physical or political as it is metaphysical, founded upon a lavishly expanded conception of human possibility. No longer is biology destiny: with genetic engineering, biology is under human control. And with nanotechnology, smart drugs, and advances in computation and artificial intelligence, so is human psychology. Suddenly technology has given us powers with which we can manipulate not only external reality the physical world but also, and much more portentously, ourselves. We can become whatever we want to be: that is the core of the Extropian dream.

People have dreamed such dreams before, of course: they’ve wanted to fly like eagles, to run like the wind, to live forever. They’ve dreamed of becoming like the gods, of having supernatural powers. The difference is that now, suddenly, all of it is entirely possible. For the first time in history, science and technology have caught up to the wildest of human aspirations and hopes. No ambition, however extra-vagant, no fantasy, however outlandish, can any longer be dismissed as crazy or impossible. This is the age when you can finally do it all.

The Extropians are the first ones to realize this, the first to make a doctrine and a program out of it, wrap it up into a system, and offer it to the outside world which is exactly what they were doing at Extro 1. Nobody at the conference was pretending there were no problems involved; this was a highly literate technical bunch: computer scientists, rocket designers, a neurosurgeon, a Berkeley chemist, writers, researchers, and so on. From them could be heard a reservation or two.

“What about copying errors?” asked one of them about the immortality-through-backups scheme.

“Well, you can check one copy against the other,” Mike Perry said.

But how about the question of storage medium? Will a physical thing persist that long? Doesn’t proton decay put some limits on this? What about the possible ultimate contraction of the universe?

Well never mind! Stay your naysaying! We’re chasing after big quarry here! Eternal survival! Resurrection after obliteration! Unbounded happiness across infinite time!

Come on! We’re Extropians!

For all its gonzo metaphysics, the fact is that Extropianism is a carefully worked out philosophical movement, one whose rituals, symbolism, and mind-set are rooted in a deep and rich body of principles. The basic idea is to fight entropy the natural tendency of things to run down, degenerate, and die out with its polar opposite, “extropy.”

Extropy, according to the official Extropian Principles (version 2.5), is “a measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity, opportunity, and capacity for growth.” Extropianism, then, is “the philosophy that seeks to increase extropy.”

The principles themselves are five in number: Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, and Spontaneous Order. They make up the handy Extropian acronym: BEST DO IT SO!

How well thought-out! How self-referentially interconnected! The five principles, the five fingers of the Extropian handshake, the five arrows on the Extropian logo, curving outward from the center like the points of a pinwheel or the arms of a spiral galaxy!

To the major Extropians, the principles are meant to be taken seriously: they’re meant to be practiced, they’re guides to action, not just a bunch of abstract theories. Take this business of Dynamic Optimism, for example. In 1991 Max More, co-founder of and primary intellectual force behind Extropianism, wrote an essay called “Dynamic Optimism: Epistemological Psychology for Extropians,” in which he enumerated eight separate strategies eight! by which you could acquire a properly auspicious view of yourself, life, and the universe. There was the technique of selective focus, for example, whereby you’d concentrate on the positive aspects of a given situation, on what you personally regarded as worthy and valuable. You’d adopt such a focus regularly, systematically; you’d make it a matter of personal policy.

“This need not require a denial of pain, difficulty, or frustration,” he wrote. “Rather it may be a matter of spending less time on unpleasantness and of apprehending unpleasant things in a masterful, empowering way instead of a helpless, victimizing way. Optimists attend to the downsides of life only insofar as doing so is likely to enable them to move ahead.”

And so on through seven more steps. Stoicism: optimists “don’t whine and moan about things that are past or out of their control.” Questioning of limits: “Optimists will question and probe at any entrenched limiting assumptions, especially where these appear to lack a rationally convincing basis. Only an iron-clad demonstration of impossibility (such as Goedel’s incompleteness theorem) will stop them; even then optimists will be careful not to draw unnecessarily frustrating conclusions.”

The tract was fitted out with the usual scholarly apparatus: footnotes, bibliography, and references to thinkers ranging from the church father Tertullian, circa 200, to contemporaries like Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand.

Imposing as it all was, it was merely Max More’s latest attempt to go beyond the limits, something he’d been doing since birth.

“According to my mother I was named Max because I was the heaviest baby in the hospital ward where I was born,” he said.

That cataclysmic event occurred in Bristol, England, in 1964. Later, at age 5, Max was transfixed by the moon landing and was fascinated by high technology and the future. He idolized the superheroes of various types that he read about in comic books: he craved their X-ray vision, their disintegrator guns, their ability to walk through walls.

“When I was about 10, I went through a period of real interest in the occult. I was very interested in the idea of any kind of paranormal powers, having abilities beyond the normal human ones.”

He even started a club, called Psychic Development and Research, at the school he attended, for the purpose of exploring the nether realms. But the more he actually learned about the occult, the less he was convinced that there was anything to it, and ultimately he became an all-out rationalist. The only reliable way of gaining knowledge, he decided, the only way to accomplish anything worthwhile, was through hard science and cold logic.

Later on, he attended St. Anne’s College, Oxford, where he majored in philosophy, politics, and economics. Always very big on organizing things, he started up new clubs and discussion groups, published magazines, and became, he claims, the first person in Europe to sign up for cryonic suspension the process of being frozen at death in hopes of later revival. He kept a heart-lung resuscitator in his dorm room, just in case. “People used to go in and see that, and it added to the odd impression, along with my several rows of vitamins on the shelves.” Not to mention the 3,000 science fiction books.

He got his degree and, tired of England’s dreary mood, lit out for the States.

“Going to Los Angeles was a wonderful thing. It had this glamorous feel to it, it was just a huge thrill being there. I remember going on the freeways and looking up at the sign and seeing Los Angeles and saying, ‘I’m really here! Wow!'”

This was the land where everything was possible. Sunshine! Palm trees! California girls! Minor impediments like smog and earthquakes did not figure into his personal equation. But a change of name did.

“In Southern California, everybody changes their name: actors do, writers do. I knew I wanted to be a writer and become known, so that I could spread these ideas better, so I thought I might as well change my name,” which until then had been Max O’Connor.

He spent a year thinking up a new name for himself, finally deciding on the word, More.

“It seemed to really encapsulate the essence of what my goal is: always to improve, never to be static. I was going to get better at everything, become smarter, fitter, and healthier. It would be a constant reminder to keep moving forward.”

It would also be the start of a trend among Extropians: Mark Potts became Mark Plus; Harry Shapiro became Harry Hawk.

“It’s a great expression of self-transformation,” said Tom Morrow, a Silicon Valley attorney, about renaming himself. “This is how I’m changing myself: I’m going to change the way people think of me because people think of you, in part, by the way you’re named. Also we pick descriptive names, which is a trait the Quakers also shared; they often named their kids with descriptive names like Felicity or Charity. You see that same trait in Extropians. They hold their values so dear, they want to be associated with them more than by just holding them. They want to be known by them.

“And also,” he added, “it’s a fun sort of thing.”

Fun, indeed, would be the sixth Extropian principle, if there were one. It was Tom Morrow, at any rate, who began using the term “Extropy,” invented the Extropian handshake, and, together with Max More, co-founded Extropianism, back when both of them were graduate students in philosophy at the University of Southern California.

By the time Morrow and More were getting their master’s degrees in the subject, the ideas of souped-up humans that had been percolating through Max’s head since childhood had been reinforced by certain doctrines of the Western philosophers, some of whom had advanced like-minded, or at least highly sympathetic, notions. Aristotle, who’d founded logic as a formal discipline and had done pioneering research in biology, professed an ethics of self-realization, the notion of fulfilling one’s highest potential. There were the philosophers of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, thinkers like Voltaire, John Locke, and Adam Smith, who claimed that genuine knowledge was in fact possible, that nature was knowable, and that progress was desirable and good. There was Ayn Rand, who put forward the conception of “man as a heroic being,” able to perform untold feats of imagination and creation. And above all there was Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th century philosopher who explicitly advocated mankind’s transforming itself into something far superior.

