Happy New Year. I hope that you survived 2007. I'm guessing that you did since you are reading this. I also hope you will survive.... no, thrive in, 2008. I hope you will assume liberty in every situation, and that your boldness in doing so will serve you well. I hope that the state will continue to crumble; maybe even collapse (bloodlessly if possible) in the coming year. I'm ready. Are you?
Do something to advance real liberty in the coming months - Beyond voting, please - Pick a liberty project in 2008. I have mine in the works.
*****************************
Monday, December 31, 2007
Same-Sex Marriage and Open Borders
In this week's Libertarian Enterprise I encountered this letter. I think I have read this guy's words before . I recognize his style and his issues. (He may get an ego boost from that admission) If you go through his posts there, you will see how obsessed he is over certain concepts and terms. In particular, he likes to call us "libertine/libertarians" as if he thinks this is a clever insult.
His main "arguments" in the new letter are that the Libertarian Party (and libertarians in general) endorse same-sex marriage and open borders. He then explains how he is more in line with the Constitution Party because it simply wants the US to return to Constitutional government. That's funny. I don't remember the Constitution defining "marriage" anywhere, or giving government the authority to regulate personal love-lives. That leaves his love of "Berlin walls" as his sticking point.
Compared with the current US government's immigration policy, the Constitution does call for open borders. Where does the Constitution establish the current police-state road blocks (often many miles from any border), vehicle searches, national ID papers, etc.? All those things are necessary to enforce "secure" borders like he wants.
If freedom is important to you, you must realize that it is a two-way street. You must give the other guy the same liberty you want for yourself. How is it "libertine" of us to recognize everyone's right to live as they see fit, as long as they hurt no one else? How can you say that you have a right to live free, but your neighbor needs to be controlled? How is it good to give government control over things that are not within its authority?
Freedom is for everyone. If you wish to embrace control and tyranny, don't get angry at those of us who want liberty. If that makes us "libertines" in your myopic eyes, so be it.
His main "arguments" in the new letter are that the Libertarian Party (and libertarians in general) endorse same-sex marriage and open borders. He then explains how he is more in line with the Constitution Party because it simply wants the US to return to Constitutional government. That's funny. I don't remember the Constitution defining "marriage" anywhere, or giving government the authority to regulate personal love-lives. That leaves his love of "Berlin walls" as his sticking point.
Compared with the current US government's immigration policy, the Constitution does call for open borders. Where does the Constitution establish the current police-state road blocks (often many miles from any border), vehicle searches, national ID papers, etc.? All those things are necessary to enforce "secure" borders like he wants.
If freedom is important to you, you must realize that it is a two-way street. You must give the other guy the same liberty you want for yourself. How is it "libertine" of us to recognize everyone's right to live as they see fit, as long as they hurt no one else? How can you say that you have a right to live free, but your neighbor needs to be controlled? How is it good to give government control over things that are not within its authority?
Freedom is for everyone. If you wish to embrace control and tyranny, don't get angry at those of us who want liberty. If that makes us "libertines" in your myopic eyes, so be it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Global Warming?
Interesting news on the "global warming" front: Has global warming stopped? Why haven't we been told this before?
Carnage Prevention
Any death that occurs because a gun was not present can be laid directly at the feet of the nearest government and its representatives and enforcers.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
"Killed by a Tiger"
The one question that comes to my mind is why was no one in the vicinity armed and able to stop the attack? Just kidding. We all know the answer to that one. Don't forget:"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." If I were in a situation like the one that occurred in California, I would have probably shot the tiger to stop the attacks and prevent innocent people from being attacked. Then I would have spent the rest of my life feeling I had shot the wrong beast (if the reports of tiger-taunting are true).
I can't help but think that since we all must die, why not go out in an unusual way. I can imagine family members, years from now, whenever the man's name comes up in conversation, saying "He was killed by a tiger". I'll bet they will even steer the conversation that way so they can spring that tidbit on the listener. I would. I'm sure they will leave out certain parts of the story, though.
I have often thought of "cool deaths". I would rather die in an interesting way. And not of an "interesting" disease, either. Maybe like... killed by a meteor that only kills one person (not a planetary disaster event), or the first recorded Sasquatch attack death, or killed by a spontaneous singularity popping into existence in your head resulting in a short-lived black hole that makes your head disappear.
I can't help but think that since we all must die, why not go out in an unusual way. I can imagine family members, years from now, whenever the man's name comes up in conversation, saying "He was killed by a tiger". I'll bet they will even steer the conversation that way so they can spring that tidbit on the listener. I would. I'm sure they will leave out certain parts of the story, though.
I have often thought of "cool deaths". I would rather die in an interesting way. And not of an "interesting" disease, either. Maybe like... killed by a meteor that only kills one person (not a planetary disaster event), or the first recorded Sasquatch attack death, or killed by a spontaneous singularity popping into existence in your head resulting in a short-lived black hole that makes your head disappear.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Disaster Preparations
As we head into winter we should make certain we are prepared for survival in bad weather or other unforseen circumstances. Check your bug-out bags and your hunker-down kits. Make sure to double-check any expiration dates. And read this collection of observations from a Katrina survivor. Remember: you can't be free if you are dead.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Libertarian Party and Its Candidates
I can't help feeling that I am still the best Libertarian candidate out there. I still intend to write in my own name unless Ron Paul somehow gets the Republican nomination. Then I may have a crisis. In a good way. I am sure that the other candidates are all wonderful people. I have nothing against any of them. I just can't bring myself to care which of them gets the nomination.
I don't really care about "party politics" either. Political parties are tools that can be used in ways good or bad. If a political party can help "us" reach freedom, great. If it can't then I will not waste my time trying to make it. I have signed the petition to try to get the Libertarian Party to return to a libertarian platform. I hope it does, and if it is serious about being libertarian, it will. If it only worries about being taken seriously by "the mainstream", then who cares what it does.
The time may come when I am forced to take my campaign more seriously again. Even though no one has ever "voted themselves free", I see Americans voting away their remaining freedom at an ever-increasing rate. It is alarming. The idealist in me needs to do something about it.
I don't really care about "party politics" either. Political parties are tools that can be used in ways good or bad. If a political party can help "us" reach freedom, great. If it can't then I will not waste my time trying to make it. I have signed the petition to try to get the Libertarian Party to return to a libertarian platform. I hope it does, and if it is serious about being libertarian, it will. If it only worries about being taken seriously by "the mainstream", then who cares what it does.
The time may come when I am forced to take my campaign more seriously again. Even though no one has ever "voted themselves free", I see Americans voting away their remaining freedom at an ever-increasing rate. It is alarming. The idealist in me needs to do something about it.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
In the News
Here is an interesting mention of Kent McManigal in the Seattle Times, along with a longer examination of my campaign in a reporter's blog from the same paper. I'm glad they find me amusing, but I wish they would examine my stance a little more. Oh well. If I had to choose between being a boring authoritarian who "they" take seriously, or a slightly colorful libertarian who they would not take seriously no matter what I did, I'd choose the current situation.
Cops: The Front Line in the Battle Against Freedom
Frequently, when I express my disgust at police officers, I hear that "the average street cop" is on "our side" with this or that issue. For all the good that does, even if it is true.
I don't care if "the average street cop believes in the right to bear arms", if they still disarm people when told to. I don't care if they realize the War on Some Drugs is a monumental waste of time, money, and lives, if they kick in doors looking for drugs.
There is a reason it is called a "police state". Without police to do the enforcement, the rest of government would be powerless to violate your rights. If they really are not the problem, let them stop enforcing "laws" that are wrong. Let them stand up to their bosses, and even arrest them for violating the rights of Americans.
Don't give me that balderdash of "only doing my job", or "I don't make the law, I only enforce it". Tyranny can not grow; genocide can not occur, without the brutal troops of government actually committing the acts of enforcement. That is known as a "war crime". One way or another, it must stop.
I don't care if "the average street cop believes in the right to bear arms", if they still disarm people when told to. I don't care if they realize the War on Some Drugs is a monumental waste of time, money, and lives, if they kick in doors looking for drugs.
There is a reason it is called a "police state". Without police to do the enforcement, the rest of government would be powerless to violate your rights. If they really are not the problem, let them stop enforcing "laws" that are wrong. Let them stand up to their bosses, and even arrest them for violating the rights of Americans.
Don't give me that balderdash of "only doing my job", or "I don't make the law, I only enforce it". Tyranny can not grow; genocide can not occur, without the brutal troops of government actually committing the acts of enforcement. That is known as a "war crime". One way or another, it must stop.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Xmas at The Liberated Space
I did a BlogTalk Radio interview with Angela Keaton of The Liberated Space. I enjoyed it and I hope that if you listen, you will enjoy it, too.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Happy, Merry, Joyous, Holidays!
Why not celebrate ALL of the winter solstice holidays? There is a reason humans decided to have holidays and feasts during the darkest time of the year: we need them, so instead of picking and choosing, just celebrate them all. And have happy ones, from me to you!!!
Proud to be a Libertarian
I don't know about you, but I am proud to be a libertarian. Whatever you think forms the foundation of libertarianism- the ZAP, the Universality Principle, or something else- libertarianism (and by extension, anarchism) is the only philosophy that recognizes that you own your own life. Every other philosophy or political position believes that you are stupid or evil or simply too incompetent to run your own life. Libertarians know that is not the case.
Some people balk at the concept of anarchism. I admit I think anarchism is just libertarianism fully expressed, and I think that minarchism is a desperate attempt to excuse the inexcusable. If you disagree I am fine with that, too. Show me a government that will never, can never, grow out of control and I will shut up. Yeah, I didn't think so....
I was thrilled to hear actual libertarian opinions being expressed by Ron Paul on CNN's "conservative" show last night. It isn't often that I hear a candidate speak and not feel like throwing a brick through the screen. I missed most of the interview, so I may have missed some stuff that would have irritated me earlier, but it was still a singular event in the history of national television for me.
I am proud to be part of the wave (a tiny molecule at most) that will eventually drive authoritarians and their institutions into the compost heap of history; remembered only as war criminals or psychotic control freaks. It would be nice if it could happen in my lifetime, but I can dream of the free lives my descendants will have because of the groundwork I have tried to help lay. Me and countless others who were not afraid to point at tyrants and call them "tyrants". It will take all of us, and we can never give up.
Some people balk at the concept of anarchism. I admit I think anarchism is just libertarianism fully expressed, and I think that minarchism is a desperate attempt to excuse the inexcusable. If you disagree I am fine with that, too. Show me a government that will never, can never, grow out of control and I will shut up. Yeah, I didn't think so....
I was thrilled to hear actual libertarian opinions being expressed by Ron Paul on CNN's "conservative" show last night. It isn't often that I hear a candidate speak and not feel like throwing a brick through the screen. I missed most of the interview, so I may have missed some stuff that would have irritated me earlier, but it was still a singular event in the history of national television for me.
I am proud to be part of the wave (a tiny molecule at most) that will eventually drive authoritarians and their institutions into the compost heap of history; remembered only as war criminals or psychotic control freaks. It would be nice if it could happen in my lifetime, but I can dream of the free lives my descendants will have because of the groundwork I have tried to help lay. Me and countless others who were not afraid to point at tyrants and call them "tyrants". It will take all of us, and we can never give up.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Responsibility
If you own a mall and forbid firearms, are you responsible for massacres that occur as a result? If you are President and do not oppose torture on your watch, are you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Common sense knows the answer to those questions.
Everyone has rights. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. Each right that exists casts a shadow. That shadow is called a responsibility. Whether you choose to exercise your right or not does not change the fact that it still exists and continues to cast a shadow.
