Independence means secession- then and now

Independence means secession- then and now

Do these words seem familiar?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security. --- Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, (emphasis mine).

"All men". We would now say all human beings. Not just those who agree to be bound by the Constitution. Not only those who happen to have been born on land claimed by the US government. Not only those who haven't yet been declared "enemy combatants" by secret accusers. These "men" have rights which no government can ever have the authority to abrogate in any way. That is what was meant by "unalienable". It didn't mention matters of national security, or times of war, or any other excuse, because there is no excuse. None.

So, these governments have been unwisely instituted among men, like wolves in a flock of sheep, by consent of the sheep... I mean the "men"? I don't think so. I do not consent, so no government gets any "just powers" or authority from me, whether it counts me among the "governed" or not.

All governments quickly become destructive of the ends which are used to justify "government". Tragic experience has shown that the only kind of government that can secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is self government. Other forms of government don't even make an honest attempt. We now know, through long, hard experience, which type of government is most likely to "effect" our safety and happiness, as well as which type is most likely to affect it. It would be a grave mistake to depose one tyrant only to replace him with another. The mistake has been made innumerable times before. Has no lesson been learned?

No "revolution" was necessary as a follow-up to the Declaration of Independence. The British could have allowed a peaceful secession- a simple parting of the ways. Instead they chose the path of war. Just as Abraham Lincoln did a few generations later. Just as the US will undoubtedly do soon.

Humans will tolerate a lot of abuse from government, as the above excerpt points out. "Don't rock the boat" seems to be the general consensus. The chains become part of the normal pain of life; the fear of shedding those chains keeps people from exploring reasonable options. Better to stay with the evil you know than to face the unknown. For some people. I hope the numbers of people willing to toss the chains aside, or use them to strangle the slavemasters, will increase with each passing day, and with each new abomination committed by government at any level. What better day to begin than today: Independence Day? Let's make it mean something again!


For more info: I recommend reading the reasons for secession listed in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing those to the situation the formerly-free people of America now find themselves facing. You might even realize it is time for a more succinct declaration.

The disease which pretends to be its own cure

The disease which pretends to be its own cure

In reading and debating liberty with other people, I notice that almost every argument against freedom, at some point, boils down to consequences that we currently encounter because of government interference.

To wit:

The reason national borders are "necessary" is that the state steals money in order to finance welfare, which is then either a nice carrot enticing people who want something for nothing or is a nice excuse for xenophobes to use against immigrants who want no handouts (most of the people in America who want something for nothing are not recent immigrants).

The reason gun control is "needed" is because government has made it safer to be an aggressive criminal than it would be if self-defense were not criminalized. It also causes people to be unfamiliar with the safe handling of guns resulting in more accidents than would otherwise occur. Both crime and accidents are then used as an excuse for more victim disarmament "laws" making a crazy feedback loop.

Driver's licenses and draconian state control of the roads are "necessary" because we have foolishly allowed the state to assume ownership over the roadways.

The reason the "War on (some) Drugs" is "necessary" is that prohibition causes an inflated profit margin and makes violence inevitable.

The reason "healthcare reform" is "needed" is because of the "War on (some) Drugs" making remedies expensive and (legally) dangerous to try, and because of government licensing and regulation of doctors artificially causing a shortage of healers.

The reason "gay marriage" is an issue is that government has been allowed to immorally declare it owns the institution of marriage, to be rationed out as it sees fit.

The list goes on and on. Government causes the problem and fools gullible "patriotic" folk into pointing to the problem as a reason they need government. I'm not the first to notice the pattern:

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre

Well, I don't need government for ANYTHING. And neither do you.



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

Libertarians should dare to be different

Libertarians should dare to be different

I was recently called an "intellectual pygmy" and a "shock jock" on Ilana Mercer's "Barely a Blog". I was held up as an example of what is wrong with libertarianism. Her main complaint was over my controversial "cannibalism column".

Upon reading her entry, I sat here and tried to see it from her perspective. I tried to think if I am doing more harm than good to the cause of individual liberty. If so, I need to be aware of that and stop it. If I am wrong, I want to know. Freedom is a lot more important than I am.

