Mediaboss Marketing

The United States Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit has struck down a regulation requiring ordinary citizens to register drone aircraft.

The May 19 decision stated that the Federal Aviation Administration did not have the authority to regulate model aircraft.

Prior to the ruling, the FAA told the appeals court, it would threaten the safety of the national airspace system if they were to do away with the registration requirement. The reasoning for its nullification was in reference to the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama. The law had a rule which stated that the FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.

All citizens who wish to legally fly a drone are required to pay a $5 fee and register the drone with their name, email address, and home address. They also have to place a registration sticker on the drone with a unique identifying number. This regulation has been in place since 2015.

Failure to comply with the registration would result in up to a $250,000 fine as well as up to three years in prison. The registration must be redone every three years in order to remain compliant. Commercial drones were already under a different set of rules. Currentlythere are about 550,000 registered drones in the USA.

In response to the outcome of the case with the appellate court, the FAA had stated that they are carefully reviewing the US Court of Appeals decision as it relates to drone registrations. The FAA put registration and operational regulations in place to ensure that drones are operated in a way that is safe and does not pose security and privacy threats. We are in the process of considering our options and response to the decision.

The reaction to the decisionregarding the FAA drone regulationmade by the US court of appeals was met with mixed reactions. Those against it said the registration was worthwhile to provide some accountability for individuals who could be reckless and endangering others, whereas the hobbyists, includingJohn Taylor who filed the suit, stated the registration requirement was a burden on hobbyists that Congress did not want to create.

He also stated in an interview with Market Watchthatas of today, no American has been seriously injured by hobby drones, they may get cuts or bruises, but look at ATVs and watercraft, where dozens are killed every year. Its all a reaction to new technology. People are afraid of drones because theyre something new. I just dont see that the risk justifies the action that has been taken over the last 100 years around model aircraft.

The reality of all this fear mongering by government officials is that this is the natural response to all new technology as detailed in aWired Magazinearticle titledWhy the US Government Is Terrified of Hobbyist Dronesas well as Tech Republics12 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones.Love them or hate them, they will be here to stay.

It should be noted, however, that the ruling is not yet enforced as the court gave the FAA seven days to consider their current legal options.

Photo: Sukie Kim

This post was written by Alon Ganon.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Knowledge of Mac, GNU/Linux, Windows but preferring to use GNU/Linux. Bitcoin user and expert, Cyber Punk, Minarchist libertarian, Businessman, Firearm lover, Constitutionalist, and a supporter of Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).Businessman and IT Contractor by trade available for hire. Specializing in Medical, Dental, and Small Business IT solutions https://alonganon.info

Like Loading...

Read this article:
Appellate Court Lets Your Drone GoUnregistered - Being Libertarian

According to Zach Foster, International Libertarian activist, the Cuban Libertarian Party spokesman Nelson Rodriguez Chartrand was kidnapped by theCubanPolice. the State Security shows he is not in the records. Chartrand will either be held hostage or sent to the gulag. According to Mises Cuba, Chartrand was scheduled to meet up at the Benjamin Franklin Libertarian Library but never made it. This is not uncommon and is actually a norm for the states treatment of political prisoners.

In fact, the Cuban Libertarian Party (Partido Libertario Cubano- Jose Marti) was founded after two members of Mises Cuba were arrested for promoting free markets, small governments, and freedom. According to Tho Bishop, Director of Social Media Marketing at the Mises Institute:

[Ubaldo Herrera] Hernandez, who also oversees the Benjamin Franklin Libertarian Library project, was charged with the crime of attack, a common charge for political opponents. According to Mises Cuba and the PanAmPost, Hernandez was arrested after refusing to show ID to an undercover officer working for state security forces.

The Chair of the Libertarian National Committee has come out in defense of the two activists and said: Hernandez and Velazquez are political prisoners whose actions have harmed no one and damaged no property. We stand in solidarity with our fellow freedom fighters in Cuba.

A further message from the Libertarian Party States:

The Libertarian National Committee of the United States condemns the arrest and detention of political dissidents Ubaldo Herrera Hernandez and Manuel Velazquez, who have been detained by the Cuban government since their arrest on February 2.

Minutes after the passing of Fidel Castro, many world leaders came out to praise the communist dictator, and now with a little exposure we are coming to see the realities that these brave Cubans face.

You can message the Cancilleria de Cuba on Facebook or tweet them at @CubaMINREX. Right now letting them know that the world is watching could potentially help. Often it is public exposure that canstop the abuse of civil liberties or actually save lives.

Here is the original post:
Spokesman Of The Cuban Libertarian Party Kidnapped By State Police - The Liberty Conservative

Nassim Taleb, hedge-fund adviser and author of The Black Swan, may be a prophet of doom when it comes to the perilous state of financial markets, but, in a rare splash of cheer, he says hes optimistic about the future overall.

He recently went on Ron Pauls Liberty Report to spread his rosy view of what lies ahead, which he described as a libertarians dream:

So what needs to be destroyed, exactly?

Taleb, like the man he supports in the White House, probably wouldnt miss the New York Times NYT, +0.00% too much if it were to disappear.

We have today so many people sitting in the New York Times Washington office, in an air-conditioned office, who can dictate foreign policy with zero risk, he said.

Taleb added that we are no longer victims of the New York Times, thanks in part to Twitters role in shaking up the traditional news flow.

Another entity hed be fine without, of course, is the Federal Reserve. He used this metaphor to describe whats been happening in recent years.

Without the Federal Reserve, Taleb said that the price of money would be negotiated between people.

He pointed to bitcoin BTCUSD, +6.00% which continues to explode to new highs, as part of some sort of organic order in the future.

You cannot have incompetence, serial incompetence, for such a long time without some kind of pushback, Taleb said.

Watch the full interview:

Read more here:
Nassim 'Black Swan' Taleb says the future will be 'a libertarian's dream' - MarketWatch

Gage Skidmore / Flickr.comOne of President Donald Trump's federal court nominees favors an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that libertarian legal scholars have roundly rejected.

Kevin Newsom, the former Alabama solicitor general recently nominated by President Trump to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, is the author of a January 2000 article in the Yale Law Journal in which he argues that the Supreme Court's 1873 decision in The Slaughter-House Cases correctly held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment offers zero protection for economic liberty. That view is hotly contested by libertarian constitutional experts.

At issue in The Slaughter-House Cases was a Louisiana statute that granted a private corporation a lucrative 25-year monopoly to operate a central slaughterhouse for the city of New Orleans. A group of local butchers challenged the law in federal court, arguing that the monopoly was a special-interest boondoggle that served no legitimate health or safety purpose and violated their fundamental rights to earn a living free from unnecessary government control. According to the butchers, the right to economic liberty was one of the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship recently secured against state abuse by the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which reads in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

From the standpoint of constitutional text and history, the butchers had a strong argument. The debates over the framing and ratification of the 14th Amendment make it clear that the provision was originally understood to protect economic liberty. Indeed, according to the principal author of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Republican Congressman John Bingham of Ohio, "the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing rights, privileges, and immunities to citizens of the United States" includes "the constitutional liberty...to work in an honest calling and contribute by your toil in some sort to the support of yourself, to the support of your fellowmen, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the fruits of your toil."

But the Supreme Court saw things differently. Adopting a posture of judicial deference, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the state legislature and effectively eliminated the Privileges or Immunities Clause from the Constitution. According to the majority opinion of Justice Samuel Miller, the Court had no business acting as "a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States." To rule otherwise, he said, would "fetter and degrade the State governments." The Privileges or Immunities Clause basically offered no real protection at all, Miller insisted, except for a handful of mostly inconsequential federal rights, such as the right to access federal waterways. Slaughter-House rendered the clause toothless against virtually all state action.

Because Slaughter-House was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the new 14th Amendment, the ruling had a transformative impact on the future course of American law. Its significance cannot be easily overstated.

Today, a growing number of constitutional originalists, particularly those associated with the libertarian wing of the conservative legal movement, have concluded that Slaughter-House was wrong the day it was decided and therefore deserves to be confined or even overruled by the Supreme Court.

For example, according to Clint Bolick, the Institute for Justice co-founder who currently serves as an Arizona Supreme Court justice, Slaughter-House is "one of the worst decisions in American law." In Bolick's view, the ruling eviscerated "one of the most sacred and central rights of Americans: economic liberty, the right to pursue a business or occupation free from arbitrary or excessive government regulation." Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, one of the most influential originalist scholars at work today, has likewise concluded that Slaughter-House "ignored the original meaning" of the 14th Amendment.

