Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: We are all terrorists now
You have a vastly greater chance of being kidnapped or murdered by the government than by "terrorists". So why is terrorism such a big deal to the government? I suspect it is so that you won't notice the truth or be able to assess the real enemy.
Unless you are a starry-eyed supporter of everything the government does, from all its wars of aggression across the globe, to its confiscatory "taxation", and its nanny-state meddling in your own home, you are a "domestic terrorist suspect" whether you realize it or not. This issue didn't start with the pinheads who recently produced the document in Missouri calling "right wing extremists" potential terrorists. It has been going on for years and years, through many administrations of either side of the monolithic political party.
I didn't start out intending to be a "Domestic Terrorist" suspect. I am not "right wing", even if "leftists" call me that when they are wrong on an issue. Neither am I "liberal" even though those on "the right" accuse me of being so when they are wrong on an issue. Being a libertarian, and more precisely, an anarchist, gives me a unique perspective and a chance to be demonized by statists of all types.
Those flag-waving "conservatives" who have never seen a war they didn't enthusiastically cheer, but say the government needs to "secure the borders", and those "progressives" who think every new gun "law" is just wonderful, but who protest those same wars the "conservatives" love, are all on the list now.
I have a relative who, a few years ago, broke his word and caused me a lot of trouble. His reasons kept changing from day to day, but one that he seemed to settle on was that he didn't like that I accept the label of "domestic terrorist". In order to cover for his dishonesty, he told everyone I was not "patriotic" and he wanted nothing to do with me, costing me a lot of money and causing a lot of trouble for me in the process. Yet this "man" would undoubtedly be a "domestic terrorist" to his precious government as well, due to his religious views and his "patriotism". He just doesn't know it yet. Or maybe by now he does.
Don't fret over the label. When government gets bad enough, as the US government has done, everyone who isn't just as bad as they are becomes a "terrorist" and an enemy. It is no reflection on you; it only reflects on the government. After all, if someone claims that "everyone hates me and is out to get me" there is usually a reason, and it usually has nothing to do with "everyone else". Just look at tyrannical regimes of the past and those whom they labeled as terrorists or extremists. It is usually an honorable group with which to be associated. Much more honorable than supporting or working for the state in ANY capacity.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Stop 'protecting' me from freedom
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Stop 'protecting' me from freedom
I prefer wearing a seat belt when I am in a car, but if I didn't want to the state should leave me alone to make my own choices. It is my life. If I refuse to wear a seatbelt and I am horribly injured in an accident, I will not expect my neighbors to pay my medical bills. For that matter, I will not expect that even if I am injured while wearing a seatbelt. NO welfare! That is just common sense.
If I want to go to the store and buy Pseudoephedrine, let me. Don't force the poor clerks to become your proxy-thugs and card me like a criminal. If I use it to manufacture a substance the state doesn't approve of, so what? If I use this unapproved chemical and fry my own brain, don't support me or pay for my care. If I choose to sell it and others choose to buy it, of their own free will, and they fry their brains, same deal. That is the essence of a free market and a free society - you know, like America was supposed to be. Free choice. If, however, I force people to use my product I would be just as guilty of coercion as when the state does the same thing. And I would be subject to restitution and liability for any harm my product causes that is due to false advertising or poor quality control. For that matter, if I am suffering and need to send my 6 year-old daughter down to the corner store for a bottle of heroin, just like people used to be free to do, only a psychotic bully would prevent that voluntary transaction. The War on (some) Drugs is tearing society apart. Enough!
If I want to carry a full-auto AK-47 down the street, as long as I am not aiming at people it is no one's business. Until force is initiated or credibly threatened there is no harm done. People are only afraid of such sights because they have been trained, by self-serving parasites in government, to be afraid. Sure, it would offend anti-freedom advocates. Too bad. There is no right to not be offended. There is a basic human right to use tools of self defense. Only a power-hungry madman or his enablers would try to deny that right. "...Shall not be infringed." Got it?
I am no threat to people who are not attacking me. And neither are 99% of the people you will cross paths with. It is disgusting to let the twisted 1% be the rudder of society. Whether elected, appointed, badged, or free-lance; stop giving the thugs the control they crave. Stop protecting me from myself. I don't need your "help" and neither does anyone else.
