Why 'anarchy' is superior to statism
Only anarchists can exist in society without feeling a compulsion to know everyone's business and control it. I can pass people on the street, and whether they are a Nazi, a Republican, or a Communist, it doesn't matter to me as long as they do not attack me or anyone else while I am around. They can have absolutely disgusting authoritarian personal views and "morals", but it doesn't matter as long as they do not act upon them. As an anarchist I understand that the lives of others are none of my business unless they choose to make it my business by initiating force.
Therefore, I do not "need" government to control other people. That would require a police escort for each of us, and while it seems this is where things are headed, it is not a good development, nor will it be successful at ending "crime".
I can get along just fine, left to my own devices. I find no reason to attack anyone, or steal from them. If they attack me or steal from me, I have more to fear from the responding enforcers than from the initial attack, especially if I am disobedient enough to solve the problem on my own.
I recognize that no one gets anything from government that wasn't stolen from someone else first. Society is a win/win game. Government upsets this balance and makes one side lose in every interaction. This causes aggravation and frustration and rips society apart at the seams; pitting "givers" against "getters". Then government uses the discord as another justification for its own existence.
Infrastructure and innovation, when attempted by government at all, cost too much and are pathetically anemic substitutes for what could be done without government constraints. Where would we be without government? Probably a few hundred years more advanced, is where. As an example of "government innovation": Government built already obsolete space shuttles in the 1970s from 1960's technology and didn't get around to flying them until the 1980s. Almost none of the original specifications or expectations were met by even this multi-billion dollar project, but this is how government "works". And these are the people who should be telling the rest of us how to live and prosper? Be warned, you are about to be "given" more government "innovation" than you can survive. "Obamacare" will mean "2009-level medical care"- well into the next century. It is inevitable.
So free yourself of the brainwashing. You are a sovereign individual. You are not your neighbor's keeper, nor are you his slave. Your obligations to him begin and end with the obligation to not initiate force. Don't meddle or ask anyone to meddle on your behalf. Accept your responsibilities and live your life. This is a very liberating way of life, yet it must be foreign to the authoritarians since it seems beyond their comprehension.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Punching holes in statism, without hurting feelings- I hope
Punching holes in statism, without hurting feelings- I hope
This is one of those times when a reader had some very good questions that needed more space than a comment box would permit. Perhaps you have been having the same doubts about a free society. If so, consider this a hand reaching out to you, as well.
Without further ado, I give you reader DLH:
There is always only one legitimate rule, the same one that has existed throughout history: Do not attack others. This includes "economic attacks" like theft and fraud. I didn't make this up. Think "The Golden Rule" and "The Wiccan Rede". This rule probably evolved along with humans as they began to develop society. Without it, we would still be animals in the jungle. Ignoring it, or making exceptions for the state, is tearing civilization apart.
By respecting the equal rights of every other person. That includes not allowing a government to punish those who use self-defense against those who do NOT respect those rights. What works for a family also works on a much larger scale. The rights of two people do not trump the rights of an individual. Nor do the rights of 300 million or 6+ billion trump the rights of a single individual. Rights are not additive, but are individual. No one, and no group, has the "right" to violate the rights of an individual in any way. If every person in America voted to take your house or kill you, they would be just as wrong as if you decided to do the same to your neighbor. If an aggressor attacks someone, then the victim has the right to fight back. If you witness an attack you have the right to step in and stop the attack. You do not have the right to get together with a bunch of friends and decide that because you think that "Loner" might someday steal from you, you will beat him up today as a warning. Once you do this you have become the attacker. This is all government does, although usually they start with counterfeit "laws" rather than a physical attack. There is no need to violate the rights of the minority in order to live peacefully. This is statist brainwashing propaganda.
Proximity does not necessarily cause conflict. Only forced proximity and unequal "privilege" granted by the state, exacerbated by the creation of a parasite class who contribute nothing while living off the stolen property of their neighbors. And yet statists see this as "civilized".
"Global pollution" is a property issue. If someone is damaging your property, they need to be held accountable. They do not need to be protected by "laws" that allow them to pay a fine (which goes to the government, not the victim in any case) and either continue to damage your property, or go out of business, leaving the mess for someone else to deal with. "National borders" protect those who are damaging your property from the other side of an imaginary line. How is this right?
Terrorism is the weakest justification for government that has ever been grasped for. If the government would stop violating the absolute right of each and every individual to own and to carry any type of weapon they want, wherever they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission of anyone, ever, terrorists would go elsewhere. If government would stop sending destroyers and killers into their cities and villages, their reasons for being terrorists would evaporate. "Trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none". Wise words which the Rulers ignore at our expense. Terrorism is a government-created problem.
"Economic crises in foreign countries"- How is an economic crisis in a foreign land "our government's" problem? I admit, the US government has destabilized the world economy, but how is this a reason for continued government? If we were still using real money, instead of fiat IOUs, the world's economy would probably be stabilized and safe from prolonged crisis. Investing in America's real money could even protect foreign countries from serious economic problems. Instead, government manipulates the money supply, while forcing people to use the counterfeit "dollars" it prints. Government steals the value of even this phony-money by printing too much and causing "inflation". Then by allowing (or even mandating) dishonest banking practices like "fractional reserve banking", the government causes even more economic disaster. The thing is, prices don't rise; the value of fiat money goes down.
With a pandemic, people should be allowed to seek treatment from whoever they trust, using any medications they wish, without government intervention. Government "help" has a history of making things worse by not foreseeing the unintended consequences. Innovation is crushed under the government's regulations and by its FDA. No one ever talks about the people who died while the FDA wraps new treatments in a mummy of red-tape and backroom deals. Doctors are rationed by a broken licensing scheme that only rewards the ones who play politics well. Then you have the pharmaceutical company/government partnership. If pharmaceutical companies develop a vaccine, many people would choose to buy it. If it really works as advertised, the vaccinated people would have nothing to fear from those who chose other methods. You seem to also be ignoring the fact that wars, the main business of government, are prime causes of pandemics throughout history.
The problem is, with each of these examples I see even more reasons to get rid of the cancer of government. Or at least allow competition rather than monopoly.
And the final attempt at a coup de grace:
Some people make the claim that anarchistic societies have existed successfully in the past. I just don't know. Michael Stahl, the Sandusky County Politics Examiner is a much better authority on this than am I. My thought is that even if none have existed in the past, we are living in a different world now. Technology, especially information technology, would empower the individual and make things possible that were never dreamed of before. Just because it has never been done doesn't mean it can't be done now, and it certainly doesn't mean it is not possible. Have you ever seen a flock of several dozen people fly over your head without an airplane?
This is one of those times when a reader had some very good questions that needed more space than a comment box would permit. Perhaps you have been having the same doubts about a free society. If so, consider this a hand reaching out to you, as well.
Without further ado, I give you reader DLH:
Who gets to decide what your "legitimate" rules are ? You ? Me ? or the Leader
of the day ? Or can each of 300 million of us decide upon our own rules and
enforce them as we see fit ?
There is always only one legitimate rule, the same one that has existed throughout history: Do not attack others. This includes "economic attacks" like theft and fraud. I didn't make this up. Think "The Golden Rule" and "The Wiccan Rede". This rule probably evolved along with humans as they began to develop society. Without it, we would still be animals in the jungle. Ignoring it, or making exceptions for the state, is tearing civilization apart.
You rant about the rules of the majority being forced upon the minority .. how
else do 300 million people live together ? Move togather (sic) in some
meaningful way as is required by our very close proximity to one another.
By respecting the equal rights of every other person. That includes not allowing a government to punish those who use self-defense against those who do NOT respect those rights. What works for a family also works on a much larger scale. The rights of two people do not trump the rights of an individual. Nor do the rights of 300 million or 6+ billion trump the rights of a single individual. Rights are not additive, but are individual. No one, and no group, has the "right" to violate the rights of an individual in any way. If every person in America voted to take your house or kill you, they would be just as wrong as if you decided to do the same to your neighbor. If an aggressor attacks someone, then the victim has the right to fight back. If you witness an attack you have the right to step in and stop the attack. You do not have the right to get together with a bunch of friends and decide that because you think that "Loner" might someday steal from you, you will beat him up today as a warning. Once you do this you have become the attacker. This is all government does, although usually they start with counterfeit "laws" rather than a physical attack. There is no need to violate the rights of the minority in order to live peacefully. This is statist brainwashing propaganda.
Proximity does not necessarily cause conflict. Only forced proximity and unequal "privilege" granted by the state, exacerbated by the creation of a parasite class who contribute nothing while living off the stolen property of their neighbors. And yet statists see this as "civilized".
How would 300 million of us, as we "governed ourselves" react for instance to..
global pollution ? Terrorism ? an economic crisis spawned in some foreign land ?
a pandemic ?
"Global pollution" is a property issue. If someone is damaging your property, they need to be held accountable. They do not need to be protected by "laws" that allow them to pay a fine (which goes to the government, not the victim in any case) and either continue to damage your property, or go out of business, leaving the mess for someone else to deal with. "National borders" protect those who are damaging your property from the other side of an imaginary line. How is this right?
Terrorism is the weakest justification for government that has ever been grasped for. If the government would stop violating the absolute right of each and every individual to own and to carry any type of weapon they want, wherever they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission of anyone, ever, terrorists would go elsewhere. If government would stop sending destroyers and killers into their cities and villages, their reasons for being terrorists would evaporate. "Trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none". Wise words which the Rulers ignore at our expense. Terrorism is a government-created problem.
"Economic crises in foreign countries"- How is an economic crisis in a foreign land "our government's" problem? I admit, the US government has destabilized the world economy, but how is this a reason for continued government? If we were still using real money, instead of fiat IOUs, the world's economy would probably be stabilized and safe from prolonged crisis. Investing in America's real money could even protect foreign countries from serious economic problems. Instead, government manipulates the money supply, while forcing people to use the counterfeit "dollars" it prints. Government steals the value of even this phony-money by printing too much and causing "inflation". Then by allowing (or even mandating) dishonest banking practices like "fractional reserve banking", the government causes even more economic disaster. The thing is, prices don't rise; the value of fiat money goes down.
With a pandemic, people should be allowed to seek treatment from whoever they trust, using any medications they wish, without government intervention. Government "help" has a history of making things worse by not foreseeing the unintended consequences. Innovation is crushed under the government's regulations and by its FDA. No one ever talks about the people who died while the FDA wraps new treatments in a mummy of red-tape and backroom deals. Doctors are rationed by a broken licensing scheme that only rewards the ones who play politics well. Then you have the pharmaceutical company/government partnership. If pharmaceutical companies develop a vaccine, many people would choose to buy it. If it really works as advertised, the vaccinated people would have nothing to fear from those who chose other methods. You seem to also be ignoring the fact that wars, the main business of government, are prime causes of pandemics throughout history.
The problem is, with each of these examples I see even more reasons to get rid of the cancer of government. Or at least allow competition rather than monopoly.
And the final attempt at a coup de grace:
Has this world of yours ever existed anywhere, at anytime, for any meaningful
length of (comment cut short)
Some people make the claim that anarchistic societies have existed successfully in the past. I just don't know. Michael Stahl, the Sandusky County Politics Examiner is a much better authority on this than am I. My thought is that even if none have existed in the past, we are living in a different world now. Technology, especially information technology, would empower the individual and make things possible that were never dreamed of before. Just because it has never been done doesn't mean it can't be done now, and it certainly doesn't mean it is not possible. Have you ever seen a flock of several dozen people fly over your head without an airplane?
Statism- the Definition
Statism is the belief that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor.
One who justifies or excuses aggression and/or property violation (archation) when done in the name of political government (The State) is a statist.
Statism assumes the State to occupy a position superior to the individual; in other words, government-supremacism.
If this is what you believe, you shouldn't consider the word an insult, although I would find it insulting to be considered one.
If this position describes you, why be upset about it? Unless you feel you are wrong......
.
One who justifies or excuses aggression and/or property violation (archation) when done in the name of political government (The State) is a statist.
Statism assumes the State to occupy a position superior to the individual; in other words, government-supremacism.
If this is what you believe, you shouldn't consider the word an insult, although I would find it insulting to be considered one.
If this position describes you, why be upset about it? Unless you feel you are wrong......
.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Once upon a time, back when America was free....
Once upon a time, back when America was free....