To be sure, Slaughter-House has had its defenders, particularly among the school of legal conservatives who favor a more deferential judiciary. For example, the late Robert Bork, who famously maintained that, "in wide areas of life, majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities," insisted that Slaughter-House represented a "sound judicial instinct" and should be applauded as "a narrow victory for judicial moderation." Along similar lines, Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council, writing with Ken Klukowski of the American Civil Rights Union, has argued that "what's so important about [Slaughter-House] is that there's nothing in the Constitution about such an economic right." If the case is ever overturned, the two have argued, "activist" judges might "use the Privileges or Immunities Clause to challenge state and local labor laws, commercial laws, and business regulations around the country."

Kevin Newsom, Trump's nominee for the 11th Circuit, falls in the Bork-Blackwell-Klukowski camp. In the Yale Law Journal, Newsom praised the Slaughter-House majority opinion for its "judicial restraint" and for its opposition to "the constitutionalization of laissez-faire economic theory." When it comes to the "economic rights claimed by the butchers" in Slaughter-House, Newsom maintained, the Court was right to conclude that "the 14th Amendment did not safeguard [them] against state interference."

Newsom's views on the 14th Amendment thus put him directly at odds with the flourishing camp of libertarian-minded lawyers, judges, and scholars whose influence on the conservative legal movement has been on the upswing in recent years.

It remains to be seen if this clash of constitutional visions will play any role in Newsom's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here is the original post:
Libertarian Legal Scholars Reject Trump Judicial Nominee's Views ... - Reason (blog)

Lets just say one very, very key thing. Student loan debt is a government made problem. It was something the taxpayers subsidized and the government helped manage and turn into this bizarre regulatory environment, attaching student loans to people in a manner that cant be broken out from. In this process, we also see it tearing our economy apart. Young people cant take career risks, move, start businesses, buy homes, or even start families due to this crushing debt that the government signed off on every person having. With that, lets talk about how to fix it.

For this article, its going to be short and just be a basic rundown on what a student loan relief bill should look like. Some parts of it obviously will need more detail, but heres the basic law Id propose if a member of the House of Representatives.

Caps on debt attached to people Right now, its shockingly common that a person just parked themselves in at $100,000 in debt to go to school. The spree of people with semi-worthless degrees from mediocre schools with six figures in debt is a sad, looming fact for people ages 22-30 in America. The most basic reform needed is just a final cap on these government-backed and IRS-attached loans. What should the number be? Realistically, $10,000 is a good number, and that is what Mark Cuban has proposed. A better one, however, might be $25,000 to start and $10,000 later on.

Not full percentage of debt Along with capping the level of debt attached to people, it shouldnt also be 100% government backed to avoid a shorter term bank risk to calculate. Meaning, if someone is going to get a student loan of any size, a percentage of it cant be attached to students. So, say if $1,000 was taken out, 20% of that cannot be attached via government.

Government forgiveness This is just the compromise to make it actually happen. The government should offer to partially buy out the peoples loans. Meaning, we should have an event in which the government will buy 30% of whatever someones debt is on the first $20,000 of debt, and 15% of all debts after that. So, if someone owes $10,000, they will get $3,000 of that absorbed by the government. If someone is $100,000 in debt, they would get $14,000 saved for them. To do this however, itd only be done if the government can actually cut spending in the budget to pay this absorbed debt over ten years. Meaning, a cut somewhere like the Department of Education to find the $400-$600 billion, might make a strong incentive for the long-term shrinking of government in order to help younger people now. This plan isnt the most libertarian friendly, but it is a strong incentive to pass reform and cut funds that help long-term.

Government absorption of debts This is an offer made to people. The government will absorb the student loan debts of people under the age of 35, but with a catch; if a person agrees to have their debts absorbed by the federal government, they will have to pay 2% of their income to the government for the rest of their lives with zero deductions to repay this. They also will not have social security given to them until the amount of debt taken is repaid. The final part would be if the debt isnt repaid, the government can take part of persons estate when they die, to cover any losses made. Meaning, if someone owns a home, they can claim equity in that home to reclaim those losses, which they get part of the money when the home is sold. This model works to move the existing debts people have into a platform which, in the long-term, could be paid back to the government with interest, but in a more flexible model.

New mandates on colleges If a college is to receive federal aid, they will be required to do research into the income potential and real employment of their programs and majors. This will happen in order that, when a student is accepted into a college or going to receive a loan, they will see this information and be shown what percentile the projected income this program does in comparison to the rest of the country, including the average income over the value of just a high school degree, associates, or trade. Doing this, theres a forced flexibility on schools to be labeled and show the real income potential for students.

But overall theres not much more to say here. These are five very basic suggestions into addressing the government-made student loan hell zone.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

See the original post here:
Why The Government Should Pay Off Student Loan Debts - Being Libertarian