Re: Tabling Religion with Libertarians, Taking property and freedom with Religion, Alternative medicine, and pseudoscience RE: First Amendment Libertarianism

From: Eric D.
Sent on: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:55 AM
???? It is not OK to make religious practice restricted in any way, ever. But I should have freedom to run away from any deluded nutcase I come across. But is not OK for my Libertarian Party to set up shop at a table shared with an (economic freedom believing) anti-abortion activist group, just because they support economic freedom of private ownership, to get voting "allies" on economic liberty issues. This is what the LPSF was proposing to do at the first meeting I attended. Even though I was new, I announced I was withdrawing my offer to staff the table after I found out the group the table was shared with wanted to impose their religion on me and others.
 
 
I am in LA right now meeting with attorneys who are helping me file a federal lawsuit against the Chiropractic Board. Chiropractic, acupuncture, and all alternative medicine, is based on religious belief in supernatural forces, claimed to be undetected by physics and conventional science-based medicine. The existence of a State Board issuing such licenses, is a violation of the 1st Amendment establishment of state religion prohibition (on top of being state licensed fraud).
 
Psychiatry, which is similarly based in a big part on pseudo-science nonsense, and is used to take physical freedom and money and property away from the elderly and the "different", in forced conservatorships, which is my ultimate target. I am warming up for that big fight against the American Psychiatric Association and its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel" (The "Bible of Psychiatry"0, by starting in on the Chiropractic Board.
 
Here is a masked religious quote on which the DSM V is proposed to be based - “… suggestions about where DSM-V might best be aligned… nonempirical aspects of classification are legitimate and necessary.” (Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:557–565)
 
If it is not empirically based, i.e., not based on science, the only thing left is a claim of supernatural abilities of psychiatrists, which is nothing more than religion masked in a false robe of scientific validity.
 
 
 
 
 
 

From: John Bechtol <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Thursday, August 22,[masked]:44 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf] Re: Real Progress at last! Re: Ban on people living in vehicles

So it's OK to make a religious or cultural practice illegal, so long as the people flee without complaint?  Hmmmmm...

I just had another chat with another leader of the independence movement in Siskiyou territory.  It's very interesting. 
As he said, these folks are not bumpkins.

John
From: "Eric "OoPs" Diesel" <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Thursday, August 22,[masked]:16 PM
Subject: [lpsf] Re: Real Progress at last! Re: Ban on people living in vehicles

I am still out of town. I talked to him about an hour. He kept repeating the he "has not heard of any complaints about a problems with the Mountainview ordinance, or that it is ever used to cite anyone." At first, I thought he was stupid, since I had just said that Palo Alto first proposed their ordinance with an argument it was in response to the Mountainview ordinance unfairly burdening Palo Alto. After I repeated this three times, I concluded that he is just another lying politician trying to pretend he is stupid and did not understand what I said the first time (and wrote before that).
 
Just because someone like John Inks is elected as a Libertarian, does not mean they are in fact any different than the Tweedle-dee and Tweedle dumb of the other two parties. He is abusing the Libertarian party banner to appear to be an advocate for liberty, just like a Democrat claims to be somehow "democratic".
 
Spending time electing John Inks was a waste of time. There are other real Libertarians much more deserving of our time supporting them.
 
This is the reason I quit all parties I join. They are all composed of falsely posing Tweedles.
 
From: Aram James <[address removed]>
To: Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22,[masked]:47 PM
Subject: Re: Real Progress at last! Re: Ban on people living in vehicles

Oops, for sure count me in on the meeting once it is set up..... Aram 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Eric Diesel <[address removed]> wrote:


From: John Inks <[address removed]>
To: Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22,[masked]:54 AM
Subject: Re: Ban on people living in vehicles

Eric,

Call to discuss.

[masked]



From: Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
To: John Inks <[address removed]>
Cc: Aram James <[address removed]>; John Bechtol <[address removed]>; Starchild <[address removed]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22,[masked]:04 AM
Subject: Re: Ban on people living in vehicles

Hello. Thank you for responding. Several of us attempted to set up a meeting with you but did not hear back. My name is Eric John Diesel. I am the former owner of Palo Alto Mercedes BMW Volvo Saab. I am a real estate developer owning 43 properties in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
 
The City of Palo Alto proposed this ordinance as a reaction to the vehicle ban in Mountainview. The argument they gave was that since Mountainview banned vehicle dwellers, this made them all move into Palo Alto, and they are an unwanted class of people.
 
Last year, the Palo Alto City Council tabled the vote on the ordinance, while we tried to get Mountainview to considering repeal of their own ordinance banning vehicle dwelling. We were not successful in getting a meeting with you over the last year.
 
 
My receptionist at Palo Alto Mercedes was a full blood Gipsy from Romania. Gypsies, like my own Apache ancestors, are traditionally nomadic vehicle dwellers. Forcing her out of a city by passing ordinances is called "Antiziganism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism
 
I let a close friend of mine live in his vehicle parked outside my business, European Auto Center, after he lost his residence. His presence decreased crime in the area, not increased it. And in any case, I rented the building, then rented then owned the next building on El Camino Real. Before I bought it, the landlord initially prohibited me having a vehicle dweller as a nighttime security guard. I should be able to have anyone I want do lawful activities on my own premises, especially as I see fit for the conduct of my own business operations.
 
