Author Archive: Javier George

Ron Paul: Whoever Wins the Election, Gold Goes Up


According to Ron Paul, whoever wins the election in November, gold will be the real victor.

The elder statesman of the libertarian movement and former Republican presidential candidate has remained apathetic about which major presidential candidate claims victory next month. However, he remains convinced that uncertainty will result no matter the outcome of the election, as he told CNBC in an interview:

“Politically speaking, there is going to be a lot more uncertainty and that may go into the markets. If people are depending on political stability to get the market going I don’t think it’s going to work out.”

Chaos is good for assets like gold

During times of high uncertainty, traditional markets tend to fare poorly, while assets like gold tend to fare well. Paul’s prediction of strong gold prices in the near future indicates that neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump will make the economy better off, and will instead do the opposite. During the run-up to the UK’s Brexit vote, leftist billionaire George Soros backed gold as a hedge against the coming economic uncertainty.

during the time when elections are around the financial world and the stock exchanges have a major shift in the way the indices and stocks move at a very crazily volatile manner that at times the experts fail to understand the black money angle which could be pumped in the exchanges making it zoom, assets like gold, digital currency are on all time deep fluctuations which make every single trade signal the most viable option for the traders to visit this website and understand a few stock movements.

Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged a return to the gold standard in order to combat what he sees as upcoming hyperinflation. If his predictions are correct, gold may very well see soaring prices in the near future.

Bitcoin is becoming “digital gold” in uncertain times

While gold remains the standard hedge against poor central bank performance, Bitcoin has recently joined as a prime contender. The distributed digital currency tracked gold’s price prior to Brexit, meaning that it too has become a hedge against uncertain economic times.

Unlike gold, however, Bitcoin can be more easily used for regular financial transactions. Sweden’s largest gold dealer famously ran into trouble when its bank accounts were abruptly closed. Bitcoin is not subject to such a vulnerability, as demonstrated by Uber’s switch to Bitcoin debit cards and other prepaid cards in the face of a government effort to make them cease operations in Buenos Aires.

Jury Nullification to Fight Victimless Crimes: Interview with Kirsten Tynan

A victimless crime is where a person breaks the law while harming no one. These can range from failure to pay fines, registration and paperwork mixups, morality laws, and more, however the most common and egregious example of victimless crimes is drug prohibition, where a person could potentially spend a lifetime locked away for perusing recreational substances in the privacy of their own home.

To combat this, activists have taken steps to inform jurors of their right to vote “not guilty,” even in cases where the defendant has clearly run afoul of the law, thereby nullifying an unjust law. In New Hampshire in particular, jury rights activists informed over 3,000 jurors of their right to nullify last year.

I interviewed Kirsten Tynan, executive director of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), about the importance of jury nullification in a free society.

The Desert Lynx: For the uninformed, what is jury nullification, elevator pitch version?

Kirsten Tynan: It is the right of every juror to vote Not Guilty for any reason they believe is just. In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant who has technically broken the law. Informally, however, you will also hear the term used to describe a hung jury that results when some but not all of the jurors vote Not Guilty despite the law having technically been broken.

Breaking the law is liberally is totally unjust, and so is criminalizing people who are just victims of unjust, mix up and false identities have long been punished without any fault of theirs, going back in history there are many who have been jailed in the freedom struggle just spent their life time in hell holes, full report on the profit making solution crypto currency traidn ga re listed in their website.

Does it work the other way around, when a juror declares a defendant guilty despite not finding them to have actually broken the law?

KT: Not exactly. Even though some people will reframe that scenario as “reverse jury nullification”, portraying it as though it is an equal and opposite scenario, reality is very different. The legal system was never meant to be an even playing field, but rather was purposely tilted to err on the side of liberty.
In the case of acquittal, a jury’s verdict is final and cannot be appealed by the prosecution. On the other hand, in the case of conviction, the defendant is allowed to appeal. So you can see in that scenario that there is extra protection to err on the side of liberty.

Hung juries are a similar story. In almost all criminal courts, a single juror can prevent a conviction by voting Not Guilty. (The defendant can be retried, but this is a far better scenario than conviction.) On the flip side, a single juror voting Guilty despite the defendant not having broken the law does not result in a conviction.
And I think it is far harder to find six or twelve jurors in today’s cultural climate to convict someone who had not broken the law than it is to find six or twelve conscientious people who will show mercy when the law is unjust to a defendant who has technically broken the law.

So rather than letting jurors make up the law, nullification facilitates no law (in that case). What’s to prevent jurors acting this way from creating a lawless society?

KT: Jury nullification has been grounded in English law since at least the 1600s, and it has been a part of the United States legal system for the entire history of the country. It was in 1670 that an English court established the principle that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts, and that principle crossed an ocean and survived in our legal system to this day.

