Slashdot Mirror
NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums
An anonymous reader writes "The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require operators of public forums to collect users' legal names and addresses, and effectively disallow anonymous speech on online forums. This raises some serious issues, such as to what extent local and state governments can go in enacting and enforcing Internet legislation."
First post! (Soon to be illegal)
Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi: Come off it, Mr. Coward! You can't stand in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square indefinitely! This law for the information superhighway has got to be built, and it's going to be built!
Anonymous Coward: Why's it got to be built?
Biondi: What do you mean "why"? It's a law! You've got to pass laws! You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time, you know.
Anonymous Coward: Appropriate time?! The first I knew about it was when you pre-filed Assembly Bill No. 1327, the cops showed up and they said they were ready to come and take me away!
Biondi: Have you any idea how much damage the government would suffer if we just let the law roll straight over you?
Anonymous Coward: No, how much?
Biondi: None at all.
Vogon: Apathetic bloody citizenry. I've no sympathy at all.
"In other news, roads became congested today as a wave of trucks was seen hauling piles of servers across the New Jersey state line..."
Beautiful Blueberries
An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
/>
Comes a vacuum, as posters retreat who aren't criminals but have reasonable fears of retribution, and a clear need for anonymity...
<grrr
...unless it can be enforced.
My fear about unenforceable laws such as this one is the true power behind the law. Sure, it will be hard to enforce, but the powers the State will request to try to enforce it will play directly into the hands of those willing to finance the system.
Anonymous posting is harmless, yet un criminalizing it I can easily see how it can play into the hands of the RIAA and the MPAA -- giving them (and others) greater power in their cartels.
So you have to get proof of ID? Nice. Now, how do you do that? By sending a copy of your passport to a forum admin? Great, thanks for opening a new and interesting opportunity for Nigeria scammers. Don't have to send lengthy mails around, all you need now is his bank account, you already got the harder to get part.
Will I provide my real name if no such proof of ID is required? Hardly. And who would take it upon himself to prove that I am really myself? Hell, you can register DNS entries with fake IDs, do you really think your neighborhood forum admin will go to greater lengths than companies making some bucks with holding databases of their users?
But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board. Now, ain't this great? Sure, you can't shut people up, first amendment and all that. But you can make sure nobody dares to offer services that would allow you to execute said right. No board, no discussion, no dissent.
Less direct than China, but by no means less efficient. You can't shut them up per se, but cover them in enough red tape that they can't go to the lengths required to stay out of harm's way and shut up "voluntarily". Either you can sink enough money into the identification process of your users to make SURE they are who they claim to be, or you can just as well shut down your board because you can't afford the lawsuits that just might spring up when someone dares to say a word someone important doesn't enjoy hearing.
Yes, yes, I can understand that it's not cool to hear slander and libel on boards. But the tools to get the person under your thumb are already here. IP logs exist, trace them to their source and you got who you need. Case closed.
So what for do you need the poster ID?
*sigh*
Let's hope our clever and very smart politicians never find out something like the usenet even exists.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Instead of anonymous users, you'll have:
Name: Hugh Jass.
Address: 123 Fake Street.
Email: yourmomma@home.com
Brilliant idea!
Many of them posted handbills - anonymously - at public places.
...
Some of them posted scurious tracts arguing for Common Sense and other radical ideas, many using pen names (the same as anonymous postings).
I for one welcome our Thought Police Masters and bow to them in the East five times a day
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
of America flushing itself down the toilet of total fucking irrelevance.
I was skiing this week with a friend of mine who manages a half-billion dollar investment fund. His skepticism about the US was withering. It will not be very long before the world economy interprets America, with its spaghetti of ludicrous, paranoiac IT legislation, DMCA bullshit and general hostility towards 'the other', as damage, and routes around it.
Maybe the last person in the US with a job which does not involve burgers could turn out the lights.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
...that more people aren't posting as Anonymous Cowards under this topic.
Might want to remind the New Jersey legislature that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
At least with the First Amendment, they can get out of it by saying "It says "CONGRESS" shall make no law, not New Jersey."
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I don't think they'd be happy.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca-sub/faq.cgi#QI D508
Anonymous pamphleteering is protected under the first ammendment. There are a number of cases that set a precident for this. For this NJ law to stand would fundamentally change the law of the land.
