The disease called 'government'

The disease called 'government'

I view government as a disease. A very deadly disease which killed over 170 million* people in the 20th century alone. Even if a deadly disease like government has a couple of beneficial side effects it is still deadly and is not worth the pain and death it causes. Especially when the pain and death is inflicted on those who are forcibly infected against their will. People should be aware of the costs of government, and then be free to make their own choices. Like smoking and cliff diving.

Obviously government is a disease which many people still think is a wonderful thing. Some point to supposed "benefits" to those afflicted. That is dishonest. Sickle-cell disease is said to confer a bit of resistance to malaria. In certain, very specific, conditions that could be seen as a limited benefit, however, in general it is not a good enough reason and we shouldn't try to find ways to make sure everyone only gives birth to children with sickle-cell disease. Yet, this is what advocates of government are doing when they make dubious claims about the benefits of their favorite social disease, and insist that no one be allowed to opt out. Find cures for, or treat, diseases- don't search for reasons to spread them.

While I sympathize with minarchists, to a point, I don't agree with them in their conclusions. Government is malignant. You can't allow even a tiny bit to remain without the certainty of it spreading again. How much cancer is the best amount to give yourself? Government is also a poison. How much cyanide do you think is best to add to your food?

If people still wish to participate in government or other deadly endeavors, that is their business, but they should do it with a full realization of what it truly is they are supporting. They should not be allowed to force that aggression upon others any more than any other rapist would be. If they choose to try to force government on others anyway, they should do so with a complete awareness that those of us who know coercion is wrong will push back from now on.

*The number keeps being revised higher. I forget the latest estimate, but it is now over 200 million and still climbing. And this doesn't count government troops killed.

Government is good? Part 2

Today I continue yesterday's study of the claims contained in an article on the "Government is Good" website. Read "Part 1" first, if you have not yet read it.

Moving along to another paragraph just stuffed full of wackiness:

"....many of the most common activities of the modern state – building roads and
highways, putting out fires, fighting disease, treating our sewage, providing
college loans, funding basic scientific research, providing medical care for the
elderly, supplying clean water, feeding the poor, providing parks and
recreational facilities, subsidizing farmers, educating our children,
forecasting the weather, sending out Social Security checks, and so on – are not
inherently coercive or oppressive at all."

Where to begin.... The things referenced in that excerpt, do not need to be done by government. They could probably be done honestly, and better, by competitive businesses or by charities (in other words: the market). Charities help those in need and do not breed dependency and futility like welfare (by any name) does. Welfare is the cruelest slavery.

Roads and highways are built upon land that was taken from someone. They are financed with money that was taken from someone. They are infested with highwaymen who enforce coercive "laws" in order to steal more money for the state, and who will not hesitate to kill travelers who dare to resist.

Not all of those who fight fires work for the state. Those who do, do so unethically. They should become independent of the coercive monopoly they work for and stop accepting stolen money for their work. There are many ways in which this could be done much better than the current system.

Nor do the best doctors who fight disease work for the state. To imagine that these family doctors and private specialists, who are on the "front lines", are doing less than the CDC is ridiculous.

Just because government currently controls water standards doesn't mean this is the best way. After all, the government controlled system breaks down easily, leaving people vulnerable. Smart people have contingency plans.

The poor were fed by charitable organizations and individuals long before government took over the job financing it with coercively taken money. Farm subsidies have turned many farmers into "welfare queens". And where does the author think the money in those Social "Security" checks comes from? It doesn't come from an account in the recipient's name; it is coercively taken from currently employed people. If that isn't coercive and oppressive then nothing is.

"Public" schools are good at educating? Really? "Public" schools do not educate; they indoctrinate. They make people grow up accepting the socialistic status quo as "the way things have always been, and must continue to be". In around a century and a half, "public" schools have just about destroyed literacy in America.

I could go on with this for an entire series of columns since almost every sentence in every article on the whole site is full of this kind of "error", in fact it gets even worse the farther you read, but this column (even split) is already too long, and you get the idea.