Despite centuries of jurors’ ability to nullify, somehow neither England nor the United States has descended into lawlessness. Is it a fluke? I don’t think so. Probably it has more to do with people actually wanting to live in a society free of real crimes such as murder or assault or rape. When there is a real victim who was harmed, people are more likely to be willing to enforce the law.

If anything, it seems like there’s very rarely an occurrence at all. Do most jurors know about their right to nullify?

KT: We don’t have data on the frequency of jury nullification, because that would be near impossible to gather. After their service, most jurors go back to their lives and we have no insight into their decisions or the reasons behind them.

Qualitatively, my sense is that it is uncommon, but probably not as rare as most people perceive it to be. FIJA currently has a project going to compile the most complete list of known and possible jury nullification cases anywhere online. We just had a summer fellow working on this project, and several of the cases he researched were within the last few years. But yes, it certainly is uncommon, and most jurors do not know about their right to nullify. Prosecutors now make a habit of filing motions in limine in any case they are prosecuting that would be likely to be viewed sympathetically by a jury in order to preclude any discussion that might even hint at their right of jury nullification. Judges do their part to mislead jurors with jury instructions worded so as to strongly imply and sometimes even outright falsely state that jurors must follow the law as the judge explains it to them.

I just recently saw a tragic case in Utah in which a juror came forth publicly expressing her regret for having voted Guilty on a few minor charges against a man named Jeremy Johnson. She said that because of the instructions to the jury, she believed she had no choice but to vote Guilty even though she believed no crime had been committed.

What steps are being taken to better inform jurors?

KT: Working with our supporters and allies, FIJA creates more fully informed jurors in many different ways.

One popular activity is juror rights outreach by handing out information near courthouses. Right now I believe there are long-term juror rights education campaigns going on in at least Colorado, New Hampshire, and Texas. We also have a signature day of action each year coming up on September 5 called Jury Rights Day commemorating that 1670 case I mentioned earlier. Volunteers go to courthouses nationwide on Jury Rights Day or another day close to that date to hand out brochures, hold signs, and answer questions about jury nullification.
We also do our best to arrange speakers for community groups and events where jury nullification information would be well received.

I have been working particularly diligently this year to add a lot more information to our website at, especially in the Library section. We also have a volunteer helping us to upgrade to a new, more user-friendly website that will be easier to navigate and learn from. We have the most active page I can find on Facebook specifically focused on jury nullification education and related jury issues, and we’re also working on improving our content offerings on YouTube. I have also started answering jury nullification and general jury-related questions on Quora to reach an entirely new audience there. One project I have in progress is a jury rights education online class that has been requested from us by several of our constituents. I’ve almost got the curriculum finalized, and then we will go forward with recording. We are also working on developing some new materials for publication both in print and electronically.

That’s a sampling of some of the things we have going at the moment. I have a few other projects that are kind of in the early stages, but keep in mind that at the moment FIJA has exactly 1 full-time staff person (me) and 2 very, very part-time people whose paid hours total less than a half-time staff person. We are almost entirely volunteer-driven, and none of this would be going on without the support of our generous volunteers and donors!

In your opinion, what’s the best “bang for your buck” form of activism?

KT: Something that puts jury nullification into the media in a positive light.
For example, juror rights educators in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, were getting harassed by courthouse officials for exercising their right to hand out jury nullification information on the public sidewalk. James Babb video recorded an encounter with an irate courthouse official, who also was in the wrong in demanding that juror rights educators must be banished to a far away “free speech zone”, in which he respectfully but firmly asserted his right not only with the courthouse official, but in conversation with a police officer who was called to the scene.
Not only was the video posted on YouTube where it is still viewable today, but the story was picked up by the local newspaper who ran it on their front page AND wrote an additional editorial in support of these volunteers’ right of free speech. That is a perfect example in which not only was the message amplified far beyond what volunteers could convey through their pamphlets, but the courthouse official then wound up helping make publicly visible the message he was trying to quash! There are a number of ways to get into the media including hosting a newsworthy event that is then covered, submitting an op ed, or even just writing a simple letter to the editor when there is a timely situation that connects somehow to the right of jury nullification. And that applies both with the traditional print and broadcast media, as well as with online media.

And finally, to wrap it all up: What’s at stake here? What happens if jurors don’t know their rights? What happens if they’re well-informed?