So, only people whose IP says they are from NJ will be forced to register.
The result?
- People in NJ who want to remain anonymous to do obnoxious postings will use a proxy
- The people who will be hassled and thus pissed off? The people who live in NJ and are not doing obnoxious postings.
Way to bring home the vote fellas - by pissing off all your constitients.
This is silly. The New Jersey Supreme Court has already decided that citizens of New Jersey enjoy a strong First Amendment right to anonymity in their online postings.
I doubt this bill even gets out of committee, let alone gets passed by the NJ Assembly so that it can be immediately struck down by a NJ judge. As for why, then, a hopeless, pointless bill was introduced by Assemblyman Biondi -- mmmm, maybe he's got an election coming up? Needs to do a little grandstanding?
I own a website with forums, and, while I don't accept anonymous posts at all, I do have a userbase from the entire world. If I'm in Tennessee, and my server is in Atlanta, how would this affect me? Would I have to collect everyone's information to comply with this law (that only affects NJ)? Would I have to collect names and addresses of only New Jersey residents? Would I have to do anything at all, since I am not in New Jersey? This scares me, because it makes it sound like if I do have to collect these addresses, if someone says "Screw you [insert name here]" and that person sues me, if I don't have the legitimate info to pass off to them, it becomes me who's in the frying pan.
This TERRIFIES me. I should not be held responsible for someone else's stupidity, or this country's obsession with lawsuits.
First up, does anyone have the background to the reasoning behind this? Was there some big case in New Jersey that was predicated on an anonymous post? Or was this the result of a crack-fueled late night in the NJ legislative chamber?
Secondly, if they expect this to pass, how do they expect it to apply? I've heard of the MPAA sending DMCA takedown notices to Swedish websites and such, but how do they expect this legislation to be enforced? Is there method to their madness?
Will they expect any 'internet forum' sites hosted in NJ to require this data? Or US-based sites that [potentially?] cater to NJ users to do this? Or are they ignorant and exepct everyone to follow it? I can see the first and the last being possible explanations, but still...
Regardless, this is an opportunity to send a clear message saying that yes, we actually do want some privacy and anonymity. If it is resoundingly struck down and that its rejection is so reported then other policymakers elsewhere might take the hint. Just maybe.
And if it does pass... well then I'm just glad my hosted websites are located in sunny California!
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
Of course, the Court's membership isn't the same as it was in 1960. The President can appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court. So, who'd you vote for, for president, in 2004?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
It's not unenforceable, it's just unconstitutional, and therefore will not happen.
You may be thinking that New Jersey has no jurisdiction over people who live in other states. Not true. New Jersey asserts jurisdiction over everyone who lives in New Jersey and also everyone who does business in New Jersey, or who materially affects a citizen of New Jersey or the general interests of the citizens of New Jersey.
Hence, if you, Joe Citizen of any U.S. state other than NJ, or even a citizen of another country, do something over the 'net that affects someone in NJ, and is illegal under NJ law, then a NJ court will have no problem issuing a warrant for your arrest. The governor of NJ (or rather one of his underlings in law enforcement) would then issue a request for extradition to your state or country. If that request is granted, then your home state or country arrests you as a courtesy to NJ and (if necessary by force) sends you to NJ to stand trial.
How often is extradition granted? Depends. Between the states of the United States, or between countries of the EU, almost always. For credible accusations of traditional crimes of violence, like murder, rape, arson, or robbery, then again almost always. For nonviolent crimes, and crimes where public policy differs widely, like fraud, child custody violations, or Internet crime such as this one -- all bets are off.
So in this case, you're almost certainly right -- if New Jersey criminalized anonymous posting, I doubt very much if most states in the Union, let alone most Western countries, would honor an extradition request. But as a general rule, you do not escape a state's jurisdiction merely because you don't live there.
My Name is Al Gore, and I live at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, Washington, DC. Happy now?
What happens if I anonymously post on a New Jersey forum from Illinois?
For that matter, what makes it a New Jersey forum? The physical location of the server? The physical location of the forum admins?
And if another state supports anonymous posting, but the anonymous posting happens to be on a NJ server...
Isn't this why the federal government controls interstate relations (i.e., currency)?
