Sunday, January 06, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
"He Who Governs Only Himself, Governs Best"
If, in some wonderful alternate universe, I were elected President what would I do about the issues I am ignorant of? Does a President need to be an expert on everything? No, he doesn't. A President who is an "expert" often feels compelled to do something, even if it is not a good idea. It's similar to the saying about your only tool being a hammer causing you to see every problem as a nail.
The President needs to be able to call upon people who are experts to find out what they think. Then, and here is where all Presidents have so far failed monumentally, he needs to weigh the advice to see if it violates anyone's rights. If it does, don't do it. Next, he needs to think about whether the action falls under authority of any government, or specifically the federal government. If it does not, he should not do it. Last and rarely needed, he needs to make certain that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically allow the advised action. If not, don't do it.
If it sounds like this would result in a President who doesn't do much, you are right. That is the way it should be. A good President should do very little "governing". "He who governs least, governs best" only goes part way to the truth: "He who governs only himself, governs best". It is time for a President who only truly governs himself, and does his best to keep the rest of the government contained, and then gets out of the way of the rest of us to do the same.
The President needs to be able to call upon people who are experts to find out what they think. Then, and here is where all Presidents have so far failed monumentally, he needs to weigh the advice to see if it violates anyone's rights. If it does, don't do it. Next, he needs to think about whether the action falls under authority of any government, or specifically the federal government. If it does not, he should not do it. Last and rarely needed, he needs to make certain that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically allow the advised action. If not, don't do it.
If it sounds like this would result in a President who doesn't do much, you are right. That is the way it should be. A good President should do very little "governing". "He who governs least, governs best" only goes part way to the truth: "He who governs only himself, governs best". It is time for a President who only truly governs himself, and does his best to keep the rest of the government contained, and then gets out of the way of the rest of us to do the same.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Iowans Beg For More Tyranny
The people who live in the region known as "Iowa", and who chose to participate in the caucus yesterday, want tyranny and socialism. That is obvious. A vote for anyone other than Ron Paul in Iowa yesterday was an endorsement of the police state, and is a bad sign for the future of those of us who choose to remain above the counterfeit "laws" that the collectivists will continue to attempt to subject us to. Of course, the only choices were between socialist party "A" and socialist party "B", so what can you expect?
Funny thing is, this is not news to any of us who value freedom. In almost every election the result is the same: year after year; decade after decade; century after bloody century. Voting for new and improved tyrants is an ignorant act at "best", and a selfish, greedy, brutal act at "worst". Politicians who offer kickbacks in the way of "entitlements" or "pork" are the ones who get the vote, while those who tell the truth don't. Politicians who are seen as "young" and "different", whether they really are different or not, get the vote from people who want to be seen as "enlightened" or "socially conscious". I'm sorry, but voting for socialists is neither.
The good thing is that only around 400,000 people (by my probably incomplete count) got out and bothered to beg for more tyranny. That is out of a population of around 3 million people. How many of those who did not vote are libertarians, Libertarians, and anarchists? How many are regular people who are convinced that their vote doesn't matter, or that the only thing that matters is who counts the vote (or programs the voting machines)? How can we get those people to join the struggle for freedom in their own way?
Funny thing is, this is not news to any of us who value freedom. In almost every election the result is the same: year after year; decade after decade; century after bloody century. Voting for new and improved tyrants is an ignorant act at "best", and a selfish, greedy, brutal act at "worst". Politicians who offer kickbacks in the way of "entitlements" or "pork" are the ones who get the vote, while those who tell the truth don't. Politicians who are seen as "young" and "different", whether they really are different or not, get the vote from people who want to be seen as "enlightened" or "socially conscious". I'm sorry, but voting for socialists is neither.
The good thing is that only around 400,000 people (by my probably incomplete count) got out and bothered to beg for more tyranny. That is out of a population of around 3 million people. How many of those who did not vote are libertarians, Libertarians, and anarchists? How many are regular people who are convinced that their vote doesn't matter, or that the only thing that matters is who counts the vote (or programs the voting machines)? How can we get those people to join the struggle for freedom in their own way?
Thursday, January 03, 2008
What's it Gonna Take? by L. Neil Smith
I really enjoyed this essay, sent by JPFO today. These paragraphs illustrate very clearly why the world is in such a mess:
Read the rest here.
_______________________
A police officer once informed me loftily that civilization has to be
maintained by authoritarian managers because individuals in general are
selfishly uninterested in doing the hard work of maintaining it
themselves.
Unsurprisingly, after I pointed out that when individuals become
interested in maintaining civilization -- by voting down bond issues, treating
teachers and administrators like the hired hands they are, or carrying
self-defense weapons that demonstrably make society safer -- they're either
told, not so very politely, to go away, or they get arrested, he didn't have a
whole lot to say, because he knew that it's true.
Read the rest here.
_______________________
The Strength of Libertarians
It takes a strong person to be a libertarian. It is easy to be weak and need others to be controlled, like the authoritarians do (under whichever aliases they wish be be known). It takes a strong person to stand up and support the right of others to do things that harm no one, but that you may find personally undesirable. That is why I see Demopublicans as weak. They can't afford to let go of their need for total control. Or at least their need to control those things they don't like. If they don't like certain drugs, they pass or enforce laws regulating their use by everyone else. If they fear guns, they try to forbid their possession in every situation they can get away with. Only libertarians are strong enough to back off and let people live their own lives, and make their own mistakes. That is strength of character.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
"I Found It On the Ground"
Back around the time I first became involved in "buckskinning" (the mountainman thing), there was a federal sting operation trying to catch buckskinners with "illegal" feathers. In case you are not aware, I am not even talking about just eagle or hawk feathers, but the regular, ordinary feathers you might find on the sidewalk. Yes, almost all of them are "illegal" for you to pick up or possess.
In one of the hobby's magazines I read a quote from a fed that stated that the defense of "I found it on the ground" was no defense at all, because "then people might try to use that excuse if caught with a bag of marijuana". I guess one nonsense "law" bolsters another.
In the course of my life I have found thousands of feathers, yet I have only found one bag of pot on the ground. Since I was pretty sure that the guy standing beside it, putting his wallet back into his pocket, had dropped the bag, I picked it up and handed it back to him. Boy, was he grateful! Anyway....
There is an obvious difference between a "shed" feather and one pulled from a bird's body. I can tell the difference but the feds apparently can not. I can assure you that there is no one who gets more angry than me at senseless destruction of wildlife. However, when I find a feather, or even a dead bird, why is it better to let it rot away than to collect the beautiful feathers and use them? Only because the government thinks it owns that bird, and owns you as well. That is a disgusting myth.
In one of the hobby's magazines I read a quote from a fed that stated that the defense of "I found it on the ground" was no defense at all, because "then people might try to use that excuse if caught with a bag of marijuana". I guess one nonsense "law" bolsters another.
In the course of my life I have found thousands of feathers, yet I have only found one bag of pot on the ground. Since I was pretty sure that the guy standing beside it, putting his wallet back into his pocket, had dropped the bag, I picked it up and handed it back to him. Boy, was he grateful! Anyway....
There is an obvious difference between a "shed" feather and one pulled from a bird's body. I can tell the difference but the feds apparently can not. I can assure you that there is no one who gets more angry than me at senseless destruction of wildlife. However, when I find a feather, or even a dead bird, why is it better to let it rot away than to collect the beautiful feathers and use them? Only because the government thinks it owns that bird, and owns you as well. That is a disgusting myth.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
New Year's Revolutions
I always hear about people making "New Year's Resolutions". Did you make one or more? From what I hear, most people break them as quickly as they make them. If this has been your experience in the past, maybe this year you should try something different. I think it is a couple hundred years past time for a New Year's Revolution. Bringing freedom back to America after a 200 year decline. Wouldn't that be something!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Good-Bye 2007 - Hello 2008
Happy New Year. I hope that you survived 2007. I'm guessing that you did since you are reading this. I also hope you will survive.... no, thrive in, 2008. I hope you will assume liberty in every situation, and that your boldness in doing so will serve you well. I hope that the state will continue to crumble; maybe even collapse (bloodlessly if possible) in the coming year. I'm ready. Are you?
Do something to advance real liberty in the coming months - Beyond voting, please - Pick a liberty project in 2008. I have mine in the works.
*****************************
Do something to advance real liberty in the coming months - Beyond voting, please - Pick a liberty project in 2008. I have mine in the works.
*****************************
Same-Sex Marriage and Open Borders
In this week's Libertarian Enterprise I encountered this letter. I think I have read this guy's words before . I recognize his style and his issues. (He may get an ego boost from that admission) If you go through his posts there, you will see how obsessed he is over certain concepts and terms. In particular, he likes to call us "libertine/libertarians" as if he thinks this is a clever insult.
His main "arguments" in the new letter are that the Libertarian Party (and libertarians in general) endorse same-sex marriage and open borders. He then explains how he is more in line with the Constitution Party because it simply wants the US to return to Constitutional government. That's funny. I don't remember the Constitution defining "marriage" anywhere, or giving government the authority to regulate personal love-lives. That leaves his love of "Berlin walls" as his sticking point.
Compared with the current US government's immigration policy, the Constitution does call for open borders. Where does the Constitution establish the current police-state road blocks (often many miles from any border), vehicle searches, national ID papers, etc.? All those things are necessary to enforce "secure" borders like he wants.
If freedom is important to you, you must realize that it is a two-way street. You must give the other guy the same liberty you want for yourself. How is it "libertine" of us to recognize everyone's right to live as they see fit, as long as they hurt no one else? How can you say that you have a right to live free, but your neighbor needs to be controlled? How is it good to give government control over things that are not within its authority?
Freedom is for everyone. If you wish to embrace control and tyranny, don't get angry at those of us who want liberty. If that makes us "libertines" in your myopic eyes, so be it.
His main "arguments" in the new letter are that the Libertarian Party (and libertarians in general) endorse same-sex marriage and open borders. He then explains how he is more in line with the Constitution Party because it simply wants the US to return to Constitutional government. That's funny. I don't remember the Constitution defining "marriage" anywhere, or giving government the authority to regulate personal love-lives. That leaves his love of "Berlin walls" as his sticking point.
Compared with the current US government's immigration policy, the Constitution does call for open borders. Where does the Constitution establish the current police-state road blocks (often many miles from any border), vehicle searches, national ID papers, etc.? All those things are necessary to enforce "secure" borders like he wants.
If freedom is important to you, you must realize that it is a two-way street. You must give the other guy the same liberty you want for yourself. How is it "libertine" of us to recognize everyone's right to live as they see fit, as long as they hurt no one else? How can you say that you have a right to live free, but your neighbor needs to be controlled? How is it good to give government control over things that are not within its authority?
Freedom is for everyone. If you wish to embrace control and tyranny, don't get angry at those of us who want liberty. If that makes us "libertines" in your myopic eyes, so be it.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Global Warming?
Interesting news on the "global warming" front: Has global warming stopped? Why haven't we been told this before?
Carnage Prevention
Any death that occurs because a gun was not present can be laid directly at the feet of the nearest government and its representatives and enforcers.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
Killed by a tiger before a gun could arrive? Mugged and shot or stabbed to death in the park because your city doesn't trust you with a gun? Died in a hi-jacked aircraft or a tower it crashes into because you must disarm to fly? Why was there not a gun present to avert these tragedies?