Your property is yours. You can choose to allow people to enter it or not. If you do choose to allow people onto your property you are giving up some power over that property. Just because you own property does not mean you can demand that people suspend their human rights while they "visit" you. You can not demand that people become less than fully human just because they set foot on your property. It would be like saying that if you come to my house, I am allowed to strip search you, or worse, whenever I feel like it. That would be ridiculous and wrong. Your body, and all that is contained within your clothes, is strictly none of my business even if you are in my house. Unless you choose to make it my business. Now, if you are leaking radiation or toxic fluids, those are no longer part of you and become my business. If you are not comfortable with that, you should not invite people to your property. Get a dog instead.
"Authority" is not the same as a "right". The President has the same human rights as everyone else, but he also has some authority, though not nearly as much as he may claim. That authority does not include violating the human rights of anyone. Not even enemy combatants or suspected terrorists. Not even if his minions (or puppetmasters as the case may be) think that torturing one of these people may yield vital information. Whoever violates the rights of another is a criminal and should be dealt with as such.
If someone attempts to restrict the rights of others, and calamity ensues because of it, the rights violator has gone into debt. If deaths resulted, how can that debt ever be repaid? If authority is misused and lives are ended or otherwise destroyed, how can that debt be made right again? Better be safe and not try to infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise you may rack up a debt you can't pay, and that will never be forgiven.
Everyone has rights. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. Each right that exists casts a shadow. That shadow is called a responsibility. Whether you choose to exercise your right or not does not change the fact that it still exists and continues to cast a shadow.
Your property is yours. You can choose to allow people to enter it or not. If you do choose to allow people onto your property you are giving up some power over that property. Just because you own property does not mean you can demand that people suspend their human rights while they "visit" you. You can not demand that people become less than fully human just because they set foot on your property. It would be like saying that if you come to my house, I am allowed to strip search you, or worse, whenever I feel like it. That would be ridiculous and wrong. Your body, and all that is contained within your clothes, is strictly none of my business even if you are in my house. Unless you choose to make it my business. Now, if you are leaking radiation or toxic fluids, those are no longer part of you and become my business. If you are not comfortable with that, you should not invite people to your property. Get a dog instead.
"Authority" is not the same as a "right". The President has the same human rights as everyone else, but he also has some authority, though not nearly as much as he may claim. That authority does not include violating the human rights of anyone. Not even enemy combatants or suspected terrorists. Not even if his minions (or puppetmasters as the case may be) think that torturing one of these people may yield vital information. Whoever violates the rights of another is a criminal and should be dealt with as such.
If someone attempts to restrict the rights of others, and calamity ensues because of it, the rights violator has gone into debt. If deaths resulted, how can that debt ever be repaid? If authority is misused and lives are ended or otherwise destroyed, how can that debt be made right again? Better be safe and not try to infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise you may rack up a debt you can't pay, and that will never be forgiven.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Rambling Thoughts on Voting and Such
It has been said that no country has ever voted itself free. I don't feel like researching that pearl of wisdom because it seems obvious to me. The big problem with voting is that the "winners" seem to think the "losers" are obligated to live under the resultant regime. That's silly. Freedom can't happen without getting rid of the monsters who seek to control and steal from the real people. Those monsters don't voluntarily go away, either.
Guess what. I do not agree to "live with" any regimes or counterfeit "laws", duly elected or not. There, I said it in writing AGAIN so no one can ever claim I consented implicitly to abide by anything that I did not explicitly agree to. Nor do I automatically expect anyone else abide by whatever nonsense "laws" are the fashion of the day. Although I usually obey reasonable traffic laws, I never assume others will. (That is why I watch other drivers and do not assume they will stop at red lights.) I do expect others to respect my rights, just as I will respect theirs.
Regardless of how the 2008 election plays out, I expect that the winner will be another tyrant wannabe. Ron Paul is as good a candidate as we will ever get from the Demopublicans and I would love to see him get the Republican nomination. As long as his policies do not violate my rights, I would follow them. If they cross the line, I will give them the same respect I would give Hillary's verbal flatus.
I am disappointed in the Libertarian candidates. Not for any good reason; just because they don't inspire me. I am so uninspired that I don't even keep up with who is still in the race and who has dropped out. I still plan to write in my own name unless the situation changes RADICALLY.
Guess what. I do not agree to "live with" any regimes or counterfeit "laws", duly elected or not. There, I said it in writing AGAIN so no one can ever claim I consented implicitly to abide by anything that I did not explicitly agree to. Nor do I automatically expect anyone else abide by whatever nonsense "laws" are the fashion of the day. Although I usually obey reasonable traffic laws, I never assume others will. (That is why I watch other drivers and do not assume they will stop at red lights.) I do expect others to respect my rights, just as I will respect theirs.
Regardless of how the 2008 election plays out, I expect that the winner will be another tyrant wannabe. Ron Paul is as good a candidate as we will ever get from the Demopublicans and I would love to see him get the Republican nomination. As long as his policies do not violate my rights, I would follow them. If they cross the line, I will give them the same respect I would give Hillary's verbal flatus.
I am disappointed in the Libertarian candidates. Not for any good reason; just because they don't inspire me. I am so uninspired that I don't even keep up with who is still in the race and who has dropped out. I still plan to write in my own name unless the situation changes RADICALLY.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Computer Problems ......Again
My computer has crashed again so I may not be blogging as much until I can get it fixed. Now it just says "Operating System Not Found". Therefore I am on a borrowed computer which is difficult to use.
I just didn't want anyone to think I had renounced beautiful anarchism and gone slinking away.
Also, I am working diligently on my major writing project which is taking a lot of time at the moment. It's a very good thing I saved my project and emailed it to myself before the crash!
__________________________
I just didn't want anyone to think I had renounced beautiful anarchism and gone slinking away.
Also, I am working diligently on my major writing project which is taking a lot of time at the moment. It's a very good thing I saved my project and emailed it to myself before the crash!