I prefer wearing a seat belt when I am in a car, but if I didn't want to the state should leave me alone to make my own choices. It is my life. If I refuse to wear a seatbelt and I am horribly injured in an accident, I will not expect my neighbors to pay my medical bills. For that matter, I will not expect that even if I am injured while wearing a seatbelt. NO welfare! That is just common sense.
If I want to go to the store and buy Pseudoephedrine, let me. Don't force the poor clerks to become your proxy-thugs and card me like a criminal. If I use it to manufacture a substance the state doesn't approve of, so what? If I use this unapproved chemical and fry my own brain, don't support me or pay for my care. If I choose to sell it and others choose to buy it, of their own free will, and they fry their brains, same deal. That is the essence of a free market and a free society - you know, like America was supposed to be. Free choice. If, however, I force people to use my product I would be just as guilty of coercion as when the state does the same thing. And I would be subject to restitution and liability for any harm my product causes that is due to false advertising or poor quality control. For that matter, if I am suffering and need to send my 6 year-old daughter down to the corner store for a bottle of heroin, just like people used to be free to do, only a psychotic bully would prevent that voluntary transaction. The War on (some) Drugs is tearing society apart. Enough!
If I want to carry a full-auto AK-47 down the street, as long as I am not aiming at people it is no one's business. Until force is initiated or credibly threatened there is no harm done. People are only afraid of such sights because they have been trained, by self-serving parasites in government, to be afraid. Sure, it would offend anti-freedom advocates. Too bad. There is no right to not be offended. There is a basic human right to use tools of self defense. Only a power-hungry madman or his enablers would try to deny that right. "...Shall not be infringed." Got it?
I am no threat to people who are not attacking me. And neither are 99% of the people you will cross paths with. It is disgusting to let the twisted 1% be the rudder of society. Whether elected, appointed, badged, or free-lance; stop giving the thugs the control they crave. Stop protecting me from myself. I don't need your "help" and neither does anyone else.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Is the ZAP a principle?
A dear online friend and I have discovered a difference of opinion. She thinks The Zero Aggression Principle is a "value judgment" rather than a "principle", and doesn't think too highly of it in any case.
To bolster her point, she uses Black’s Law Dictionary's definition (copied from her blog): “Principle, A fundamental Truth or Doctrine as of Law. A comprehensive or doctrine which furnishes a basis for legal determination. A Truth or proposition so clear that it cannot be proved or contradicted, unless by a proposition which is still clearer.” Personally, not being a lawyer, I would say the ZAP still qualifies.
I used Dictionary.com to look up "principle" and found this: "an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct". I think the ZAP qualifies. I accept and profess the ZAP as a rule for my action and conduct. It even fits with the other definitions as well: "a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived". I derive a great deal of truth from the ZAP. Such is the difference in a "legal definition" and a regular definition, I suppose.
So moving onto other questions, she says a principle can not vary, while a value judgment varies from person to person. I honestly can't think of a single example of a "principle" that every person on this planet accepts. And I have tried. The only thing I can see concerning "consistency" is that for me personally, the principle that it is not right to initiate force never varies. No matter whether I think it is in my interest at this moment to do so or not. If I go ahead and initiate force I will consider myself in the wrong and will accept my consequences. Someday there may be a situation extreme enough that I will make this choice, but it would still be wrong of me to do.
In fact, I would be so bold as to think that this principle may very well apply equally well in extraterrestrial societies. Would other planets have moralities so different that things that are wrong here would be right there? Probably. Different biologies would call for different moral realities. I can imagine a great many different moral codes, some that would be repellent to just about any human. But try as I might, I can't imagine any society that would think initiating force - attacking others of their own kind - is right. Any society where this is a widespread idea wouldn't survive (not that this proves anything other than the usefulness of the ZAP, of course).
Even among humans we normally see this as wrong for everyone - except for governments in the opinion of statists. This "exception" is a small enough proportion of the actual population that it hasn't doomed us to extinction. Yet. It has just retarded our civilization a great deal; keeping us centuries, or possibly even millennia, behind where we would otherwise be without this millstone slowing the progress of human civilization.
To bolster her point, she uses Black’s Law Dictionary's definition (copied from her blog): “Principle, A fundamental Truth or Doctrine as of Law. A comprehensive or doctrine which furnishes a basis for legal determination. A Truth or proposition so clear that it cannot be proved or contradicted, unless by a proposition which is still clearer.” Personally, not being a lawyer, I would say the ZAP still qualifies.
I used Dictionary.com to look up "principle" and found this: "an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct". I think the ZAP qualifies. I accept and profess the ZAP as a rule for my action and conduct. It even fits with the other definitions as well: "a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived". I derive a great deal of truth from the ZAP. Such is the difference in a "legal definition" and a regular definition, I suppose.
So moving onto other questions, she says a principle can not vary, while a value judgment varies from person to person. I honestly can't think of a single example of a "principle" that every person on this planet accepts. And I have tried. The only thing I can see concerning "consistency" is that for me personally, the principle that it is not right to initiate force never varies. No matter whether I think it is in my interest at this moment to do so or not. If I go ahead and initiate force I will consider myself in the wrong and will accept my consequences. Someday there may be a situation extreme enough that I will make this choice, but it would still be wrong of me to do.
In fact, I would be so bold as to think that this principle may very well apply equally well in extraterrestrial societies. Would other planets have moralities so different that things that are wrong here would be right there? Probably. Different biologies would call for different moral realities. I can imagine a great many different moral codes, some that would be repellent to just about any human. But try as I might, I can't imagine any society that would think initiating force - attacking others of their own kind - is right. Any society where this is a widespread idea wouldn't survive (not that this proves anything other than the usefulness of the ZAP, of course).
Even among humans we normally see this as wrong for everyone - except for governments in the opinion of statists. This "exception" is a small enough proportion of the actual population that it hasn't doomed us to extinction. Yet. It has just retarded our civilization a great deal; keeping us centuries, or possibly even millennia, behind where we would otherwise be without this millstone slowing the progress of human civilization.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
'National security' is a euphemism
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: 'National security' is a euphemism
Those who are overly concerned with security are cowards. Those who obsess over national security, to the detriment of individual liberty, are cowards who are also committing evil.
That is because "national security" is a euphemism for the subjugation of real liberty for the protection of the agents and employees of the state. It is not about making you or me safer in any way. Quite the opposite. The actions that would make us safer are frequently prohibited by "national security" concerns. The state is the natural predator of liberty. It is the devourer of the innocent. To those who care at all about liberty, individuals always matter more than a "nation", since without individuals a nation is nothing.
The only realistic and reasonable approach to universal individual security is a universally armed populace. Anything less is only concerned with protecting the parasitic class- those who produce nothing but "laws" and regulations. This parasitic class is called "the government". "National security" is the polar opposite of real security. It makes no one safer, but instead endangers us all.
Those who are overly concerned with security are cowards. Those who obsess over national security, to the detriment of individual liberty, are cowards who are also committing evil.
That is because "national security" is a euphemism for the subjugation of real liberty for the protection of the agents and employees of the state. It is not about making you or me safer in any way. Quite the opposite. The actions that would make us safer are frequently prohibited by "national security" concerns. The state is the natural predator of liberty. It is the devourer of the innocent. To those who care at all about liberty, individuals always matter more than a "nation", since without individuals a nation is nothing.
The only realistic and reasonable approach to universal individual security is a universally armed populace. Anything less is only concerned with protecting the parasitic class- those who produce nothing but "laws" and regulations. This parasitic class is called "the government". "National security" is the polar opposite of real security. It makes no one safer, but instead endangers us all.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Pollution and statism are destructive siblings
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Pollution and statism are destructive siblings
There are two actions which I think demonstrate a lack of responsibility more clearly than any others: "soiling your own nest" (littering or polluting) and promoting statism.
In the case of littering or otherwise polluting, you obviously have a right to do anything to your own property that you wish. As long as your filth stays on your own property. If it blows onto another person's property, or in the case of chemicals, gets into the air or groundwater, then you have harmed the other individuals. You have an obligation to make it right.
To carelessly allow your waste to trespass, and do nothing about it, is a sign of a terrible lack of responsibility on your part.
In the same way, statism is allowing your own lack of responsibility to trespass into the lives of other people. Statists leave a wasteland of "laws" and regulations wherever they roam. Instead of taking responsibility for their own lives, and cleaning up their own messes, statists would prefer to make "one-size-fits-all" rules that everyone would be forced to live under, unless the guilty party can bribe the state, of course. It is as if they believe that since they have no self-responsibility, no one else possibly could either.
The two sometimes cross paths. Statists who falsely call themselves "environmentalists" use the state in order to force people to clean up their own mess, yet conveniently overlook the fact that the state is the worst despoiler of the natural world there has ever been. Nothing is less qualified to pass judgment on "pollution" than is government.
Accept your responsibilities to clean up your own messes, whether they be environmental or moral. Don't pollute and don't support the state.
There are two actions which I think demonstrate a lack of responsibility more clearly than any others: "soiling your own nest" (littering or polluting) and promoting statism.
In the case of littering or otherwise polluting, you obviously have a right to do anything to your own property that you wish. As long as your filth stays on your own property. If it blows onto another person's property, or in the case of chemicals, gets into the air or groundwater, then you have harmed the other individuals. You have an obligation to make it right.
To carelessly allow your waste to trespass, and do nothing about it, is a sign of a terrible lack of responsibility on your part.
In the same way, statism is allowing your own lack of responsibility to trespass into the lives of other people. Statists leave a wasteland of "laws" and regulations wherever they roam. Instead of taking responsibility for their own lives, and cleaning up their own messes, statists would prefer to make "one-size-fits-all" rules that everyone would be forced to live under, unless the guilty party can bribe the state, of course. It is as if they believe that since they have no self-responsibility, no one else possibly could either.
The two sometimes cross paths. Statists who falsely call themselves "environmentalists" use the state in order to force people to clean up their own mess, yet conveniently overlook the fact that the state is the worst despoiler of the natural world there has ever been. Nothing is less qualified to pass judgment on "pollution" than is government.
Accept your responsibilities to clean up your own messes, whether they be environmental or moral. Don't pollute and don't support the state.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Statism is a successful disease
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Statism is a successful disease
The reason statism has been so much more successful than anarchism (so far) is that statists think it is OK to to kill those who disagree with them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that's a hard strategy to beat, especially in the short-term. Does that make them right? Of course not. I'm a Browncoat: I'd rather be on the losing side than be on the wrong side. But that's just me.
This statist tendency also means that statists happily kill other statists who disagree with them. That's what almost every war in history has been about. Is there a way to use this deplorable but logical lack of morality against them? Maybe.
Anarchists can wait it out. Stay off the radar and let the statists kill one another until the balance is tipped. It won't be easy and some of us will undoubtedly get killed in the crossfire. Those of you smart enough to not make noise about liberty will have an easier time remaining unnoticed than will the loudmouths. While the statists are busy battling among themselves in Iraq, Pakistan, Elbonia, or wherever, start quietly laying the foundations for a real society without them. Encourage secession wherever it is discussed, and for whatever reason. A fragmented monolith is easier to dispose of. Build a freer world and just say "No" to the state. Replace the current failed state with "nothing" when the inevitable occurs.
For more on secession: Stewart Browne at Strike the Root: A New Strategy For Liberty - Part 1: An Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters and A New Strategy For Liberty - Part 2: Secession in Three Easy Steps
The reason statism has been so much more successful than anarchism (so far) is that statists think it is OK to to kill those who disagree with them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that's a hard strategy to beat, especially in the short-term. Does that make them right? Of course not. I'm a Browncoat: I'd rather be on the losing side than be on the wrong side. But that's just me.
This statist tendency also means that statists happily kill other statists who disagree with them. That's what almost every war in history has been about. Is there a way to use this deplorable but logical lack of morality against them? Maybe.
Anarchists can wait it out. Stay off the radar and let the statists kill one another until the balance is tipped. It won't be easy and some of us will undoubtedly get killed in the crossfire. Those of you smart enough to not make noise about liberty will have an easier time remaining unnoticed than will the loudmouths. While the statists are busy battling among themselves in Iraq, Pakistan, Elbonia, or wherever, start quietly laying the foundations for a real society without them. Encourage secession wherever it is discussed, and for whatever reason. A fragmented monolith is easier to dispose of. Build a freer world and just say "No" to the state. Replace the current failed state with "nothing" when the inevitable occurs.
For more on secession: Stewart Browne at Strike the Root: A New Strategy For Liberty - Part 1: An Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters and A New Strategy For Liberty - Part 2: Secession in Three Easy Steps
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Evil is an action, not a person
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Evil is an action, not a person
Does "evil" exist? I think so. Are statists evil? No. But their actions often are. To me, "evil" is "actions which harm the innocent (those who do not deserve to be harmed at this moment)". Notice I consider actions to be evil; not people. People can commit evil, but can't BE evil. Unless, perhaps, they honestly do nothing that ameliorates the harm they cause to the innocent they cross paths with. Most of these people have worked for the state during their greatest harm.
This is why I don't consider Bush or Obama to be evil. (But, Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi......well...) Bush committed a LOT of evil during his reign, and Obama is trying really hard to out-do Bush's legacy of evil, and will most likely succeed. Each president seems to do a little more evil than the previous president, since the harm is cumulative. Each president builds on the atrocities of his predecessor.
But, getting back to real people: I have never met anyone in real life that I truly considered to be "evil", although some people I have known were pushing the margins. I have also never know any real people who didn't at some point do something that harmed innocent people. Myself included. Such is the trap of thinking of people in terms of good and evil. Judge the actions instead.
A person can have the worst notions or philosophy possible, but if they do not act on it and thereby harm the innocent, they have committed no evil. Most statists who commit evil prefer to send others to do their deeds for them, which also makes them cowards. It means they have violated the ZAP ("No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." You can wish for a collectivist society that allows no "opting out", but as long as you don't act on it, or somehow cause it to become real, no one has been harmed and no evil has been committed.
It is my intention to do no more evil.
***************************
Does "evil" exist? I think so. Are statists evil? No. But their actions often are. To me, "evil" is "actions which harm the innocent (those who do not deserve to be harmed at this moment)". Notice I consider actions to be evil; not people. People can commit evil, but can't BE evil. Unless, perhaps, they honestly do nothing that ameliorates the harm they cause to the innocent they cross paths with. Most of these people have worked for the state during their greatest harm.
This is why I don't consider Bush or Obama to be evil. (But, Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi......well...) Bush committed a LOT of evil during his reign, and Obama is trying really hard to out-do Bush's legacy of evil, and will most likely succeed. Each president seems to do a little more evil than the previous president, since the harm is cumulative. Each president builds on the atrocities of his predecessor.
But, getting back to real people: I have never met anyone in real life that I truly considered to be "evil", although some people I have known were pushing the margins. I have also never know any real people who didn't at some point do something that harmed innocent people. Myself included. Such is the trap of thinking of people in terms of good and evil. Judge the actions instead.
A person can have the worst notions or philosophy possible, but if they do not act on it and thereby harm the innocent, they have committed no evil. Most statists who commit evil prefer to send others to do their deeds for them, which also makes them cowards. It means they have violated the ZAP ("No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation." You can wish for a collectivist society that allows no "opting out", but as long as you don't act on it, or somehow cause it to become real, no one has been harmed and no evil has been committed.
It is my intention to do no more evil.
***************************
Monday, May 18, 2009
"Opposing Views" website
There is a new (I suppose it is new) website called "Opposing Views" that I have added to my list of links. It is not a "libertarian" or anarchist site, but in doing a little surfing I have found it very interesting. You do have to join before commenting, but they provide a nice opportunity for quality commentary (each comment must be approved before it is posted) rather than an onslaught of rude name-calling. That is something I find sort of refreshing. It is also something libertarians are best at.
Anyway, I would like to see a lot more liberty-embracing comments on their site. Join me?
..................
Anyway, I would like to see a lot more liberty-embracing comments on their site. Join me?
..................
The government's military is bad for freedom
I feel bad for the people in the government military. This sentiment gets me in trouble with people who think my pity is misplaced or phony. It isn't.
I know some of those in the government's military really think they are doing good. Instead, they are being used as pawns by a government that only cares about them as long as it needs them. They are brainwashed into thinking they are "fighting for our freedom" when they are demonstrably not. Their presence and actions around the world are causing America to be much less safe: they are creating new generations of people who will hate America and be willing to die in order to strike back however they can.
If the people in these other countries would blame the US government, which is the real aggressor, it would be fine, but it is easier to blame American individuals instead (many Americans make the same error). The government officials usually have heavy protection wherever they go, unlike the average American at home or overseas, so guess who is the easier target. Remember that it isn't "terrorism" if it targets a government facility or employee, regardless of the self-serving claims of the statists.
Too many ex-military folk are now going into "law-enforcement" when they get discharged; using their military training and "us vs. them" attitude against Americans in their own towns. Once you work for the state, and advance its agenda with force elsewhere, you have an easier time doing the same against people at home whom the state tells you are also "your enemy". Frequently these "enemies" the state sends them to kill have done nothing against anyone else, but are only asserting their rights to ingest anything they wish, to engage in free trade, or to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit everywhere they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission from anyone. In other words, the exact thing these ex-military folks claimed to be fighting for: freedom.
I expect that if any military supporters read this, they will tear me apart for being "anti-military". I am not "anti-military" since I fully support the militia; I just don't confuse the legitimate military with pawns of the state. Do you?
I know some of those in the government's military really think they are doing good. Instead, they are being used as pawns by a government that only cares about them as long as it needs them. They are brainwashed into thinking they are "fighting for our freedom" when they are demonstrably not. Their presence and actions around the world are causing America to be much less safe: they are creating new generations of people who will hate America and be willing to die in order to strike back however they can.
If the people in these other countries would blame the US government, which is the real aggressor, it would be fine, but it is easier to blame American individuals instead (many Americans make the same error). The government officials usually have heavy protection wherever they go, unlike the average American at home or overseas, so guess who is the easier target. Remember that it isn't "terrorism" if it targets a government facility or employee, regardless of the self-serving claims of the statists.
Too many ex-military folk are now going into "law-enforcement" when they get discharged; using their military training and "us vs. them" attitude against Americans in their own towns. Once you work for the state, and advance its agenda with force elsewhere, you have an easier time doing the same against people at home whom the state tells you are also "your enemy". Frequently these "enemies" the state sends them to kill have done nothing against anyone else, but are only asserting their rights to ingest anything they wish, to engage in free trade, or to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit everywhere they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission from anyone. In other words, the exact thing these ex-military folks claimed to be fighting for: freedom.
I expect that if any military supporters read this, they will tear me apart for being "anti-military". I am not "anti-military" since I fully support the militia; I just don't confuse the legitimate military with pawns of the state. Do you?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
What makes a country 'bad'?
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: What makes a country 'bad'?
A country is "good" only to the extent that its government leaves you alone. This applies to countries on the other side of the globe as well as any country that claims your home.
People everywhere are about the same. Some good; some bad. The "bad countries" in the world are not bad because of the average person who lives there. The average person in any country is simply trying to live and find a little happiness wherever he can. Just like you and me.
Bad countries just have governments that are more meddlesome than average. The really bad countries' governments are not only meddlesome, but are directly responsible for intentional harm on innocent people; usually beginning with those who live under their rule. Actions that harm the innocent -those who do not deserve to be harmed right at this moment- are "evil".
Then these bad governments expand their evil wherever they can. The justifications may vary; the results never do. Often their targets confuse the actions of this rogue government with the intent of the people who live under it. That is a terrible error. Do you want to be judged by the actions of the US government? Me neither.
A country is "good" only to the extent that its government leaves you alone. This applies to countries on the other side of the globe as well as any country that claims your home.
People everywhere are about the same. Some good; some bad. The "bad countries" in the world are not bad because of the average person who lives there. The average person in any country is simply trying to live and find a little happiness wherever he can. Just like you and me.
Bad countries just have governments that are more meddlesome than average. The really bad countries' governments are not only meddlesome, but are directly responsible for intentional harm on innocent people; usually beginning with those who live under their rule. Actions that harm the innocent -those who do not deserve to be harmed right at this moment- are "evil".
Then these bad governments expand their evil wherever they can. The justifications may vary; the results never do. Often their targets confuse the actions of this rogue government with the intent of the people who live under it. That is a terrible error. Do you want to be judged by the actions of the US government? Me neither.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Time's Up patch
Over at Days of Our Trailers, Thirdpower has produced some "Time's Up" patches. He sent me some a while back and they are very nice!
He also has a variety of other patches with the "Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps" theme.
He is promoting them today at the Blogger Bash. Let him know if you want some.
The Constitution is long-dead
(I've since evolved even further away from Constitutionalism since this was written.)
I frequently hear otherwise freedom-loving people saying I should respect the US Constitution. Why give it respect it does not deserve? I never agreed to it; I did not sign it; and since I am not employed by the federal government, it was never even meant to apply to me anyway.
I would argue that the Constitution is irrelevant. I agree with Lysander Spooner: "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it". (No Treason- 1870)
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were this country's highest written law: they outranked all others. Yet, they placed no obligation on you and me, but only on those who would rule. Even the irredeemably corrupt Supreme Court has declared that no one is under any obligation to obey any "law" which is prohibited by these documents. Of course, they will almost never say that a "law" is unconstitutional; especially when it would bring down a whole sector of the government and leave their tyrant-brethren open to consequences. This is why they uphold most victim disarmament "laws" in spite of the clear meaning of "shall not be infringed". And even when they overrule a particular "law" they make sure their ruling can make no real difference for liberty.
The Constitution's only utility at this point is as a yard-stick to show how completely illegal and illegitimate the US fe(de)ral government has become; an occupying force of criminals. This is why those who still bother to write the congresscritters (and other public serpents) must constantly remind these Rulers that they do not even obey their own laws. Government can not be allowed to continue ignoring the laws that apply to them, while insisting that we, "the people", abide by the "laws" they inflict on us.
Government must be reminded and shown that since it operates outside its authority and did not honor the Constitution, then it is no longer upholding its end of the bargain. It was a contract which one party, the government, has seen fit to break. That means "the deal" is over- done- finished. Remind them when they confront you. Or better yet, ignore them and get on with your life. Don't support the tyrants, nor fear them. Obey them only at your whim. And fight back if they attack you. A life of slavery is no life, after all. Patrick Henry was half right: "Give me liberty..." or I'll take a few tyrants with me.
I frequently hear otherwise freedom-loving people saying I should respect the US Constitution. Why give it respect it does not deserve? I never agreed to it; I did not sign it; and since I am not employed by the federal government, it was never even meant to apply to me anyway.
I would argue that the Constitution is irrelevant. I agree with Lysander Spooner: "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it". (No Treason- 1870)
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were this country's highest written law: they outranked all others. Yet, they placed no obligation on you and me, but only on those who would rule. Even the irredeemably corrupt Supreme Court has declared that no one is under any obligation to obey any "law" which is prohibited by these documents. Of course, they will almost never say that a "law" is unconstitutional; especially when it would bring down a whole sector of the government and leave their tyrant-brethren open to consequences. This is why they uphold most victim disarmament "laws" in spite of the clear meaning of "shall not be infringed". And even when they overrule a particular "law" they make sure their ruling can make no real difference for liberty.
The Constitution's only utility at this point is as a yard-stick to show how completely illegal and illegitimate the US fe(de)ral government has become; an occupying force of criminals. This is why those who still bother to write the congresscritters (and other public serpents) must constantly remind these Rulers that they do not even obey their own laws. Government can not be allowed to continue ignoring the laws that apply to them, while insisting that we, "the people", abide by the "laws" they inflict on us.
Government must be reminded and shown that since it operates outside its authority and did not honor the Constitution, then it is no longer upholding its end of the bargain. It was a contract which one party, the government, has seen fit to break. That means "the deal" is over- done- finished. Remind them when they confront you. Or better yet, ignore them and get on with your life. Don't support the tyrants, nor fear them. Obey them only at your whim. And fight back if they attack you. A life of slavery is no life, after all. Patrick Henry was half right: "Give me liberty..." or I'll take a few tyrants with me.
Friday, May 15, 2009
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".
***********************
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".
***********************
Thursday, May 14, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, May 11, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 08, 2009
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 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
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.
"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.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 aThe 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.
tomcat immoral when it eats stranger kittens?
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
Celticsaying "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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)