Fear of breaking the "law" and the draconian punishments that result is why. The bad guys have already decided that the laws do not apply to them. That leaves the good guys at a disadvantage where evil "laws" are concerned. Too many of us good guys obey bad "laws", resulting in unnecessary death.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
"Killed by a Tiger"
The one question that comes to my mind is why was no one in the vicinity armed and able to stop the attack? Just kidding. We all know the answer to that one. Don't forget:"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." If I were in a situation like the one that occurred in California, I would have probably shot the tiger to stop the attacks and prevent innocent people from being attacked. Then I would have spent the rest of my life feeling I had shot the wrong beast (if the reports of tiger-taunting are true).
I can't help but think that since we all must die, why not go out in an unusual way. I can imagine family members, years from now, whenever the man's name comes up in conversation, saying "He was killed by a tiger". I'll bet they will even steer the conversation that way so they can spring that tidbit on the listener. I would. I'm sure they will leave out certain parts of the story, though.
I have often thought of "cool deaths". I would rather die in an interesting way. And not of an "interesting" disease, either. Maybe like... killed by a meteor that only kills one person (not a planetary disaster event), or the first recorded Sasquatch attack death, or killed by a spontaneous singularity popping into existence in your head resulting in a short-lived black hole that makes your head disappear.
I can't help but think that since we all must die, why not go out in an unusual way. I can imagine family members, years from now, whenever the man's name comes up in conversation, saying "He was killed by a tiger". I'll bet they will even steer the conversation that way so they can spring that tidbit on the listener. I would. I'm sure they will leave out certain parts of the story, though.
I have often thought of "cool deaths". I would rather die in an interesting way. And not of an "interesting" disease, either. Maybe like... killed by a meteor that only kills one person (not a planetary disaster event), or the first recorded Sasquatch attack death, or killed by a spontaneous singularity popping into existence in your head resulting in a short-lived black hole that makes your head disappear.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Disaster Preparations
As we head into winter we should make certain we are prepared for survival in bad weather or other unforseen circumstances. Check your bug-out bags and your hunker-down kits. Make sure to double-check any expiration dates. And read this collection of observations from a Katrina survivor. Remember: you can't be free if you are dead.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Libertarian Party and Its Candidates
I can't help feeling that I am still the best Libertarian candidate out there. I still intend to write in my own name unless Ron Paul somehow gets the Republican nomination. Then I may have a crisis. In a good way. I am sure that the other candidates are all wonderful people. I have nothing against any of them. I just can't bring myself to care which of them gets the nomination.
I don't really care about "party politics" either. Political parties are tools that can be used in ways good or bad. If a political party can help "us" reach freedom, great. If it can't then I will not waste my time trying to make it. I have signed the petition to try to get the Libertarian Party to return to a libertarian platform. I hope it does, and if it is serious about being libertarian, it will. If it only worries about being taken seriously by "the mainstream", then who cares what it does.
The time may come when I am forced to take my campaign more seriously again. Even though no one has ever "voted themselves free", I see Americans voting away their remaining freedom at an ever-increasing rate. It is alarming. The idealist in me needs to do something about it.
I don't really care about "party politics" either. Political parties are tools that can be used in ways good or bad. If a political party can help "us" reach freedom, great. If it can't then I will not waste my time trying to make it. I have signed the petition to try to get the Libertarian Party to return to a libertarian platform. I hope it does, and if it is serious about being libertarian, it will. If it only worries about being taken seriously by "the mainstream", then who cares what it does.
The time may come when I am forced to take my campaign more seriously again. Even though no one has ever "voted themselves free", I see Americans voting away their remaining freedom at an ever-increasing rate. It is alarming. The idealist in me needs to do something about it.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
In the News
Here is an interesting mention of Kent McManigal in the Seattle Times, along with a longer examination of my campaign in a reporter's blog from the same paper. I'm glad they find me amusing, but I wish they would examine my stance a little more. Oh well. If I had to choose between being a boring authoritarian who "they" take seriously, or a slightly colorful libertarian who they would not take seriously no matter what I did, I'd choose the current situation.
Cops: The Front Line in the Battle Against Freedom
Frequently, when I express my disgust at police officers, I hear that "the average street cop" is on "our side" with this or that issue. For all the good that does, even if it is true.
I don't care if "the average street cop believes in the right to bear arms", if they still disarm people when told to. I don't care if they realize the War on Some Drugs is a monumental waste of time, money, and lives, if they kick in doors looking for drugs.
There is a reason it is called a "police state". Without police to do the enforcement, the rest of government would be powerless to violate your rights. If they really are not the problem, let them stop enforcing "laws" that are wrong. Let them stand up to their bosses, and even arrest them for violating the rights of Americans.
Don't give me that balderdash of "only doing my job", or "I don't make the law, I only enforce it". Tyranny can not grow; genocide can not occur, without the brutal troops of government actually committing the acts of enforcement. That is known as a "war crime". One way or another, it must stop.
I don't care if "the average street cop believes in the right to bear arms", if they still disarm people when told to. I don't care if they realize the War on Some Drugs is a monumental waste of time, money, and lives, if they kick in doors looking for drugs.
There is a reason it is called a "police state". Without police to do the enforcement, the rest of government would be powerless to violate your rights. If they really are not the problem, let them stop enforcing "laws" that are wrong. Let them stand up to their bosses, and even arrest them for violating the rights of Americans.
Don't give me that balderdash of "only doing my job", or "I don't make the law, I only enforce it". Tyranny can not grow; genocide can not occur, without the brutal troops of government actually committing the acts of enforcement. That is known as a "war crime". One way or another, it must stop.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Xmas at The Liberated Space
I did a BlogTalk Radio interview with Angela Keaton of The Liberated Space. I enjoyed it and I hope that if you listen, you will enjoy it, too.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Happy, Merry, Joyous, Holidays!
Why not celebrate ALL of the winter solstice holidays? There is a reason humans decided to have holidays and feasts during the darkest time of the year: we need them, so instead of picking and choosing, just celebrate them all. And have happy ones, from me to you!!!
Proud to be a Libertarian
I don't know about you, but I am proud to be a libertarian. Whatever you think forms the foundation of libertarianism- the ZAP, the Universality Principle, or something else- libertarianism (and by extension, anarchism) is the only philosophy that recognizes that you own your own life. Every other philosophy or political position believes that you are stupid or evil or simply too incompetent to run your own life. Libertarians know that is not the case.
Some people balk at the concept of anarchism. I admit I think anarchism is just libertarianism fully expressed, and I think that minarchism is a desperate attempt to excuse the inexcusable. If you disagree I am fine with that, too. Show me a government that will never, can never, grow out of control and I will shut up. Yeah, I didn't think so....
I was thrilled to hear actual libertarian opinions being expressed by Ron Paul on CNN's "conservative" show last night. It isn't often that I hear a candidate speak and not feel like throwing a brick through the screen. I missed most of the interview, so I may have missed some stuff that would have irritated me earlier, but it was still a singular event in the history of national television for me.
I am proud to be part of the wave (a tiny molecule at most) that will eventually drive authoritarians and their institutions into the compost heap of history; remembered only as war criminals or psychotic control freaks. It would be nice if it could happen in my lifetime, but I can dream of the free lives my descendants will have because of the groundwork I have tried to help lay. Me and countless others who were not afraid to point at tyrants and call them "tyrants". It will take all of us, and we can never give up.
Some people balk at the concept of anarchism. I admit I think anarchism is just libertarianism fully expressed, and I think that minarchism is a desperate attempt to excuse the inexcusable. If you disagree I am fine with that, too. Show me a government that will never, can never, grow out of control and I will shut up. Yeah, I didn't think so....
I was thrilled to hear actual libertarian opinions being expressed by Ron Paul on CNN's "conservative" show last night. It isn't often that I hear a candidate speak and not feel like throwing a brick through the screen. I missed most of the interview, so I may have missed some stuff that would have irritated me earlier, but it was still a singular event in the history of national television for me.
I am proud to be part of the wave (a tiny molecule at most) that will eventually drive authoritarians and their institutions into the compost heap of history; remembered only as war criminals or psychotic control freaks. It would be nice if it could happen in my lifetime, but I can dream of the free lives my descendants will have because of the groundwork I have tried to help lay. Me and countless others who were not afraid to point at tyrants and call them "tyrants". It will take all of us, and we can never give up.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Responsibility
If you own a mall and forbid firearms, are you responsible for massacres that occur as a result? If you are President and do not oppose torture on your watch, are you guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Common sense knows the answer to those questions.
Everyone has rights. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. Each right that exists casts a shadow. That shadow is called a responsibility. Whether you choose to exercise your right or not does not change the fact that it still exists and continues to cast a shadow.
Your property is yours. You can choose to allow people to enter it or not. If you do choose to allow people onto your property you are giving up some power over that property. Just because you own property does not mean you can demand that people suspend their human rights while they "visit" you. You can not demand that people become less than fully human just because they set foot on your property. It would be like saying that if you come to my house, I am allowed to strip search you, or worse, whenever I feel like it. That would be ridiculous and wrong. Your body, and all that is contained within your clothes, is strictly none of my business even if you are in my house. Unless you choose to make it my business. Now, if you are leaking radiation or toxic fluids, those are no longer part of you and become my business. If you are not comfortable with that, you should not invite people to your property. Get a dog instead.
"Authority" is not the same as a "right". The President has the same human rights as everyone else, but he also has some authority, though not nearly as much as he may claim. That authority does not include violating the human rights of anyone. Not even enemy combatants or suspected terrorists. Not even if his minions (or puppetmasters as the case may be) think that torturing one of these people may yield vital information. Whoever violates the rights of another is a criminal and should be dealt with as such.
If someone attempts to restrict the rights of others, and calamity ensues because of it, the rights violator has gone into debt. If deaths resulted, how can that debt ever be repaid? If authority is misused and lives are ended or otherwise destroyed, how can that debt be made right again? Better be safe and not try to infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise you may rack up a debt you can't pay, and that will never be forgiven.
Everyone has rights. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. Each right that exists casts a shadow. That shadow is called a responsibility. Whether you choose to exercise your right or not does not change the fact that it still exists and continues to cast a shadow.
Your property is yours. You can choose to allow people to enter it or not. If you do choose to allow people onto your property you are giving up some power over that property. Just because you own property does not mean you can demand that people suspend their human rights while they "visit" you. You can not demand that people become less than fully human just because they set foot on your property. It would be like saying that if you come to my house, I am allowed to strip search you, or worse, whenever I feel like it. That would be ridiculous and wrong. Your body, and all that is contained within your clothes, is strictly none of my business even if you are in my house. Unless you choose to make it my business. Now, if you are leaking radiation or toxic fluids, those are no longer part of you and become my business. If you are not comfortable with that, you should not invite people to your property. Get a dog instead.
"Authority" is not the same as a "right". The President has the same human rights as everyone else, but he also has some authority, though not nearly as much as he may claim. That authority does not include violating the human rights of anyone. Not even enemy combatants or suspected terrorists. Not even if his minions (or puppetmasters as the case may be) think that torturing one of these people may yield vital information. Whoever violates the rights of another is a criminal and should be dealt with as such.
If someone attempts to restrict the rights of others, and calamity ensues because of it, the rights violator has gone into debt. If deaths resulted, how can that debt ever be repaid? If authority is misused and lives are ended or otherwise destroyed, how can that debt be made right again? Better be safe and not try to infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise you may rack up a debt you can't pay, and that will never be forgiven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)