I think it is very important to confront such dangerous and dishonest assertions wherever they may be found. I encourage you to read the entire article, dissect the pathetic attempt at justifying the unjustifiable, and expose the "sleight-of-hand" used. I have even left some of the biggest lies for you to tear apart. Notice that, even though the author claimed in the first quote I used in yesterday's column that there is no "inevitable trade-off" between freedom and government, he then spends most of the article describing those trade-offs and explaining why they are for the "common good". Notice, especially, how the author uses government-created situations to justify more rights violations by government. Yet, we are to believe he doesn't see this hypocrisy? I'm not buying it.

"The Common Good"

"Common" in this case means "collective", rather than "ordinary". Its meaning is closer to "communist" or "everyone" than to the more "common" meaning. "General welfare" is another way to say the exact same thing.

What is "good"? Good is something that actively helps or benefits someone who is not harming others. It isn't just an absence of "evil" since there are neutral acts that are neither "good" nor "evil", such as walking across the room. (It is never "good" to help harm innocent people. This is an excellent reason to refuse to help the police. Ever.)

So, "the common good" (or "general welfare") would be something that helps "everyone".

The only way to help "everyone" is to help the individual. Yet, most of the time "the common good" is invoked as an excuse to harm the individual. When that individual is not deserving harm right now, then the act of harming him is evil. Violating the rights of an individual; taking away the freedom of an individual, except as an act of individual self-defense, is not serving "the common good" in any way. It only serves the state and other parasites. Instead of imagining you are helping the majority, you need to think about the minority you are harming. That is the true measure of the "good" of your acts. It is better to do nothing (and therefore not help some people) than to do something which harms some who do not deserve to be harmed right now.

Government is good? Part 1

I believe in fairness, especially if there is no danger in being fair. Since my offer to a supporter of government (a person who actually dared to say "I like government") to write a guest column on why government is so wonderful never materialized, I offer an dissenting voice today.

I found a website, named "Government is Good", and it is astonishing. I highly recommend you go read the entire article I am discussing today (as well as the other articles therein), and as you do, rationally and logically dissect the claims made. I think you will see that the entire premise is dependent upon an utter lack of understanding, or "creative defining", of "freedom" and "good". Since the author is a professor of politics at a university, I have to assume he is an intelligent person. Unfortunately, that also means I must assume he knows better. I think he is displaying an abominable level of intellectual dishonesty.

Let's look at his claims:

"Let’s start by seeing what is wrong with the assumption that there is an
inevitable trade-off between government and our individual rights and
liberties."

If something always, without fail, happens, is it not "inevitable"? Point to an actual extant or historical example of a government that hasn't violated individual rights in any way. Any "trade-off" must be considered. You must include violations on those points where you happen to think the violation was necessary or good- if you are being honest.

What is "government"? It is a system of control. What is "control"? It is a loss of freedom. Some "freedoms" may not be ethical and may not be a "right", but the only reasonable way to deal with this is to let people set boundaries and enforce their own rights without fear of being further violated by government enforcement of some nonsensical "law".

Then he goes on:

"So the size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing
about how free or oppressive a society is."

Perhaps, if you don't consider that everything the government does requires money, and that governments do not earn money; they take it. Under threat of force. The bigger the government is, the more expensive. The deeper the government reaches, the more expensive it is. Are you just as free if 70% of your money is taken by government as you are if "only" 10% is taken? I think not. Is not a slave oppressed simply because he lacks the final say in running his own life? He must ask permission for the majority of his actions. Just as government, even the most "non-intrusive" government, demands.

We can see the creative mind tricks the author is passing off as "scholarly observations". Do we fall for them?

Due to the length this column has already attained, and the importance of countering such absurd claims, I have split this article into two parts. Please join me tomorrow for Part 2.

Liberty- The Definition

Liberty is the freedom to exercise your rights.
Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility.

Therefore, there can be no such thing as "too much" liberty.

Thomas Jefferson said the same thing: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." 

He went on to say "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." 

.

Freedom- the Definition

"Freedom" means doing what you want to do.

Freedom is subjective; some people can be perfectly "free" in prison, while others couldn't be free in Utopia.

Other people, consequences, responsibility, legislation, beliefs, reality, and many other things can limit your freedom. Freedom, liberty, and rights are not the same thing but are entangled.