“All beings so far have created something beyond themselves,” wrote Nietzsche. “Do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man?”

There was much that needed to be overcome, that was for sure. Human beings had almost too many flaws, chief among them being the unholy trio of sickness, aging, and death. Beyond that there were vast surfeits of human evil: wanton excesses of fraud and deceit, mindless violence, prejudice, police states, and so on and so forth. It did not make for a pretty picture, especially considering that all of it was rectifiable, totally reversible through human action.

“I teach you the overman,” Nietzsche had said. “Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?”

What Max More and Tom Morrow did in 1988 was to start up the journal Extropy. By challenging culturally entrenched notions about the inherent limitations of humankind, they’d show how the species could pull itself out of the mud. Sickness could be wiped out, aging reversed, life spans lengthened, intelligence increased, states replaced by voluntary societies and all of this in the first issue! The print run was just 50 copies, but even so it was hard to get rid of them.

“We basically forced them on people,” said More. “Anybody who might be interested, anybody who was our friend, we tried to get them to take a copy. Go on, just read this!”

Which they did. It was pretty far-out, this stuff audacious, but strangely stirring in its own way. One issue proposed “a new dating system” to replace the Christian calendar. Why should Extropians mostly atheists and agnostics be forced to use a dating scheme based on the birth of Christ? Why not start from Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum, the book that in 1620 set forth the modern scientific method, in which case 1990 would be 370 PNO (post Novum Organum)? Or start from Newton’s Principia, maybe. Something reasonable.

Along the way there was an attempt to create a nomenclature that lived up to Extropian doctrine. And why not? This was a total philosophy, and so it deserved its own proprietary rhetoric. Soon a whole panoply of extropically flavored neologisms had sprung into existence: Extropia (coined by Tom Morrow), a community embodying Extropian values; Extropolis (from Max More), an Extropian city located in space; extropiate (from Dave Krieger), any drug having extropic effects. There was smart-faced (from Russell Whitaker), “the condition resulting from social-use extropiates: ‘Let’s get smart-faced.'” And there was the instantly-memorable disasturbation (another Dave Krieger invention), “idly fantasizing about possible catastrophes (ecological collapse, full-blown totalitarianism) without considering their likelihood or considering their possible solutions/preventions.”

Further along there was a concerted attempt to flesh out the Extropian dream. Tom Morrow, the Extropian legal theorist, wrote articles about “privately produced law,” showing how systems of rules can and do arise spontaneously from voluntary transactions among free agents, without the assistance of Mother Government. He also wrote about “Free Oceana,” a proposed community of Extropians living on artificial islands floating around on the high seas.

Still, all of that was mere theory. Back in the real world, Morrow and More established a sort of intergalactic headquarters for Extropians, the Extropy Institute, a nonprofit California corporation. Soon there was also a bimonthly institute newsletter, the Exponent, as well as an electronic mailing list. And in a short time, Extropianism seemed to have acquired all the trappings of a major cultural phenomenon, with a succession of parties, weekly lunches, T-shirts (“Forward! Upward! Outward!”), and even an Extropian “nerd house,” called Nextropia, in Cupertino.

Operated by Romana Machado, the aforementioned “Mistress Romana” who in real life works in the Newton division of Apple Computer (she’s also the inventor of Stego, a program that compliments traditional encryption schemes see “Security Through Obscurity,” Wired 2.03, page 29), Nextropia is an Extropian boarding house, a community of friends. Just don’t call it a “commune.”

“The very term makes us shudder,” said Max More, who doesn’t even live there. “It implies common ownership. Still, for all their journals, newsletters, e-mail lists, and other forms of obsessive communication, it cannot be said that the Extropians are taking the world by storm. Although recent issues of Extropy have boasted print runs above 3,000 and are being carried by some newsstands, total membership in the Extropy Institute was only about 300 at the time of Extro 1, while roughly 350 were reading the e-mail list on a regular basis. But what the Extropians lack in numbers they make up for in sheer brains; at various times people like artificial intelligence theorist Marvin Minsky, nanotechnologist Eric Drexler, and USC professor Bart Kosko (of fuzzy logic fame) have been found lurking on

Drexler, indeed, is something of a patron saint among Extropians, the reason being that his books, Engines of Creation and Nanosystems, some members feel, chart the path to the Extropian future. Tiny robots working with molecules, the theory goes, will bring us extreme longevity (Drexler does not speak of “immortality”), health, wealth, and indefinite youth.

No surprise then, that at the Extropian Banquet and Extropy Awards Ceremony, at Extro 1, Drexler emerged as star of the show. This was after Hans Moravec (father of the downloading idea) gave the keynote speech; after Romana Machado, in her leather gauntlets, enumerated “five things you can do to fight entropy now”; after Tom Morrow, the attorney, talked about private legal systems; and after Max More proposed his “epistemology for Extropians,” according to which all doctrine, but especially Extropian doctrine, was to be considered forever open to inspection, criticism, and improvement.

After that it was trophy time. There at the front of the room, the banquet room of the Sunnyvale Sheraton, up on a sort of ceremonial altar-table, was a line of actual Extropian trophies. Designed by institute member Regina Pancake, they featured the Extropian starburst in a disk of clear Lucite set into a black plastic base. There was the Corporate Award, for example, “to a company engaged in extropically important activity and run in a way unusually conducive to individual incentive, ingenuity, and autonomy.” And the winner was the Xerox Corporation.

And so on for six more awards, including, eventually, the award for Technical Achievement, which went to Drexler. He, for his part, confessed to a strong bent for Extropianism.

“I agree with most of the Extropian ideas,” he said later. “Overall, it’s a forward-looking, adventurous group that is thinking about important issues of technology and human life and trying to be ethical about it. That’s a good thing, and shockingly rare.”

So are these people crazy, or what? The question has occurred to them.

“I had a very interesting conversation with a mental health professional last week,” said Dave Krieger. Krieger, director of publications for a software company, had been a technical consultant to Star Trek: The Next Generation.

“In preparation for the panel discussion, the one about warding off dogmatism, I’d given her a few issues of Extropy, including one that has the Extropian Principles in it, and I said, ‘Look this over and tell me: Are we crazy? Is this a world view that you or your colleagues would consider to be insane? Or psychologically unhealthy? Or neurotic?'”

Well, not exactly. But, in fact, she couldn’t really say one way or the other.

“She said that they encounter so many people with defeatist attitudes, the attitude that they can’t change their lives and that they can’t improve things, that she could see the benefits of Extropianism.”

That was on the one hand. On the other hand, the whole thing was still pretty outlandish. “She didn’t want to use the word ‘receptive,'” said Krieger. “She didn’t want to be quite that strong.”

Others, however, were far less restrained. “They haven’t convinced me that I’ll be resurrected a thousand years from now not that it matters” said Julian Simon, a University of Maryland economist who has written for Extropy. “But they sure are right about rejecting unimaginative and counterproductive notions of closed systems. Resources aren’t ‘finite’ in any significant sense.”

“They’re extremists,” said Marvin Minsky, about the Extropians. “But that’s the way you get good ideas.”

As it was, Minsky himself almost joined the institute. “I’d like to be a sustaining member,” he told Max More. “The trouble is that since about 1970, when we got our first ArpaNet, I became almost unable to lick a stamp. I will, if necessary, but I’d rather phone you a credit card number.” But the institute, unfortunately, had not quite gotten around to that.

