Libertarian riches and groupies
If you are wanting to become a libertarian for the riches or the groupies, I hate to burst your bubble. You'd be better off becoming a clown. You might get rich in spite of your activism, but you would probably not be as rich as you would have been had you sold out to the state. They reward their own. And groupies seem to be in seriously short supply as well. LEOs and other such critters who like to bully people must be more appealing. That's life.
Still, there are benefits. There is no feeling in the world like being proved right on an hourly basis by world, local, and personal events. Getting above the "conservative/liberal" silliness gives you an entirely new perspective where you can see the whole picture much more clearly. It is very liberating. You will also wonder why you didn't see it before.
Plus, when given the opportunity to discuss freedom with a statist (not name-calling; the word simply describes one who believes 'government' is a legitimate human endeavor), if you can get him to stay in a debate with you, you will almost always see him eventually become a libertarian. Truth, logic, history, and consistency are all on our side, and all but the most "religiously statist" will finally see the light. It is incredibly gratifying. Give it a try. You can always find riches and groupies elsewhere.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
'Others' are the same as 'us'
'Others' are the same as 'us'
All my life there has been some group, either from another "country", of a different "religion", or even in a different "lifestyle", that the consensus of people surrounding me has held as dangerous and "not like us". This reviled "other" has, at various times in my life, been the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Mexicans, and now Muslims. It has even included domestic "out-groups" such as Democrats, atheists, rock musicians, homosexuals, or other "Christian denominations". Some people must be really desperate for an "enemy". The "other" encompasses whoever seems different enough to serve as the boogeyman for a while.
When I was too young to really think it through I accepted the common "wisdom". After all, back then it was "known" that all Russians wanted all Americans nuked dead- if we wouldn't switch to communism, that is. The Soviet government, no doubt, would not have worried about killing a few million people, just like the US government wouldn't have shed a tear over doing the same. The point is, it wasn't the Russians; it was all governments who were, and still are, the threat. Back then I was also told that all homosexuals were just waiting for the chance to trick me into becoming gay. So, where did the "threats" go? Could it be that they were never really threats to begin with?
As I got older I began to see that the "other" shifted to whatever group was expedient for convincing people to give up their freedoms as a way to be "safe". Then I began to see a pattern: I was never actually harmed by any of these scary "other" people, but instead was always harmed by those "protecting" me. It's a lesson I have taken to heart.
Every time I have made the unpopular assumption that the people in other parts of the world (or who are "different" in some other way) are basically the same as everyone I personally knew, it has borne out sooner or later. The outdated boogeyman is swept under the rug in favor of the new "threat" that is so much more "dangerous and real" than the last one (which we will now pretend we never really worried about anyway).
People everywhere really just want to pursue their own life in their own way according to what is important to them. Some of those may think that forcing others to go along is a good idea. You and I must stay strong enough that our "No!" is understood to be the final word. Disarming due to government edicts doesn't fit well with self-preservation and should never be allowed to happen. If you wonder why, look at the second sentence in this paragraph for clarification.
Of course, the main lesson should be that setting up a government that any real "others" could take over for their own agenda is a really stupid idea. No one seems to get that, though. Even in the face of clear evidence that is has already happened.
All my life there has been some group, either from another "country", of a different "religion", or even in a different "lifestyle", that the consensus of people surrounding me has held as dangerous and "not like us". This reviled "other" has, at various times in my life, been the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Mexicans, and now Muslims. It has even included domestic "out-groups" such as Democrats, atheists, rock musicians, homosexuals, or other "Christian denominations". Some people must be really desperate for an "enemy". The "other" encompasses whoever seems different enough to serve as the boogeyman for a while.
When I was too young to really think it through I accepted the common "wisdom". After all, back then it was "known" that all Russians wanted all Americans nuked dead- if we wouldn't switch to communism, that is. The Soviet government, no doubt, would not have worried about killing a few million people, just like the US government wouldn't have shed a tear over doing the same. The point is, it wasn't the Russians; it was all governments who were, and still are, the threat. Back then I was also told that all homosexuals were just waiting for the chance to trick me into becoming gay. So, where did the "threats" go? Could it be that they were never really threats to begin with?
As I got older I began to see that the "other" shifted to whatever group was expedient for convincing people to give up their freedoms as a way to be "safe". Then I began to see a pattern: I was never actually harmed by any of these scary "other" people, but instead was always harmed by those "protecting" me. It's a lesson I have taken to heart.
Every time I have made the unpopular assumption that the people in other parts of the world (or who are "different" in some other way) are basically the same as everyone I personally knew, it has borne out sooner or later. The outdated boogeyman is swept under the rug in favor of the new "threat" that is so much more "dangerous and real" than the last one (which we will now pretend we never really worried about anyway).
People everywhere really just want to pursue their own life in their own way according to what is important to them. Some of those may think that forcing others to go along is a good idea. You and I must stay strong enough that our "No!" is understood to be the final word. Disarming due to government edicts doesn't fit well with self-preservation and should never be allowed to happen. If you wonder why, look at the second sentence in this paragraph for clarification.
Of course, the main lesson should be that setting up a government that any real "others" could take over for their own agenda is a really stupid idea. No one seems to get that, though. Even in the face of clear evidence that is has already happened.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Are libertarians frustrated?
Are libertarians frustrated?
A valued reader asked a question of me that boils down to this: Can a libertarian be happy in a sea of statism?
Short answer: If you can't, you probably wouldn't be happy in "Libertopia", either.
Even in a free society, people will still be people, and the laws of physics (and biology) will still apply. That is just reality. Of course, without coercive government meddling, stealing, and trying to keep the statist status quo propped up, people might be less stressed and might be friendlier, and new technologies might allow the laws of physics to work with us rather than standing against us. That is a lot of "mights", but it would be fun to explore. Who knows, we may still get the chance. I'm not going to wring my hands in hopelessness in the meantime.
It can be frustrating to see government power growing all around us, but I realize that government isn't "society", nor is it "civilization", "us", or anything that really matters. It is like a fungus growing all over the earth and can be similarly killed and scraped off. Start where you are. Now.
The best way to scrape off that sludge of statism is to live your freedom now, as fully as you can, in line with your values and best judgment. Don't wait for a free society to emerge; your free actions will bring that change, not different actions by government. Government "change" results in the same difference as "water" vs "Dihydrogen Monoxide". Let people see, through you, that living free without harming others is not only possible, but easy, better, and the only moral option. To see through the nonsense of statism, people need to see the opposite in action. So show them.
This is the only life you get. You might as well enjoy it while pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies that government depends upon for its existence. Without a challenge of some sort, life is boring.
A valued reader asked a question of me that boils down to this: Can a libertarian be happy in a sea of statism?
Short answer: If you can't, you probably wouldn't be happy in "Libertopia", either.
Even in a free society, people will still be people, and the laws of physics (and biology) will still apply. That is just reality. Of course, without coercive government meddling, stealing, and trying to keep the statist status quo propped up, people might be less stressed and might be friendlier, and new technologies might allow the laws of physics to work with us rather than standing against us. That is a lot of "mights", but it would be fun to explore. Who knows, we may still get the chance. I'm not going to wring my hands in hopelessness in the meantime.
It can be frustrating to see government power growing all around us, but I realize that government isn't "society", nor is it "civilization", "us", or anything that really matters. It is like a fungus growing all over the earth and can be similarly killed and scraped off. Start where you are. Now.
The best way to scrape off that sludge of statism is to live your freedom now, as fully as you can, in line with your values and best judgment. Don't wait for a free society to emerge; your free actions will bring that change, not different actions by government. Government "change" results in the same difference as "water" vs "Dihydrogen Monoxide". Let people see, through you, that living free without harming others is not only possible, but easy, better, and the only moral option. To see through the nonsense of statism, people need to see the opposite in action. So show them.
