Imposing law violates others’ rights

Imposing law violates others’ rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 20, 2014)

Not a day goes by I don't witness a complaint by someone saying their freedoms are being trampled on and legislated away. Almost everyone can point to something they enjoy which has been regulated into illegality- or severely restricted- by government edict.

Yet, if you question most of those same people you'll find they are enthusiastic about violating the liberty of others to do certain things.

That's how Americans find themselves in this current mess. People hate things others do- enough to call for government to step in- and before long everyone is violated in some way. Almost no one comes out unscathed.

I value my liberty enough to never seek to limit yours in any way. As long as you don't attack the innocent or violate private property I am content to live and let live. Completely. No matter how much I may despise the way you express your liberty.

When it comes to trampling others, religion seems to be a preferred tool to use against choices "the majority" dislikes.

People get upset when their own religious preferences are not imposed by law, and when someone else's are. That's how "Sharia Law" (Muslim or Christian) comes about, and it shows the weakness of your faith when you feel you must incorporate it into law applied to everyone across the board.

This is what I see as the basis of the opposition to a "gentleman's club" opening in the area.

If you feel it is wrong you are free to not go there. You are free to shun those who do, those who own the place, and those who work there. You are even free to shun me for my refusal to condemn it.

You are not at liberty to try to use the force of government to prevent it. You may choose to cross this line into the zone of what you have no right to do and wield government to prohibit such a business, anyway. If so, you are violating the liberty of those who want to have that choice, just as those who wish to violate your liberty might do to you.

Americans have forgotten Thomas Jefferson's wisdom: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

If you use government and its "laws" to try to prevent this business, you are not staying within the limits drawn around you by the equal rights of others. You are actively violating the rights of the individual.

.

Yay! I'm "absolutely incredible"!

Oh, wait... "an absolutely incredible idiot".

I observed:

If you claim to want liberty, and oppose a big, powerful central government, but you want the "borders" closed and the "illegals" deported, you need to decide which side you are on, because you are holding two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time. You can't have both.

It created a lot of discussion. But it also drew this (fourth comment down):

Click to be able to read it

Missed it by that much.

-

Rattle, rattle...

Worshiping at the Churchstate... or is it the Statechurch?

Church and State. Ugh. What a combination.

The State- by which I mean the bad guys who try to control your life while claiming they are "government"- has used religion as a tool, a wedge, against people like you and me for as long as there has been both church and state.

Rulers figured out they could do all sorts of horrible things to individuals and, as long as the violations were what religious people thought their church and/or deity wanted, they faced no serious opposition. All sorts of anti-sex "laws" and prohibitions against ingestion are clear illustrations of this fact.

Of course, then religious people also figured out that they could become "government" and impose their religious notions on those who didn't share them- thus gaining even more power for the religion and for themselves- with the willing complicity of almost everyone of the same religion. The "conservative Christians" have gotten this tactic down to an art. But they don't have a monopoly on it, either. (It just seems that way where I live.)

-

Rattle, rattle...

Meddling meddlers

It is so stupid that two people can choose to do something and some third party can pretend to have a say in it.

This comes into play in so many different areas of life. Not only where "The State" is concerned.

This belief interferes in trade, relationships, "immigration", and so many other areas of life.

Mind your own business.

-

Rattle, rattle...

Desperation leads to pedestal monsters

Many people are so desperate for a leader they believe will "represent" their "values" they grasp at anyone who utters anything they can hold on to, and start promoting him (or her) as the Chosen One for the next election. I think that's really sad.

One case in point is the "conservatives", especially the deeply "Christian"/religious ones, I see pushing Dr. Ben Carson. As if he's a conservative.

He says the right religious things to appeal to a certain segment of the "Christian conservative" community, and he's apparently physically attractive to many v*ters, but he's an anti-liberty bigot. Specifically, and very tellingly, he's against guns in your hands. In some instances. Sure, he weasel-words his way around the issue, but at its core, that's his "belief".

As L. Neil Smith points out, the "gun issue" is like an X-ray right into the deepest, darkest recesses of a politician's mind. If he doesn't respect your absolute human right to own and to carry any gun you want, openly or concealed, everywhere you go, without ever asking anyone's permission, then he would rather you die than be able to defend himself from bad guys. Including cops and politicians. If he values a cop's or politician's life more than he values yours, which is what he is telling you when he has "reservations" about gun ownership and possession, then he is nothing but a government elitist. A pro-government extremist. He's not on your side.

Any comforting religious things he says should not make you ignore that fact. He doesn't care if you die for lack of adequate self defense tools, so he is not "pro-life".

I wish people would finally accept the fact that they don't "need" a political leader. All those you set up on a pedestal are monsters of one sort or another.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

America, the sociopathic

OK, a "country" can't be sociopathic. Not really. Because a "country" only exists in your mind. The society- meaning the aggregate of all the individuals- which prevails in that country can certainly display sociopathic traits. Yes, the below is simplistic, but it should be enough to show you some obvious things you may not have noticed before.

Psychopaths are fearless; sociopaths aren’t. Psychopaths don’t have a sense of right and wrong; sociopaths do. (From here)

Sociopaths experience fear. Like "most Americans"? Of foreigners, terrorists, people who don't go along with the status quo, of guns and knives and drugs and sex and a lack of a master? And then they get together and make up rules based on their fears- their cowardice.

Sociopaths - have a moral code, but it may be screwed up. Such as not following the ZAP, but some inconsistent code instead, and thinking that things they know to be wrong are right if done by government. If that's not a screwed up moral code...

So, yeah, if "America" were a person, that person would be a sociopath. I'd like to change that.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

Patrick J. Buchanan's "THE BRAZIL OF NORTH AMERICA"- my comments

Someone posted a link to this in the comments of a recent post. I said I'd make some comments on it- I realize this is way longer than I'd really want to read if I were you.

Buchanan is one of the most blind statists I ever encounter- not realizing he is a clone of Pelosi and Obama in the ways that actually matter. As long as Big Government is doing what he likes, he loves it. Only whining when it doesn't go his way. Kinda sickening to me.

Anyway, here goes:

"...by faithfully following the tenets of liberalism, the West would embrace suicidal policies that would bring about the death of her civilization." 

It figures that he would see anything that he doesn't like as "liberalism". And, when anyone starts speaking of a country as "her"- personifying it- you know you're in for a wacky ride.

 "The crisis on our Southern border, where the left, and not only the left, is wailing that we cannot turn away desperate people fleeing wicked regimes and remain true to our liberal values, is a case in point."

"Our southern border"? I have borders all around my property, but none of them are shared by Patrick, so there are no borders he can call "ours".

Big Government caused a huge majority of the problem- through the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, and by propping up the notion of Statism around the world. You helped create those people's desperation through policies you support and advocate.

 It has nothing to do with "liberal values", which, just like "conservative values", I think are mostly imaginary anyway. It has to do with being a decent person. With being the "Good Samaritan". No, it doesn't mean give them welfare- it just means don't treat them as inhuman herd animals and drive them... where exactly, I don't know. Most of them probably have nowhere to go "back" to. Not your problem, I guess, but it is a reality you might need to eventually face.

If someone wishes to let them rent or live in a house consensually, accept that it is none of your business. If someone wishes to hire them; same deal. Liberty, not "laws".

 "To assert that we cannot take all these people in, that we must send them back and seal out border for our survival, is to be called a variety of names — racist, xenophobe, nativist — all of which translate into 'illiberal.'" 

 No, it's illegal. The Constitution gives government zero "authority" to seal the borders or tell people they can't move here. Zero. That authority ONLY lies with each and every individual who controls his own, personal, private property. Giving "government" the power to violate those property rights is a socialistic power-grab, and is unconstitutional. Once again, he wants to see things as "liberal" or not, and misses reality completely because of his blindness.

Then he goes off about "diversity", which isn't the point, but is something he apparently hates and fears.

"And after the terrible ethnic cleansing of Germans after World War II, most of Europe’s nations were ethnically homogeneous." 

What? Does he sound nostalgic for ethnic cleansing?

 "Several were not. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the USSR. At the end of the Cold War, with freedom, all three came apart." 

Yes, freedom does that- it kills states and breaks them into manageable pieces. That's because states are centralized and inherently anti-freedom. Secession decentralizes, which is what is desperately needed after the MegaState-Building carnival of the 20th Century. The more states die in this way, the better off individual liberties- on the whole- will be.

