Libertarian Theory on Bullying, Obama Punches Banker in Face, Capital Shortfalls in Europe Banks

(The following is some brainstorming for an article)
There has been some recent incidents involving suicide in response to bullying.  This is one of the latest examples:

Police have opened a criminal investigation in the suicide death of Buffalo, N.Y., 14-year-old Jamey Rodemeyer, who was bullied online with gay slurs for more than a year.

It's always sad and a great loss to the Earth when someone decides to take their life.  In an effort to right even the most miniscule of wrong (not to say this was miniscule mind you), proponents of the state are now pushing for anti-bullying legislation to deal with this issue.  The purveyor of all human wisdom, Lady Gaga, has weighed in on the issue:

"Bullying must become illegal. It is a hate crime," she tweeted. "I am meeting with our President. I will not stop fighting. This must end. Our generation has the power to end it.

Admittedly, I am not sure what constitutes a difference between a "hate" crime and a regular crime.  The end result of any crime in the libertarian sense tends to be aggression towards another.  Is the converse of a "hate" crime than a "love" crime?

While Ms. Gaga may feel inspired to take up the cause, her motives are ultimately misguided.  Those who push for the government to involve itself in such a matter are advocating for a dangerous precedent.  Enforcing such a policy as monitoring "bully" rhetoric would require a large level of bureaucracy.  Since the state would be in charge of enforcement, cost efficiencies in regard to taxpayer money would be an afterthought.  Speech police has been a subject warned about for decades through seminal works of fiction such as "1984" but that hasn't stopped emotionally driven responses for state-sanctioned banning of speech.

What this really comes down to is the philosophical belief of how much property rights extend to a person, their thoughts, their words, and their actions.  In the realm of physical locations, it is up to the property owner to decide what actions and language will be tolerated in the sphere of their control.  As Murray Rothbard points out:

"The right to free speech is only valid and workable when used in the sense of the right to talk to people, to try to convince them, to hire a hall to address people who wish to attend...the right to free speech is, in fact, part of a person's general right to property."

Much of bullying that Rodemeyer dealt with happened at school or over social media networks.  It is then up to the owners of such property and the discretion of Rodemeyer to address the problem.  One of the issues neglected is that Rodemeyer was legally forced to got to school.  Normally, those officials in the school should have followed through on his initial complaints and made an effort to put an end to the bullying to retain Rodemeyer's patronage.  In a free society where school attendance was voluntary and public school didn't exist, Rodemeyer would patronize those institutions he saw fit to protect him.  Public and compulsory schooling was an underlying issue here.

As for social media, Rodemeyer ultimately choose to engage in the practice and therefore opened himself up to bullying.  Not to defend bullying, but if Rodemeyer really opposed the treatment he received from his peers, he was free to log off and never visit Facebook again.  His right to engage and disengage was the same as the bully's.  The owners of Facebook/Twitter/whatever could put a stop to insulting language if they see fit, those who disagree with their reluctance to can use other social media networks.

In the end, the rights to your thoughts and subjective values are yours and yours alone.  The enforcement of property rights is the real solution to deal with a perceived problem such as bullying.  This isn't to defend bullying but to point out the real issues so please spare me any anecdotes about family or close friends who have suffered greatly from such treatment.
 --------------------------------------------------
Alright, on to some actual news now.  The Onion has this great spoof on Obama actually growing a spine:

Though I pride myself on coming up with snarky one liners, MFL8240 over at Zerohedge has the perfect observance:

And....after the punch he went down on him.  More like how the story line would read.

Considering how much the banksters pad Obama's campaign fund balance sheet, such a situation portrayed in the video is highly unlikely.  It would be wonderful to see however. 

Mish has an interesting post highlighting some news releases pointing out European bank capital shortfalls.  These shortfalls range from 8 billion to 413 billion euros.  Zerohedge points out the Swiss bank Credit Suissee's capital shortfall measurement of 400 billion euros:

The shortfalls are most likely worse than projected, as is the trend when it comes to European banking. The banking sector is probably insolvent due to fractional reserve lending, hence the push to stabilize Greece is really just to buy time for France and Italian banks to recapitalize themselves.  What will most likely happen is the ECB will step in to do it itself.  We are right on track judging by Slovakia's recent loss of spine;

• SLOVAK PARLIAMENT APPROVES EXPANSION OF EFSF RESCUE FUND, CONCLUDES RATIFICATION IN ALL EURO ZONE COUNTRIES -RTRS
• 114 voted for the EFSF, 30 against and 3 abstained from 147 present (out of 150)

Meanwhile back in the good ol' U.S. of A., Jamie Dimon is playing the role of mom and telling us everything is fine and dandy:

JAMIE DIMON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU FOOLS DON'T SEE THE ECONOMY IMPROVING!

No doubt he sees the growth in M2 and is salivating.  And here is your fun fact of the day from the Fed's "Fun Facts About Money":

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing produces 26 million notes a day, with a face value of approximately $907 million.

Wait, wait, here it is:

For example did you know that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has two facilities, one in Washington, D.C. and the other in Fort Worth, Texas.  Together they use approximately 9.7 tons of ink per day.

Nothing like wasting a scarce resource like ink on a piece of paper not backed by anything but the promise of a bunch of crooks.  No wonder Congress' approval rating is at 13%:

The real question is who the hell are the 13% that approve?