It soon will, however. Extropy is an idea whose time has come.

“We see this need for transcendence deeply built into humanity,” said Max More. “That’s why we have all these religious myths. It seems to be something inherent in us that we want to move beyond what we see as our limits. In the past we haven’t had the technology to do that, and right now we’re in this difficult period where we don’t quite have the technology yet, but we can see it coming.”

And if the worst happens and you should die before the technology arrives, the plan is to put yourself on hold for the duration, which is why the major Extropians are signed up for cryonic suspension. Max More, Tom Morrow, Simon Levy, Dave Krieger, Romana Machado, Tanya Jones, Mike Perry they’re all ready to have their heads frozen when the time comes. Tanya Jones, indeed, jokes about having a dotted line tattooed around her neck, together with the words cut here.

And why not? How else to make it over the crest, over the slight hill rise, over the next little bit of technology that’s left to climb before we can rush down the other side, to the new tomorrow, when all things will be possible? Some incredible things are going to be happening, if and when we get there.

“I enjoy being human but I am not content,” said Max More.

Exactly! That was it! That was the secret, the big Extropian key to the universe: appreciate what you’ve got, but without being overly satisfied with it. There’s always something better far better! waiting in the wings. You’ve just got to get yourself out there.

Who could deny it? And who’d not want to be there, in the grand future, when the VEPs, the Very Extropian Persons, wake themselves up, shake off the dust of past ages, and fly off to the far reaches of the galaxy?

You, too, could join the party the Extropaganza Maximum! Just remember, when you get there, that it’s right hand out in front of you, fingers spread and pointing at the sky. Grasp the other person’s right hand, intertwine fingers, and close.

Then zoom your hand up, straight up, all the way up!

Upward! Outward! Reach for the stars!


For more Extropian information, e-mail


Meet the Extropians | WIRED

 Posted by at 2:44 am  Tagged with:

Second Amendment –

 Second Amendment  Comments Off on Second Amendment –
May 192016

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment, a provision of the U.S. Constitution, was ratified on December 15, 1791, forming what is known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution[1] reads:

The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.

Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.

In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that “a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.” After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a “right” of the people, whereas others called it a “duty” of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.

Pennsylvania was not alone in its express discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry government.

At the first session of Congress in March 1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of England.

The precise wording of the amendment was changed two times before the U.S. Senate finally cast it in its present form. As with many of the amendments, the exact wording proved critical to its interpretation.

In 1791 a majority of states ratified the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation; the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.

Legal scholars do not agree about this comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are “[a] well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms. Indeed, the historical backdrophighlighted by a general disdain for professional armieswould seem to support this theory.

Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that “a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.”

Prior to the courts ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia[2], 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)(see infra), the Supreme Court had made the ultimate determination of the Constitution’s meaning, and it defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank,[3] 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). In Cruikshank, approximately one hundred persons were tried jointly in a Louisiana federal court with felonies in connection with an April 13, 1873, assault on two AfricanAmerican men. One of the criminal counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear arms. The defendants were convicted by a jury, but the circuit court arrested the judgment, effectively overturning the verdict. In affirming that decision, the Supreme Court declared that “the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.”

In Presser v. Illinois,[4] 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886), Herman Presser was charged in Illinois state court with parading and drilling an unauthorized militia in the streets of Chicago in December 1879, in violation of certain sections of the Illinois Military Code. One of the sections in question prohibited the organization, drilling, operation, and parading of militias other than U.S. troops or the regular organized volunteer militia of the state. Presser was tried by the judge, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of $10.

On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Presser argued, in part, that the charges violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court disagreed and upheld Presser’s conviction. The Court cited Cruikshank for the proposition that the Second Amendment means only that the federal government may not infringe on the right of states to form their own militias. This meant that the Illinois state law forbidding citizen militias was not unconstitutional. However, in its opinion, the Court in Presser delivered a reading of the Second Amendment that seemed to suggest an absolute right of persons to bear arms: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States,” and “states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.”

Despite this generous language, the Court refused to incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, states may not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities of citizens are listed in the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part. Presser had argued that states may not, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the right to bear arms. The Court refused to accept the argument that the right to bear arms is a personal right of the people. According to the Court, “The right to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship.”

The Presser opinion is best understood in its historical context. The Northern states and the federal government had just fought the Civil War against Southern militias unauthorized by the federal government. After this ordeal, the Supreme Court was in no mood to accept an expansive right to bear arms. At the same time, the Court was sensitive to the subject of federal encroachment on states’ rights.

Several decades later, the Supreme Court ignored the contradictory language in Presser and cemented a limited reading of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller,[5] 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939), defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged in federal court with unlawful transportation of firearms in violation of certain sections of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 12361240 [26 U.S.C.A. 1132 et seq.]). Specifically, Miller and Layton had transported shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, without the registration required under the act.

The district court dismissed the indictment, holding that the act violated the Second Amendment. The United States appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and sent the case back to the trial court. The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment was fashioned “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces.”

The Miller opinion confirmed the restrictive language of Presser and solidified a narrow reading of the Second Amendment. According to the Court in Miller, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own a firearm unless the possession or use of the firearm has “a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”

However, in Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Supreme Court reviewed a case where D.C. residents challenged an ordinace which banned the possession of handguns. The Supreme Court held that the constitution protects the right of individuals to possess a firearm.

The legislative measures that inspire most Second Amendment discussions are gun control laws. Since the mid-nineteenth century, state legislatures have been passing laws that infringe a perceived right to bear arms. Congress has also asserted the power to regulate firearms. No law regulating firearms has ever been struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Historically, the academic community has largely ignored the Second Amendment. However, gun control laws have turned many laypersons into scholars of the Second Amendment’s history. The arguments for a broader interpretation are many and varied. Most center on the original intent of the Framers. Some emphasize that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as granting an unconditional personal right to bear arms for defensive and sporting purposes. Others adhere to an insurrection theory, under which the Second Amendment not only grants the personal right to bear arms, it gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical.

In response to these arguments, supporters of the prevailing Second Amendment interpretation maintain that any right to bear arms should be secondary to concerns for public safety. They also point out that other provisions in the Constitution grant power to Congress to quell insurrections, thus contradicting the insurrection theory. Lastly, they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with a changing society and that the destructive capability of semiautomatic and automatic firearms was not envisioned by the Framers.

In response to the last argument, critics maintain that because such firearms exist, it should be legal to use them against violent criminals who are themselves wielding such weapons.

In the 2000s, federal courts continue to revisit the scope and detail of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In particular federal courts have recast much of the debate as one over whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective” right or an “individual” right to bear arms. If the Second Amendment protects only a collective right, then only states would have the power to bring a legal action to enforce it and only for the purpose of maintaining a “well-regulated militia.” If the Second Amendment protects only an individual right to bear arms, then only individuals could bring suit to challenge gun-control laws that curb their liberty to buy, sell, own, or possess firearms and other guns.

Not surprisingly, courts are conflicted over how to resolve this debate. In United States v. Emerson,[6][7] 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the original intent of the Founding Fathers supported an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Nordyke v. King,[8] 319 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). Although no court has concluded that the original intent underlying the Second Amendment supports a claim for both an individual- and a collective rights based interpretation of the right to bear arms, the compelling historical arguments marshaled on both sides of the debate would suggest that another court faced with the same debate may reach such a conclusion.

Becker, Edward R. 1997. “The Second Amendment and Other Federal Constitutional Rights of the Private Militia.” Montana Law Review 58 (winter).

Bogus, Carl T., ed. 2000. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms. New York: New Press.

Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. 1994. Guns in the United States. New York: Watts.

Dunlap, Charles J., Jr. 1995. “Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment.” Tennessee Law Review 62 (spring).

Hanson, Freya Ottem. 1998. The Second Amendment: The Right to Own Guns. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow.

Hook, Donald D. 1992. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington, D.C.: Second Amendment Foundation.

Hoppin, Jason. 2003. “Ninth Circuit Upholds Controversial Ruling on Second Amendment.” Legal Intelligencer (May 8).

. 2003. “Second Amendment Fight Steals Show in Gun Ban Case: Panel Enters Fray over Individual Rights.” San Francisco Recorder (February 19).

McAffee, Thomas B. 1997. “Constitutional Limits on Regulating Private Militia Groups.” Montana Law Review 58 (winter).

Failed to load RSS feed from!

Read more here:
Second Amendment –

Is Facebook protected under the First Amendment? – May. 12, 2016

 Misc  Comments Off on Is Facebook protected under the First Amendment? – May. 12, 2016
May 172016

“If Facebook ignores this request they could receive a subpoena, so I suspect they will cooperate,” said Stephen Strauss, a former journalist who is now an attorney at Bryan Cave specializing in First Amendment issues.

He was referring to a letter sent by Senator John Thune to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg seeking an explanation of how Trending stories are selected and whether any conservative stories were taken out of the list or liberal leaning stories were inserted.

Joe Larsen of Sedgwick Law agrees that it would be risky for Facebook to ignore the request.

“That’s just not a good idea, even where… I can see no clear legal basis for Senator Thune’s request,” Larsen said. “I expect Facebook will provide quite a bit of information.”

Related: Did Facebook suppress conservative news?

One piece of what Thune is seeking was revealed Thursday when The Guardian published Facebook’s manual for people who manage the Trending topics feature. Facebook confirmed the veracity of the 20 page document, which reveals that there is a lot of human decision making in choosing the stories on top of what the company’s algorithms suggest. The manual includes when stories can be “injected” into the Trending topics list.

The controversy began on Monday when Gizmodo published a report with anonymous allegations that former contractors had ignored Facebook’s algorithms for its Trending topics section and that links to conservative news stories were “routinely” suppressed.

Thune demanded to know exactly how Facebook decides what news stories to publish and to see a list of all the stories that were previously not distributed or manually inserted into Trending topics.

As a platform that’s used by over 222 million people in the United States, the company is able to influence the perceptions of a large chunk of the U.S. population, Thune said.

Facebook has denied that anyone improperly tinkered with the list or that they were instructed to do so. A company spokesman said, “We have received Sen. Thune’s request for more information about how Trending Topics works, and look forward to addressing his questions.”

Related: Facebook’s ‘trending topics’ spark debate

According to Strauss, Thune’s request was legitimate.

“I think that this situation is different than an inquiry into a news organization’s content,” he said. “In this case Facebook has a ‘trending’ feature, and Facebook affirmatively stated particular standards for this ‘trending’ feature, and now there is some question as to the veracity of those representations.”

Mark Bailen, a media attorney at BakerHostetler, disagrees. He argues that Facebook has the same right to distribute the news “without interference from the government” as any company or individual.

“It’s well established that the government has no role in dictating what is newsworthy,” said Bailen. “The idea that the government is going back and looking into and investigating [Facebook’s activities in distributing the news] conflicts with decades of jurisprudence under the First Amendment.”

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment attorney, compares Thune’s request to one issued by Congress in the 1970s when politicians sought to require CBS to turn over outtakes of a controversial CBS documentary, “The Selling of the Pentagon.” The network refused and eventually the inquiry was dropped.

“It was an example of a news organization that was prepared to take great risks to defend its editorial independence,” said Abrams.

Related: Senate demands answers from Facebook

“I don’t mean to suggest that Facebook must remain silent when it is under attack. But it should take care not to cede its own hard won authority about what articles to cite or recommend to Congress.”

One issue about this controversy that troubles some is the way that Facebook depicts its role in selecting what news is shown.

“It has always represented itself as an unbiased aggregator of news on its trending site,” according to Larsen. “That is, Facebook says it doesn’t have an editorial position.”

After the Gizmodo report was published, Facebook Trending manager Tom Stocky wrote that the company has “rigorous guidelines in place for the review team to ensure consistency and neutrality.”

Those guidelines don’t allow reviewers to suppress or prioritize political perspectives or media outlets, he says. And these are the guidelines that Thune and others want to know more about.

The company’s official description of the feature is simply: “a list of topics and hashtags that have recently spiked in popularity on Facebook. This list is personalized based on a number of factors, including Pages you’ve liked, your location and what’s trending across Facebook.”

Until the Gizmodo report, many people weren’t aware that Facebook had a team to oversee the Trending Topics feature.

Suzy Fulton, a technology lawyer said that it’s possible someone might sue Facebook based on fraud or deceptive practices — but it would be hard to see what the damages would be, “even assuming you have a valid claim to begin with.”

“We are certainly a litigious society,” she said. “[But] you can opt out, you can go to Fox or some other conservative news media for your news if you feel Facebook is not telling the right story on its Trending Topics.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 12, 2016: 1:58 PM ET

See the original post here:
Is Facebook protected under the First Amendment? – May. 12, 2016

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …

 Fifth Amendment  Comments Off on Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …
May 072016

Created on December 15, 1791, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights. This amendment establishes a number of legal rights that apply to both civil and criminal proceedings.[1] It contains several clauses: It guarantees the right to a grand jury. It forbids double jeopardy (being tried again for the same crime after an acquittal).[1] It protects a person against self-incrimination (being a witness against himself).[1] This is often called “Pleading the Fifth”. The Fifth Amendment requires due process in any case where a citizen may be deprived of “life, liberty, or property”.[1] Any time the government takes private property for public use, the owner must be compensated.[1]

The language of the Fifth Amendmend is:

The Fifth Amendment requires the use of grand juries by the federal legal system for all capital and “infamous crimes” (cases involving treason, certain felonies or gross moral turpitude[3]).[4] Grand juries trace their roots back to the Assize of Clarendon, an enactment by Henry II of England in 1166. It called for “the oath of *twelve men from every hundred and four men from every vill” to meet and decide who was guilty of robbery, theft or murder.[5] It was the early ancestor of the jury system and of the grand jury. The United Kingdom abolished grand juries in 1933.[6] Many of their former colonies including Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also stopped using them.[6] The United States is one of the few remaining countries that uses the grand jury.

The Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (autrefois means “in the past” in French).[7] It means if the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence and cannot be retried under the principle of double jeopardy.[1] The original intent of the clause is to prevent an individual to go through a number of prosecutions for the same act until the prosecutor gets a conviction.[1]

In a criminal prosecution, under the Fifth Amendment, a person has the right to refuse to incriminate himself (or herself).[1] No person is required to give information that could be used against him. This is also called “taking the Fifth” or more commonly “pleading the Fifth.”[8] The intent of this clause is to prevent the government from making a person confess under oath.[a] A person may not refuse to answer any relevant question under oath unless the answer would incriminate him. If the answer to a question on the witness stand could be used to convict that person of a crime, he can assert his Fifth Amendment rights.[8]

The authors of the Fifth Amendment intended the provisions in it apply only to the federal government.[10] Since 1925, under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments. Since the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when they arrest someone, police are required to include the “right to remain silent” as part of the legal Miranda warning (the wording may vary).[11]