 "Then there are the rising millions of Muslims in Europe who are not assimilating, as Catholic Irish and Catholic Germans did in a Protestant USA..." 

Which is only a problem when foolish people insist on keeping a State around, which invariably gets used against individual liberty. What do you care what religion the guy across town follows, unless he is able to use the power of the State to impose his beliefs on you? Guess what- it goes both ways, and you don't see that you have been using the state to impose your religious notions on others all along. That should wake people up... but it rarely does. Denial is powerful.

 "Thus, we take on the aspect of an empire. And empires fall apart." 

Pretty sure the fault for having an empire lies with the US government and the way it has been throwing its military around all over the world. But blame others if it makes you feel better.

 "The melting pot, rejected by our elites as an instrument of nativist bigots, is history." 

Why do you listen to "elites"? What are their "elite" credentials?

I see the "melting pot" still in operation among recent immigrants every day. But, if you try to force them to assimilate, you only make them balk. Invite them; don't shove them and make up "laws" to try to force them to assimilate in the ways you'd prefer. You'll just make them dig in their heels and fight your efforts. It's another way you're shooting yourself in the foot.

"Disintegration, separatism and secessionism, for racial, religious, and cultural causes, are a phenomenon common now to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Are we somehow immune?"

 Good! And I hope "we" aren't immune!

 "Why are we doing this? Why are we inviting the world into the USA?:" 

"We" aren't. Eliminate ALL forms of welfare for everyone, and you may not be "inviting" the ones who would be a problem. Stop criminalizing self defense and the effective weaponry to carry it out- no more "gun free zones" and no more "laws" against possession or anything else- and the rest of the problem- "the criminals"- goes away, too. Admitting that you can't ethically wall-in a "country" or enforce counterfeit "laws" against migrants isn't the same as inviting them in. And, of course, end the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and you'll solve a lot of the problems that make them want to leave their homes to begin with.

 "By 2042, Americans of European ancestry will be a minority in a country built by Europeans." 

So? Nothing ever stays the same. Adapt. Or find a new place to make how you want it. It's past time for a new frontier anyway. Ignore the "laws" that keep you on earth- and emigrate. Or build (or buy) a new country where you own the whole area and can screen out those whom you don't want there. If "everyone" is coming here, go where they left and buy up the land and start over from scratch and do it "better" this time- learning from past mistakes. You could even make up a constitution which allows you to close your "borders" if you want- just use the US Constitution with that added to it somewhere. 

"...that would mean the end of the United States as we know it."

Good. Since the war between the states there hasn't been much worth saving- ethically- anyway. 

"Americans are already deep in a culture war over morality — marijuana, abortion, same-sex marriage." 

That's just a war over who gets to control your life- you or everyone else (disguised as "government")? And Patrick is on the Evil side of that one, too.

 "We are already racially polarized over affirmative action and income inequality." 

Only because people pretend those are legitimate areas to meddle in and make up "laws" concerning. They aren't, but once you embrace statism for some things, this is what comes along for the ride.

 "And when we have ceased to be an English-speaking, Christian country and become instead an Asian-Hispanic-African-American-white nation, with large Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic and atheist minorities, and no defined borders, or common faith and culture, what holds us together?" 

Who knows? Something might, or might not. And it doesn't matter. Forcing people "together" who don't want to be together is a bad idea. I have nothing in common with the Rulers of places like Chicago or New York, or those who want to impose Christian Sharia Law around here, and yet I'm told I am part of the same culture because "we are all Americans". Bull Pucky. Voluntary association works, pretending that I have anything in common with anti-liberty bigot voters in Big Cities or in this area doesn't. And it never will. There is no "America", there are individuals- some of whom don't appreciate having anti-liberty rules imposed on them just because "One Size Fits All" as long as "we're all America!"

 "And when did we vote for this future?" 

When? LOL! Every single time you voted, that's when. That's where statism inevitably leads.

That article was just one gigantic celebration of Statism, wallowing in denial about where it always leads, and what the solution is. He is so afraid of liberty he can't see the solution is some of the very things he was decrying.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

Suicide and guns

Yes, it's an unpleasant topic.

Is suicide by gun a "misuse" of a gun?