There was a time when America was the land of freedom; full of potential and promise. Then an unauthorized, ill-conceived, and "illegal" constitutional convention was held. The die was cast for a slowly growing cancer- a government which has gained momentum from that day forward, until today when it is a full-fledged run-away train heading over the cliff of socialism. The tracks were laid by the federalists who poisoned freedom with their toxic lies and desire for a powerful and "protective" state.
There has not been a "free America" in the lifetime of anyone living today, no matter the propaganda that has been drilled into your mind. Month by month it is getting "progressively" worse. There is no longer any possibility of living without violating some "law" enacted by some government somewhere. Since "ignorance of the law is no excuse"- an absurd concept, to be sure- this means you can be kidnapped by agents of the government at any time, and killed outright if you justifiably resist your kidnappers.
Those who keep defending this government, even reaching back to the Constitution for their reasons for doing so, are defending something unrecognizable to the people who put their lives and fortunes on the line for freedom. These modern-day "patriots" would be seen as "Tories" by the honorable revolutionaries of that past era.
You and I still have all the rights we were born with, but our freedom to exercise those rights without being killed by representatives of the government are all but gone. Our freedom can be restored, but probably not while under the US government or any of its co-conspirator state governments. We will probably need to undo the original damage done by those who immorally decided to take the destiny of future generations into their own bloody hands, and put an end to the coercive, evil, external government that they established.
This doesn't mean you must sit around and mourn lost freedoms. You can still "get away with" exercising your rights by living like a sneaky little Cretaceous mammal in the shadows of the dinosaurs- while unknowingly awaiting the asteroid strike. I don't really consider that "freedom", though. Perhaps someone will someday take the initiative to act in the asteroid's stead. Are you ready?
There was a time when America was the land of freedom; full of potential and promise. Then an unauthorized, ill-conceived, and "illegal" constitutional convention was held. The die was cast for a slowly growing cancer- a government which has gained momentum from that day forward, until today when it is a full-fledged run-away train heading over the cliff of socialism. The tracks were laid by the federalists who poisoned freedom with their toxic lies and desire for a powerful and "protective" state.
There has not been a "free America" in the lifetime of anyone living today, no matter the propaganda that has been drilled into your mind. Month by month it is getting "progressively" worse. There is no longer any possibility of living without violating some "law" enacted by some government somewhere. Since "ignorance of the law is no excuse"- an absurd concept, to be sure- this means you can be kidnapped by agents of the government at any time, and killed outright if you justifiably resist your kidnappers.
Those who keep defending this government, even reaching back to the Constitution for their reasons for doing so, are defending something unrecognizable to the people who put their lives and fortunes on the line for freedom. These modern-day "patriots" would be seen as "Tories" by the honorable revolutionaries of that past era.
You and I still have all the rights we were born with, but our freedom to exercise those rights without being killed by representatives of the government are all but gone. Our freedom can be restored, but probably not while under the US government or any of its co-conspirator state governments. We will probably need to undo the original damage done by those who immorally decided to take the destiny of future generations into their own bloody hands, and put an end to the coercive, evil, external government that they established.
This doesn't mean you must sit around and mourn lost freedoms. You can still "get away with" exercising your rights by living like a sneaky little Cretaceous mammal in the shadows of the dinosaurs- while unknowingly awaiting the asteroid strike. I don't really consider that "freedom", though. Perhaps someone will someday take the initiative to act in the asteroid's stead. Are you ready?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Obama birth certificate diversion
The Obama birth certificate diversion
So, is Obama an "American citizen" or is he not? In light of his actions, this question is completely irrelevant. I couldn't possibly care any less than I already do. The entire concept of "citizen" is revolting to me anyway, as no individual belongs to any government. Where a person was born or what government papers he has to "prove it" are absolutely meaningless. What baby has ever threatened you? Where he was born doesn't leave a "scar" of any kind. Where a person grows up, and his experiences after birth, have complete bearing on who he is. What matters is what that person is doing NOW.
Obama is actively crushing freedom with every breath he takes. He is stealing more from you and me than is already being stolen by previous administrations' actions. He is directing the government to take over more of the market, including trying to destroy medical care in America (there is a rational solution that doesn't include socialism). He is passing and advocating more counterfeit "laws" that attempt to regulate or control something other than actual initiated force or theft. He is nothing but a smooth-talking mobster, and you want me to care about where he was born? Sorry, I am busy with real life.
Regardless of where Obama was born, and whether he can "prove it" or not (and don't you realize that a person who has the entire US government at his disposal could have any "official" papers created for him any time he wanted?), he has enough worshipers and followers that they would protect him from any repercussions no matter what. Face the reality: Obama is really no worse, or better, than either of the Bush goons, Clinton, or even that monster, Lincoln. He is a parasite who is just using you for his own enrichment and power. Focus on the things in plain site that can't be denied, manufactured, or believably lied about. Don't lose sight of the real threats.
Of course, any issue that makes Obama supporters scream like a "stuck pig" when mentioned, barking orders to drop the subject immediately and think of it no more, must have some psychological merit.
PS: For those who still believe the Constitution can save us or is even still relevant, I would point you to a previous article.
So, is Obama an "American citizen" or is he not? In light of his actions, this question is completely irrelevant. I couldn't possibly care any less than I already do. The entire concept of "citizen" is revolting to me anyway, as no individual belongs to any government. Where a person was born or what government papers he has to "prove it" are absolutely meaningless. What baby has ever threatened you? Where he was born doesn't leave a "scar" of any kind. Where a person grows up, and his experiences after birth, have complete bearing on who he is. What matters is what that person is doing NOW.
Obama is actively crushing freedom with every breath he takes. He is stealing more from you and me than is already being stolen by previous administrations' actions. He is directing the government to take over more of the market, including trying to destroy medical care in America (there is a rational solution that doesn't include socialism). He is passing and advocating more counterfeit "laws" that attempt to regulate or control something other than actual initiated force or theft. He is nothing but a smooth-talking mobster, and you want me to care about where he was born? Sorry, I am busy with real life.
Regardless of where Obama was born, and whether he can "prove it" or not (and don't you realize that a person who has the entire US government at his disposal could have any "official" papers created for him any time he wanted?), he has enough worshipers and followers that they would protect him from any repercussions no matter what. Face the reality: Obama is really no worse, or better, than either of the Bush goons, Clinton, or even that monster, Lincoln. He is a parasite who is just using you for his own enrichment and power. Focus on the things in plain site that can't be denied, manufactured, or believably lied about. Don't lose sight of the real threats.
Of course, any issue that makes Obama supporters scream like a "stuck pig" when mentioned, barking orders to drop the subject immediately and think of it no more, must have some psychological merit.
PS: For those who still believe the Constitution can save us or is even still relevant, I would point you to a previous article.
Disappearing freedoms are being noticed by more people
Disappearing freedoms are being noticed by more people
More and more people are realizing that their freedoms are being taken away by government at all levels, and more and more people are starting to do something about it. Some of the actions are a little misguided; some are a bit random. The fact that these things are being done at all proves there is a growing unrest. It would be nice if this unrest began to coalesce into a real change.
On one hand there are the grumpy "conservatives" who have no problem with coercive government as long as it is their side wielding the coercion. That Obama was coronated instead of their zombie sticks in their craw like a block of chalk. This is what I see in a lot of the TEA party activists. I would like to be mistaken about this, but even the acronym TEA ("Taxed Enough Already") seems to indicate a willingness to have some amount stolen from themselves and others. That is just wrong. If you wish to hand over your own money to the state, go right ahead. If you wish to force others to do the same you are advocating theft.
Then there are those who are only concerned about their particular "pursuit of happiness" being regulated away by government. They are fine with "laws" that harm others as long as they are left alone. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category. There are some shining exceptions, however. There are plenty of examples from the other side of the authoritarian end of the stick as well.
A majority of people don't consider the stupidity of having a standing army occupying our cities, towns, and countryside until one of their friends is the target of a power-crazed abuser. This may be changing. More people are beginning to awaken to the fact that the policeman is NOT your friend. Ever. The evidence is overwhelming and shocking. Cops are the new "stranger with candy", and much more of a real threat than your mom's mostly-imaginary boogeyman ever was, since almost every incident is "justified" or found to be "within department guidelines". Not a smart policy at all, but their conscious choice.
Even as the number of aware people grows, so does the devotion and fervor of the worst state worshipers. Many statists just can't imagine that anyone would really not buy into their "safety net" metaphor. Ask the fish how "safe" that net really is. These statists fear freedom more than anything else, and will do anything to crush it while preaching that tyranny is "freedom". Maybe their delusional numbers are shrinking even as government grows bigger and more intrusive. Time will tell.
In the meantime, many are through backing up!
*************************
More and more people are realizing that their freedoms are being taken away by government at all levels, and more and more people are starting to do something about it. Some of the actions are a little misguided; some are a bit random. The fact that these things are being done at all proves there is a growing unrest. It would be nice if this unrest began to coalesce into a real change.
On one hand there are the grumpy "conservatives" who have no problem with coercive government as long as it is their side wielding the coercion. That Obama was coronated instead of their zombie sticks in their craw like a block of chalk. This is what I see in a lot of the TEA party activists. I would like to be mistaken about this, but even the acronym TEA ("Taxed Enough Already") seems to indicate a willingness to have some amount stolen from themselves and others. That is just wrong. If you wish to hand over your own money to the state, go right ahead. If you wish to force others to do the same you are advocating theft.
Then there are those who are only concerned about their particular "pursuit of happiness" being regulated away by government. They are fine with "laws" that harm others as long as they are left alone. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category. There are some shining exceptions, however. There are plenty of examples from the other side of the authoritarian end of the stick as well.
A majority of people don't consider the stupidity of having a standing army occupying our cities, towns, and countryside until one of their friends is the target of a power-crazed abuser. This may be changing. More people are beginning to awaken to the fact that the policeman is NOT your friend. Ever. The evidence is overwhelming and shocking. Cops are the new "stranger with candy", and much more of a real threat than your mom's mostly-imaginary boogeyman ever was, since almost every incident is "justified" or found to be "within department guidelines". Not a smart policy at all, but their conscious choice.
Even as the number of aware people grows, so does the devotion and fervor of the worst state worshipers. Many statists just can't imagine that anyone would really not buy into their "safety net" metaphor. Ask the fish how "safe" that net really is. These statists fear freedom more than anything else, and will do anything to crush it while preaching that tyranny is "freedom". Maybe their delusional numbers are shrinking even as government grows bigger and more intrusive. Time will tell.
In the meantime, many are through backing up!
*************************
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Libertarian riches and groupies
Libertarian riches and groupies
If you are wanting to become a libertarian for the riches or the groupies, I hate to burst your bubble. You'd be better off becoming a clown. You might get rich in spite of your activism, but you would probably not be as rich as you would have been had you sold out to the state. They reward their own. And groupies seem to be in seriously short supply as well. LEOs and other such critters who like to bully people must be more appealing. That's life.
Still, there are benefits. There is no feeling in the world like being proved right on an hourly basis by world, local, and personal events. Getting above the "conservative/liberal" silliness gives you an entirely new perspective where you can see the whole picture much more clearly. It is very liberating. You will also wonder why you didn't see it before.
Plus, when given the opportunity to discuss freedom with a statist (not name-calling; the word simply describes one who believes 'government' is a legitimate human endeavor), if you can get him to stay in a debate with you, you will almost always see him eventually become a libertarian. Truth, logic, history, and consistency are all on our side, and all but the most "religiously statist" will finally see the light. It is incredibly gratifying. Give it a try. You can always find riches and groupies elsewhere.
If you are wanting to become a libertarian for the riches or the groupies, I hate to burst your bubble. You'd be better off becoming a clown. You might get rich in spite of your activism, but you would probably not be as rich as you would have been had you sold out to the state. They reward their own. And groupies seem to be in seriously short supply as well. LEOs and other such critters who like to bully people must be more appealing. That's life.
Still, there are benefits. There is no feeling in the world like being proved right on an hourly basis by world, local, and personal events. Getting above the "conservative/liberal" silliness gives you an entirely new perspective where you can see the whole picture much more clearly. It is very liberating. You will also wonder why you didn't see it before.