The Due Process clause guarantees every person a fair, just and orderly legal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other provisions, forbids states from denying anyone their life, their liberty or their property without due process of law[12] So the Fourteenth Amendment expands the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment to apply to the states. Due process means the government must follow the law and not violate any parts of it.[13] An example of violating due process is when a judge shows bias against the defendant in a trial.[13] Another example is when the prosecution fails to disclose information to the defense that would show the defendant is not guilty of the crime. [13]

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”[14] The Fifth Amendment restricts only the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended this clause to include actions taken by State and local governments.[14] Whenever the government wants to buy property for public use, they make an offer to the owner. If the owner does not want to sell the property, the government can take them to court and exercise a power called eminent domain.[14] The name comes from the Latin term dominium eminens (meaning supreme lordship). The court then condemns the property (meaning say it can no longer be occupied by people). This allows the government to take over the property, but must pay “just compensation” to the owner. In other words, the government body must pay what the property is worth.[14]

A case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was decided in favor of allowing the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner.[15] The court upheld the city of New London, Connecticut’s proposed use of the petitioner’s private property qualifies as a “public use” fell within the meaning of the Takings Clause.[15] The city felt the property was in poor condition and the new owner would improve it. This extension of the Takings Clause has been very controversal.[b]

Continued here:
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Simple …

 Posted by at 3:47 am  Tagged with:

Liberty, NC | A Great Place to Live.

 Liberty  Comments Off on Liberty, NC | A Great Place to Live.
Apr 302016

In ancient times, public toilets were just that, public, communal. Like a town square, large stone benches with holes in thelatrine satover running water that flowed beneath. Men and women sat side by side having conversations and taking care of business. These days it’s all a private affair, so much so that I cannot recall the last time (in this country)I’ve been in a toilet without partitioned stalls and locking doors. So I’m confused as to why the Governor McCrory felt the need to pass HB2 and more to the point, why Randolph County felt it necessary to publically support the measure? The only answer is hate and fear.

Even more interesting is the Courier Tribune ran a non-scientific public opinion poll of Randolph County citizens showing that the respondents were against HB2.This means that Randolph County Government literally voted to support a measure thatwas entirely superfluousand did so against the opinion of its constituents. This despite there has never been a single instance of a need for this law in Randolph County, and the absolute silliness of all this as it’s completely unenforceable and will be completely ignored.

If anything will come of this measure it’s hostility. Hostility not towardsLGBT people (though it definitely could)but hostility towards non-LGBT individuals,those who don’t conform to traditional gender stereotypes. How long before ambiguity leads to confrontation? How long before someone takes HB2 into their own hands and it leads to violence? Violence against these same women and men that HB2 purports to protect.

If this law was aimed at other minorities we would call it racism. If it was aimed at foreigners we would call it xenophobic and it’s important to remember that the words and expressions of local government who support HB2 is nothing short of hate speech. Unlike the U.S., hate speech is largely been criminalized in Europe thanks to a 2008 European Union decision. What’s that got to do with little Randolph County? Why are companies pulling out of North Carolina? Because almost every multi-national corporation currently operating in this great state of ours, which also operates within countries that fall under the European Union framework are at risk of being in violation the 2008 decision should they be forced to implement HB2. The higher legal standard applies.Even with regard to U.S. law, the possibility for a lawsuit due to violence or a hostile workplace is enough to send companies running.

In all honesty,they should. Run away from this placeuntil it’s inclusive to people of all gender, race and religious beliefs.This is totalitarianism at its worst. It’s hateful, wrong and morally repulsive.

Read the original post:
Liberty, NC | A Great Place to Live.

 Posted by at 9:43 am  Tagged with:

4th Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond

 Fourth Amendment  Comments Off on 4th Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond
Apr 122016

We are considering offers for the sale of this website. Use the contact form in the left column to contact us for more information.

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was added as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It deals with protecting people from the searching of their homes and private property without properly executed search warrants. The 4th Amendment reads like this:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4th Amendment requires that in order for a government official, such as a police officer, to search a person’s home, business, papers, bank accounts, computer or other personal items, in most cases, he must obtain a search warrant signed by the proper authority, which usually means by a judge.

In order for a warrant to be issued, someone must affirm to the judge that he has a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that by searching the premises of a particular location, he believes he will find evidence that will verify the crime. The person submitting this information to the judge is usually a police officer. The police officer does not have to be correct in his assumption, he just has to have a reasonable belief that searching someone’s private property will yield evidence of the crime.

The judge then reviews the information and if he also believes the information the officer has submitted shows probable cause, he will issue the warrant. In order for the warrant to be good, it must identify the place and the particular items or persons that are to be seized if they are found. A warrant is not a general order that can be used to search for anything, anywhere the officer wants. In order for the warrant to be in compliance with the 4th Amendment, the warrant must be very specific about what is being looked for and where the officer can look for it.

The 4th Amendment idea that citizens should be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures goes back far into English history. In 1604, in the famous Semayne’s Case, the Judge, Sir Edward Coke, first identified this right. He ruled that, “The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.”

In this case, it was determined that subjects of the kingdom had the right to be protected from searches and seizures that were unlawfully conducted, even if they were conducted by the king’s representatives. The case also recognized that lawfully conducted searches and seizures were acceptable. This case established a precedent that has remained a part of English law ever since.

The most famous English case dealing with the right to freedom from illegal search and seizure is called Entick vs. Carrington, 1765. In this case, royal representatives had broken into the private home of John Entick in search of material that was critical of the king and his policies. In the process, they broke into locked boxes and desks and confiscated many papers, charts, pamphlets, etc. The officers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax.

During the trial, Entick charged that the entire search and seizure had been unlawfully conducted, and the Court agreed. The Court said that Lord Halifax had no standing to issue the order to search the premises, that probable cause that a crime had been committed had not been demonstrated and that the warrant allowed a general confiscation of anything the officers found, not specifying exactly what they were to look for or could seize. In addition, there were no records kept of what the officers seized.

Click to enlarge

Charles Pratt, Lord Camden

This ruling essentially declared that the government was not allowed to do anything that was not specified by law. It required the search and seizure be carried out according to the law. It also established that the right to be able to protect one’s private property was an important right to be safeguarded by the government. In his ruling, Lord Camden, the Chief Justice made this famous statement:

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.”

In 1886, in a case called Boyd vs. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States referred to Entick vs. Carrington as a “great judgment,” “one of the landmarks of English liberty” and “one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution.” This established the Entick decision as a guide to understanding what the Founding Fathers meant concerning search and seizure laws when they wrote the 4th Amendment.

The British government generally looked at the American colonies as a money making enterprise. Consequently, they passed many revenue collection bills aimed at generating as much money from the colonists as possible. The colonists naturally resented this and engaged in substantial smuggling operations in order to get around the customs taxes imposed by the British government. You can learn more about these and other causes of the American Revolution here.

Click to enlarge

King George III

In response to the widespread smuggling, Parliament and the King began to use “writs of assistance,” legal search warrants that were very broad and general in their scope. Customs agents could obtain a writ of assistance to search any property they believed might contain contraband goods. They could enter someone’s property with no notice and without any reason given. Tax collectors could interrogate anyone about their use of customed goods and require the cooperation of any citizen. Searches and seizures of private property based on very general warrants became an epidemic in colonial America.

In response to this, the Massachusetts legislature passed search and seizure laws in 1756 outlawing the use of general warrants. This created a great deal of friction between the Royal Governor and the people of Massachusetts until the death of King George II in 1760. Writs of assistance by law were good until 6 months after the death of the king who issued them. This meant that the Royal Governor had to have new writs of assistance issued by the new king.