After reflecting I came to the conclusion that I can't be anyone other than myself. In these columns I write what I really think, from the perspective of who I really am. So, as I often do in cases like this, I wrote her directly. I try to be polite in all my correspondence, and she was very polite in her response to me. She almost apologized for the ad hominem comments.

In her reply Ms. Mercer claimed that "my kind" of "shock jock opinions" are more "conventional and unthreatening" to most libertarians than are her opinions. From my perspective, and based upon years of hate-mail, I don't believe that is true. But, if it were true, why would that be?

Maybe because a difference that makes no difference is not a difference. If your "alternative" to the rampant statism that infects the earth today is indistinguishable from the status quo, why would anyone bother changing sides? If the difference is only a matter of degree, and not a fundamental rejection of statist coercion and control, is that really a difference? I am not assuming any opinions or motivations for Ms. Mercer in particular. I am not enlightened about her opinions on any issues, but I do know where so many "libertarians" balk when discussing liberty.

If you see nothing wrong with national borders enforced by government; if you see nothing wrong with taxation as a concept; if you don't recognize aggressive war (the business of the state) as murder on a massive scale; if you accept that government has the authority to do things that you or I can not do, then what is the difference from any Demopublican out there? If you don't accept that the philosophy of non-aggression applies to ALL individuals, including those employed by the state, what is your line-in-the-sand? I'm not aiming any of these remarks at Ms. Mercer, as I don't really know, but otherwise, why would her opinions not be as popular among those who hunger for real liberty as they might otherwise be? Those who believe in the legitimacy of the state are unlikely to embrace any real limits on their god and probably will not ever support liberty over the state in any substantive way. So, why cater to them?

Continuing to distill my thinking about 'rights'

Continuing to distill my thinking about 'rights'

I suppose I am still thinking about the nature of "rights". The subject tends to crop up in the comments from time to time. I normally keep distilling a concept down to simpler terms the longer I contemplate it. My most recent thought doesn't override my earlier thoughts, but clarifies them.

I think it really boils down to this: A "right" is something you can do without harming any innocent individual. This means there are some pretty trivial matters that are within your rights. There are some pretty incredibly important ones, as well. No one has the authority to prohibit you from exercising any of your rights- trivial or monumental. Only when you violate another person's rights does anyone have a right to step in and stop your actions.

It doesn't matter if the right is recognized specifically by any "authority". It doesn't matter if you sat down and analyzed a particular right. It doesn't even really depend upon your defense of your rights. You have them whether you defend or exercise them. I recommend exercising any right you want.

Does this qualify as "navel gazing"? If I don't gaze at my navel, who would notice if it has a problem? Perhaps this is all I am qualified to do.


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

Immigration, amnesty, and biometrics

Immigration, amnesty, and biometrics

Are you an advocate of freedom? Do you acknowledge that freedom includes the right to live where you want as long as you voluntarily buy or rent the property you move on to? Do you recognize the absolute right of any person to sell or rent property to whomever they wish, for any price that can be agreed upon? Do you think the state's wishes override these rights? Then you might be a "borderist".

There should be no question of "amnesty", as there should be no one who believes that governments own people. Governmental "laws" that do not directly address actual initiated force (physical attacks) or theft (stealing or defrauding) are counterfeit "laws" which have no moral or ethical foundation. Enforcing such "laws" harms people who do not deserve to be harmed right now, and is therefore an evil act. Advocating or supporting such acts is just as wrong. You can't sic the state on someone just because you don't like them- if you have principles.

Even among "borderline borderists" there is a lot of talk about the dangers of the state tracking, through the use of biometrics, those it believes it owns. The problem is that the really bad people will not comply, and will find a way around the tracking. Bad people always do. The only ones harmed in any scheme like this are the people who are inclined to obey "laws" anyway. And make no mistake: it is a scheme. Hatched to provide a way to track everything you do, from every job you apply for, to every dollar you earn or spend, to every gun you own.

Homeland / Fatherland / Motherland... the terms are slightly different, but the statism behind them all is the same. It is the authoritarian attitude that the State is of prime importance and must be protected from freedom at all costs. Individuals are only useful as a lubricant on the gears of the state. Stop being useful as lubricant, and you will be burned as fuel.