Plus, when given the opportunity to discuss freedom with a statist (not name-calling; the word simply describes one who believes 'government' is a legitimate human endeavor), if you can get him to stay in a debate with you, you will almost always see him eventually become a libertarian. Truth, logic, history, and consistency are all on our side, and all but the most "religiously statist" will finally see the light. It is incredibly gratifying. Give it a try. You can always find riches and groupies elsewhere.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
'Others' are the same as 'us'
'Others' are the same as 'us'
All my life there has been some group, either from another "country", of a different "religion", or even in a different "lifestyle", that the consensus of people surrounding me has held as dangerous and "not like us". This reviled "other" has, at various times in my life, been the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Mexicans, and now Muslims. It has even included domestic "out-groups" such as Democrats, atheists, rock musicians, homosexuals, or other "Christian denominations". Some people must be really desperate for an "enemy". The "other" encompasses whoever seems different enough to serve as the boogeyman for a while.
When I was too young to really think it through I accepted the common "wisdom". After all, back then it was "known" that all Russians wanted all Americans nuked dead- if we wouldn't switch to communism, that is. The Soviet government, no doubt, would not have worried about killing a few million people, just like the US government wouldn't have shed a tear over doing the same. The point is, it wasn't the Russians; it was all governments who were, and still are, the threat. Back then I was also told that all homosexuals were just waiting for the chance to trick me into becoming gay. So, where did the "threats" go? Could it be that they were never really threats to begin with?
As I got older I began to see that the "other" shifted to whatever group was expedient for convincing people to give up their freedoms as a way to be "safe". Then I began to see a pattern: I was never actually harmed by any of these scary "other" people, but instead was always harmed by those "protecting" me. It's a lesson I have taken to heart.
Every time I have made the unpopular assumption that the people in other parts of the world (or who are "different" in some other way) are basically the same as everyone I personally knew, it has borne out sooner or later. The outdated boogeyman is swept under the rug in favor of the new "threat" that is so much more "dangerous and real" than the last one (which we will now pretend we never really worried about anyway).
People everywhere really just want to pursue their own life in their own way according to what is important to them. Some of those may think that forcing others to go along is a good idea. You and I must stay strong enough that our "No!" is understood to be the final word. Disarming due to government edicts doesn't fit well with self-preservation and should never be allowed to happen. If you wonder why, look at the second sentence in this paragraph for clarification.
Of course, the main lesson should be that setting up a government that any real "others" could take over for their own agenda is a really stupid idea. No one seems to get that, though. Even in the face of clear evidence that is has already happened.
All my life there has been some group, either from another "country", of a different "religion", or even in a different "lifestyle", that the consensus of people surrounding me has held as dangerous and "not like us". This reviled "other" has, at various times in my life, been the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Mexicans, and now Muslims. It has even included domestic "out-groups" such as Democrats, atheists, rock musicians, homosexuals, or other "Christian denominations". Some people must be really desperate for an "enemy". The "other" encompasses whoever seems different enough to serve as the boogeyman for a while.
When I was too young to really think it through I accepted the common "wisdom". After all, back then it was "known" that all Russians wanted all Americans nuked dead- if we wouldn't switch to communism, that is. The Soviet government, no doubt, would not have worried about killing a few million people, just like the US government wouldn't have shed a tear over doing the same. The point is, it wasn't the Russians; it was all governments who were, and still are, the threat. Back then I was also told that all homosexuals were just waiting for the chance to trick me into becoming gay. So, where did the "threats" go? Could it be that they were never really threats to begin with?
As I got older I began to see that the "other" shifted to whatever group was expedient for convincing people to give up their freedoms as a way to be "safe". Then I began to see a pattern: I was never actually harmed by any of these scary "other" people, but instead was always harmed by those "protecting" me. It's a lesson I have taken to heart.
Every time I have made the unpopular assumption that the people in other parts of the world (or who are "different" in some other way) are basically the same as everyone I personally knew, it has borne out sooner or later. The outdated boogeyman is swept under the rug in favor of the new "threat" that is so much more "dangerous and real" than the last one (which we will now pretend we never really worried about anyway).
People everywhere really just want to pursue their own life in their own way according to what is important to them. Some of those may think that forcing others to go along is a good idea. You and I must stay strong enough that our "No!" is understood to be the final word. Disarming due to government edicts doesn't fit well with self-preservation and should never be allowed to happen. If you wonder why, look at the second sentence in this paragraph for clarification.
Of course, the main lesson should be that setting up a government that any real "others" could take over for their own agenda is a really stupid idea. No one seems to get that, though. Even in the face of clear evidence that is has already happened.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Are libertarians frustrated?
Are libertarians frustrated?
A valued reader asked a question of me that boils down to this: Can a libertarian be happy in a sea of statism?
Short answer: If you can't, you probably wouldn't be happy in "Libertopia", either.
Even in a free society, people will still be people, and the laws of physics (and biology) will still apply. That is just reality. Of course, without coercive government meddling, stealing, and trying to keep the statist status quo propped up, people might be less stressed and might be friendlier, and new technologies might allow the laws of physics to work with us rather than standing against us. That is a lot of "mights", but it would be fun to explore. Who knows, we may still get the chance. I'm not going to wring my hands in hopelessness in the meantime.
It can be frustrating to see government power growing all around us, but I realize that government isn't "society", nor is it "civilization", "us", or anything that really matters. It is like a fungus growing all over the earth and can be similarly killed and scraped off. Start where you are. Now.
The best way to scrape off that sludge of statism is to live your freedom now, as fully as you can, in line with your values and best judgment. Don't wait for a free society to emerge; your free actions will bring that change, not different actions by government. Government "change" results in the same difference as "water" vs "Dihydrogen Monoxide". Let people see, through you, that living free without harming others is not only possible, but easy, better, and the only moral option. To see through the nonsense of statism, people need to see the opposite in action. So show them.
This is the only life you get. You might as well enjoy it while pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies that government depends upon for its existence. Without a challenge of some sort, life is boring.
A valued reader asked a question of me that boils down to this: Can a libertarian be happy in a sea of statism?
Short answer: If you can't, you probably wouldn't be happy in "Libertopia", either.
Even in a free society, people will still be people, and the laws of physics (and biology) will still apply. That is just reality. Of course, without coercive government meddling, stealing, and trying to keep the statist status quo propped up, people might be less stressed and might be friendlier, and new technologies might allow the laws of physics to work with us rather than standing against us. That is a lot of "mights", but it would be fun to explore. Who knows, we may still get the chance. I'm not going to wring my hands in hopelessness in the meantime.
It can be frustrating to see government power growing all around us, but I realize that government isn't "society", nor is it "civilization", "us", or anything that really matters. It is like a fungus growing all over the earth and can be similarly killed and scraped off. Start where you are. Now.
The best way to scrape off that sludge of statism is to live your freedom now, as fully as you can, in line with your values and best judgment. Don't wait for a free society to emerge; your free actions will bring that change, not different actions by government. Government "change" results in the same difference as "water" vs "Dihydrogen Monoxide". Let people see, through you, that living free without harming others is not only possible, but easy, better, and the only moral option. To see through the nonsense of statism, people need to see the opposite in action. So show them.
This is the only life you get. You might as well enjoy it while pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies that government depends upon for its existence. Without a challenge of some sort, life is boring.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Examining and debunking the 'social contract'
Once again, I have seen the statement that I should be satisfied that my stolen money ("taxation") is being used to uphold (enforce?) the "social contract".
Social contract? What is it? Where is it? When did I sign it? Let's look at Dictionary.com's entry:
Oh. OK. There is a social contract that I explicitly agreed to. It is called The Zero Archation Principle (ZAP). It works. I voluntarily agreed to it. I have "signed" it (as well as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent). It only "regulates relations" to the extent of telling those who agree to it that they would be wrong if they initiate force against anyone (not just against those who agreed to live according to the ZAP). That is great, and no theft is necessary to "uphold" it. In fact, theft of any sort violates it. This is a social contract that works and has none of the drawbacks of other, mythical, ones.
However, I would like to examine the dictionary explanation a little more.
"...voluntary agreement among individuals..."- How is an agreement voluntary if it was reached before I was born? Why am I bound by it simply because of where I was born? That is nonsense.
"...according to any of various theories..."- Why should I believe these self-serving theories? What makes these theories any more "true" than mine? Because they who advocated them are dead now?
"...organized society is brought into being and invested with the right ..." - Just because something is "organized" doesn't make it good. "Organized crime" and "government" are two examples that come to mind, although I am repeating myself there. And this "contract" invests this "organized society" with rights? That is quite a trick. Only individuals can have rights. "Society" can't. A society could claim to have "authority", but that's imaginary. Any semblance of "authority" would depend on functioning by unanimous consent and violating the rights of no individual. Otherwise it is just "the tyranny of the majority".
"Mutual protection" can not be a right since it obligates another person. Instead, a true social contract would remove any barriers to self-defense and not penalize mutual protection. That is the sign of a real civilization.
"Welfare" is best served by not punishing people for consensual acts between individuals. Anything else creates victims of government abuse and overreach.
"...regulate the relations among its members..." - No individual has the right to regulate the consensual relations among other people, and certainly not "society as a whole". To attempt to do so renders your "contract" null and void as it violates the basic human rights of those engaged in voluntary interactions.
All of these things demonstrate why the ZAP is a legitimate "social contract" while the "implied consent" we have thrown in our faces, based upon where we live and nothing else, is not.
Moving on to the second definition, I would point out that it is not possible for anything to benefit both an individual and a government (unless that individual is a state parasite, in which case his "welfare" is harming all free individuals and is wrong). Either the one is harmed, or the other is. Since only individuals have rights, it is their "welfare" that must be placed above the "authority" of any government. Where the two clash, the individual must be given priority. If this means the government withers and dies, then so be it. No loss. The "community as a whole" is only benefited if each individual is free to pursue his or her self-interest without harming any other individuals or violating their rights. The implied "social contract" falls flat here as well, while the ZAP once again shines.
Social contract? What is it? Where is it? When did I sign it? Let's look at Dictionary.com's entry:
social contract –noun 1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which,
according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau,
organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure
mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members. 2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the
government or community as a whole.
Oh. OK. There is a social contract that I explicitly agreed to. It is called The Zero Archation Principle (ZAP). It works. I voluntarily agreed to it. I have "signed" it (as well as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent). It only "regulates relations" to the extent of telling those who agree to it that they would be wrong if they initiate force against anyone (not just against those who agreed to live according to the ZAP). That is great, and no theft is necessary to "uphold" it. In fact, theft of any sort violates it. This is a social contract that works and has none of the drawbacks of other, mythical, ones.
However, I would like to examine the dictionary explanation a little more.
"...voluntary agreement among individuals..."- How is an agreement voluntary if it was reached before I was born? Why am I bound by it simply because of where I was born? That is nonsense.
"...according to any of various theories..."- Why should I believe these self-serving theories? What makes these theories any more "true" than mine? Because they who advocated them are dead now?
"...organized society is brought into being and invested with the right ..." - Just because something is "organized" doesn't make it good. "Organized crime" and "government" are two examples that come to mind, although I am repeating myself there. And this "contract" invests this "organized society" with rights? That is quite a trick. Only individuals can have rights. "Society" can't. A society could claim to have "authority", but that's imaginary. Any semblance of "authority" would depend on functioning by unanimous consent and violating the rights of no individual. Otherwise it is just "the tyranny of the majority".
"Mutual protection" can not be a right since it obligates another person. Instead, a true social contract would remove any barriers to self-defense and not penalize mutual protection. That is the sign of a real civilization.
"Welfare" is best served by not punishing people for consensual acts between individuals. Anything else creates victims of government abuse and overreach.
"...regulate the relations among its members..." - No individual has the right to regulate the consensual relations among other people, and certainly not "society as a whole". To attempt to do so renders your "contract" null and void as it violates the basic human rights of those engaged in voluntary interactions.
All of these things demonstrate why the ZAP is a legitimate "social contract" while the "implied consent" we have thrown in our faces, based upon where we live and nothing else, is not.
Moving on to the second definition, I would point out that it is not possible for anything to benefit both an individual and a government (unless that individual is a state parasite, in which case his "welfare" is harming all free individuals and is wrong). Either the one is harmed, or the other is. Since only individuals have rights, it is their "welfare" that must be placed above the "authority" of any government. Where the two clash, the individual must be given priority. If this means the government withers and dies, then so be it. No loss. The "community as a whole" is only benefited if each individual is free to pursue his or her self-interest without harming any other individuals or violating their rights. The implied "social contract" falls flat here as well, while the ZAP once again shines.
.