__________________________
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
"Support America" to Death
If, in order to "support America", it is necessary to endorse torture (using whatever euphemism you may prefer). If "supporting America" makes it necessary to condone government spying on Americans. If supporters must look away while government violates the Constitution (which, including ALL of the Bill of Rights, just happens to be the law that the current government is absolutely required to obey). If, to "support America", I must allow the enforcement of "laws" which cause damage to society and, in many cases, cause death (such as drug "laws" and gun "laws"), then why would it be desirable to support America?
It wouldn't be desirable at all. No country that must stoop to such tyrannical behavior in order to "preserve national security" or any other government notion deserves to continue to exist. Up until the last couple of decades Americans would have known that instinctively. What happened? Why are so few people pointing it out. Why don't more people stand up and say "Enough!"?
It isn't, and never has been, necessary to support all those atrocities in order to support America. The United States IS NOT America. Don't ever let them fool you into believing it is.
What IS necessary to support AMERICA is the courage to point out that the current US government is an outlaw regime which has taken over the government ....aided by the complicity of phony, flag-waving "patriots" who were fooled into voting away liberty in exchange for "entitlements" and "safety". You know the kind: the ones who would tell Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to go back to.... somewhere else... if they don't like the way King George treats his subjects. Only now these "patriotic Americans" tell the true Americans to "go back to Russia" if we point out that the US has become more socialistic than Stalin ever could have imagined Russia becoming. They wouldn't recognize "America" if they stumbled across it. Otherwise the 2008 election would be a contest between Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party candidate (or me), ....and the Demopublican candidates would all be in jail for treason.
________
It wouldn't be desirable at all. No country that must stoop to such tyrannical behavior in order to "preserve national security" or any other government notion deserves to continue to exist. Up until the last couple of decades Americans would have known that instinctively. What happened? Why are so few people pointing it out. Why don't more people stand up and say "Enough!"?
It isn't, and never has been, necessary to support all those atrocities in order to support America. The United States IS NOT America. Don't ever let them fool you into believing it is.
What IS necessary to support AMERICA is the courage to point out that the current US government is an outlaw regime which has taken over the government ....aided by the complicity of phony, flag-waving "patriots" who were fooled into voting away liberty in exchange for "entitlements" and "safety". You know the kind: the ones who would tell Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to go back to.... somewhere else... if they don't like the way King George treats his subjects. Only now these "patriotic Americans" tell the true Americans to "go back to Russia" if we point out that the US has become more socialistic than Stalin ever could have imagined Russia becoming. They wouldn't recognize "America" if they stumbled across it. Otherwise the 2008 election would be a contest between Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party candidate (or me), ....and the Demopublican candidates would all be in jail for treason.
________
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Banned!!
The racist blogger banned me from commenting on his blog. That is something I have never done to anyone. He was congratulating himself for being "pro-Black and anti-racist" and I merely pointed out the absurdity of that fantasy. Unfortunately I don't have my original comment which he deleted so quickly, but it went something like this:
He claims I violated the posting rules. I read the rules. Nowhere did I read that the truth should not be mentioned. The truth would shatter his little world where he takes comfort in being the big protector of everyone he thinks are inferior to himself. No wonder it scares him.
____________________
Edited: I guess I did violate his policy (3.a. specifically). I said "people like you, the racists" and his rules clearly state that it is forbidden to point out that he is a hate-filled, wild-eyed racist, no matter what his own words testify to. He says his blog opposes racism and a lot of other things, "as defined by me". Isn't that clever? In other words, if he changes the definitions to fit his perverse mind-set, he can claim to be anything or nothing at all.
UPDATE 5-19-2008: I am still getting referrals from the racist's blog. Well, he is still a racist and I am still not.
......................
It is impossible to be "pro-Black and anti-racist" just as it would be
impossible to be "pro-White and anti-racist". It is people like you,
the racists, who enable such things as the attack by the teen criminals on the woman who tried
to take a seat on the bus recently. Where is your mention of
that?
He claims I violated the posting rules. I read the rules. Nowhere did I read that the truth should not be mentioned. The truth would shatter his little world where he takes comfort in being the big protector of everyone he thinks are inferior to himself. No wonder it scares him.
____________________
Edited: I guess I did violate his policy (3.a. specifically). I said "people like you, the racists" and his rules clearly state that it is forbidden to point out that he is a hate-filled, wild-eyed racist, no matter what his own words testify to. He says his blog opposes racism and a lot of other things, "as defined by me". Isn't that clever? In other words, if he changes the definitions to fit his perverse mind-set, he can claim to be anything or nothing at all.
UPDATE 5-19-2008: I am still getting referrals from the racist's blog. Well, he is still a racist and I am still not.
......................
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Monkey Bars
Soon after I moved to Pennsylvania, I found myself in a strange situation unlike any I had ever been in. I was staying with my new in-laws in an apartment building in the city. If you don't think that is strange and scary, you don't know me. We were in the process of buying a house in another area so everything was in limbo. There wasn't much for me to do since I knew nothing about the area and my wife was always at work.
Several times I found myself at the apartment's playground, sitting at the top of the monkey bars chatting with kids, most of whom were between 10 and 15 years old. I actually enjoyed those times a lot. Whether it was listening to them talk about the things that were important to them, or on rare occasions trying to give them adult advice, I came away with a sense of respect for them. They were much smarter and more aware than most adults give them credit for being, and in some cases, probably too aware. Some, if not most, came from family situations that were not very good. I never tried to advise them unless they really asked. You could tell that they needed to be listened to, and not talked down to.
I don't know if our perch up in the air helped or not, but I feel that my willingness to meet them on their own terms, instead of holding onto some silly adult dignity, may have opened the way for some real communication.
Seven years have passed, that marriage fell apart, I lost the house and all the money I had put into it to my ex-wife, and I have moved from state to state since then, but I still think of those kids and wonder where they are now. And I wonder why people can't sit and talk to one another so that understandings can be forged. Meet people on their own turf even if you think you will look silly. We are all more alike than different, after all.
