The season six winner of “The Bachelor”… Mary Delgado — who was arrested last year for allegedly punching her fiance, “Bachelor” Byron Velvick — was busted again on Saturday night for public intoxication, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct at Lorina’s Cantina in Del Rio, Texas.

We’re told the Cantina called the cops because Delgado refused to leave the bar, saying it was her “constitutional right” to stay as long as she wanted. [emphasis mine]

Golden.

What an utterly warped understanding of rights – that negates the property owner’s rights entirely, replacing them with a fictitious (and seemingly unconditional) set of patron rights.

We need a term for it. Let’s call it pulling-an-Adbusters. It appears to be the foundation for their moral code… and quickly moving outward.

Abusters lost the case and, in realizing that you can’t simply force another into business – that it, in fact, takes the mutual consent of both parties to make a contract valid – apparently now rejects the very concept, evident by one of the latest ABTV videos.

Titled Ad-idas, the 5-minute video documents Neil Boorman’s quest “to claim due advertising fees from a brand giant”.

The brand giant in question is Adidas and the “due advertising fees”? According to Boorman, it amounts to 10,000 pounds based upon – nothing consensual, of course, but rather – the 10-15 years Boorman has voluntarily spent being a “human billboard” for the company. You know, wearing Adidas shirts, shorts and shoes out in public.

Now obviously, Mr. Boorman isn’t a true Adidas fan. He isn’t a fan of any corporation. In the same vein as Naomi Klein, he’s a hardcore anti-consumerist borderline luddite; and in the same vein as Michael Moore, the video is dishonest in strategy but authentic in message. But yes, Boorman believes this garbage. As the tagline states, “Why do we buy clothes that advertise brands? They should be paying us!”.

Yeah!

Companies should be paying consumers who choose to buy their branded products for the subsequent advertising that the aforementioned companies never asked for. The consumers deserve it. It’s just!

Yes. In fact, tomorrow I’ll be sending Adbusters an invoice for showcasing the crappy Neil Boorman video in question.

Take a look. Or don’t! It doesn’t matter really. There isn’t a contract or any criteria whatsoever I have to meet. I don’t even have to speak highly of the content. I determine what they owe me. It’s that simple!

Firstly, I’m not sure if I made it explicit in my last post, but I was in St. Louis, Missouri all last week documenting a state-wide civil rights initiative. Pretty awesome stuff.

See! Right there to the left. Me and visual substantiation of my claim.

Anyhow, I made a video during my time there…which, should be up if not tomorrow then early next week.

Second up, coming form my current geographical location there’s a somewhat comical—actually, no,very disturbing—story today about three teens accused of digging up an old grave and stealing the skull to use as a bong. While I fully denounce such disrespect—done to the carcass of what once housed an autonomous human agent—I can’t help but mock the on-duty policeman’s report:

“(He) suggested they had actually dug up a grave in an unrelated incident and ultimately removed the head of a corpse,” Houston Police Officer Jim Adkins said. “By what he told me, they turned it into a device used to smoke marijuana, which is referred to as a bong.”

Thank you Ward Clever.

A picture of the stupid <shakes head> stupid adolescents now:

Let’s see. What else. Ah, on my way out of the bank today, I heard a 40-something customer talking to an employee about the class-action-lawsuit check he was holding. Big bucks. I’m wondering how much it was; I’m sure more than pure justice would restitute…

Moving on, I don’t know how I can claim I’m all about libertarian dance parties and not have been on top of this.

Lastly, I change my mind. I will cross into ideology:

Surrounding my St. Louis hotel I counted more than 10 unions. In like a 2 block radius. Yeah, union central.

Union yes? Eh…no thanks.

But that diatribe will have to wait as I’m limiting this post to their unsuccessful lawsuit, which–in ten words or less–was an attempt to force TV networks to air their advertisements. From Adbuster’s 3/3 press release:

On Monday, February 18, Adbusters lost its court battle against two of Canada’s television networks that refused to sell airtime for its commercials. Adbusters claimed the CBC and Canwest Global had violated its right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by refusing to sell air time, but the court decided that the Charter does not apply to private corporations.

The fact that Adbusters sued both a private and a public corporation makes the case not so cut and dry. For, it seems correct that there ought to be equal-access to entities that are government-funded–in this case the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). But in press releases and other articles, Adbusters has largely ignored this element, focusing instead on the fact that their free speech “does not apply to private corporations”. Which leaves me to believe that the private sphere is their real target and CBC was thrown in there for strategic purposes.

Coming from imcWINNIPEG:

For over 10 years Adbusters has been trying to pay major commercial broadcasters to air its ads, only to be routinely blocked by network executives, usually with no reason given. This amounts to censorship and suppression of free speech, says Lasn.

“Lasn” is Adbusters’ Editor-in-Chief Kalle Lasn. He believes–as the quote demonstrates–that people have a right to free speech on other people’s private property, that (to frame it more generously) people have a right to demand purchase of another person’s product–in this case, advertising airtime.

…an understanding of private property and ownership that, if you ask me, makes the concepts completely meaningless. For, what good is private property if I am unable to qualify what activities occur and what activities do not, if any outsider can at any time come in and use it? What value does ownership have if at any time you can force me to make a sale?

Not much.

Now I’m not all that familiar with the world of broadcast licensing but, if I’ve correctly interpreted the situation–and let me know if I haven’t–the philosophical and moral principles of self-ownership seem completely applicable.

And that is that you do not have a right to my production, even if you pay for it. Even if you pay market value, even if you pay 10x the market value–you do not have a right to purchase product x. Who cares that you have the means to do so? I always retain the right. I determine whether or not I want to sell my property to you. Trade is always contingent upon my consent.

I mean, using Adbusters’ logic, McDonald’s has a right to buy advertising within the pages of the magazine. And if you’ve ever seen anything Adbusters has put out, you know they’d first buy something on Buy Nothing Day than allow that.

In any case, I’ve been looking for a reason to link to this audio for some time now: a 911 call on behalf of an unsatisfied Burger King customer. It’s a hilarious situation that includes the same I-have-a-right-to-purchase-your-product mentality, demonstrating the ridiculousness of such a philosophy.

Wham. Bam. Boom. A cogent 6-word argument for property rights and self-ownership. Bad ass.

It is Jon’s property and therefore John’s right to determine what activities are performed on his property and in his business, so long as these activities are adequately advertised; that way, anyone potentially entering or working at the business can make an full, informed decision — a choice — of whether or not to patronize the establishment based on these facts.

Consensualism.

Last Saturday he stepped it up and organized a “smoke-in”, in which hundreds of smokers and non-smokers alike came from several states to protest the Smoke-Free Illinois Act. Check it out at the above link (video included).

For those link averse, a man from Wheeling — Amante Enad — was ticketed earlier this month by village officials for roasting pigs on his property. The article, citing the fact that the pigs in question were donated — yes, donated — to Enad’s church, has understandably drawn its fair share of public outcry.

Wheeling has taken notice.

Monday, the Trib did a follow-up, most likely at the village’s request: “Wheeling explains reasons for citing pig roaster”. Village Manager Mark Rooney stated, “This issue is not about the lack of the village allowing someone to enjoy the back-yard barbecue”. (Wow that’s terrible sentence-structure.) It is, according to Rooney, a health and sanitation issue.

Today Enad gets his day in court. I’ll update as soon as I catch wind of any result.

Oh! I almost forgot: Izzy’s quote, which appeared in the first Trib article, follows below:

“He should have the freedom to roast as many pigs on his property as he wants as long as he doesn’t harm anything in his neighborhood,” said Izzy Santa, press secretary for the Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based non-profit libertarian organization that offered Enad legal assistance, media training or other help.

UPDATE: Looks like the Herald is first on the beat. Chalk it up as another win for unnecessary regulation and loss for personal freedom.

A Wheeling pig roaster whose cause attracted widespread interest after he was cited by Wheeling officials lost in court today. A judge ordered Wheeling resident Amante Enad to stop roasting pigs for the masses. Judge Joel Greenblatt said Enad will have to pay a $1,000 fine if he violates that order between now and his next hearing in September…

Greenblatt said that while Enad is allowed to cook in his home for himself and his family, he can’t cook for mass consumption from his house, which is unlicensed as a business. If he wants to cook for the church, he will need to do it on site, the judge said.

UPDATE II: I love this quote from the Trib’s post-ruling piece:

When asked by a reporter what he thought of life in the U.S., Enad had a quick response: “It’s not the same as the Philippines. . . . I [would] have a roasted pig in front of the municipal building.”