This is the only life you get. You might as well enjoy it while pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies that government depends upon for its existence. Without a challenge of some sort, life is boring.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Examining and debunking the 'social contract'
Once again, I have seen the statement that I should be satisfied that my stolen money ("taxation") is being used to uphold (enforce?) the "social contract".
Social contract? What is it? Where is it? When did I sign it? Let's look at Dictionary.com's entry:
Oh. OK. There is a social contract that I explicitly agreed to. It is called The Zero Archation Principle (ZAP). It works. I voluntarily agreed to it. I have "signed" it (as well as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent). It only "regulates relations" to the extent of telling those who agree to it that they would be wrong if they initiate force against anyone (not just against those who agreed to live according to the ZAP). That is great, and no theft is necessary to "uphold" it. In fact, theft of any sort violates it. This is a social contract that works and has none of the drawbacks of other, mythical, ones.
However, I would like to examine the dictionary explanation a little more.
"...voluntary agreement among individuals..."- How is an agreement voluntary if it was reached before I was born? Why am I bound by it simply because of where I was born? That is nonsense.
"...according to any of various theories..."- Why should I believe these self-serving theories? What makes these theories any more "true" than mine? Because they who advocated them are dead now?
"...organized society is brought into being and invested with the right ..." - Just because something is "organized" doesn't make it good. "Organized crime" and "government" are two examples that come to mind, although I am repeating myself there. And this "contract" invests this "organized society" with rights? That is quite a trick. Only individuals can have rights. "Society" can't. A society could claim to have "authority", but that's imaginary. Any semblance of "authority" would depend on functioning by unanimous consent and violating the rights of no individual. Otherwise it is just "the tyranny of the majority".
"Mutual protection" can not be a right since it obligates another person. Instead, a true social contract would remove any barriers to self-defense and not penalize mutual protection. That is the sign of a real civilization.
"Welfare" is best served by not punishing people for consensual acts between individuals. Anything else creates victims of government abuse and overreach.
"...regulate the relations among its members..." - No individual has the right to regulate the consensual relations among other people, and certainly not "society as a whole". To attempt to do so renders your "contract" null and void as it violates the basic human rights of those engaged in voluntary interactions.
All of these things demonstrate why the ZAP is a legitimate "social contract" while the "implied consent" we have thrown in our faces, based upon where we live and nothing else, is not.
Moving on to the second definition, I would point out that it is not possible for anything to benefit both an individual and a government (unless that individual is a state parasite, in which case his "welfare" is harming all free individuals and is wrong). Either the one is harmed, or the other is. Since only individuals have rights, it is their "welfare" that must be placed above the "authority" of any government. Where the two clash, the individual must be given priority. If this means the government withers and dies, then so be it. No loss. The "community as a whole" is only benefited if each individual is free to pursue his or her self-interest without harming any other individuals or violating their rights. The implied "social contract" falls flat here as well, while the ZAP once again shines.
Social contract? What is it? Where is it? When did I sign it? Let's look at Dictionary.com's entry:
social contract –noun 1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which,
according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau,
organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure
mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members. 2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the
government or community as a whole.
Oh. OK. There is a social contract that I explicitly agreed to. It is called The Zero Archation Principle (ZAP). It works. I voluntarily agreed to it. I have "signed" it (as well as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent). It only "regulates relations" to the extent of telling those who agree to it that they would be wrong if they initiate force against anyone (not just against those who agreed to live according to the ZAP). That is great, and no theft is necessary to "uphold" it. In fact, theft of any sort violates it. This is a social contract that works and has none of the drawbacks of other, mythical, ones.
However, I would like to examine the dictionary explanation a little more.
"...voluntary agreement among individuals..."- How is an agreement voluntary if it was reached before I was born? Why am I bound by it simply because of where I was born? That is nonsense.
"...according to any of various theories..."- Why should I believe these self-serving theories? What makes these theories any more "true" than mine? Because they who advocated them are dead now?
"...organized society is brought into being and invested with the right ..." - Just because something is "organized" doesn't make it good. "Organized crime" and "government" are two examples that come to mind, although I am repeating myself there. And this "contract" invests this "organized society" with rights? That is quite a trick. Only individuals can have rights. "Society" can't. A society could claim to have "authority", but that's imaginary. Any semblance of "authority" would depend on functioning by unanimous consent and violating the rights of no individual. Otherwise it is just "the tyranny of the majority".
"Mutual protection" can not be a right since it obligates another person. Instead, a true social contract would remove any barriers to self-defense and not penalize mutual protection. That is the sign of a real civilization.
"Welfare" is best served by not punishing people for consensual acts between individuals. Anything else creates victims of government abuse and overreach.
"...regulate the relations among its members..." - No individual has the right to regulate the consensual relations among other people, and certainly not "society as a whole". To attempt to do so renders your "contract" null and void as it violates the basic human rights of those engaged in voluntary interactions.
All of these things demonstrate why the ZAP is a legitimate "social contract" while the "implied consent" we have thrown in our faces, based upon where we live and nothing else, is not.
Moving on to the second definition, I would point out that it is not possible for anything to benefit both an individual and a government (unless that individual is a state parasite, in which case his "welfare" is harming all free individuals and is wrong). Either the one is harmed, or the other is. Since only individuals have rights, it is their "welfare" that must be placed above the "authority" of any government. Where the two clash, the individual must be given priority. If this means the government withers and dies, then so be it. No loss. The "community as a whole" is only benefited if each individual is free to pursue his or her self-interest without harming any other individuals or violating their rights. The implied "social contract" falls flat here as well, while the ZAP once again shines.
.
Monday, July 20, 2009
'Preventer of government' should be highest office
'Preventer of government' should be highest office
I was reading "Let Me Be King For Just One Year" by Russell D. Longcore in the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I liked a lot of his ideas, but disagreed with some. Regardless, as often happens, it got my mental wheels turning and grinding. It gave me a thought.
As some of you may know, I ran for president last election cycle. I still think I may have won since I count all the non-voters as a mandate for me to take the office (no more crazy than most of the "mandates" constantly claimed by holders of political office), but the present Usurper-in-Chief wanted the office really badly and I don't feel like fighting his armed minions or his worshipful followers. Plus it's kind of amusing to see him screwing things up so badly so quickly. It's almost like he's trying.
Anyway, back to my better idea; what I really wanted to be, rather than president, was "Preventer of Government". "The stubborn brown line" holding back government from enforcing its violations upon the non-aggressive people in society by confounding every government action at every opportunity. That was pretty much my plan once elected anyway, but I didn't have a title worked out for it.
I would have made it my duty to make sure no "government" was committed against anyone. If responsible people wanted to engage in a little consensual governing behind closed doors, it would be no one else's business, of course. They would just not be allowed to force anyone to join in or comply against their will- without risking the justified consequences of self-defense.
Any "illegal" (actually, just immoral since "laws" are for cowards) attempt to re-establish a coercive government would be dealt with swiftly by the armed free people of America convincing the evil-doers of the error of their ways. Parades would then be privately organized for the heroes. It was all very exciting in my day-dreams.
It was my declared intention to shut down every federal agency, department, and bureau, starting with all the ones which are blatantly unconstitutional (would any be left?), and then continuing with ending those which are Constitutional and immoral. Clearly, that means there would be no external, coercive government left. Just as it should be.
And they lived happily ever after.
********************
I was reading "Let Me Be King For Just One Year" by Russell D. Longcore in the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I liked a lot of his ideas, but disagreed with some. Regardless, as often happens, it got my mental wheels turning and grinding. It gave me a thought.
As some of you may know, I ran for president last election cycle. I still think I may have won since I count all the non-voters as a mandate for me to take the office (no more crazy than most of the "mandates" constantly claimed by holders of political office), but the present Usurper-in-Chief wanted the office really badly and I don't feel like fighting his armed minions or his worshipful followers. Plus it's kind of amusing to see him screwing things up so badly so quickly. It's almost like he's trying.