Several times I found myself at the apartment's playground, sitting at the top of the monkey bars chatting with kids, most of whom were between 10 and 15 years old. I actually enjoyed those times a lot. Whether it was listening to them talk about the things that were important to them, or on rare occasions trying to give them adult advice, I came away with a sense of respect for them. They were much smarter and more aware than most adults give them credit for being, and in some cases, probably too aware. Some, if not most, came from family situations that were not very good. I never tried to advise them unless they really asked. You could tell that they needed to be listened to, and not talked down to.
I don't know if our perch up in the air helped or not, but I feel that my willingness to meet them on their own terms, instead of holding onto some silly adult dignity, may have opened the way for some real communication.
Seven years have passed, that marriage fell apart, I lost the house and all the money I had put into it to my ex-wife, and I have moved from state to state since then, but I still think of those kids and wonder where they are now. And I wonder why people can't sit and talk to one another so that understandings can be forged. Meet people on their own turf even if you think you will look silly. We are all more alike than different, after all.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Uncle Bob's Treehouse
I recently discovered another very good libertarian blog. It is called "Uncle Bob's Treehouse". I can't remember how I discovered in, but I think it was through War on Guns. I highly recommend you take a look at it.
Boston Tea Party Day
Celebrate the day when Americans first told thieving government what it could go do to itself. Join those early "hooligan libertarians" (and their associates) in spirit. Find some way to demonstrate to government that you "aim to misbehave". America was not freed the first time by politeness toward tyranny. It will not be freed this time by politeness toward tyranny, either. Which "tax" causes you the most hardship? Is there a way you can throw your own Boston tea party with friends?
I would enjoy seeing mobs of protesters in V masks burning piles of Social Security cards, drivers licenses, or any other sort of permits or tax forms on the steps of the appropriate government agencies. All these things are, after all, just ways the government steals your money (and exerts unwarranted, and illegal, control over your life).
Of course, if you insist on being nice (gag) to the tyrants, just donate money to Ron Paul's Boston Tea Party Day money bomb or the Libertarian candidate of your choice.
I would enjoy seeing mobs of protesters in V masks burning piles of Social Security cards, drivers licenses, or any other sort of permits or tax forms on the steps of the appropriate government agencies. All these things are, after all, just ways the government steals your money (and exerts unwarranted, and illegal, control over your life).
Of course, if you insist on being nice (gag) to the tyrants, just donate money to Ron Paul's Boston Tea Party Day money bomb or the Libertarian candidate of your choice.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Bill of Rights Day
Today is Bill of Rights Day. Celebrate all your rights everyday, whether they are government-approved or not. Honor the "high shelf" which was intended to place all our rights beyond the reach of government.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Civility
Why is it so hard for people to be nice to one another? As anarchists and/or libertarians civility is the normal state of behavior. Anything else is an aberration. Almost all of the nastiness in the world comes from people trying to impose their will on others, and sometimes, from the natural attempt to resist. The statist types look for reasons to fight amongst themselves or with us. It is their nature and shouldn't surprise us. Yet, even when they become the target, they don't see what is really happening.
What is happening is the spread of the mental illness that makes people believe that they have a say in what others do, whether it affects them directly or not. The idea that "society" owns you or is owed some debt by allowing you to exist. The idea that someone else has a say in whether you choose to carry a gun or not, what you may choose to smoke in your own home on Friday night, where your money comes from, or a myriad of other busy-body issues.
Authoritarians love this situation. The state is helping to destroy civility with "laws" and regulations. Instead of "live and let live" or "agreeing to disagree" things become the business of government. And as a business, they must feed the fires of hostility to keep themselves strong.
I resolve to always make sure any unpleasantness in my life comes only from my resistance to being controlled; not from any attempt on my part to control others. It is all I can promise.
What is happening is the spread of the mental illness that makes people believe that they have a say in what others do, whether it affects them directly or not. The idea that "society" owns you or is owed some debt by allowing you to exist. The idea that someone else has a say in whether you choose to carry a gun or not, what you may choose to smoke in your own home on Friday night, where your money comes from, or a myriad of other busy-body issues.
Authoritarians love this situation. The state is helping to destroy civility with "laws" and regulations. Instead of "live and let live" or "agreeing to disagree" things become the business of government. And as a business, they must feed the fires of hostility to keep themselves strong.
I resolve to always make sure any unpleasantness in my life comes only from my resistance to being controlled; not from any attempt on my part to control others. It is all I can promise.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Comment Blogging
Instead of a new blog post today, please go read the comments on Monday's blog, That is worth a day's contemplation, at least.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Is It "Paranoid" To Carry a Gun?
I have been told that to carry a gun shows paranoia. It shows that the gun bearer is looking for trouble or expecting it to erupt around every corner. "How can someone go through life fearing everything like that?"
Using that standard, anyone who takes any precaution in order to be prepared is paranoid. Or does it only apply to those who take the responsibility to defend themselves and the people around them from violence? Those who keep fire extinguishers, those who wear seat belts, those who take vitamins or preventative medications, those who have a savings account or investments are just looking for something to go wrong or else they would just sit back and think everything will be OK. Right?
Perhaps those who "bear arms" are the only ones who are not paranoid. They don't need to be. They are comfortable in the knowledge that if something should happen, however unlikely, they have the tools available to take control of the situation instead of waiting to be rescued by people who have no motivation to do any real rescuing. They can walk around with a confidence that is lacking among the fearful. They can afford to be more friendly and helpful, while those who handicap themselves must either pass some stranger in need or risk injury in order to offer help.
Using that standard, anyone who takes any precaution in order to be prepared is paranoid. Or does it only apply to those who take the responsibility to defend themselves and the people around them from violence? Those who keep fire extinguishers, those who wear seat belts, those who take vitamins or preventative medications, those who have a savings account or investments are just looking for something to go wrong or else they would just sit back and think everything will be OK. Right?