 
The arguments used to pass the ordinance used words that were almost identical to arguments used by President Andrew Jackson's people in passing the "Trail of Tears" laws that moved Native Americans (my own ancestors) out of their areas, because "their lifestyles were incompatible with European culture", "increased crime", "they don’t shower enough”, “were dirty", "they are unsightly", etc., exactly the same words and arguments used in the Palo Alto City Council for passing the ordinance, and all without any scientific foundation. It is a Civil Liberties violation even if the minority group I and my friends belong to is, in fact, "dirty".
 
 
Tonight, I will be attending a Libertarian Party fundraiser for Sheriff Paul Schrader, in San Bernardino County. I will be returning next week to the Bay Area. Would it be possible to meet?
 
(I am copying Aram James, and attorney and former public defender who lives and works in the Palo Alto and Mountainview area, and who worked hard fighting this ordinance, because he will likely want to attend. I am also copying John Bechtol, who like me, was unsuccessful in setting up a meeting with you.)
 
From: John Inks <[address removed]>
To: Starchild <[address removed]>; Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
Cc: Kevin Takenaga <[address removed]>; Mark Hinkle <[address removed]>; Elizabeth Brierly <[address removed]>; Scott Lieberman <[address removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:43 PM
Subject: Re: Ban on people living in vehicles
 
S/C,
 
I don't get the gripe about me not opposing a ban on sleeping in cars and the email below from Eric John Diesel.  
 
Car sleeping ban at the former Cubberly High School is a Palo Alto issue.  There is no current car sleeping ban issue in Mountain View.  
 
If freedom and liberty were fully restored in Mountain View, I might find time to help in Palo Alto.  However, I'm fully engaged in helping (and actually succeeding) Mountain View business and property owners hurdle zoning and project approval hoops to serve their customers and tenants.
 
John
[masked]
 
 
 
From: Starchild <[address removed]>
To: John Inks <[address removed]>
Cc: Starchild <[address removed]>; Eric Diesel <[address removed]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:16 PM
Subject: Ban on people living in vehicles
 
Hi John,
 
            I was disappointed to read the message immediately below. If this is true, I can't really blame Eric for his reaction. Prominent elected Libertarians like yourself not standing up on this kind of thing costs us the support of people who should be loyal Libertarians and passionate advocates of the party. 
 
            Bans on people living in their own vehicles are a prime example of government overreach hurting poor people and violating property rights. The libertarian position could not be more clear. 
 
            Please meet with the activists working on this issue, and look into what you can do to repeal the ban in Mountain View. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. 
 
            I realize you are busy, but your response to this message is politely requested as soon as you get a chance.
 
Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))
 
 
Begin forwarded message:


From: "Eric \"OoPs\" Diesel" <[address removed]>
Date: August 21,[masked]:56:02 PM PDT
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [lpsf] WikiLeaks trial: Bradley Manning shows no reaction to prison sentence
Reply-To: [address removed]
 
Re "Love & Liberty" I have been leading a life of loving it and liberty for the past three months or so. I have been in the Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico desert on Navajo reservations or BLM land most of that time. Not many rules and regulations out here, but not much in the way of internet, either. I'll be back at meetings when I get back. Disappointingly, "Libertarian" mayor John Inks did not lift a finger to try to stop the ban on living out of your own car, or wherever and however you want, and did not meet with any of us to discuss the ban in his own city of Mountainview, next door. So much for electing "Libertarians". The reason I left the Libertarian Party when I was a teenager, after joining, was this kind of abuse of the word by people in the party. That's why I whined about linking with any anti-abortion or religious groups at the first meeting I attended.  
 
From: Starchild <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:28 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf] WikiLeaks trial: Bradley Manning shows no reaction to prison sentence

    I don't think there's a single, magic-bullet answer to that question. I think we just have to keep up the struggle for freedom, by whatever ethical means seem most effective at any given point in time. Seek to find ways to advance the cause that seem effective to you, and that you find enjoyable or rewarding, so that your efforts are sustainable.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))


On Aug 21, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Eric OoPs Diesel wrote:

> Re the quote you sent, "something is seriously wrong with our justice system", the question is what to do about it?
>
> From: Starchild <[address removed]>
> To: [address removed]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21,[masked]:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf] WikiLeaks trial: Bradley Manning shows no reaction to prison sentence
>
>    It is a sad and shameful sentence. This quote from the Baltimore Sun article ( http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bradley-manning-sentence-20130821,0,3733379.story ) sums it up well:
>
> > "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system," said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberty Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.
>
>    Bradley Manning remains a hero and martyr to the cause of justice, and his continued imprisonment will be a continuing stain on the honor and reputation of the U.S. government (what little it has).
>
> Love & Liberty,
>                                ((( starchild )))
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Eric OoPs Diesel wrote:
>
> > http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-wikileaks-bradley-manning-prison-sentence-20130821,0,5559721.story
 
 
 










--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eric "OoPs" Diesel ([address removed]) from The San Francisco Libertarian Party Meetup Group.
To learn more about Eric "OoPs" Diesel, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]






--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by John Bechtol ([address removed]) from The San Francisco Libertarian Party Meetup Group.
To learn more about John Bechtol, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]


Our Sponsors

  • CopBlock.org

    February's honorary sponsor supports activism for police accountability!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy