Liberty, anarchy go hand in hand

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 16, 2016)

 Libertarians advocate best government (my chosen headline)

What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

Libertarians advocate liberty. Specifically, maximum liberty and minimum government, because the two are inversely related. The more of one you have, the less you have of the other.  What's the minimum level of government you can impose on others?

"That government is best which governs least" wrote Henry David Thoreau. The best government is zero government.

In the Tao Te Ching, written around 2,600 years ago, Lao Tzu observed "When the government is quite unobtrusive, people are indeed pure. When the government is quite prying, people are indeed conniving." Unfortunately that's what it takes to survive being governed. Government breeds distrust and dishonesty.

There can't be "too much liberty" because liberty, being the freedom to do anything which doesn't violate others, is self-regulating. If an act violates someone, it's not liberty.

Anarchy isn't about chaos, "Mad Max", or "kill or be killed". Those popular misconceptions come from people taught in schools controlled by the state, which has an interest in promoting fear and ignorance concerning a lack of government.

Anarchy isn't a rejection of rules, but of people who rule. You govern yourself, without imposing control on anyone else. The buck stops with you. You are responsible for your own choices; there is no one else to blame.

Anarchy isn't about throwing bombs and growing bushy beards. It isn't against free enterprise. It most certainly isn't socialism or communism- although those groups sometimes misuse the label for propaganda.

Libertarians who don't eventually become anarchists fail to mature. They are ignoring inconsistencies in order to avoid discomfort. They seem to be trying to justify the government functions they support by pretending those aren't based on theft and aggression.

Anyone who carefully considers what liberty means, without making excuses, will eventually see there can be no such thing as a good government, and that evil is never necessary. He may not want to call himself an anarchist, but labels are only words. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself.

As long as you don't use violence against the non-violent, you respect the property of others, and don't make excuses for people who refuse to follow these non-negotiable rules of society, you are on the right side.

Besides, hasn't this presidential election shown you the folly in seeking political answers to anything?

So, what's the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months. Or so the joke goes.

-

My subscriptions are down about $65 from a year ago. That may not sound like much, but when you live on the edge as I do, it's a lot. I desperately need to replace (or surpass) those subscriptions. 
A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.



.

Do you have the right to defend yourself violently?

If you don't have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property, with violence, from ALL who threaten or violate them, government employees included, you have no rights at all.

Yet, there are those who seriously say you have no right to use violence against aggressors, because doing so violates their right to life.

Those who make that claim are wrong.

And, no, it isn't that aggressors "give up" their right to not have violence used against them when they choose to archate- it's that they had no right to do so, and by choosing to do so they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself. With violence if necessary. They made the choice; they can deal with the consequences.

So, yes, you have the absolute human right to defend yourself- with deadly force if necessary- against violators. Regardless of whether they work for the State or not, and regardless if those who work for the State are "just doing their job". If their "job" is a violation, they are no different from any other violator, and should expect to be treated any different. If they don't like that, they should quit and find an honest job.

-

A big "thank you!" to supporters of this blog. I probably couldn't keep doing this without you.
I need to increase my monthly subscriptions by $55 to get to where I need to be. If you are a regular reader and feel your conscience whispering that you would feel better if you returned some value for value, I won't disagree.



(Steemit link)

The value of liberty (PINNED)

... and of those working to promote it the best we know how.

Even though my subscriptions are down by $55 from last year, I have been scraping by. That is due to donations which often come in the nick of time. Mostly, it works. Which amazes me.

I love my donors.

I also love my subscribers.

I would really appreciate a few more of both. Or either.

I know these begging posts are annoying- they annoy me, too. I can't expect each reader to subscribe to the order of $100 per month, or many one-time donations that knock my socks off (and I don't expect either), but whatever you can do, if you consider this blog to be of value (and if you can afford it) is greatly appreciated.

Either way, know that I value each and every reader (yes, even you) whether you've ever subscribed or donated or not, and I hope you are getting something of worth each time you show up to read a post. Well, all the real posts, anyway. And I sincerely thank you.

Enjoy watching the train wreck called "politics", if you're into such things. Creepy clowns, indeed.

And if other liberty ideas are more important to you, I welcome your advice on topics you'd like me to explore from my perspective.

Have a great day!

.