Actually, if you're an adult capable of bearing arms, you are a member of the militia. As far as the 1st amendment goes (or the rest of the Bill of Rights for that matter), they are extended to the states through the 14th amendment. Wow, that 1st degree in Political Science, was actually worth something!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Invite-only. So it's no longer "Public".
Thanks, Google...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Some users commit libel/slander, harass, break copyright law, etc. and law enforcement needs a way to be able to get these users.
The same can be said of anonymous pamphlets. The same has been done with anonymous pamphlets.
And yet, anonymous pamphlets have been very specifically ruled to be constititonally protected by the Supreme Court.
The cops' "need" to find people does not supersede the people's right to free expression, even anonymously.
"A well-educated populace being necessary to a nation, the right of citizens to read shall not be infringed."
Using your interpretation of the second amendment, the above sentence would prohibit anyone who isn't well-educated from reading. Also, as the other poster pointed out, "militia" as it is used in the Constitution is a much broader term than you seem to think.
'Tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright!
yr. svnt.
Poor Richard
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Key points of the proposed bill:
So you're covered as long as you have a "registration required to post" setting. As resources are not readily available to give board operators the ability to validate any information submitted, this will be effectively unenforcable.
And this will be enforced... how?
1. By all companies that rent server space moving out of New Jersey.
2. By all websites that allow users to post putting "Persons located in New Jersey are not permitted to comment, because your state's legislators are fools. By hitting submit, I affirm I am not currently located in the State of New Jersey" beside every submit button.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I'm the Commanding Officer of the House Where I Live Militia.
I'm also the Inspector General and Sergeant at Arms. We have very loose naming, but our regulations are otherwise quite strict. Since our membership highly exclusive, our discipline has so far been perfect.
So come get my gun if you want it. Oh, but find me first.
Which is the point: anonymous posting and gun ownership are two sides of the same coin. One is the pen, the other the sword. If New Jersey or Congress try to take away one, they will suffer defeat by the other.
Not only could, it would. What I've been waiting for somebody else to mention is that it also violates the First Amendment, making the bill unconstitutional in two entirely different ways. This bill doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance of making it into law because enough legislators are lawyers that some of them will see how impossible it is. Frankly, I doubt it will ever get to a vote, but be killed in committee.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
It just doesn't seem fair to make people actually admit that they're from New Jersey. Isn't this persection? I mean, think of some poor guy, sitting there of an evening, trying to pick up online, maybe a little bit of troll-on-orc action, when *bam*, the person on the other end figures out that he's from Newark. That guy's just never going to get cyber-ass again.
Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.
Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I'm an adult, physically capable of bearing arms. I am not now, nor will I ever be, a member of a militia- I do not own a gun, I have never fired a gun (outside of a water gun), and I have no wish to train to be a professional killer. I find the very idea insulting and abhorrent. So no, try again.
Actually, I think it just means that you aren't a particularly useful member of the militia. It's sort of like being a member of the citizenry -- just because somebody doesn't vote or participate politically doesn't mean they suddenly stop being a citizen.
Another stupid bill that has essentially zero chance of passing, but which will generate a huge amount of outrage.
Whenever I see a story like this, I always wonder what it is they are trying to distract people away from.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
The militia is any group of able bodied adults.
"Well Regulated" simply means that the militia isn't going around looting, or hanging people without trial, etc.
Have you ever seen an anonymous letter stapled to a telephone pole, slandering someone? You'd like to be able to sue for defamation, but you can't. That's life, it sucks, deal with it. You can't just tack on the words "on the internet" and change things. Of course, that's what this bill is trying to do -- impose an affirmative duty to watch each and every telephone pole and identify the posters by legal name and address.
Now although it's not the main issue, economics should be addressed. Sure, the cost is spread out over all the website operators and not consolidated in the phone company, but the same cost is being imposed nonetheless. Every website operator will now have to 'hire guards' (databases, coding special HTML pages, access restrictions, etc). This makes hosting a public forum more expensive. You might even call it a 'tax' on free speech.
Both from a rights perspective and an economic perspective, this bill stinks.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Think of the children!
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
Wait ... what?
I got something about a camel, and a tent, and campaign financing. Can you run that metaphor by me again?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Oh Wait! There won't be any! Seriously how can this be enforced? Its not like the person running the forums has much control where they are hosted anymore. I host many forums. All of them in another state. Now how can a state I don't pay taxes in impose its will on me?
