Criminals and Outlaws

Since it is absolutely impossible to live without breaking the "laws" the government has invented, that means that we are all "criminals" in the eyes of the state. There are two classes of "criminal": those who have actually initiated force (economic or physical) and those who are only guilty of violating some counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in reality.

Of those "criminals" who are only guilty of violating counterfeit "laws" there are two groups: those who are still under the delusion that they are "good, law-abiding citizens", and those who know the score, and accept their status as "outlaws".

These "Outlaws" are the only honest people left. I happily count myself among them.

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

Blood Money

I don't want to "give" any of my money or other property to the government, and I don't want government to "give me back" any money taken from others. I am not "entitled" to stolen money, not even to "pay back" money that has been stolen from me. I'll get into why I believe this in a minute.

This is the fallacy behind "Social Security", tax refunds, stimulus checks, and anything else government "gives" the people. This money is either stolen, or it was printed up out of thin air. If you or I did this, the government would call us counterfeiters. And they would be right, although they would excuse their own actions in spite of there being no real difference. Even if it was stolen from you originally, it is still tainted by the time you get it back. It's a difficult moral dilemma. What was stolen from you 6 months ago is gone. Spent. What the government "gives" you back was stolen from someone else more recently. And since everything government does is backed up by a monopoly on force, and ultimately by threat of death, the money was stolen at gun-point. It is blood money.

The same goes for any wages paid by any government entity. That money was stolen from someone, somewhere. This is why I think it would be best, if you do choose to work for government in any capacity, that you do so on a volunteer basis. If it is really that important to do, it will be done by volunteers, right?

Now, would I scold you for accepting these "benefits"? No. Maybe your understanding of morality and ethics differs from mine. But as for me, no thanks. Keep your blood money.

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

Inevitability

It seems that people expect things to always be like they are now. Maybe small changes here and there, more technology obviously, but basic institutions and such staying pretty much the same. That isn't going to happen no matter what.

Stasis is highly unlikely over the long-term. Changes WILL happen. It is inevitable. The question is, are you going to help the changes tip toward more freedom, or toward more tyranny? The steps you take in your daily life shift the balance more than you think. More than even actions the government takes. After all, they can do nothing if we stand against them.

Relying on cops tips us toward tyranny. "Rugged individualism" tips the scales towards freedom. Behaving like a jerk and not taking responsibility for your life and actions causes a shift towards tyranny. Accepting responsibility shifts the balance more towards liberty. Abusing the rights you have hurts freedom, while using your rights wisely strengthens freedom.

You and I, and everything we do, has a profound effect on liberty for all. Nothing any of us do is irrelevant. So, please, think before you act. Because change is coming. It is inevitable. The direction the change takes depends on what each and every one of us do.

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

The Story of My Run for President

It was suggested by Anne Cleveland of An Octogenarian's Blog that I write the story of my presidential campaign. Bits and pieces of the story are here in earlier posts, and I hope I don't forget or leave out important parts, but here it is.

I had given up on "politics", but liked L. Neil Smith enough that I was wanting him to run for the LP nomination for 2004. He decided against it, but endorsed Michael Badnarik. I read Mr. Badnarik's website and really liked what I saw, so I wrote him. He wrote back and eventually we spoke on the phone a couple of times. I really liked him and couldn't find any point where we disagreed, so I tried to help his campaign and encouraged my friends to look into his campaign and consider supporting him. Against the odds, he actually won the LP's nomination, but didn't do well in the election. The day after the election, I woke up thinking that if a libertarian wasn't going to win anyway, I could lose an election as nicely as anyone else could. So, I decided I might as well run for president; after all, I had 4 years to build momentum. Like a glacier.

That night, I sat down and made a Geocities page, detailing what I would do as president. The same campaign promises are still posted on my KentForLiberty site. Then I went on the Claire Files forum (now The Mental Militia Forums) and made my first public announcement.

I joked and discussed my campaign with a few people, not taking it very seriously. I did get a rubber stamp in order to put my Geocities website, shortened through notlong.com, on FRNs. If you run across any bills stamped "kent2008.notlong.com", that is my work.