You have every right to end your own life. In some cases- very few- I can even imagine it being the best thing to do.

You have a right to use your own tools to do what you do, as long as you don't violate anyone else. So, don't commit suicide on other people's property and be aware of what's beyond your target. And make sure the gun is unlikely to be picked up and used by an irresponsible person after you are done with it. No, don't consider this a lesson in "how to".

But, to say using a gun to do what you have a right to do, and even to kill someone who is a credible threat to your person or property- which you could be- is a "misuse" of a gun... I'm not sure about that. It seems like that's a case of using it in a way it is designed to be used.

The people who don't want you to kill yourself might disagree, of course. Your death would probably make them extremely sad. Do they own you? Does the State own you? Who has a prior claim* on your life?

In any case, I don't think anti-gun "statistics" should count suicide as a "misuse of a gun". But I know they will continue to do so. Dishonestly.

-

*Sure, some religions would claim a deity owns you, but if that's the case that deity has a responsibility to keep its property well cared for- even if the property does stupid things and causes its own problems. If your dog gets tangled up in its collar through its own stupidity, it's still your responsibility to rescue it and fix its injuries, isn't it. I know- it's standard procedure to excuse the deity for anything and put the responsibility for the problems back on the human. Which kinda brings us back to the beginning of this circle. And anything which just takes you in a circle can probably be safely ignored in this current case.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

One chance only

I've known ex bad guys who are now good guys. Even some ex cops.

It's why I'm willing to forgive as long as a bad guy reforms and never again initiates force or theft. I'm not in favor of spending my time tracking down former bad guys- especially if the former State has collapsed and there's a free society. They lost- move on and enjoy the freedom, and don't dwell on the past.

I roll my eyes at those hunting down geriatric old former Nazis. I am not in favor of revenge or vigilantism.

That doesn't mean that if a former bad guy falls back into his old ways he gets a pass. Use whatever force is necessary to stop him- even if he dies. Wipe the slate clean, but don't ignore new violations.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

Society exists in spite of the state

Society exists in spite of the state

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 13, 2014)

Power, organization, and direction. Many people seem to feel these are good attributes to always be encouraged, but they miss the destructive potential these very same qualities possess in many situations.

Think of tornadoes, for example.

Tornadoes have plenty of power, organization, and direction, but are lacking both wisdom and ethics based on the fundamental principle of never harming the innocent or their property.

The same can be said for the state. Running roughshod over people and their property, without their explicit consent, no matter what force is doing it, is never good.

When people face the choice of whether or not to join a powerful, organized, and directed force- and choose to do it without an absolute commitment to never use that force to violate the rightful liberty of any other person- they are worse than a tornado. While the tornado is a mindless, amoral force of nature, the person has consciously chosen to be actively promoting evil.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in "Our enemy, the State", the aforementioned state- what many people equate with government- is the polar opposite of society. The two sit on opposite sides of a delicate balance and are mutually exclusive. The more of a state you tolerate, the less of your society survives. Society and civilization don't exist because of the state, but in spite of it.

States are estimated to have killed over 170 million non-military individuals in the 20th Century alone- and that's the low-end estimate. Just imagine how many tornadoes it would take to equal government's body count. It's a legacy of death and destruction no other group of terrorists or individual murderers could ever dream of approaching, even if they all managed to have free reign with little chance of being stopped. That kind of destruction requires the power, organization, and direction of states. And it's not civilized.

All states have power; too much of it by any rational measure. They are organized- against individual liberty. And they have direction- even if some parts appear to be pulling against other parts, the main thrust is always toward more power and more organization for the state, and toward unifying the direction of the pull.

Individuals must choose to never, under any pretext or justified by any job, use force against those who are not physically attacking them nor violating their property, in order to make power, organization, and direction work for good. It makes all the difference in the world, and is something anyone can choose.

Just because tornadoes have always existed, and probably always will, it is no reason to embrace them, defend them, or try to unleash more of them.

.

Importing new Democrats? Or creating them?

"Conservatives" yapping about "illegals" sound just as dumb as "liberals" droning on about guns.

But consider this: "Conservatives" say they oppose the independent migrants because they are being imported (or allowed to enter) to become "new Democratic voters". Well, who do you think they'd vote for? The people who are "welcoming" them with hatred, calling them "illegals", and waving the Federal flag in their faces?