The only way to keep the state from trampling YOU as a consequence of a misguided and insane call to "secure the borders" is to pull the rug out from under all the "borderists"; private and governmental. National borders shouldn't matter to individuals; only to governments. You have your own personal property borders to worry about. The state thinks its borders outrank yours. They are dead wrong. Show them that you see through the smoke, mirrors, and tyranny. Don't fall for the lie.

Government is incompetent and should be fired

Government is incompetent and should be fired

The ONLY legitimate "job" of ANY government is to protect the rights of the people it claims to "govern". Period. Any other things it coercively does, like "coin money" (or counterfeit it, in the case of the Federal Reserve), or control "immigration", in actuality and practice violates the rights of the individuals who find themselves at the mercy of the state.

One thing that often gets muddled is when statists make some bizarre statement about government being there to protect "the people". Nonsense. It is the government's job to protect the RIGHTS of the individuals, not the individuals themselves, and certainly not some mythological collective called "the people". Protect the rights and people can protect themselves. Violate the rights, as all governments inevitably do, and the people find themselves needing to protect themselves from government first, before any freelance predator can be dealt with.

Since every government that has ever existed has proven to be completely incapable of doing that job, all governments are worse than useless. Electing different politicians won't solve the problem. Getting the "right laws" enacted won't solve the problem. Ignoring reality won't solve the problem. Tar and feathers might solve some of the problem, but the best solution is to refuse to hear or obey the government's evermore twisted edicts. Let the statists struggle among themselves in an increasingly irrelevant wrestling match. Don't even laugh at them. They think you approve when you pay attention.

The truth of the matter is: You are the only one who is capable of protecting your rights. You may not like the job, may not be good at it, and you may even refuse to do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is your responsibility and you can't pay someone else to do it for you; especially not with other people's money.

The census- just say 'huh?'

The census- just say 'huh?'

Soon armies of civic-minded busybodies will flow across the land like locusts. They will be poking their noses into every aspect of your life, and getting GPS coordinates for every front door.

Yes, I realize the Constitution (RIP) authorizes, in a flimsy way, a periodic census of how many people live in the "nation" (and NOTHING else). Why is the information needed? Supposedly for knowing how to apportion the "representatives" and enable other functions of "voting" and governmental meddling. So what? When the Constitution is wrong, it is really wrong. Seems like a good reason to avoid these nosy meddlers to me.

An amusing "legal" fact is that it is "illegal" to refuse to answer the questions that it is "unconstitutional" for them to ask. What happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable object?

While you can't legally shoot these "trespassers with clipboards", you can treat them like door to door religion-pushers. Ignore, avoid, and/or confound them at every turn. You would do well to avoid answering any questions for the census-takers if you can manage it. Become an absolute simpleton; completely unable to comprehend the questions. Or suddenly convert to Jediism and remember the family of Jawas living with you and include them in your answers. And you did marry your cat last year, didn't you?

If you really believe it, it is "true enough" for the state, right? After all, that's how they get around the limits on their authority to enact "laws" they really, REALLY want.

Harold Koh- Playing by the 'global rules'

Harold Koh- Playing by the 'global rules'

I got an email alert from Gun Owners of America (a much better gun rights organization than the quislings at the NRA, in my opinion) concerning the nomination of Harold Hongju Koh to the State Department. According to GOA, Mr. Koh:

who served at the State Department under the Clinton administration, is a
self-described "trans-nationalist" who believes that our laws -- and our
Constitution -- should be brought into conformity with international agreements.
"If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global
rules," Koh told a Cleveland audience.

Really? So if everyone else jumped off a cliff into molten lava Mr. Koh would do it too? Or would he just push you and me over the edge? What if "the global rules" are wrong (as sensible people suspect)? Does Mr. Koh only like the "global rules" if they conform to his socialist, genocide-enabling agenda? Like the widespread global epidemic of illegitimate governments which violate the right of all people to own and to carry guns?

There is only one "global rule": Do not attack or steal from the innocent. Let's bring all governments into conformity with that one before we worry about anything else. Of course, that would mean abolishing all government at every level until only self-government is left. So, let's get to it.

Diversity is supposed to be such a good thing. One size does not fit all, Mr. Koh. Let me be free to find my own way, and you can be free to jump into molten lava. OK?

Drug use is within your rights, but is it worth it?

Drug use is within your rights, but is it worth it?

Recently while talking to a person, they told me that they have a right to put any mind-altering chemical (called "drugs" by the state) into their body that they want. I quickly agreed, but made a point they seem to be missing. My advice would be the same to anyone in this position.

I also have an absolute human right to carry, openly or concealed, any gun I own everywhere I go, but it isn't always the wisest action because of counterfeit "laws" and overzealous LEOs (Liberty Eradication Operatives). So, while I agree that you have a fundamental human right to use any "drug" you wish, as long as you are not attacking people to get it or harming anyone while under its influence, I also want for you to understand that it may not be in your best interest to do so, even ignoring any health consequences.

There are unjust consequences you need to be aware of. It may prevent you from getting the job you want. While you would be wise to refuse to work for any company that perversely wants your urine, as long as government encourages such sexual molestation, it will probably continue. Employers have a right to refuse to hire anyone for any reason. Even stupid reasons. Also remember that LEOs will use the excuse of thinking you may have "drugs" in your possession to storm your house at 3AM, shoot your dogs, stomp your kittens, and electrically torture your spouse and children before kidnapping or murdering you. Avoiding "drugs" does not assure your safety from badged thugs, but it doesn't hurt either. However, it is your choice and I will not cast stones regardless of your decision.

I can't tell you what to do, nor should I. Nor should the state. "Right" doesn't always mean "smart". Weigh the costs, benefits, and possible consequences of anything you do. Then make an informed decision. Whether it is "illegal" or not.

Bulldoze the public schools and sow salt upon the ruins*

Bulldoze the public schools and sow salt upon the ruins*

As the inimitable Anne Cleveland has pointed out on several occasions, "public schools" are based upon socialism, so it is no wonder that Americans now fully embrace socialism without ever realizing what they are doing. They will complain about socialism in others while practicing it in their own lives. Public "free education", which is neither, has numbed them to reality and blinded them to the truth.

Even if it were necessary to hold children hostage in an authoritarian hell-hole to force them to learn, it would still be wrong. Children and teenagers (who are not "children", no matter how much the control-freaks wish they were) do not need to be trained to regulate their lives and bodily functions to a rigid, bell-enforced schedule. They do not need to be searched like inmates when they show up in the morning. They do not need to be subjected to the imbecilic "drug warriors" of the local LEO hive. They don't need to be punished, nor do their parents, if they decide it is not in their best interest to continue showing up in these mini concentration camps five miserable days a week, nine months a year for twelve (or more) long years.

The fact that it isn't necessary, and even gives the majority of kids a life-long aversion to anything they see as remotely educational, makes it completely evil. "Public schooling" has degraded to nothing less than compulsory statist brain-washing. It needs to end. Immediately! Education is much too important to leave to government. Our progeny and their minds are much too important to allow statist propaganda to damage.

*The headline is an admonition borrowed and paraphrased from L. Neil Smith

Friendly chat about anarchy

Friendly chat about anarchy

I have lived in many different parts of the country, in big cities and in rural areas. Even a few years in the North-Eastern US. People are pretty much the same everywhere I have been, but maybe it is because of the way I deal with them. City people do seem a bit ruder at first, but will warm up quickly when you don't return the rudeness, at least in my case. They continue to stare at me, though.

Part of the reason people in cities are more aggressive is that we have made it safe for them to be that way. We have removed all the repercussions and given them free-rein. Once again, "laws" protect them from the consequences of their actions. People in small towns also give you the finger. Maybe not as often, but with just as much, or more, feeling when it happens.

The good thing about living by the Zero Aggression Principle is that it doesn't require the cooperation of the bad guys in order to work in the real world as it exists today. I know this from personal experience. I am not really an overly optimistic person or delusionally trusting, either.

Does living a voluntary life work better some places than others? Not in my experience. It isn't necessarily the case in small towns or rural areas that people are nicer or that reputation is more important. Just be unfortunate enough to be different or threaten the status quo and see how thin the "friendly veneer" really is. The reason reputation feedback of the sort I advocate isn't important today is because such a system isn't being used and depended on in our society yet. Yes, I realize that is a circular argument. If a system of "reputation feedback" is wanted, it will develop. If there is a market for it, someone will willingly provide it, and there will probably even be competing providers each trying to be the best- the most accurate and fair. Personal acquaintance isn't necessary. I have never personally known anyone I dealt with on eBay, but I can still check their feedback and see if I am willing to deal with them.

There would still be conflicts, since we are talking about interactions between real people who are prone to misunderstandings and disagreements. I could go into the whole idea of "dispute resolution organizations" and such, to explain how one such possible future might play out, but you can google more information from experts much smarter than me.

If you know of a person who talks about stealing things, even if you have no real proof, you should probably accept them at their word. You could make a note of their admission to your "insurance" provider, who could then provide the information to the report. If you lie, your company could penalize or drop you, and your reputation would get damaged. If the person disputes it, an investigation could be done by his "company" and yours. (Remember, these are all just possibilities that I can see right now, and not necessarily the only solutions the market will discover.) Some other people might brag about committing violence, or speak of violent fantasies. These people would figure out quite quickly that government was protecting them from retribution if they act upon their aggressive fantasies. Of course, without government regulations, businesses catering to fulfilling these fantasies voluntarily might fill their needs instead of them risking being killed in the act.

Just remember that in a free society, the risk of doing business with a person who has violated the rights of others would make it important to have a way of knowing whom to trust and who would be a risk. You would be free to do business with anyone you wanted, of course, but why risk your reputation and also take the chance that he will steal from, or attack, you (or your other customers) as he has done to others in the past?

If people are looking for handouts, let private charities give them one. No one is owed a handout like the state has brainwashed them into believing. All welfare should obviously be ended and replaced by private, voluntary, charity. Anything else is theft. Small town and rural people are just as likely to look for government handouts. They call them "farm subsidies", "Medicare", and "Social Security", but they are still welfare. These salt-of-the-earth people will attack you violently for pointing that uncomfortable fact out to them.

The good thing about "my system of government" is that it works even if people would like to be parasites. If that is their true desire, let them set up their own subsystem within the free society. Nothing would prevent or prohibit that. Let people subscribe to be taken care of if that is their choice. Just realize that those who choose to not participate will defend their right to stay out of the system. Those who do not subscribe would also not be able to avoid paying into the system and then, if everything goes wrong, decide they now want to be taken care of. Charity would be their option instead. They had better hope they maintained a good enough reputation that others will want to help them.

Some people claim that New Orleans, after Katrina, is an example of life without government. I don't see it that way at all. New Orleans is a perfect example of how government makes any situation worse by many orders of magnitude. Look what caused the flooding to be catastrophic instead of natural, and what prevented REAL help. It wasn't "anarchy"; it was "chaos-by-government".

All economies are based upon barter

All economies are based upon barter

Let me begin with a joke I received in an email:

Economics 101

An insight on how the U. S. conducts business these days.

It is a slow day in the East Texas town of Madisonville.

It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. Times are tough,
everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.

On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through
town.

He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar bill
on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one
to spend the night.

As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the
hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to the
pig farmer. The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to
the supplier of feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to
the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has lately had to
offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the
hotel proprietor, paying for the rooms that she had rented when she brought
clients to that establishment.

The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so the
rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs, after
inspecting the rooms.

He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not
satisfactory...... Pockets the money and walks out the door and leaves
town.

No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt, and
looks to the future with a lot of optimism.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is
conducting business today.

If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, then I don't know what
will.

I'll tell you what is really scary. The above "joke" illustrates why people fall for government meddling in the free market: they haven't got the slightest clue about economics. All money is, is a place-holder for value, like the $100 bill in the joke. In a closed economy like the fictional one above, the money was unnecessary. The people had been bartering all along. There was no debt. They just didn't realize it, being brainwashed into depending upon "money". The $100 bill only made them happy about a situation that was already equitable. It was a placebo.

Money is not "bad", but it isn't the only system possible, and may not even be preferable in some instances. US dollars are fiat currency that has no real value except as a piece of paper; an IOU. All voluntary economies are barter systems. Even one based upon trading time for money that you then trade for goods and services. You can call the system anything you like as long as no theft or coercion is a part of the system. Once coercion becomes a part of your economy it has lost its legitimacy. Once theft is institutionalized (by calling it "taxation" or "eminent domain") or once a "war" on something (like "drugs" or guns) has been embraced, your "system" has become just another disgusting authoritarian regime. No legitimate society would ever allow Rulers to impose counterfeit "laws" that nullify or punish voluntary barter of anything as long as no innocent third party is harmed.

Predicting "Libertopia"

Predicting 'Libertopia'

I wish I had the foresight to be able to tell you exactly what to expect in a truly free society. I wish I could tell you all of the wonderful, exciting new things in store for us, as well as any pitfalls that we could avoid by planning now. I can't, though. Neither can anyone else. I can imagine, extrapolate, and calculate, but despite everything, there will always be surprises. In all the history of the world, there has never been a truly free society, although some have come close and made waves.

We have no good, real-world models to point to for examples. Technology has opened up possibilities that were not available a generation ago. What was "impossible" then is only stopped by inertia now.

Some people dwell on the fact that no one quite knows how the road system would work itself out in a free country, so they timidly cling to the current government monopoly instead of realizing that taking chances can be exhilarating and liberating. There will come a day when we will shake our heads in wonder that we ever settled for government roads.

I know there may be times that, at first, things may not be smooth in the transition. That is to be expected. As long as we refuse to settle for less than true liberty, we will find the way that works. I can think of several areas that some might be convinced that government control is the only way to protect our interests. Food and drug safety, doctor licensing, border guards, disaster recovery, and such are some areas that have been mentioned to me. I can see free-market solutions to all these things, where anything is needed, that is, that I think would actually work better that the current broken system.

To act like frightened children and stubbornly cling to the familiar is like Stockholm Syndrome; identifying and sympathizing with your captors. Let's free ourselves and begin the exciting journey into the unknown world of Libertopia. Just say "no" to government at all levels.

Competing, voluntary governments could be better choice

Competing, voluntary governments could be better choice

In a comment a couple of days ago, MamaLiberty spoke of the Constitution establishing a non-voluntary government. That is true. People seem to accept, on the whole, that government is necessarily non-voluntary. At least if you get rid of the nonsense about voting making government "of the people". Government, as it now exists, is a coercive monopoly.

But why should government be non-voluntary? Why not let people choose among competing governments? If it is good enough for us where cell phone companies or insurance providers are concerned, why not governments too? Some people would scream about those who refuse to sign on with ANY government, if given a choice. Well, what about those people who refuse a government? If government is so wonderful, why would anyone refuse? If, as is so often claimed, governments benefit those who live under them, people would be clamoring to sign on with some government, right? Especially if you could choose the features you want. Or, if governments really give no benefits, or if the liabilities outweigh the benefits, maybe it is time for governments to change or go out of business.

If a government can arise that can compete, and prosper, others would adopt the good parts of that one while trying to improve upon the model. Want your government to provide welfare? Fine, but you will bear the cost, as your government can't "tax" anyone not on their client list. Want to keep all your money all your working life, but collect some equivalent of Social Security in your old age instead of planning ahead? Too late to switch when you retire, unless the welfare-doling government's clients will let you join and live off of them now.

I still prefer good old self-government. The only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.



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

Anarchy Day comes around again

Anarchy Day comes around again

Tomorrow, June 18th, is my personal "Anarchy Day"; a day on which I choose to perform random acts of anarchy. Feel free to celebrate with me. I think it is time for anarchists to take back the term from the nihilists who have stolen it. Anarchists don't wish to destroy anything other than the coercive collective of government, and the slave mind-set that empowers it.

On our Anarchy Day, each of us sovereign individual anarchists could commit random acts of helpful, public anarchy. Each of us recognizes, of course, that we all, even the most enthusiastic statists, live our daily lives in a basic condition of anarchy. Do you ask permission to eat or fall in love? Of course not. You rule your own life. It is the only way that works unless you are in a coma. For one day, I would like to see us show the rest of the world why anarchism is the only philosophy that really works; without ordering others around and stealing from them.

Choose something that needs to be done, then wear something to indicate your anarchistic philosophy. Perhaps you could work under a Gadsden or Time's Up flag. For your Random Act of Anarchy, I would suggest such acts as picking up trash in a local park, without asking for permission. Or buying a meal for a needy family, without asking government's permission. Fill an elderly man's gas tank, without waiting for someone else to do it. Repair a piece of playground equipment, without waiting for permission from the bureaucrats. See a pattern? Helpful. Public. Self governing. Responsible.

In some instances, you may risk arrest for doing what is right without waiting for the ruling parasites to "allow" it. Think of the publicity you could generate if the local authorities do try to stop your Random Acts of Anarchy. Be sure to have a trusted co-conspirator who will contact the media and publicize your arrest online, perhaps using Twitter like a recent motorhome crew did. In the long run, that might even be the best outcome for demonstrating your moral superiority to the coercive state.

Each of you knows of a way you could help in your local neighborhood. There may be some government "process" that pretends to have jurisdiction or authority over that particular area. As long as you are respecting private property and upholding the principles of self ownership, the sky's the limit. Instead of behaving like a statist or a government sympathizer and whining "Why won't they DO something about it", just take charge and do it. And when you do, be sure to emphasize that you are an anarchist. YOU get the things done that should be done without waiting for Uncle Scam to do it. You don't go to the city council meetings to beg for stolen money to pay for "help", but take control of the situation and do what your morals tell you should be done. Anarchists do not step on the toes of people who are minding their own business and harming no one. We help while we live our lives. As free individuals. Without coercion. Without theft. And best of all, without government.

Pledging allegiance

Pledging allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all."

Um. No.

Even if you discount the socialistic parentage, and Nazi stepchildren, of the Pledge of Allegiance, really reading it should disturb anyone. Pledging allegiance to a flag; a banner made of cloth? "Allegiance" is loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, or devotion. To a flag? What is this flag demanding you do with this "obligation of loyalty"? Invade foreign lands and kill in its name, or in the name of its government? Torture people because you can't prove they are guilty? Violate the rights of the people who blindly worship this banner in order to protect the illegitimate power of the government that waves the banner to distract the people from its real actions? It's disgusting.

The hand-wringing drama over "God" being added to the pledge during the panicky 1950s is not the foundational problem. The Constitution, not the flag, was the basis of the "Republic", but that is a historical curiosity now, isn't it.

No "nation" has ever been, or ever will be, "indivisible" nor should they be. Circumstances change. People change. Divorce happens for a reason. Governments grow ever more corrupt, then they dissolve. As they should. "Forever stamps"? Ridiculous. No government has ever lasted forever, and none ever will. Good riddance to them all.

Liberty? Tell that to people forced to be corralled in "free speech zones" to avoid subjecting politicians to the truth. Justice for all? Try telling that to the millions of political prisoners in America who have harmed no one, but violated some counterfeit "law" against intoxicants, consensual sex, guns, or keeping their own property out of the hands of the federal thieves who "tax".

America was supposed to be united states of America, not this federal perversion of The United States of America. Constitutionally, if you care about such things, there should be no such entity in existence that this pledge is declaring your loyalty to.

At the risk of being hated I will say: I pledge NO allegiance, to any flag, not even of the former America. And of the republic for which it stood: now an empire under surveillance, launching attacks against liberty and justice for all.

The right path to liberty

The right path to liberty

There are many paths to liberty. I come to realize this when talking to different people who are pursuing liberty - living their own lives - their own way. Each of us has our own mind and conscience that we must live with. What you do, or what I do, may seem counterproductive to others, but that really isn't for anyone else to judge, is it?

That isn't to say some "paths to liberty" are not obviously going the wrong direction. Not all ideas are valid, after all.

I know what seems right to me. I go over these things in my own head all the time; every time I am presented with a choice. Not being psychic I can't possibly know all possible outcomes. Neither can anyone else. That is why freedom is so important. Many trials and many errors can be tried by each of us everyday, as long as we are free to try. In the long run, keeping liberty as our goal, we will get there. No one should stand in your way, especially not others who are trying to find their own path to liberty.