Anyway, back to my better idea; what I really wanted to be, rather than president, was "Preventer of Government". "The stubborn brown line" holding back government from enforcing its violations upon the non-aggressive people in society by confounding every government action at every opportunity. That was pretty much my plan once elected anyway, but I didn't have a title worked out for it.
I would have made it my duty to make sure no "government" was committed against anyone. If responsible people wanted to engage in a little consensual governing behind closed doors, it would be no one else's business, of course. They would just not be allowed to force anyone to join in or comply against their will- without risking the justified consequences of self-defense.
Any "illegal" (actually, just immoral since "laws" are for cowards) attempt to re-establish a coercive government would be dealt with swiftly by the armed free people of America convincing the evil-doers of the error of their ways. Parades would then be privately organized for the heroes. It was all very exciting in my day-dreams.
It was my declared intention to shut down every federal agency, department, and bureau, starting with all the ones which are blatantly unconstitutional (would any be left?), and then continuing with ending those which are Constitutional and immoral. Clearly, that means there would be no external, coercive government left. Just as it should be.
And they lived happily ever after.
********************
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Child pornography: the automatic guilty verdict
Child pornography: the automatic guilty verdict
Believe it or not, there is a subject more personally dangerous to mention and more divisive, than "abortion". It is "child pornography".
Almost everyone wants to protect innocent children. It is in our nature. Some people, though, have broken natures and want to prey on the innocent. Many of these find jobs with government where they can cause harm with no fear of breaking the "law". Others (we will pretend the categories don't overlap) exploit innocent children sexually.
I often find myself taking the hated position of attempting to point out that just because the agents of the state kidnap someone on charges of possessing child pornography, it doesn't mean the person did anything wrong, or even actually had any of the forbidden materials in their presence. I suspect it is very easy to plant such images in a person's computer in order to be able to lock them up without anyone speaking out in their defense. It has become our "witchcraft" accusation; impossible to survive once made. Don't think the goons of the state don't recognize and take advantage of this fact.
Child pornography even includes what I consider the "Stephen King-ish victims". Should Stephen King be on death row for all the murders he has "committed" in his books? Of course not. Why should an equivalent creative act (no matter how revolting it is to most of us) be punished? Cartoon characters which could be interpreted to be imaginary children are not harmed no matter what anyone does to them. If certain studies are correct, then this type of "child pornography" could actually prevent real attacks on innocent children, rather than "inspire" it as the detractors claim. Regardless: no victim; no aggression.
When a child victim of pornographic exploitation grows to be a responsible self-owning person, he or she should have total control over what is done with the images of them as a child, including getting all copies away from the feds' "child porn database" (for "research"... riiiight...). Even if we don't like what they choose to do with their personal property. Otherwise you are telling them they do not own themselves, but the collective- "society"- does. That is wrong and harmful now, and two wrongs don't make a right.
It is also dangerous to point out that most teenagers are not "children" even if the state declares them so. Some may not be fully responsible for their actions and some undoubtedly are. Age has no bearing on this. To make a "one-size-punishes-all law" harms everyone in the long run. This is the absurdity of the "sexting crisis".
Since I know I will be misrepresented, it is probably pointless to state this, but I will anyway: I don't want to view any child pornography. I don't understand its attraction to some; I would violently defend any child who was being exploited in this way whether they were familiar to me or not. If I knew someone who had it, I would keep my children away from him and would warn everyone I knew to watch him near their kids. I would NOT tattle to the state, however. I would also try to remember that all is not as it seems when the state wants to get rid of someone. Governments lie. It is what they do best, except for stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
Believe it or not, there is a subject more personally dangerous to mention and more divisive, than "abortion". It is "child pornography".
Almost everyone wants to protect innocent children. It is in our nature. Some people, though, have broken natures and want to prey on the innocent. Many of these find jobs with government where they can cause harm with no fear of breaking the "law". Others (we will pretend the categories don't overlap) exploit innocent children sexually.
I often find myself taking the hated position of attempting to point out that just because the agents of the state kidnap someone on charges of possessing child pornography, it doesn't mean the person did anything wrong, or even actually had any of the forbidden materials in their presence. I suspect it is very easy to plant such images in a person's computer in order to be able to lock them up without anyone speaking out in their defense. It has become our "witchcraft" accusation; impossible to survive once made. Don't think the goons of the state don't recognize and take advantage of this fact.
Child pornography even includes what I consider the "Stephen King-ish victims". Should Stephen King be on death row for all the murders he has "committed" in his books? Of course not. Why should an equivalent creative act (no matter how revolting it is to most of us) be punished? Cartoon characters which could be interpreted to be imaginary children are not harmed no matter what anyone does to them. If certain studies are correct, then this type of "child pornography" could actually prevent real attacks on innocent children, rather than "inspire" it as the detractors claim. Regardless: no victim; no aggression.
When a child victim of pornographic exploitation grows to be a responsible self-owning person, he or she should have total control over what is done with the images of them as a child, including getting all copies away from the feds' "child porn database" (for "research"... riiiight...). Even if we don't like what they choose to do with their personal property. Otherwise you are telling them they do not own themselves, but the collective- "society"- does. That is wrong and harmful now, and two wrongs don't make a right.
It is also dangerous to point out that most teenagers are not "children" even if the state declares them so. Some may not be fully responsible for their actions and some undoubtedly are. Age has no bearing on this. To make a "one-size-punishes-all law" harms everyone in the long run. This is the absurdity of the "sexting crisis".
Since I know I will be misrepresented, it is probably pointless to state this, but I will anyway: I don't want to view any child pornography. I don't understand its attraction to some; I would violently defend any child who was being exploited in this way whether they were familiar to me or not. If I knew someone who had it, I would keep my children away from him and would warn everyone I knew to watch him near their kids. I would NOT tattle to the state, however. I would also try to remember that all is not as it seems when the state wants to get rid of someone. Governments lie. It is what they do best, except for stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Government can be justified no longer
Government can be justified no longer
It is claimed that people never follow links. If that is true, I hope this one will be an exception.
A regular reader sent me the link to this video and asked my opinion. It is an interesting, if tortured, attempt to justify a republican form of government. If you are not aware of the way the video warps the truth and manipulates your thinking, you might even agree with the conclusion it reaches. Fortunately you are smarter than that.
This video inadvertently destroys any idea that there can ever be a government based upon anything other than self-government that will work for the "regular people" (the individuals), as opposed to the Rulers (and we should always be opposed to the Rulers).
The narrator incorrectly defines "anarchy" as "without government" instead of "without Rulers". Anarchists self-govern; our government is internalized where it can actually work. The only way he can discount anarchism is by misrepresenting it by using nihilists as the example. His examples only want the current government gone so they can install their own Rulers in place of the ones they don't like. They want to invert the power structure, rather than dismantle it, in the hopes that they will wind up on top when things settle down. This is what the Molotov cocktail-tossing, business-looting false anarchists invariably want to do. In every case, he even points out that his "anarchist" examples lie between the forms of government he discusses, instead of on the free end of his graph that he studiously ignores and misrepresents. He contradicts himself constantly.
The author of the video seems to feel that there is some magical "optimal level" of coercive government, and never even thinks about the possibility that the optimal level is to be found only in self-government. Some people cling to denial so tightly. His main point illustrates this with crystal clarity.
The only two available examples of a republic, Rome and America, both failed completely- following the same pattern. Obviously, the American Republic absolutely failed in the lofty goals he ascribes to it. Utterly, completely failed. I wonder how he can manage to ignore that glaringly obvious fact. You can't allow any coercive external government to have the power to decide if it is obeying its "user's manual", or it will always find in favor of itself in the long run. Maybe not in every single conflict, but in the general trend. This leads only from republic, to mob rule ("democracy"), to chaos (what he incorrectly calls "anarchy"), to oligarchy. He drives the nails in his own coffin and doesn't see that he has done so. I would declare "case: closed".