KT: Let’s look at this from two perspectives. On the accused person’s side, if they are convicted even of a minor offense, the consequences are far from minor. First, if convicted, a defendant’s personal relationships will be damaged. Their reputation in the community and among their peers will be tainted, their intimate relationships may be destroyed due to the added stress of the situation, and they may even lose custody of their children. If the penalty involves a fine, they may wind up losing property that is integral to their survival such as the roof over their head or a vehicle that is necessary for them to get to work. Fines that are not immediately paid can end up snowballing and even eventually lead to imprisonment.

If a person is imprisoned as a part of their sentence, understand that we have just put a possible death penalty on the table, no matter how minor their offense. They are at greater risk while incarcerated of physical and sexual violence, up to and including death. I have seen cases in which people died on their first day in jail or prison, due to medical neglect by staff who believed they were faking an allergic reaction or other condition. And even if they make it through their incarceration, once they are out, it becomes orders of magnitude harder to provide for themselves and their loved ones because their educational and employment opportunities are significantly curtailed. A conviction—even one which jurors think will result in a so-called ‘slap on the wrist’—can be life destroying.

But we should also consider this from jurors’ perspective. When we sit in judgement of another human being, holding their very life and liberty in our hands, we have great power and great responsibility. Although we will get to go home at the end of the case, we will have to get up everyday and live with the responsibility of how we treated that other person.
We get many calls and emails every year in the FIJA office and I see time and time again in the news stories from people who regretted their verdicts.

This can be five, ten, twenty years down the line. They are distraught by an error they have made, often unwittingly as they are misled into conviction by the judge and prosecutor. And I have to tell them there is very little they can do to remedy the situation. They cannot take back their verdict. They may be able to speak to the defendant’s attorney who may be able to do something with the information, but usually nothing will come of it. Somehow they must make peace with that situation for the rest of their lives.

On the flip side, with just two words a fully informed juror can literally save a life. Imagine that. I don’t know how much closer to a magic wand we can get in real life. The juror may experience some psychological pressure during deliberations, but they cannot be punished for their verdict. It is very low risk and one juror can at least hang the jury just by saying Not Guilty.

You Can Now Use Bitcoin At Dunkin Donuts

Bitcoin enthusiasts rejoice: you can now use it to get your coffee fix just about anywhere.

Ubiquitous coffee and breakfast chain Dunkin Donuts, which you can find just about every few blocks in New England, can now be patronized with Bitcoin, thanks to a recent gift card integration through eGifter. This allows customers to effectively pay with Bitcoin, even though the chain itself doesn’t yet take it directly.

If you still do not have these digital coins, then do not despair. There are many ways that can help you to get some digital coins easily, without worrying about super powerful computers and mining. Check it out, This website reviews and endorses good trading programs for efficiency. This trading program helps everyone earn some cryptocurrency through its robotic system and has been appreciated by experts.

According to 2014 figures, there were a total of 2,243 Dunkin Donuts locations in New England, 215 of those in New Hampshire. Massachusetts is the clear heavyweight in the Dunks game with 1,151 locations, more than half the total of New England, and 10% of the global total of 11,500 spanning 40 different countries.

eGifter precise amounts makes it basically like using Bitcoin direct

eGifter is the first Bitcoin gift card app to add Dunkin’ Donuts to its repertoire. According to eGifter CEO Tyler Roye, the Dunks integration was inspired by the coffee habit of the company’s employees.

“The card was on our wish list since our first day in business. Many of the eGifter team members start every day with Dunkin coffee, also referred to around here as startup fuel. Those cups in our hands were a constant reminder that we wanted this card, so we are quite excited to finally be able to offer it to our members.”

Several other companies allow customers to purchase gift cards to major chains with Bitcoin, including Gyft and Fold. However, because of a unique feature with certain cards, eGifter allows customers to purchase precise amounts. Meaning, if you buy a coffee and a sandwich at Dunkin for $5.83, you can buy a $5.83 gift card with Bitcoin and have no balance left over. Bonus points for figuring out the exact total and buying the gift card while still in line so you don’t make people wait around for you to figure out your phone. Also, by using Bitcoin, you can save 3%. Final sweet trick: you can buy a gift card for someone else, meaning if your office buddy is out to get coffee and you decide halfway there that you want some, you can just send a gift card last minute to get your fix.

Adoption is one of Bitcoin’s biggest hurdles to clear

Bitcoin has all kinds of advantages over old-school money: it’s instant, infinitely divisible, decentralized, anonymous, and can’t be printed and therefore devalued by some unaccountable central authority. Best of all, it’s really convenient to use, as you can send any amount to anyone anywhere in the world almost instantly for very low fees. The one major setback from the layman’s perspective is that you can’t use it in the majority of stores yet. Gift card integrations like this, especially with major global chains, just make further adoption that much easier of a sell.

Traffic Deaths Hit Record High As Hands-Free Laws Fail

Traffic deaths in the United States are at a 50-year high, despite a host of government efforts to the contrary.