Things went slowly for a year and a half, then things exploded. I'm not even certain what happened. People discovered my campaign somehow. I was in the middle of a strange 6 month-long vacation when I was contacted and "challenged" to start a blog to discuss my stand on the issues and allow people to ask me questions. I had never thought of blogging before, and was certain I would run out of things to talk about after a couple of weeks. After all, I had said all I needed to say on my campaign page, right?

Suddenly I had more people writing me than I knew what to do with, but I made sure to answer every single one. Even the ones who told me to perform physically impossible acts upon myself and then die. I started finding my campaign mentioned on different websites every day, often in less than complimentary ways. Although I had never mentioned seeking the nomination of any party, thinking I was too radical for any national party, I was finding myself listed as "Libertarian". Someone suggested I write Selectsmart.com about being included in their candidate selector, so I did and ended up being the only "Libertarian" in the quiz ..... until the last moment when the LINOs nominated by the LP were added.

Eventually I was contacted by the Libertarian Party and invited to seek their nomination. This thing was getting more serious than I had intended. I was interviewed by a few different internet "radio" shows, and invited to take part in different forums ("fora"?) to answer questions about my stand on important issues. I tried to accept every invitation, although I normally only participated until the original flurry of activity died down a bit. I took part in several conference calls between the LP candidates. This convinced me that I probably wasn't cut out for politics. I became somewhat disillusioned listening to the less-than-civil exchanges between certain people.

Then came the detractors who said I didn't look "professional" enough, had the audacity to run for president before I had been elected dog-catcher, refused to accept donations, and wouldn't remove the endorsement of "Breechcloth Day" from my web page. Hey, I thought this was supposed to be FUN!

My Geocities page was also said to be hideous, so I sought advice, and got a real website. The response was positive about that change, at least. Still, nothing was ever enough for those who just wanted something to whine or complain about, and I am stubborn enough to stand my ground instead of doing things just to make people happy.

There finally came a point where I needed to get serious, if I wanted to get serious (which had not originally been my plan). I looked into registering with the FEC so I would have a "real campaign". What I ran into there disgusted me. There was no provision for refusing donations, and the paperwork and reporting requirements went against everything I stood for. I now knew why the same type of people keep getting elected: the system is set up to disqualify anyone else. The game was more seriously rigged than I had previously suspected.

Added to some things that were going on personally, I decided I wouldn't continue to seek the LP nomination, and would stop campaigning. So I made the announcement that I was done. The reaction was immediate and upsetting. So many people wrote me, acting like I had let them down. Had I made a mistake?

After some soul-searching I decided that the best thing I could do was offer myself as a write-in candidate. I knew that without registering with the FEC any votes for me would not be counted, but being unwilling to submit to a government commission's illegal interference with the election process left me with few options. At least, few options that didn't compromise my principles.

I continued to answer questions, and to encourage those who still felt they needed to vote to vote for me. I feel that the best way to avoid "wasting your vote" is to refuse to spend it. No one is qualified to "run the country" or anything else other than his or her own life. Vote accordingly.

After the election, I was dismayed to see that everyone thinks someone else won, when obviously all those who refused to vote for any of the clowns on the ballot were clearly giving me a mandate. All the non-voters outnumber those who voted for the current president hundreds-to-one. I guess I don't want the job enough to get my hands dirty in court to challenge the usurper in the White House.

I have been asked by several people if I will run again next time. I have told them "no"; I can't imagine any circumstance arising that would cause me to do it again. The older I get, the more skeptical I become of any form of organized external "government". Self-government is the only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.


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

"World 'Sexting' Day"

Observing "World 'Sexting' Day":

March 2, 2009 - Today is the day to offer your moral support
to the most recent victims of the government's blatant
violation of the First Amendment and Self-Determination: those teens who
have been persecuted or prosecuted for "victimizing" themselves by sending nude
photographs of themselves, by cell phone, to others. Also victimized
are the recipients of those pics who are targeted by prosecutors hungry for
"child pornography" convictions.

The point of this event is to send "sext messages", of only
yourself, obviously, to everyone you can, even random numbers and email
addresses. As many as possible should go to judges, prosecuting attorneys,
or any other public or private "do-gooders" who have been active in
the persecution of "sexting" teens. Flood them with so many that there is
no way to sift through them all, and even if they do, in order to be consistent they will be forced to arrest themselves.