Freedom is morally neutral; it can be good or it can be bad- depending upon what it is you want to do. You are still accountable for everything you do.


Once again, this is what I mean when I use the word "freedom" and it may vary somewhat from your meaning.

Rights- The Definition

A "right" is something you can do just because you exist. It is not dependent upon anyone's permission.

Every human alive, anywhere, has equal and identical rights.

Anything that you can do without violating the equal and identical rights of another individual is within your right to do, no matter how trivial or important.

Rights do not come from anyone, nor from government, nor from any document. A right can either be respected or it can be violated, but it can not be limited, regulated, licensed, rationed, or otherwise turned into a privilege. A privilege is the opposite of a right.

A right can not impose an obligation on another person to supply you with the means of exercising that right. (As pointed out in the comments.) I have a right to own and to carry weapons, but you have no obligation to give me a gun to carry, nor do I have a right to expect you to do so. My right is my responsibility.

All real rights can be expressed more accurately by saying "No one has a right to..." stop you from doing things which violate no one's life, liberty, or property. As in, "No one has a right to prohibit you from owning and carrying any sort of weapons." This is a better way of expressing the right to own and carry weapons.

Having a right doesn't mean there will be no consequences for exercising that right. There are always consequences and responsibilities for every action. Just because you have a right to do something does not mean it is the best thing to do right now. Think before you act, or even better, before you need to act.

In answer to those who claim there are no such things as rights-- that they are imaginary-- I say: That's fine. In that case no one can have a right to archate, so we are back to square one. Thanks!

See also: The nature of rights

What is "Kent McManigal"?

I'm not talking genus and species here, but politics.

If you read things I have written, you will notice I use different labels for myself at different times, and depending upon who I am writing for. My core beliefs and values do not change with the labels and don't normally change over time (unless it is toward even less recognition of coercion as a legitimate tool). I often feel labels are necessary, but I recognize the limits and the baggage they all have. A few of these labels even appear in the headline and introduction of this blog. I'll see if I can define myself in this post without using any labels at all. So, for informational purposes and future linkage, here is my explanation of my view (subject to revision, clarification, and addition as necessary):

Government is not necessary, and is evil. I am willing to work with those who still wish to "work within the system" using government (I will not join them in using government, though) as long as they are moving in my general direction of "greater individual freedom", even if just on one particular issue- any chair in a bar-fight, as they say- until we must part ways due to them reaching "enough freedom" (for themselves) and balking at going any further. Unless they try to stop me from continuing along my path, it can be an amicable parting.

I do not wish to control what others do as long as they harm no innocent person. If they wish to start a communist enclave, that is their business until they try to force someone to participate who does not wish to do so.

"Legal" is less than meaningless to me, as some of the worst acts are "legal" when committed by government employees, and some of the most innocuous are "illegal" when done against government wishes or without government permission.

I understand rights as existing equally in all people. Rights can either be respected or violated; nothing else. Government has no say in rights, but can wrongly restrict freedom and violate liberty. Liberty can be lost; rights can not.

There is never any legitimate reason to initiate force (attack the innocent). I will not second-guess someone who has been attacked regarding how much force they feel was necessary to defend themselves. I don't condone revenge, although I can sometimes understand the desire to pursue it. I feel a person must make choices and then accept the consequences.

I think people should not initiate deception. Keep your word. If you are being deceived, then self-defensive deception is analogous to self-defensive violence and can be the proper thing to do. You have no obligation to be honest with a liar or anyone who is attempting to harm you or other innocents. Government and its employees only function by harming others, so don't feel bad about deceiving them in order to keep what is yours or to protect people from government coercion.

I don't obsess over politics or government. In fact, other than writing about them, I don't think about either one too much unless they get in my way. Mostly, I just live my life minding my own business.
I don't care where you were born; what color your skin is; what language you speak; or what god(s), if any, you worship. All I care about is that you do not attack me or any other innocent person, and that you are not stealing or defrauding anyone.

Now, apply any label you think fits.