It is claimed that people never follow links. If that is true, I hope this one will be an exception.
Video: The Government
A regular reader sent me the link to this video and asked my opinion. It is an interesting, if tortured, attempt to justify a republican form of government. If you are not aware of the way the video warps the truth and manipulates your thinking, you might even agree with the conclusion it reaches. Fortunately you are smarter than that.
This video inadvertently destroys any idea that there can ever be a government based upon anything other than self-government that will work for the "regular people" (the individuals), as opposed to the Rulers (and we should always be opposed to the Rulers).
The narrator incorrectly defines "anarchy" as "without government" instead of "without Rulers". Anarchists self-govern; our government is internalized where it can actually work. The only way he can discount anarchism is by misrepresenting it by using nihilists as the example. His examples only want the current government gone so they can install their own Rulers in place of the ones they don't like. They want to invert the power structure, rather than dismantle it, in the hopes that they will wind up on top when things settle down. This is what the Molotov cocktail-tossing, business-looting false anarchists invariably want to do. In every case, he even points out that his "anarchist" examples lie between the forms of government he discusses, instead of on the free end of his graph that he studiously ignores and misrepresents. He contradicts himself constantly.
The author of the video seems to feel that there is some magical "optimal level" of coercive government, and never even thinks about the possibility that the optimal level is to be found only in self-government. Some people cling to denial so tightly. His main point illustrates this with crystal clarity.
The only two available examples of a republic, Rome and America, both failed completely- following the same pattern. Obviously, the American Republic absolutely failed in the lofty goals he ascribes to it. Utterly, completely failed. I wonder how he can manage to ignore that glaringly obvious fact. You can't allow any coercive external government to have the power to decide if it is obeying its "user's manual", or it will always find in favor of itself in the long run. Maybe not in every single conflict, but in the general trend. This leads only from republic, to mob rule ("democracy"), to chaos (what he incorrectly calls "anarchy"), to oligarchy. He drives the nails in his own coffin and doesn't see that he has done so. I would declare "case: closed".
Friday, July 17, 2009
Does taxation improve civilization?
Does taxation improve civilization?
Does the act of theft known as "taxation" make civilization better, or does it damage it? There have been claims made in the past, as well as claims made now, that civilization "needs taxation" in order to be "helped" by government to become better than it otherwise would be. Some people probably even confuse "government" with "civilization", but I'll let that pass for now. Historically, coming from the pinhead who claimed there was no right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, comes the "gem": "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Hardly. Civilization is what we manage to create in spite of taxes.
Yet, this is just an example of the statist thought process. The process that excuses wrongs and tries to justify them with things that most people want. Things like civilization. Civilization doesn't need "taxation"; governments do. "Taxation" is like a giant leech that attaches itself to a civilization as soon as it gets the chance. Unless it is ripped off it will continue to drain the life-blood of that society and grow bigger and more harmful. Our "leech" now weighs more than the host.
Is robbery OK if the mugger promises to give your money to orphans and widows? Of course not. If a cause is good, people will not need to be robbed to pay for it. If it is financed by taking property from those who would prefer to keep their property, under threat of jail (and ultimately, death), then it shouldn't be done no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the thieves or some of their victims feel. There is no government program or "entitlement" so important that is is worth kidnapping or killing people to finance. Not one.
The truth is that there is no free lunch. No "free education". No "free justice". No "free health care" under Obama's socialistic scheme. These things, when provided at all by the state, are funded by coercion (which has a high cost independent of the dollar amount) and cost much more than they need to. They are pale, pathetic shadows of what a free market could provide.
Don't point to the cost of health care in our current society as a refutation of this claim. Our society is far from free, and hasn't been free for a very long time (despite what you have been told to believe). How much does government add to the cost of going to the doctor, buying medications, and having "tests"? Probably, like everything else, the cost is at least doubled, while your wealth is at least halved.
Instead of continuing to dig ourselves deeper into the pit of socialism, why not give freedom a try? It can't hurt. The first step is to admit that taxation is the biggest theft scheme in history, instituted by the most amoral mafia the world has ever known, and put an end to it.
Does the act of theft known as "taxation" make civilization better, or does it damage it? There have been claims made in the past, as well as claims made now, that civilization "needs taxation" in order to be "helped" by government to become better than it otherwise would be. Some people probably even confuse "government" with "civilization", but I'll let that pass for now. Historically, coming from the pinhead who claimed there was no right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, comes the "gem": "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Hardly. Civilization is what we manage to create in spite of taxes.
Yet, this is just an example of the statist thought process. The process that excuses wrongs and tries to justify them with things that most people want. Things like civilization. Civilization doesn't need "taxation"; governments do. "Taxation" is like a giant leech that attaches itself to a civilization as soon as it gets the chance. Unless it is ripped off it will continue to drain the life-blood of that society and grow bigger and more harmful. Our "leech" now weighs more than the host.
Is robbery OK if the mugger promises to give your money to orphans and widows? Of course not. If a cause is good, people will not need to be robbed to pay for it. If it is financed by taking property from those who would prefer to keep their property, under threat of jail (and ultimately, death), then it shouldn't be done no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the thieves or some of their victims feel. There is no government program or "entitlement" so important that is is worth kidnapping or killing people to finance. Not one.
The truth is that there is no free lunch. No "free education". No "free justice". No "free health care" under Obama's socialistic scheme. These things, when provided at all by the state, are funded by coercion (which has a high cost independent of the dollar amount) and cost much more than they need to. They are pale, pathetic shadows of what a free market could provide.
Don't point to the cost of health care in our current society as a refutation of this claim. Our society is far from free, and hasn't been free for a very long time (despite what you have been told to believe). How much does government add to the cost of going to the doctor, buying medications, and having "tests"? Probably, like everything else, the cost is at least doubled, while your wealth is at least halved.
Instead of continuing to dig ourselves deeper into the pit of socialism, why not give freedom a try? It can't hurt. The first step is to admit that taxation is the biggest theft scheme in history, instituted by the most amoral mafia the world has ever known, and put an end to it.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Biting the hand that feeds you, or feeding the hand that bites you
Biting the hand that feeds you, or feeding the hand that bites you
A fairly popular news website recently changed their payment plan for their writers. They did this without informing anyone, and it took days of speculation and many attempts to get an answer from the owners before it was confirmed. This lack of communication has made a lot of the writers bitter.
The algorithms that determined pay were not revealed to begin with, foiling attempts to understand. When earnings seemed short, the owners fell back on the explanation that the way earnings were calculated was complicated. Now, with the changes, it seems even more complicated, based in part on how many other pages the readers view per session. This is something the writers can neither see nor control. And although it is claimed that the potential is there for pay to increase, this does not seem to have happened in even one case.
So where would a libertarian stand on such a situation? The website is a business. It is private property. The owners can do whatever they wish with it, even destroy it if they so choose. They can choose to pay their writers less, or nothing at all. It might not be in their best interest to do so. But perhaps they have other ideas. After all, in every other business, employers pay just enough to keep the employees from quitting, and employees work just hard enough to keep from being fired. Or so I have been told.
It is dishonest to change the way you calculate pay without informing those you are paying. Perhaps it was an oversight. Certain conditions were agreed upon beforehand, after all.
I would bet that most of the website's writers are still making more money from their writings than they otherwise would be, and probably getting more people to read their writings, too. The writers must weigh the costs and benefits. Then they can make their own decisions. No one is forcing them to write for the site.
A fairly popular news website recently changed their payment plan for their writers. They did this without informing anyone, and it took days of speculation and many attempts to get an answer from the owners before it was confirmed. This lack of communication has made a lot of the writers bitter.
The algorithms that determined pay were not revealed to begin with, foiling attempts to understand. When earnings seemed short, the owners fell back on the explanation that the way earnings were calculated was complicated. Now, with the changes, it seems even more complicated, based in part on how many other pages the readers view per session. This is something the writers can neither see nor control. And although it is claimed that the potential is there for pay to increase, this does not seem to have happened in even one case.