Click to enlarge

James Otis

by Joseph Blackburn

James Otis, a Boston lawyer, had recently been appointed Advocate General of the Admiralty Court, which meant he was essentially the top lawyer for the Crown in the colony. In this position, Otis was required to defend the use of writs of assistance by the government. He strongly objected to these arbitrary searches and seizures of private property and consequently resigned his position. Instead, he became the lawyer for a group of over 50 merchants who sued the government claiming that the writs of assistance were unjust.

James Otis represented these merchants for free. His speech condemning British policies, including writs of assistance and general search warrants, was so powerful and eloquent, that it was heard of throughout the colonies and catapulted him to a place of leadership in the swelling tide of disillusionment toward Great Britain.

Future President, John Adams, who was 25 at the time, was sitting in the courtroom and heard Otis’ famous speech that day. Later he said:

“The child independence was then and there born, every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance.”

He viewed Otis’ speech “as the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”

Later, in 1776, George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was a document on which Thomas Jefferson relied heavily when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, included prohibitions against general warrants that did not specify probable cause or exactly what was to be searched for. The passage of the Virginia Declaration of Rights dealing with general warrants reads like this:

“That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.”

You can read the Virginia Declaration of Rights here and you can read the Declaration of Independence here. You can also read more about how Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence here.

Once the Constitution was written, each state held a convention to debate its worth. Many people opposed the Constitution because they thought it gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states and of individual rights. Those opposing the Constitution were known as anti-Federalists. They were led by such men as Patrick Henry, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry.

The anti-Federalists were concerned that the federal government would trample on the rights of individual citizens. They believed the Constitution did not specify clearly enough which rights of individuals were protected from government interference. Some of them called for the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution, which would specify exactly which rights of the citizens were protected.

Those who were in support of the Constitution were known as Federalists because they did support a strong federal government. The Federalists were led by such men as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and George Washington.

In order to convince enough anti-Federalists to support the Constitution to pass it and have it go into effect, the Federalists made a promise that if the anti-Federalists would vote to accept the Constitution, the First Congress would address their concerns by adding a bill of rights to it. This promise succeeded in persuading enough anti-Federalists to support the Constitution that it passed and became law. It also ensured that the Founders concerns about illegal searches and seizures would eventually become law embodied in the 4th Amendment.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison kept the promise of the Federalists by proposing to the First Congress twenty amendments to be added to the Constitution. You can read James Madison’s June 8, 1789 speech here.

One of these amendments, that dealt with search and seizure laws, eventually became what we know as the 4th Amendment. Congress approved twelve of the amendments suggested by Madison on September 25, 1789 and ten of those were eventually ratified by the states. The First Ten Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, became law on December 15, 1791. You can read more about the History of the Bill of Rights here.

The 4th Amendment only applied originally to the federal government, but through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court has now applied most parts of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well.

The 4th Amendment only provides protection from illegal search and seizure by government officials, not by private citizens. So, if an employer unreasonably searched your possessions at work, the 4th Amendment would not have been violated.

There are certain exceptions to the 4th Amendment right to have a properly executed search warrant issued before a search or seizure of private property can be conducted. The Supreme Court has ruled that, for example, a police officer may conduct a pat down search of someone he has observed engaging in suspicious behavior, if he has reasonable suspicion that some crime is being committed. Also, if a police officer observes someone committing a crime, or believes that he has probable cause to suspect someone has committed a crime, he may arrest the person without a warrant.

There are a number of other exceptions to the 4th Amendment warrant rule:

Supreme Court of the United States

In general, any evidence that is obtained in an illegal search and seizure is not admissible in court by the prosecution in a criminal defendant’s trial. This is known as the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule because evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from the trial. The Supreme Court established this rule in a case called Weeks vs. United States, 1914. Before that time, any evidence, even if it was gathered in an illegal search and seizure, was admissible in court.

There are some exceptions to the 4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule. For example, Grand Juries may use illegally obtained evidence to question witnesses. The method of gathering the evidence can be challenged later if the defendant is charged. Evidence gathered in good faith by an officer can be used in court. This means that if an officer is following the directions of a warrant that is faulty, not realizing that it is faulty, the evidence may be used.

Evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure can also be used in the following circumstances:

Read about some of the most interesting and significant Fourth Amendment Court cases here.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights Learn about the 1st Amendment here. Learn about the 2nd Amendment here. Learn about the 3rd Amendment here. Learn about the 4th Amendment here. Learn about the 5th Amendment here. Learn about the 6th Amendment here. Learn about the 7th Amendment here. Learn about the 8th Amendment here. Learn about the 9th Amendment here. Learn about the 10th Amendment here.

Read the Bill of Rights here.

Learn more about theBill of Rightswith the following articles:

Return to top of 4th Amendment

Revolutionary War and Beyond Home

Originally posted here:
4th Amendment – Revolutionary War and Beyond

Zeitgeist (film series) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Zeitgeist Movement  Comments Off on Zeitgeist (film series) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mar 262016

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a documentary film with two sequels: Zeitgeist: Addendum and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, presenting a number of conspiracy theories and proposals for broad social and economic changes. Peter Joseph created all three films.[1]

Release dates

Running time

Zeitgeist: The Movie is a 2007 documentary-style film by Peter Joseph presenting a number of conspiracy theories.[2] The film disputes the historicity of Jesus (the Christ myth theory) and claims that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were pre-arranged by New World Order forces,[3] and claims that bankers manipulate world events.[4] In Zeitgeist, it is claimed that the Federal Reserve was behind several wars and manipulates the American public for a One World Government or “New World Order”.[3][4][5]

The Zeitgeist film, according to writer Paul Constant, is “based solely on anecdotal evidence, it’s probably drawing more people into the Truth movement than anything else”.[3]Jay Kinney questioned the accuracy of its claims and the quality of its arguments, describing it as agitprop and propaganda.[6]

Released online on June 18, 2007, it soon received tens of millions of views on Google Video, YouTube, and Vimeo.[7] The film assembles archival footage, animations and narration into ‘a kind of primer on conspiracies’.[4]

According to Peter Joseph, the original Zeitgeist was not presented in a film format, but was a “performance piece consisting of a vaudevillian, multimedia style event using recorded music, live instruments, and video”. Zeitgeist, the first movie of the trilogy, has been described as a pseudo-expos of the international monetary system. The expos theme runs through both its sequels, according to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates. Many of the themes of Zeitgeist are sourced to two books: The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin, a member of the John Birch Society, and The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins.[7]

The film starts with animated visualizations, film segments and stock footage, a cartoon and audio quotes about spirituality by Chgyam Trungpa Rinpoche, then shots of war, explosions, and the September 11 attacks. Then the film’s title screen is given. The introduction ends with a portion of a George Carlin monologue on religion accompanied by an animated cartoon. The rest of the film is in three parts with narration by Peter Joseph.[3]

Part I questions religions as being god-given stories, asserting that the Christian religion is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical assertions, astrological myths, and other traditions, which in turn were derived from other traditions. In furtherance of the Jesus myth hypothesis, this part claims that the historical Jesus is a literary and astrological hybrid, nurtured by political forces and opportunists.[3]

Part II alleges that the 9/11 attacks were either orchestrated or allowed to happen by elements within the United States government; the government’s purpose, it alleges, was to generate mass fear, initiate and justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil liberties, and produce economic gain. It asserts that the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the attacks, that the military deliberately allowed the planes to reach their targets, and that World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 underwent a controlled demolition.[3]

Part III states that the Federal Reserve System is controlled by a small cabal of international bankers who conspire to create global calamities to enrich themselves.[4] Three wars involving the United States during the twentieth century are highlighted as part of this alleged agenda, started by specifically engineered events, including the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The film asserts that such wars serve to sustain conflict in general and force the U.S. government to borrow money, thereby increasing the profits of the international bankers. The film also states that the Federal Income Tax is illegal.[3]

This segment also alleges a secret agreement to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union as a step toward the creation of a single world government. The film speculates that under such a government, every human could be implanted with an RFID chip to monitor individual activity and suppress dissent.

