Changing course isn't 'giving in' when you are wrong

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Changing course isn't 'giving in' when you are wrong

Sometimes when the entirely reasonable, logical, ethical, and moral idea of ending the "drug war" is suggested, some people exclaim that to end it would be "giving in". Really?

When traveling, if you discover you have missed your exit, or realize you are driving south when you need to be driving north, do you refuse to turn around so you won't be seen as "giving in"? How far will you continue to travel in the wrong direction? Would you continue "on course" until it killed you or destroyed your family? Well, why would you support a thuggish driver who insists on dragging you along for his death ride?

The drug war is only one example. "Cracking down" on "illegal" immigration and stronger "border control" is another. As is the "War on Terror" and the other problems caused by meddling around the world. Here in America, "gun control" is a serious problem that causes untold harm and mayhem. It is time to admit that government is heading the wrong direction, and force the Rulers to turn around.

Authoritarian "answers" are not the correct solution to any problem, and in most cases only create new problems while exacerbating the original condition.

When you are wrong, changing course isn't "giving in", it is "getting it right".


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

America: occupied by an anti-liberty army

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: America: occupied by an anti-liberty army

Will there come a day when people are as disturbed by seeing the image of a cop on a movie screen as they now are at seeing a Nazi goon? Probably. For some of us that day is already here. Before you start invoking "Godwin's Law" remember that Godwin realized there are times when comparisons are appropriate and accurate.

I was in a parking lot a while back; going into a fast-food restaurant. A cop came bursting out the door of a neighboring food place. He stomped authoritatively to his car, rounded the front bumper... and fell. He caught himself on his car before he hit the ground. I couldn't avoid the feeling of justice and amusement that welled up inside me. Would I have had that reaction to the misfortune of an actual helpful individual? Absolutely not. Instead, my reaction was similar to what I feel when I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark and see the Nazis get karmic justice dished out to them near the end.

If you are going down the highway and a cop car pulls in behind you, do you feel safe and protected, or does your heart skip a beat as you check your speedometer? If you have a legitimate complaint against an officer, do you speak up, or do you consider the possibility of retribution by the badged thug and his "brothers"?

Whatever happens, the "conservatives" will have a knee-jerk assumption that you deserve whatever abuse is meted out to you. Remember the case in the news a few months ago where a kid falls off an overpass, and breaks his back. The cops who responded ordered him to get up. He obviously couldn't. So, for disobeying the order of a LEO ("Liberty Eradication Operative") and because he was muttering anti-cop things as he lay there helplessly, the cops taser him. Nineteen times! In the twisted "logic" of a "conservative", the first question is "But what was he doing on the overpass?" Find a way to excuse the authoritarian thug and blame the victim. No matter what the kid was doing on the overpass, the thug's actions were evil: his actions harmed a person who did not deserve to be harmed in that way at that moment. Keep things in perspective here. Was this cop "serving and protecting" or was he being a thug?

This is only one example out of thousands. The police have become the occupying army that the founders of America warned of. They are even becoming more and more militarized every day; in training, in appearance, and in equipment. Enough is enough.

What did the Jews in the concentration camps do to deserve their treatment? After all, they could have left Germany and surrounding regions before the Nazi threat overwhelmed them. Just as the LEO threat is now beginning to overwhelm formerly free America. You have been warned.

The 'soda tax' would just be more theft

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: The 'soda tax' would just be more theft

If the mobsters of the federal government get their way and start stealing even more money, every time I buy a Dr Pepper, Mountain Dew, or Coke, with their "soda tax", I see a market niche for unsweetened soft drinks. That's right: no sweeteners whatsoever.

I know where the sugar and Karo syrup are in the grocery store and would be happy to sweeten my own soft-drinks "to taste" in order to avoid "paying" even more money. Money that will be used to finance the further destruction of my liberty. I'd be willing to be I am not the only one.

Are you listening, soft drink manufacturers?

Do rights exist, and what are they?

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Do rights exist, and what are they?


Recent commentary has drifted into the region where the nature and existence of rights comes into question. I have read many compelling assertions that rights, as I and others speak of them, do not really exist.

I agree that insisting that others, especially the state, respect your rights will not get you far. After all, "The Law" has downgraded "rights" into something that can be granted, limited, or taken away: what the more intelligent among us would call "privileges".