According to data released by the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, last year’s road deaths rose by 7.2% to an awful total of 35,092, more than the population of some cities. These stats hold true across all affected groups, including cyclists and pedestrians.

Nationwide hands-free laws have had the opposite effect

This spike in deaths has come at a time when 46 of the 50 United States have enacted texting-while-driving bans to cut back on distracted driving. Intended to disincentivize drivers from using their phones in ways that could put themselves, and other drivers, at increased risk of collision, the continuing increase in fatalities may be because drivers have simply shifted the location of their phones out of public view, arguably a much more dangerous position with far more limited road visibility. This remains a classic example of legislating a desired outcome without factoring in a basic understanding of the human behavioral patterns involved.

Addiction to social media has often perplexed the doctors to relatively send patients for therapy to places where every electronic gadget is in a switch off mode. while smart phones purpose are immense when it comes to handling an emergency situation, and tracking movements of notorious people it is again a bane for many unscrupulous drivers who check in their phones frequently or are called in while on duty driving.

Police have been discipline people here around with increased rate of fines and strict punishment, but it is go in vain as the human physiological behavior is just locked up into the screens of their hand held phones. The internet has an amazing list of the top crypto robots today who are making gold a run for their money.

Police going to increasingly ridiculous lengths for “public safety”

In order to enforce these ineffective safety regulations, police have taken to some truly bizarre methods. Over the course of a five-day sting operation, police in Somersworth, New Hampshire posed as homeless and religious evangelists at stoplights, holding attention-grabbing signs and ticketing drivers who took a picture with their phones. It’s important to note that not only were the drivers at stoplights (and therefore not a danger to anyone), but were deliberately lured into using their phones where they otherwise may have had no intention to do so (which can be considered entrapment). Another fine example of wasting taxpayer money to enforce a pointless law in even more pointless ways.

Why I Closed My Bank Account and Went All Bitcoin


A negative balance? Just when I was about to withdraw rent money?

Yes, it appeared that someone had attempted to steal from me. And, in the short term, they had succeeded. Someone had written a check in my name for a couple thousand dollars to try to buy a car. Now, mind you, I can’t remember ever using a check in my eight-plus years since opening that bank account. I barely used the account at all since I had started making all my money in Bitcoin. The only reason I was using it this time was to liquidate some cryptocurrency for rent, since I had procrastinated about selling it for cash. But that one small interaction with the banking system was all it took to somehow make me feel its worst inefficiencies. I called the number provided on the website, was on placed on hold for a half-hour, then transferred to another number and another half-hour hold time, until at last I was sent to the third and final banking representative… complete with another 30-minute hold. They agreed to reverse the charge, but said it would take until the end of the business day. After the bank closed, of course.

To summarize: Someone tried to buy a car by scribbling something on a piece of paper I never touched, said it meant that my money was behind it, and some bank just went and gave them more of my money than I had in my account. And I spent almost 100 minutes on the phone and had to wait until the next day to get it reversed. For $12 per month. When I was already using cryptocurrency and getting more functionality than a bank for free.

That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had had it. The next day I went into the nearest bank branch, withdrew the rest of my money, and closed the account, exiting the banking world for good.

So now no more paper money or checkbooks for me. I feel liberated using the digital currency. I can use it anywhere online for buying stuff and paying other people or companies. It is easy to acquire as well though I do not really have the time or super computers needed to mine these coins. I have found some easy ways to earn the Bitcoins and you can read and understand  these details on

Being unbanked as a source of freedom

I am now unbanked. That very word evokes images of human rights organizations passionately pleading on behalf of grubby migrant workers forced to deal with predatory check cashing services, cut off from the marvels of the modern financial world. Saying you’re unbanked is like saying you don’t have a car, don’t vote, don’t have a smartphone, and probably live in a hut with a spear as your only technological advancement to help you survive in this cruel world. Say you’re unbanked on purpose, though, and people will look at you like you’re insane.

But it’s not insane. There’s nothing wrong with deciding not to have one giant corporation in control of the product of your labor for the rest of your existence. What’s insane is leaving the unaccountable and mandated Federal Reserve in control over the value of your savings, while trusting an institution that reports your every financial move to the government with all your earnings. The same government that blows all your tax money on bombing wedding parties half a world away, and will be happy to arbitrarily drain your account of all funds, with no warning, and certainly no recourse.

In reality, I’m not so much unbanked as I am post-banked. By going full Bitcoin, I’m not stashing gold ingots in my basement, bartering with clam shells and bushels of apples while the rest of the world remains light years ahead of me. It’s actually the opposite. I’ve jumped to a financial plane of existence where I can send money to anyone anywhere, and they can do the same, in the blink of an eye, with extremely low fees and no centralized control. And if I get tired of Bitcoin someday, I can always switch to any of the hundreds of alternative cryptocurrencies out there, provided I can find someone to accept them.

Unplugging from the Matrix bit by bit, Bitcoin by Bitcoin

Here’s how power structures work: They centralize all activity around one crucial chokepoint, and make passing through that point necessary to function in society. Then they can do what they want with you. At worst, anyone expressing unpopular ideas can be ruined on a whim. At best, with one monopolized service everyone has to go through, they can basically charge you what they want, all while delivering the worst customer fulfillment you’ll ever see.

Now that I’m not using the banking system anymore, that’s two extra realms of freedom I’ve won back. One, I’ve reclaimed the value of my productivity from an unaccountable centralized organization than can just print more money and make mine worthless. And two, now I control my funds. No one can just mistake me for a terrorist and take everything away, or go bankrupt and inform me that they gambled away all my money. I’m outside the system of control in some of the most significant ways possible.

So I kicked the bankers to the curb. I haven’t lost my goddamned mind. I’ve won my goddamned freedom.

Prohibitionist NH Rep. Drives Drunk, Crashes


A New Hampshire state representative with a record of voting for prohibitionist laws was caught driving drunk when he caused a three-car collision.

Rep. Michael D. Abbott from Cheshire County’s first district caused a pileup on Route 9 in Keene this past Saturday. He was arrested for aggravated driving while under the influence and released on $2,000 bail, and is scheduled for arraignment on August 4th.

Abbott’s hypocritical history of voting to restrict personal freedom

From his dangerous and irresponsible behavior with substances, you would think Rep. Abbott would have a relaxed attitude towards drug and alcohol legislation. Apparently not. He voted three times against legalizing, decriminalizing, and reducing penalties for marijuana use and possession. He also voted for increased fines related to breaking alcohol consumption laws, something he might have to deal with personally very soon. Icing on the cake: Abbott sits on the Transportation Committee.

In what has in recent context become a stinging indictment of his own personal behavior, Rep. Abbott answered the Keene Sentinel’s candidate questionnaire, outlining his emphasis on using the state to target substance abuse:

Coming from the political circuit and having a behavior which does not go well with the public eye is both demeaning for the political aspirant as well as what stays in the mind of people when they vote for. Coherent behavior, alcohol abuse has a history of downfall among many big politicians, Bitcoin Loophole found exactly this small disconnect in real time trading to make the profit in digital space.

“The state should be responsible for providing through school curriculums and local community citizen coalitions an adequate drug abuse information base to discourage use of illegal and addictive drugs. The state should also offer programs for treatment for drug users and avoid incarceration for drug-related crimes unless they involve violence and intent to encourage drug abuse among others. The use of drug courts and existing rehabilitation agencies should be utilized.” (emphasis added)

So while the respectable Representative Michale D. Abbott was using the force of law to police your life for your own good and safety, he was busy getting riggity-wrecked on the side and wrecking his (and others’) highly dangerous motor vehicle.

Rep. Abbott is still seeking reelection this year

Despite clearly displaying that his judgment is lacking for a public servant seeking to write laws telling you how to run your life, Rep. Abbott indicated after the incident that he still plans on seeking reelection this November. Thankfully, his contact information is readily available to the public, so constituents who are so inclined can easily let him have a piece of their mind by calling, emailing, and sending him mail.

Gary Johnson Capitalizes on Cruz Snub, #NeverTrump


Former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz urged Republican National Convention goers to “vote their conscience” instead of blindly supporting Donald Trump, a statement Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson took as an endorsement for his candidacy.

Rather than endorse Trump, Cruz urged voters to non-specifically follow their conscience:

“Vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Johnson took these comments, both because of their content and because of their omission of the Republican nominee, to mean an endorsement of the Libertarian Party ticket:

“He did say to vote for Gary Johnson, didn’t he? And that was ‘vote your conscience.’ I certainly would uphold the Constitution.”

From Cruz and Kasich, the #NeverTrump baton passes to Johnson

As Jeb Bush and Rand Paul dropped out of the Republican presidential race early, the establishment and liberty votes shifted to John Kasich and Ted Cruz, respectively, before finally all collecting around Cruz in one last desperate, and ultimately failed, attempt to stop Donald Trump. Now, the mantle of the #NeverTrump torchbearer passes to Gary Johnson. Die-hard Republican establishment faithfuls Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney and have publicly mused about the possibility of supporting the Johnson/Weld ticket (Bush by indicated he would never vote for Clinton or Trump while mentioning the Libertarian candidacy, Romney musing over the possibility of endorsing Johnson while indicating his support for his running mate).

Following the heart and mind is a difficult task, Garry Johnson’s urge to motivate and voice to people to vote for a liberated country who are not rolled up as sheets within the closets had garnered lot of support, his stress on making a country sustainable with lot of aid to fund strapped and war waged nations has been a eye opener for many, trading with the Crypto CFD Trader gives the maximum insight on how to trade wisely and bank on good profits.

Finally, add one last wildcard to the mix of Gary Johnson’s surprising cheerleaders: active duty military. A new poll of members currently serving across all branches of the US military indicates a strong preference for Johnson over Clinton, and even places him above Donald “I love veterans” Trump. As the election wears on, this upset in the prevailing logic is sure to make for some interesting campaigning.

The Libertarian Party’s big venture to court the mainstream

In 2012, Johnson courted voters faced with the dim prospect of either another term for President Obama or holding their nose and voting for big-government flip-flopper Mitt Romney, encouraging them to “be Libertarian with me this one time.” Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters did not take him up on his generous offer, gaining him a paltry 1% of the national vote. This time around, however, Johnson appears poised to perform much better, polling as high as 13%, merely two points away from the minimum threshold to be included in the national debates beside Clinton and Trump. Johnson remained adamant about choosing William Weld as his running mate, presumably because of the fundraising network and centrist and establishment connections he brings to the table.

Who Makes Grown Men Cry?

177520063_7f21c38c83_o (1)

Grown men don’t cry. That’s the prevailing wisdom. Whatever great tragedy or deep sadness they deal with, men are supposed to keep their feelings bottled up inside and present a calm, stoic public demeanor. If a man cries publicly, you can be sure that he has been profoundly moved.

You can become someone who will move grown men to tears. The question is, will you be an inspiration? Or a source of pain? Two famous comedians, Bill Burr and Louis C.K., have spoken about individuals who had that level of impact in their lives, one positive and one negative.

Bill Burr is one of the most successful comedians in the world. He has sold out Madison Square Garden, has acted in shows like Breaking Bad and F Is for Family, and runs a successful weekly podcast, to name just a few accomplishments. He is known for his style of always pushing uncomfortable topics with glee, having stated that he’s having the most fun when 20% of the audience is alienated. All of the above made his story of his father all the more remarkable when Burr recounted a tale of Christmas from when he was six years old. His strict, borderline abusive dad chided him growing up for joking around (his comedic talent apparently started young), comparing him to a giggling little girl. One Christmas, Burr received a doll from his father to mock his budding love of comedy. When recounting the story, Burr, a seasoned veteran of performance, had great difficulty struggling through the story of that Christmas, choking up several times. Many decades later, the mere memory of a minor prank by his father could still bring a very successful man to tears.

On the other side of the equation we have Louis C.K., arguably one of the most successful comedians of all time. He is a veritable force of nature in the entertainment industry, writing, directing, producing, and acting in numerous shows (foremost among them being the critically-acclaimed semi-autobiographical Louie), in addition to being a legendary comic. While performing at a benefit in honor of the recently departed comedic powerhouse George Carlin, he spoke to how Carlin had changed his life, from initially inspiring him to take up comedy to providing a constant example of success in his field. C.K. recounted how, when he was in a 15-year slump and thinking about quitting, he looked at how he had been working for over a decade on an hour of mediocre material, whereas Carlin threw out all his old routine and started fresh every year. C.K. was blown away by this, and had been too terrified to do the same, but decided to draw courage from his idol to attempt to emulate his success. Years later, he recounted how he was taping a successful comedy special at the same time as Carlin, and tearfully stated how honored he was to be doing the same thing at the same time as his hero. C.K. maintained that “Anything that ever happens to me that’s good is due to this guy.”

We don’t always get to consciously choose our legacy once we’re gone.

However, we can choose how we create that legacy or what we leave for the next generation, in terms of money or wisdom. Most of us like to lead a content life, without worrying about money and health issues all the time. There are many trading programs that can be used to create an adequate retirement fund and that will be a great legacy for your children and you can leave some digital money for them as well.

Learn more about the Bitcoin Trader, at

Countless individuals like Bill Burr’s father and George Carlin have left lasting, profound impacts on the people whose lives they touched without even knowing. What is up to us is the example we set. We can choose to be someone of achievement, courage, and inspiration, or a source of pain, fear, and regret. How will you choose to make a grown man cry?

Libertarians: Get Better At Shunning


I’m never one to shy away from controversy, especially when it serves some greater purpose in the pursuit of truth and justice. A couple months ago, I drew flak for addressing the liberty movement’s scumbag problem and calling on libertarians to disassociate themselves with lowlifes. While the response was overwhelmingly positive, there were enough criticisms along the lines of “You’re destroying the movement!” that I feel I should elaborate on exactly why it’s important to be selective in who we, as libertarians, call our friends.