Perhaps those who "bear arms" are the only ones who are not paranoid. They don't need to be. They are comfortable in the knowledge that if something should happen, however unlikely, they have the tools available to take control of the situation instead of waiting to be rescued by people who have no motivation to do any real rescuing. They can walk around with a confidence that is lacking among the fearful. They can afford to be more friendly and helpful, while those who handicap themselves must either pass some stranger in need or risk injury in order to offer help.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Criminals' Rights
How can I believe that you and I have the right to shoot and kill criminals when my assertion is that rights are absolute and no one can lose their rights for any reason? What I have said before, and still believe, is that rights are absolute, and they do not overlap (by which I mean I have no right to do anything that would violate YOUR rights). Where does that leave my contention?
Well, when someone chooses to commit a true "crime", they have initiated force, either physically or economically. I have the right to act in self defense. In order to complete my self defensive act, the person who chose to initiate force may well get injured or killed. I did not set the acts in motion so it is not my fault. I am not killing an intruder; he is killing himself by setting a train of events into motion. Gravity does not kill a "jumper"; his own act of jumping off a balcony brings a logical conclusion that will kill him unless certain precautions are taken, or unless conditions save him. Neither gravity, nor the balcony, nor the ground below should feel any guilt (if they could) for his death. The same holds true for an innocent person who kills an attacker. You did not violate his rights, he violated his own rights at the same time he violated yours. You did not seek him out; he took a risk and lost, and society is richer for the outcome.
Well, when someone chooses to commit a true "crime", they have initiated force, either physically or economically. I have the right to act in self defense. In order to complete my self defensive act, the person who chose to initiate force may well get injured or killed. I did not set the acts in motion so it is not my fault. I am not killing an intruder; he is killing himself by setting a train of events into motion. Gravity does not kill a "jumper"; his own act of jumping off a balcony brings a logical conclusion that will kill him unless certain precautions are taken, or unless conditions save him. Neither gravity, nor the balcony, nor the ground below should feel any guilt (if they could) for his death. The same holds true for an innocent person who kills an attacker. You did not violate his rights, he violated his own rights at the same time he violated yours. You did not seek him out; he took a risk and lost, and society is richer for the outcome.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
I Want One!
I am not usually too impressed or excited about hi-tech gadgets, but... this is the one that I would add to my wish-list if I did such things: the Kindle.I realize the reality rarely lives up to the hype, but to me this is cooler than an iPhone, iPod, cellphone/digital camera, any games, or anything else electronic I have ever seen. And, no, this is not a hint for someone to buy me one.
Usually I have things like the ParaOrdinance Covert Black Carry on my wish list, where they stay for years and years (and where it remains to this day). This is the first time I can remember that I got the wantsies over a gadget. Maybe someday, after it is obsolete, I will get one, or something similar.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Hilarious Reporters
From years ago:
Since I recognize that airline passengers should be as well armed on the plane as off, I have a serious philosophical dislike of misguided airport "security measures". But sometimes, related matters can be hilarious.
I was once watching a news report on the fallibility of airport security. To demonstrate how bad it was, the reporter put a toy water gun in his luggage and sent it through the X-ray machine. (Obviously this was before "9/11") He then had a field-day that the screener did not recognize the "gun" on the screen. He even pointed it out on the replay. It didn't look like a gun to me, either. Maybe that was because it wasn't a gun, Sherlock! The X-ray of a toy water gun and an actual gun are absolutely nothing alike. Any clown off the street should know that, but apparently Mr. Reporterman didn't. That his editor didn't catch the blunder made it even funnier. Ahhh. Good times....
Since I recognize that airline passengers should be as well armed on the plane as off, I have a serious philosophical dislike of misguided airport "security measures". But sometimes, related matters can be hilarious.
I was once watching a news report on the fallibility of airport security. To demonstrate how bad it was, the reporter put a toy water gun in his luggage and sent it through the X-ray machine. (Obviously this was before "9/11") He then had a field-day that the screener did not recognize the "gun" on the screen. He even pointed it out on the replay. It didn't look like a gun to me, either. Maybe that was because it wasn't a gun, Sherlock! The X-ray of a toy water gun and an actual gun are absolutely nothing alike. Any clown off the street should know that, but apparently Mr. Reporterman didn't. That his editor didn't catch the blunder made it even funnier. Ahhh. Good times....
Friday, December 07, 2007
Ending Mall Shootings Safely
Here is a mind-bender that was running through my head today:
Suppose you are minding your own business at a mall and a shooter appears. What do you do? As a responsible person, you should pull out your concealed gun and quickly put an end to the danger, of course. "Gun free" zone or not. Now, what if it turns out that it was just some kind of "test" to check the security of the mall, and you just shot the actor portraying the criminal, who might very well be a cop? After reading about the government "tests" of TSA airport security (fake bombs), and reading of the fake "gunman" situation that was played out at a school a while back, it makes me think that such a thing could actually happen. So, do you shoot or do you wonder if it is a simulation? You shoot. Some things are just that important, and this is one of them.
Any person who agrees to take part in a fake attack deserves to be killed as if he were a real danger, in my opinion. Because he is a very real danger. I am sure "the law" would not agree, but that is because they would be wrong.
________
Suppose you are minding your own business at a mall and a shooter appears. What do you do? As a responsible person, you should pull out your concealed gun and quickly put an end to the danger, of course. "Gun free" zone or not. Now, what if it turns out that it was just some kind of "test" to check the security of the mall, and you just shot the actor portraying the criminal, who might very well be a cop? After reading about the government "tests" of TSA airport security (fake bombs), and reading of the fake "gunman" situation that was played out at a school a while back, it makes me think that such a thing could actually happen. So, do you shoot or do you wonder if it is a simulation? You shoot. Some things are just that important, and this is one of them.
Any person who agrees to take part in a fake attack deserves to be killed as if he were a real danger, in my opinion. Because he is a very real danger. I am sure "the law" would not agree, but that is because they would be wrong.
________
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Six Minutes of Victim Disarmament
Just in case anyone still, after all these years, thinks it is a good idea to leave guns to the bad people and the badge people only: "By the time officers arrived six minutes later, the shooting was over". That is the only relevant part of the news story about Wednesday afternoon's mall shooting in Omaha. It is the only part that does not ever seem to get inside the brains of the disarmament crowd.
