Boston Tea Party

After a considerable amount of thought, I have decided to declare that the only political party I will actively seek the nomination from is the Boston Tea Party. If I were nominated by BTP, I would gladly accept, since I support their platform fully. Now the only question is: would they have me? Only time will tell.

Privacy

Privacy means different things to different people. Some people believe that if you do not disclose every tiny detail of your life you are hiding something. Others believe that "it ain't nobody's business". Where do you draw the line? Do you need to know the sexual orientation of the guy across the room? Do you need to know if your cousin smokes pot? What if your hairdresser has a fully automatic AK-47? On the other hand, it would be good to know if your doctor keeps botching proceedures; this is a public, not private concern. Unless or until private issues affect you in some direct way, you have no right to know anything about any of these peoples' private lives. People who feel the need to know things like this used to be called "busy-bodies". The state in all its twisted forms has become the worst busy-body the world has ever known. It is populated and run by shrivelled little tyrants who have nothing better to do than to try to snoop, then catagorize, then persecute every little "deviation" from what they believe should be. This is the reason for our national ID (also known as "driver's licenses") and for Social Security numbers. (Did you know that in most cases it is a federal crime for businesses to ask for yours, and to use SSNs as identification numbers?) Government, for its own purposes, wants to learn everything it can about you, then use that information to control the aspects of your life that it does not approve of. Guess what.... you do not need the approval of government, but it does require YOUR approval. Stop giving that approval and starve the monster. Do not do anything that makes government snooping easier. I'm not saying structure your life so that it is difficult for you to function, just don't help them out. Your private life is your business, unless you choose to make it someone else's business. Choose carefully.

Badge-bullies go "Fishing"

I have a strong suspicion, which was strengthened today, that cops in general see someone they want to do a little "fishing" on, and stop, harrass and question them, just hoping to find something they can arrest or fine them for. "Are your PAPERS in order?" Oh, they will make up a reasonable-sounding LIE to "justify" this violation of your humanity, but that is all it usually is: a lie. There is no honor behind those badges. Just a withered soul looking for a victim.

Look at this: link

Licenses, Permits, Horsefeathers

Does getting a license from government make you a safe driver? Does it make you love faithfully forever? Does it make anything at all more legitimate? No. What it does do, is reinforces in your mind that you do not own your life.

Government had nothing to do with marriages until very recently. When you got married, your family and friends gathered together; a ceremony of some sort was performed; and you were married. The end. Then government decided that it needed to be sure that the wrong "types" were not marrying each other. So we got "marriage licenses". It is so ingrained into our culture that homosexuals actually want government to sanction their marriages now. Folks, if it ain't broke, don't inject any government into the mix or it will be soon! Next, the polyamorous will be looking for government approval. You don't need it!

Then there are "driver's licenses". Do they make the roads safer? Judging by my experience: no. Why does government think it has the authority to regulate travel? At first, they only insisted that commercial drivers get licensed. Once the jackboot was in the door, it was only a matter of time. Now even if you have never owned a car, government has made it difficult to exist without their card of approval. It is their way of tracking and controlling you. Notice how many "offenses" are punished by revoking your "license". Most of the time no one even bothers to put the word "driver's" in front of "license" anymore. It is as if that card is your license to exist.

Government thinks it owns you. Want to defend yourself against crime? First (according to government) you must get a permit to carry any weapon that would actually be effective for self defense. That is after getting approved to purchase the weapon in the first place. If guns are so dangerous that you must be screened before buying one, and you pass that hurdle, why is there any need for a carry permit? Does this mean that there are people that government thinks are OK to own a gun, but not to carry it anywhere? Where is the reason in that? Government has no authority to regulate, license, or otherwise control guns in any way at all. Independent of the Second Amendment. Owning and using weapons is a birthright of all humans everywhere. Then add to that the fact that the Second Amendment makes it a crime for government to try to enact any laws concerning guns, and the whole "permit sceme" flies right out the window.

If the government passes a law that required you to get a permit for an "assault typewriter" (a computer) or to attend church, or to own a book with "too many pages" (why would anyone need a book with over 500 pages, anyway?) would you comply? Why or why not? Is it because that would be ridiculous? That is my point. Government permits and licenses are horsefeathers.

Today's Libertarian Enterprise

The Libertarian Enterprise was offline most of the week, so they only have one article today, but it is very good. Please read it and really think about the message.

I Now Pause for This Commercial Message...

My cousin Charla Beth is hosting CMT's Insider temporarily. She has been the host of CMT.com/loaded's show Wide Open Country and is taking over Insider during the regular host's maternity leave. She is a very talented singer, too. (This is one of those "life is more than just politics" things). If you get a chance, watch her.