I call this selective association philosophy “weakest link theory”: A group is as vulnerable to criticism as its worst member. This means that, no matter how competent, kind, and wonderful most people in the liberty movement may be, all it takes is a couple lazy, sexist, racist, fraudulent, or hypocritical members to allow freedom’s enemies to throw the whole group into the scumbag category. It’s not fair, it’s not reasonable, and it certainly isn’t logical, but no amount of denying that the bad apple isn’t representative of the tree will matter as long as that apple is still attached. I’m sorry, but guilt by association really works.

Making the entire community to be on the edge and shun them away from the social strata is yet more heinous then war crimes, due to small group of people who protest for a cause the entire clan of people belonging to that community are branded and just pushed around, continue reading about the way the digital currency online trading platform has revolutionized the concept of financial profits.

Take the cautionary tale of liberty activists in Keene, New Hampshire. The Keeniacs, as they are affectionately (or otherwise) known, were some of the pioneers of the local liberty movement, in particular gaining national (international?) headlines for their spirited resistance to parking enforcers. I will speak no ill of them here, because although I’ve had my disagreements with them, I respect their contributions to the cause. However, it’s unavoidable to mention that they have been ostracized by large chunks of the Free State movement, much of it in connection with their acceptance of a certain individual known as Cantwell, or the Anarchist Atheist Asshole (his words, not mine).

This person of legend (who was one of the inspirations behind my previously mentioned article) was banned from the Free State Project, publicly, for making highly visible public statements suggesting that libertarians should use violence against the government (a direction contradiction of the Project’s Statement of Intent). Privately, this character had also gotten drunkenly belligerent and driven his vehicle dangerously close to campsites and children. After his banning and subsequent ostracizing, he settled in Keene with the only community that would have him. After over a year of relatively good behavior and subdued overall awfulness, he was a regular co-host on Free Talk Live, and invited to not only speak at, but headline, Keenevention, the Keeniacs’ annual convention. In time, though, he could not contain himself from publicizing his overtly racist views during his co-hosting gig, and after much internal consternation Free Talk Live gave him the old fashioned boot, after which he withdrew from Keenevention. During the whole regrettable affair, STOP FREE KEENE!!!, a group formed specifically to attack every move made by the Keeniacs, has had a field day repeatedly hammering them on Cantwell and his overall distastefulness. They haven’t been alone in this, either: the nationally-popular Colbert Report lampooned the parking enforcement resistance by the so-dubbed “Free Keene Squad,” focusing mainly on Cantwell’s antics in order to paint the entire group’s actions in a negative light.

This guilt by association affliction has affected me as well, mostly with my activism as part of the Rights Brigade. Everywhere I’ve conducted activism operations where none of the kind had taken place previously, I’ve seen an overwhelmingly positive response. However, in several cases where others had been before me, I’ve been met with some hostility. While I have been very blessed with how my work, and its reception, has gone overall, it’s been harder for me in some cases because of guilt by association.

Now I’m not at all calling for isolationism in our work to free the world. In fact, I think libertarians could do a better job of working with more people. Despite my conscious and public compartmentalization away from the Keeniacs, I still happily work with them wherever we can find common ground (and, as it turns out, that happens quite often). The trick is to speak for yourself and yours, while remaining willing and eager to work with just about anyone else. Few teammates, many contacts. That way you can have plausible deniability when criticized for others’ actions, while having no shortage of help when trying to get things done.

Another salient example of this principle not being applied, on the opposite end of the spectrum, is Rand Paul’s presidential campaign. Liberty lovers have been quick to create some distance and point out that his campaign doesn’t accurately represent libertarian ideals, and rightly so. However, libertarians have by and large been too reluctant to support, publicize, and encourage what he does right, from encouraging a peace-driven foreign policy, insisting on fiscal responsibility, and opposing the drug war that has harmed so many innocents, with the poor and ethnic minorities taking the biggest toll. This is a chance to push the national (and international) debate on public policy in the direction of sanity, and most libertarians are, in my opinion, blowing this opportunity.

To properly present yourself in the war of ideas, it’s imperative to compartmentalize your approval. Associate yourself with few, work with, and encourage the selective work of, many. Play this game right, and the global cause of liberty will be winning more than ever. Play it wrong, and you could end up leaving adrift one of the top most libertarian presidential candidates in recent memory, or embracing an outright racist troll. The choice is yours.