Sure, it would be better if they refused to play the political game at all. It would also be better if there were no welfare for anyone to become dependent upon, and no "offices" to vote any parasites and tyrants into.

But consider who immigrants are inevitably going to see as the ones on their side. Consider who they'll end up being exposed to in a positive way. It's not going to be the "conservatives".

If you want new immigrants to become more like you, treat them with respect. If you don't want them to slip into the arms of your ideological enemies, then don't drive them there. Give them a chance. Encourage them to be independent and self-reliant. Lead by example and kindness.

Treating them like scum is guaranteeing the outcome you claim to fear. A self-fulfilling prediction. And unless you are as deeply in denial as those you rail against, you have to see how much of the responsibility is yours.

.

Being predictable

Do you imagine me to be a difficult, grouchy person? Sometimes I wonder if I come across that way.
I don't think I am... with some exceptions.

I'm very nice and friendly to people who are not trying to violate me- or arguing that violating me is good.

However, I won't stay silent when someone is happily relating some exciting new scheme for violating me or others. And, there does seem to be a lot of that around.

I know some people around me roll their eyes and think (or say) "there he goes again" when they have casually mentioned some new "law" or a victim of some "law"- and they aren't condemning that "law". Well, keep your "laws" to yourself and I'll never find a reason to mention liberty or say your "laws" are evil and stupid.

I really would prefer to never think about, much less speak of, "government", politicians, "laws", or things of that sort. And, I usually don't on my own. But, don't bring it up in my presence and insist I not point out the evil of that which you support. It ain't gonna happen.

Although, I would like to try the opposite approach sometime. When someone advocates a new "law" or expresses support for some current "law", I should enthusiastically suggest enforcing it with an immediate death penalty. "Close the borders? Yes! And forget the border wall- let's build a nuclear bomb booby trap mine field all along the border! That'll show 'em! I'll bet Brewer and Perry could buy plenty of nukes from former Soviet serfdoms! They can charge a big tax on Mexican food to finance the program!"

I wonder what they'd think of that sort of reaction.

.

Shaneen Allen: Innocent by virtue of "Shall NOT be infringed"

I was asked to share this blog post, and I'm happy to do so.

New Jersey’s Gun Laws: Taking Innocent Single Mothers Away From Their Children

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession"- of anything, and especially not guns. This woman is being made a political prisoner. She did nothing wrong as far as I can tell from this case. "Routine traffic stops" are a gross violation of the human right to travel without molestation, so the cop was the bad guy right from the start. Then he chose to escalate his evil to a new level.

This is what happens when you expect cops to do the right thing. NEVER trust cops. NEVER offer any information- or even speak to them. And in every way possible, shun them completely in your personal life.

I wish Ms. Allen the best, but I fear for her safety in the hands (and cages) of the bad guys who call themselves The State.

.

Selective outrage

If you support any "victimless crime laws" then your support inevitably leads to people being kidnapped and jailed for things like collecting their own rain runoff.

You can't have the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or anti-sex "laws", or "drivers licenses" without making it "OK" to violate people for other things that are none of anyone else's business.

So, next time you get infuriated over someone being "arrested" and punished for something you know is absolutely ridiculous, take a moment to remember and consider the victims of the counterfeit "laws" you still support.

.

Admiration is earned. Or not.

From time to time I get a comment that asks this question: "Isn't there any country or government anywhere in the world you admire?"

What an odd question.

Not long ago I countered by asking the commenter "Is there any rapist you admire?"

Because, for me, the answer is obvious. How can you admire something that is not admirable? Something which has no admirable qualities at all? If, by "country", you mean a political region.

If you mean the individuals, the land, the natural wonders, my friends and family who live there- then, sure, I love and admire America. Because I know the place. Nationalists would be shocked, but I am sure I would feel the same no matter where I had been born and raised. (So I am not surprised, jealous, or angry when others express the same about their "country".)

My admiration is reserved for those people and things which have earned it.

But, if you mean the political region, then NO. There is nothing to admire.

Same with all governments. Government is based on theft and aggression, so how can I admire one?

.

Why bother with the ceremony, then?