The newspaper The Arizona Republic described Zeitgeist: The Movie as “a bramble of conspiracy theories involving Sept. 11, the international monetary system, and Christianity” saying also that the movie trailer states that “there are people guiding your life and you don’t even know it”.[8]

A review in The Irish Times wrote that “these are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration, and globalizationthere are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones”.[9]

Ivor Tossell in the Globe and Mail cited it as an example of how modern conspiracy theories are promulgated, though he praised its effectiveness:

“The film is an interesting object lesson on how conspiracy theories get to be so popular…. It’s a driven, if uneven, piece of propaganda, a marvel of tight editing and fuzzy thinking. Its on-camera sources are mostly conspiracy theorists, co-mingled with selective eyewitness accounts, drawn from archival footage and often taken out of context. It derides the media as a pawn of the International Bankers, but produces media reports for credibility when convenient. The film ignores expert opinion, except the handful of experts who agree with it. And yet, it’s compelling. It shamelessly ploughs forward, connecting dots with an earnest certainty that makes you want to give it an A for effort.”[4]

Filipe Feio, reflecting upon the film’s Internet popularity in Dirio de Notcias, stated that “[f]iction or not, Zeitgeist: The Movie threatens to become the champion of conspiracy theories of today”.[10]

Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, mentioned Zeitgeist in an article in Scientific American on skepticism in the age of mass media and the postmodern belief in the relativism of truth. He argues that this belief, coupled with a “clicker culture of mass media,” results in a multitude of various truth claims packaged in “infotainment units”, in the form of films such as Zeitgeist and Loose Change.[11]

Jane Chapman, a film producer and reader in media studies at the University of Lincoln, called Zeitgeist “a fast-paced assemblage of agitprop,” an example of unethical film-making.[12] She accuses Peter Joseph of “implicit deception” through the use of standard film-making propaganda techniques. While parts of the film are, she says, “comically” self-defeating, the nature of “twisted evidence” and use of Madrid bomb footage to imply it is of the London bombings amount to ethical abuse in sourcing. In later versions of the film a subtitle is added to this footage identifying it as from the Madrid bombings.[citation needed] She finishes her analysis with the comment: “Thus, legitimate questions about what happened on 9/11, and about corruption in religious and financial organizations, are all undermined by the film’s determined effort to maximize an emotional response at the expense of reasoned argument.”

Alex Jones, American radio host, prominent conspiracy theorist and executive producer of Loose Change, stated that film segments of Zeitgeist are taken directly from his documentary Terrorstorm, and that he supports “90 percent” of the film.[13]

Skeptic magazine’s Tim Callahan, criticizing the first part of the film (on the origins of Christianity), wrote that “some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberallyand sloppilymixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus.”[14]

Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the film, stating that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting that “[i]t is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true”.[15] Similar conclusions were reached by Dr. Mark Foreman of Liberty University.[16]

Paul Constant writing in Seattle newspaper The Stranger characterized the film as “fiction couched in a few facts”.[3] Of the religious critique in the film he said: “First the film destroys the idea of God, and then, through the lens of 9/11, it introduces a sort of new Bizarro God. Instead of an omnipotent, omniscient being who loves you and has inspired a variety of organized religions, there is an omnipotent, omniscient organization of ruthless beings who hate you and want to take your rights away, if not throw you in a work camp forever.”[3]

In Tablet Magazine, journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being “steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” and she went on to write that the film borrows from the work of Eustace Mullins, Lyndon LaRouche, and radio host Alex Jones, and that it portrays a cabal of international bankers purportedly ruling the world.[7] In an interview with TheMarker, Joseph stated that while the film does mention bankers it does not seek to place blame on any individual or group of individuals. He argues they are merely a product of a socioeconomic system in need of change.[17]

Chip Berlet writes that the 9/11 conspiracy theories “are bait used to attract viewers from the 9/11 truth movement and others who embrace conspiracist thinking to the idiosyncratic antireligion views of the videographer and the world of right-wing antisemitic theories of a global banking conspiracy”.[18]

According to Jay Kinney:

“At other times, Zeitgeist engages in willful confusion by showing TV screen shots of network or cable news with voice-overs from unidentified people not associated with the news programs. If one weren’t paying close attention, the effect would be to confer the status and authority of TV news upon the words being spoken. Even when quotes or sound bites are attributed to a source, there’s no way to tell if they are quoted correctly or in context.”[6]

In June 2013, Peter Joseph directed the music video for “God Is Dead?” by Black Sabbath, using extensive imagery from Zeitgeist: The Movie and its sequels.[19]

Release dates

Running time

Zeitgeist: Addendum is a 2008 documentary-style film produced and directed by Peter Joseph, and is a sequel to the 2007 film, Zeitgeist: The Movie. It premiered at the 5th Annual Artivist Film Festival in Los Angeles, California on October 2, 2008.

The film begins and ends with excerpts from a speech by Jiddu Krishnamurti. The remainder of the film is narrated by Peter Joseph and divided into four parts, which are prefaced by on-screen quotations from Krishnamurti, John Adams, Bernard Lietaer, and Thomas Paine, respectively.

Part I covers the process of fractional-reserve banking as illustrated in Modern Money Mechanics, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The film suggests that society is manipulated into economic slavery through debt-based monetary policies by requiring individuals to submit for employment in order to pay off their debt.

Part II has an interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, who says he was involved in the subjugation of Latin American economies by multinational corporations and the United States government, including involvement in the overthrow of Latin American heads-of-state. Perkins sees the US as a corporatocracy, in which maximization of profits is the first priority.

Part III introduces futurist Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project and asserts a need to move away from current socioeconomic paradigms. Fresco states that capitalism perpetuates the conditions it claims to address, as problems are only solved if there is money to be made. The film looks at Fresco’s proposal of a resource-based economy, which puts environmental friendliness, sustainability and abundance as fundamental societal goals. He goes on to discuss technology which he sees as the primary driver of human advancement, and he describes politics as being unable to solve any problems.

Part IV suggests that the primary reason for what the film sees as society’s social values (“warfare, corruption, oppressive laws, social stratification, irrelevant superstitions, environmental destruction, and a despotic, socially indifferent, profit oriented ruling class”) is a collective ignorance of “the emergent and symbiotic aspects of natural law”. The film advocates the following actions for achieving social change: boycotting of the most powerful banks in the Federal Reserve System, the major news networks, the military, energy corporations, all political systems; and joining, and supporting The Zeitgeist Movement.

Zeitgeist: Addendum won the 2008 Artivist Film Festival’s award for best feature (“Artivist Spirit” category).[20]

Originally, the film was uploaded-released on Google video. The current video posting on YouTube surpassed 5,000,000 views by late 2013.[21]

Alan Feuer of The New York Times noted that while the previous film was famous for its alleging that the attacks of September 11 were an inside job, the second installment “was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and a perilous economy of scarcity and debt”.[22]

Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) started the chain of events leading to the introduction of the Zeitgeist movement.[7] The group advocates transition from the global money-based economic system to a post-scarcity economy or resource-based economy. VC Reporter’s Shane Cohn summarized the movement’s charter as: “Our greatest social problems are the direct results of our economic system”.[23] Joseph created a political movement that, according to The Daily Telegraph, dismisses historic religious concepts as misleading and embraces a version of sustainable ecological concepts and scientific administration of society.[24] The group describes the current socioeconomic system as structurally corrupt and inefficient in the use of resources.[22][25]

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the third installment in Peter Joseph’s Zeitgeist film trilogy. The film premiered at the JACC Theater in Los Angeles on January 15, 2011 at the Artivist Film Festival,[26] was released in theaters and online. As of November 2014, the film has over 23 million views on YouTube.[27] The film is arranged into four parts. Each part contains interviews, narration and animated sequences.[28]

Release dates

Running time

The film begins with an animated sequence narrated by Jacque Fresco. He describes his adolescent life and his discontinuation of public education at the age of 14 and describes his early life influences.

