Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are perhaps better.
I understand the sentiment of "voting in self defense". I have even done it in the past.
The thing is, I think a self-defensive voter needs to make very clear that the voting is only done to try to avoid difficulties later by either "legalizing" liberty, or by rejecting a "legalized" restriction on liberty, but that if the results of the election go against liberty the voter has no intention of going along with the result.
I am surrounded by pro-government extremists who constantly subject me to their silly and archaic opinions, but I am expected to remain silent and not express my opinion. My opinions are "not polite" or "socially acceptable", I suppose.
I am expected to not make any efforts to defend myself intellectually from the infectious memes of the government extremists, and certainly take no actions to defend myself.
Even the peaceful and humorous act of putting up a sign is seen as a shameful thing. I am apparently an embarrassment. Had I put up a sign supporting even a candidate they didn't like, it would have been OK, I guarantee. But because my sign exposes the illegitimacy of the whole rigged game, it is "wrong".
I don't make an issue of my disagreement with the one who gives lip-service to freedom while supporting the pro-life [sic] protesters and seeking quick "solutions" through Law and enforcement. It's that ridiculous mythical "harm to society", you know, that must be prevented.
I say nothing about the ones who work for and support The State with their careers in some of the most cruel institutions of The State (public schools and prisons), and with their votes.
I say nothing to those who belong to the most popular Death Cult in America, which celebrates the modern Crusade (and Crusaders) in its worship [sic] services while ignoring the realities of the War on Terror/War on Liberty and is fine with torture as long as it happens to "them".
Because I don't buy into all of that nonsense, and because I have previously dared to let them know where I stand (even though I don't harp on it constantly), I am the bad one.
How about this: You stop making it necessary for me to defend my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property from your goverthugs and "laws" and I'll shut up. I don't want to think about The State or any other idiotic superstition, but I have no choice when you make it a constant threat. Keep your filthy government to yourself!
The town is cluttered with campaign signs for the upcoming mayoral race.
Yay.
So, I just placed this sign in my yard to add a little reason to the debate.
PS: I just wish that, for once, my every action was not met by the person who claims to be my partner with eye-rolling, sighs, disgust, and derision. And frequently anger. It gets old.
For this exercise I'll ignore for a moment that the US is a criminal government and that taxation is always and without exception wrong. I'll pretend for a moment that The State has a legitimate place in life. Now, how would I fix the US budget.
Easy. Just cut the total budget, which means every every single individual budget item, in the fe(de)ral government by the same 99.9%. If an agency previously had a budget of $10 million, under the new plan the budget is now $10,000. Can't do "the job" for that amount? Then shut down and give the assets back to those whose money paid for them.
That should get the government back fairly close to the limits the Constitution set upon its "authority" and would solve the budget crisis. Any "extra" money that is not spent on budget items would go toward paying down the debt, unless the government just defaults.
I'm going to step out on a limb again and say that someone who is supposedly smarter than little ol' me has got it wrong. Again.
In this TED video, sociologist Sam Richardsalmost gets it right, but then he gets sidetracked and caught in the quicksand of the "progressive" mindset. I'm mostly talking about his first exercise in empathy (in the first 3:30 of the video) where he uses the Chinese and Americans in a thought experiment. Watch at least that part then come back and read the rest here.
If, as in his example, "the Chinese" got fabulously wealthy by mining and exporting American coal back to China, then they are buying it from the property owners. Right? Well, in the absence of government, they would be. That's where he misses the point.
Now, he admits that the Chinese only got access to this coal through political deals with Rulers. Deals that enrich the Rulers at the expense of those who actually owned the coal. Why doesn't he think about who owns the coal, and why they are not able to exercise that ownership? Why doesn't he see where the problem originates? The State is the root of this problem; not the resource or those who acquire it.
Where I think he gets it wrong the worst is that he assumes that the Americans in this scenario would be stupid enough to blame the Chinese people and resent their prosperity when the culprits are the political deal-makers in America. They are the thieves. Politicians are always thieves. They are good at making unaware followers blame someone else, though.
Maybe some people are too stupid to see who is really to blame, but that "political elite" better not bet their lives on it.
Now, watch the rest of the video. The funny thing is that he makes the assumption that you and I haven't already put ourselves in the shoes of those who are defending themselves from violent invaders. Or, am I really that different from you?