Monday, July 20, 2009
'Preventer of government' should be highest office
'Preventer of government' should be highest office
I was reading "Let Me Be King For Just One Year" by Russell D. Longcore in the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I liked a lot of his ideas, but disagreed with some. Regardless, as often happens, it got my mental wheels turning and grinding. It gave me a thought.
As some of you may know, I ran for president last election cycle. I still think I may have won since I count all the non-voters as a mandate for me to take the office (no more crazy than most of the "mandates" constantly claimed by holders of political office), but the present Usurper-in-Chief wanted the office really badly and I don't feel like fighting his armed minions or his worshipful followers. Plus it's kind of amusing to see him screwing things up so badly so quickly. It's almost like he's trying.
Anyway, back to my better idea; what I really wanted to be, rather than president, was "Preventer of Government". "The stubborn brown line" holding back government from enforcing its violations upon the non-aggressive people in society by confounding every government action at every opportunity. That was pretty much my plan once elected anyway, but I didn't have a title worked out for it.
I would have made it my duty to make sure no "government" was committed against anyone. If responsible people wanted to engage in a little consensual governing behind closed doors, it would be no one else's business, of course. They would just not be allowed to force anyone to join in or comply against their will- without risking the justified consequences of self-defense.
Any "illegal" (actually, just immoral since "laws" are for cowards) attempt to re-establish a coercive government would be dealt with swiftly by the armed free people of America convincing the evil-doers of the error of their ways. Parades would then be privately organized for the heroes. It was all very exciting in my day-dreams.
It was my declared intention to shut down every federal agency, department, and bureau, starting with all the ones which are blatantly unconstitutional (would any be left?), and then continuing with ending those which are Constitutional and immoral. Clearly, that means there would be no external, coercive government left. Just as it should be.
And they lived happily ever after.
********************
I was reading "Let Me Be King For Just One Year" by Russell D. Longcore in the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I liked a lot of his ideas, but disagreed with some. Regardless, as often happens, it got my mental wheels turning and grinding. It gave me a thought.
As some of you may know, I ran for president last election cycle. I still think I may have won since I count all the non-voters as a mandate for me to take the office (no more crazy than most of the "mandates" constantly claimed by holders of political office), but the present Usurper-in-Chief wanted the office really badly and I don't feel like fighting his armed minions or his worshipful followers. Plus it's kind of amusing to see him screwing things up so badly so quickly. It's almost like he's trying.
Anyway, back to my better idea; what I really wanted to be, rather than president, was "Preventer of Government". "The stubborn brown line" holding back government from enforcing its violations upon the non-aggressive people in society by confounding every government action at every opportunity. That was pretty much my plan once elected anyway, but I didn't have a title worked out for it.
I would have made it my duty to make sure no "government" was committed against anyone. If responsible people wanted to engage in a little consensual governing behind closed doors, it would be no one else's business, of course. They would just not be allowed to force anyone to join in or comply against their will- without risking the justified consequences of self-defense.
Any "illegal" (actually, just immoral since "laws" are for cowards) attempt to re-establish a coercive government would be dealt with swiftly by the armed free people of America convincing the evil-doers of the error of their ways. Parades would then be privately organized for the heroes. It was all very exciting in my day-dreams.
It was my declared intention to shut down every federal agency, department, and bureau, starting with all the ones which are blatantly unconstitutional (would any be left?), and then continuing with ending those which are Constitutional and immoral. Clearly, that means there would be no external, coercive government left. Just as it should be.
And they lived happily ever after.
********************
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Child pornography: the automatic guilty verdict
Child pornography: the automatic guilty verdict
Believe it or not, there is a subject more personally dangerous to mention and more divisive, than "abortion". It is "child pornography".
Almost everyone wants to protect innocent children. It is in our nature. Some people, though, have broken natures and want to prey on the innocent. Many of these find jobs with government where they can cause harm with no fear of breaking the "law". Others (we will pretend the categories don't overlap) exploit innocent children sexually.
I often find myself taking the hated position of attempting to point out that just because the agents of the state kidnap someone on charges of possessing child pornography, it doesn't mean the person did anything wrong, or even actually had any of the forbidden materials in their presence. I suspect it is very easy to plant such images in a person's computer in order to be able to lock them up without anyone speaking out in their defense. It has become our "witchcraft" accusation; impossible to survive once made. Don't think the goons of the state don't recognize and take advantage of this fact.
Child pornography even includes what I consider the "Stephen King-ish victims". Should Stephen King be on death row for all the murders he has "committed" in his books? Of course not. Why should an equivalent creative act (no matter how revolting it is to most of us) be punished? Cartoon characters which could be interpreted to be imaginary children are not harmed no matter what anyone does to them. If certain studies are correct, then this type of "child pornography" could actually prevent real attacks on innocent children, rather than "inspire" it as the detractors claim. Regardless: no victim; no aggression.
When a child victim of pornographic exploitation grows to be a responsible self-owning person, he or she should have total control over what is done with the images of them as a child, including getting all copies away from the feds' "child porn database" (for "research"... riiiight...). Even if we don't like what they choose to do with their personal property. Otherwise you are telling them they do not own themselves, but the collective- "society"- does. That is wrong and harmful now, and two wrongs don't make a right.
It is also dangerous to point out that most teenagers are not "children" even if the state declares them so. Some may not be fully responsible for their actions and some undoubtedly are. Age has no bearing on this. To make a "one-size-punishes-all law" harms everyone in the long run. This is the absurdity of the "sexting crisis".
Since I know I will be misrepresented, it is probably pointless to state this, but I will anyway: I don't want to view any child pornography. I don't understand its attraction to some; I would violently defend any child who was being exploited in this way whether they were familiar to me or not. If I knew someone who had it, I would keep my children away from him and would warn everyone I knew to watch him near their kids. I would NOT tattle to the state, however. I would also try to remember that all is not as it seems when the state wants to get rid of someone. Governments lie. It is what they do best, except for stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
Believe it or not, there is a subject more personally dangerous to mention and more divisive, than "abortion". It is "child pornography".
Almost everyone wants to protect innocent children. It is in our nature. Some people, though, have broken natures and want to prey on the innocent. Many of these find jobs with government where they can cause harm with no fear of breaking the "law". Others (we will pretend the categories don't overlap) exploit innocent children sexually.
I often find myself taking the hated position of attempting to point out that just because the agents of the state kidnap someone on charges of possessing child pornography, it doesn't mean the person did anything wrong, or even actually had any of the forbidden materials in their presence. I suspect it is very easy to plant such images in a person's computer in order to be able to lock them up without anyone speaking out in their defense. It has become our "witchcraft" accusation; impossible to survive once made. Don't think the goons of the state don't recognize and take advantage of this fact.
Child pornography even includes what I consider the "Stephen King-ish victims". Should Stephen King be on death row for all the murders he has "committed" in his books? Of course not. Why should an equivalent creative act (no matter how revolting it is to most of us) be punished? Cartoon characters which could be interpreted to be imaginary children are not harmed no matter what anyone does to them. If certain studies are correct, then this type of "child pornography" could actually prevent real attacks on innocent children, rather than "inspire" it as the detractors claim. Regardless: no victim; no aggression.
When a child victim of pornographic exploitation grows to be a responsible self-owning person, he or she should have total control over what is done with the images of them as a child, including getting all copies away from the feds' "child porn database" (for "research"... riiiight...). Even if we don't like what they choose to do with their personal property. Otherwise you are telling them they do not own themselves, but the collective- "society"- does. That is wrong and harmful now, and two wrongs don't make a right.
It is also dangerous to point out that most teenagers are not "children" even if the state declares them so. Some may not be fully responsible for their actions and some undoubtedly are. Age has no bearing on this. To make a "one-size-punishes-all law" harms everyone in the long run. This is the absurdity of the "sexting crisis".
Since I know I will be misrepresented, it is probably pointless to state this, but I will anyway: I don't want to view any child pornography. I don't understand its attraction to some; I would violently defend any child who was being exploited in this way whether they were familiar to me or not. If I knew someone who had it, I would keep my children away from him and would warn everyone I knew to watch him near their kids. I would NOT tattle to the state, however. I would also try to remember that all is not as it seems when the state wants to get rid of someone. Governments lie. It is what they do best, except for stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Government can be justified no longer
Government can be justified no longer
It is claimed that people never follow links. If that is true, I hope this one will be an exception.
A regular reader sent me the link to this video and asked my opinion. It is an interesting, if tortured, attempt to justify a republican form of government. If you are not aware of the way the video warps the truth and manipulates your thinking, you might even agree with the conclusion it reaches. Fortunately you are smarter than that.
This video inadvertently destroys any idea that there can ever be a government based upon anything other than self-government that will work for the "regular people" (the individuals), as opposed to the Rulers (and we should always be opposed to the Rulers).
The narrator incorrectly defines "anarchy" as "without government" instead of "without Rulers". Anarchists self-govern; our government is internalized where it can actually work. The only way he can discount anarchism is by misrepresenting it by using nihilists as the example. His examples only want the current government gone so they can install their own Rulers in place of the ones they don't like. They want to invert the power structure, rather than dismantle it, in the hopes that they will wind up on top when things settle down. This is what the Molotov cocktail-tossing, business-looting false anarchists invariably want to do. In every case, he even points out that his "anarchist" examples lie between the forms of government he discusses, instead of on the free end of his graph that he studiously ignores and misrepresents. He contradicts himself constantly.
The author of the video seems to feel that there is some magical "optimal level" of coercive government, and never even thinks about the possibility that the optimal level is to be found only in self-government. Some people cling to denial so tightly. His main point illustrates this with crystal clarity.
The only two available examples of a republic, Rome and America, both failed completely- following the same pattern. Obviously, the American Republic absolutely failed in the lofty goals he ascribes to it. Utterly, completely failed. I wonder how he can manage to ignore that glaringly obvious fact. You can't allow any coercive external government to have the power to decide if it is obeying its "user's manual", or it will always find in favor of itself in the long run. Maybe not in every single conflict, but in the general trend. This leads only from republic, to mob rule ("democracy"), to chaos (what he incorrectly calls "anarchy"), to oligarchy. He drives the nails in his own coffin and doesn't see that he has done so. I would declare "case: closed".
It is claimed that people never follow links. If that is true, I hope this one will be an exception.
Video: The Government
A regular reader sent me the link to this video and asked my opinion. It is an interesting, if tortured, attempt to justify a republican form of government. If you are not aware of the way the video warps the truth and manipulates your thinking, you might even agree with the conclusion it reaches. Fortunately you are smarter than that.
This video inadvertently destroys any idea that there can ever be a government based upon anything other than self-government that will work for the "regular people" (the individuals), as opposed to the Rulers (and we should always be opposed to the Rulers).
The narrator incorrectly defines "anarchy" as "without government" instead of "without Rulers". Anarchists self-govern; our government is internalized where it can actually work. The only way he can discount anarchism is by misrepresenting it by using nihilists as the example. His examples only want the current government gone so they can install their own Rulers in place of the ones they don't like. They want to invert the power structure, rather than dismantle it, in the hopes that they will wind up on top when things settle down. This is what the Molotov cocktail-tossing, business-looting false anarchists invariably want to do. In every case, he even points out that his "anarchist" examples lie between the forms of government he discusses, instead of on the free end of his graph that he studiously ignores and misrepresents. He contradicts himself constantly.
The author of the video seems to feel that there is some magical "optimal level" of coercive government, and never even thinks about the possibility that the optimal level is to be found only in self-government. Some people cling to denial so tightly. His main point illustrates this with crystal clarity.
The only two available examples of a republic, Rome and America, both failed completely- following the same pattern. Obviously, the American Republic absolutely failed in the lofty goals he ascribes to it. Utterly, completely failed. I wonder how he can manage to ignore that glaringly obvious fact. You can't allow any coercive external government to have the power to decide if it is obeying its "user's manual", or it will always find in favor of itself in the long run. Maybe not in every single conflict, but in the general trend. This leads only from republic, to mob rule ("democracy"), to chaos (what he incorrectly calls "anarchy"), to oligarchy. He drives the nails in his own coffin and doesn't see that he has done so. I would declare "case: closed".
Friday, July 17, 2009
Does taxation improve civilization?
Does taxation improve civilization?
Does the act of theft known as "taxation" make civilization better, or does it damage it? There have been claims made in the past, as well as claims made now, that civilization "needs taxation" in order to be "helped" by government to become better than it otherwise would be. Some people probably even confuse "government" with "civilization", but I'll let that pass for now. Historically, coming from the pinhead who claimed there was no right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, comes the "gem": "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Hardly. Civilization is what we manage to create in spite of taxes.
Yet, this is just an example of the statist thought process. The process that excuses wrongs and tries to justify them with things that most people want. Things like civilization. Civilization doesn't need "taxation"; governments do. "Taxation" is like a giant leech that attaches itself to a civilization as soon as it gets the chance. Unless it is ripped off it will continue to drain the life-blood of that society and grow bigger and more harmful. Our "leech" now weighs more than the host.
Is robbery OK if the mugger promises to give your money to orphans and widows? Of course not. If a cause is good, people will not need to be robbed to pay for it. If it is financed by taking property from those who would prefer to keep their property, under threat of jail (and ultimately, death), then it shouldn't be done no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the thieves or some of their victims feel. There is no government program or "entitlement" so important that is is worth kidnapping or killing people to finance. Not one.
The truth is that there is no free lunch. No "free education". No "free justice". No "free health care" under Obama's socialistic scheme. These things, when provided at all by the state, are funded by coercion (which has a high cost independent of the dollar amount) and cost much more than they need to. They are pale, pathetic shadows of what a free market could provide.
Don't point to the cost of health care in our current society as a refutation of this claim. Our society is far from free, and hasn't been free for a very long time (despite what you have been told to believe). How much does government add to the cost of going to the doctor, buying medications, and having "tests"? Probably, like everything else, the cost is at least doubled, while your wealth is at least halved.
Instead of continuing to dig ourselves deeper into the pit of socialism, why not give freedom a try? It can't hurt. The first step is to admit that taxation is the biggest theft scheme in history, instituted by the most amoral mafia the world has ever known, and put an end to it.
Does the act of theft known as "taxation" make civilization better, or does it damage it? There have been claims made in the past, as well as claims made now, that civilization "needs taxation" in order to be "helped" by government to become better than it otherwise would be. Some people probably even confuse "government" with "civilization", but I'll let that pass for now. Historically, coming from the pinhead who claimed there was no right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, comes the "gem": "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Hardly. Civilization is what we manage to create in spite of taxes.
Yet, this is just an example of the statist thought process. The process that excuses wrongs and tries to justify them with things that most people want. Things like civilization. Civilization doesn't need "taxation"; governments do. "Taxation" is like a giant leech that attaches itself to a civilization as soon as it gets the chance. Unless it is ripped off it will continue to drain the life-blood of that society and grow bigger and more harmful. Our "leech" now weighs more than the host.
Is robbery OK if the mugger promises to give your money to orphans and widows? Of course not. If a cause is good, people will not need to be robbed to pay for it. If it is financed by taking property from those who would prefer to keep their property, under threat of jail (and ultimately, death), then it shouldn't be done no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the thieves or some of their victims feel. There is no government program or "entitlement" so important that is is worth kidnapping or killing people to finance. Not one.
The truth is that there is no free lunch. No "free education". No "free justice". No "free health care" under Obama's socialistic scheme. These things, when provided at all by the state, are funded by coercion (which has a high cost independent of the dollar amount) and cost much more than they need to. They are pale, pathetic shadows of what a free market could provide.
Don't point to the cost of health care in our current society as a refutation of this claim. Our society is far from free, and hasn't been free for a very long time (despite what you have been told to believe). How much does government add to the cost of going to the doctor, buying medications, and having "tests"? Probably, like everything else, the cost is at least doubled, while your wealth is at least halved.
Instead of continuing to dig ourselves deeper into the pit of socialism, why not give freedom a try? It can't hurt. The first step is to admit that taxation is the biggest theft scheme in history, instituted by the most amoral mafia the world has ever known, and put an end to it.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Biting the hand that feeds you, or feeding the hand that bites you
Biting the hand that feeds you, or feeding the hand that bites you
A fairly popular news website recently changed their payment plan for their writers. They did this without informing anyone, and it took days of speculation and many attempts to get an answer from the owners before it was confirmed. This lack of communication has made a lot of the writers bitter.
The algorithms that determined pay were not revealed to begin with, foiling attempts to understand. When earnings seemed short, the owners fell back on the explanation that the way earnings were calculated was complicated. Now, with the changes, it seems even more complicated, based in part on how many other pages the readers view per session. This is something the writers can neither see nor control. And although it is claimed that the potential is there for pay to increase, this does not seem to have happened in even one case.
So where would a libertarian stand on such a situation? The website is a business. It is private property. The owners can do whatever they wish with it, even destroy it if they so choose. They can choose to pay their writers less, or nothing at all. It might not be in their best interest to do so. But perhaps they have other ideas. After all, in every other business, employers pay just enough to keep the employees from quitting, and employees work just hard enough to keep from being fired. Or so I have been told.
It is dishonest to change the way you calculate pay without informing those you are paying. Perhaps it was an oversight. Certain conditions were agreed upon beforehand, after all.
I would bet that most of the website's writers are still making more money from their writings than they otherwise would be, and probably getting more people to read their writings, too. The writers must weigh the costs and benefits. Then they can make their own decisions. No one is forcing them to write for the site.
A fairly popular news website recently changed their payment plan for their writers. They did this without informing anyone, and it took days of speculation and many attempts to get an answer from the owners before it was confirmed. This lack of communication has made a lot of the writers bitter.
The algorithms that determined pay were not revealed to begin with, foiling attempts to understand. When earnings seemed short, the owners fell back on the explanation that the way earnings were calculated was complicated. Now, with the changes, it seems even more complicated, based in part on how many other pages the readers view per session. This is something the writers can neither see nor control. And although it is claimed that the potential is there for pay to increase, this does not seem to have happened in even one case.
So where would a libertarian stand on such a situation? The website is a business. It is private property. The owners can do whatever they wish with it, even destroy it if they so choose. They can choose to pay their writers less, or nothing at all. It might not be in their best interest to do so. But perhaps they have other ideas. After all, in every other business, employers pay just enough to keep the employees from quitting, and employees work just hard enough to keep from being fired. Or so I have been told.
It is dishonest to change the way you calculate pay without informing those you are paying. Perhaps it was an oversight. Certain conditions were agreed upon beforehand, after all.
I would bet that most of the website's writers are still making more money from their writings than they otherwise would be, and probably getting more people to read their writings, too. The writers must weigh the costs and benefits. Then they can make their own decisions. No one is forcing them to write for the site.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
'Honest' taxation is preferable to 'fair tax'
'Honest' taxation is preferable to 'fair tax'
I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is a way to have "honest taxation". At least in the same way as other acts of theft can at least be "honest" enough to not claim they are robbing you for your own good.
While I am not a fan of thieves of any type, I will admit a preference to the type who will shove a gun in your face and say "Hand over your wallet if you wanna live!" over the gangsters who make insincere noises about your "safety" as they hint that "something" might happen if they weren't there to "protect" you. Hogwash. Everyone knows who would make the "something" occur if you were bold enough to refuse to pay.
"Honest taxation" would consist of a government agent holding a gun to your head as he steals your money. Or, increasingly, a government agent holding a gun to the head of the sales clerk (or other businessperson) as he steals from you under orders from the state thug. Such a dose of reality might also shock a few more people awake to the fact that taxation is theft, plain and simple. There is no excuse for it.
I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is a way to have "honest taxation". At least in the same way as other acts of theft can at least be "honest" enough to not claim they are robbing you for your own good.
While I am not a fan of thieves of any type, I will admit a preference to the type who will shove a gun in your face and say "Hand over your wallet if you wanna live!" over the gangsters who make insincere noises about your "safety" as they hint that "something" might happen if they weren't there to "protect" you. Hogwash. Everyone knows who would make the "something" occur if you were bold enough to refuse to pay.
"Honest taxation" would consist of a government agent holding a gun to your head as he steals your money. Or, increasingly, a government agent holding a gun to the head of the sales clerk (or other businessperson) as he steals from you under orders from the state thug. Such a dose of reality might also shock a few more people awake to the fact that taxation is theft, plain and simple. There is no excuse for it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Government should be watched, but not obsessed over
Government should be watched, but not obsessed over
I see a lot of people who focus their lives on watching what government does. I can understand that in a way, but it seems like a life poorly spent.
A person should pay attention to government in the same way you should pay attention to a rabid skunk that has wandered into your kitchen: pay attention as much as you need to in order to get rid of it, without being bitten or sprayed. Don't focus your life on trying to make the rabid skunk like you; it will never be your friend. Don't expect the skunk to act rationally; it has a disease that is rotting its brain away. Don't try to get the skunk to bring you gifts in exchange for the damage it has done or the food it has gotten in to; that which it has eaten or spoiled is gone forever. Just stop the spoilage now and write off the losses.
Of course, the real problem is that government, even at its best, is much more dangerous than a rabid skunk. It is backed up by hordes of co-conspirators and supporters who will make sure you are harmed if you dare to stand up to it. It is backed up by cheerleaders in the media who will endlessly proclaim that YOU are the one with the brain-rot. Lastly, statism, the disease that causes government, is much more contagious than rabies. And it is just as fatal.
I see a lot of people who focus their lives on watching what government does. I can understand that in a way, but it seems like a life poorly spent.
A person should pay attention to government in the same way you should pay attention to a rabid skunk that has wandered into your kitchen: pay attention as much as you need to in order to get rid of it, without being bitten or sprayed. Don't focus your life on trying to make the rabid skunk like you; it will never be your friend. Don't expect the skunk to act rationally; it has a disease that is rotting its brain away. Don't try to get the skunk to bring you gifts in exchange for the damage it has done or the food it has gotten in to; that which it has eaten or spoiled is gone forever. Just stop the spoilage now and write off the losses.
Of course, the real problem is that government, even at its best, is much more dangerous than a rabid skunk. It is backed up by hordes of co-conspirators and supporters who will make sure you are harmed if you dare to stand up to it. It is backed up by cheerleaders in the media who will endlessly proclaim that YOU are the one with the brain-rot. Lastly, statism, the disease that causes government, is much more contagious than rabies. And it is just as fatal.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Empire strikes ... in desperation
The Empire strikes ... in desperation
Signs seem to indicate the police state that was America will grow much more draconian before it collapses. And of course, it will collapse. They all do. If the authoriturds "in charge" were smart, they would realize they are dooming themselves by their actions and with their "laws", but perhaps they believe they can avoid the inevitable until it doesn't matter to them personally anymore. Or, maybe, they are delusional enough to believe that "this time" they will be able to avoid the fate of tyrants.
In the meantime, more and more of our rights will be claimed to be a threat to our neighbors, although the only real threat is to the false authority of the Empire. More of our actions will be tracked and watched, or simply forbidden. More and more of our lives and money will be stolen to support the state. More of our choices will be regulated or eliminated. More of our opinions will be cause for suspicion. More of our movements will be subject to the whims of the state and routed through its checkpoints. More of our family members and neighbors will be recruited against us. There will even be control and rationing of things we can't yet imagine. Interesting times are ahead.
The near future brings up some questions in regard to people like most of you who are reading these words.
What does society intend to do to those of us who won't (or can't) tolerate living under the surveillance and control of a police-state? Do the rulers expect that we will simply comply after some threats and punishment? Do they feel that our deaths are an acceptable price in order to implement their plans? Do they even consider our deaths worthy of notice at all? What if we don't agree? What if others who are on the fence begin to side with us? Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings down the Empire? The more the Empire tightens its grip, the more people will slip through its fingers.
Signs seem to indicate the police state that was America will grow much more draconian before it collapses. And of course, it will collapse. They all do. If the authoriturds "in charge" were smart, they would realize they are dooming themselves by their actions and with their "laws", but perhaps they believe they can avoid the inevitable until it doesn't matter to them personally anymore. Or, maybe, they are delusional enough to believe that "this time" they will be able to avoid the fate of tyrants.
In the meantime, more and more of our rights will be claimed to be a threat to our neighbors, although the only real threat is to the false authority of the Empire. More of our actions will be tracked and watched, or simply forbidden. More and more of our lives and money will be stolen to support the state. More of our choices will be regulated or eliminated. More of our opinions will be cause for suspicion. More of our movements will be subject to the whims of the state and routed through its checkpoints. More of our family members and neighbors will be recruited against us. There will even be control and rationing of things we can't yet imagine. Interesting times are ahead.
The near future brings up some questions in regard to people like most of you who are reading these words.