When a crime occurs it is too late to call anyone for help. Cops are NOT legally responsible for protecting you anyway. That fallacy has been disproved in court. YOU are the line between chaos and civilization. It is up to you and you alone. Cops are the vultures who swoop in to feed off of the carnage after it is over, at least in most cases. Most readers of this blog will already understand this at an instinctive level. The rest of society needs to begin to grasp the concept.
I expect another fund-raising email from the "Sarah Brady Mass-Murderer Fan Club" tomorrow. Maybe they will once again want a dollar (or three) for each victim of their policies. Whatever. They will be dancing in the blood one way or another. Just watch.
When a crime occurs it is too late to call anyone for help. Cops are NOT legally responsible for protecting you anyway. That fallacy has been disproved in court. YOU are the line between chaos and civilization. It is up to you and you alone. Cops are the vultures who swoop in to feed off of the carnage after it is over, at least in most cases. Most readers of this blog will already understand this at an instinctive level. The rest of society needs to begin to grasp the concept.
I expect another fund-raising email from the "Sarah Brady Mass-Murderer Fan Club" tomorrow. Maybe they will once again want a dollar (or three) for each victim of their policies. Whatever. They will be dancing in the blood one way or another. Just watch.
Open BOTH Eyes
My eyesight stinks. I have worn glasses since I was in first grade. My optometrist told me once my eyesight is somewhere around 20/1600. As bad as it is, it is much worse when I try to use only one eye. When both are being used, they correct for one another somewhat and make the picture much clearer. Maybe it is a biological analog to speckle interferometry.
With regards to the way humans see the "political" world, the world of human interaction, only libertarianism sees the whole picture clearly. Authoritarianism only sees the half they wish to see, either "left" or "right"; erroneously called "conservative" or "liberal". By using only one "eye" they get a blurry, distorted view. It leads them down the wrong path towards doom. They can't even recognize the real world because they have never seen it. That is why they can't understand libertarians and anarchists.
With regards to the way humans see the "political" world, the world of human interaction, only libertarianism sees the whole picture clearly. Authoritarianism only sees the half they wish to see, either "left" or "right"; erroneously called "conservative" or "liberal". By using only one "eye" they get a blurry, distorted view. It leads them down the wrong path towards doom. They can't even recognize the real world because they have never seen it. That is why they can't understand libertarians and anarchists.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Should I write a Book?
I have been thinking about the possibility of writing a book. Should I? Is there a market for such? Is there a need for more "preaching to the choir" or is there a way to move beyond that to "preaching to the heathens" (the authoritarians and government sympathizers).
My idea at this point is to take the content of this blog and work it into a coherent, organized, book. Not an autobiographical book in any sense, other than documenting my philosophy. I would obviously need to write extra stuff to tie it all together as well. I have actually begun the project, just to see what the finished product looks like. I just wonder if it is worth the effort.
I have already asked a couple of people privately. If you think it would be a good thing, or not, let me know. And if any of you know any publishers who might be interested, or know any book store owners who would like to carry such a book, please send them my way.
My idea at this point is to take the content of this blog and work it into a coherent, organized, book. Not an autobiographical book in any sense, other than documenting my philosophy. I would obviously need to write extra stuff to tie it all together as well. I have actually begun the project, just to see what the finished product looks like. I just wonder if it is worth the effort.
I have already asked a couple of people privately. If you think it would be a good thing, or not, let me know. And if any of you know any publishers who might be interested, or know any book store owners who would like to carry such a book, please send them my way.
Monday, December 03, 2007
"If You Have Nothing to Hide....."
Reading this story (by way of War on Guns) I saw this ignorant comment from someone who hid under the name "support police": "If you have nothing to hide then why are you concerned? Our underpaid police are out there risking thier (sic) lives so people can have a happy and safe country - Go back to Russia "
Even if you are guilty of no real crime, is there nothing in your life that could be used against you in any way? Do you want everyone to know all your PINs, your bank account numbers, your home address, work address, your children's names, all your medical history, anything? Do you want these state-sponsored perverts watching you use the toilet or having sex? What about the private thoughts inside your head? They may not be as private as you think they are. Could none of those be misinterpreted?
I am guilty of no real crime. Why do I care if the authoriturds spy on me? Because I do not trust those who gather the information. They are dishonest and corrupt to the core. They spy on us and yet will beat, arrest, taser, and threaten to kill anyone who returns the favor.
Look back at the ignoramus's last barb. Isn't it funny that someone who advocates and worships Soviet-style surveillance would want those who don't to "go back to Russia"? That person's pen name should have been "support tyranny". It would have been a LOT more honest!
Even if you are guilty of no real crime, is there nothing in your life that could be used against you in any way? Do you want everyone to know all your PINs, your bank account numbers, your home address, work address, your children's names, all your medical history, anything? Do you want these state-sponsored perverts watching you use the toilet or having sex? What about the private thoughts inside your head? They may not be as private as you think they are. Could none of those be misinterpreted?
I am guilty of no real crime. Why do I care if the authoriturds spy on me? Because I do not trust those who gather the information. They are dishonest and corrupt to the core. They spy on us and yet will beat, arrest, taser, and threaten to kill anyone who returns the favor.
Look back at the ignoramus's last barb. Isn't it funny that someone who advocates and worships Soviet-style surveillance would want those who don't to "go back to Russia"? That person's pen name should have been "support tyranny". It would have been a LOT more honest!
The High Shelf
If you have ever had an unruly child come to visit, you know it is important to place the breakable nice things out of reach. Usually a high shelf becomes the temporary home for these objects. If you have an unruly child living with you, you either leave the breakables on that shelf permanently or hide them in the top of your closet.
The shelf didn't create the nice things that are upon it; it simply protects, or was intended to protect, them.
Government is a very bad destructive child. Human rights are very precious and are not to be played with. The Bill of Rights was intended as a high shelf on which to put those things that government was not to be trusted with. Being like a naughty child, some things needed to be out of its reach. The shelf was not enough.