So, start snapping those pics and sending them on their way. The
clock is ticking!

Random Weekend Thoughts

It is no wonder most children don't know right from wrong. They are told, if there is a problem, call the cops. That is wrong.

People don't understand because they don't want to understand. Denial and "head-in-the-sand" are frequent reactions to things people don't want to understand.

Freedom isn't "easy", but it really isn't that hard either.

Until you stand up for unpopular freedoms, even those you personally despise, you are not standing up for freedom at all, but are supporting oppression and tyranny.

Those who don't learn from history.... get elected and doom the rest of us to repeat it. Unless we are smarter and more prepared than most people.

There is a thin line separating "being helpful" and "being meddlesome"... and the one who gets to define the line is the recipient of your ministrations.

Intrusive Government

Recently, someone I know was stopped by a cop for something that had no conceivable safety implications, but only "identification" issues. The license plate light was burned out. In the course of the traffic stop, the highwayman wanted to know where he was going, why he was going there, who he knew in the area, if he had a job, and numerous other things that were of no relevence.

Not wanting to get shot, he answered the questions (not necessarily honestly), but left feeling dirty, as if he had just been raped as well as having been accused of being unworthy of the benefit of the doubt. If he had said or done anything that tweaked the highwayman's interest, he could have (and probably would have) ended up arrested, tasered, or shot dead.

Is this what the US police-state has become? People who are harming no one in any way, being accosted, interrogated, and basically threatened at gun-point for simply travelling? Yes, it is. The sooner those on the "liberty fence" realize this, the sooner it will end. It is past time.

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

Libertarians Are The Best!

Libertarians have the potential to be the best people in the world. It is because our core philosophy, when followed, will just about guarantee that result. If we aren't it is because we are not living up to our potential.

Other groups have conflicted "principles" in their core beliefs. Things like stealing is wrong, unless it is government stealing for a cause they happen to support. Or murder is wrong, unless it was government doing it and it was an "honest" mistake (or "they deserved it").

Of course, it is considered very impolite to point out the inconsistencies in the beliefs and philosophies of the "mainstream" groups. That makes libertarians somewhat unpopular at times. It makes those other people uncomfortable, and makes them want to blame libertarians instead of examining their own inconsistencies. Happily, they don't have to agree with us for us to be right.

So, remember your potential, and strive to live up to it. You can point out the inconsistencies, but don't dwell on them since those who do not want to see, won't see. A good example is more persuasive than winning debates any day.

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

Common Sense

"common sense 
–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." - From Dictionary.com
___________________________________________

What is "common sense"? What seems to me to be common sense is often not what the other person sees as common sense. "Common sense" is what works for you in your day-to-day life. It is based on your physical senses and your experiences and is what allows you to function when faced with a problem to solve. But..... It isn't always factually correct. Sometimes specialized knowledge or training steps in where "common sense" fails. There are even cases where, when faced with a problem that requires specialized knowledge, "common sense" responses can get you killed.

The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory, and (apparently) biological evolution by natural selection violate "common sense" for most people. That is because common sense is extremely limited by your own personal experiences.

Because we don't experience travel through space at large percentages of the speed of light, relativity seems counter to our common sense perceptions.

Because we don't experience the incredibly tiny universe of the subatomic particles, quantum effects do not fit our notion of common sense.

Because our lives do not span geologic time scales, we have trouble with the concept of deep time in which natural selection causes species to change until a new species exists.

And - because we exist in a seething maelstrom of statism that is accepted as "the way it has always been done", anarchism seems to violate most peoples' notion of common sense.

"Common sense" has its place, but it also has its limitations. Use it when it works; accept the truth when it fails. Don't rely on it as a crutch in place of thinking and learning.

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

Right to Life?

Why is it that when the right to "bear arms" is discussed, a huge amount of time is spent discussing the responsibilities that go along with it, yet when the right to life is discussed, by certain politico-religious groups, there is never any mention of any responsibilities attached? Is the right to life the only right that carries no responsibilities? No obligations at all? Why is the right to life given a free pass?

