Don't "legalize" anything

The whole concept of "legalization" is looking at things backwards.  It seems to me it is taking things that are "illegal" and then having the government say "we could have killed you for doing this yesterday, but today we'll let you live- as long as you pay all the applicable extortion... um, 'taxes'."

Instead of "legalizing" anything- marijuana, gay marriage, concealed carry, raw milk, whatever- The State needs to keep its perverted hands OFF.  The State has no real authority to "legalize" or "criminalize" anything.

No, murder shouldn't even be "illegal", since it has nothing to do with The State.  Yes, murder is wrong; the "laws" against it have nothing to do with its wrongness.  And even when "legalized"- such as "war" or murder by cop, it is STILL wrong.

Government has stolen more than your money and other property.  It has stolen your sovereignty and, in most cases, your ability to act on it without risk of being kidnapped, robbed, and/or murdered.  Take it back and stop asking permission.

"Mommycrats" and "Daddylicans"

I think that, at least when I consider each half of the National Socialist Part separately, instead of thinking of them as "Democrats" and "Republicans", I will think of them as the "Mommycrats" and the "Daddylicans".  (I'm sure someone else has come up with those names before; they are too self-evident.)

Yeah, that last one sounds a little naughty, but compared to the actions of those in the party... well, I don't think there's any way to make them sound worse than they are.

Anyway, the new names reflect their approach to controlling you.

Mommycrats go about it like an insane mother.

"You are a baby, no matter your age, and you need constant care so you don't get a booboo.  And so you don't hurt your sister.  Of course, you shouldn't pick up pointy things, or touch anything that involves fire.  Eat your veggies and ... say, aren't you getting a little fat?  No more soft drinks for you!  And, if you misbehave, just wait til your father gets home!"  (Because Mommycrats are pretty happy to let Daddylicans punish you, as long as the punishment doesn't go too far.)

Daddylicans embrace the way of the sick father.

"You are an idiot child.  You are lazy and evil, and it is up to me to beat some sense into your empty skull.  You WILL respect me.  You WILL sit there in church and keep your disgusting mouth shut no matter how irrational the message is- and don't even consider any other message!  You will respect the family traditions and not question whether what I tell you is true.  It is truer than true because I say so.  Everyone out there is out to get you, and only I can stop them.  Buck up.  It's not your lot to be happy- it is your responsibility to do as I say."

Of course, they often join forces to control those of us who grew up to see that we don't need a life-long control-freak "parent".

Bernanke's imaginary water hose

And it isn't just Bernanke.  The Federal Reserve, Social Security, the entire State seems to believe this as well.  The State operates as if this were reality.

Just remember that it isn't and stay out of the way.


.

Strike at the Root of Evil

Do you think corporations are destroying the economy and enslaving people?
Strike at the root and disable The State so that corporations can't use it to their advantage.

Do you think GMO crops and Monsanto are poisoning the food supply?
Strike at the root and remove the government's favoritism and the maintenance of the corrupt monopoly.

Do you think "chemtrails" are real and a threat?
Strike at the root and take away The State's ability to do anything to anyone.

Do you worry about FEMA camps?
Strike at the root and withdraw consent so that The State loses its ability to force anyone (or pay them) to carry out any plans.

Do you suspect "9/11" was in inside job?
Strike at the root and take away government's ability to get away with anything or to keep secrets.

Do you believe the government either carries out "false flag" operations as an excuse to pass anti-gun laws or takes advantage of random events for that purpose?  Do you think government may try gun confiscation?
Strike at the root and stop allowing anyone to violate your human right to self defense under any pretext.

Do you see that elections are rigged?
Strike at the root by refusing to play a rigged game.

Do you worry about the Federal Reserve's hundred-year counterfeiting scheme?
Strike at the root and use free market money when possible.

Even if the "conspiracy theory" is wrong, removing the State is a good thing.  And if they are right, your life might just depend on dismantling the Empire.  Liberty is always the right path.


.

Fear not, take control of your life

Fear not, take control of your life

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 24, 2012.)

I was talking to a really nice guy recently who said he doesn't agree with a lot of what I write. That's understandable. It happens all the time. But what bothered me, and frankly left me without a response at the time, is that he referred to the world as "terrifying".

Is the world "terrifying"? It seems a lot of people find it so. Why?

Some people are terrified by freelance criminals. Others are scared by the prospect of having people they don't agree with controlling the coercive force of The State; whether domestically passing oppressive "laws", or around the world creating anti-American sentiment that fosters blow-back. Many are undoubtedly afraid of things that fear-mongers with an agenda have placed into their minds- things that seem plausible and are easily imagined, but may never come to pass. I don't know what form this man's fear takes, but I think all fear comes from the same place.

I think fear is a result of feeling that you have no control over events that will affect your life and the lives of your loved-ones. Some events you truly can't control, but you have more control over most events than you might believe, if you take the initiative and grab it. Your life is in your hands. Don't rely on others to do things that are your responsibility. 

Your safety, which is a big issue, can't be delegated to anyone else even if they insist that you must. All your actions have consequences that you will have to deal with even if you would rather not. If you try to hand your consequences or responsibilities to someone else, that very act will create the consequences you will now be dealing with, which may well be worse than those you were avoiding.

I am not terrified by the world. I am certainly not afraid of other people's liberty, nor of my own. Reality is what it is. Bad things will always happen, no matter whether you live in a "safe, controlled" police state or in a "chaotic" free society. Volcanoes will erupt in Libertopia just as they will in Controlistan- but more freedom gives more leeway and more resiliency in dealing with the unexpected events. "Top-down" control is just too rigid to deal with unknowns. Why add to the unpreventable events by enabling those which could be avoided by simply taking back your responsibility? No one knows how to run your life better than you do. So, fear or not, step up and do what you need to do. You will be fine.

.

Kickstarter

No, I haven't started my own Kickstarter project (although I have been tempted and given it some thought).

I was just thinking how much fun it would be to be rich and look around Kickstarter for projects to fully fund.  It would probably be smart to do it anonymously so that I wouldn't be hassled by every person with an idea, but just imagine how it would feel to be able to give someone the chance they need.


.

Consultant on libertarianism

I'm always looking for interesting ways to make money- ways that don't make me want to hang myself. Being hit by another surprise financial disaster makes me brainstorm some more, and I came upon an idea.

I think the entertainment industry needs me as a "libertarianism consultant".

I was thinking about the TV show "Parks & Recreation". One of the main characters is supposedly a libertarian. But how much more entertaining could the show, and that character, be if the character actually was libertarian. I see many opportunities for humorous story lines there.

I'm radical enough that I could advise them well- they could soften it for TV if they needed to while still being libertarian enough to be different, and giving a more accurate picture of what it means- and I can see the humor in libertarianism. Without being condescending towards it. Just imagine the humor of living in a society that is so self-contradictory about violence and theft, while being one of the few who sees the double standards. (Actually, if you are one of my regular readers I'm sure I don't have to tell you about that.)

I could rent my services to movies, too.

Many people would probably say that entertainment insiders have no interest in being accurate about anything, but I know that isn't exactly true. They want to entertain and make money, and I wouldn't mind helping them when possible.

I'm sure the thought of me having any influence beyond this tiny little blog is scary to many people, though.

.

Political Prisoners

How many of us know someone who is in jail or prison for violating some counterfeit "law"? I would guess most of us do. How many of us have been fined for some imaginary infraction?

There are really only two categories of "mala in se" acts. For those guilty of aggression, jailing the violators who survive the encounter with their armed targets is even seen by some libertarians as necessary (although I now think there's a better way). For those guilty of theft, restitution would be much more sensible.

Everyone else in prison is a political prisoner.

They are guilty of nothing other than living independently of the edicts of government stooges (mala prohibita "offenses").

For violators of counterfeit "laws" immediate release is the first step in serving justice.

The next step is getting restitution from those who kidnapped the victim of government. Using the real laws against force and fraud, anyone who fines, arrests, jails, harasses, or kills anyone who violates a mala prohibita "law" becomes the aggressor and therefore is subject to the consequences. And any monetary restitution must come from their OWN pockets, not from mythical "public funds". Anyone who assumes "authority" over another must be held to a higher standard, and must be extremely careful to avoid any violation of rights. If they are not willing to pay the price of their transgressions, they need to get a legitimate job.

Counterfeit "laws" include, but are not limited to, laws regarding: guns, consensual sex, drugs, licenses and permits, private property uses, consensual commerce, taxes, broadcasting, unpopular speech, marriage, free travel, etc.

(From my archives. Originally posted September 7, 2006. Updated.)

.

Property taxes

By the time I was around 10 years old I had already developed a sense that I wanted a cabin in the mountains where I would hunt and gather my own food, make my own buckskin clothes, and just be left alone to live as I wanted (much to the eternal distress of my conventional parents).

I had it all figured out ... until my parents informed me that if I didn't pay "property tax" on the land the government would take it away from me.

Even at that age, I knew that this was ridiculous and wrong. If you own something, you OWN it. You don't have to pay a yearly ransom to keep it!

I think "property tax" is fundamentally more evil than other "taxes". ALL "taxes" are theft-by-government at gunpoint and not justifiable, but "property tax" raises the bar for evil. And those stolen dollars are used to fund the despicable government indoctrination system.

Consider this: If you do not want to pay "sales tax" you could theoretically barter and trade for all the goods that you couldn't produce for yourself.

Hate the "income tax"? Do what I did and reduce your income to zero (or barely above that).

But how to have a HOME and not have "property tax"? Some people claim you can avoid "property taxes" by renting. I think they are wrong. You could rent, but even then the landlord has to include the cost of the "property tax" into the rent, or he loses money- and will probably ultimately lose the house and you'll still be out of a home. To really avoid "property taxes" you could be a squatter, or you could be a "permanent tourist". These strategies work for some people but have their own risks and problems.

Unfortunately the desire to have a homestead is one of the strongest urges for humans. We are very territorial creatures. Governments exploit this basic human desire because they are allowed to.

(From my archives. Originally posted September 07, 2006. Updated.)

.

...to Own and to Carry any Weapon...

Those of us who are interested in owning firearms and other defensive weapons put up with a lot of abuse at the hand of The State.

Do you realize that the Second Amendment does not give you the right to "keep and bear arms"? It recognizes a right that is yours simply because you were born a Human Being.

No part of the Bill of Rights even applies to you unless you work for government; then it tells you exactly what things you are absolutely prohibited from doing. The rights existed before government; they will exist long after government is in the compost pile of history.

Any politician, enforcer, or bureaucrat who violates any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which supersedes the Constitution) has broken the highest governmental law and has illustrated that government is the worst criminal organization, and is subject to justified self-defensive violence.

Yet, even if the Constitution permitted gun "laws" they would still be wrong. All gun "laws" are counterfeit "laws". In fact, almost all US laws are counterfeit. Real laws (those in line with Natural Law) do not need to be enforced. Counterfeit "laws" must NOT be enforced. Only an evil person will advocate, pass, or attempt to enforce a counterfeit "law".

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

Blaming the Victim

I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that frequently when we hear of a murder, rape, or other crime of violence, people say "if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town..." (whatever that means), or "if only she hadn't been dressed like that", or "you shouldn't flash money around that way", or some other drivel.

This is just blaming the victim.

It is a psychological defense mechanism that allows us to delude ourselves that if only we behave a certain way, bad things will never happen to us, personally.

I see a similar phenomenon in libertarian thought on occasion. Instead of blaming the heartless cop who is "only enforcing the law", or the soulless reavers of the IRS who steal the livelihood from our friends and neighbors, or the mindless bureaucrats who take up valuable space, some will blame their victims.

They insist that others fight back as "they" believe they ought to, instead of seeing that they may have too much at stake to make a scene at this time. Or they may simply have other priorities.

If you refuse to submit to a "driver's license", or ignore income taxes, or reject a "Social Security Number"; if you build without a permit, or carry a gun without government permission, or any of the other nice ways we can fight back, then that is wonderful. I support your defiance 100%. Just do not despise your neighbor whose family would not survive if she went to jail or got murdered for refusing to cooperate with the government thugs. She is not the problem; she is the victim. Blaming the victim is a mental problem that hides reality from your conscious mind.

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

No one represents you in election

No one represents you in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 17, 2012)

Obama or Romney. Or, should that be "Obamney"?

It is amusing to watch the election promoters trying to make the anointed presidential candidates look different from one another. Especially when it means they are now promoting a candidate they had vigorously opposed mere months ago. Every time election season oozes across the landscape I feel sorry for voters; especially in a case where there is no substantive difference between the candidates they will be allowed to choose from. I empathize with their desperation.

Most voters will try to justify their new-found support for Candidate X. The honest voters will say "Sure it's a bad choice, but what else can I do? Just give up?"

Well, sure, you could do that, but it's not necessary.

In my opinion as a libertarian, a vote for a Democrat or Republican is always a wasted vote. For that matter, any vote is probably always a wasted vote, since no one can ever truly "represent" another person, other than on a one-to-one basis. Even then it's iffy and you can easily be betrayed. Almost no aspect of life should be subject to majority opinion or control, anyway. Society can't be "run".

However, if you still feel the need to vote, only vote for a third party candidate. You are still legitimizing an illegitimate and completely broken "system", but at least your vote won't go toward the person/party that the mainstream media and the government want you to believe to be your only option.

Another choice you always have is to refuse to play a rigged game. Withdraw consent and walk away. That's not "giving up". If you are playing cards against someone who has mirrors arranged so that he can see the cards you hold, who has a stash of aces (or whatever he might need) in his lap, and who gets to have final say in any dispute you might have concerning the outcome of the game, why would you keep sitting there and placing bets? The situation in politics is even less honest.

This realization can free you to spend your time and energy elsewhere. Instead of waiting for some politician to do things you feel are important, start the ball rolling yourself. Instead of waiting for tax money to be allocated to your cause, publicize your cause and get voluntary donations. Instead of advocating a "law" to force people to act as though they agree with your or your cause, convince them. And if all that fails go on without their help- leaving them free to go their own way. It's how decent people operate. Let's bring decency back to life.

.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need ... roads!

Building onto the "eminent domain" theme has me thinking about roads.

I am frequently asked how we will have roads if there is no government road program or fuel taxes.

Note that this isn't "the only way" roads might work in a free society, but only a possible solution. The reality would probably be different than I can even imagine.

I think that all roads should be private property. Everyone would own the road that runs through their property. Or if it runs along a boundary, they would own the half of the road that is on their side of the property line.

Now, If I owned half of the road in front of my property, would I want the bother of maintaining it, and the liability if someone were driving on it and was in an accident? No, I wouldn't. Would I close off the road to travelers? I wouldn't, but I am sure some folks would. That would be their choice. Would there be any profit in keeping the road open? Yes. (Plus, businesses have a vested interest in keeping roads open so that customers can get to them.)

No one, including me, wants a stupid toll-booth every hundred feet or so. So what would happen?

I think that the market would soon find a workable solution. My hunch is that companies would form which would buy or lease roads from land-owners, taking on all costs and liabilities, but also most of the profits. These companies (not "corporations", which are a government creation) would probably sell a form of travel insurance or something of the sort that would permit travel upon their roadways and also guarantee against road hazards, and maybe even mechanical problems.

They could also sell or lease out business locations along the shoulders.

There would probably not be enforcers and roadblocks along the road. If a road's owner allowed this to happen, competitors could profit by offering an alternative. Bad traffic problems would be a cause to find a real solution, and "one size fits all" wouldn't be the name of the game. Traffic signals could be dispensed with by those who are aware of the problems they cause.

If you think this sounds unreasonable, go back to the title of this post. If this solution didn't make everyone happy, what would happen? What would stop inventors from creating vehicles that don't use roads? It has already been done. The biggest stumbling block along this line has been (for over 50 years) the government regulations which cripple innovation with red tape and inertia. Does the FAA sound familiar?

So you will have a choice: use the roads and pay a fee (or have the fee absorbed into the cost of doing business) which would undoubtedly be less than the fuel taxes you pay now, or leave the surface entirely.

The sky is no limit when you have liberty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 5, 2006. Updated.)

.

"Eminent Domain"

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government.

I realize this is a long-established practice, but it is still wrong. Making something "legal" can't make it right- not even when the Supreme Courtjesters uphold it.

If you or I desperately want a certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find another piece of land. We can't force the owner to accept a bad deal. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality.

Government should not own land, much less steal it. (And, in fact "owns" nothing it didn't steal or "buy" with stolen money.) There is no such thing as "the common good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 05, 2006- slightly updated)

.

The Constitution was poison from the first

Need proof that the Constitution is a poisonous dose of tyranny, rather than the beacon of liberty some patriots believe it is? The so-called "fifth page of the Constitution" was recently unveiled to the public, and the article mentions that the "sixth page" is apparently lost, but there are transcripts. On this sixth page is proof that the Constitution was a compromise with evil from the very beginning. Boston T. Party has been proved right.

George Washington admitted this in a note (the "sixth page") to Arthur St. Clair, the president of the Congress when the Constitution was adopted. Washington explained the justification behind the new, stronger central government. He exposed himself as no better than Obamney or Bloomie or any other parasitical puppetician or tyrant in recent history.

He said:

“Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.”

Is it clear to you yet?

.

Division of labor

It's a little frustrating when someone claims that by not voting nor being "politically involved" I am doing nothing to promote liberty. The truth is, liberty is not popular enough to win votes on a large enough scale to "win"- even if it were possible to vote yourself free.

So, you can agitate and advocate and campaign for a candidate (or cause) that you believe is pro-liberty, but even if he really is... no, especially if he really is, he will not win. (This is assuming against all evidence that the system isn't rigged to make certain he doesn't win.) The voters are not ready yet. They still care more about what some collectivist puppetician is promising to steal from someone else and give to them. Or who some parasitical politician is promising to "protect" them from. And chances are if he really does win after all your support, he'll betray you and reject liberty once he gets into office.

But, maybe your political activism will get some people to consider the idea of real liberty. Stranger things have happened. But then you have divided your time and effort. I simply choose to put almost all my efforts at this time into making the ground fertile for liberty to take root. I am trying to pave the way by making people ready for liberty so that if political action is helpful to the cause of liberty you'll someday have a receptive audience. And if it isn't helpful, we haven't put all our eggs in one basket.

You do what you think will help and I'll do the same.

.

My encounter with a hardened criminal

Her- out of the blue: "I'm breaking the law."

Me: "So? I promise not to tell on you."

Her: "I've already been warned."

Me: "We're all breaking the law, so don't worry about it. If we worried about all the laws we break everyday we'd just worry all the time."

The above conversation was between me and a sweet little old lady* who had committed the heinous crime of walking her happy Pomeranian to the post office, and taking him inside.

She seemed, at first, truly upset that she was a lawbreaker. I don't know her history. Maybe she spend a lifetime agitating for the police state we now live in. But, in that moment, I believe she "got it".

We are all outlaws, and it's OK. Really.

(*There was also an elderly man going through his mail at the same time, agreeing with everything I was saying.)

.

Think! Before you embarrass yourself.

Hey, Statist. When you justify The State and its "taxation" by bringing up roads, fire fighters, mail delivery, defense, and the abuses of corporations, it shows a certain blind spot in your thinking processes.

Why do you believe those things you list can only be accomplished through coercion and theft? Because if you believe government alone can do them, that is what you are claiming. Don't scoff; those are the only tools government has that are not generally available to the rest of us (without dire consequences, anyway). Do you not believe those things can be done voluntarily instead? If something can't be done voluntarily it shouldn't be done at all.

And, why do you believe The State is necessary for prosperity, and that corporations are the problem? The biggest barrier to prosperity is the government/corporations. There is no distinction. You may believe government is "necessary" but this just shows you haven't thought it through sufficiently.

.

Heart and Brain

Long ago I heard something to the effect that if you were young and conservative it meant you didn't have a heart, but if you were mature and liberal it meant you didn't have a brain.

I'd say that was half right, it just ignored the other half of the truth. To have a heart AND a brain means you are libertarian.

.

No loopholes in libertarianism

No loopholes in libertarianism

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 10, 2012)

It's usually nice when you run across something that confirms what you already thought to be true. However, "nice" doesn't really get you anywhere if you care about truth. The best way to find out whether or not something is true is to try as hard as you can to disprove it. Therefore I keep trying to disprove libertarianism to myself.

I know that's not how people normally operate (Me? Normal?), but unless you search for flaws in what you believe to be true, you never get any closer to the real truth. So I am continually looking for loopholes. Perhaps, deep down I suspect, or fear, that those who claim libertarianism can't work in the real world may be right. Maybe this is because I am exposed, on a daily basis, to so many who try to justify their opposition. They seem to believe the only thing keeping everyone (other than themselves, of course) from becoming mass-murdering thieves is the threat of governmental punishment.

So I keep searching. After all, I'd rather BE right than BELIEVE I'm right.

I try to find the instance where it really is necessary or ethical to be the first to throw a punch; to "initiate force" in the parlance of libertarians. I look for those cases where taking property from its rightful owners for "the common good" really is the right thing to do. I look for examples where a problem was honestly solved by using the coercive force of The State.

So far, despite my best efforts, I have consistently come up empty.

Sure, there have been times I thought I had found the crack in the wall. Usually it came as a result of someone passionately trying to justify their opposition to something I had written. Each time, for a moment, I thought to myself that perhaps this was "it"; the exception to the rule. Every single time it turned out I wasn't thinking the problem- or the consequences of the "solution"- through sufficiently. I wasn't working from principles, but giving in to fuzzy thinking or emotionalism, or ignoring human nature and reality.

The people who hate the principles of liberty the most, and forcefully inform me of their opinion, are the ones who offer me the best tools to try to find the flaws I seek in libertarianism. For that I appreciate them. I wonder how many of them take the equal opportunity I offer for searching out the flaws in statism.

.

September 11: Consequences Day

I've been calling September 11th "Blowback Day" for years. Thinking about it today I decided that needs to change. Blowback is only one aspect of the date; just one of the consequences.

Henceforth this date, September 11th, shall be called "Consequences Day".

The events of September 11, 2001 (regardless of what actually happened or who was actually behind it) were the consequences of past actions coming home to roost.

It was the consequence of mandating inadequately armed airline passengers.

It was the consequence of allowing a federal government to run rampant- killing, blockading, embargoing, occupying, manipulating, spying, threatening, bullying, robbing, and many other evil actions- all over the globe.

It was the consequence of permitting stupid and evil people to demonize defensive violence and make no distinction between types of violence.

It was the consequence of teaching people to go along quietly with those who mean to do them harm.

It was the consequence of the past couple of centuries of statism.

It was the consequence of choosing false "security" over liberty.

It was the consequence of trusting government.

It seems few people have learned anything from the tragic consequences of this date in history.

.

Friends don't let friends rule

OK, maybe they "let" them; they just don't support them.

Just because I might like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson doesn't mean I want either of them to rule me or my neighbors. I'll bet I'd enjoy sitting down to talk with either of these men. Whether they would enjoy talking to me is another matter.

The fact that I thoroughly dislike Obamney, in whichever incarnation, only adds to the fact that it can never rule me. I'll bet I would have a hard time remaining civil during a chat with Obamney.

I don't need a president, and neither do you. Let those who do believe they need one play the game, and let's ignore the results of their stupidity.

Oh, and "happy" Blowback Day.

.

"Render ... unto Caesar..."

Here's a familiar passage (choose your translation):

"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

This little exchange has been the genesis (pun intended) of a lot of Christian statism. For no good reason.

I would say that all this means is "don't steal". Render unto "Caesar"... Let's get rid of the name Caesar. Perhaps then we can see it more clearly. Render unto "Bob" that which belongs to Bob. Don't claim Bob's stuff as your own, and if you are in possession of Bob's stuff, give it back to him. I don't think it means you have to give Bob anything of yours that he did not earn in a completely voluntary fashion.

Does your money belong to Caesar- or in current terms, The State- just because The State says it does? Ridiculous! Only those things which are the rightful property of The State need to be handed over to The State.

What does The State rightfully own? You? Your life? The fruits of your labor? NO! The State, every State, possesses nothing it did not steal or "buy" with stolen (including counterfeited) money.

Render unto Caesar, or Bob, whatever you want to, including whatever you feel you must to avoid being murdered by him, but don't ever feel guilty for keeping what is yours. And never again use this passage as justification for "taxation" or a State.

.

The danger of having a State

A free society, one without a centralized government, doesn't need to worry too much about being invaded and conquered. This is one of the "yeah, but what if"s that people present in opposition to true liberty. They think that without Washington DC, and it's armed goons, keeping out the invaders, Chinese troops (or whoever the speaker personally fears) will overrun America and annex us.

Then there's reality.

Consider this recent offering from Fred Reed concerning why it is so hard for empires to defeat one particular region:

"In Afghanistan there are no targets of high value to destroy, no clear lines of supply to be cut, no cities whose capture means you win, and no concentrations of enemy to be easily killed."

And this is in a region where there is little liberty. Add real liberty to that equation and the odds are stacked even more in favor of the home team. Without a city to capture and win, you have to defeat each and every individual. It won't happen.

The State endangers me and it endangers you. Stop pretending otherwise.

.

The 2012 Obamney election pageant

I wish I had the whole clip where they debate the "titanium tax" with the lines:

"I say your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far"

"And, I say YOUR 3 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough"


.

Liberty Lines, September 6, 2012

(Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico, State Line Tribune)

Everyone creates something. Shoemakers create shoes. Blacksmiths create ironworks. Bakers create bread. And, apparently, city councils create criminals.

The slew of new ordinances proposed recently will do nothing but make more people into lawbreakers. It is inevitable. Then the resultant "crime spree" will be pointed to as justification for even more controls and stiffer enforcement.

Aren't all the real bad things (and a lot more) already illegal? Instead of creating new laws for people to break, deal with the true offenses- theft, destruction of property, and aggression; the "mala in se" (bad in and of themselves) acts. No "mala prohibita" ("bad" just because we say so) offenses need to be dreamed up or enforced, as America- including Farwell- is already being crushed under an avalanche of them.

Just because the state of Texas or some international code (part of Agenda 21- look it up) says you have to impose certain rules on those of us in Farwell, that is no reason to comply. There is an honorable tradition known as "nullification" wherein a bad legal example is not emulated. It only takes a little courage.

There is one way I could back new rules: for each new liberty-infringing rule passed, twenty currently-enforced ordinances must be abolished. At least until a level of maturity is reached where people are ashamed to obsess over what the neighbors might be doing.

Liberty is becoming a rare commodity. Let's stop outlawing it. Stop violating the property rights and the individual liberties of those who live around you. It's just the right thing to do.

.

The hypocrisy of the statist

One thing that constantly crops up as a source of mild amusement- and occasional frustration- is that the same people who have a problem with my lack of respect for The State (and other governments) feel they can ignore certain "laws" without being hypocritical.

I tend to obey most "laws" that aren't a matter of life and death, especially when the risk of being caught is high and the consequences are steep. Yet, some of the people I am referring to ignore "laws" very openly and still look down on me for the "laws" I express scorn for. And they would be shocked! if they faced consequences for getting caught breaking those "laws".

One person, upon discovering that the local "city" council had just adopted a bunch of new ordinances- some of which would negatively affect his life- was at least honest enough to admit "Now MY ox is being gored."

It must be painful to be a statist.

.

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 3, 2012. The headline is similar to last week's (part 1?), but it's a totally different column. I promise!)

Wouldn't stronger laws or more strict enforcement stop people from killing the innocent with guns? For the life of me I can't figure out why it's supposedly worse to be murdered with a gun than with a knife, a brick, or a car, but let's skip that part.

The truth of the matter is that guns are a very old technology. That cat is out of the bag and it will not be stuffed back in. The only way to get rid of guns at this point is to eliminate every gunsmith and everyone who knows metallurgy, chemistry, physics, and mechanics; burn every book and ban any website on those subjects, as well as any which gives even a hint as to how a gun operates. Anyone with a bit of knowledge can figure out how to make a gun. You don't even need gunpowder nowadays. As long as a gun can equalize people, they will be built, carried, and used.

Strengthen the penalties? Increase the penalties for getting caught with a gun and you will remove any remaining reluctance to carrying a fully-automatic firearm. After all, if the penalty is comparable, why not go with the supposedly better tool?

All coercive gimmicks ignore the simple fact that the real solution is for more guns to be in the hands of decent people. It's the only thing that will ever work. Nothing will ever disarm people who want to harm the innocent. Nothing. It doesn't matter if you just really hate guns and want them to go away. You can whine about it; you can call gun owners nasty names, you can speculate on how to achieve Utopia. None of that will change reality. To hold back the bad guys you need to be able to stop them, and they need to know that if they try to harm people it is highly likely they will encounter someone like you who is willing and able to put an end to their rampage, no matter when or where they strike.

We are not talking about "chaos, with bullets flying everywhere" since the average gun owner won't pull the trigger until he knows his target and what's beyond it. We are talking about psychological deterrent and the ability to interfere with an active shooter's plans. Even with body armor, getting shot is painfully distracting and that distraction can save lives. There will still be tragedies. Nothing can prevent them all. Don't sacrifice your liberty for false hope, manufactured fear, and misplaced empathy.

.

Shared traits

A badger is not a chair. Both have four legs; both are made of matter- in the case of a wooden chair, mostly carbon like the badger- both cast shadows when in the light; both are affected by gravitational fields, and... well they have a whole host of traits in common. But a badger is still not a chair.

In the same way I am not a conservative or a liberal. I share some traits with both because, frankly, neither of them could be wrong on everything all the time. Where they pick the side of individual liberty- an accidental consequence of individual liberty fitting into one small aspect of their otherwise statist agenda- I will be on the same side. But where their statist agenda stomps on individual liberty they are on the wrong side and I don't side with them.

The amusing consequence is that I end up on mailing lists of statist groups for conservatives (probably due to my pro-self defense stance) and for liberals (probably due to my opposition to prohibition) where they try to sell me their toxic sewage along with the few diamonds they carry. Assuming that because I agree with them on the pro-liberty stuff, I will agree with them on their anti-liberty agenda, I get called a "empty-headed liberal" or a "knuckle-dragging conservative" by those who get offended by my refusal to give up liberty and buy into their fear-mongering.

They are too blind to see that a badger is not a chair, and too narrow minded to understand that a libertarian is not a statist.

.

"Social justice"

In the recent past I have seen more and more mentions of "social justice" from people calling themselves "libertarians". I have looked into it a bit in the past, but decided it was time to really give it an examination. After doing so I discovered something important: Ain't no such critter as "social justice". Sorry.

Of course, it looks good at first glance:

"Social justice" (From Wikipedia*) "... justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being."

That part sounds pretty good, other than the delusional belief that there are "classes" of people. And I might want to find out just how they define this "society" thing- I have seen some doozies there, too.

Justice, real justice, involves returning a person who has been stolen from or attacked to their pre-violation condition- or as close as possible. I see no evidence of anyone being stolen from or attacked here. Unless it is by the rulers and their BS rules (yet just who is supposed to be enforcing this "social justice" other than those rulers?)

Of course, there is no such thing as "equality" other than the equality of the rights each individual is born with. Those rights are identical in each and every individual human being.

And, what's this "solidarity" they speak of? I can't have "solidarity" with someone who is attacking innocent people or stealing from others. Or advocating that someone else do either of those evil things on their behalf. Now, someone who is being robbed or attacked, I can have "solidarity" with- and try to come to their aid- but not by harming those who weren't doing the attacking or robbing. That's just insane!

I've also never met an advocate of "social justice" who actually "understands and values human rights". I have met and read some who make up all sorts of "positive rights" [sic] that violate the right to not be a slave to any other person. And, there is no "dignity" in living that way- not for the victim of the slavery, nor for those feeding on it.

So, perhaps the pretty words are rather empty. Let's examine a bit farther...

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

So, advocating and carrying out blatant theft- as long as you steal a larger percentage from those who have more to steal- will somehow fulfill all the wishes in that first quoted part? I don't think so. In fact it completely violates every single thing they claim "social justice" to embrace. Collectivism is so self-contradictory!

The evil continues:

"These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system."

I'm sorry, gentle thieves, but where there is no "equality of opportunity" the best way to fix that problem is by eliminating "legal" red tape, cronyism, and regulation (all the crap that plops out of The State's orifice); not by giving the ones who create the problem more power to steal more.

And, "equality of outcome"? You've GOT to be kidding! The only way to achieve this is by killing everyone. Some risks pay off; some don't. Some people are smarter than others, luckier than others, or just have better skills or timing. That's reality whether you like it or not. It might not be "fair" according to your childish daydreams, but as Scott Adams says, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments".

Just because the methods some would employ to achieve a stated goal are disgusting doesn't automatically invalidate the goal itself... but in this case even the goal doesn't hold up to scrutiny or rational evaluation. Nope, I'm done with the idiotic religion of "social justice". Pursue it if you want, but it is not a libertarian ideal and if you try to use theft or coercion to impose it, I will fight you.

-

*Yes, I am aware of the limitations of relying too heavily on Wikipedia, so I also looked at other sources such as this one, this one, and this one- but at the core, they all advocated the same thing: "equality" through theft.

.

My Advice to Republicans

While you Republicans are wrong on half of the things you yap about, just like Democrats are, and I have gotten over the need to vote (although I still have empathy with the voters), I will offer you some advice. Take it or leave it.

You screwed yourselves badly by nominating Obamney 2.0. And now you are falling over your own feet trying to justify what you did, and trying to convince each other how great he is and how only he can save America from Obamney 1.0. Even "conservatives", who should despise the liberal extremist Republican candidate, are doing this.

You don't have to convince each other. You have already bought in. The only people who "like" your candidate are those voters who either despise the other candidate so much that they'd vote for a smelly gym sock soaked in goat urine if it were running against him, or those who will stick by anything as long as the GOP nominated it. You've got that vote locked up easily. But that's not enough to give you a win.

You've got to convince those people who basically see things as I do, but haven't yet walked away from the rigged game- those who still hold out hope that liberty can be increased by a vote. You can't win the election without them.

And most of those people are not stupid enough to vote for your chosen candidate. We see that he is just a mirror reflection of the other candidate- a thuggish goon who supports and advocates all the same crap the other thuggish goon advocates and supports.

You are committing suicide, Republican Party. I won't try to stop you- I only hope the Democrats do the same. But they won't unless something changes because they don't try to be exactly like you. That's purely a Republican trait.

So, if you actually want to become relevant, you will have to nominate people who scare you just a little. Candidates who are different. Candidates who will arouse deep hatred in liberals while they attract those who want something different from the bland offerings you keep serving up. In other words, you will have to become a little more libertarian.

Personally, I hope you don't. Liberty will suffer until the statists all make themselves so ridiculous to normal people that the spell is broken and the "same old thing" stops getting recycled. You're well on your way.

.

I want to be PERFECT...

...and it really irritates me when my human flaws- or reality- or the situation- prevent it.

Take the government school mess that has been tearing me up inside recently.

I so badly want my daughter out of that prison. But she wants to be there- for now, at least. And everyone who is in her life, other than me, wants her to be there too. So I will have to just accept the situation for now and deal with it the best I can, considering the circumstances.

Yes, it bothers me.

I guess this way I won't complain (out loud) about property "taxes" that I pay, since I don't want handouts, but expect to pay for what I use. Even if I'd prefer a voluntary alternative that is subject to market forces. (And I realize I am not getting a good return on my money, and am being delivered a load of unwanted sewage along with what I might willingly accept.)

I still don't want my childless neighbors (or those whose crotch-fruit don't attend government schools due to age or some other reason) to be robbed for my "benefit". But I'll try to shut up about this for the time being. And plan my subversion quietly.

.