Why Liberty Attracts Scumbags


News flash: I care deeply about the cause of human liberty. I believe government is the greatest blight on human achievement and well-being. Of all political labels I most closely identify with libertarianism. So much so, in fact, that I moved to New Hampshire for the Free State Project in order to join other like-minded liberty lovers in ushering in a new era of freedom and progress for mankind.

And, naturally, I’d want to believe that people who think like me are the best this world has to offer. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. Sometimes it’s very far from the reality.

Now don’t get me wrong, most libertarians are decent people. In fact, the majority of the most humble, generous, hard-working, kind, and intelligent people I’ve come across are liberty activists. I know many people of great achievement, selfless compassion, and brilliant humor who easily outclass their counterparts outside of the liberty movement. However, that doesn’t change the fact that a sizable chunk of this movement is comprised of some real lowlifes.

It’s the elephant in the room that no one in the movement wants to talk about. But believe me, our critics and detractors have no problem with pointing out the scum among us, so I’m taking a crack at addressing our ugly spots before they do. I’m not just talking about a surly demeanor or purely self-interested behavior, which is almost expected of a movement comprised of fierce individualists. I’m talking about theft, fraud, and financial irresponsibility. I’m talking about creepy behavior and unwelcome advances bordering on sexual harassment. I’m talking about insults, harassment, and general unkindness (one prominent member with far too many apologists centers his entire act around being a terrible person). And the drama. Oh, the drama. Make no mistake, there are some real scummy people who call themselves libertarian, and they have a surprisingly-large contingent of apologists.

Why is this? How did a movement whose central philosophy is personal responsibility, private charity, and individual goodness come to contain so many people so far from these key virtues? For a few reasons:

The movement is relatively new. The philosophy of liberty is still a minority viewpoint, and that minority gets even smaller the farther towards anarchism you go. Really, it almost goes without saying that people who reject the entire structure of modern human society would be few and far between. Many people are against the currency systems of countries as they feel that it is a governed monetary unit and that fails many poor people. They would rather appreciate a currency or system that worked across the world. Anyone could use it anywhere and that too in a completely secure environment. Many such currencies are being used now and Bitcoin Trader is explained here, As such, the relative value of the individual in this small movement is relatively high. Libertarians are much more willing to take crap from other libertarians, since there are still so few of us. The line of thinking (sometimes subconscious) of “Yeah he’s kind of a jerk, but we need everyone we can get” persists.

A comprehensive behavioral standard remains elusive. We have to remember, this is a group of people who reject the authority of government, religion, and… well, really every source of authority except the individual’s conscience. The only persistent moral standard seems to be the Non-Aggression Principle, and while this serves well to weed out abject violence and theft, it still leaves a lot of wiggle room for scummy behavior. Libertarians, who believe in the individual’s right to adopt any action that doesn’t directly trample on the liberty or property of others, are extremely hesitant to condemn undesirable, though nonviolent, acts. It’s not that they don’t have a code of conduct more strict than simply adhering to the Non-Aggression Principle. It’s that they tend to be shy about telling others to shape up, for fear of being called a filthy statist.

Anarchists struggle with an enforcement mechanism. The world at large has a number of structures used for reigning in bad people, from government to religion to other belief structures that prescribe a clear behavioral standard. None of these apply to a philosophy that allows for basically doing what you want, with very few restrictions. Even when a group of anarchists can agree that a particular person is behaving badly, figuring out what to do about it is another matter entirely. Even ostracism requires a consensus and organization, which remain elusive.

So now that I’ve addressed the ugly spots in the liberty community, whatever can we do to heal them?

The movement needs to grow and mature. Plain and simple, the best way we can improve the quality of the people in the liberty movement is to make more of them. More libertarians means lower individual value, which means we can focus more on esteeming those of value and character. Once being a liberty lover isn’t so scarce anymore, no one will care about you unless you’re a decent person as well.

We need to stop tolerating and making excuses for terrible people. Let’s be honest, we attract the dregs of society because we put up with them. The solution is amazingly simple: stop tolerating terrible people. No perfectly orchestrated campaign of mass ostracism is necessary. Just don’t hang out with scum. Don’t socialize with them, don’t endorse them, don’t speak with them. Stop inviting them to events, stop talking about them, and certainly stop working or doing business with them. They aren’t entitled to a fair trial in the court of public opinion, and they have no right to any kind of social circle. We don’t owe bad libertarians acceptance, period. If they’re free to act as they see fit, we’re just as free to exclude them. And we should. It’s about damn time.

Sorry for not being sorry about addressing the seedy underbelly of the liberty movement. We can’t turn a blind eye to it any longer. And we really shouldn’t. We can build a scum-free libertarian community. And, if we ever want the philosophy of liberty to become attractive to regular people, we absolutely should.