Obviously, I believe there is a responsibility that goes along with living: the obligation to never initiate force. Those who are loudest about the right to life seem to not agree.

I would say that, rather than a "right to life", we all have a right to defend our life. If a person isn't able to defend their own life, then someone can step in and defend the defenseless. But do you have a right to defend the life of another? Just thinking....

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

The More Things "Change"... & Ron Paul: Alien Overlord?

Has anyone else ever noticed that no matter the promises, no matter how "good" a candidate looks, no matter what a politician's previous stand has been on an issue, as soon as they get elected or appointed, they keep the government on the same path as it has been on? There may be minor deviations of course, but the reality is there is almost no hiccup in the operation of the state machine.

Obama keeps doing the same things his predecessor was doing, although he justifies the actions with different excuses (and claims this equals "change". His appointees keep following the same policies even though they previously spoke out against them.

It is as if "government" has a life of its own, and really isn't "made up of individual people" as most of us have believed. It is a hive that alters its parts to suit its purposes. A collective mind that absorbs and alters the minds of those who become a part of it. Makes me wonder how Ron Paul has managed to avoid (mostly) this effect. Perhaps he is an extraterrestrial, but is hiding his otherworldly powers ... for now!

This should probably be a clue that it isn't a matter of getting "the right people" elected; but is a matter of needing to abolish the entire system. Although there will be some who keep tilting at windmills and hoping against hope.



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

The "Rich Warlord" Boogeyman

One of the main factors that cause people to cling to the archaic notion of "government" ("the state") is a fear of the "rich warlord" who would supposedly take over your life without repercussions if no government were holding him back. It is claimed that government is the only thing that keeps him contained or from gaining power.

Let's examine this idea.

Would people who have tasted real freedom be so easy to take it from again? Probably not for a generation or two. However, there would undoubtedly come a time when the lure of ease and "safety" would sound nice to the less honorable among us. Then the cycle would start anew. However, I think it is better to start from scratch occasionally than to watch the state get bigger, more tyrannical, and less benevolent. Even if this is inevitable, which I am not convinced of, I think it is good to make them rebuild the state from the ground up ever so often. If you can't dig up the weed, at least chop it off at ground level from time to time.

But considering the "warlord" again: First of all, would this really be worse than the situation we are in now? We already live under a rich warlord who steals over 87% of our economic production, and demands more every year. He will kill us if we refuse to pay. He demands a ransom be paid on our homes or he will steal them from us. He demands control over whether or not we are allowed to own and carry effective weapons of self defense, and has criminalized the most effective ones; the very ones his own Constitution puts off-limits for him to touch in any way. He demands control over our travel, our business, our children, even our own bodies. He pretends to be a benevolent protector, and seems honestly bewildered at those of us who see through his velvety smooth words to the harsh truth behind them. This rich warlord is the main proponent of the boogeyman of the other, unknown, rich warlord.

Perhaps the monster we don't know is worse than the monster we know. What then? I think that the only time to keep the rich warlord from becoming a real problem is before he consolidates his power and passes "laws" that make it hard, or even impossible, to stop him. In other words, kill him upon his first act of aggression. Do you think he will behave nicely his whole life until one day he suddenly starts acting like the blossoming monster he is to become? I would imagine he will have a life-long history of aggression and coercion. Remove the "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and he will not survive to become a real threat. This means we are already at an extremely difficult phase in trying to rein in the full grown monster we currently know. Not impossible, but it will take a paradigm shift where enough people realize it is necessary. What is the tipping point?



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

Eric Holder: Attorney General and Racist

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in
things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many
ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Attorney General Eric Holder
said.
Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but "we, as
average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

Read that last part again: "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." Wow! And that boils down to what racists, like Eric Holder and others, think matters. They want people to keep focusing on, talking about, and obsessing over race so that race will continue to be a divisive issue. Divide and conquer.

It isn't about race, folks. It is about honoring the basic right of every individual to live his life as he sees fit as long as he does not attack or steal. Period. Do this and you are at least OK; violate this and you are a dangerous parasite, especially if you collect a paycheck financed by stolen money. As does Mr. Holder.

The Tip of My Nose....

I had a person write to me, taking issue with my repeating of the common sentiment that "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." His reason was that this constitutes "assault" even before the nose is touched. He is right to a point. I would like to thank him for giving me permission to post my reply here.

Here is my take on the "assault" issue.

I think that "assault" is a legal concept which has no basis in reality, apart from the government. Thinking this, I would still claim that until actual force is initiated, or a credible threat is made, no rights have been violated. A person swinging his fist at a high velocity toward your nose is a credible threat. Inertia would prevent him from stopping before contact is made. Knowing the laws of motion, you could make a reasonable assumption that your nose was in real danger and could strike back.

Otherwise, with "laws" regulating fist swinging, I can't help but wonder how much distance from nose-tip to fist would be demanded. It would vary from person to person, depending on a lot of issues. The "assault" wouldn't even need to necessarily be aggressive in nature for a particularly "brittle" person to make an issue of it. Then again, even a standardized "legal distance" would be pointless since unless the judge and/or jury were present during the event, a subjective interpretation would make the same action seem different to various observers.

This is why I still see the right to swing your fist ending at the tip of my nose, as long as no contact is made, or would be made without intervention.

HOWEVER, in a free society you could take action to defend yourself against perceived aggression using your best judgement (or reflexes) and then take your chances with a dispute resolution organization or a private "court", which would be more open to actually achieving justice than current government courts are. After all, they will have free market competition so will need to maintain a spotless reputation in order to attract "business". If I were hired to rule on such a case, I would not fault a person for striking back against someone who was swinging a fist at his nose, even if the nose in question were not touched. And I seriously doubt anyone else would either.

Just because a right exists does not mean that the exercise of that right is always the best course of action. This is where I think responsibility comes in. You may have a right to swing your fist up to the tip of my nose, yet you have a responsibility to not do so, and if you choose to do so, you may find yourself on the dangerous end of a gun barrel. And rightly so. You must accept any and all consequences of your actions, or you will find yourself getting a bad reputation and possibly shunned to the point of starvation (or living on charity).

Everyone Knows....

At one time, long before Columbus, almost everyone "knew" the world was flat. Some very observant and intuitive people had figured out that the earth was a sphere, but no one would listen to them seriously.

That is the position libertarians are in now. Everyone "knows" that a strong government is necessary to protect "us" from "them", whether "them" is terrorists, immigrants, criminals, dishonest businessmen, stupid neighbors, or even our own stupidity. It doesn't matter that some have observed, through carefully examining the facts, that this is utter nonsense. Everyone "knows" it, so those of us who point out the truth are dismissed.

Time will tell.

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

Cops Cause Crime!

OK, so this is speculation on my part, based upon what I observe about human behavior. I'm not even talking about all the murderers, thieves, and rapists who wear badges, or the crimes against humanity committed "in the line of duty" due to enforcement of counterfeit "laws", but am talking about free-lance theft, murder, rape, and whatever else falls under the label of real "crime". (I am not talking about the peaceful, consensual, victimless, yet "illegal", behavior of others who are harming no innocent person, since those things are only "crimes" to the state, but not to sensible people.)

I have witnessed what happens when someone stumbles. If they are with one person, that person will normally try to catch them before they fall. If the stumbler is with a couple of people, though, often they will fall before the two people act. They each thought the other person would grab the tripping friend. It isn't a purposeful desire to watch someone fall, but is just a result of not acting because there is a question of whether someone else will take care of the situation. Even a slight hesitation is too much. I think the same principle applies to crime.

Crime thrives where people believe it is someone else's responsibility to take action. In big cities it is easy to think someone else will get involved, so you will mind your own business. This is even more true where there are a lot of cops. If someone is supposedly being paid to stop crime, it is even easier to turn away and let them handle it. In fact, cops encourage this poor behavior by criminalizing and punishing self-defense. "Don't be a hero. Call the professionals." Except that cops are under no obligation to protect you from crime. Try to sue the local LEOs after they fail to protect you from crime if you doubt me.

Stop contributing to the success of crime. Ignore the cops and take responsibility for your own safety. If it is your nature, take responsibility for the safety of those around you. Don't wait for some "professional", whose interests are not where you may assume they are, to step up and fix it for you.

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

The Most Important Thing

Freedom is the most important thing there is. That may be a radical thing to say, but it is true. Freedom is the one thing that allows you to pursue whatever else seems most important to you. It is the one thing that can allow you to find your value in life; your joy. You can't be happy without the freedom to be happy, even if you must steal that freedom out from under the nose of those who would attempt to deny it to you.

Freedom is being able to worship what and how you want, or not.

Freedom is being able to make your own mistakes and learn from them.

Freedom is being able to help those around you who are suffering from their mistakes.

Freedom is being able to try to make the most of your life, as long as you are hurting no innocent person, in whatever way you think is right for you.



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

Fairness

A lot of times I read that libertarians are "not fair". Usually this comes from people who don't want anyone to suffer the consequences of their own actions or don't like the fact that some people are living in poverty.

These people are still only seeing half of the picture. They see the "victims" of their own choices or of economic realities, but ignore the people who they would punish for not making bad personal or financial decisions. How is that "fair"? You can't only look at it from the perspective of "the less fortunate" after all. Not if you are really wanting to be "fair". No, you have to look at everyone's situation. I think these "compassionate" people are unduly attracted and sympathetic to the underdog. That is fine, as long as you don't blame the rest of the world for your poor "victim's" plight.

Sure, I would love to be wealthy. But not enough to do what would be necessary to achieve it. That is no one's fault but my own; I weighed my choices. I am not a "victim" of poverty. I have also suffered consequences for personal decisions I have made. I don't ask anyone to rescue me from them. Life may not be fair, but it still follows basic physical and economic laws.

So, what do these people think is "fair"? "Redistribution"? That's just a fancy word for theft. "Liberals" may see themselves as "Robin Hood"; taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but they are actually on the opposite side of the moral fence. Robin Hood was not stealing from the innocent rich, but from the thieves who enriched themselves through taxes and fees, and giving the money back to the theft victims. He was not being generous; he was being "just". You can not be generous with other peoples' money. You can ask them to give, or you can steal from them. One is charity; one is theft. There is no middle ground.

I don't have much respect or pity for those who say libertarians are "unfair". And the more I read their drivel, the faster that little remaining respect fades away.


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

Consequences of Being Unpleasant

You can be an unpleasant person without initiating force and without being a thief. What should the consequences be for bad things that may not exactly violate the ZAP? I am not one to think everything needs to be punished "officially".

Obviously, I think shunning should be used if you feel the need. That is just a part of freedom of association. Most of us use it to some extent already. If you don't like someone, you probably don't go to barbecues at their home. Where we are unable to use shunning is where government criminalizes our free choices of who to associate with.

Just remove the "legal" protections that keep unpleasant people from needing to deal with their issues. The same goes for stupid people. You can't really protect them from the consequences of their actions, so stop penalizing the rest of us.

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

Economic Stimulus

I hear the congresscritters, on the orders of the president, are planning to "save" the economy by giving money to those who didn't earn it. This money they plan on giving away doesn't really exist, but is made up out of thin air, based on the belief that your children will someday pay the government for the privilege of being oppressed by its stormtroopers, through taxes or whatever new scheme is dreamed up in the future.

Now, why would the government give corporations this fictional money instead of simply firing up the printing presses and dumping lots of FRNs all over the country from low-flying planes? That would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and most people would be a lot happier with that "plan". Government won't do it that way because the current plan constitutes a bribe to buy loyalty from those who are being "rescued"; powerful people. Not at all like you or I. This "stimulus" will stimulate something, that's for certain. I betting on more corruption, irresponsibility, and poor business decisions.

However the government proceeds, the long-term effect will be the same: the money in your pocket or retirement fund will be further diluted by all this new counterfeit money. It won't matter if the money has a physical existence or is just digital information; either way it is stealing value from you just as surely as if a free-lance mugger were holding you at gunpoint while you empty your pockets for him.

And yet, almost no one is screaming "No! You will not economically enslave my future!" or refusing to be robbed. Rather, people are debating how much oversight should the government have, or complaining about all the add-on edicts. I, for one, see through the smoke and mirrors. I suspect that you do too.

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