What does society intend to do to those of us who won't (or can't) tolerate living under the surveillance and control of a police-state? Do the rulers expect that we will simply comply after some threats and punishment? Do they feel that our deaths are an acceptable price in order to implement their plans? Do they even consider our deaths worthy of notice at all? What if we don't agree? What if others who are on the fence begin to side with us? Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings down the Empire? The more the Empire tightens its grip, the more people will slip through its fingers.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Dislike of cops does not equal love of thugs
Dislike of cops does not equal love of thugs
The world is filled with misunderstandings. Those of us who love liberty often find ourselves at the focus of one when we point out the similarity between LEOs and the freelance thugs with whom they have a symbiotic relationship. Every time I show distaste for a cop acting like a gangster when faced with a member of the public, certain people make the faulty assumption that I sympathize with the aggressive elements of society and wish to see them running amok, preying on whoever they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Since when does intense dislike of cops equal love of "criminals"? I dislike cops precisely because I dislike those who prey upon the innocent. There is no longer any meaningful distinction between the cops and the freelance thugs cops use to justify their unjustifiable existence. Both live upon theft; either freelance or "tax". Both thrive on coercion. Both have a perverted "us vs everyone else" attitude. But of the two, the LEOs are far more dangerous because they do what they do with a false sense of moral superiority, wielding a monopoly on force, and backed by the coercive "authority" of government.
Cops tend to vastly overestimate their own importance, and grossly underestimate the capacity of most of us to take care of ourselves without their "help". Perhaps it is projection on their part. I have never been in any situation where I called the cops, or was even tempted to. The thought never crossed my mind. I am aware that there is no situation so dire that it won't be made orders of magnitude worse by adding a cop to the mix.
And speaking of cops acting like the thugs they are brings up another subject. Giving cops the means to electrically torture people with whom they have a dispute was probably one of the worst powers ever handed them. Cops use Tasers much too readily. A Taser should never be used if a gun would be "too much". If you are not stopping an attack or a theft in progress when you draw your weapon, firearm or electric, then you are the attacker. A person not showing the respect you mistakenly think is due you is not a dangerous threat. A child running away from you is not reason to torture that child, unless you are a coward and a bully. If you are a cop and can't handle a 6 year-old child, you should go get a real job. Tasers are not "non-lethal", but "less-lethal". Cops think Tasers are a license to torture. Well, combined with a badge, I suppose they are right.
The world is filled with misunderstandings. Those of us who love liberty often find ourselves at the focus of one when we point out the similarity between LEOs and the freelance thugs with whom they have a symbiotic relationship. Every time I show distaste for a cop acting like a gangster when faced with a member of the public, certain people make the faulty assumption that I sympathize with the aggressive elements of society and wish to see them running amok, preying on whoever they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Since when does intense dislike of cops equal love of "criminals"? I dislike cops precisely because I dislike those who prey upon the innocent. There is no longer any meaningful distinction between the cops and the freelance thugs cops use to justify their unjustifiable existence. Both live upon theft; either freelance or "tax". Both thrive on coercion. Both have a perverted "us vs everyone else" attitude. But of the two, the LEOs are far more dangerous because they do what they do with a false sense of moral superiority, wielding a monopoly on force, and backed by the coercive "authority" of government.
Cops tend to vastly overestimate their own importance, and grossly underestimate the capacity of most of us to take care of ourselves without their "help". Perhaps it is projection on their part. I have never been in any situation where I called the cops, or was even tempted to. The thought never crossed my mind. I am aware that there is no situation so dire that it won't be made orders of magnitude worse by adding a cop to the mix.
And speaking of cops acting like the thugs they are brings up another subject. Giving cops the means to electrically torture people with whom they have a dispute was probably one of the worst powers ever handed them. Cops use Tasers much too readily. A Taser should never be used if a gun would be "too much". If you are not stopping an attack or a theft in progress when you draw your weapon, firearm or electric, then you are the attacker. A person not showing the respect you mistakenly think is due you is not a dangerous threat. A child running away from you is not reason to torture that child, unless you are a coward and a bully. If you are a cop and can't handle a 6 year-old child, you should go get a real job. Tasers are not "non-lethal", but "less-lethal". Cops think Tasers are a license to torture. Well, combined with a badge, I suppose they are right.
Friday, July 10, 2009
More on border worship
More on border worship
I can understand the feelings that might lead a person to support "national borders". Fear of being lost in a sea of immigrants who speak a different language, or who have different customs, is a common thing. Change of any sort is often uncomfortable and scary. Especially for those who are insecure or have feelings of inadequacy.
While I can understand the feelings, I don't share them. In the case of those who cling to national borders, but also distrust a powerful government, I can't understand how they manage to hold two such completely contradictory notions in one head.
If you are attacked or stolen from, how is it worse if the attacker or thief was born across a line on a map? You have the absolute human right to defend yourself, other innocent people, and your property from trespassing, aggression, or theft. Regardless of whether the offending person is an "immigrant", your cousin, or a LEO doing the bidding of the state. National borders change nothing in this regard.
Explain to me how this works. How can you believe that you own your life and the products of your life and yet also believe that governments can draw a line on a map and decide who can cross that line, and under what conditions they can cross. Explain how you can have a "national border", and enforce it, without having a strong and coercive national government. Explain how you can support government enforcement of that imaginary line while decrying other acts of government such as gun "laws". Don't you see that the "authority" and power for both acts comes from the same place? You can't assume liberty while you demand the government be strong enough to "secure the border". It isn't rational, logical, consistent, or possible. Answers that contain "yes, but" are not reasonable answers.
I can understand the feelings that might lead a person to support "national borders". Fear of being lost in a sea of immigrants who speak a different language, or who have different customs, is a common thing. Change of any sort is often uncomfortable and scary. Especially for those who are insecure or have feelings of inadequacy.
While I can understand the feelings, I don't share them. In the case of those who cling to national borders, but also distrust a powerful government, I can't understand how they manage to hold two such completely contradictory notions in one head.
If you are attacked or stolen from, how is it worse if the attacker or thief was born across a line on a map? You have the absolute human right to defend yourself, other innocent people, and your property from trespassing, aggression, or theft. Regardless of whether the offending person is an "immigrant", your cousin, or a LEO doing the bidding of the state. National borders change nothing in this regard.
Explain to me how this works. How can you believe that you own your life and the products of your life and yet also believe that governments can draw a line on a map and decide who can cross that line, and under what conditions they can cross. Explain how you can have a "national border", and enforce it, without having a strong and coercive national government. Explain how you can support government enforcement of that imaginary line while decrying other acts of government such as gun "laws". Don't you see that the "authority" and power for both acts comes from the same place? You can't assume liberty while you demand the government be strong enough to "secure the border". It isn't rational, logical, consistent, or possible. Answers that contain "yes, but" are not reasonable answers.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
A slave contract does not legitimize slavery
A slave contract does not legitimize slavery
Let's say there were a document that laid out the ground rules for what a slave master was allowed to do, and NOT do, to his slaves. It might state that a slave master must give his slaves adequate food. Maybe insist that he not beat his slaves too much. It might set the rules for selling the slaves in a "humane" way. It might even lay out a list of rights a slave has, as long as that slave doesn't try to escape or disobey. It would probably mention some "obligations" the slave "owes" his master; things like loyalty, obedience, and hard work.
The problem with such a document isn't that it is flawed in its rules, but that it treats slavery as a legitimate human endeavor. It isn't, and no document can ever make it so.
There is another illegitimate human endeavor, based upon theft and murder, that has a document that gives it the illusion of legitimacy to some people. A government is supposedly legitimized by the US Constitution, much to the delight of statists of all sorts. Others of us can't justify the inexcusable no matter who signed what a couple hundred years ago. And just because other governments might be worse is no reason to stick with a coercive state of any degree.
Just as I am not qualified or inclined to pontificate upon the proper treatment of slaves, other than unconditional freedom, I am not qualified or inclined to decide what might be the proper form of government, other than self-government. No document can ever make wrong right. We need to banish the idea that it can before we can move forward. Any other conclusion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Let's say there were a document that laid out the ground rules for what a slave master was allowed to do, and NOT do, to his slaves. It might state that a slave master must give his slaves adequate food. Maybe insist that he not beat his slaves too much. It might set the rules for selling the slaves in a "humane" way. It might even lay out a list of rights a slave has, as long as that slave doesn't try to escape or disobey. It would probably mention some "obligations" the slave "owes" his master; things like loyalty, obedience, and hard work.
The problem with such a document isn't that it is flawed in its rules, but that it treats slavery as a legitimate human endeavor. It isn't, and no document can ever make it so.
There is another illegitimate human endeavor, based upon theft and murder, that has a document that gives it the illusion of legitimacy to some people. A government is supposedly legitimized by the US Constitution, much to the delight of statists of all sorts. Others of us can't justify the inexcusable no matter who signed what a couple hundred years ago. And just because other governments might be worse is no reason to stick with a coercive state of any degree.
Just as I am not qualified or inclined to pontificate upon the proper treatment of slaves, other than unconditional freedom, I am not qualified or inclined to decide what might be the proper form of government, other than self-government. No document can ever make wrong right. We need to banish the idea that it can before we can move forward. Any other conclusion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
What if people don't do the right thing?
What if people don't do the right thing?
Like just about everybody, I would prefer that people do the right thing. I get irritated when people do irresponsible things and I sometimes grumble to myself about their questionable parentage or diminished mental capacity.
However, I am not delusional enough that I am willing to sacrifice freedom in order to provide a way for the state to punish those who don't always do the right thing. That's all "laws" do- provide for punishment. Punishing others does not help me. It doesn't change the reality or teach people anything. "Laws" simply provide a commonly accepted way to punish those who do things the state doesn't approve of. While many of those things might be "the wrong thing" or irresponsible, many more are not.
Of course, "laws" to allow punishment of people who don't do the right thing ignore the fact that very few people even agree on what "the right thing" is, at least on peripheral matters. Even true lovers of individual liberty disagree on some specifics. When you add in the less-than-aware masses of public school indoctrinated "citizens", the situation gets even less clear. Some don't see the hypocrisy in talking about "liberty" while propping up the police-state with the labor of their lives or with their support of some government activities. Some don't understand that theft is theft, and having a government title or office doesn't excuse your immoral acts. Smaller matters are even more confusing to them.
The solution isn't to pass "laws" that enforce your vision of "the right thing". If this were justified, you could just as easily find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's bonnet-bee. Just like in the unworkable, chaotic system we live with now. I'll take my chances with free people doing the wrong thing from time to time, with no state ready to strike at me when I act in defense of myself and my property. The cost of having a state is too high a price to pay.
Like just about everybody, I would prefer that people do the right thing. I get irritated when people do irresponsible things and I sometimes grumble to myself about their questionable parentage or diminished mental capacity.
However, I am not delusional enough that I am willing to sacrifice freedom in order to provide a way for the state to punish those who don't always do the right thing. That's all "laws" do- provide for punishment. Punishing others does not help me. It doesn't change the reality or teach people anything. "Laws" simply provide a commonly accepted way to punish those who do things the state doesn't approve of. While many of those things might be "the wrong thing" or irresponsible, many more are not.
Of course, "laws" to allow punishment of people who don't do the right thing ignore the fact that very few people even agree on what "the right thing" is, at least on peripheral matters. Even true lovers of individual liberty disagree on some specifics. When you add in the less-than-aware masses of public school indoctrinated "citizens", the situation gets even less clear. Some don't see the hypocrisy in talking about "liberty" while propping up the police-state with the labor of their lives or with their support of some government activities. Some don't understand that theft is theft, and having a government title or office doesn't excuse your immoral acts. Smaller matters are even more confusing to them.
The solution isn't to pass "laws" that enforce your vision of "the right thing". If this were justified, you could just as easily find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's bonnet-bee. Just like in the unworkable, chaotic system we live with now. I'll take my chances with free people doing the wrong thing from time to time, with no state ready to strike at me when I act in defense of myself and my property. The cost of having a state is too high a price to pay.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Cop says he is tired of getting it from 'both sides'
Cop says he is tired of getting it from 'both sides'
In the comments on another site, in response to comments from MamaLiberty and me, an admitted LEO ("John") whined that he was tired of "getting it from both sides".
I suppose he meant he was "getting it" from "criminals" and "citizens*". Silly little man. He is gravely mistaken about the situation. The "criminals" are his side, since he depends upon them for his "job's" paltry justification. Only the free people who realize that we NEVER "need" a cop are his opposition, since most of the population blindly worships "the badge", at least until they are personally attacked by one of these badge-bullies.
We are the people who take responsibility for our own lives and safety. We are the ones who don't run to the state every time someone annoys us or something doesn't go our way. We are the ones who will take care of ourselves and deal with "situations"; risking the wrath of the state for doing so. We are the ones who realize that humans have the right to make poor choices, and as long as they don't harm the innocent, it is none of our business. We are the ones who see people like him as parasites who feed off of civilization, draining its life-blood, living on stolen money, and destroying society's moral foundations, replacing them with the "law". We are the ones who suspect, with good reason, that cops cause more crime than they prevent.
Cops like "John" can keep doing what they are doing, and calling those who see through them "tinfoil hat people", or some other name. All he is doing is proving my point for me, and adding to the ranks of those who will stand against his kind. In fact, my own activism began with an incident wherein a LEO enforced a counterfeit "law" against an innocent man I knew of only from the internet. Up until that event, I had kept my opinions to myself and simply minded my own business. Unintended consequences. How many more times has a similar thing happened?
"John" doesn't see it this way. Does this make him a bad man? Not necessarily. He claims to have a deep understanding of the Constitution, and claims to obey it. That's a nice start, if true. Now, if he could wrap his mind around the human rights that the Constitution conveniently ignores he might become an asset to freedom instead of a destroyer thereof. I'm not holding my breath.
"John" doesn't have to agree with me, but if he were smart he might take notice that a sizable, and growing, percentage of the regular people feel the way I do. And it only takes one bad experience with a LEO to change a person's perceptions for a lifetime. As it now stands, if I see a cop being beaten by someone on the side of the interstate, my first assumption is going to be that the cop initiated it. Even if he didn't, coming to his defense with an effective weapon would only be asking for trouble from vermin on "both sides of the law".
*Want to really make me upset? Call me a "citizen". I am the property of no government. I am a denizen, perhaps, but never a citizen.
In the comments on another site, in response to comments from MamaLiberty and me, an admitted LEO ("John") whined that he was tired of "getting it from both sides".
I suppose he meant he was "getting it" from "criminals" and "citizens*". Silly little man. He is gravely mistaken about the situation. The "criminals" are his side, since he depends upon them for his "job's" paltry justification. Only the free people who realize that we NEVER "need" a cop are his opposition, since most of the population blindly worships "the badge", at least until they are personally attacked by one of these badge-bullies.
We are the people who take responsibility for our own lives and safety. We are the ones who don't run to the state every time someone annoys us or something doesn't go our way. We are the ones who will take care of ourselves and deal with "situations"; risking the wrath of the state for doing so. We are the ones who realize that humans have the right to make poor choices, and as long as they don't harm the innocent, it is none of our business. We are the ones who see people like him as parasites who feed off of civilization, draining its life-blood, living on stolen money, and destroying society's moral foundations, replacing them with the "law". We are the ones who suspect, with good reason, that cops cause more crime than they prevent.
Cops like "John" can keep doing what they are doing, and calling those who see through them "tinfoil hat people", or some other name. All he is doing is proving my point for me, and adding to the ranks of those who will stand against his kind. In fact, my own activism began with an incident wherein a LEO enforced a counterfeit "law" against an innocent man I knew of only from the internet. Up until that event, I had kept my opinions to myself and simply minded my own business. Unintended consequences. How many more times has a similar thing happened?
"John" doesn't see it this way. Does this make him a bad man? Not necessarily. He claims to have a deep understanding of the Constitution, and claims to obey it. That's a nice start, if true. Now, if he could wrap his mind around the human rights that the Constitution conveniently ignores he might become an asset to freedom instead of a destroyer thereof. I'm not holding my breath.
"John" doesn't have to agree with me, but if he were smart he might take notice that a sizable, and growing, percentage of the regular people feel the way I do. And it only takes one bad experience with a LEO to change a person's perceptions for a lifetime. As it now stands, if I see a cop being beaten by someone on the side of the interstate, my first assumption is going to be that the cop initiated it. Even if he didn't, coming to his defense with an effective weapon would only be asking for trouble from vermin on "both sides of the law".
*Want to really make me upset? Call me a "citizen". I am the property of no government. I am a denizen, perhaps, but never a citizen.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Oath Keepers could be a baby-step in the right direction
Oath Keepers could be a baby-step in the right direction
There is a growing movement within the "law enforcement"/military community that seeks to demonstrate the gravity they assign to their oath to defend the Constitution, as opposed to simply obeying their bosses. They call themselves the Oath Keepers. I realize they are trying to do the right thing, as they see it. However, as badly as I would like to be excited about the movement, I am very ambivalent about the reality.
My first difficulty is the fact that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it was written on. There are more basic human rights that get priority. Just because the Constitution allows an act of coercion or theft doesn't change the fact such things are still wrong. Plus, the Constitution established a government; a crime against humanity in and of itself.
But beyond that: How can the LEOs and military folk who participate in Oath Keepers activities continue to ignore the fact that they are violating their oaths with almost every action they take? Any cop who takes the oath and then arrests a person for a "drug" offense, a gun "law" violation, or who issues a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, or who demands (or enforces) "identification" has violated his oath. He has done wrong and can no longer be trusted with both a badge and a gun. Enough is enough. A reasonable solution has been proposed, however, and should be actively promoted.
Any member of the military who is deployed overseas without Congress declaring war has violated the Constitution. If they then kill or disarm anyone where they have been deployed they have added more offenses to their "permanent record". You can't shoot back at people who are defending their homes and villages, in any part of the world, and claim the moral high ground without looking ridiculous. Incorrectly labeling them "insurgents" doesn't make it true. If these military personnel assist the government (at any level) against the people of America in any way, they have become "domestic enemies". No ifs, ands, or buts.
Reading on another site I saw claim after claim by military and LEO that they would never violate their oath, preceded or followed by personal stories of them doing just that, in the form of the examples above. Why the denial? Is it really that confusing? Not unless you intentionally get it wrong.
So many of these folk blame Obama for their new-found ethics. Well, guess what- Obama didn't invent the act of violating basic human rights in order to steal more power for himself and his successors. Obama is just following the example of every president before him, all the way back to the despicable George Washington, who wrongly and unconstitutionally quelled the Whiskey Rebellion; an act that violated his oath of office and should have resulted in his corpse becoming a tree ornament somewhere.
I am not opposed to Oath Keepers by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see widespread refusal to obey illegal orders and nationwide refusal to enforce counterfeit "laws". Something I am not seeing even on a minuscule scale. Oath Keepers can be a good first step, raising awareness and making people think about what they have signed up for. But don't stop there or you have missed the entire point. There are better oaths to keep.
There is a growing movement within the "law enforcement"/military community that seeks to demonstrate the gravity they assign to their oath to defend the Constitution, as opposed to simply obeying their bosses. They call themselves the Oath Keepers. I realize they are trying to do the right thing, as they see it. However, as badly as I would like to be excited about the movement, I am very ambivalent about the reality.
My first difficulty is the fact that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it was written on. There are more basic human rights that get priority. Just because the Constitution allows an act of coercion or theft doesn't change the fact such things are still wrong. Plus, the Constitution established a government; a crime against humanity in and of itself.
But beyond that: How can the LEOs and military folk who participate in Oath Keepers activities continue to ignore the fact that they are violating their oaths with almost every action they take? Any cop who takes the oath and then arrests a person for a "drug" offense, a gun "law" violation, or who issues a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, or who demands (or enforces) "identification" has violated his oath. He has done wrong and can no longer be trusted with both a badge and a gun. Enough is enough. A reasonable solution has been proposed, however, and should be actively promoted.
Any member of the military who is deployed overseas without Congress declaring war has violated the Constitution. If they then kill or disarm anyone where they have been deployed they have added more offenses to their "permanent record". You can't shoot back at people who are defending their homes and villages, in any part of the world, and claim the moral high ground without looking ridiculous. Incorrectly labeling them "insurgents" doesn't make it true. If these military personnel assist the government (at any level) against the people of America in any way, they have become "domestic enemies". No ifs, ands, or buts.
Reading on another site I saw claim after claim by military and LEO that they would never violate their oath, preceded or followed by personal stories of them doing just that, in the form of the examples above. Why the denial? Is it really that confusing? Not unless you intentionally get it wrong.
So many of these folk blame Obama for their new-found ethics. Well, guess what- Obama didn't invent the act of violating basic human rights in order to steal more power for himself and his successors. Obama is just following the example of every president before him, all the way back to the despicable George Washington, who wrongly and unconstitutionally quelled the Whiskey Rebellion; an act that violated his oath of office and should have resulted in his corpse becoming a tree ornament somewhere.
I am not opposed to Oath Keepers by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see widespread refusal to obey illegal orders and nationwide refusal to enforce counterfeit "laws". Something I am not seeing even on a minuscule scale. Oath Keepers can be a good first step, raising awareness and making people think about what they have signed up for. But don't stop there or you have missed the entire point. There are better oaths to keep.
Time For the News?
The "news" just pisses me off.
The wrong things are emphasized, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong conclusions are drawn . What more could the national news media* do to make themselves irrelevant?
I hate to admit it, but I really have little interest in the news, especially where politics is concerned. If it relates to my opinions, then I may pay a bit of attention to it for a moment or two. I weigh its implications as it relates to my opinions and see if I need to alter my views in light of the new "information" (or, more likely, propaganda), and then I put it out of my mind.
What about new national "laws" that may affect me? I long ago made the decision that I will not obey any "laws" that are counterfeit unless it is convenient to do so, or unless I am staring down the barrel of a loaded Liberty Eradication Operative ("LEO"). Assume liberty.
I'm not saying this is the best attitude to have, nor would I ever put anyone down for having more interest in the news than I have. It's just that if you come here or visit my Examiner column to read my opinion on the latest proposed "law" or political scandal, you will usually be disappointed. If, however, you want to read what I think about the world in general, and liberty specifically, then I am your man. And you never know: occasionally some bit of "current events" may just sneak in.
*To a certain extent, the local news matters a little more. It is more likely to affect me directly today. I still go through periods where I just can't stomach it, either.
The wrong things are emphasized, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong conclusions are drawn . What more could the national news media* do to make themselves irrelevant?
I hate to admit it, but I really have little interest in the news, especially where politics is concerned. If it relates to my opinions, then I may pay a bit of attention to it for a moment or two. I weigh its implications as it relates to my opinions and see if I need to alter my views in light of the new "information" (or, more likely, propaganda), and then I put it out of my mind.
What about new national "laws" that may affect me? I long ago made the decision that I will not obey any "laws" that are counterfeit unless it is convenient to do so, or unless I am staring down the barrel of a loaded Liberty Eradication Operative ("LEO"). Assume liberty.
I'm not saying this is the best attitude to have, nor would I ever put anyone down for having more interest in the news than I have. It's just that if you come here or visit my Examiner column to read my opinion on the latest proposed "law" or political scandal, you will usually be disappointed. If, however, you want to read what I think about the world in general, and liberty specifically, then I am your man. And you never know: occasionally some bit of "current events" may just sneak in.
*To a certain extent, the local news matters a little more. It is more likely to affect me directly today. I still go through periods where I just can't stomach it, either.
LEOs- Liberty Eradication Operatives
The current trendy name for cops is "LEOs". I guess it is supposed to sound royally feline. These critters claim their acronym stands for "Law Enforcement Officer". I know better.
Judging by their actions and behaviors it can be stated with assurance that "LEO" more accurately stands for "Liberty Eradication Operative". That's what they do, after all.
PS: Any "law" that needs a "special" enforcer is not a real law, but is instead a counterfeit "law"
Judging by their actions and behaviors it can be stated with assurance that "LEO" more accurately stands for "Liberty Eradication Operative". That's what they do, after all.
PS: Any "law" that needs a "special" enforcer is not a real law, but is instead a counterfeit "law"
The perversion of Independence Day
The perversion of Independence Day
My thoughts on this "Independence Day 2009" have been turning to the fact that the original intent of Independence Day has been completely turned upside down and inside out. From its origins as an anti-government celebration of freedom to today's perverted "worship the state and military" festival.
It is as if Christmas had been turned into a celebration of Satan, theft, death, and hatred. (I know some would claim the "true meaning" of Christmas has been lost, but the positive things are still given lip-service.)