I recently attended a wedding. I was dismayed at how much weight the preacher who was performing it placed upon the licensing and other "official" recognitions. Even going so far as to talk about them during the ceremony- something I have never heard done before. Is this a new thing?

Sure, he talked about how the couple desired more than just the "legal" recognition, and that's why they chose the religious ceremony (and the associated fortune spent), but he kept emphasizing the "license" and "legal" aspects as if the ceremony were a mere show, and the actual marriage only hinged upon the State's blessing.

I guess that's why some make such a huge deal out of the gay marriage thing. After all, if the religious ceremony is that unimportant to the reality of the marriage, even to the religious, then what is left? Only the State's blessing.

If you tell me you are married, that is all the confirmation I need. If you choose to make it any of my business. I will never ask to see your permits. What sort of idiot would?

Never invite The State into your marriage! That's a threesome you really don't need.

.

Cops are certainly "committed" to the "job"...

When people do something wrong, they are often said to have "committed" an act. A person can "commit murder", "commit an armed robbery" or "commit a kidnapping", but I've never heard anyone say "commit a rescue" or "commit a birthday party".

Which makes me think I will specify that all acts of cop are "committed". Cops will "commit an arrest", "commit enforcement", or "commit a traffic stop" because those acts are bad, and cops are bad guys. It makes perfect sense to me.

.

The "Thin Blue Line" vs Liberty

Liberty will eventually need to tear through the "Thin Blue Line" if it is to survive and thrive. Accept it. There is no other enemy capable of doing so much to violate Rightful Liberty, and at some point that enemy will have to be faced and dealt with- it would be nice to believe they could be reasoned out of their evil.

Illustration and idea by George Tirebiter. Commentary by me.

.

Pageant winners

The time is coming when you will be encouraged to add your tiny, insignificant vote to an avalanche of other insignificant votes so a new crop of rulers can be selected to meddle in your private affairs and find new and exciting ways to steal from you- and decide they need to steal more and more.

Yep, elections are coming.

Maybe instead of calling this nasty ritual an "election", we should call it something more accurate. Something like a pageant of slavery.

The control freaks would call you crazy for calling it that.

.

Ideals didn’t change, Americans did

Ideals didn’t change, Americans did

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 6, 2014)

How did the ideals America was founded upon- even if they were always imperfectly implemented- become so misunderstood and reviled by the majority of Americans? How did these principles become "radical", "extreme", and frightening? Or even "terrorism"?

How did false safety and socialistic collectivism become the default position of both the left and the right, and how did self reliance become suspicious?

The ideals didn't change; Americans did. One individual at a time. Through intentional mis-education, fear mongering, scapegoating, and more.

There isn't anything libertarians advocate which would have been foreign or antithetical to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin, yet people who believe themselves to be honoring the memories of those men recoil in horror at some of the ideas and opinions presented. Does that not seem strange?

The root of those horrifying ideas is that identical human rights abide in every single person, everywhere on the planet, from birth. Those rights did not come from government, but pre-existed even the very first government ever imagined, and are independent of government approval, citizenship, or culture. Those rights trump any rules, ordinances, or "laws" ever made up. Legislation- the name for those made up "laws"- is not Law, but is often in direct opposition to Natural Law.

No official position or "job" can grant extra rights, carve out exceptions to the fundamental human rights of any opponent, nor grant a license to violate even the most "minor" right of the "least important" person you may encounter.

A demand or a requirement that violates those rights is null and void. You may still find it safer to comply in the face of armed enforcers, but the demand is never legitimate; you have been violated by common thugs with uncommon immunity from consequences.

As have we all.

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden recently said something that could have come straight from the writings of any of the most heroic of America's founders: "Sometimes to do the right thing, you have to break a law." He's right, and unfortunately, it's getting even more true with every passing day. Yet, those who pretend to revere the founders of America are those most likely to want to see Snowden's head on a pike. He exposed those who are the real enemies of liberty, but has become a Rorschach test to winnow the collectivists and nationalists from the lovers of liberty.

My only complaint is that he, like so many others, worked for the wrong side before realizing it was a mistake and turning around.

America's founders would approve of his actions, since they did similarly "illegal", but right, things in pursuit of liberty and in opposition to tyrants. Does that frighten you?
.