Hope and change is still on the menu, but not at the Government Cafe

Hope and change is still on the menu, but not at the Government Cafe

I was reading an opinion in a newsletter to which I subscribe about the recent, and mostly forgotten, ex-governor Rod Blagojevich "dramedy". The author opined that the imposed “political death penalty", which bars the former governor from ever again holding a state office, might not go far enough for the offense of "so egregiously violating the public trust". The implication was that such an offense deserves a real death penalty. That seems rather radical, but is an enjoyable thought in the right direction.

Then this sentence took me by surprise by its fundamental wrongness:

"At a time like this, what could have a more corrosive effect on the social
fabric than a loss of faith in public officials?"

Is the author joking? "Social fabric" has but one enemy: coercion. Coercion has but one source: bad people. A large percentage of the worst (and most "effective") of the bad people are "public officials". The power associated with government attracts thugs like raw meat attracts yellow-jackets.

Answering the probably rhetorical question; allowing "public officials" to exist at all is the real corrosive threat to the "social fabric".

"At a time like this" a "loss of faith in public officials" is exactly what we need. Think of it as a return to reality; an end to a delusion. A healthy and positive change.

The forgotten amendment

The forgotten amendment

Amendment III- "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law."

Once again, just to forestall any misunderstandings, I will state that rights do not come from any government nor from its documents. The best use of the Bill of Rights is to illustrate that the US government is no longer a legitimate authority, if it ever was. It lost that privilege when it unilaterally gave itself the power to interpret and enforce (?) the contract that allowed it to exist in the first place. A contract that was dead wrong from the very beginning, of course, but one that is now completely irrelevant, except as a clear illustration of wrong-doing.

That being the case, it is still clear that the person who wrote the words of the Third Amendment knew it was wrong to do what he forbade government from doing, and that the people who voted to ratify this amendment understood the same thing. Trespassing, especially by government agents and employees, is wrong.

Now, perhaps the US government hasn't violated the letter of the law, but they sure violate its spirit on a daily basis in regions all over the globe.

Putting military bases in other "countries" is a violation of the Third Amendment. Remember, the Bill of Rights was never contingent upon the victim being a "US citizen"; only upon the perpetrator being an employee of the US federal government. Period. It only prohibited actions by government, and never applied in any way to those of us who do not work for that criminal organization. That means it is just as wrong for an employee of the US government to commit a forbidden act against anyone, regardless of where on the globe it happens or what pedigree the person has, as it is for an employee of the US government to commit the same act against you or me in our own homes. Wrong is wrong.

That is only the beginning. The foreign US bases are built upon land stolen by the local government, or by the US government, from its rightful owners. Military bases exist due to coercive agreements between governments and are maintained by theft and force. They are filled with trespassers and, by their very existence, cause you and I to be in more danger from angry "foreigners" than we would otherwise be. Remember: freedom is not free, but it can not be purchased with government.

Of course, this all serves the government agenda quite well. Cause a threat to exist and then pretend to be the solution. It's a lie, but a useful one when people don't see what you are really doing. Some of us see through the lies.

My heroes have always been.... well, not thugs

My heroes have always been.... well, not thugs

If authoritarians are your heroes, you have faulty priorities. Authoritarians, such as presidents, LEOs, or those in the military, may occasionally act in heroic ways, but it is always in spite of their career choices, not because of them.

The act of doing what they are paid to do (with stolen money) does not make them "heroes". Especially not in the cases where their acts would be considered a "crime" - aggression - if done by you or me. In fact, I would say that anything they do "on the job" is automatically disqualified from consideration as "heroic", even if the same act "off-duty" would be. It is simply their duty.

Heroes do not brutalize people who fail to obey counterfeit "laws". Heroes do not attack people. Heroes earn respect; never demand it. Heroes do not do the dirty work of the state. Heroes do not steal money from anyone. Heroes do not bomb wedding parties or hospitals. Heroes do not ever obey orders or "laws" that are wrong. And heroes do not excuse or enable those who do.

Instead, heroes stand up for what is right, even in the face of "the law". Heroes do what is right no matter what the public sentiment may be, or what the "legal" consequences are. Heroes don't shrink from calling evil "evil".

Humans are fallible. Select heroes at your own risk. Realize, however, that certain traits are never heroic. An authoritarian outlook being one of the most basic of those.


