Suppose I teach my kids "water safety" in a similar way to the "gun safety" recommended by those mass-murderer enablers of the Brady Campaign. To them, ignorance equals safety. Don't let kids near water... don't teach them to swim.....marginalize those who enjoy water sports, and blame them for drownings, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis..... forbid drawings or discussions of water.... make exceptions to water bans for professionals such as firefighters..... demonize The Little Mermaid for glamorizing water to kids..... Then act shocked when children drown.
Do they not realize the absurdity of their approach; their "campaign"? Or, as is more likely, do they not care? Their advocacy kills children. Their campaign seeks to take away the most effective tool for defending the small and weak from the big and strong. Yet, they pretend moral superiority. Lest they whine "but water is essential for life" I would remind them that "self-defense is also essential for life". Taking away either one is murderous and insane.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Which Government Owns "Illegal" Immigrants?
It seems to me that if you oppose "illegal" immigration, you are averring that you belong to "your" government and that the immigrants belong to "their" government. If only they would jump through the hoops that give ownership of themselves to your government, then you would welcome them here. Right? After all, you may say: "There are legal ways of immigrating." What else could you mean?
Why should immigrants obey the laws of a country they don't live in? I certainly don't even pretend to obey Mexico's or Canada's laws. In order to "legally" immigrate, according to statists, I would have to put myself under those laws before I crossed the government borders. If I felt that I needed to escape to another country, for whatever reason, I would not feel any obligation to sell myself to the government of that country first. Why should anyone do that?
To claim that a government has ownership rights to you and the land you stand on is odd to me. I suppose if you own yourself, you can give yourself to anyone you choose, even a government. But then you wouldn't own yourself and could not give yourself away in the first place. Independent migrants have exactly the same human rights as me or anyone else, regardless of where they stand on our planet. Governments have exactly zero rights of any sort. So, guess who gets my sympathy.
It seems that many people have a strange worshipful attitude about an imaginary line on a map. Lines drawn by governments through treaties and wars. The only thing governments are good for is waging war. War is the main product of government. Do you really want to belong to the War Factory?
Therefore, the answer to the title of the post is: No government owns them (or us).
Besides that, end ALL welfare and you deflate the only reasonable argument against "illegal" immigrants, leaving only the racist excuses.
...................................................................
Why should immigrants obey the laws of a country they don't live in? I certainly don't even pretend to obey Mexico's or Canada's laws. In order to "legally" immigrate, according to statists, I would have to put myself under those laws before I crossed the government borders. If I felt that I needed to escape to another country, for whatever reason, I would not feel any obligation to sell myself to the government of that country first. Why should anyone do that?
To claim that a government has ownership rights to you and the land you stand on is odd to me. I suppose if you own yourself, you can give yourself to anyone you choose, even a government. But then you wouldn't own yourself and could not give yourself away in the first place. Independent migrants have exactly the same human rights as me or anyone else, regardless of where they stand on our planet. Governments have exactly zero rights of any sort. So, guess who gets my sympathy.
It seems that many people have a strange worshipful attitude about an imaginary line on a map. Lines drawn by governments through treaties and wars. The only thing governments are good for is waging war. War is the main product of government. Do you really want to belong to the War Factory?
Therefore, the answer to the title of the post is: No government owns them (or us).
Besides that, end ALL welfare and you deflate the only reasonable argument against "illegal" immigrants, leaving only the racist excuses.
...................................................................
Monday, August 11, 2008
"Performance Enhancing"
I saw the Supreme Statist on television saying that he opposed "performance enhancing drugs" in sports because it sends the wrong message to young people. He said that if you look at the stats from the athletes from earlier decades, you need to know that there is a real comparison with the stats of today. (OK, he didn't say exactly those words, but he did use a couple of multi-syllabic words, I swear.)
Well, using that same reasoning, shouldn't we ban anyone from competing who has had reconstructive surgery after an injury? After all, that option wasn't really available 50 years ago. Shouldn't athletes of today live with the same risk of getting polio that their predecessors did? After all, that eliminated many potential competitors. Nutrition and training are also probably better today. That gives a skewed comparison when looking at the history of sports. Some athletes are cancer survivors who in the past would surely have died. Isn't it unfair to allow them to continue to compete when others with the same disease died?
Today is different from the past. To try to stop progress at some point in the past is something that some religious groups have tried. Unless we all wish to become Amish we need to recognize that change occurs. Some is good, some is bad, but the genie won't go back in the bottle.
...................................................................
Well, using that same reasoning, shouldn't we ban anyone from competing who has had reconstructive surgery after an injury? After all, that option wasn't really available 50 years ago. Shouldn't athletes of today live with the same risk of getting polio that their predecessors did? After all, that eliminated many potential competitors. Nutrition and training are also probably better today. That gives a skewed comparison when looking at the history of sports. Some athletes are cancer survivors who in the past would surely have died. Isn't it unfair to allow them to continue to compete when others with the same disease died?
Today is different from the past. To try to stop progress at some point in the past is something that some religious groups have tried. Unless we all wish to become Amish we need to recognize that change occurs. Some is good, some is bad, but the genie won't go back in the bottle.
...................................................................
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Evil
I talk a lot about "evil". I don't mean anything mystical by that word, but unlike some rational people, I do believe evil exists. I see the consequences and evidence of evil all around me. I see what concentrations of evil, such as a government, do to individuals. Corey Maye, David Olofson, Randy Weaver's family, and Kathryn Johnston are all victims of this institutionalized evil. A Google search on those names is in order if you haven't been paying attention.
When I speak of evil as a noun, I mean "that which harms the innocent". It is the opposite of "good" which is that which helps innocent people. If a person's life, either public or personal, has done much harm, then I may describe that person as "evil". People such as Hitler, Sarah Brady, and Ted Kennedy fall into this category. No person commits only harmful acts; even the worst will have little sparks of kindness towards certain individuals in particular situations. That doesn't outweigh the harm their other actions have caused, and I stand by my assessment of "evil" when referring to them.
Your ways of speaking of these types of actions and people may be different, but I think we would all recognize that their way is not the right way to live.
Added: Eric Sundwall brings up a good point: "Why not just use 'bad' and not risk the mystical association ?" To which I answer: Because bad doesn't go far enough. Driving a car drunk is bad, as is abusing "drugs". But as long as you harm no innocent person, you have not done evil. With much of the evil in the world, there is an underlying intent. The evildoers may not think of it as intending to harm people, but may see it as trying to control them. As we know, trying to control people invariably harms them. In many cases, though, the intent is actually to harm others to benefit oneself, either by gaining power over them, or by gaining wealth at the expense of the innocent.
............................................................................
When I speak of evil as a noun, I mean "that which harms the innocent". It is the opposite of "good" which is that which helps innocent people. If a person's life, either public or personal, has done much harm, then I may describe that person as "evil". People such as Hitler, Sarah Brady, and Ted Kennedy fall into this category. No person commits only harmful acts; even the worst will have little sparks of kindness towards certain individuals in particular situations. That doesn't outweigh the harm their other actions have caused, and I stand by my assessment of "evil" when referring to them.
Your ways of speaking of these types of actions and people may be different, but I think we would all recognize that their way is not the right way to live.
Added: Eric Sundwall brings up a good point: "Why not just use 'bad' and not risk the mystical association ?" To which I answer: Because bad doesn't go far enough. Driving a car drunk is bad, as is abusing "drugs". But as long as you harm no innocent person, you have not done evil. With much of the evil in the world, there is an underlying intent. The evildoers may not think of it as intending to harm people, but may see it as trying to control them. As we know, trying to control people invariably harms them. In many cases, though, the intent is actually to harm others to benefit oneself, either by gaining power over them, or by gaining wealth at the expense of the innocent.
............................................................................
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Solving Problems With "Laws"
I heard about a town somewhere that legalized golf carts for on-road use to help with travel expenses related to the "high price of fuel" (which is really the high price of having fiat money). While I approve of using alternate vehicles for travel, I think it is arrogant of any town to think it should pass "laws". It wasn't a lack of "laws" that caused the legal prohibition, but a glut of "laws". Some misguided or evil person first had to pass a "law" that prohibited the use of golf carts on the road. Other people had to agree that "there should be a law". Conspirators had to pass the "law" and inflict it on the local population. Enforcers had to rob or kidnap those people who violated the counterfeit "law". This "law" that did not prohibit any act of aggression. This "law" that made a new crime that had no victim. This is the reason we suffer under Law Pollution. Don't pass a "law" legalizing something, remove the "laws" that "illegalize" it instead. Think about that when you hear about medical marijuana "laws", or concealed carry "laws". More "laws" are never the answer.
I will re-emphasize: it is wrong... bad... corrupt... repugnant to propose, pass, support, or enforce any law that tries to prohibit, regulate, or punish anything other than actual physical or economic aggression. If you do so you are causing real harm to real individuals and their liberty. You are violating their rights. In short, you are evil. Repudiate evil by working to remove the burden of counterfeit "laws".
*********************************
I will re-emphasize: it is wrong... bad... corrupt... repugnant to propose, pass, support, or enforce any law that tries to prohibit, regulate, or punish anything other than actual physical or economic aggression. If you do so you are causing real harm to real individuals and their liberty. You are violating their rights. In short, you are evil. Repudiate evil by working to remove the burden of counterfeit "laws".
*********************************
Friday, August 08, 2008
"Time's Up" Flag Stickers
I now have some "Time's Up" flag stickers to sell. They measure about 3 1/2" X 2 1/8". They are vinyl and seem to be well made. I have only had one on my car for a few days, but it seems to be holding up well.
I will sell them for fifty cents each, plus fifty cents for shipping any number. So, if you want one it would be $1; if you want ten, it would be $5.50.
Sex and Marriage: One Size Does NOT Fit All
Warning: due to the nature of this post, reader discretion is advised.
If you are easily offended, I apologize, but feel that this is an important issue that has ramifications for us all. Nothing illustrates the stupidity of such things as the "Defense of Marriage Act" better.
I was recently watching a program on TLC about a pair of conjoined twins. These young women look externally (to a non-expert such as myself) like a two-headed person. Internally they each have their own heart, lungs, stomach, and small intestine. They share a colon and reproductive system. They each control the leg and arm on their side of the shared body, and only feel sensation on that side as well.
Please realize I have profound respect for these girls. They are probably the most inspiring individuals I have ever run across on television. I only refrain from mentioning their names and other specifics out of respect for their privacy and in case the state has decided there is some "law" against speculating on the sexuality of these girls due to age or other factors.
As I understand life, what is a "right" for one person is a "right" for everyone, and what is wrong for one person to do is wrong for everyone. (Thanks to Francois Tremblay for bringing this unconscious understanding into conscious thought for me.) I am not speaking of preferences, but morality. In other words, since it is wrong for me to kick in a neighbor's door at 2AM and shoot his dog, then kidnap him, it is also wrong for a thug with a badge and "official" permission to do the same. Which brings us to the dilemma. The state and most religions would condemn these girls to a sexless life. Even the simple, ubiquitous act of masturbation becomes incest in this case.
The program showed the state giving each girl her own "driver's license" in order to be allowed to operate a car. I would expect the state to think it has the same authority (and "solution") to the marriage question. I would hope that these girls reject the notion of government permission to marry, but in case they choose to place themselves in that position, how would that work?
If they accept the mainstream religious ideas and morals they are doomed to be virgins forever, or be guilty of "sexual sins", since threesomes would be unavoidable. If one girl marries, then the partner is "cheating" on her each time they have intercourse. There is no way to only have sex with one at a time, given the shared nature of their reproductive system. If they both marry one person (a guy, for example) he would be a bigamist in the eyes of the state. If they each marry a different individual, then, once again, in the eyes of the state and religion, they are unable to avoid "adultery".
If they have children, both girls would be the biological mothers. Would the state draw up a birth certificate with three spaces for parents? If not, how would they handle that situation?
Of course, you and I know that asking permission from the state for any of these things is ridiculous. These two wonderful young women may not realize that. Yet. Would the state make exceptions to all these "laws" in their case? If so, then that would mean they should allow any couple or group that wishes, to get a marriage license. If there is no room in your state or your religion for the situation these young women find themselves in, then there is something wrong with your state or your religion. Only in the self-ownership of anarchism could these girls find the freedom to live guilt-free and happily. What is OK for them must be OK for the rest of us, and what is OK for the rest of us is OK for them. If the state doesn't make exceptions, then it would probably force these girls to become "outlaws" like you and I. There are far worse fates.
Persecution and/or prosecution may be avoided due to the state and religion not having thought of these issues yet, or through fear of public outrage (though, even in recent cases of astounding state evil, public outcry has been almost nonexistent).
------------------------------------
If you are easily offended, I apologize, but feel that this is an important issue that has ramifications for us all. Nothing illustrates the stupidity of such things as the "Defense of Marriage Act" better.
I was recently watching a program on TLC about a pair of conjoined twins. These young women look externally (to a non-expert such as myself) like a two-headed person. Internally they each have their own heart, lungs, stomach, and small intestine. They share a colon and reproductive system. They each control the leg and arm on their side of the shared body, and only feel sensation on that side as well.
Please realize I have profound respect for these girls. They are probably the most inspiring individuals I have ever run across on television. I only refrain from mentioning their names and other specifics out of respect for their privacy and in case the state has decided there is some "law" against speculating on the sexuality of these girls due to age or other factors.
As I understand life, what is a "right" for one person is a "right" for everyone, and what is wrong for one person to do is wrong for everyone. (Thanks to Francois Tremblay for bringing this unconscious understanding into conscious thought for me.) I am not speaking of preferences, but morality. In other words, since it is wrong for me to kick in a neighbor's door at 2AM and shoot his dog, then kidnap him, it is also wrong for a thug with a badge and "official" permission to do the same. Which brings us to the dilemma. The state and most religions would condemn these girls to a sexless life. Even the simple, ubiquitous act of masturbation becomes incest in this case.
The program showed the state giving each girl her own "driver's license" in order to be allowed to operate a car. I would expect the state to think it has the same authority (and "solution") to the marriage question. I would hope that these girls reject the notion of government permission to marry, but in case they choose to place themselves in that position, how would that work?
If they accept the mainstream religious ideas and morals they are doomed to be virgins forever, or be guilty of "sexual sins", since threesomes would be unavoidable. If one girl marries, then the partner is "cheating" on her each time they have intercourse. There is no way to only have sex with one at a time, given the shared nature of their reproductive system. If they both marry one person (a guy, for example) he would be a bigamist in the eyes of the state. If they each marry a different individual, then, once again, in the eyes of the state and religion, they are unable to avoid "adultery".
If they have children, both girls would be the biological mothers. Would the state draw up a birth certificate with three spaces for parents? If not, how would they handle that situation?
Of course, you and I know that asking permission from the state for any of these things is ridiculous. These two wonderful young women may not realize that. Yet. Would the state make exceptions to all these "laws" in their case? If so, then that would mean they should allow any couple or group that wishes, to get a marriage license. If there is no room in your state or your religion for the situation these young women find themselves in, then there is something wrong with your state or your religion. Only in the self-ownership of anarchism could these girls find the freedom to live guilt-free and happily. What is OK for them must be OK for the rest of us, and what is OK for the rest of us is OK for them. If the state doesn't make exceptions, then it would probably force these girls to become "outlaws" like you and I. There are far worse fates.
Persecution and/or prosecution may be avoided due to the state and religion not having thought of these issues yet, or through fear of public outrage (though, even in recent cases of astounding state evil, public outcry has been almost nonexistent).
------------------------------------
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Living With Rules, Libertarian Anarchist Style
I have mentioned this before, but think it may be time to talk about it again. Libertarians don't hate rules, only Rulers. Rules can be right or they can be wrong; depending upon whether they are legitimate or not. Rulers are always wrong; leaders can occasionally be right.
When you have rules for a group of people, the more people you try to include, the fewer (and less specific) the rules must be. Otherwise you end up violating someone's right of self ownership with your counterfeit "laws" that have no moral foundation.
If, for example, I am making rules just for myself, I can be very specific and say "don't smoke, drink Dr Pepper, don't work for government, don't initiate force, wear a hat, etc." It doesn't matter if the rule has any moral basis or not, since the rule only applies to me, and I agreed to it explicitly. If the situation changes, I can change the arbitrary rules, but since morality doesn't change, the rules with a moral foundation would remain. I can't decide that "today, I will kill someone, just because", but I could decide that today I will smoke a cigar while not wearing a hat, just to be different.
If I am trying to decide with another person what rules we are to both operate under, we would need to eliminate those that do not fit the other person. Maybe they like coffee better than Dr Pepper, so that rule gets tossed. Notice that I am not forced to drink coffee under the agreement. The more people you try to cover with your rules, the less specific they can be or they will surely violate someone's self ownership. At some point you must reduce the list down to "don't violate the rights of anyone else". Which, with over 6 billion humans on the planet, is exactly where we find ourselves. No other rules can have any legitimacy when what applies to one, must apply to all.
The current "legal" system is a prime example of the chaos that occurs when the opposite path is taken and it is falsely assumed that the more people you try to cover with your rules, the more specific and numerous the rules must be. It gets to the point that every breath you take is violating some arbitrary rule, which some meddling busy-body decided would be good for you. This helps no one but the state and its sympathizers.
--------------------------------
When you have rules for a group of people, the more people you try to include, the fewer (and less specific) the rules must be. Otherwise you end up violating someone's right of self ownership with your counterfeit "laws" that have no moral foundation.
If, for example, I am making rules just for myself, I can be very specific and say "don't smoke, drink Dr Pepper, don't work for government, don't initiate force, wear a hat, etc." It doesn't matter if the rule has any moral basis or not, since the rule only applies to me, and I agreed to it explicitly. If the situation changes, I can change the arbitrary rules, but since morality doesn't change, the rules with a moral foundation would remain. I can't decide that "today, I will kill someone, just because", but I could decide that today I will smoke a cigar while not wearing a hat, just to be different.
If I am trying to decide with another person what rules we are to both operate under, we would need to eliminate those that do not fit the other person. Maybe they like coffee better than Dr Pepper, so that rule gets tossed. Notice that I am not forced to drink coffee under the agreement. The more people you try to cover with your rules, the less specific they can be or they will surely violate someone's self ownership. At some point you must reduce the list down to "don't violate the rights of anyone else". Which, with over 6 billion humans on the planet, is exactly where we find ourselves. No other rules can have any legitimacy when what applies to one, must apply to all.
The current "legal" system is a prime example of the chaos that occurs when the opposite path is taken and it is falsely assumed that the more people you try to cover with your rules, the more specific and numerous the rules must be. It gets to the point that every breath you take is violating some arbitrary rule, which some meddling busy-body decided would be good for you. This helps no one but the state and its sympathizers.
--------------------------------
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Hilton vs. McCain
I've never had an opinion of Paris Hilton, so I can't really say my opinion of her has improved, but I love her attitude in this response to the socialist Republi-corpse's campaign video.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
How Far Do Your Boss' Rights Go? Rights Can Be Wrong.
Does your boss have a right to demand that you behave a certain way on your own time? For example: completely forbidding tobacco use?
Some people argue that this is part of your boss' right to hire who he wants. I am not disputing that right. What I would warn against is the slippery slope of where this leads. Under this scenario, you would be the property of your boss.
You only sell your time to your boss, or looking at this another way, you rent him your body for a certain amount of time each day. He has no claim to your body during the time he is not renting it, nor can he demand to control the time you did not sell him.
Yes, your boss has a right to hire whoever he wants, but if he discriminates in this way, you and I have a right to refuse to do business with him. Any business or dealings. In a free society this could mean shunning him to the point of starving him to death if he chooses to remain a bigot and enough people care.
If a boss wishes to assert ownership of his employees, he is behaving in an evil way. Slavery is still wrong. Your body chemistry is none of his business as long as you are not contagious or radioactive. Unless the substances leave your body and make you into a hazard it is no one's business what you contain, be it nicotine, THC, or whatever. Making your body chemistry a condition of employment is wrong, but still within his rights. It is also a good way to judge the boss' character.
Your boss' rights do not cancel out your rights. You own your own body and life or you own nothing. You can choose to sell yourself to an authoritarian boss. I hope you don't. If fewer people were willing to sell themselves (as opposed to renting themselves) then fewer bosses would be able to assert ownership over their employees. This would increase real freedom even more than decorating lampposts with swinging predators. Who do you spend more of your life around: the boss or a congressman?
Some people argue that this is part of your boss' right to hire who he wants. I am not disputing that right. What I would warn against is the slippery slope of where this leads. Under this scenario, you would be the property of your boss.
You only sell your time to your boss, or looking at this another way, you rent him your body for a certain amount of time each day. He has no claim to your body during the time he is not renting it, nor can he demand to control the time you did not sell him.
Yes, your boss has a right to hire whoever he wants, but if he discriminates in this way, you and I have a right to refuse to do business with him. Any business or dealings. In a free society this could mean shunning him to the point of starving him to death if he chooses to remain a bigot and enough people care.
If a boss wishes to assert ownership of his employees, he is behaving in an evil way. Slavery is still wrong. Your body chemistry is none of his business as long as you are not contagious or radioactive. Unless the substances leave your body and make you into a hazard it is no one's business what you contain, be it nicotine, THC, or whatever. Making your body chemistry a condition of employment is wrong, but still within his rights. It is also a good way to judge the boss' character.
Your boss' rights do not cancel out your rights. You own your own body and life or you own nothing. You can choose to sell yourself to an authoritarian boss. I hope you don't. If fewer people were willing to sell themselves (as opposed to renting themselves) then fewer bosses would be able to assert ownership over their employees. This would increase real freedom even more than decorating lampposts with swinging predators. Who do you spend more of your life around: the boss or a congressman?
Sunday, August 03, 2008
The Myth Epidemic
There is a huge Myth Lab operating in this country. It has outlets in every small town and big city in America. It produces a dangerous, addictive drug that rots the minds of the young and old. This drug is not a chemical, but is an idea. It is the "myth of government necessity" and it kills.
This drug is so deadly that there is no way to handle it safely. Even those who dispose of contaminated materials often become ill from its fumes. It is almost impossible to be in its presence without being harmed.
You may think I am being humorous, but this is incredibly serious. The government myth has killed more people than all the chemical drugs ever created combined. If there can be a war on drugs, then why not a war on a much more dangerous threat?
This drug is so deadly that there is no way to handle it safely. Even those who dispose of contaminated materials often become ill from its fumes. It is almost impossible to be in its presence without being harmed.
You may think I am being humorous, but this is incredibly serious. The government myth has killed more people than all the chemical drugs ever created combined. If there can be a war on drugs, then why not a war on a much more dangerous threat?
Saturday, August 02, 2008
My Wordpress Blog
I have imported this blog to a Wordpress site. If you are one of those who would rather read my blog without any fancy background or anything, bookmark that one.
Punishment Culture
Punishment enthusiasm seems ubiquitous.
Right-wing socialists get excited to hear about executions, brutal police action (like the illegitimate "War on Drugs"), wars of retribution, and bad guys "getting theirs".
Left wing socialists salivate over big business getting fined for profiting "too much", over gun owners being arrested and demonized, over the racists they don't like being put in their place.
Even I have a difficult time not enjoying seeing socialists suffering the consequences of the world they have created for all of us.
"Punishment" is not the same as stopping an attack. If you see an innocent person being attacked and you jump in and kill the attacker, that is not "enjoying punishment", but is "ending a threat". Human predators deserve to be neutralized when caught in the act.
In some cases, punishment is appropriate (added: I no longer believe this). In many other cases, it is just revenge. It may even be directed against the wrong person unless the guilty person is caught in the act and stopped immediately.
-----------------------------------------
Right-wing socialists get excited to hear about executions, brutal police action (like the illegitimate "War on Drugs"), wars of retribution, and bad guys "getting theirs".
Left wing socialists salivate over big business getting fined for profiting "too much", over gun owners being arrested and demonized, over the racists they don't like being put in their place.
Even I have a difficult time not enjoying seeing socialists suffering the consequences of the world they have created for all of us.
"Punishment" is not the same as stopping an attack. If you see an innocent person being attacked and you jump in and kill the attacker, that is not "enjoying punishment", but is "ending a threat". Human predators deserve to be neutralized when caught in the act.
In some cases, punishment is appropriate (added: I no longer believe this). In many other cases, it is just revenge. It may even be directed against the wrong person unless the guilty person is caught in the act and stopped immediately.
-----------------------------------------
Friday, August 01, 2008
The War on Free Speech (and Guns)
David Codrea's blog, "The War on Guns", is one of my favorites. Unfortunately Google/Blogspot has decided it is spam. He is blocked from posting until or unless they decide to allow him to continue posting again. It is their right to block him if they choose, but their decision is based upon a lie, false information, or an agenda of blocking speech they don't like. That is wrong.
If they don't unblock him, I will try to move my blog to another host. Maybe if I can figure out how to put it on KentForLiberty.com, that would be my best choice, but I would probably lose all the comments.
---------------------------------------------
If they don't unblock him, I will try to move my blog to another host. Maybe if I can figure out how to put it on KentForLiberty.com, that would be my best choice, but I would probably lose all the comments.
---------------------------------------------
Tobacco: Time To Grow Your Own?
With the recent legislative monkey-business from the Swamp of Corruption, it might be time for smokers to grow their own. It might even be time for non-smokers to start growing tobacco just because it will make the meddlers angry. Become a grower before it is illegal. Then continue after it becomes so, if it pleases you.
Of course, similar arguments could be made for lots of activities that are "capital crimes" judging from the state's behavior.
********************************
Of course, similar arguments could be made for lots of activities that are "capital crimes" judging from the state's behavior.
********************************
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Don't Call Me a "Citizen"!
I try to avoid using the word "citizen" when I speak of the people who inhabit a region. The Dictionary.com definition I linked to defines "citizen" as someone who "owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection". By that definition I am quite positively NOT a citizen. I owe no government anything but contempt, and I am not "entitled" to anything from any government but to be left alone.
Another of the definitions is "an inhabitant". I do inhabit this area, although I don't worry about the local (or other) Rulers who, while lording over the compliant inhabitants, may think they have authority over me. As an inhabitant, I could be considered a "citizen", although that usage sounds silly.
I am just me. There is no need to label me because of where I live.
_________________________________
Another of the definitions is "an inhabitant". I do inhabit this area, although I don't worry about the local (or other) Rulers who, while lording over the compliant inhabitants, may think they have authority over me. As an inhabitant, I could be considered a "citizen", although that usage sounds silly.
I am just me. There is no need to label me because of where I live.
_________________________________
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Nothing to Hide?
Some government sympathizers scold the more sensible among us for not wanting government snoops poking around in our private matters by saying "If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you care?" or by proclaiming "I have nothing to hide!"
Fine. Then let me come to your house and look through your underwear drawer, medicine cabinet, computer files, and under your mattress. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?
Or do your doors open only for those who can kill you if you refuse? Why does it matter?
Think about it.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Fine. Then let me come to your house and look through your underwear drawer, medicine cabinet, computer files, and under your mattress. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?
Or do your doors open only for those who can kill you if you refuse? Why does it matter?
Think about it.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Don't Let Anyone Tell You "Driving is not a Right"
When I am reading about "sobriety checkpoints", "drivers' licenses", or other statist nonsense, I notice some person always makes the comment that "driving is a privilege, not a right". What utter balderdash.
If the right to travel freely is not really a right, then there are no rights. And don't say that you can walk wherever you wish to go, but to drive a car you need government permission. If cars were a recent invention, and were not so necessary to integrate yourself into modern life, that might hold water. But that hasn't been true for many decades. Nope, operating your car without asking permission from anyone is a right. Neither can you claim that because the state has a monopoly on road ownership, that they can set the rules for travelling on their roads. If they didn't maintain that monopoly with coercion and theft, that might be true. Aggressors are not allowed to set the rules in a free society.
That doesn't mean that owning a car is a right. Just like the right to own and to carry firearms, no one is obligated to give you a car. However, if you can afford to buy one and fuel it, no control-freak has the authority to stand in your way. Get the coercion out of the equation and cars would be affordable enough for anyone, and fuel cost wouldn't be an issue.
If you own a car, or are loaned one for your use, using it to travel wherever you want to go, as long as you are not trespassing or harming innocent people or their property, is an absolute human right not subject to regulation by the state. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply trying to give the state power over your life.
----------------------------------------------------
Added: Eric Sundwall posted this excellent link on my Haloscan comments: http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
I recommend you read it.
----------------------------------------------------
If the right to travel freely is not really a right, then there are no rights. And don't say that you can walk wherever you wish to go, but to drive a car you need government permission. If cars were a recent invention, and were not so necessary to integrate yourself into modern life, that might hold water. But that hasn't been true for many decades. Nope, operating your car without asking permission from anyone is a right. Neither can you claim that because the state has a monopoly on road ownership, that they can set the rules for travelling on their roads. If they didn't maintain that monopoly with coercion and theft, that might be true. Aggressors are not allowed to set the rules in a free society.
That doesn't mean that owning a car is a right. Just like the right to own and to carry firearms, no one is obligated to give you a car. However, if you can afford to buy one and fuel it, no control-freak has the authority to stand in your way. Get the coercion out of the equation and cars would be affordable enough for anyone, and fuel cost wouldn't be an issue.
If you own a car, or are loaned one for your use, using it to travel wherever you want to go, as long as you are not trespassing or harming innocent people or their property, is an absolute human right not subject to regulation by the state. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply trying to give the state power over your life.
----------------------------------------------------
Added: Eric Sundwall posted this excellent link on my Haloscan comments: http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
I recommend you read it.
----------------------------------------------------
Friday, July 25, 2008
My Responsibilities
When you refuse to allow the state to use you as an excuse to tyrannize your neighbors it means you take on some responsibilities. These are not difficult. Nor are they unusual. Just a few years ago, they were "normal", but they are not recognized too frequently anymore.
It is my responsibility to watch out for drunk or otherwise dangerous drivers while I travel. I do not ask the state to conduct immoral checkpoints on my behalf. I may not see all danger coming, but neither can the state protect me from all potential dangers. I'd rather take my chances with random accidents than with intentional bullies with badges, attitudes, and roadblocks.
It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family from attackers and thieves. I do not need the state to use its enforcers to oppress the community, or the world, pretending that it does this for my "safety". If they continue to do this, it is not for me. Just get out of my way and let me do my duty.
The foods, chemicals, and other substances I put into my body are my responsibility. If they make me obese, insane, or dead, it was my poor choice that did it. Don't kick in my neighbors' doors or kidnap their children to protect me from these things.
It is my responsibility to educate my children. Don't demand a ransom from my neighbors' houses on my behalf to pay for your government indoctrination centers. Don't expect me to train my children to salivate at the tone of your bells, either.
It is my responsibility to find food and shelter without taking money stolen from my neighbors by agents of the state. That may mean I live in my car and eat weeds that grow wild. It wouldn't be the first time. I will try to avoid that situation from now on, but if it can't be avoided, it is still preferable to living off the fruits of coercion.
Obviously, this is not a complete list. I am not suggesting that your list would be the same as mine, but I imagine there would be substantial overlap.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It is my responsibility to watch out for drunk or otherwise dangerous drivers while I travel. I do not ask the state to conduct immoral checkpoints on my behalf. I may not see all danger coming, but neither can the state protect me from all potential dangers. I'd rather take my chances with random accidents than with intentional bullies with badges, attitudes, and roadblocks.
It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family from attackers and thieves. I do not need the state to use its enforcers to oppress the community, or the world, pretending that it does this for my "safety". If they continue to do this, it is not for me. Just get out of my way and let me do my duty.
The foods, chemicals, and other substances I put into my body are my responsibility. If they make me obese, insane, or dead, it was my poor choice that did it. Don't kick in my neighbors' doors or kidnap their children to protect me from these things.
It is my responsibility to educate my children. Don't demand a ransom from my neighbors' houses on my behalf to pay for your government indoctrination centers. Don't expect me to train my children to salivate at the tone of your bells, either.
It is my responsibility to find food and shelter without taking money stolen from my neighbors by agents of the state. That may mean I live in my car and eat weeds that grow wild. It wouldn't be the first time. I will try to avoid that situation from now on, but if it can't be avoided, it is still preferable to living off the fruits of coercion.
Obviously, this is not a complete list. I am not suggesting that your list would be the same as mine, but I imagine there would be substantial overlap.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)