The Poetry of Google Voice is very strange.
gv-poetry.com
1. Private information is power and control over those individuals to whom that information directly applies.
2. All private information relinquished to the public domain will be used and for whatever purpose and at whatever time as the collector sees fit. The likelihood of that information being used increases the more ardently the collector states that it will not be used. The likelihood of that information being used for nefarious or damaging purposes increases the more ardently the collector states that it will not be used for nefarious or damaging purposes.
3. Private information made public may be rendered inaccurate or irrelevant (by moving, changing phone number, etc.) but may never be assumed to be destroyed.
With these three rules in hand, it is easy to see why governmental authority wishes to have more of your personally identifiable information available at every point where anonymity might be possible: Censure and threat. There is no easier way to make people step and fetch than if you intimate that their words may be used against them. There is no better way to coerce rebellious elements of the society into cowed silence than by taking away their anonymous avenues to lambasting the status quo. Of course, most people don't realize that this sort of law won't protect politicians from remarks such as these. It is a long established precedent that public figures, especially those in the elected service to the people are not protected equally from libel or slanderous speech as private citizens.
Actually, gun control in America was invented by the Klu Klux Klan... they wanted to be able to kill black people without black people being able to fight back, so they pressed for a gun licencing scheme which would exclude blacks, by charging a licence fee too expensive for most of the former-slaves to afford, and just general intimidation in the licencing process.
You see, in history, every oppressed minority, or enslaved group has been denied the right to possess weapons. Traditionaly only the upper classes and ruling classes had been allowed to own weapons and be trained in their use. That is why people many diverse people such as Mohandas Ghandi, George Orwell, Malcom X, all felt that citizens should be allowed to be armed.
The "left" in America is really a politically correct version of the "Right". The reason they want all Americans disarmed, is because they know that every oppressed minority and enslaved group was not allowed to own weapons. They intend to make the citizens slaves while the upper class and the ruling class run our lives from above.
Citizen disarmament is the fundamental first step in despotism and totalitarianism, and no person can be against slavery, genocide, and oppression and support gun control. Citizen disarmenet is the universal first step to facism.
You are a facist and totalitarian... you are either just too smart to admit it, or too dumb to understand it.
To prove it, I'll post my real name & address on Slashdot:
First Name: Cro
Last Name: Magnon
Address: 1234 Inna Cave Dr.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
well then, as a "conscientious objector" you can be a stretcher bearer or corpsman...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I'd be more willing to listen to proposals such as this were the same transparency policies applied to the government as well. Every law, every bill, every proposal, every act accompanied by irrefutable evidence as to who was involved, and when. "National secrets? Sorry, Uncle Sam. If YOU get to keep secrets from your citizens, we get to keep secrets, too. What do I have to hide? Well, if YOU'RE not breaking the law, either, what are you hiding? See? You just made my point for me. There are secrets worth keeping that have nothing to do with hiding criminal activity." And then I woke up from my little nap.
... and I'll say it again
Fucking Jersey.
I love it that people who want to ban firearms always talk about nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs are not a weapon in any conventional sense of the word.
But in regards to nuclear weapons, I support complete nuclear disarmament... If private citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons, then I think governments should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons either. That would avoid any problems of having an "upper class" of the nuclear armed, and a "lower class" of those without nuclear weapons. Since most of the governments on the planet do not have nuclear weapons, and they have only ever been used in war once and it was generally considered a bad idea, there is no reason to believe that nuclear disarmament isn't possible. But even if we accepted the unlikely and a bit silly situation that people would want or could even afford privately owned nuclear weapons, do you think that is some how more dangerous than Bush and Putin having nuclear weapons?
However, I don't see how it would be practicle, or desirable, to eliminate firearms. Firearms are useful for law enforcement, protecting national borders, defense against wild animals, personal defense against criminals, armed revolution against facist governments, sport and hunting, etc., etc... Since we need firearms, they should not be controlled only by an elite ruling class, they should be the property of all the people. An armed population can replace a professional army, and eliminate the danger that a defensive military can be used for imperialism and agression. An armed population can also be the final defense against despotism or government sponsered genocide - if the people are armed, you can have a people's revolution and overthrow the government.