So where would a libertarian stand on such a situation? The website is a business. It is private property. The owners can do whatever they wish with it, even destroy it if they so choose. They can choose to pay their writers less, or nothing at all. It might not be in their best interest to do so. But perhaps they have other ideas. After all, in every other business, employers pay just enough to keep the employees from quitting, and employees work just hard enough to keep from being fired. Or so I have been told.
It is dishonest to change the way you calculate pay without informing those you are paying. Perhaps it was an oversight. Certain conditions were agreed upon beforehand, after all.
I would bet that most of the website's writers are still making more money from their writings than they otherwise would be, and probably getting more people to read their writings, too. The writers must weigh the costs and benefits. Then they can make their own decisions. No one is forcing them to write for the site.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
'Honest' taxation is preferable to 'fair tax'
'Honest' taxation is preferable to 'fair tax'
I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is a way to have "honest taxation". At least in the same way as other acts of theft can at least be "honest" enough to not claim they are robbing you for your own good.
While I am not a fan of thieves of any type, I will admit a preference to the type who will shove a gun in your face and say "Hand over your wallet if you wanna live!" over the gangsters who make insincere noises about your "safety" as they hint that "something" might happen if they weren't there to "protect" you. Hogwash. Everyone knows who would make the "something" occur if you were bold enough to refuse to pay.
"Honest taxation" would consist of a government agent holding a gun to your head as he steals your money. Or, increasingly, a government agent holding a gun to the head of the sales clerk (or other businessperson) as he steals from you under orders from the state thug. Such a dose of reality might also shock a few more people awake to the fact that taxation is theft, plain and simple. There is no excuse for it.
I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is a way to have "honest taxation". At least in the same way as other acts of theft can at least be "honest" enough to not claim they are robbing you for your own good.
While I am not a fan of thieves of any type, I will admit a preference to the type who will shove a gun in your face and say "Hand over your wallet if you wanna live!" over the gangsters who make insincere noises about your "safety" as they hint that "something" might happen if they weren't there to "protect" you. Hogwash. Everyone knows who would make the "something" occur if you were bold enough to refuse to pay.
"Honest taxation" would consist of a government agent holding a gun to your head as he steals your money. Or, increasingly, a government agent holding a gun to the head of the sales clerk (or other businessperson) as he steals from you under orders from the state thug. Such a dose of reality might also shock a few more people awake to the fact that taxation is theft, plain and simple. There is no excuse for it.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Government should be watched, but not obsessed over
Government should be watched, but not obsessed over
I see a lot of people who focus their lives on watching what government does. I can understand that in a way, but it seems like a life poorly spent.
A person should pay attention to government in the same way you should pay attention to a rabid skunk that has wandered into your kitchen: pay attention as much as you need to in order to get rid of it, without being bitten or sprayed. Don't focus your life on trying to make the rabid skunk like you; it will never be your friend. Don't expect the skunk to act rationally; it has a disease that is rotting its brain away. Don't try to get the skunk to bring you gifts in exchange for the damage it has done or the food it has gotten in to; that which it has eaten or spoiled is gone forever. Just stop the spoilage now and write off the losses.
Of course, the real problem is that government, even at its best, is much more dangerous than a rabid skunk. It is backed up by hordes of co-conspirators and supporters who will make sure you are harmed if you dare to stand up to it. It is backed up by cheerleaders in the media who will endlessly proclaim that YOU are the one with the brain-rot. Lastly, statism, the disease that causes government, is much more contagious than rabies. And it is just as fatal.
I see a lot of people who focus their lives on watching what government does. I can understand that in a way, but it seems like a life poorly spent.
A person should pay attention to government in the same way you should pay attention to a rabid skunk that has wandered into your kitchen: pay attention as much as you need to in order to get rid of it, without being bitten or sprayed. Don't focus your life on trying to make the rabid skunk like you; it will never be your friend. Don't expect the skunk to act rationally; it has a disease that is rotting its brain away. Don't try to get the skunk to bring you gifts in exchange for the damage it has done or the food it has gotten in to; that which it has eaten or spoiled is gone forever. Just stop the spoilage now and write off the losses.
Of course, the real problem is that government, even at its best, is much more dangerous than a rabid skunk. It is backed up by hordes of co-conspirators and supporters who will make sure you are harmed if you dare to stand up to it. It is backed up by cheerleaders in the media who will endlessly proclaim that YOU are the one with the brain-rot. Lastly, statism, the disease that causes government, is much more contagious than rabies. And it is just as fatal.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Empire strikes ... in desperation
The Empire strikes ... in desperation
Signs seem to indicate the police state that was America will grow much more draconian before it collapses. And of course, it will collapse. They all do. If the authoriturds "in charge" were smart, they would realize they are dooming themselves by their actions and with their "laws", but perhaps they believe they can avoid the inevitable until it doesn't matter to them personally anymore. Or, maybe, they are delusional enough to believe that "this time" they will be able to avoid the fate of tyrants.
In the meantime, more and more of our rights will be claimed to be a threat to our neighbors, although the only real threat is to the false authority of the Empire. More of our actions will be tracked and watched, or simply forbidden. More and more of our lives and money will be stolen to support the state. More of our choices will be regulated or eliminated. More of our opinions will be cause for suspicion. More of our movements will be subject to the whims of the state and routed through its checkpoints. More of our family members and neighbors will be recruited against us. There will even be control and rationing of things we can't yet imagine. Interesting times are ahead.
The near future brings up some questions in regard to people like most of you who are reading these words.
What does society intend to do to those of us who won't (or can't) tolerate living under the surveillance and control of a police-state? Do the rulers expect that we will simply comply after some threats and punishment? Do they feel that our deaths are an acceptable price in order to implement their plans? Do they even consider our deaths worthy of notice at all? What if we don't agree? What if others who are on the fence begin to side with us? Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings down the Empire? The more the Empire tightens its grip, the more people will slip through its fingers.
Signs seem to indicate the police state that was America will grow much more draconian before it collapses. And of course, it will collapse. They all do. If the authoriturds "in charge" were smart, they would realize they are dooming themselves by their actions and with their "laws", but perhaps they believe they can avoid the inevitable until it doesn't matter to them personally anymore. Or, maybe, they are delusional enough to believe that "this time" they will be able to avoid the fate of tyrants.
In the meantime, more and more of our rights will be claimed to be a threat to our neighbors, although the only real threat is to the false authority of the Empire. More of our actions will be tracked and watched, or simply forbidden. More and more of our lives and money will be stolen to support the state. More of our choices will be regulated or eliminated. More of our opinions will be cause for suspicion. More of our movements will be subject to the whims of the state and routed through its checkpoints. More of our family members and neighbors will be recruited against us. There will even be control and rationing of things we can't yet imagine. Interesting times are ahead.
The near future brings up some questions in regard to people like most of you who are reading these words.
What does society intend to do to those of us who won't (or can't) tolerate living under the surveillance and control of a police-state? Do the rulers expect that we will simply comply after some threats and punishment? Do they feel that our deaths are an acceptable price in order to implement their plans? Do they even consider our deaths worthy of notice at all? What if we don't agree? What if others who are on the fence begin to side with us? Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings down the Empire? The more the Empire tightens its grip, the more people will slip through its fingers.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Dislike of cops does not equal love of thugs
Dislike of cops does not equal love of thugs
The world is filled with misunderstandings. Those of us who love liberty often find ourselves at the focus of one when we point out the similarity between LEOs and the freelance thugs with whom they have a symbiotic relationship. Every time I show distaste for a cop acting like a gangster when faced with a member of the public, certain people make the faulty assumption that I sympathize with the aggressive elements of society and wish to see them running amok, preying on whoever they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Since when does intense dislike of cops equal love of "criminals"? I dislike cops precisely because I dislike those who prey upon the innocent. There is no longer any meaningful distinction between the cops and the freelance thugs cops use to justify their unjustifiable existence. Both live upon theft; either freelance or "tax". Both thrive on coercion. Both have a perverted "us vs everyone else" attitude. But of the two, the LEOs are far more dangerous because they do what they do with a false sense of moral superiority, wielding a monopoly on force, and backed by the coercive "authority" of government.
Cops tend to vastly overestimate their own importance, and grossly underestimate the capacity of most of us to take care of ourselves without their "help". Perhaps it is projection on their part. I have never been in any situation where I called the cops, or was even tempted to. The thought never crossed my mind. I am aware that there is no situation so dire that it won't be made orders of magnitude worse by adding a cop to the mix.
And speaking of cops acting like the thugs they are brings up another subject. Giving cops the means to electrically torture people with whom they have a dispute was probably one of the worst powers ever handed them. Cops use Tasers much too readily. A Taser should never be used if a gun would be "too much". If you are not stopping an attack or a theft in progress when you draw your weapon, firearm or electric, then you are the attacker. A person not showing the respect you mistakenly think is due you is not a dangerous threat. A child running away from you is not reason to torture that child, unless you are a coward and a bully. If you are a cop and can't handle a 6 year-old child, you should go get a real job. Tasers are not "non-lethal", but "less-lethal". Cops think Tasers are a license to torture. Well, combined with a badge, I suppose they are right.
The world is filled with misunderstandings. Those of us who love liberty often find ourselves at the focus of one when we point out the similarity between LEOs and the freelance thugs with whom they have a symbiotic relationship. Every time I show distaste for a cop acting like a gangster when faced with a member of the public, certain people make the faulty assumption that I sympathize with the aggressive elements of society and wish to see them running amok, preying on whoever they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Since when does intense dislike of cops equal love of "criminals"? I dislike cops precisely because I dislike those who prey upon the innocent. There is no longer any meaningful distinction between the cops and the freelance thugs cops use to justify their unjustifiable existence. Both live upon theft; either freelance or "tax". Both thrive on coercion. Both have a perverted "us vs everyone else" attitude. But of the two, the LEOs are far more dangerous because they do what they do with a false sense of moral superiority, wielding a monopoly on force, and backed by the coercive "authority" of government.
Cops tend to vastly overestimate their own importance, and grossly underestimate the capacity of most of us to take care of ourselves without their "help". Perhaps it is projection on their part. I have never been in any situation where I called the cops, or was even tempted to. The thought never crossed my mind. I am aware that there is no situation so dire that it won't be made orders of magnitude worse by adding a cop to the mix.
And speaking of cops acting like the thugs they are brings up another subject. Giving cops the means to electrically torture people with whom they have a dispute was probably one of the worst powers ever handed them. Cops use Tasers much too readily. A Taser should never be used if a gun would be "too much". If you are not stopping an attack or a theft in progress when you draw your weapon, firearm or electric, then you are the attacker. A person not showing the respect you mistakenly think is due you is not a dangerous threat. A child running away from you is not reason to torture that child, unless you are a coward and a bully. If you are a cop and can't handle a 6 year-old child, you should go get a real job. Tasers are not "non-lethal", but "less-lethal". Cops think Tasers are a license to torture. Well, combined with a badge, I suppose they are right.
Friday, July 10, 2009
More on border worship
More on border worship
I can understand the feelings that might lead a person to support "national borders". Fear of being lost in a sea of immigrants who speak a different language, or who have different customs, is a common thing. Change of any sort is often uncomfortable and scary. Especially for those who are insecure or have feelings of inadequacy.
While I can understand the feelings, I don't share them. In the case of those who cling to national borders, but also distrust a powerful government, I can't understand how they manage to hold two such completely contradictory notions in one head.
If you are attacked or stolen from, how is it worse if the attacker or thief was born across a line on a map? You have the absolute human right to defend yourself, other innocent people, and your property from trespassing, aggression, or theft. Regardless of whether the offending person is an "immigrant", your cousin, or a LEO doing the bidding of the state. National borders change nothing in this regard.
Explain to me how this works. How can you believe that you own your life and the products of your life and yet also believe that governments can draw a line on a map and decide who can cross that line, and under what conditions they can cross. Explain how you can have a "national border", and enforce it, without having a strong and coercive national government. Explain how you can support government enforcement of that imaginary line while decrying other acts of government such as gun "laws". Don't you see that the "authority" and power for both acts comes from the same place? You can't assume liberty while you demand the government be strong enough to "secure the border". It isn't rational, logical, consistent, or possible. Answers that contain "yes, but" are not reasonable answers.
I can understand the feelings that might lead a person to support "national borders". Fear of being lost in a sea of immigrants who speak a different language, or who have different customs, is a common thing. Change of any sort is often uncomfortable and scary. Especially for those who are insecure or have feelings of inadequacy.
While I can understand the feelings, I don't share them. In the case of those who cling to national borders, but also distrust a powerful government, I can't understand how they manage to hold two such completely contradictory notions in one head.
If you are attacked or stolen from, how is it worse if the attacker or thief was born across a line on a map? You have the absolute human right to defend yourself, other innocent people, and your property from trespassing, aggression, or theft. Regardless of whether the offending person is an "immigrant", your cousin, or a LEO doing the bidding of the state. National borders change nothing in this regard.
Explain to me how this works. How can you believe that you own your life and the products of your life and yet also believe that governments can draw a line on a map and decide who can cross that line, and under what conditions they can cross. Explain how you can have a "national border", and enforce it, without having a strong and coercive national government. Explain how you can support government enforcement of that imaginary line while decrying other acts of government such as gun "laws". Don't you see that the "authority" and power for both acts comes from the same place? You can't assume liberty while you demand the government be strong enough to "secure the border". It isn't rational, logical, consistent, or possible. Answers that contain "yes, but" are not reasonable answers.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
A slave contract does not legitimize slavery
A slave contract does not legitimize slavery
Let's say there were a document that laid out the ground rules for what a slave master was allowed to do, and NOT do, to his slaves. It might state that a slave master must give his slaves adequate food. Maybe insist that he not beat his slaves too much. It might set the rules for selling the slaves in a "humane" way. It might even lay out a list of rights a slave has, as long as that slave doesn't try to escape or disobey. It would probably mention some "obligations" the slave "owes" his master; things like loyalty, obedience, and hard work.
The problem with such a document isn't that it is flawed in its rules, but that it treats slavery as a legitimate human endeavor. It isn't, and no document can ever make it so.
There is another illegitimate human endeavor, based upon theft and murder, that has a document that gives it the illusion of legitimacy to some people. A government is supposedly legitimized by the US Constitution, much to the delight of statists of all sorts. Others of us can't justify the inexcusable no matter who signed what a couple hundred years ago. And just because other governments might be worse is no reason to stick with a coercive state of any degree.
Just as I am not qualified or inclined to pontificate upon the proper treatment of slaves, other than unconditional freedom, I am not qualified or inclined to decide what might be the proper form of government, other than self-government. No document can ever make wrong right. We need to banish the idea that it can before we can move forward. Any other conclusion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Let's say there were a document that laid out the ground rules for what a slave master was allowed to do, and NOT do, to his slaves. It might state that a slave master must give his slaves adequate food. Maybe insist that he not beat his slaves too much. It might set the rules for selling the slaves in a "humane" way. It might even lay out a list of rights a slave has, as long as that slave doesn't try to escape or disobey. It would probably mention some "obligations" the slave "owes" his master; things like loyalty, obedience, and hard work.
The problem with such a document isn't that it is flawed in its rules, but that it treats slavery as a legitimate human endeavor. It isn't, and no document can ever make it so.
There is another illegitimate human endeavor, based upon theft and murder, that has a document that gives it the illusion of legitimacy to some people. A government is supposedly legitimized by the US Constitution, much to the delight of statists of all sorts. Others of us can't justify the inexcusable no matter who signed what a couple hundred years ago. And just because other governments might be worse is no reason to stick with a coercive state of any degree.
Just as I am not qualified or inclined to pontificate upon the proper treatment of slaves, other than unconditional freedom, I am not qualified or inclined to decide what might be the proper form of government, other than self-government. No document can ever make wrong right. We need to banish the idea that it can before we can move forward. Any other conclusion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
What if people don't do the right thing?
What if people don't do the right thing?
Like just about everybody, I would prefer that people do the right thing. I get irritated when people do irresponsible things and I sometimes grumble to myself about their questionable parentage or diminished mental capacity.
However, I am not delusional enough that I am willing to sacrifice freedom in order to provide a way for the state to punish those who don't always do the right thing. That's all "laws" do- provide for punishment. Punishing others does not help me. It doesn't change the reality or teach people anything. "Laws" simply provide a commonly accepted way to punish those who do things the state doesn't approve of. While many of those things might be "the wrong thing" or irresponsible, many more are not.
Of course, "laws" to allow punishment of people who don't do the right thing ignore the fact that very few people even agree on what "the right thing" is, at least on peripheral matters. Even true lovers of individual liberty disagree on some specifics. When you add in the less-than-aware masses of public school indoctrinated "citizens", the situation gets even less clear. Some don't see the hypocrisy in talking about "liberty" while propping up the police-state with the labor of their lives or with their support of some government activities. Some don't understand that theft is theft, and having a government title or office doesn't excuse your immoral acts. Smaller matters are even more confusing to them.
The solution isn't to pass "laws" that enforce your vision of "the right thing". If this were justified, you could just as easily find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's bonnet-bee. Just like in the unworkable, chaotic system we live with now. I'll take my chances with free people doing the wrong thing from time to time, with no state ready to strike at me when I act in defense of myself and my property. The cost of having a state is too high a price to pay.
Like just about everybody, I would prefer that people do the right thing. I get irritated when people do irresponsible things and I sometimes grumble to myself about their questionable parentage or diminished mental capacity.
However, I am not delusional enough that I am willing to sacrifice freedom in order to provide a way for the state to punish those who don't always do the right thing. That's all "laws" do- provide for punishment. Punishing others does not help me. It doesn't change the reality or teach people anything. "Laws" simply provide a commonly accepted way to punish those who do things the state doesn't approve of. While many of those things might be "the wrong thing" or irresponsible, many more are not.
Of course, "laws" to allow punishment of people who don't do the right thing ignore the fact that very few people even agree on what "the right thing" is, at least on peripheral matters. Even true lovers of individual liberty disagree on some specifics. When you add in the less-than-aware masses of public school indoctrinated "citizens", the situation gets even less clear. Some don't see the hypocrisy in talking about "liberty" while propping up the police-state with the labor of their lives or with their support of some government activities. Some don't understand that theft is theft, and having a government title or office doesn't excuse your immoral acts. Smaller matters are even more confusing to them.
The solution isn't to pass "laws" that enforce your vision of "the right thing". If this were justified, you could just as easily find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's bonnet-bee. Just like in the unworkable, chaotic system we live with now. I'll take my chances with free people doing the wrong thing from time to time, with no state ready to strike at me when I act in defense of myself and my property. The cost of having a state is too high a price to pay.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Cop says he is tired of getting it from 'both sides'
Cop says he is tired of getting it from 'both sides'
In the comments on another site, in response to comments from MamaLiberty and me, an admitted LEO ("John") whined that he was tired of "getting it from both sides".
I suppose he meant he was "getting it" from "criminals" and "citizens*". Silly little man. He is gravely mistaken about the situation. The "criminals" are his side, since he depends upon them for his "job's" paltry justification. Only the free people who realize that we NEVER "need" a cop are his opposition, since most of the population blindly worships "the badge", at least until they are personally attacked by one of these badge-bullies.
We are the people who take responsibility for our own lives and safety. We are the ones who don't run to the state every time someone annoys us or something doesn't go our way. We are the ones who will take care of ourselves and deal with "situations"; risking the wrath of the state for doing so. We are the ones who realize that humans have the right to make poor choices, and as long as they don't harm the innocent, it is none of our business. We are the ones who see people like him as parasites who feed off of civilization, draining its life-blood, living on stolen money, and destroying society's moral foundations, replacing them with the "law". We are the ones who suspect, with good reason, that cops cause more crime than they prevent.
Cops like "John" can keep doing what they are doing, and calling those who see through them "tinfoil hat people", or some other name. All he is doing is proving my point for me, and adding to the ranks of those who will stand against his kind. In fact, my own activism began with an incident wherein a LEO enforced a counterfeit "law" against an innocent man I knew of only from the internet. Up until that event, I had kept my opinions to myself and simply minded my own business. Unintended consequences. How many more times has a similar thing happened?
"John" doesn't see it this way. Does this make him a bad man? Not necessarily. He claims to have a deep understanding of the Constitution, and claims to obey it. That's a nice start, if true. Now, if he could wrap his mind around the human rights that the Constitution conveniently ignores he might become an asset to freedom instead of a destroyer thereof. I'm not holding my breath.
"John" doesn't have to agree with me, but if he were smart he might take notice that a sizable, and growing, percentage of the regular people feel the way I do. And it only takes one bad experience with a LEO to change a person's perceptions for a lifetime. As it now stands, if I see a cop being beaten by someone on the side of the interstate, my first assumption is going to be that the cop initiated it. Even if he didn't, coming to his defense with an effective weapon would only be asking for trouble from vermin on "both sides of the law".
*Want to really make me upset? Call me a "citizen". I am the property of no government. I am a denizen, perhaps, but never a citizen.
In the comments on another site, in response to comments from MamaLiberty and me, an admitted LEO ("John") whined that he was tired of "getting it from both sides".
I suppose he meant he was "getting it" from "criminals" and "citizens*". Silly little man. He is gravely mistaken about the situation. The "criminals" are his side, since he depends upon them for his "job's" paltry justification. Only the free people who realize that we NEVER "need" a cop are his opposition, since most of the population blindly worships "the badge", at least until they are personally attacked by one of these badge-bullies.
We are the people who take responsibility for our own lives and safety. We are the ones who don't run to the state every time someone annoys us or something doesn't go our way. We are the ones who will take care of ourselves and deal with "situations"; risking the wrath of the state for doing so. We are the ones who realize that humans have the right to make poor choices, and as long as they don't harm the innocent, it is none of our business. We are the ones who see people like him as parasites who feed off of civilization, draining its life-blood, living on stolen money, and destroying society's moral foundations, replacing them with the "law". We are the ones who suspect, with good reason, that cops cause more crime than they prevent.
Cops like "John" can keep doing what they are doing, and calling those who see through them "tinfoil hat people", or some other name. All he is doing is proving my point for me, and adding to the ranks of those who will stand against his kind. In fact, my own activism began with an incident wherein a LEO enforced a counterfeit "law" against an innocent man I knew of only from the internet. Up until that event, I had kept my opinions to myself and simply minded my own business. Unintended consequences. How many more times has a similar thing happened?
"John" doesn't see it this way. Does this make him a bad man? Not necessarily. He claims to have a deep understanding of the Constitution, and claims to obey it. That's a nice start, if true. Now, if he could wrap his mind around the human rights that the Constitution conveniently ignores he might become an asset to freedom instead of a destroyer thereof. I'm not holding my breath.
"John" doesn't have to agree with me, but if he were smart he might take notice that a sizable, and growing, percentage of the regular people feel the way I do. And it only takes one bad experience with a LEO to change a person's perceptions for a lifetime. As it now stands, if I see a cop being beaten by someone on the side of the interstate, my first assumption is going to be that the cop initiated it. Even if he didn't, coming to his defense with an effective weapon would only be asking for trouble from vermin on "both sides of the law".
*Want to really make me upset? Call me a "citizen". I am the property of no government. I am a denizen, perhaps, but never a citizen.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Oath Keepers could be a baby-step in the right direction
Oath Keepers could be a baby-step in the right direction
There is a growing movement within the "law enforcement"/military community that seeks to demonstrate the gravity they assign to their oath to defend the Constitution, as opposed to simply obeying their bosses. They call themselves the Oath Keepers. I realize they are trying to do the right thing, as they see it. However, as badly as I would like to be excited about the movement, I am very ambivalent about the reality.
My first difficulty is the fact that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it was written on. There are more basic human rights that get priority. Just because the Constitution allows an act of coercion or theft doesn't change the fact such things are still wrong. Plus, the Constitution established a government; a crime against humanity in and of itself.
But beyond that: How can the LEOs and military folk who participate in Oath Keepers activities continue to ignore the fact that they are violating their oaths with almost every action they take? Any cop who takes the oath and then arrests a person for a "drug" offense, a gun "law" violation, or who issues a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, or who demands (or enforces) "identification" has violated his oath. He has done wrong and can no longer be trusted with both a badge and a gun. Enough is enough. A reasonable solution has been proposed, however, and should be actively promoted.
Any member of the military who is deployed overseas without Congress declaring war has violated the Constitution. If they then kill or disarm anyone where they have been deployed they have added more offenses to their "permanent record". You can't shoot back at people who are defending their homes and villages, in any part of the world, and claim the moral high ground without looking ridiculous. Incorrectly labeling them "insurgents" doesn't make it true. If these military personnel assist the government (at any level) against the people of America in any way, they have become "domestic enemies". No ifs, ands, or buts.
Reading on another site I saw claim after claim by military and LEO that they would never violate their oath, preceded or followed by personal stories of them doing just that, in the form of the examples above. Why the denial? Is it really that confusing? Not unless you intentionally get it wrong.
So many of these folk blame Obama for their new-found ethics. Well, guess what- Obama didn't invent the act of violating basic human rights in order to steal more power for himself and his successors. Obama is just following the example of every president before him, all the way back to the despicable George Washington, who wrongly and unconstitutionally quelled the Whiskey Rebellion; an act that violated his oath of office and should have resulted in his corpse becoming a tree ornament somewhere.
I am not opposed to Oath Keepers by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see widespread refusal to obey illegal orders and nationwide refusal to enforce counterfeit "laws". Something I am not seeing even on a minuscule scale. Oath Keepers can be a good first step, raising awareness and making people think about what they have signed up for. But don't stop there or you have missed the entire point. There are better oaths to keep.
There is a growing movement within the "law enforcement"/military community that seeks to demonstrate the gravity they assign to their oath to defend the Constitution, as opposed to simply obeying their bosses. They call themselves the Oath Keepers. I realize they are trying to do the right thing, as they see it. However, as badly as I would like to be excited about the movement, I am very ambivalent about the reality.
My first difficulty is the fact that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it was written on. There are more basic human rights that get priority. Just because the Constitution allows an act of coercion or theft doesn't change the fact such things are still wrong. Plus, the Constitution established a government; a crime against humanity in and of itself.
But beyond that: How can the LEOs and military folk who participate in Oath Keepers activities continue to ignore the fact that they are violating their oaths with almost every action they take? Any cop who takes the oath and then arrests a person for a "drug" offense, a gun "law" violation, or who issues a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, or who demands (or enforces) "identification" has violated his oath. He has done wrong and can no longer be trusted with both a badge and a gun. Enough is enough. A reasonable solution has been proposed, however, and should be actively promoted.
Any member of the military who is deployed overseas without Congress declaring war has violated the Constitution. If they then kill or disarm anyone where they have been deployed they have added more offenses to their "permanent record". You can't shoot back at people who are defending their homes and villages, in any part of the world, and claim the moral high ground without looking ridiculous. Incorrectly labeling them "insurgents" doesn't make it true. If these military personnel assist the government (at any level) against the people of America in any way, they have become "domestic enemies". No ifs, ands, or buts.
Reading on another site I saw claim after claim by military and LEO that they would never violate their oath, preceded or followed by personal stories of them doing just that, in the form of the examples above. Why the denial? Is it really that confusing? Not unless you intentionally get it wrong.
So many of these folk blame Obama for their new-found ethics. Well, guess what- Obama didn't invent the act of violating basic human rights in order to steal more power for himself and his successors. Obama is just following the example of every president before him, all the way back to the despicable George Washington, who wrongly and unconstitutionally quelled the Whiskey Rebellion; an act that violated his oath of office and should have resulted in his corpse becoming a tree ornament somewhere.
I am not opposed to Oath Keepers by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see widespread refusal to obey illegal orders and nationwide refusal to enforce counterfeit "laws". Something I am not seeing even on a minuscule scale. Oath Keepers can be a good first step, raising awareness and making people think about what they have signed up for. But don't stop there or you have missed the entire point. There are better oaths to keep.
Time For the News?
The "news" just pisses me off.
The wrong things are emphasized, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong conclusions are drawn . What more could the national news media* do to make themselves irrelevant?
I hate to admit it, but I really have little interest in the news, especially where politics is concerned. If it relates to my opinions, then I may pay a bit of attention to it for a moment or two. I weigh its implications as it relates to my opinions and see if I need to alter my views in light of the new "information" (or, more likely, propaganda), and then I put it out of my mind.
What about new national "laws" that may affect me? I long ago made the decision that I will not obey any "laws" that are counterfeit unless it is convenient to do so, or unless I am staring down the barrel of a loaded Liberty Eradication Operative ("LEO"). Assume liberty.
I'm not saying this is the best attitude to have, nor would I ever put anyone down for having more interest in the news than I have. It's just that if you come here or visit my Examiner column to read my opinion on the latest proposed "law" or political scandal, you will usually be disappointed. If, however, you want to read what I think about the world in general, and liberty specifically, then I am your man. And you never know: occasionally some bit of "current events" may just sneak in.
*To a certain extent, the local news matters a little more. It is more likely to affect me directly today. I still go through periods where I just can't stomach it, either.
The wrong things are emphasized, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong conclusions are drawn . What more could the national news media* do to make themselves irrelevant?
I hate to admit it, but I really have little interest in the news, especially where politics is concerned. If it relates to my opinions, then I may pay a bit of attention to it for a moment or two. I weigh its implications as it relates to my opinions and see if I need to alter my views in light of the new "information" (or, more likely, propaganda), and then I put it out of my mind.
What about new national "laws" that may affect me? I long ago made the decision that I will not obey any "laws" that are counterfeit unless it is convenient to do so, or unless I am staring down the barrel of a loaded Liberty Eradication Operative ("LEO"). Assume liberty.
I'm not saying this is the best attitude to have, nor would I ever put anyone down for having more interest in the news than I have. It's just that if you come here or visit my Examiner column to read my opinion on the latest proposed "law" or political scandal, you will usually be disappointed. If, however, you want to read what I think about the world in general, and liberty specifically, then I am your man. And you never know: occasionally some bit of "current events" may just sneak in.
*To a certain extent, the local news matters a little more. It is more likely to affect me directly today. I still go through periods where I just can't stomach it, either.
LEOs- Liberty Eradication Operatives
The current trendy name for cops is "LEOs". I guess it is supposed to sound royally feline. These critters claim their acronym stands for "Law Enforcement Officer". I know better.
Judging by their actions and behaviors it can be stated with assurance that "LEO" more accurately stands for "Liberty Eradication Operative". That's what they do, after all.
PS: Any "law" that needs a "special" enforcer is not a real law, but is instead a counterfeit "law"
Judging by their actions and behaviors it can be stated with assurance that "LEO" more accurately stands for "Liberty Eradication Operative". That's what they do, after all.
PS: Any "law" that needs a "special" enforcer is not a real law, but is instead a counterfeit "law"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)