Just a thought....

I think that some day, people will look back and be astounded that we ever tolerated government roads.

"Free Market"? Hardly!

"Free market". The term refers to voluntary interaction and trade without government interference or coercion. Seems pretty straightforward, right?

There is an organization I recently became aware of called "The Free Market Foundation". They are not concerned with freedom, but with using government to promote their brand of religion. They do advocate keeping government out of the areas where government intervention would offend their beliefs, but as soon as government meddling can advance their agenda, they run to government.

They fight against the ACLU, which is battling government in many areas. The ACLU definitely has its blind spots as far as supporting some rights while ignoring others, but the Free Market Foundation opposes them because it opposes allowing people to exercise their basic human rights which happen to offend the group's sensibilities. This is mainly because these "free marketeers" wish to get government to support discrimination against gay people. The ACLU also tries to keep the government in compliance with the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and establishment of none; something the Free Market Foundation opposes. This is not "free market" but government intervention. A group really concerned with the free market would only be advocating the removal of laws, not the passage of new ones.

They have the right to call their organization anything they choose, of course. I also have the right to point out their hypocrisy. How would they appreciate a group of Iraqi Muslims calling themselves "The American Christian Foundation"? Probably not too much, and they would probably run to the government to force them to change their name.

I wrote to them pointing out their "error", but I never got a response. In my mind, that just compounds the dishonesty.


..................................

Let's Be Animals

As a way to survive (and succeed) while we wait for the state to implode, I suggest we behave like wild animals. No, I don't think we should eat our young or one another. What I mean is that we should simply live our lives and ignore the shenanigans in government unless we are cornered.

Animals don't care or worry about who imagines himself the Ruler of America. They don't concern themselves with "laws". All that matters to them is getting on with the business of living. That includes biting, clawing, or flogging anyone who tries to trap them. Don't be a pet or farm animal who grovels or submits to a fleecing. Cling to your hide and defend your territory. And ignore the flatulence wafting from DC or more local sources.

"Wow! The Renaissance of America!"

Here is another mention of my writings, this time in Christian Butterbach's blog: "Wow! The Renaissance of America!"

"The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs"

Here, from a non-libertarian site, is their list of "The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs". I'm not sure what criteria they used to choose, but I was happy to see myself on there. Of course, they included me with the "politicians". Eww! The campaign is over so if I ever was one, I'm not one anymore!

"Forever Stamps"

Do you notice that the US government assumes it will exist forever? I ran across one of those "Forever Stamps" today. You know, the ones that are supposed to be good "forever" no matter what the price of mailing a letter climbs to. I think there is some baseless assuming going on there. "Forever Stamps" are good "forever" only if the US government lasts forever. The courier company that replaces the government monopoly after the US is gone will not honor them. Why should they?

Why would the US government and its supporters make such an irrational and silly assumption about its permanence? Probably because they honestly can't imagine the alternative. But there has never been a government that lasts "forever", and I seriously doubt there ever will be. Few last more than a couple centuries. It just isn't rational to ignore this fact. The more a government meddles, the less likely it is to last much longer. The more strict a government is, the sooner it collapses. And the less mercy its "organs" and collaborators receive.

That doesn't mean that a free society is the inevitable outcome, but it does mean that to make that happen, some plans need to be made. Now. I'm making mine; how about you?

.................................................

An Instinct for Liberty

I hope I am not alone in this, and judging by what I read from a few other people out there, I suspect I am not, but I feel as though I have an instinct for liberty. It just seems to be a natural part of my existence. I am not talking about anything mystical, but a natural, inborn understanding of what liberty really is and why it is important to protect. Read the rest

Life, Love, and Liberty

This is a different kind of post. It is more philosophical than I normally write. You may think I am completely off-base, but I can only judge this by own life. Think what you will.

I think that in order to be happy and fulfilled, humans need life, love, and liberty. When I say "life", I don't mean mere existence, but "A Life"; a "Purpose". Those are the minimum requirements. You can have one or two of those and still be relatively content, but without all three, you may seek a substitute for that missing component.

The substitutions that come first are entertainment, sex, and money. Entertainment can make you forget that you don't have much of a life. After all, living vicariously can make you feel more alive, can't it? Sex can take away the pain of living without love, since it is usually a part of a life that has enough love in it. And money can buy you a lot of privileges that can be almost indistinguishable from real liberty. The only difference is that when the money is gone, so is the "freedom". Yet there is another level down from these substitutes.

The last level can be the saddest. I am not saying these things are necessarily bad, just that if they are your only outlet for those higher level needs, they are not really satisfying. This is the level of diversions, porn, and debt.

Diversions may not really entertain you, but only occupy your time. They keep your mind and hands busy and keep you from thinking about how bad your life is. If your life is normally OK, then a diversion now and then doesn't hurt anything. In that case, it is just a way to spend your down-time. At the worst, they are the busy-work you do while waiting to die. Porn is sex without human contact. While those who have real love can enjoy porn, to have it as your only outlet is tragic. Then there is debt. It is pretending to be able to buy things that you really can't afford. It might give you a little temporary illusion of freedom while it bolts the chains around your ankles. You are betting on an uncertain future.

I would say that most of us have dipped into the substitutes for Life, Love, and Liberty from time to time. It is my hope that you and I do not end up spending our lives down there.

...............................................

Rights Violators

Why is it that most people seem more interested in taking rights away from others than they are in securing their own rights? This is just an observation from the recent election. If it weren't for the promises of keeping some "other people" from "legally" exercising their rights, there wouldn't have been many political ads out there.

Whether it is "gay rights", abortion, gun ownership, migrants, or economics, as long as no one is being coerced, their lives are not your business. Liberty will never be increased while we keep fighting over keeping others from living their own lives as they see fit. Live free and mind your own business around others.



----------------------

Revisionist History

Government always lies.

I grew up surrounded by conservatives to whom "revisionist history" was blasphemy. As I have since discovered, it should probably be called "revealed history". History gets revised as new information, long suppressed by those in government who would be exposed, becomes available. Often because the perpe-traitors die off.

As a somewhat frivolous example, the government's OFFICIAL story about "The Roswell Crash" has changed multiple times. If no one had pressed the issue, the government would not have bothered changing its story. Well, other than changing the original official government revelation that a crashed "disc" had been recovered. And, for the record, I don't think an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in Roswell in 1947. But I do know the government has lied about the event ever since it happened. Each current version is said to be the final word... until the next version, anyway.

How many other events were allowed to go unexamined and therefore remained unchanged from the original, dishonest, version? How many have been examined, but the findings marginalized? The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? JFK? Viet Nam? Waco? The OKC explosion? 9/11?

How many evil people have been undeservedly honored by history? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Or all of the above.

The reason history gets revised is because "history is written by the winners". Government always initially lies about an event when the truth would make them look bad (which the truth will always do for a group based upon coercion and theft). The government that "wins" gets its version of the story made "official". The lies become a part of the cultural mythology and are defended with the fervor of a religion. People have a need to cling to those lies and myths in order to not feel they have thrown their lives away supporting an evil, dishonest institution. But the truth is the truth. Sometimes it is painful. Let it go.


________________________

Probably Not What They Bargained For...

Here's some "hope and change" for you: Hooray for Obama!

Will You Remember THIS 5th of November?

An opportunity is knocking. This could be the beginning (or the middle) of the end for government. If we care enough to make it happen. Won't you contribute to the movement? Encourage all your electorally disappointed friends and family to withdraw support of the illegitimate government now.

Now that the election is past, it is time to realize that government can only rule you if you let it. Don't. People should NOT be afraid of "their" government; governments should be afraid of the people. Make them afraid. Get a backbone. Stop bowing. Stop apologizing. Stop obeying. Stop paying any attention to government at any level. They are the bad guys. Remind them of that fact if they force you to. Ignore them otherwise.

We outnumber them. We always have and always will.

____________________

Election Day: No One is "Fit To Be President"

There is no one on the planet who is "fit to be president". Not. One. Person. Voting for someone is going against this simple truth. When you vote, you are saying that you think it is OK for someone to rule others. It is not.

Military "service" does not qualify a person to rule others. Being "dog catcher" does not qualify someone to rule others. Being elected to lower positions and working your way up the ladder of corruption does not qualify someone to rule others. "Experience" does not qualify someone to rule others. In fact, I think all the above should automatically disqualify a candidate. Only insanity would make a person imagine that it is OK for them to rule others. Insane people should not be elevated into positions of power over others where they can do harm.

I include myself in the above assessment. I am not fit to rule others. If I ever believed I would actually be elected when I asked for your votes, I would be insane and/or evil. I still believe it is best to not vote. I would not condemn you for voting, since I understand the desperation. Write in my name to satisfy your urge to vote so that you do no harm. But.... Voting doesn't help. It doesn't protect liberty. It doesn't protect your rights. The results would be thrown out on some technicality if they actually made any difference towards increasing liberty in any meaningful way. Or the results would just be ignored. Examples abound.

The only things that should possibly be voted upon are things that no one disputes should be done and that don't violate anyone's rights in any way. And then those who do not agree should not be forced to participate or finance those actions. The voting should really just be a way to say "I approve this and I volunteer to chip in to pay for it."

I'll let you in on a "secret": Big government is sure to win the election. You and I are sure to lose if we continue to participate and care. It is a done deal. The system is hopelessly rigged.

If you vote, you shouldn't complain about the results. After all, you have agreed that the system is legitimate, and you have agreed to abide by the results whether "your side" wins or loses. So any disaster that results is in your lap.

Now, instead of voting, get out there and do something real with your life.



..........................................

Voting - My Libertarian / Anarchist Opinion

Voting is like choosing your next meal from the tank of a portable toilet behind the downtown bus station.

Enjoy.


_________________

Today in The Libertarian Enterprise

Do you get those ridiculous emails that try to scare you about immigrants by giving you all the statistics about how bad they are? Me too. Normally I just delete them, but this time I decided to do something different. And then I passed it along to The Libertarian Enterprise.
See the results here.

Drunk Driving

The core of this post is taken from an email conversation I had with someone a while back. I got to thinking about those police-state abominations called "checkpoints" and decided I should put this out there for all to see.

The problem isn't driving with a blood-alcohol content ("BAC") of a certain level, but causing harm by driving when you are "impaired". Impairment can come in many forms, not just alcohol or chemical related, but emotional, physiological, distractions, and other "problems". A "standard" BAC is not possible or reasonable. Anyone who causes damage, injuries, or death for any reason should be held accountable. Punishing people for potentially causing harm isn't good, not even if you think they are likely to cause harm.

That is how the anti-gun crowd operates. The fact that other people do bad things is no excuse to violate my rights in even the slightest way.

I think that someone who knows they have a drinking problem might, when they are sober, choose to install an ignition breathalyzer to prevent ruining their own lives. Especially if their insurance company (the only ones who should set any such standards anyway) were to give a discount for it. I also envision car companies in a free society making more crashproof cars and offering different options to defend against accidents. Would people be willing to pay the extra amount? I don't know. The thing is the cost should be borne by the ones who wish to pay it, and not by the ones who don't. As it is, we ALL pay the price for everyone else's stupidity, both real and potential.

Why couldn't cops, if they must get involved, simply help the drunks get home instead of turning it into an opportunity to shove someone around, kidnap them, and rob them? Is it a "power thing"?

Many people today hate insurance companies, and don't want them having anything to do with driving. I think the biggest problem with insurance companies comes from the state requiring insurance. If they had to compete for your business, other than just assuming you have to pick someone, I think they would be much more innovative and helpful in their dealings with customers. They would have much more leeway in what behaviors they penalized and rewarded. Some things obviously increase their financial risk, and that is why they would reasonably charge more for someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. However, you might have such a good driving record that it would more than offset their risk and cause them to give you a discount. I don't really know what all might happen.... BUT, in a FREE market you would probably pay a tiny fraction of your current expense no matter what. That is the effect of eliminating the monopoly.

I would pay more for a car with active collision avoidance technology. Even though I don't drink. I have almost fallen asleep at the wheel too many times. That would also help pedestrians who would otherwise be in danger of being run down by drunk drivers. That is part of what I mean by "crash proof". I am also thinking that there are other ways of protecting the occupants and other vehicles that haven't been implemented yet. I wouldn't mind having a car that could drive itself as long as I could override that option if I wanted to. I have issues with letting others have control (even a machine).

As always, I am sure these are not the only solutions to the problem, since the market is more responsive, and people are much more clever, than is usually recognized. If a problem exists, it can be solved without violating rights. Once again, government is NOT the solution.
__________

Added: Eric Sundwall posted this link in the Haloscan comments and I think it needs to be read: Legalize Drunk Driving.

-----------------------

Hearsay or Observation

Authoritarians, both left and right, base all their fear about a certain candidate on hearsay: "He said if he got elected he would.....do this horrible thing! I just heard about it from Statist News Channel" Oh No!! Gasp! Or: "I'm afraid of what he might do if he is elected! You know how those people are!" Please.....

Libertarian types base our assessment of a candidate on his observed attitudes about liberty and on his demonstrated respect for individual rights. It is much a more reliable and honest method. I like "easier and more accurate", don't you?

Ignore the gossip and cut throught the crap. Does the candidate think it is OK to tell others how they must live even if they are harming no one? Then that tells you all you need to know.

Spreading the Lust for Liberty

This blog is pointless if it never gets read by people who are not already sold on the idea of liberty. "Thank you" to those of you who have helped me get readers by alerting friends (and enemies) to my blog. I appreciate it a lot. If those of us who have a strong longing for liberty don't spread the desire to those who may be on the fence, we won't get very far toward a free society.

If you can string words together, start a blog. If I can do it, it must not be very difficult. If thinking up subjects to write about on a regular basis seems too daunting, there are other ways to spread this "liberty virus". Comment on blogs or on newspaper websites. You can find lots of news items that could use a libertarian or anarchistic perspective to counter all the deluded cheerleaders-for-the-state.

If you can't seem to find the words to express what you are thinking and feeling, then post links to libertarian blogs and websites everywhere you can. There are lots of good ones to spread around (check out my links on the sidebar). The main thing is to expose people who would otherwise never learn about it to liberty, its philosophy, and its ideas. Every little bit helps.



*******************************

"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street"

A good article By Michael Shermer: The Welfare Queens of Wall Street.

Candidates Exposing Themselves to Libertarians

I have noticed a humorous thing about political ads. Whenever Candidate A tries to show how evil Candidate B is, he always inadvertently exposes his own evil. "Candidate B has tried to destroy the sanctity of marriage" is code speech for "I, Candidate A, don't believe that all people have the same rights."

When they say "Candidate B advocates the redistribution of wealth", what that tells us is that Candidate A also advocates the same thing, just in a different way, and he hopes you won't realize that fact. Otherwise he would call for an end to all taxation and welfare, and he isn't doing that, is he?

When Candidate A announces that Candidate B doesn't support "reasonable regulation" of guns, I would love to see the definition of "reasonable". I would also love to see, in writing, where Candidate B recognizes the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, in any way they desire, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Anything other is a restriction, and is way beyond "reasonable".

Most things should not be up for debate, from either side. "Hands off my rights, you meddling parasites!"

For every political ad, there is a clear exposure of both candidates and their absolutely evil opinions about key issues.

See how being libertarian frees you up to see the truth?

--------------------------------