Part I: Human Nature

Human behavior and the nature vs. nurture debate is discussed, which Robert Sapolsky refers to as a “false dichotomy.” Disease, criminal activity, and addictions are also discussed. The overall conclusion of Part I is that social environment and cultural conditioning play a large part in shaping human behavior.

Part II: Social Pathology

John Locke and Adam Smith are discussed in regard to modern economics. The film critically questions the economic need for private property, money, and the inherent inequality between agents in the system. Also seen critically is the need for cyclical consumption in order to maintain market share, resulting in wasted resources and planned obsolescence. According to the movie, the current monetary system will result in default or hyperinflation at some future time.

Part III: Project Earth

As with Zeitgeist: Addendum, the film presents a “resource-based economy” as advocated by Jacque Fresco discussing how human civilization could start from a new beginning in relation to resource types, locations, quantities, to satisfy human demands; track the consumption and depletion of resources to regulate human demands and maintain the condition of the environment.

Part IV: Rise

The current worldwide situation is described as disastrous. A case is presented that pollution, deforestation, climate change, overpopulation, and warfare are all created and perpetuated by the socioeconomic system. Various poverty statistics are shown that suggest a progressive worsening of world culture.

The final scene of the film shows a partial view of earth from space, followed by a sequence of superimposed statements; “This is your world”, “This is our world”, and “The revolution is now”.

List of Interviewees

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward received “Best Political Documentary” in 2011 from the Action on Film International Film Festival.[29]

A review in the The Socialist Standard regarding production values said the film had a “well-rounded feel”. In terms of content they criticized the “shaky economic analysis” contained in the second part of the film, said that Karl Marx had already undertaken a more scientific analysis, and that, “despite these false beginnings the analysis is at least on the right track”. Regarding transition to the new system proposed in the film, the review critically noted that in the film “there is no mention of how to get from here to there”.[30]

Fouad Al-Noor in Wessex Scene said that the film was more focused on solutions than the previous film, and commented that while there are controversial elements, he challenged those using labels to describe the film to watch the films.[31]

In her article, published in Tablet Magazine, Michelle Goldberg described the film as “silly enough that at times [she] suspected it was [a] satire about new-age techno-utopianism instead of an example of it”.[7]

Links to related articles

Follow this link:

Zeitgeist (film series) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Posted by at 8:44 am  Tagged with:

First Amendment (U.S. Constitution) – The New York Times

 Misc  Comments Off on First Amendment (U.S. Constitution) – The New York Times
Mar 192016

Latest Articles

Arguments in the jury trial start Monday in a case the celebrity wrestler says is about privacy, but the defendant, Gawker, argues is about the First Amendment.


The state is one of eight that are considering blanket legal protection for discrimination on religious grounds. Its bill is one of the most alarming.


The company, in its fight with the F.B.I., is defending its phones on grounds that its code represents free speech, and there is some precedent.


Crisis pregnancy centers in California are in a battle with the state over a new law requiring them to post a notice that free or low-cost abortion care is available.


A judges order to release secret documents raises questions about how much involvement courts should have over settlements related to corporate wrongdoing.


Mr. Kennedy defended John Gotti Sr., Huey P. Newton and Timothy Leary and won freedom for Jean S. Harris, who killed the Scarsdale Diet doctor.


In recent years, the Supreme Court has waved the First Amendment banner ever higher to undermine long-accepted governmental regulatory authority.


In a California case, the justices are considering whether government workers who choose not to join a union may still be required to pay for collective bargaining.


A federal judge has warned that prosecutors may be going too far when they ask witnesses to keep quiet about receiving a subpoena.


Some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider the clear and present danger standard for curbing the freedom of speech.


A federal appeals court, in a case involving an Asian-American dance-rock band, struck down part of a law that let the government reject trademarks it deemed offensive or disparaging to others.


An array of leading hip-hop artists, including T.I., Big Boi and Killer Mike, filed a Supreme Court brief in support of a high school student punished for posting a rap song that drew attention to complaints about sexual harassment.

The Alabama lawyer opposed The New York Times in a case that resulted in a Supreme Court decision establishing greater leeway for criticism of government officials and other public figures.


On university campuses, First Amendment rights are colliding with inclusivity.


Religious Arbitration Used for Secular Disputes | Soros Withdraws $490 Million From Janus Capital

A University of Michigan professor writes that many see this as yet another way the First Amendment is being hijacked.

A new class-action lawsuit says that New York City has a policy and a history of violating protesters constitutional rights.

Congressional Republicans are pushing a bill that would deliberately warp the bedrock principle of religious freedom under the Constitution.


As a county clerk, Kim Davis is required to issue marriage licenses to anyone who may legally get married, which includes same-sex couples.


An appeals court upheld restrictions on protesters First Amendment rights to gather and wave signs on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court.


Arguments in the jury trial start Monday in a case the celebrity wrestler says is about privacy, but the defendant, Gawker, argues is about the First Amendment.


The state is one of eight that are considering blanket legal protection for discrimination on religious grounds. Its bill is one of the most alarming.


The company, in its fight with the F.B.I., is defending its phones on grounds that its code represents free speech, and there is some precedent.


Crisis pregnancy centers in California are in a battle with the state over a new law requiring them to post a notice that free or low-cost abortion care is available.


A judges order to release secret documents raises questions about how much involvement courts should have over settlements related to corporate wrongdoing.


Mr. Kennedy defended John Gotti Sr., Huey P. Newton and Timothy Leary and won freedom for Jean S. Harris, who killed the Scarsdale Diet doctor.


In recent years, the Supreme Court has waved the First Amendment banner ever higher to undermine long-accepted governmental regulatory authority.


In a California case, the justices are considering whether government workers who choose not to join a union may still be required to pay for collective bargaining.


A federal judge has warned that prosecutors may be going too far when they ask witnesses to keep quiet about receiving a subpoena.


Some legal scholars are asking whether it is time to reconsider the clear and present danger standard for curbing the freedom of speech.


A federal appeals court, in a case involving an Asian-American dance-rock band, struck down part of a law that let the government reject trademarks it deemed offensive or disparaging to others.


An array of leading hip-hop artists, including T.I., Big Boi and Killer Mike, filed a Supreme Court brief in support of a high school student punished for posting a rap song that drew attention to complaints about sexual harassment.

The Alabama lawyer opposed The New York Times in a case that resulted in a Supreme Court decision establishing greater leeway for criticism of government officials and other public figures.


On university campuses, First Amendment rights are colliding with inclusivity.


Religious Arbitration Used for Secular Disputes | Soros Withdraws $490 Million From Janus Capital

A University of Michigan professor writes that many see this as yet another way the First Amendment is being hijacked.

A new class-action lawsuit says that New York City has a policy and a history of violating protesters constitutional rights.

Congressional Republicans are pushing a bill that would deliberately warp the bedrock principle of religious freedom under the Constitution.


As a county clerk, Kim Davis is required to issue marriage licenses to anyone who may legally get married, which includes same-sex couples.


An appeals court upheld restrictions on protesters First Amendment rights to gather and wave signs on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court.


See more here:
First Amendment (U.S. Constitution) – The New York Times

Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution