Who Defines Your Liberty?

Yesterday, I was pointing out that many people get their definition of "freedom" from government and its indoctrination centers (called "schools"). Government wouldn't know "freedom" if it stepped in it, and would avoid it if it did.

This makes me think of the virus my computer recently became infected with. It masqueraded as a solution to the problem it caused. Just like government does. Look at recent and ongoing events if you doubt me.

Economic disaster? Blame the "lack of regulation" instead of seeing that it is caused by the exact opposite: too much government meddling in the market.

Too much "crime"? Look at who empowers the violent criminals: government and its drug laws and victim disarmament "laws" lead the list of causes.

Government redefines "freedom" to mean whatever suits its purpose (and doesn't threaten its power). It tells you what freedom is, and how to use it. It tells you the price of liberty, and insists you can only purchase it from the state. Don't let the virus sell you the false cure.

Do You Value Liberty?

I think most people love freedom. At least, they claim to love freedom. That is good, but it isn't nearly enough.

I, too, "love liberty" but that is merely the beginning. I also recognize its value. I could "love" gold; appreciate its beauty or lustre, without knowing what its value is, or what its uses are. The same goes for liberty. A blind "love" that is based on ignorance or is not backed up by actions is worthless.

To appreciate the value of freedom, you must know what it takes to purchase it. You must buy it for yourself. No one can "give" freedom to you, nor can anyone else "fight for your freedom". Anyone who claims to have done so is lying to you in order to brainwash you into giving up some of your liberty, either to them or to their "masters".

In order to really value liberty, you must see what it can be used for, and you must put it into action. Words are easy; actions are important. If you don't "live your liberty", you don't value it enough. It will be easy for power-hungry tyrants to steal it from you. Make freedom a habit. Assume Liberty in all situations, rather than assuming you will need to ask permission from someone.

There is also the problem that many people don't even know what freedom or liberty really are. They think freedom is whatever government (or its schools) tell them it is. It isn't. Tune in tomorrow for my thoughts on this.

Initiation of Force

Part of the reason for this blog is to educate myself; show me where I may be wrong. So, for your perusal I offer this from a discussion on The War on Guns:

TJP- "I'm a law-and-order kinda guy. I can think of examples--from disturbing
the peace to murder--where some stranger (including me) may be required to fill
the role of initiator, because the injured party is indisposed."

With "disturbing the peace" there is no "injured party". With actual aggression, if the injured party is indisposed, you would not be initiating force if you step in for the victim.

"Are there universally understood indicators of the initiation of force?"

Yes. "Force" is the exertion of physical power, or, I would say, the credible threat to use such. "Initiate" means to begin or originate. So, an "initiation of force" is beginning an exertion of physical power, or a credible threat to do so.

"Does your answer take into account that some people understand the display of a weapon to be an act of aggression, no matter the context?"

Those people are wrong. Seeing a weapon does not constitute a credible threat to exert physical power. You can't worry about the people who simply want to be in a knot about everything. There is no right to not be offended.

If you are seriously interested, I suggest you check out The On Line Freedom Academy.
_______________________________________

I recommend you read the entire comment thread. A big point of contention was that "disturbing the peace" IS an initiation of force. So, maybe I am/was wrong about this. I think there is a big difference between being annoyed or offended and being injured. If I am wrong and you are being "injured" by someone disturbing your peace, then it would obviously be your right to step in and defend yourself. If not, it would be wrong.

There have been other cases where I suspect I may have a higher threshold for annoyance than most people. Or, maybe it is that so many things annoy me that I have learned how to control my responses. This may just be a case where you have to do what you think is right, and deal with any consequences later. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need to call the cops on anyone; certainly not for bothering me. I am not saying it could never happen, but I do know that I would feel dirty afterwards if I did it.

Let me know if you have other opinions on this, and I'll keep thinking it over in my own mind. I am confident that there is a right solution, and I intend to find it.

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

Looking for the Good

A lot of times, whenever a new figure emerges on the political scene, I try to see the good in them. That usually comes back to haunt me, since no one can ever live up to the standards of myself or other anarchists. But I do try. The example in the link is just the latest person to crop up, but not one I have an opinion on one way or another.

The sad thing is how often I get chewed out for saying something nice about someone. Seriously, I have no desire to live my life looking for things to dislike about everyone. It would be an exhausting and lonely existence. I am learning to keep my mouth shut in most cases.

I do know that no one who gets elected is ever going to be a philosophically pure libertarian or anarchist. It's just the nature of the "game". They will all do things that are horrible, if they haven't already. Or they will associate with some really unsavory statist monsters. However, a lot of people have some things we can appreciate as long as we don't get caught up and lose sight of the goal.

Worship no one, no matter how wonderful they may seem at first glance. Be willing to praise people when they are right. Don't wallow in a hate-fest regarding the people you just can't say anything good about. Some people are just beyond help.

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

Blame Sasquatch

The socialists in government and in the media who say that the current economic mess was caused by the free market would probably also blame sasquatch for killing their chickens. We know it was their own dog doing the killing, just as we know government meddling caused, and is still causing, the economic collapse. Denial is alive and well, and surrounds us.

The government supporters need to realize that something as rare as the free market couldn't possibly have destroyed the entire economy. It takes something ubiquitous, like government control, regulation, meddling, and interference.

The free market can be as elusive as sasquatch; reports of sightings come in from everywhere, but when you try to track it down, at least in the places you are told to look, nothing is found. It isn't found in Detroit automakers. It isn't found at Walmart. Corporatism is not the free market. Protectionism is not the free market. They are the exact opposite. Government can't advance the free market by any action other than by going away.

Still, the free market can be found, usually when and where you least expect it, in back alleys, at flea markets, or at your neighbor's farm. Often right under the state's nose, and in violation of its "laws". It is just out of sight of the prying eyes of those who would protect you from the "unfairness" of it all. It's time to poke out those eyes and connect with, or build, your own free market where you live.

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

"Also- I Can Kill You With My Brain.."

Another bizarre Government-supporter claim is that "You don't know how many terrorist attacks have been prevented by the government; there hasn't been one since '9-11'".

Looking at this claim about all the terrorist attacks that have been "prevented", I'd like some evidence from someone other than the people who gain power or prestige from the newly erected police state. I truly think that if there had been any of these hidden "terrorist cells" in America, they would have struck on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, while people were distracted. That no further terrorist attacks happened is pretty good evidence that there were no "cells".

I don't doubt that there are small groups of angry people plotting death and destruction (there's Congress, obviously), but that doesn't mean they can carry out the plans regardless of the KGB.... oops, I meant "Homeland Security".... violating the rights of everyone else to keep us "safe".

Anyone can make claims about things that didn't happen. I could make the claim that I have prevented asteroid strikes from happening. Using the awesome power of my mind, I have deflected incoming asteroids before astronomers saw them, manipulating the very fabric of space and time, thus saving countless lives, and perhaps even civilization itself. I can point to the fact that there have been no major asteroid strikes in recent centuries as proof of my claim. That claim is about as believable as the government's claim that it has averted terrorist attacks since 2001. I don't believe them either.


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

Today's "Gun Rights Examiner"

If you are interested in what gun owners will soon be facing, at the direction of the probable next Attorney General, read today's Gun Rights Examiner column. Lock and load.

The Language of Tyranny

Some of the weirdest arguments in favor of government come from those who are afraid of every little thing. Such as those who claim that without a "strong" (tyrannical) government, "We would be speaking German now."

OK. So let's look at this rationally. Do you really think it matters if you and your local tyrannical police-state representatives and enforcers speak German or English? I don't. My ancestors probably didn't lose an awful lot of sleep worrying about what language I would be speaking now, in 2009. I know that the claim is short-hand, used instead of thinking, for the fear that without the US fedgov's wars, we would be living under a Nazi police state now, instead of the US police state we currently have.

That's highly doubtful. My feeling is that the Nazi police state, had it overrun America, would have collapsed by now anyway. People would have been much less cooperative with a sudden invasion than they have been with the slow and subtle creep of the socialist police state we have experienced. Our frogs are boiling and we don't smell the soup.

It's the same with any other group the government exploits for its own purposes of inciting fear. There is less danger from sudden invasion than there is from a slow and steady erosion of liberty. And who is responsible for that erosion? Not Muslims, "illegal aliens", or terrorists; but your local mayor, cops, and council members; bureaucrats and politicians at the federal level; and everyone who goes along instead of opposing them.

Face it, in America even today, with our 20,000+ victim disarmament ("gun control") "laws", an invading force and its native quislings would be getting shot from every side. They wouldn't stand a chance, not even if "laws" kept such acts "illegal". Yet, the same outcome is being deviously implemented by "your friends" in government. "Friends" who protect themselves with "laws" that forbid the very actions the founders of America believed necessary for ensuring liberty. And gullible people go along and support these domestic enemies at every turn. How's that for a quiet invasion?

So, tell me again how it matters which language is being spoken?


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

Hypnotized by Obama?

I have been very surprised at the number of "libertarians" who have seemingly fallen under the spell of Obama's smooth voice. They seem to want to "give him a chance" by ignoring his personal political history and his admitted agenda.

Obama is nothing to celebrate. All the "change" nonsense and the "new beginning" garbage is thinly disguised racism, and nothing more. Look beyond the man's surface to his socialist core. He wants your loyalty, but will not respect your individual human rights. All this talk of "unity" is just "get-on-the-bandwagon propaganda" designed to make you forget that he is not a friend of liberty in any sense of the phrase.

Bush was BAD; I am glad he is gone. But make no mistake, Obama is no better. He is not a better person. His motives are no more pure. He doesn't value liberty any more than any other president has. What he is, is a more compelling speaker. That makes him more dangerous. Remember the compelling speakers of the past, such as in Germany in the 1930s? Don't get hypnotized. Stay alert. See the reality of the soothing words and the comforting tone of voice. See through the deception. Don't be distracted from the goal: ALL liberty, for EVERYONE, everywhere, for ALL time.

Do "Rights" Exist?

I have read some other freedom-lovers' opinions that "rights" don't really exist other than as a notion that has been indoctrinated into the minds of people. I considered that and eventually came to the conclusion that I disagree. It has taken me a bit of thinking to decide why, exactly, I disagree.

The reality of rights doesn't just take away the state's authority, although it definitely does. There is more.

"Rights" are those things which you can do without harming any innocent person, and that no reasonable, peaceful person would ever try to prevent you from doing, although you can be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Some rights are more important to liberty than others.

"Rights" are also the thing that frightens the state and its supporters so much that they will constantly try to convince you that: "RIGHTS: Liberties granted and regulated by the Governing body." I actually copied that quote directly from a discussion I was having with a person who kept trying to bait-and-switch. That is either an utterance of total ignorance or an absolute blatant lie. Statists are so frightened because rights trump any authority the state can claim. Their lies, ignorance, and fear don't change anything, though.

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

Another Virus

I seem to have fallen prey to another computer virus. It isn't letting me access my emails, so it I don't respond to comments on here or emails you have sent, I am not ignoring you intentionally.

This virus calls itself "Antivirus 2009" and pretends to be from Microsoft. When I roll the mouse over any of its links, they lead to "microsoft.securityinfohelp.com/..." with other things after the slash. But when I type that in, without all the stuff after the slash, it either takes me to the microsoft page or it blocks the page with a warning from itself. Even the pages it allows me to access, it puts a warning bar across the top of the page with a little warning shield and saying "The page you are opening is probably contains spyware, adware, etc.. Your system might be at risk, Click here to protect your system with Antivirus 2009."