For local tyrants to assume the authority to forbid individual celebration with fireworks, insisting instead that you go to a government-sponsored fireworks display, is the ultimate spit in the face of liberty. For people to actually obey them is almost unforgivable. The spirit of independence wanders the wilderness, rejected and dying.
The petty tyrants of every city council, county commission, state bureaucracy, and federal agency would be scared out of their tiny little minds if "the people" actually celebrated independence they way they should: with the fully-functional military arms of the real militia, and with the fully-functional minds of real free people.
My thoughts on this "Independence Day 2009" have been turning to the fact that the original intent of Independence Day has been completely turned upside down and inside out. From its origins as an anti-government celebration of freedom to today's perverted "worship the state and military" festival.
It is as if Christmas had been turned into a celebration of Satan, theft, death, and hatred. (I know some would claim the "true meaning" of Christmas has been lost, but the positive things are still given lip-service.)
For local tyrants to assume the authority to forbid individual celebration with fireworks, insisting instead that you go to a government-sponsored fireworks display, is the ultimate spit in the face of liberty. For people to actually obey them is almost unforgivable. The spirit of independence wanders the wilderness, rejected and dying.
The petty tyrants of every city council, county commission, state bureaucracy, and federal agency would be scared out of their tiny little minds if "the people" actually celebrated independence they way they should: with the fully-functional military arms of the real militia, and with the fully-functional minds of real free people.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Independence means secession- then and now
Independence means secession- then and now
Do these words seem familiar?
"All men". We would now say all human beings. Not just those who agree to be bound by the Constitution. Not only those who happen to have been born on land claimed by the US government. Not only those who haven't yet been declared "enemy combatants" by secret accusers. These "men" have rights which no government can ever have the authority to abrogate in any way. That is what was meant by "unalienable". It didn't mention matters of national security, or times of war, or any other excuse, because there is no excuse. None.
So, these governments have been unwisely instituted among men, like wolves in a flock of sheep, by consent of the sheep... I mean the "men"? I don't think so. I do not consent, so no government gets any "just powers" or authority from me, whether it counts me among the "governed" or not.
All governments quickly become destructive of the ends which are used to justify "government". Tragic experience has shown that the only kind of government that can secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is self government. Other forms of government don't even make an honest attempt. We now know, through long, hard experience, which type of government is most likely to "effect" our safety and happiness, as well as which type is most likely to affect it. It would be a grave mistake to depose one tyrant only to replace him with another. The mistake has been made innumerable times before. Has no lesson been learned?
No "revolution" was necessary as a follow-up to the Declaration of Independence. The British could have allowed a peaceful secession- a simple parting of the ways. Instead they chose the path of war. Just as Abraham Lincoln did a few generations later. Just as the US will undoubtedly do soon.
Humans will tolerate a lot of abuse from government, as the above excerpt points out. "Don't rock the boat" seems to be the general consensus. The chains become part of the normal pain of life; the fear of shedding those chains keeps people from exploring reasonable options. Better to stay with the evil you know than to face the unknown. For some people. I hope the numbers of people willing to toss the chains aside, or use them to strangle the slavemasters, will increase with each passing day, and with each new abomination committed by government at any level. What better day to begin than today: Independence Day? Let's make it mean something again!
For more info: I recommend reading the reasons for secession listed in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing those to the situation the formerly-free people of America now find themselves facing. You might even realize it is time for a more succinct declaration.
Do these words seem familiar?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security. --- Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, (emphasis mine).
"All men". We would now say all human beings. Not just those who agree to be bound by the Constitution. Not only those who happen to have been born on land claimed by the US government. Not only those who haven't yet been declared "enemy combatants" by secret accusers. These "men" have rights which no government can ever have the authority to abrogate in any way. That is what was meant by "unalienable". It didn't mention matters of national security, or times of war, or any other excuse, because there is no excuse. None.
So, these governments have been unwisely instituted among men, like wolves in a flock of sheep, by consent of the sheep... I mean the "men"? I don't think so. I do not consent, so no government gets any "just powers" or authority from me, whether it counts me among the "governed" or not.
All governments quickly become destructive of the ends which are used to justify "government". Tragic experience has shown that the only kind of government that can secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is self government. Other forms of government don't even make an honest attempt. We now know, through long, hard experience, which type of government is most likely to "effect" our safety and happiness, as well as which type is most likely to affect it. It would be a grave mistake to depose one tyrant only to replace him with another. The mistake has been made innumerable times before. Has no lesson been learned?
No "revolution" was necessary as a follow-up to the Declaration of Independence. The British could have allowed a peaceful secession- a simple parting of the ways. Instead they chose the path of war. Just as Abraham Lincoln did a few generations later. Just as the US will undoubtedly do soon.
Humans will tolerate a lot of abuse from government, as the above excerpt points out. "Don't rock the boat" seems to be the general consensus. The chains become part of the normal pain of life; the fear of shedding those chains keeps people from exploring reasonable options. Better to stay with the evil you know than to face the unknown. For some people. I hope the numbers of people willing to toss the chains aside, or use them to strangle the slavemasters, will increase with each passing day, and with each new abomination committed by government at any level. What better day to begin than today: Independence Day? Let's make it mean something again!
For more info: I recommend reading the reasons for secession listed in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing those to the situation the formerly-free people of America now find themselves facing. You might even realize it is time for a more succinct declaration.
Friday, July 03, 2009
The disease which pretends to be its own cure
The disease which pretends to be its own cure
In reading and debating liberty with other people, I notice that almost every argument against freedom, at some point, boils down to consequences that we currently encounter because of government interference.
To wit:
The reason national borders are "necessary" is that the state steals money in order to finance welfare, which is then either a nice carrot enticing people who want something for nothing or is a nice excuse for xenophobes to use against immigrants who want no handouts (most of the people in America who want something for nothing are not recent immigrants).
The reason gun control is "needed" is because government has made it safer to be an aggressive criminal than it would be if self-defense were not criminalized. It also causes people to be unfamiliar with the safe handling of guns resulting in more accidents than would otherwise occur. Both crime and accidents are then used as an excuse for more victim disarmament "laws" making a crazy feedback loop.
Driver's licenses and draconian state control of the roads are "necessary" because we have foolishly allowed the state to assume ownership over the roadways.
The reason the "War on (some) Drugs" is "necessary" is that prohibition causes an inflated profit margin and makes violence inevitable.
The reason "healthcare reform" is "needed" is because of the "War on (some) Drugs" making remedies expensive and (legally) dangerous to try, and because of government licensing and regulation of doctors artificially causing a shortage of healers.
The reason "gay marriage" is an issue is that government has been allowed to immorally declare it owns the institution of marriage, to be rationed out as it sees fit.
The list goes on and on. Government causes the problem and fools gullible "patriotic" folk into pointing to the problem as a reason they need government. I'm not the first to notice the pattern:
Well, I don't need government for ANYTHING. And neither do you.
**********************
In reading and debating liberty with other people, I notice that almost every argument against freedom, at some point, boils down to consequences that we currently encounter because of government interference.
To wit:
The reason national borders are "necessary" is that the state steals money in order to finance welfare, which is then either a nice carrot enticing people who want something for nothing or is a nice excuse for xenophobes to use against immigrants who want no handouts (most of the people in America who want something for nothing are not recent immigrants).
The reason gun control is "needed" is because government has made it safer to be an aggressive criminal than it would be if self-defense were not criminalized. It also causes people to be unfamiliar with the safe handling of guns resulting in more accidents than would otherwise occur. Both crime and accidents are then used as an excuse for more victim disarmament "laws" making a crazy feedback loop.
Driver's licenses and draconian state control of the roads are "necessary" because we have foolishly allowed the state to assume ownership over the roadways.
The reason the "War on (some) Drugs" is "necessary" is that prohibition causes an inflated profit margin and makes violence inevitable.
The reason "healthcare reform" is "needed" is because of the "War on (some) Drugs" making remedies expensive and (legally) dangerous to try, and because of government licensing and regulation of doctors artificially causing a shortage of healers.
The reason "gay marriage" is an issue is that government has been allowed to immorally declare it owns the institution of marriage, to be rationed out as it sees fit.
The list goes on and on. Government causes the problem and fools gullible "patriotic" folk into pointing to the problem as a reason they need government. I'm not the first to notice the pattern:
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre
Well, I don't need government for ANYTHING. And neither do you.
**********************
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Libertarians should dare to be different
Libertarians should dare to be different
I was recently called an "intellectual pygmy" and a "shock jock" on Ilana Mercer's "Barely a Blog". I was held up as an example of what is wrong with libertarianism. Her main complaint was over my controversial "cannibalism column".
Upon reading her entry, I sat here and tried to see it from her perspective. I tried to think if I am doing more harm than good to the cause of individual liberty. If so, I need to be aware of that and stop it. If I am wrong, I want to know. Freedom is a lot more important than I am.
After reflecting I came to the conclusion that I can't be anyone other than myself. In these columns I write what I really think, from the perspective of who I really am. So, as I often do in cases like this, I wrote her directly. I try to be polite in all my correspondence, and she was very polite in her response to me. She almost apologized for the ad hominem comments.
In her reply Ms. Mercer claimed that "my kind" of "shock jock opinions" are more "conventional and unthreatening" to most libertarians than are her opinions. From my perspective, and based upon years of hate-mail, I don't believe that is true. But, if it were true, why would that be?
Maybe because a difference that makes no difference is not a difference. If your "alternative" to the rampant statism that infects the earth today is indistinguishable from the status quo, why would anyone bother changing sides? If the difference is only a matter of degree, and not a fundamental rejection of statist coercion and control, is that really a difference? I am not assuming any opinions or motivations for Ms. Mercer in particular. I am not enlightened about her opinions on any issues, but I do know where so many "libertarians" balk when discussing liberty.
If you see nothing wrong with national borders enforced by government; if you see nothing wrong with taxation as a concept; if you don't recognize aggressive war (the business of the state) as murder on a massive scale; if you accept that government has the authority to do things that you or I can not do, then what is the difference from any Demopublican out there? If you don't accept that the philosophy of non-aggression applies to ALL individuals, including those employed by the state, what is your line-in-the-sand? I'm not aiming any of these remarks at Ms. Mercer, as I don't really know, but otherwise, why would her opinions not be as popular among those who hunger for real liberty as they might otherwise be? Those who believe in the legitimacy of the state are unlikely to embrace any real limits on their god and probably will not ever support liberty over the state in any substantive way. So, why cater to them?
I was recently called an "intellectual pygmy" and a "shock jock" on Ilana Mercer's "Barely a Blog". I was held up as an example of what is wrong with libertarianism. Her main complaint was over my controversial "cannibalism column".
Upon reading her entry, I sat here and tried to see it from her perspective. I tried to think if I am doing more harm than good to the cause of individual liberty. If so, I need to be aware of that and stop it. If I am wrong, I want to know. Freedom is a lot more important than I am.
After reflecting I came to the conclusion that I can't be anyone other than myself. In these columns I write what I really think, from the perspective of who I really am. So, as I often do in cases like this, I wrote her directly. I try to be polite in all my correspondence, and she was very polite in her response to me. She almost apologized for the ad hominem comments.
In her reply Ms. Mercer claimed that "my kind" of "shock jock opinions" are more "conventional and unthreatening" to most libertarians than are her opinions. From my perspective, and based upon years of hate-mail, I don't believe that is true. But, if it were true, why would that be?
Maybe because a difference that makes no difference is not a difference. If your "alternative" to the rampant statism that infects the earth today is indistinguishable from the status quo, why would anyone bother changing sides? If the difference is only a matter of degree, and not a fundamental rejection of statist coercion and control, is that really a difference? I am not assuming any opinions or motivations for Ms. Mercer in particular. I am not enlightened about her opinions on any issues, but I do know where so many "libertarians" balk when discussing liberty.
If you see nothing wrong with national borders enforced by government; if you see nothing wrong with taxation as a concept; if you don't recognize aggressive war (the business of the state) as murder on a massive scale; if you accept that government has the authority to do things that you or I can not do, then what is the difference from any Demopublican out there? If you don't accept that the philosophy of non-aggression applies to ALL individuals, including those employed by the state, what is your line-in-the-sand? I'm not aiming any of these remarks at Ms. Mercer, as I don't really know, but otherwise, why would her opinions not be as popular among those who hunger for real liberty as they might otherwise be? Those who believe in the legitimacy of the state are unlikely to embrace any real limits on their god and probably will not ever support liberty over the state in any substantive way. So, why cater to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)