But do rights have no existence? I guess it depends upon how you think of it. To my way of thinking, rights exist, but not as a physical object like a stone; not as a measurable force such as gravity. They are a construct of the mind that has evolved along with humans and the human moral sense. But that in itself is a type of existence. Your actions give rights "substance".

I also think that rights are "negative" by nature; they are best described by what you have no right to do. You have no right to initiate force against an unwilling human being. You have no right to take (or control) property that belongs to someone else. Everything is within your rights as long as you don't infringe upon someone else's equal rights to control his own property and self-determination. The list is too long to think of every possibility. This is why almost all "laws" are counterfeit; they try to control non-coercive behavior that is within every person's legitimate rights to engage in.

The "positive rights" that socialists "see" everywhere are exemplified by the imaginary "right to health care", the "right to a 'free' education" and other false "rights" that actually violate other people's rights to not be obligated to take care of you. These "positive rights" always necessitate some form of theft, either of property or of self-determination.

Socialism takes away your choices for your own good?

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Socialism takes away your choices for your own good?

I recently watched a video where a rather whiny speaker was saying how terrible it is to have a lot of choices. He was saying that more choices, beyond some undetermined optimal number, make people less happy. Therefore, he claimed, freedom of choice isn't good.

He also claimed that since some people (those "wealthy", selfish, hardworking Americans, no doubt) have too many choices for true happiness, and other people (noble, enlightened third-world Elbonians, of course) have too few choices to be happy, "redistribution" (socialist-speak for theft-by-government at gun-point) would make everyone all over the world happier.

OK, "Mr. Caring Socialist", what if working fewer hours would make me happier? After all, if I am only going to be "allowed" to keep a percentage of what I spend the limited hours of my only life working for anyway, maybe I will choose to work a LOT less. Maybe everyone would make that choice. There would be no point in doing otherwise. We could spend the extra hours playing in the sand box with our kids. We may not have as much money to send to the less-fortunate Elbonians, but our lives would undoubtedly improve. Unless we don't like our kids much, that is. Of course, it is not within your authority to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

This "shrugging" would place the burden of improving the lives of Elbonians right back on the Elbonians where it has always belonged. Of course, that would not do. Tax rates would have to be raised; penalties for not "contributing" enough would need to be increased. Social engineering must continue unabated.

"Socialism will make you happy by taking away unnecessary choices and removing the burden of too much money"? No thanks, Mr. Socialist. Theft by any other name is still not OK.

For more info: The video I watched is found here. Notice especially the part beginning at 17:20.

The law is illegitimate

The law is illegitimate

The fact that "the law" is different from country to country, state to state, and even city to city shows that "the law" is illegitimate. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and where you are standing at the moment has zero bearing on that fact.

If laws were legitimate, they would be consistent- they would be exactly the same everywhere. Consistency doesn't guarantee legitimacy, of course, since you can be consistently wrong, but inconsistency certainly illustrates the counterfeit nature of most "laws".

The reason the ZAP works

The reason the ZAP works

"No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force
against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." - The Zero Aggression Principle

The reason the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP) works so well in real life is that it only applies to YOU; it is completely individually personal. It is telling you how you can live a free, self-responsible life, without being a coercive threat to everyone around you. It is removing your excuse to pretend you don't know any better.

It isn't telling you how the other person will behave, although you might hope they will act responsibly. It is not dependent upon the actions or cooperation of anyone around you. It doesn't dictate that others act any certain way, or respond to you in any particular way, or even that they respect your rights.

You live by it, and you defend yourself against anyone who violates it. You don't need to convince even one other person to live by the ZAP in order for it to work. That it doesn't depend upon the cooperation of the bad guys is its strength; a strength not shared by any other world-view.

It isn't a pacifist philosophy as those who wish to continue feeling good about being aggressors try to claim; it recognizes the human right to defend yourself against aggression however you see fit. If you don't believe me, try attacking a ZAP adherent.

You can spend your life worrying about what other people are doing wrong, from your point of view. Or you can concern yourself with you doing right, also from your point of view. Are you being consistent in your beliefs and actions? Are you taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the consequences that result? Are you really, or do you simply wish to hold onto cherished notions while ignoring a huge blind spot?