You can't just make up any rules you want. At least that's what people have told me. But they never seem to apply that same principle to The State or other supposedly "voluntary collectives".
I think homeowner associations are awful. I can't imagine why anyone would consent to live under one, and yet I can see many ways someone might not have a choice. But, yes, they have a right to make rules forbidding the flags, I suppose, but those rules are still wrong. And the governor has no real authority to make another rule that violates the right of the association to make a wrong rule. Two wrongs don't make a right, even when the second one tries to correct a wrong. No new "laws" are needed; just get rid of the bad "law" that allows the wrong thing to happen in the first place.
Sometimes you are wrong to do what you have a right to do. For example, you would have the right to shoot a trespassing child but it would be wrong to do so.
You might have the right to ban visitors from carrying concealed guns but it's wrong to do so in all but the most unlikely and extreme theoretical cases. Maybe if you had a powerful magnet in your home that would attract the gun and cause it to rip through the flesh of the visitor and bounce toward the magnet, shredding everything in its path, you could make a claim that you really "need" to prohibit guns on your property, but any ferrous metal would be just as dangerous as a gun in that case.
And you might have a right to ban people from flying a particular flag at their home, but trying to actually do that with a rule is the wrong thing to do. And passing another "law", thereby adding to the law pollution we already suffer from, is not the right way to fix anything.
So, you can't just go around making up any rule you want- well, you can, but you might be wrong to do so.
You may have noticed that when I talk of things that are unequivocally wrong, I list aggression and theft/fraud. I will occasionally mention "and sometimes, trespassing". Why only sometimes?
It is because I see trespassing in a slightly different light. I'm a little uncomfortable placing it in the same category as aggression and theft.
First of all, as I implied in my definition of "trespasser", if you are there with the owner's permission I don't consider you a trespasser. Not even if you failed to abide by the rules that gave you access and if the permission was contingent on those rules being followed. It may not be nice of you, and you should immediately leave when asked to do so. Regardless of whether the rules are legitimate or not, you broke an agreement, but you are not trespassing.
This is the reason I think personal property rights trump real estate rights, a la "Bubble Theory".
The bigger point and the core truth is that you can trespass without causing any harm (offending someone is not "harm") and without having any ill intent.
A lost person stumbling around in the woods can easily become a trespasser but may not damage the violated property in any way and may not have intended to trespass to begin with.
I have also known of trespassers who knew they were entering private property but who had no ill intent or ulterior motive at all, and who even assumed they would be welcome.
I have been on both sides of the equation. I have dealt with trespassers of both types on many occasions and never felt the need to get tough with them. No harm, no ill intent- no real problem.
This is why, unless there is more to the story, I don't view trespassing as a wrong on the same level as aggression and theft. But... maybe I'm wrong to think that way. At least it's something to mull over.
I would imagine you have heard the controversy over the picture that some politician forwarded that portrayed Obama as a baby chimp, with his chimp parents. If you haven't, I'm sure a search engine could find it for you. The kneejerkers out there are decrying the joke as "racist". Give me a flying break.
First of all, Obama's parents were not of the same "race", so the pic is implying that his "white" mom was a chimp, too; not just his "black" dad. And then Obama himself is a "racial" mixture and is also portrayed as a chimp. That seems pretty even-handed to me. Offense handed out all around. If being a chimp is somehow insulting, that is. Plus, I still see lots of pics of Bush as a chimp. No one claimed that was "racist". In fact, I think both instances would be insulting to chimps if they were aware of them.
Chimps are not a race of human, so how does comparing a person to a chimp qualify as "racist"? Would it be racist to show Obama as a snake or a bunny or a toadstool or a rock?
Finally, do chimps have "race"? If they do, humans (other than maybe Jane Goodall) can't tell by looking. Which means it must be pretty superficial. Could chimps discern that humans have "race"?
I think Obama is a very, very corrupt and bad person. As has been every other president I have ever learned much about. Being a chimp would be a vast improvement.
I recently had to deal with a judge. Yeah, I shudder at the remembrance too.
I've seen the man around town. He is old, extremely feeble, and deaf. In dealing with him I discovered that he couldn't hear me when I tried to tell him I had resolved the situation by complying with The State's demands. He reminded me of nothing so much as a zombie.
I mean, he seriously had no clue I was even speaking and I was maybe, at most, 3 feet from his ears.
In my case The State was "only" stealing my money (since I complied), but what about instances where the stakes are higher? A zombie who is more dead than alive has no business making decisions that affect the lives of others; not for The State and not even under private, consensual arbitration. Although, I suppose under arbitration you could get away with screaming "Listen to me while I try to tell you something relevant, you zombie!"
I know someone who was on a jury in this guy's municipal court a few months ago. She said the judge kept dozing off during the trial. Not the behavior of a responsible person at all!
He may have been a decent guy once, even though I disagree completely with the coercive nature of his employment, but it is way past time for him to do the responsible thing and retire. Some might say it isn't all his fault. I'm supposing he is an elected judge, after all- which goes to show how irresponsible voters are. As if you didn't already know.
I'm 264 miles from the "border", and yet today I saw a Border Patrol van stopping a car right here along the highway.
Go away! I want nothing to do with your sort of disgusting control-freaks. You have no business being anywhere, but certainly no legitimate business 264 miles from that which you pretend you have the authority to patrol.
I guess that "Constitution-Free Zone" just keeps growing, and growing, and growing. Yeah, I know. There is no longer anywhere that the Constitution is obeyed by the criminal US government, or its more local co-conspirators, in any instance. And things like this just go to illustrate that point.
How to respond when someone says "I read your column"?
It always catches me off-guard. I guess I don't expect people to actually read what I write; not people I could run into during the course of my day, anyway.
I think I've answered "you do?" on some occasions. Especially when someone says they have read my columns, but give no indication if they liked them, or whether they agreed with them, or if they think I should be locked away forever for my opinions.
Yesterday I was caught off-guard by someone who said he read my "stuff" and I just said "I'm sorry". I'm not sure if I was being humorous or not, since he gave no further feedback. I was thinking "...and...???" Anyway, I asked which "stuff". I guess he has read a bit of all of it. Still not sure what he thought of it, though.
Usually when people tell me they read my column they do so in a conspiratorial manner. They sidle up and say "Hey, I really enjoy your columns" and then slip away quietly before I can say much more than a quick "thank you". This is the most fun feedback.
I've also had people comment favorably and leave me wondering if they actually understood what they read- like when the one woman thanked me for "standing up for good moral values". Me? LOL!
Maybe I should write myself a few scripts for such occasions.
Once upon a time being a "patriot" wasn't so bad. Now... well, the worst devils wrap themselves in patriotism in order to get away with all sorts of horrid things.
"Patriots" join the military and "law enforcement" in order to crush individual liberty and impose the will of The State. Those in the military who go overseas even endanger their friends and family "back home" by their actions of building and supporting the US Empire. "Patriots" torture people for god and country. "Patriots" molest children at airports. "Patriots" support the actions of a criminal government and snitch on the good people who oppose The State.
If true patriotism were supporting the ideals that the country was supposedly founded upon- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property- well, then I could get behind that. That's no longer the case. In fact, those who are the biggest danger to those ideals are celebrated as the biggest patriots. That's just screwed up.
Supposedly someone here in town went to the police about me over something they didn't like. It was nothing wrong- no aggression; no theft or fraud; not even any trespassing. The report passed on to me may or may not have been true.
Yet, someone else, upon hearing of my experience, expressed the hope that the cops will go after all the other people in town who could be punished for the exact same thing.
Absolutely, positively NOT!!! If what I did deserves no punishment, and it doesn't, why would I want punishment applied to others for the same thing?
That's the difference that makes a libertarian better- more ethical- than "conservatives" or "progressives".
So, in the spirit of doing the right thing, here is my pledge to the people of Farwell:
I will never, NEVER, report you to the police for doing things that initiate no force or theft; even things I find personally distasteful. I will never cooperate in any way with any investigation of you by any government agent, "authority", or official for those things either.
I consider this to be a logical extension of living by the ZAP.
The coin has another side, though. If you do initiate force or commit theft against any innocent person, you had better hope that in doing so you don't make me mad enough to lose my mind, even temporarily, because if I do, and that condition is severe enough that it causes me to violate my principles, going to the police could be one of the things I might do in my distraught and irrational condition.
You know... it would be nice to see more people willing to make this pledge to the people around them.
Are humans the only animal to feel revulsion? Like I do when watching someone (usually a kid) eating boogers. Or when watching TSA goons molesting a child. Does any other critter get disgusted?
*
Eventually in a feud one side must grow up and be the one to stop. In the case of a feud that has been going on more than a few generations there is no innocent participant anymore. Someone has to be the one to grow up and back away; to be the one who goes home and refuses to do anything other than defending his own property from the other, no matter the taunts, insults, or whatever. To be the one who will not violate the property rights of his enemy any more. In the case of the US vs the Middle East, who will be the adult? Considering both sides are composed of governidiots, I have my suspicions.
*
The real tragedy is that government, at best, exists as a mechanism for introducing coercion in order to impose a prevailing opinion on the minority. At worst; as a mechanism to impose the will of a dangerous minority onto the whole of society, one individual at a time. Be careful, because there is no guarantee you will not be the person forced to live by someone's edicts that you find unbearable; all because you supported the system as long as it seemed to benefit your goals. There is only one way to ensure things never get to that point. Liberty is always the solution.
*
Video piracy might be wrong but there is nothing legitimately "criminal" about it. For the FBI to actually threaten to enforce IP seems a severe over-reaction to me.
*
Governments everywhere want to have internet "kill switches". I have a better idea: a government kill switch. In a crisis let the internet become a kill switch that suspends all government, including paychecks to the employees, until the crisis is over. No one in government has any say on when the kill switch is used, or in allowing government back-up.
*
If you violate the rights of some people for the common good you are just gonna pay later. You go into debt by violating rights and the bill eventually comes due. Like the economy educating the Federal Reserve. Blowback.
*
It is worse to do something wrong than to do something illegal.
*
All government is evil but not everyone who fights the government is good. Some are just as evil.
*
Who's the world's greatest magician? Nigh Neil Evan. He changed everything, or so they say. How did he do it? The debate still rages. Smoke, mirrors, misdirection, lies, or simply taking advantage of an over-reaction? My guess is all of the above.
I need some money. Desperately. Donations have dried up and Time's Up things aren't selling fast enough to help at this moment. So, I am going to sell 5 ounces of silver. They will be like either this bar or the other design from the same mint... I don't remember exactly what I have, designwise.
If you want some of it before I put it on eBay, let me know.
Taxation is theft. It really is as simple as that. What else would you call it when someone takes your money (your possession) away from you by threat of force when you do not want to give it to them?
Do I have a right to my own life? What is "life" except the time you are alive? I have traded a significant portion of my life for money in order to trade the money for some other things I lack the knowledge, skill, or inclination to do personally. Does my life, expressed through my money, belong to me? If it doesn't, then taxation would be alright. However, if it does, then if someone takes it from me against my will, it doesn't matter to me whether it is a government agent or a mugger in a dark alley. Theft is theft.
Now, you may argue that the money is being spent on "good" things. OK. Maybe the mugger will use my money to feed his children, or will donate it all to a charity to feed widows and orphans. Perhaps he will even purchase a "gift" for me with part of the money; something I won't buy for myself. Does that excuse his actions? Of course not. Few people are stupid enough to argue that it does. Place the silly hat of government on the mugger's head, though, and many people fall for the lie.
What if I refuse to cooperate with the mugger? He will use greater force unless I am able to effectively fight him off. Just like government does. If you refuse to comply with government thieves, and keep refusing at each step of the "process", the government will reach a point where it will kill you for your money. Either when they try to confiscate your property, or when they come to forcibly arrest you, if you fight back, you will be killed. What government program is worth killing people over? Innocent people. People who only wish to keep that which belongs to them. Murder committed to support government is not right.
Taxation is based on a fundamental lie. Government doesn't even "need" your money to operate. They have access to the world's largest counterfeiting operation: The Federal Reserve Bank. Through this, and inflation, the government creates all the fiat "money" it could ever want, without stealing one cent from you through "taxation" (although the deception involved in fiat money is still theft). Taxation is simply a way to take money away from you in order to cause you financial harm, cause you to alter your behavior to more government-approved ways, and to keep tabs on you.