Education

Almost everyone recognizes that there is something seriously wrong with public education, or more properly: "government indoctrination centers". Too many kids graduate without being literate, and not just in the literary sense. They can't read, do basic math, distinguish between science and nonsense, or think critically about things they are told. What they can do, although some fall short here too, is jump at the sound of a bell, move with the herd, and believe it is normal to live under an authoritarian system. They may balk at this, but it is undeniably effective or else they would reject the current system in droves once they reached "voting age". That they don't, and only argue about which authoritarian to vote for (if they think about it at all), is proof that the government has indeed indoctrinated them to believe exactly what it wants them to believe.

I hated school. Every second of it was hell for me. I did not fit in. I was bored out of my mind. I was not a discipline problem; I just daydreamed. My teachers could never understand why I lacked motivation. I was too polite to tell them it was because nothing in class captured my imagination. When I got to high school, I frequently skipped class to stay in the library and read. Other than one spectacular teacher (who quit the next year in disillusionment), the library was where I learned everything I learned during high school. Obviously I thought home schooling was the answer.

After I graduated I began noticing that the home schooled kids I dealt with in my retail jobs were were almost invariably "socially awkward". This is a polite way of saying they were rude, and they tended to run amok in the store. I even saw one family's kids go from being a joy to wait on, to cocky little monsters, only a year or so after they switched to being home schooled. I also noticed that most of the parents I knew who chose to home school did so in order to keep their children from being taught science. After many years of seeing this pattern emerge, I began to dislike home schooling.

So, now that I have thoroughly confused you about where I stand on the issue, I will try to clear it all up. Government schools are awful. They are not designed for education, but for creating obedient commoners who think it is normal to have all-powerful "leaders" making nonsensical rules. Home schooling, if not done very carefully, can produce science-illiterate (but otherwise highly intelligent), self-centered authoritarians who think that no one would dare disgree with their wisdom. But... you have an absolute right to educate your children in any way you see fit. If it is important for your kids to grow up as good little factory cogs, then by all means send them to public schools as long as they continue to (unConstitutionally) exist. If you quake at the thought of your kids learning science and the scientific way of analyzing the universe, then home school.

If, however, you want to help your children become fully functional humans, it can be done with either system. Teach them to critically think about orders they are given, and not to automatically obey. Teach them how to analyze things they are told as "just so". Show them how to respect the rights of others. Expose them to things that may make you personally uncomfortable and allow them to explore. Give them a good foundation; you will not always be there to tell them what to think or do. And listen to them.

Separation of Life and State

How important is "politics"? In some ways, it is the most important thing; in others, it has absolutely no relevence to daily life whatsoever. Anyone who bases their entire life on politics is missing out on a lot. Read my previous post about what "politics" is. The personal scale is where politics matters most. On the national or international scale, it rarely matters to us individually. Let governments bluster and threaten each other all they want. Unless they begin threatening the real people, what does it really matter? What does it matter which authoritarian is president? Democrat or Republican; they are just two sides of the same cow-pie. In most cases, the best method of dealing with government predations is just to ignore the idiots' ravings and live your life. On the other hand, if you can make a difference, and won't cheapen your own life in the process, then by all means jump right in. Obey the laws that you can without betraying your principles. Ignore the counterfeit laws that you feel you need to. Don't violate the ZAP. If it will make you happy, monkeywrench government efforts to number, control, and track you. Don't believe anything government tells you without first confirming it from a reliable source. Even if it turns out to be true, does it matter? Government needs to keep you in panic in order to gain more power for itself. The state will never ackowledge a separation of life and state; that is for you to do for yourself. Don't let government intrude where it is not welcome and has no business snooping. Live your life free.

What "Politics" Means to Me

I think that politics is a system for getting along with people who you do not like. No one needs politics for dealing with those we like. Getting along with them comes automatically. Therefore, I believe that the best political system is the one which allows those who really don't like one another to still live their lives peaceably in the same space. Authoritarianism doesn't work because it usually forces those people together in a way that makes both sides more unhappy than they were before. Only in a libertarian society can people be free to associate in any way they choose, as long as no one initiates force. This is not a huge revelation, but I see it work on a small scale every day. If you truly dislike someone, minimize your dealings with them, and do not cause situations which escalate the dislike on either side. When you must deal with them, do so with the same respect that you would want, and then move along. Don't dwell on the fact that you don't like them. If you can ever grow past the need for your dislike, you might just find that they are not so bad after all. It has happened before for me.

Politics as Usual, Unfortunately

Read the haloscan comments under my post "Call Me an Anarchist" and you will see that I am being encouraged to lie about where I stand in order to further "the cause". The person who is wanting me to lie calls himself a "Biblicist". Isn't lying to get votes a socialist thing? This is not the libertarian way, and if I ever start doing this, it will be time for me to give up, for then I will have abandoned my principles. I do not do "politics as usual".

Please tell me where "The Ten Commandments" contains our inalienable rights. I can't seem to find anything in there establishing a right. The first five deal with how to respect God, and the last five tell us what not to do with respect to other humans. Other than telling us not to murder (which is not the same as establishing a "right not to be killed") I really do not see anything that could be construed as a right. Basing a government on "the Ten Commandments" is a bad idea. It has been done to death. You can never get away from those first five commandments that lead to persecution of people who have different views on the supernatural than you have. That is why the First Amendment exists. Freedom of religion isn't just a good idea; it's the law.

I'm back...

I am back after a couple of days without internet access, so, like it or not, I will be back to blogging as soon as I get some things done.

Highway Robbery

Yesterday while traveling, I witnessed many highway robberies. The criminals were driving cars of many descriptions, most were camouflaged as normal vehicles, but they all had flashing lights. One city that I passed through was particularly dangerous for the travelers; I witnessed a crime every half mile or so. Some people may think that these robbers are making the road safer for travelers, but I saw no difference in the behavior of the drivers in the places with lots of government shake-downs and the relatively freer areas. The drivers who are driving erratically are never the ones I see getting violated. It is usually the safe drivers whose only "offense" is driving faster than the government mandates. It is not about safety; it has never been about safety. It is about stealing the money needed to finance these and other state abuses. A free country would never, and should never, tolerate these highwaymen and their bosses harassing motorists.

Recommended Sites

If any of you are not familiar with The Libertarian Enterprise, you should be. A new issue comes out every Sunday. I highly recommend checking it out.

Another site you should go to is The Claire Files. This is a very good forum for liberty lovers. There is information on a great many subjects, depending on the depth of your interest in liberty.

Call Me an Anarchist

I have internet service here in my Springfield MO hotel room! So, like it or not, you get a blog tonight!

I have never hidden the fact that I am an anarchist libertarian. I am willing to work within a small, weak, and continually shrinking government to reach what I see as the goal of personal liberty, restricted only by the rights of others. If government gets in the way of the goal, then the plan would need to be revised. As long as someone lives by the ZAP (Zero Aggression Principle), then we can work together toward a free America, and eventually, a free world.

Remember that "anarchy" does not mean "chaos", but means "without rulers". Rule yourself and live by the ZAP.

On the Road Again....

For the next few (several?) days I will be traveling, so I am not certain if I will have internet access. If not, I will post as soon as I get to my destination. I will try to find motels with internet service. Take care, and tell all your friends about this blog. Help me spread the word. Thank you!

"Libertopian" America

I wish I had the foresight to be able to tell you exactly what to expect in a truly free America. I wish I could tell you all of the wonderful, exciting new things in store for us, as well as any pitfalls that we could avoid by planning now. I can't, though. Neither can anyone else. In all the history of the world, there has never been a truly free country. We have no real-world models to point to for examples. Some people dwell on the fact that no one quite knows how the road system would work itself out in a free country, so they timidly cling to the current government monopoly instead of realizing that taking chances can be exhilarating and liberating. I know there may be times that, at first, things may not be smooth in the transition. That is to be expected. As long as we refuse to settle for less than true liberty, we will find the way that works. I can think of several areas that some might be convinced that government control is the only way to protect our interests. Food and drug safety, doctor licensing, border guards, disaster recovery, and such are some areas that have been mentioned to me. I can see free-market solutions to most of these things that I think would actually work better that the current system. To act like frightened children and stubbornly cling to the familiar is a type of Stockholm Syndrome; identifying and sympathizing with your captors. Let's free ourselves and begin the exciting journey into the unknown world of Libertopian America.

the "War on Terror!!"

Regardless of who was ultimately responsible for the 9-11-2001 attack on the World Trade Center, I think we all agree that it was an act of terrorism. Immediately afterwards the government told us this happened because the terrorists hate our freedom. So what was the government's response? Was it to throw out all "laws" that prevent us from defending ourselves and others in defense of freedom? Nope. Not even close. The government's response was to make more freedoms go away. So wouldn't this mean that the government decided the terrorists were not thorough enough so government would finish their job for them? Seems that way to me. Ben Frankiln warned that those who give up essential freedom for temporary "safety" will have neither. What you will have is a more powerful government. The US government HATES freedom and seems determined to erradicate it in all its forms, except for mind-numbing entertainment. As long as they can watch movies, listen to music, or play video games, most people believe they are free.

Where were the terrorists that all of these freedom killing "laws" were supposed to catch? Make no mistake; if there had been any terrorist "cells" in America on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, we would have seen more attacks. Nothing happened other than the US government declared war on America.

If government ever really wants to get rid of terrorism, they could. All it would take is:
Remove any "law" that makes self defense punishable by "law", on the ground or in the air!
Remove "laws" regulating ownership and carrying of weapons
Stop molesting and killing people in other lands.
Abide by the very clear language and intent of the Bill of Rights.

As long as they do not do these things, you can be sure that "The War on Terror" is a phantom menace orchestrated to keep Americans scared enough to put up with terroristic behavior from government.

The Jury: Our Last (peaceful) Hope

Do you know what a jury's true duty is? It is to judge the case according to the law, and to judge the law according to common sense (and each juror's conscience). That means if a law seems to you to be unfair, you have a right and a duty to refuse to convict, regardless of the judge's instructions to the contrary. This is known as "jury nullification". Up until a generation or so ago, judges would even remind the juries of this responsibility. In today's police-state mentality, that kind of independent thinking would spell the end of counterfeit "laws", or at least the end of jury trials. The drug warriors, vice squads, and gun-banners would watch helplessly as juries released innocents who had "violated" counterfeit "laws".

Knowing your responsibilities comes at a price, though. Jurors have been jailed in recent years for refusing to convict in direct defiance of a crooked judge's orders. For more information on jury nullification, I encourage you to check out The Fully Informed Jury Association. I think that jury nullification is the last chance for a peaceful end to the downhill slide we are on toward a full-blown police state.

Drug Prohibition

Remember the 1920's with the gangster shootings, bathtub liquor, moonshiners, and such? Yeah, me neither. What I do remember is the crime, destroyed lives, and militarized cops resulting from the newest chapter of Prohibition. The so-called "drug war". In case you are under the mistaken impression that the first Prohibition was repealed, I am sorry to inform you it wasn't. The government got jealous of the freelance gangs and decided to take over. A piece of the action wasn't good enough; they wanted the whole ball-of-wax. So instead of liquor being "illegal" everywhere for everyone, we got saddled with liquor licenses, minimum drinking ages, and lots of money flowing into government coffers. Is drinking alcohol wrong or is it right? If it is wrong, does paying government for the "privilege" make it right? Sorry, that doesn't hold water. I think, that like most things, alcohol is morally neutral. It can fuzz up your thought processes, but you are still responsible for your actions, drinking or not.

I also believe the same thing about other drugs. Some are obviously more dangerous than others. Caffeine is less dangerous than opium. Marijuana is less dangerous than heroine. Does making a drug "legal" or "illegal" change its properties one iota? No. Do I think it is smart to smoke crack? Of course not. Is it your right to do so if you wish? Absolutely.

Safety is not the issue. We all do a lot of things that other people see as dangerous. Because of a bicycle wreck when I was 12, two wheeled things like motorcycles scare me to death. It took me over twenty years to really ride a bike again. I also can't understand why anyone would ride in a car without a seatbelt. On the other hand, I have grabbed full-grown, angry raccoons by hand in an animal rescue situation. It may have been stupid, but I knew the risks and was willing to take them. It is not the government's place to forbid me the freedom to take the risks I am willing to take. What about innocent bystanders? Eliminate the profit motive and drug related crime would dry up and go away. It did with alcohol without the prohibition even being totally lifted. What about people driving under the influence of drugs? Drowsiness, illness such as flu, depression, or even a bad day can cause poor driving. That is a poor excuse to destroy lives, families, and America. You should always stay aware of other drivers no matter whether you believe they are sober or not. I know from personal experience that marijuana is less debilitating than alcohol. I have also never observed marijuana causing anyone to go around picking fights. If any drug should be ignored by "law enforcement" it is pot. No honest cop would ever arrest a person for using drugs; "just doing their job" or not.

The drug war has been used as an excuse to militarize the local police, to kick in the wrong doors in the middle of the night, to set up illegal traffic stops, to violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and generally go against everything America is supposed to be. It spawns such evil as the DARE program which teaches children that it is good to betray their family to the government. There is no justification for this evil behavior. None of this even reduces drug use anyway. Even the government's own "numbers" show this. The lives supposedly destroyed by drugs, are actually destroyed by the drug warriors. Notice how few of the ill effects are really caused by the chemistry of the drugs, and how many are caused by the politics and "law".

One final warning: If you DO get so hooked on some substance that you end up in a gutter somewhere, don't come looking for government handouts. You make your choices; you live the consequences. I choose to use my drug of choice, caffeine in the form of Dr Pepper, regardless of the damage that it may do to my health because I understand the risks and am willing to take them. Everyone has the same right.

ZAP: The Zero Aggression Principle

"No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

Formulated by L. Neil Smith, this is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. I DO think this is the basis of libertarianism. This has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Someone making a threat against you, if it is a credible threat, has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force. You have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smartest to simply walk away. This isn't always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.

There is also The Coventant of Unanimous Consent which takes the ZAP and uses it as a basis for a system of dealing peacefully with other humans.