I have never in my own life encountered a situation where the ZAP failed; where it would have been OK to initiate force (attack the other person). There have been instances where my human nature would have liked to have excused such behavior. It would have been wrong anyway.

I have never met a truly consistent authoritarian; whether they claimed to be "liberal" or "conservative", they always have a big "but". Some who claim to be libertarians or anarchists don't live up to their principles either, but that is their individual shortcoming. Their actions are not consistent with the principles they claim to accept.

Libertarian concepts of rights and morality

Libertarian concepts of rights and morality

Yesterday's column has inspired a long discussion of rights and morality in the comments. I suggest you read them to see what lead to this exchange. My answer ended up being longer than most of my columns. I felt that this was important enough to put out front, so here is my answer to "Mike" (some things are not in their original order for clarity- I hope).

Mike- you are really making me think tonight. Thanks!

One thing I suppose I need to explain is that this is my personal morality. This is the morality I will defend and that I will judge others by, but I realize that others, whom I consider to be "of bad character", will have other "moralities". I don't expect anyone else to consider this "universal" although if I am to believe it and live according to it, I myself MUST act as though it is universal. I will explain what I believe, why I believe it, and the actions I will take if someone attacks me in violation of it. In my mind, this attack makes the other person wrong. Obviously others, such as all statists, don't accept this. They have their own inconsistent "moralities" that allow them to justify theft and aggression. I don't think an inconsistent moral code can be taken seriously except by those who are inside it and can't see how ridiculous they are being.

OK, so then why is it species specific when it comes to these things? .....Is a
tomcat immoral when it eats stranger kittens?

The reason I consider rights to be "species specific" is that all life must feed on other life. There is no obligation to any species other than your own. Humans have the capacity to have compassion for other species, but most other species do not. A tomcat that kills another's kittens is not immoral since cats have no sense of morality. He is simply helping to see to it that his genes have a better chance of making it to the next generation, which is as close to a morality as cats have.

How then was Crowley wrong in the Book of the Law-"Do as thou wilt, that shall
be the extent of the Law"(itself stolen, and perverted, from the old
Celtic saying "An' it harm none, do as thou wilt")..?

If the "law" was "Do as thou wilt, that shall be the extent of the Law" there would be no sense in even uttering it, much less writing it down, since that is how bacteria live. Some humans may live that way, but once again, if they initiate force, I will defend myself in accordance with the ZAP.

Why isn't might right? I there some mystical pronouncement, or is there
something different?

"Might" isn't right or wrong. Just as gravity is neither right nor wrong. It can be used wrongly. Initiating force is what is wrong, even if doing so is suicidal. Once again, humans have a moral sense, even if it doesn't always remain consistent. I don't think anyone's moral sense says that "might is right", even if their behavior makes it appear that they believe that. Instead they will try to justify their aggression using some wishy-washy morality of the moment.

...though I must wonder with the scarcity of resources on Earth, how force
cannot have been a fundamental portion of virtually all property-at least at one
time? And since force can be justly used to defend property that was once gained
by force-why not simply project that force?

I don't think force was necessary in all acquisition of property; especially not before humans started bumping into other tribes who were already there. For much of human prehistory, finding another tribe was probably a rare thing, and a cause for trade, sex, and celebration. Until the territories started overlapping too much. I think that is where force- "war"- came into play.

I also am not going to lose sleep over wrongs that occurred long before I was born, between people who are long dead. If that were the case, everyone would probably commit suicide from guilt. Blank slate- from this point on initiate no force; steal from no one. I paid for my car. Did any of the steel in it come from land that was stolen from a rightful owner at some point? I can't know that one way or the other. Did I commit or authorize the theft or approve of it? No.

In that way of thinking, "defending rights" could well mean advancing them
arbitrarily, collectively, or simply individually-engaging in theft. Is there a
way out of this while the increasing scarcity of Earth prevails?

I think everyone knows the difference between "defending rights" and "advancing them"; one is defense, the other, aggression.

If humans find no solution for an "increasing scarcity", nature will solve it for us, probably in a very cruel and horrible way.

In other words, if true peace and freedom is to be in the future, don't humans
need to get off this rock?

Yes, we must. But not only for peace and freedom. For survival in the long term, and possibly even in the short term, yes, we must move off this rock. You know what they say about keeping all your eggs in one basket. Earth is a fragile basket lying in the middle of the interstate and all our eggs, figuratively and literally, are in this basket. To not take action when we can, and know we must, is to guarantee our extinction (sooner than it has to occur). NASA can't keep us all earthbound forever if we refuse to cooperate and keep waiting.

Property rights explained as I see them

Property rights explained as I see them

In a previous column I expressed an opinion that the majority disagreed with: That wherever you go, you take a you-shaped "bubble" of your property rights with you that no one has a right to violate even if they invite you onto their property. I would like to expand on this idea a little.

If I invite others onto my property, I still retain ALL rights to my property. My guests have no right to take, destroy, alter, or even "improve" my property in any way without my express permission. However, my property rights do not extend into their personal property bubble while they are on my property. Similar to the idea of a "force field", they have a "rights shield" at all times. Others can choose between two choices: to respect it, or to violate it.

In the same way that I have no right to dictate what is in my guests' pocket as long as it stays there, I can't declare any of their other rights null and void simply because they accepted my invitation to visit me. I can't declare my property a "rape zone" in other words, where by coming onto my property my guests give "implied consent" to be sexually attacked. Even posting a sign to that effect wouldn't make it my "right". No one ever has a right to violate the rights of another.

Now, as I have said before, just because you have a right doesn't mean you must exercise it. You may have social reasons for not exercising a right at certain times or in certain situations. That is also your right. If you choose to give up your right for a period of time in order to be seen as trying to "get along" or to not make a scene, that is your business. I will NEVER ask you to do that on my account.

People come with certain rights that are not subject to negotiation. Simply because they are human you must assume they possess those rights and are exercising them at any given moment. You must "assume liberty". That means if you wish to invite people onto your property you are assuming that you are inviting real people onto your property with their rights and freedoms fully intact and functional. If you are not willing to do that, then you are not really inviting people onto your property, you are creating slaves.

Authoritarians fear 'them' in order to justify the state

Authoritarians fear 'them' in order to justify the state

I want to address the fear of "them". Just last night I heard a person expressing a fear of a certain group of people, saying how "America will be overtaken by 'them' because 'we' are not having enough children to sustain our society, while 'they' are breeding like rabbits." Then when "they" take over, "America will be destroyed!" (No one can really foretell the future, but it makes for nice fear-mongering.) The truth is "America" was destroyed long ago. The coffin was closed by Abraham Lincoln. The final nail was driven into the coffin by Woodrow Wilson. The coffin was buried in an unmarked grave by FDR. Everything since then has just been "Elvis sightings".

You should understand that in my personal sphere I am surrounded by authoritarians who call themselves "conservatives" (mostly of the devoutly religious stripe), while in the news and "entertainment" media I am constantly barraged by the authoritarians who promulgate the ideals of those who now call themselves "progressives" (rather than "liberals"). What they call themselves only seems to make a difference in the minor details of who they fear; not in their solution to that fear.

In my personal sphere, surrounded by the "conservatives", the "them" to fear or revile is, or has been, Muslims, Mexicans, "blacks", atheists, "drug" users, people whose sexual preferences are "different", or anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of the glorious state. Is there anything more ridiculous? "They" will out breed "us" and overrun the country! (So what? Don't sell your property to anyone unless you want to and it benefits you.) "They" will destroy the moral base of our society! (And you think statism hasn't already done that? With your support and approval, no less!) "They" will ...[insert your greatest fear here]... all those who don't believe like 'they' do! (So shoot back.) Don't shrink in fear; assert and defend your rights. You might just discover "the enemy" isn't who you have been brainwashed to believe it is.

In the "progressive" sphere, which I only see through the mainstream media, I see the feared "them" being variously Christians, gun owners, "capitalists", the self-sufficient, "anthropogenic global climate change" skeptics, or anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of the glorious state. "They" are just one traffic disagreement away from riddling some innocent family full of bullet holes. (Funny how rarely that actually happens when you don't count the career thugs on either side of the badge.) "They" have outdated, rigid, beliefs. (And socialists, no matter what they call themselves, and whose ideas have been thoroughly discredited by history and logic, don't?) "They" only care about profit and ignore the less fortunate! (Balderdash. Without profit there is nothing left over with which to help the less-fortunate. And nothing for the socialists to plunder through "taxation".) Controlling the non-coercive, voluntary behavior of other people is completely without merit and harms innocent people, which is my definition of "evil". The reasons for committing evil acts do not matter.

The fear is the same, and their "solution" is always less freedom and more powerful government. It doesn't matter if it is the socialistic authoritarians of the "left" or the "right" who are wringing their hands and calling for more control. Like the hammer and nail analogy, if you see everything as a threat, you always see preemptive state aggression as the answer. You may just be sowing the seeds of your own destruction through a self-fulfilling prophesy. Those of us who are really no threat to each other may eventually see authoritarians for the threat they actually are. That will be an interesting day.

Libertarians need not fear the future

Libertarians need not fear the future

I got an email from someone who is concerned about roving gangs from the inner cities moving out into the rest of the country after they have taken and destroyed everything in their own little sphere, and who is concerned about "illegal immigrants" preying on rural America. He thinks this is inevitable after "law enforcement" (and the state) completely breaks down. He points out that it is a different world today, compared to during the last depression, and that people are not as helpful or "moral" as they once were. I think his concerns are pretty common.

I thought I would share my slightly edited response.

The problem is that "law enforcement" and "criminals" simply play different
positions on the same team, and both are against you and I. I hold no
illusions that "law enforcement officers" (what I call "Liberty Eradication
Operatives") protect me in any way.

I don't fear gangs of inner city thugs if the state collapses, because as I
see it, the "law" is the only thing that prevents effective self defense against
them now. Remove that layer of "legal protection" and they'd be history in
no time. If even a small percentage of the population refuses to be
intimidated, these thugs will vanish through attrition pretty quickly. A
stack of bodies at your property line will do more to convince thugs to go
elsewhere than fear of some cop eventually catching up to them and arresting
them. Interviews of inmates have shown time after time that they fear
armed "victims" much more than cops or prison.

You've got to remember that the reason inner cities are so bad is that only
the "criminals" have guns, and that conditions are so intensely crowded.
If these gangs spread out after destroying "their" cities, they will be too
diffuse and outnumbered to do anything, it will be like dropping a sugar cube in
a swimming pool... as long as "law enforcement" doesn't continue to protect them
by enforcing disarmament and requiring their victims to die quietly instead of
putting up a hard fight. Even if they travel in big packs they will have
no chance against people protecting their own turf. If it comes down to
it, I will shoot first and deal with any "law" later. And I think a lot of
people probably feel the same. Have you ever visited the "Sipsey Street
Irregulars" blog?

I don't worry about anyone who forgoes "official permission" for anything,
whether it is moving across imaginary lines on a map or driving their own
vehicle- and I realize this is a very "minority opinion". What I do put my
foot down against is theft and coercion. I don't care where a person was
born or what language they speak, I still insist upon being left alone and
keeping my own property. Immigrants have never stolen anything from me;
government does nothing BUT steal and try to assert ownership over my
life. I consider that an act of war.

I agree that it is a totally different world today, but I don't think all
those changes are bad. I have been welcomed into peoples' homes when they
didn't know me. I have been fed; I have been offered a place to stay...
and I don't look "normal". Technology has also changed the dynamics of
personal relationships. How would I have even been able to "meet" and
"talk to" you without technology? I now have a network of people across
the country that have actually helped me out in past crises. I think there
is still a lot of humanity out there. Don't focus too much on the pockets
of evil. We outnumber them, even when you add in their enablers in
government.

I actually don't want to "go back" to some idyllic past (though it almost
hurts to say that). I would prefer to keep (or return to) the good things
about the past, combine them with the good things in the present, and add the
good things I can imagine for the future.

I sense a lot of fear of "them" from people I know. Depending on the person, and whether they are "liberal" or "conservative", "them" can be other races, "illegal immigrants", Muslims, atheists, Christians, gun owners, southerners, northerners, rural folk, urban people...... the list goes on and on. Libertarians should be able to see through the nonsense, and leave the fear in the dust. We must hang together or we shall surely hang (or be shot, or drugged, "tased", and kidnapped) separately. I will try to address this "fear of THEM" in a later column.

Destruction can be good or bad

Destruction can be good or bad

I dislike senseless destruction, filth, and waste. That is one reason that when I celebrate "Random Acts of Anarchy Day" I usually do so by picking up litter, or by anonymously repairing something. The personality trait that makes me want to go around picking up litter is the same trait that makes me want to rid society of the state: I want to pick up the garbage that others have left behind and make the world a little bit better. I dislike the filth and pollution represented by, and spread by, statism. I realize that statists will continue to pollute society faster than I can clean up after them, and that most people don't yet recognize statism as the negatively destructive force it is. That doesn't mean I am spinning my wheels. After all, maybe I will eventually inspire someone who will make a real difference. Plus, I am far from alone; there are more of us libertarian/anarchists every day.

Of course, I also understand that every act of creativity begins with an act of purposeful destruction. You, or someone before you, must take something apart for the raw materials or constituent parts in order to create something new. The state could be dismantled and a better society, a consistent and rational society, could be built from the debris. There are a lot of intelligent people working for the state. Most could find honest work in a free society if they are willing to give up a life of coercion. There are a lot of guns owned by the military and "law enforcement" that could be better used in the hands of the general population; a population who would aim the guns at the right people - the aggressors and thieves. The day of the gangs (on both sides of the badge) would be over.

Authoritarianism or libertarianism? Choose your philosophy wisely

Authoritarianism or libertarianism? Choose your philosophy wisely

"Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist,
liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria. The human race
divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who
have no such desire." -- Robert A Heinlein

"Right" or "left". "Liberal" or "conservative". False choices. Just like "cops and criminals"- they simply play different positions on the same team, and if you buy into their rhetoric, you are the one who will lose. It really boils down to statism or libertarianism. Do you want people to be controlled or do you not?

There are so many competing philosophies and world-views out there. All you can do is find the one you think is best and stay with it consistently. As for me: I prefer the only philosophy that says that theft and aggression is wrong all the time. I prefer the philosophy that makes no exceptions for those who wear the silly hat of "government".

If an act would be wrong for me to do, right now, on my own initiative, it is also wrong for agents of the DEA, FBI, BATFEces, SWAT, the military, the IRS, or any of the other organs of the state to do. If an act is really right for those same groups to do with government approval, then the same act is right for me to do on my own with or without government approval. Stop making excuses for evil acts done in the name of the state.

If you want "people" to be controlled, start with yourself. After all, you are the only person you really have any authority to control, and you are the only person who has that authority.

What 'politics' means to me

What 'politics' means to me
(This is an updated "oldie".)

I think that "politics" is a system for getting along with people whom you do not like. No one needs politics for dealing with those we like. Getting along with them comes naturally. Therefore, I believe that the best political system is the one which allows those who really don't like one another to still live their lives peaceably in the same space.

Authoritarianism doesn't work because it usually forces those people together in a way that makes both sides more unhappy than they were before. It makes rules that will always hurt someone for the benefit of someone else. It imposes forced compliance, and forced (false) "agreement".

Only in a libertarian society (an anarchic society) can people be free to associate in any way they choose, with whoever they choose, as long as no one initiates force on, or steals from, anyone else. There is no need for the "uncooperative individuals" in society to go along. The "system" works just as well whether they want it to or not.

This is not a huge revelation, but I see it work on a small scale every day. If you truly dislike someone, minimize your dealings with them, and do not cause situations which escalate the dislike on either side. When you must deal with them, do so with the same respect that you would want, and then move along. Don't dwell on the fact that you don't like them. If you can ever grow past the need for your dislike, you might just find that they are not so bad after all. It has happened before for me.

Swine Flu a made-to-order crisis?

Swine Flu a made-to-order crisis?

As was recently admitted by one of Obama's henchmen, the state doesn't like to waste a crisis. Even if that means they need to manufacture one.

It seems that a swine flu panic is being drummed up in order to give the KGB, oh, sorry "Homeland Security", an excuse to cancel even the lip service the Constitutional limits on government power occasionally get.

Keep this in perspective. Swine flu is a much smaller threat than the state. Even the death toll from the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is only a fraction of the death toll from government. Treatment and prevention are better now. And the state is much more dangerous than it was 90 years ago. There is a risk, but it isn't the one being promoted by the government lapdogs in the mainstream media.

Government would love to have an excuse to lock down the nation, and possibly even declare martial law. Government would love to disrupt your life and make you come crawling, frightened, to its operatives; begging them to rescue you. Don't let them get away with it, no matter how they magnify the danger from this (or the next) "crisis". There is no problem so great that it can't be made orders of magnitude worse by adding even a little government "help".

PS: In case you haven't yet seen it, here is Ron Paul on the "swine flu crisis".

When the economy collapses, murder/suicide isn't the answer

When the economy collapses, murder/suicide isn't the answer

In recent months I have heard about quite a few murder/suicides that were blamed on the "bad economy".

Is that how people react to a bad economy? Is that the proper response to a lost job? Why kill former co-workers? Why kill family and self? These desperate individuals can't think of a way to survive without money? Has dependency become so pervasive that there is no self-sufficiency in individuals anymore?

Not too many people still have the skills to make do with what they have anymore. Take a lesson from survivors of the previous "Great Depression". Are you willing to find alternative foods? (and I'm not necessarily talking about a previously discussed source). There are books and websites that can help you learn skills to ease a lack of money. Use the money you have (or earn in a lower-paying job) for those things that there is no alternative way of getting. Learn to barter. Grow a garden (what good is a lawn?). Raise chickens and goats. Trade skills with others. If you still really need help, ask for charity; don't go to the state for "welfare". One is moral; the other is "receiving stolen property".

While you have the right to end your own life if you want to, you have no right to make that decision for anyone else who isn't attacking you. Just because you see no way out, it doesn't mean that others are in the same boat. Tomorrow you might be in a better mood and realize that it isn't the end of the world unless you do the dirty work yourself.

Just remember that in a bad economy you are losing things that the majority of humans, for the vast majority of our existence as a species, have done pretty well without. I realize that the state makes life without these things more difficult than they need to be (and often "illegal"; "poaching" is an example), but that is a strike against the legitimacy of the state, not evidence of your "failure" as a person. Shrug off any guilt at breaking the counterfeit "laws" of the state, while abiding by the ZAP, and you still have a chance of doing pretty well.

Killing your family isn't the answer. Killing your former co-workers isn't (usually) the answer. Remember, unless you kill them during an attack on you, you are just "getting revenge", which is always wrong, whether done as an individual or as a society.

Government is not an optimal solution

Government is not an optimal solution

Depending on government is like trying to dig a hole with a hammer. It is possible to do (I know; I have done it), but it is far from the optimal tool for the job.

Where a free society would help the less fortunate with charity and a helping hand, government "helps" them with stolen money, and then takes away their remaining dignity and lays claim to their lives.

Where a free society would encourage children to learn how to learn, "government schooling" causes a hatred of anything deemed "educational" that cripples many for their entire lifetime.

Where a free society would ignore what a person owns and carries as long as they harm no one else, a government demonizes mere possession of myriad items and substances.

Where a free society could have many competing currencies, each valuable to certain people, governments dictate the use of illusionary "money" that loses value day by day, stealing the substance of your life's work as long as you hold onto it.

Where a free society would define "justice" as making things right for the victim, government is more concerned with punishing the person its courts "find" guilty.

Where a free society would not care what is in your bloodstream as long as you could do what you committed to do, a government encourages assault and theft of blood, and perverted, quasi-sexual collection of urine to make sure you are allowed to work.

Where a free society would "assume liberty", government assumes ownership. It demands oversight and victimhood.

In all these cases, while you can make a society run by government "work", it is a horribly sick and twisted shadow of what society could be. Devised, administered, and supported by horribly sick and twisted minds.

Hat tip: Thanks to Francois Tremblay for the "horribly sick and twisted mind" he linked to.

Fiat money gets more competition every day, for good reason

Fiat money gets more competition every day, for good reason

It's a shame that the most prolific and dangerous counterfeiters work for government. That places them beyond the reach of justice or restitution. In country after country, they ply their trade with the backing of the full coercive force of the government. Government refuses to back its paper certificates with anything of value; mints its coins of near-worthless metals... and few people even notice they have been duped.

There is a way to strike back though: don't use their money except when forced to. There are choices. The amusing thing is that governments always require you pay taxes and other illegitimate tributes with their own funny-money. The joke is on them.

Money almost seems to define a society. You can learn a lot about a society or a culture by closely examining its money. When friends or family travel the world, one thing that is frequently requested is "Would you bring me some foreign money?" In this case, the "value" of the money is in its novelty.

Money, in its most common, modern form, consists of little, portable works of art that are traded for things you want or need. The symbols upon it, and the materials it is made from, tell what is important to the people who choose to use it. Or to the government that tries to give you no choice. Real money is best made of something that has never been worth "zero", and is used by voluntary consent, not government edict. Government promises, those little IOUs called "dollars" (or more accurately "Federal Reserve Notes"), don't meet that requirement. By using privately issued voluntary money, you are not endorsing the system that attempts to violate your rights more each day. That is worth a lot, in itself. That is one reason I am designing my own silver coins. Value and values combined.

_______________

For some alternative voluntary currencies: Check out the Liberty Dollar, the American Open Currency Standard, and the Silver Dubloon. These are not the only options out there, either. Expect more in the near future as confidence in fiat money declines.

Concealed carry and property rights are compatible

Concealed carry and property rights are compatible

Your property rights end at the surface of my clothes, just as my property rights end at the surface of your clothes. Would I forbid you to come onto my property, assuming I sent out an open invitation otherwise, if you had a pacemaker or an artificial hip? Of course not! Those things are technological enhancements for imperfect human bodies. That is all a gun is. Humans don't have the fangs, claws, or a protective shell for self defense that many other animals have. Most of us do not have the opportunity to become experts at unarmed combat, either. Instead we have a brain that lets us devise tools to make up for that deficiency. To make a rule that a person coming onto your property must leave part of his body behind is crazy and wrong.

A reasonable approach is to forbid certain behaviors: no attacks allowed. And if you break this rule, the other people around you, suitably armed, will stop the attack. The alternative is to encourage massacres like Columbine, Binghamton, and Virginia Tech.

There is much disagreement on this issue among gun owners, and mine is the minority position. That doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong. Here is my train of thought:

Rights don't overlap; two people can't have an equal claim over the same property. No matter where you go, there is a "you-shaped" bubble of your property, with all its rights intact, encasing you. In a free society, absent coercive government, you have absolute rights to your property. If you choose to allow other people to come onto your property (such as for business purposes or private visitation) you are accepting the other people as they are, within their "bubble". Your property rights do not penetrate this bubble around them, just as their property rights don't extend beyond that bubble while they are your guest (unless they brought some other property with them, such as a purse or a jacket). Your only reasonable caveat is that they are expected to behave in certain ways. For instance, not attack other guests/customers nor their host; not steal; and they may be expected to be polite (depending on the circumstances). However, what is inside their clothing is not your business as long as it remains there. Contagions and radiation, and in some cases odors, are things that are reasonable violations of this expectation. Anything else and you are violating the property rights of your invited guests and endangering innocent lives.

You are also assuming responsibility for the safety of your guests or customers if you forbid self-defense. If you fail, you are almost as guilty as the attacker. That, however, is an issue for another time.

Should libertarians tone down the message?

Should libertarians tone down the message?

Those of us who are actively trying to spread the ideas (and ideals) of liberty walk a fine line. Should we tone down the message, or even lie, in order to avoid offending people who casually come across our words? Should we change the subject to avoid talking of certain topics that might be offensive to some? Or do we boldly advocate liberty, warts and all?

Some responses I received to my column on cannibalism surprised me. Let me rephrase that; the responses did not surprise me, but the individuals making some of those responses surprised me. In the name of "don't offend the newbies" I fear some may be turning away from the principles that actually make the difference between statists and libertarians. The principles that clearly show the difference between the two philosophies and which originally attracted me to the people who valued these things as I do.

Remember, "polite society" won't yet acknowledge that the Drug War is a disastrous failure (as prohibition always is) and that it should be dispensed with. "Polite society" may still be in denial that the freest and safest societies are those which are universally armed. "Polite society" still thinks theft, kidnapping, and mass murder are just fine as long as it is "their government" doing these things under the guise of euphemistic terms.

Should libertarians lie about those things in order to attract new adherents? Who would really be attracted to the cause of liberty in that case? More authoritarians who would explore no farther; that's who. Soon libertarians would find themselves in a similar condition to that which is killing the Libertarian Party: a difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.

I choose to continue to be different and stand up for liberty.


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