Unfortunately, we the parents have watched as the bad child has stolen a step stool and broken everything on the shelf. If the broken "pretties" are noticed, most of the parents gently threaten a "time out"without ever following through. It hasn't worked. Now the child thinks it runs the house. Government is a particularly bad child, with super-strength ADHD, to boot. Government needs to at least have its pudgy, grubby little hand slapped til it is red.
The shelf didn't create the nice things that are upon it; it simply protects, or was intended to protect, them.
Government is a very bad destructive child. Human rights are very precious and are not to be played with. The Bill of Rights was intended as a high shelf on which to put those things that government was not to be trusted with. Being like a naughty child, some things needed to be out of its reach. The shelf was not enough.
Unfortunately, we the parents have watched as the bad child has stolen a step stool and broken everything on the shelf. If the broken "pretties" are noticed, most of the parents gently threaten a "time out"without ever following through. It hasn't worked. Now the child thinks it runs the house. Government is a particularly bad child, with super-strength ADHD, to boot. Government needs to at least have its pudgy, grubby little hand slapped til it is red.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Don't Look Back; Move Forward
My new article in The Libertarian Enterprise:
I don't really look as though I belong in the 21st century. I don't act like I belong here, either. My personal views are based on mutual respect and taking responsibility for oneself. Because of my appearance and opinions, people mistakenly believe I live in the past. I have been accused of wanting to return to "the good old days" when a person could walk down the street carrying a gun and not be noticed, except by people who wanted to "talk guns" with him. To a time when self-reliance and individuality were valued, not feared. To an era when a person's personal life was fodder for whispered gossip and raised eyebrows; not an excuse to toss the flash-bangs through his window, kick in the door, taser the survivors, and make a brutal "arrest" on the floor—beside the bloody bodies of the puppies. Read the rest
I don't really look as though I belong in the 21st century. I don't act like I belong here, either. My personal views are based on mutual respect and taking responsibility for oneself. Because of my appearance and opinions, people mistakenly believe I live in the past. I have been accused of wanting to return to "the good old days" when a person could walk down the street carrying a gun and not be noticed, except by people who wanted to "talk guns" with him. To a time when self-reliance and individuality were valued, not feared. To an era when a person's personal life was fodder for whispered gossip and raised eyebrows; not an excuse to toss the flash-bangs through his window, kick in the door, taser the survivors, and make a brutal "arrest" on the floor—beside the bloody bodies of the puppies. Read the rest
Saturday, December 01, 2007
"Property Rights" Versus "Human Rights"
A discussion with Francois Tremblay resulted from yesterday's post on "Limited Rights". He asserts that rights are limited. The basis for his argument is that property rights can be limited, bought, and sold. I agree with this assessment, but feel that property rights are in a slightly different category from other human rights. You can follow the discussion on the comments on that post. I will explain my thoughts here.
All rights are essentially "property rights" but not all property rights are "human rights". You "own" your body and your life; they are your property. These are your human rights that are absolute and non-negotiable. The other property rights, to your time and possessions, and to a lesser extent- your actions, can be bartered away, as we all do on a daily basis. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the "non-human-rights" property rights are different because they can be bought, sold, or traded.
"Actions" are not the same thing as "rights". In taking a job you are selling some of your time and the actions you will perform during that time in exchange for something else (money). You are agreeing to do certain things in exchange for money. You are not (or, at least shouldn't be) selling your body, but only renting it for a limited duration or job. If I rent something from you, you still retain limited property rights to that thing. My rental agreement does not allow me to destroy that which I rent. With your person, you can give up some property rights to your time and actions for a set amount of time, but you can not sell off your basic human rights. You do not give up your right to not be attacked or defrauded. You do not give up your right to defend yourself against these things. If your boss demands that you give up those rights you have no obligation to abide by his wishes as they violate your basic human rights and are null and void.
During the time which a particular "property right" to specific possessions belongs to you, I would still say it is absolute, but it is within your personal rights to sell off that particular possession and thereby lose any attached property rights.
In a situation where you are "selling yourself into slavery", you would no longer have any rights over that which you sold: your life. Any such attempt to sell your human rights would not hold any legitimacy in my eyes. It is similar to the problem I have accepting the nanny-state embracers and their abdication of responsibility and their acceptance of cradle-to-the-grave "care". Abdicating a right is tantamount to refusing to accept a responsibility that belongs only to you.
All rights are essentially "property rights" but not all property rights are "human rights". You "own" your body and your life; they are your property. These are your human rights that are absolute and non-negotiable. The other property rights, to your time and possessions, and to a lesser extent- your actions, can be bartered away, as we all do on a daily basis. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the "non-human-rights" property rights are different because they can be bought, sold, or traded.
"Actions" are not the same thing as "rights". In taking a job you are selling some of your time and the actions you will perform during that time in exchange for something else (money). You are agreeing to do certain things in exchange for money. You are not (or, at least shouldn't be) selling your body, but only renting it for a limited duration or job. If I rent something from you, you still retain limited property rights to that thing. My rental agreement does not allow me to destroy that which I rent. With your person, you can give up some property rights to your time and actions for a set amount of time, but you can not sell off your basic human rights. You do not give up your right to not be attacked or defrauded. You do not give up your right to defend yourself against these things. If your boss demands that you give up those rights you have no obligation to abide by his wishes as they violate your basic human rights and are null and void.
During the time which a particular "property right" to specific possessions belongs to you, I would still say it is absolute, but it is within your personal rights to sell off that particular possession and thereby lose any attached property rights.
In a situation where you are "selling yourself into slavery", you would no longer have any rights over that which you sold: your life. Any such attempt to sell your human rights would not hold any legitimacy in my eyes. It is similar to the problem I have accepting the nanny-state embracers and their abdication of responsibility and their acceptance of cradle-to-the-grave "care". Abdicating a right is tantamount to refusing to accept a responsibility that belongs only to you.