Why DUI Checkpoints are Unconstitutional and Wrong

The issue that many constitionalists, libertarians, and limited government supporters have in regards to DUI checkpoints is not that they "prevent drunk driving" because of course no one wants drunk drivers on the road. The issue is that checkpoints are a violation of our forth amendment rights. And if stopping all drivers on the road is ok then so is police randomly raiding old ladies houses to make sure there are no drugs, or patting down everyone who enters a mall to make sure they don't have a bomb. If the forth amendment is not respected there is no end to how intrusive things could get in the name of keeping us "safe" as there are millions of dangers in the world.

Most who oppose checkpoints believe that police don't have the right to stop a car unless they have reason, Ex: the car is swerving. If they are pulling everyone over then it's not BC the car is acting suspicious but bc they are doing it to everyone. It's very disrespectful to both the individual and our constitution to interrupt drivers who are on their way home or work without cause. But most are up set BC of the violation of the constitution it's kind of like that Ben frank quote "those who would give up essential liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

Syria

I would describe myself as a conservative libertarian. I am personally conservative but believe the government should be as limited as possible and stay out of peoples everyday lives and be as decentralized as possible. This is even more apparent in my views on foreign policy, especially in regards to the issue right now regarding Syria.

I do see this going full force, and unfortunately see our government stretching its imperialism even more into other countries, however this action is so blatant that it is serving as a catalyst to wake many people up. Conservatives and liberals alike are banning together to say enough is enough, one war was able to be explained without people raising eyebrows, two wars with a few questions and objections, but this situation with syria is showing people how insatiable the us military's appetite truly is. they can no longer "explain these things away". Let's use this as an opportunity for waking people up.

There is talk of a draft being reinstated in order to support the U.S. war machine, I do see a draft being reinstated, as more people wake up and want no part in a system that meddles in every country and serves as policeman of the world. However, I do not see a draft happening anytime soon, as there are still many willing volunteers, a draft would be many many years down the road, however when it happens, the results will be catastrophic. The parallels between Iraq and Syria is that the United States is sticking its nose where it does not belong, and once again using its military for a purpose it was not designed for. The purpose of the united states military is to fight and kill enemies who are an imminent threat to us and attacking us. Not to get involved in other wars, not to nation build and not to be policeman of the world.

When it comes to war issues, I honestly see no difference between libertarians and (principled) left liberals. Both want to see an end to the endless unjustifiable wars and crimes against humanity committed in our name. There not only is a "possibility" for meaningful and effective cooperation, but it is already happening. I have seen people at anti war and peace protests of all different political backgrounds. we are being brought together by the belief that human life is important, and we no longer want these atrocities committed in our name.

Both the anti war movement and our youth that would like to see peace in our lifetime need to realize that change starts at the individual level. We need to stop promoting the U.S. military and enlistment in the military and instead encourage entrepreneurship and education. We need to spread the word that there is nothing noble or honorable about joining the military in 2013. I think too many people are afraid to say this because it is so taboo. But you can not say you are against war, while at the same time congratulating and idolizing those who sign up to fight in these wars. It takes us all standing up as individuals and saying we will not take part in these wars at any level. Military service should be avoided and not looked at as a means of providing for ones family and paying the way through college. We also need to start paying attention to voting records of congressmen and make sure to hold those accountable who support military intervention and either vote for those who have a long history of supporting peace or not vote at all.

Let Your Light Shine

 In life, many of us live afraid of a physical death, or of something "bad" happening to us. We live afraid of persecution, afraid of death, afraid of outside circumstances hindering us, or of robbers or murderers. Yet, these are not the threats we should most fear, we should fear as Victor Hugo once said, what hinders the soul, whatever it is, whatever leaves us disempowered from standing for our beliefs and letting our glorious God given light shine. I would like to throw the following quote by Martin Luther King out there. 

 

“You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid…. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer…. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you refuse to take the stand.

Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you’re just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.” 

- Marin Luther King Jr. 

 

I wanted to share this as a reminder to all, the true tragedy, the true horror, is not the persecution that comes with standing for who you are, but allowing that fear to paralyze you. The true tragedy is not in the death of the living, but the living of the already dead.

Good Read on Why Anti- Authoritarians are diagnosed as Mentally ill

This was an amazing article by Bruce Levine, if you have some time it is definitely worth the time for a read.  These issues have absolutely become relevent in my life, and others I know who think for themselves and refuse to view the government or other worldly authorities as God.

Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill

1K

Bruce Levine, Ph.D.

February 26, 2012

(Note: Read Bruce Levine’s latest post: Anti-Authoritarians and Schizophrenia: Do Rebels Who Defy Treatment Do Better?
In my career as a psychologist, I have talked with hundreds of people previously diagnosed by other professionals with oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, anxiety disorder and other psychiatric illnesses, and I am struck by (1) how many of those diagnosed are essentially anti-authoritarians, and (2) how those professionals who have diagnosed them are not.
Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.
Some activists lament how few anti-authoritarians there appear to be in the United States. One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psychopathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities.
Why Mental Health Professionals Diagnose Anti-Authoritarians with Mental Illness
Gaining acceptance into graduate school or medical school and achieving a PhD or MD and becoming a psychologist or psychiatrist means jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance to authorities, even to those authorities that one lacks respect for. The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one.
I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments.
In graduate school, I discovered that all it took to be labeled as having “issues with authority” was to not kiss up to a director of clinical training whose personality was a combination of Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and Howard Cosell. When I was told by some faculty that I had “issues with authority,” I had mixed feelings about being so labeled. On the one hand, I found it quite amusing, because among the working-class kids whom I had grown up with, I was considered relatively compliant with authorities. After all, I had done my homework, studied, and received good grades. However, while my new “issues with authority” label made me grin because I was now being seen as a “bad boy,” it also very much concerned me about just what kind of a profession that I had entered. Specifically, if somebody such as myself was being labeled with “issues with authority,” what were they calling the kids I grew up with who paid attention to many things that they cared about but didn’t care enough about school to comply there? Well, the answer soon became clear.
Mental Illness Diagnoses for Anti-Authoritarians
A 2009 Psychiatric Times article titled “ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior” reports that “disruptive disorders,” which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and opposition defiant disorder (ODD), are the most common mental health problem of children and teenagers. ADHD is defined by poor attention and distractibility, poor self-control and impulsivity, and hyperactivity. ODD is defined as a “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior without the more serious violations of the basic rights of others that are seen in conduct disorder”; and ODD symptoms include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”
Psychologist Russell Barkley, one of mainstream mental health’s leading authorities on ADHD, says that those afflicted with ADHD have deficits in what he calls “rule-governed behavior,” as they are less responsive to rules of established authorities and less sensitive to positive or negative consequences. ODD young people, according to mainstream mental health authorities, also have these so-called deficits in rule-governed behavior, and so it is extremely common for young people to have a “duel diagnosis” of AHDH and ODD.
Do we really want to diagnose and medicate everyone with “deficits in rule-governed behavior”?
Albert Einstein, as a youth, would have likely received an ADHD diagnosis, and maybe an ODD one as well. Albert didn’t pay attention to his teachers, failed his college entrance examinations twice, and had difficulty holding jobs. However, Einstein biographer Ronald Clark (Einstein: The Life and Times) asserts that Albert’s problems did not stem from attention deficits but rather from his hatred of authoritarian, Prussian discipline in his schools. Einstein said, “The teachers in the elementary school appeared to me like sergeants and in the Gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants.” At age 13, Einstein read Kant’s difficult Critique of Pure Reason—because Albert was interested in it. Clark also tells us Einstein refused to prepare himself for his college admissions as a rebellion against his father’s “unbearable” path of a “practical profession.” After he did enter college, one professor told Einstein, “You have one fault; one can’t tell you anything.” The very characteristics of Einstein that upset authorities so much were exactly the ones that allowed him to excel.
By today’s standards, Saul Alinsky, the legendary organizer and author of Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals, would have certainly been diagnosed with one or more disruptive disorders. Recalling his childhood, Alinsky said, “I never thought of walking on the grass until I saw a sign saying ‘Keep off the grass.’ Then I would stomp all over it.” Alinsky also recalls a time when he was ten or eleven and his rabbi was tutoring him in Hebrew:

One particular day I read three pages in a row without any errors in pronunciation, and suddenly a penny fell onto the Bible . . . Then the next day the rabbi turned up and he told me to start reading. And I wouldn’t; I just sat there in silence, refusing to read. He asked me why I was so quiet, and I said, “This time it’s a nickel or nothing.” He threw back his arm and slammed me across the room.

Many people with severe anxiety and/or depression are also anti-authoritarians. Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized; but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.
I have also spent a great deal of time with people who had at one time in their lives had thoughts and behavior that were so bizarre that they were extremely frightening for their families and even themselves; they were diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses, but have fully recovered and have been, for many years, leading productive lives. Among this population, I have not met one person whom I would not consider a major anti-authoritarian. Once recovered, they have learned to channel their anti-authoritarianism into more constructive political ends, including reforming mental health treatment.
Many anti-authoritarians who earlier in their lives were diagnosed with mental illness tell me that once they were labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, they got caught in a dilemma. Authoritarians, by definition, demand unquestioning obedience, and so any resistance to their diagnosis and treatment created enormous anxiety for authoritarian mental health professionals; and professionals, feeling out of control, labeled them “noncompliant with treatment,” increased the severity of their diagnosis, and jacked up their medications. This was enraging for these anti-authoritarians, sometimes so much so that they reacted in ways that made them appear even more frightening to their families.
There are anti-authoritarians who use psychiatric drugs to help them function, but they often reject psychiatric authorities’ explanations for why they have difficulty functioning. So, for example, they may take Adderall (an amphetamine prescribed for ADHD), but they know that their attentional problem is not a result of a biochemical brain imbalance but rather caused by a boring job. And similarly, many anti-authoritarians in highly stressful environments will occasionally take prescribed benzodiazepines such as Xanax even though they believe it would be safer to occasionally use marijuana but can’t because of drug testing on their job
It has been my experience that many anti-authoritarians labeled with psychiatric diagnoses usually don’t reject all authorities, simply those they’ve assessed to be illegitimate ones, which just happens to be a great deal of society’s authorities.
Maintaining the Societal Status Quo
Americans have been increasingly socialized to equate inattention, anger, anxiety, and immobilizing despair with a medical condition, and to seek medical treatment rather than political remedies. What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society.
The reality is that depression is highly associated with societal and financial pains. One is much more likely to be depressed if one is unemployed, underemployed, on public assistance, or in debt (for documentation, see “400% Rise in Anti-Depressant Pill Use”). And ADHD labeled kids do pay attention when they are getting paid, or when an activity is novel, interests them, or is chosen by them (documented in my book Commonsense Rebellion).
In an earlier dark age, authoritarian monarchies partnered with authoritarian religious institutions. When the world exited from this dark age and entered the Enlightenment, there was a burst of energy. Much of this revitalization had to do with risking skepticism about authoritarian and corrupt institutions and regaining confidence in one’s own mind. We are now in another dark age, only the institutions have changed. Americans desperately need anti-authoritarians to question, challenge, and resist new illegitimate authorities and regain confidence in their own common sense.
In every generation there will be authoritarians and anti-authoritarians. While it is unusual in American history for anti-authoritarians to take the kind of effective action that inspires others to successfully revolt, every once in a while a Tom Paine, Crazy Horse, or Malcolm X come along. So authoritarians financially marginalize those who buck the system, they criminalize anti-authoritarianism, they psychopathologize anti-authoritarians, and they market drugs for their “cure.”
Related Items:
Related Research