Not a perfect world? Live as if it were

Not a perfect world? Live as if it were

I often hear people say that the problem with freedom is that we don't live in a perfect world, and we must therefore accommodate the liberty-crushing edicts and behaviors of the state. The consequences of the state's socialistic and draconian "laws" are ever-present when you try to live a free life. I can see their point, but how will we ever get there if we keep waiting for the goons of the state to "allow" us our freedom? It won't ever happen.

We don't have to wait for "a perfect world" to act as though it is already perfect. We have the principles; they have the "laws". Guess which one is more important. This goes hand-in-hand with my recommendation to "assume liberty" rather than to assume you need permissions or that someone else controls your life. The state will try to block you or punish you. Avoid and ignore them when you can. Sneak around when you need to. Do what you must to stay out of prison, unless you like the idea of martyrdom.

You owe the state nothing but your eternal contempt, but it is up to you to choose to even repay that debt. Government is not worth raising your blood-pressure over. After all, they are dead wrong in everything they do. Remember that.

Some folk just don't get it

Some folk just don't get it

Here's a little tale. A tale of denial or obliviousness; maybe both. It is, unfortunately, true.

A young couple, just starting out, is scrimping and saving on important things like food, while spending lavishly on things like $300 sunglasses. She won't let her house mate ride public transportation (not a bad thing, mind you, being financed coercively) to save money because it would be "embarrassing" to the family. None of anyone else's business under normal circumstances. Until...

In order to be able to make ends meet, they apply for food stamps.

Another person, not me, becomes incensed upon hearing the woman bragging about their "smart shopping" with the stolen money, and raises objections. He says "I am paying for your food. Money is taken out of my paycheck every payday to pay for your food stamps!"

Shocked upon hearing this, the woman says: "No, We are just trying to save money". Where did her family go wrong in raising this woman to be responsible for herself? Well, there is more relevant information. Her dad is another kind of tax parasite- a cop- so obviously she has no awareness that every dollar that comes from government must first be stolen from the productive people around her. One generation of tax parasite breeds another.

The aftermath of the revolution (video)

The aftermath of the revolution (video)

Well, that was interesting.

I knew posting the "Four Stages of Revolution" video would be controversial, but wasn't prepared for how controversial. First of all, I didn't make the video, so don't blame me for the content if you didn't like it. Everyone has their own tastes and opinions. I liked it. Second, I don't advocate going out and attacking anyone, not even tyrants, under normal circumstances. However, if you say that violent resistance is off-limits no matter what, we part ways... amicably on my part, if you let me.

I do agree with most of what was shown in the video. Yes, some of the revolutionaries shown were despicable people, however that was addressed in Part 2. Watch Part 2 again if you need to. "Collateral damage", when referring to innocent people, is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. If one innocent is harmed, you are no better than the tyrants you fight. One. That is the difference between "us" and the state; let's keep it that way. Government buildings and infrastructure are a different matter. In the case of revolution becoming necessary, many of these things will be commandeered by the agents of the state and off-limits to us mere mortals anyway, at least the non-collaborator mere mortals, so any objections will be moot.

I thought it was explained quite well in the video that it is necessary to let the tyrants know that if we choose to fight back violently, it will be because it is morally right to do so when left no choice. It may not be morally imperative. You always have the option of lying down and dying quietly, if that is your preference. There are many things that are your right to do, but are not smart to do. In most cases, violent revolution is in this category. Sometimes there is really no option, smart or not. If the tyrants know they can push us into that corner, and do so with no repercussions, why would they hesitate? What would you have done if you were one of those in the Warsaw Ghetto? Submit? Complain that you wouldn't want to turn any possible "allies" against you by killing the enemies? They were acting "legally" after all. We are not there yet, but unless you accept that you may be called upon to actively and violently resist, we will be there someday.

What is the difference in violently responding to an attack by a free-lance gang and violently responding to an attack by an officially sanctioned gang? Self defense is self defense. Your chances of coming out alive are probably better when going against the free-lancers, simply by virtue of the math. Millions more will back up the official thugs. Yet, at the moment of the attack, it is better to fight for your life in that battle and let future battles take their turn.

I have always believed it is better to ignore the state and its goons if possible. Ignore its "laws" when you can. Minimize contact with its operatives and supporters. Shun its murderers (FBI, BATFE). But I also believe that when cornered it is time to fight like a rabid wildcat.