So, my views on weapons, the Constitution, and the views of great advocates of freedom (such as the ones I gave, Ghandi, Malcom X, George Orwell, who were all against gun control), are all very consistant. Gun control, and disarmament of the people is not only reasonable and safe... it is not only completly consistant with the idea that people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but it is the most important right of all - because an armed population is the final guardian off all democracy and all other rights.
Like I said, those who are for gun control, are for totalitarianism. They are either too smart to admit it, or too stupid to understand it.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but our country was founded in part by the reaction to anonymous letters printed in the Colonial newspapers by our Founding Fathers. So banning anonymous speech is utterly unamerican.
I have spent a good part of today deliberating on this story and have constructed a carefully reasoned and highly cogent argument against the bill. It follows in the next paragraph.
Fuck that noise.
I feel that my reasoning is plain and does not require explanation.
For those with questions I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the Colonial Revolution of 1776.
It is no coincidence that the GOP leader of the New Jersey Assembly introduced this law. It goes right back to the 2002 lawsuit (Donato v. Moldow) against EyeOnEmerson.com in which four Republicans LOST their libel suit against the website over anonymous comments they disliked.
N.J. judge dismisses lawsuit over anonymous Web site criticism
New Jersey Court of Appeals rules for EyeOnEmerson website
"It is far from over," said Jack Darakjy, the attorney representing the plaintiffs. "We will appeal the decision. If we need to, our clients are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."
Or, if you are politically connected in New Jersey, maybe you just go to your party and get them to take up your crusade.
I propose "Brandon's Law"...
As an online discussion of anything privacy-related grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving RIAA or the MPAA approaches 1.
See also Godwin's Law...
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
By today's definitions, the founding fathers of the USA would have been terrorists, or at the least, insurgents. This legislation is designed to suppress anonyous writing, which may cause people to Think Too Much, which is going to be outlawed soon.
But, if you think about it, these folks are trying to help protect us. The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So, take away the freedoms, you take away the reason for the terrorists to hate us. You take away their reason to be terrorists.
All this is part of the brilliant War On Terror.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Guy Fawkes day isn't until November.
Mod parent up. It's also a violation, IMHO, of the First, Fourth (right to privacy) and 14th Ammendmants to the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).
I have long been of the opinion that we need to add an explicit right to anonymity to the constitution, to include both intellectual anonymity [e.g. the right to post anonymously on the internet, or the right to send anonymous SMTP traffic, or the right to publish books or other works under a pseudonym], but also to include a right to practical anonymity: The right to cross state borders anonymously, the right to drive a car anonymously [without e.g mandated big-brother toll-road RFID shiznat], the right to a non-traceable currency [such as classical, NON-RFID'ed paper bills and metal coins, as opposed to traceable VISA/Mastercard/Discover transactions], the right to send mail [or packages] anonymously, etc etc etc.
Hell, I'd go so far as a right to give birth anonymously: Did you know that nowadays little newborn babies "have" to get SSID#s? What the fuck does a newborn baby need an SSID# for?
It's enough to make you want to move to the wilds of Montana and go completely off-grid. Just disappear from "mainstream" society altogether. Give birth to little babies and never even register them with the state. Homeschool. Conveniently forget to file income taxes. Tell the state to go fuck itself.
Hell, that's basically what all these Mexican illegals are doing, and if 40 million of them can do it, then why can't I?
The term "well regulated militia" has never really been defined anywhere.
... Whenever
... Notwithstanding
... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the
Then you have never consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, where the term "well regulated" is defined in exactly the way the U.S. Army uses the term today. A soldier learns to "regulate" his rifle by learning how to operate the rifle, set the sights and shoot accurately.
As for "militia", the law has already been posted in this thread. Unless you're female and not in the national guard, incapable, under 17 or over 45, you're in the militia. That's the law.
Goodness, where to begin with the rest...
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to
arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
"A militia, when properly formed, Are in fact the people themselves...
and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters
from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army
upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor
debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750,
August 17, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to
any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in
the United States"
-- Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principals of
the Federal Constitution.", in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on
the Constitution of the United States, at 56 (New York, 1888).
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government
to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable
to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of
citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use
of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation.
the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe,
which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist
Paper No. 46. at 243-244
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright
of an American
hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust
in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by
the General Government; but the best security of that right after all
is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has
always distinguished the free citizens of these states...Such men form
the best barrier to the liberties of America."
-- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as th
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics