[COLUMN] Court ruling a victory for liberty

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday scored a victory for liberty when it correctly struck down a 32-year-old Washington, D.C., law banning handguns and ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment is a personal right and not a right of the states to maintain militias.

In other words, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means exactly what it says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This seems obvious to me. After all, why would Congress and the states create a Bill of Rights for the people and include in it a right for the states to form militias?

That would make no sense.

The Bill of Rights was meant to recognize some of the rights of the people, not of the government. The amendment even specifically states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Seems pretty specific. Additionally, the phrase "right of the people" is used several other times in the Bill of Rights and in the unamended Constitution.

[COLUMN] Libertarians should oppose Obama

What a topsy-turvy world we live in when libertarians begin to support a socialist for president.

More and more I am seeing libertarians voice support for Sen. Barack Obama. Web sites are springing up and libertarians on Internet forums are arguing for Obama. Having not yet settled on a candidate, I have tried to understand their reasoning. Unfortunately, like socialism and Obama, there is only a pretty façade and no real substance.

I understand their frustration. Libertarians hate President Bush, mostly because of the war and his constitutional abuses.

Libertarians such as myself were opposed to the war from the beginning. It was a stupid endeavor and made no sense politically or militarily.

So, if we are keeping a scorecard, Obama gets one point for opposing the war, even if his opposition to it was tepid at best in 2003.

That is, however, where the lead ends.

I don't want to defend Sen. John McCain. He is the worst kind of Republican, a big-government liberal. However, if we are to compare McCain to Obama, it is clear who is closer to the libertarian viewpoint when it comes to issues beyond the war.

[COLUMN] Golden rule should guide us all

A common criticism I hear from people trying to discredit a libertarian outlook on life is that because I believe the government should not be outlawing a certain thing, I must, then, condone such activity.

For example, because I support the legalization of drugs, I must therefore support drug use.

However, such thinking is either the result of dishonest debate or uncritical thinking. It is akin to calling someone an atheist simply because he or she believes in evolution.

I support the legalization of drugs, not necessarily the use or abuse of drugs. After all, what a person puts into his or her body is of no concern to me or to the state.

I support the legalization of prostitution, not necessarily the act of prostitution. After all, what two consenting adults do with each other is of no concern to me or to the state.

I support the legalization of gambling, not necessarily the act of gambling. After all, how an adult spends his or her money is of no concern to me or to the state.

In other words, the legalization of an activity is a separate argument from the actual activity. I don't understand why that distinction is so hard for some to comprehend.

Living in a free society does not mean living in a society where the majority is permitted to use the force of law to impose its moral or philosophical beliefs on the minority.