The things and programs that are financed with your stolen money, and that should be done, could be done cheaper and better by private companies or individuals competing in the market. "User fees" could be charged for some things. If government still wants to be involved, let them end their monopoly and compete with voluntary services. Private roads could be maintained through tolls or paid for by the businesses they serve. Poor families could be helped by charities that do not take away their dignity like government "welfare" programs do.
"National defense" would be better served by the Constitutional militia than by the military pawns that are sacrificed for bogus "causes" in distant lands now.
Many, if not most, things government currently wastes your money on would not need to be replaced by anything in a free society. Stupid things like the DMV, BATFE, the Pentagon's "black budget", and Congressional salaries. These things add insult to theft.
Remember and think of these simple truths next time you think about paying a "tax".
I'm sure you have seen the shiny new signs you paid to have placed around the schools. "The use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in the school zone." That makes me think of another quote which suggests that the ultimate answer to kings, or small town governments for that matter, is a belly laugh. Those in government, at every level, give me opportunities to laugh at their absurdity on a daily basis.
Obviously the sign doesn't really mean what it says. I assume what it is trying to wirelessly communicate to those who read it is that the use, by drivers, of cell phones and other things of that sort is prohibited while passing through the school zone. Maybe it is also intended to be interpreted as prohibiting the students from using cell phones in the school zone before, during, and after school, as well.
But that is not what the sign says.
If the sign were taken literally, it would mean books, blackboards (or their modern equivalent), and the human voice are now prohibited in the school zone, including in the classroom. That would effectively shut down the schools. While I agree with that course of action, I seriously doubt that was the intent.
If the sign were taken literally, it would mean that those of us who live in the school zone would be prohibited from using any wireless communication device in our homes. I think any attempt to enforce that one might be unpopular with more than just the rare libertarian.
(I self-censored this paragraph from the column, but in light of recent events I should have left it in to embarrass the parasites.) It would also mean the local law enforcement officers would be prohibited from texting or talking on the phone while cruising around the school- and that can't possibly be true since I have seen them do it regularly!
The sign is a humorous reminder of the reactionary nature of would-be rulers. It is an attempt to hold back the tsunami of technology with a sign backed up by a law. That hasn't ever worked in the past, and I doubt this will be the first time it will succeed. Responsibility, by drivers and pedestrians alike, is the only thing that will work, and that can't be legislated. Yes, the best reaction to any government is a good belly laugh.
(First published in The State Line Tribune. I waited to put it here for a while so it could be "exclusive" to them. They have no website.)
Recently I have heard a lot of people worrying about the economy. That's understandable. A lot of people are beginning to wake up to realities that only libertarians seemed concerned about just a few short years ago.
The most obvious clue for most people is that the price of gasoline is taking a leap. This will soon translate into higher prices on everything. Of course, you should understand that these things are not actually becoming more valuable; the dollar is simply getting closer to the point of worthlessness due to run-away Federal Reserve counterfeiting.
I can't tell you for certain what will happen with the economy in the near future, but I won't lie to you like those in Washington DC, who are causing the problems, will.
There may or may not be a crisis coming, but there are things you can do that will benefit you regardless of whether America dodges yet another bullet or whether the piper gets paid this time. If no economic collapse occurs, you have done nothing that can harm you in any way; if it does, you will be ready. So, how can you protect yourself and your family in case of an economic crisis?
First of all, remember that US dollars are not real money, but merely a substitute. If they stop buying what you need, stop accepting them as payment for anything- paychecks included. Insist on either concrete things you need in order to survive (food, water, clothing, shelter, medicine, fuel, or ammunition), or things which will retain their value over time which you can then trade for the things you need for survival. Gold, silver, and copper come to mind, as do some durable necessities that you may not personally need, but know that others will. Dollars don't even make the list, since they are less valuable with each passing day, like blackening bananas.
Second, stock up on some things now before they are out of reach. Think of things that you wouldn't be able to do without if store shelves were suddenly empty for weeks at a time. Do you require prescription medicines? Do you have enough food stored, food you will actually eat, and that will last if the electricity goes out for several days? Do you have alternate ways of heating food, and even of opening cans? Do you have a supply of water and a way to make "iffy" water safe to drink? What about toilet paper? What does it hurt to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best?
One of my strengths is that I am very adaptable. It isn't that I don't have preferences; just that I can make-do with less than I'd prefer, or in situations that are novel and strange.
Once upon a time, I would never dream of expressing my opinions if they differed from what I supposed were the opinions of those around me. I was afraid people might not like what I had to say. They might say mean things about me. Now, I still don't like it when they do say mean things, but that's not gonna keep me from speaking up.
Once upon a time I would have rather died than speak in front of people, much less sing! Then I got taken to karaoke and fell in love with singing to an audience (even though I don't get to do that anymore). People from my past who found out couldn't believe I would ever do that- it just wasn't me. But, it was.
There have been more adaptations. Some big and some small, some painful and some easy.
Each of these adaptations occurred because of some change in the conditions of my life. My old ways ran against a wall, and something had to change. I can only change me. When things I like get ripped away, my old life ends and I am forced to find a new life. It has happened many times in the past, and probably will happen again. I feel confident that I will adapt, without compromising.
You and I are ethically justified in using deadly force against agents of The State just about anytime we encounter them in their "official capacity". Cops, TSA, IRS, AFT, whatever.
When one of these "people" attempts to enforce some counterfeit "law"- any "law" that is an attempt to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft- against anyone, they become the bad guy and it is your absolute human right to resist them however you see fit, including killing them if they don't cooperate. It is "illegal", and therefore suicidal, of course, but it is still your right. I will never condemn anyone for killing an agent of The State under such a circumstance. I can't even get too worked up over an actual thief/aggressor killing an enforcer. A bad guy killing another bad guy doesn't concern me too much, and it's one less enforcer you and I have to deal with.
Any "traffic stop"; any airport scan or pat-down; any demand to see your permit or license; any official interaction at all is a credible threat to initiate force against you. You're foolish if you don't recognize the danger. You twitch an eyelid at the wrong moment and the agent of The State will kill you in the name of "officer safety". That constitutes a credible threat to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?
Many people don't want to hear this truth. They would rather weasel-word their way around the foundational facts of the matter. They don't want to be seen as "extreme". Those who defend themselves against bad guys are not "extreme"; those who support the bad guys and pretend their actions are legitimate in any way are the ones who are extreme.
No, I am not going to resort to deadly force against an agent of The State unless I feel I have nothing to lose. And, yet, the parasitic vermin of The State seem to be working really hard to make sure that those who love and really understand liberty are backed into a corner, with nothing to lose, as soon as possible. You'd think they are just dying to start a war over liberty. Well... It's their funeral.
I'd rather keep fighting than give up. Not fighting against The State, exactly, but fighting to live life as I see fit and resisting those who would molest me for daring to ignore or ridicule their stupidity and meddlesomeness.
Even if it were proven to be impossible to defeat the notion of The State now, or forever, wouldn't it be wrong to just go along? Yes, it would. Because Statism is wrong. Nothing can ever make it right; not popularity, not utility, not preferences, fears, or opinions.
What form that resistance takes will vary between individuals, and even depending on the time that you look at each individual's life. But the resistance will go on.
Obama says the last-minute deal between congressional taterheads, to avert a government "shutdown", happened because "Americans of different beliefs came together."
Yeah, right! "Different beliefs"... like disagreeing over whether plutonium or cyanide are the preferred poison; not ever questioning whether they should be poisoning innocent people.
If a person thinks they have no choice but to agree to something that they know isn't right and that will harm them, is their agreement really consensual? Can a property owner make any demands they want and expect compliance? Can you really consent to being attacked or abdicating (or negotiating away) your rights?
Nobody likes a cheater. We prefer that other people live up to their agreements; usually even when we have already broken our end of the deal. But many people don't recognize that using government to get your way is cheating.
There are only two ways to get something done between two or more people. You can convince the other person to go along and cooperate for your mutual benefit. This is referred to as the "economic method". Or you can force them to go along against their will, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest. This is called the "political method". If others agree in going along with you, there is no excuse to govern them; if they do not, many people think it's OK to skip straight to the "forcing them" step rather than continuing the attempt to convince them.
"Forcing them" can be a legitimate action IF the other person is attacking the innocent or stealing. A libertarian recognizes this as a legitimate use of force since force was already initiated by the other person. If the other person is neither attacking nor stealing, then resorting to force makes you the one in the wrong. Even worse, if your actions consist of aggression or theft, while their actions are merely intended to resist your abuse, then you are doubly wrong.
Bringing this down to the local level, what is the solution to this area's water issues? Does it involve working together in a consensual manner to work out a solution? Or does it involve using confiscated money (and other property) and imposed laws, with their inevitable enforcement, to force everyone into a "one size fits all and everyone pays, regardless" box? If no one is allowed to opt out, it is not consensual. Stirring up another hornet's nest, what about "blight"? Do you try to convince or do you simply violate the other person's property rights because you don't like the way they choose to use their own property? If you think you must resort to the government solution in either case, you are cheating.
Not every problem has a solution. That is just reality. Of those problems which can be solved, some have a solution that isn't implemented because of the eager willingness to resort to the political method instead of doing the hard work of thinking and finding a consensual solution. After all, if you believe you can simply grab the magic wand of "the law" at the first sign of an impasse, you are less likely to keep thinking and working toward a real solution. Sure you can "get things done" by cheating, but at what cost?
*****
(This was to have been my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected by the publisher because he says not all politics is cheating. In saying this, he gave me the idea for my headline.
This difficulty I keep having prompted me to ask the editor for some clarification. I asked if my columns are supposed to represent my opinion, or the editorial opinion of the Clovis News Journal. If my column is representing the editorial opinion of the paper, then I can totally understand why I have so many problems getting published (and I probably should be paid more), but if it is supposed to represent my personal opinion, then I don't get it. Surely the other columns that get published express opinions that are not in line with the paper's editorial positions- at least it seems that is the case to me when I read them. In any case, the editor answered that the columns are supposed to represent my opinion only. So how do they justify rejecting my columns on that basis?
Since this means I am out my pay for this week, please donate to help me make up the shortfall, or buy some stuff from me.)
Some days I am ready to chuck all the electronic technology and writing efforts and just go back to being a simple mountainman.
I am a libertarian and an anarchist because it is the right thing to do. I have never chosen a path because it is popular. I'll continue to be who I am. But I swear, some days...
Why not put your face out there as supporting the basic individual right to own and to carry whatever weapon you want, in any way you see fit, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone, ever?
Join the People of the Gun. You might as well. You're already on "The List".
Thanks to Thomas Knapp and his objections to this theory, I continue to be challenged to hone the way I attempt to explain it. That is a good thing. I am not being sarcastic here. Kn@ppster has always been a decent guy and a thoughtful ally on the road to liberty. He is just keeping me on my toes. Some day he may convince me yet.
For background and an explanation of what I am talking about when I mention "the bubble theory of personal property rights", see here and here and here and here and (most recently) here.
Because I believe this is a self-evident truth, yet I recognize that many people don't agree, I have to act in the only way I think is right as I try to spread the idea.
This means that I will always try to respect the wishes of property owners who do not agree with me. This means I will consider an "invitation" that puts conditions on what is inside my pockets as a non-invitation. (I will, however, assume liberty unless informed otherwise beforehand.)
But mainly, it means that I will continue to act as I always have and not try to make it my business to fret about what is inside your pockets. It has never occurred to me to think about it in the past, even before I "took the red pill", and I see no reason to begin worrying about it now or in the future. The change, if one is to occur, has to start somewhere, and I have started with myself. Why not join me?
The company that is producing the flags for me is also making some "Time's Up" T-shirts with the Tea Party motto "Take Back Your Republic" added across the top. I don't really care for that motto very much, but I had an idea.
I will sell those shirts with one "minor" alteration. I will use red fabric paint to cross out "republic" and add "Liberty!"
Since it will be done by hand the final look will vary somewhat from shirt to shirt.
They will cost $20 each, with $3.00 shipping and handling. Or one half ounce of silver for the shirt and shipping.
Let me know if you want one of these shirts, and what size you need, and I will place an order. Obviously, it will take a little longer to get the shirts to you since I will need to order and paint them.
Update: I've added a couple pics of the results of my modification of a couple shirts. Hand scrawled, so no two will be exactly alike. I like the graffiti effect anyway.