Well, I have now gotten into my email through a roundabout way, but I don't know how long it will last. Wish me luck.

UPDATE: McAfee's virus removal service got rid of it, after everything else I tried failed. Thanks for all the suggestions, and thanks to McAfee!

FreedomPolitics

A new news and opinion website for politically minded libertarians has recently launched. FreedomPolitics is from the folks at Freedom Communications, which owns the local newspaper hereabouts.

I know from personal experience, these are good people. Check them out.

Us vs. Them: Some Thoughts on the "Punishment Mentality"

I recently participated in some online debates surrounding someone who was arrested for something which I consider a bogus "crime", but which is very unpopular among the general population. I get very disgusted by all the neanderthals out there who hope for the person (and me -for pointing out the stupidity of "the law") to get raped to death in prison. But it does get me to thinking.

My feeling is that this is a tribal thing. Those who imagine themselves of the side of "Law and Order" enjoy seeing someone get defeated by "their team". They cheer enthusiastically without considering the reality of the situation. Never mind that at any moment "their team" could turn on them and they could find themselves on the other side. They don't see that unpleasant little fact, and would never admit it if they did.

But then, I get happy at the thought of the Nuremberg II trials putting the criminals of the out-of-control US government in the hot seat too. Although, I think the difference is that I would be more than happy to let those pathetic parasites go live their lives in peace once they were stripped of any power to harm innocent people ever again. At least without facing instant retribution. I don't really want "punishment"; I simply want the crimes to stop.


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

A Laugh for Today. No, Not THAT One

In celebrating the absurdity of the state-worship circus happening today, I offer this:

I found this "definition" of "libertarianism" on Uncyclopedia. It's good to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

I was shocked to see they have a picture of a "typical libertarian" during his internet time there close to the bottom of the page. Did they sneak a camera into my compound and catch me off-guard? Did DHS help them? Where was my tinfoil beanie?

They also have a "definition" of "Anarchy" which is even more hilariously off-base than the definition of libertarianism. They seem to have made the common error of mixing up "anarchy" and "nihilism", just like everyone else. It's good they didn't get a photo of me celebrating my anarchism! That normally involves capybaras and body paint.


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

Wanted: A Cave

I admit it: I am depressed.

Recently the overwhelming realization has hit me that very few people want to live free. While that won't stop me, it does mean that I know I probably will not be living in a free society at any point of my life. I would like to have company.

I have never claimed that freedom will be easy for everyone. What can you expect when the majority of people have been trained from birth to depend on the state in some way? What I do claim is that it will be better for everyone who does not intend to live the life of a parasite. No other philosophy can honestly make that claim. I do not seek to force people to be free; such an idea is so full of contradictions as to be ridiculous. I do expect to be allowed to live free, the way I choose, and will resist any attempts to stop me. I expect no better than coercion from the dependant and stubborn statists around me.

That isn't the worst of it.

The thing that confuses and hurts me the most are the people who claim to want liberty, but who will search for any excuse they can find to hide from it. These are the people supposedly on my side! It has become obvious that even they want nothing to do with liberty. The very idea either paralyzes them with fear or it sends them into a frenzy of "but"s. OK, I get it: you are scared of freedom and will do anything you can to stop it from becoming the "norm". Fine. I am not going to violate the ZAP and try to force you to grow up. Still, it is disappointing in the extreme to see liberty denigrated and replaced by a statism-lite in the debate for freedom.

Maybe it is time for me to find a secluded cabin or a cave and withdraw from civilization. I think it would do me good. Anyone have a nice cave they could loan or rent me?

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

"Say No to Cops"

From The War on Guns, I found this article: "Say No to Cops". I guess its time for the tyranny deniers/cop lovers to send me death threats again.

Homosexuality and Rights

First of all, no one's sexual orientation is any of my business unless that person decides to make it my business. I don't care unless you need me to care for some reason. And then it is probably still irrelevant.

Every human on earth has the exact same rights as every other human. There are no qualifications, no tests, no legitimate "licenses".

A person's sexual orientation or preference has absolutely no bearing on his or her rights. None.

It is wrong to beg for permission from government to marry whoever you want, although I realize that gay rights activists are simply trying to level the playing field. I understand that desire, while recognizing that the "playing field" is the wrong locality. It is a diversion.

Marriage licenses are a relic of racist bigotry even at their best, and need to be disposed of. Find the one(s) you want to marry, make an agreement, and then get on with your lives. No permission needed from anyone. It is statist evil to have "laws" that reward or penalize anyone for things that are no one else's business. Get government OUT of all our lives, unless it is to protect the innocent from the parasitic aggressors (something I think government is spectacularly ill-equipped to do). Gay people are not harming anyone; being offended is not being harmed. You have no right to not be offended.

I have never had a gay person try to seduce me or "convert" me. I have certainly never had one try to sexually coerce me. I can't say the same about straight females (but I am not complaining, mind you).


This rant was inspired by this opinion-piece. He has deleted a few of my comments on other subjects, so any comments I have previously posted on this article may be gone by now.

Added: I see new comments are still disappearing about as quickly as they are being posted.

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

"Terrorists": The Least of My Fears

"Terrorists": those who use violence against innocent non-governmental people in order to cause societal terror so that the government will change its official policy. Doesn't work if you don't fear the little vermin, now does it?

I have a hard time thinking of ANYTHING I fear less than "terrorists". In fact, since they cause absolutely no "terror" whatsoever in me, they don't even exist in my universe. How about you?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, afraid of "terrorists". Funny, but those who accept the responsibility of being armed and prepared to protect those around them are called "paranoid" by the very people too afraid to be free. Who's paranoid?

So, Mr. Presidolt, don't use an imaginary "problem" to excuse overrunning my home with your thuggish stormtroopers. Don't use them as an excuse for violating more of my rights. Don't turn this society into a police-state on account of me. If you do, you are lying and have become the very thing you pretend to hate. YOU are a TERRORIST. You'd better turn yourself into your "non-torturing" buddies at Guantanamo Bay so that they can help you see the error of your ways.

My Journey to Anarchism

I'm not perfect, and despite what some might think, I've never believed I am. This life is a journey, and I am not "there" by any stretch of the imagination.

I've always been what could be called "anti-government", but I used to make certain exceptions for things like the environment or "justice". That was because of holes in my thinking processes. I have since patched those holes. You can't fix problems with initiated force or theft. Even if you have the illusion of the problem being fixed, worse problems will be caused.

As a consequence, I try to understand those who still think coercion can be right under some circumstances. It can be bewildering to watch the mental gymnastics used to excuse such things. I guess I was never so sold on the idea that I expended much effort in trying to defend it. I abandoned any support for the state quite easily. So, while I still think supporters of the state are wrong, I try to remember that at one time, I might have been nodding my head in agreement with them. I keep believing that, given time, the intelligent ones will come around.

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

Making Assertions

I assert it is wrong to walk up to a stranger who has done you no harm and stab him. I assert it is wrong to take another person's property against her will.

If you need these things to be proven, you are out of luck. I can not "prove" these assertions in the same way a physicist can "prove" his hypothesis or a mathematician can "prove" his theorem. Now, that doesn't mean some philosopher hasn't formulated some incomprehensible mess that his followers hail as "proof", just that, even if he has, I don't feel like chasing it down. I don't need to.

I certainly don't depend upon consensus to show me that my assertions are correct. I know they are. Maybe it is encoded in my DNA. I suspect if it weren't, humans would have been extinct long ago. I also suspect that anyone who doubts these assertions does so for less than "nice" reasons.

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