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

Secede and succeed

Secede and succeed

Some people fear the death of the state because of their own financial situation. They are afraid of becoming dependent on charity in a free market where no state exists. Without a state to steal money with which to run its agencies and programs, those who work for the state face the consequences of their choices. In many cases their fears are unfounded.

Not everyone who works for the state will automatically be out of work when the state dies. Some of those jobs would still be useful and even necessary. In fact, some may become even more popular in a free society.

Consider becoming an honest provider of your services sooner rather than later. Those who are doing a job that would have a place in a free society could just divorce themselves from the state now.

The only people who will be automatically out of work when the state dies are those who can't compete without a captive, coerced "customer base". Those who depend on the monopoly of the state and couldn't attract real customers in a free market will lose out. Those whose "services" are generally unwanted and forced upon society at gun-point will find themselves at a disadvantage. Those parasites have no place in a free world anyway and would be thugs either with or without the state backing them up. We may as well expose them for what they really are now.

Let's say you are a meat inspector. I'm sure you know how to do your job just fine whether you are associated with the feds or not, right? In fact, you probably have a great many ideas of how to do your job a lot better and more efficiently, but regulations get in the way. It is already the case that "meets government standards" is a warning rather than a reassurance, and that the good businesses go far beyond those "standards". You know you can do it better. Every industry has similar examples.

Divorce your master and strike out on your own and put those innovations into action.


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

Local government more a threat than federal

Local government more a threat than federal

The federal government is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is chasing its tail, stumbling, and crumbling due to being rotten to the core. That is the good news.

Now for the bad news. Freedom is still in grave danger.

The fact is that the federal government isn't the greatest external threat to your life, liberty, and property. That "honor" goes to the local thugs- bureaucrats, and politicians; to be carried out by their enforcers. How much danger is there really that the FBI will kick in your door tonight compared to the danger that you will be waylaid on your daily travels by a more local thug? What about the danger of being kidnapped and robbed by the ethically empty drones of the IRS? Is it greater than the danger of being attacked and killed by a local LEO hopped up on testosterone and "authority"; looking for an excuse to use his (or her) Taser?

Since it is now apparently a "crime" to be free, and committing such an infraction requires decisive action on the part of the LEOs- like demanding your "papers"; demanding to know where you are going and what business you have there- just the fact of your existence places you in danger if local tools of the state are near. Each and every encounter with a cop has become a life-and-death drama, where one hint that you are not a badge-licker can cause it to escalate out of control.

So, remember this the next time you hear someone complaining about the feds. It's all a matter of proportion and perspective.


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

Private property is the foundation

Private property is the foundation

I have been recently seeing that some anarchists are rejecting the concept of "private property". While I think this is more "communist" than "anarchist", I also know that in a free society a person can live as they want as long as they don't force their values on anyone else. I have absolutely no problem with people forming little communist enclaves if that is what they want. However, I do have a real problem with the rejection of the idea of private property, as I think it renders "freedom" meaningless.

I suspect that the desire to ignore or reject private property comes from not having "enough" of it. In that case, I should reject it, as well, but I don't. I see the position as a "sour grapes" stance summarized as: "Since I don't have all I want, and I don't think that is fair, then I don't recognize 'private property' anymore and I can take what I need to survive." I could be seriously wrong, of course.

The rejection of private property has some interesting implications. If there is no such thing as private property, then there is no such thing as theft. It would just be a transfer of material with no ethical implications at all If there is no such thing as theft, then taxation isn't wrong. How would you even know if it was "taxation" or freelance "transfer of material" anyway? In either case, it isn't "the state" that is taking the money from you, it is an individual who, in the case of "taxation" is supposedly taking it for the benefit of the state. If you don't own the money, then why would you complain as long as the money is not used to finance coercion?

We can pretend there is a state which uses no coercion, has no enforcers, wages no wars, and doesn't forbid consensual behavior, but only uses the "tax" money to finance welfare programs to make everyone happy, housed, well-fed, and healthy. Under such an imaginary non-aggressive state, even a 100% tax-rate would be fine, since you would have no claim to that money since there is no such thing as property. Under such a scenario, how could you really claim to be an anarchist?

I think to embrace anarchy, you must necessarily recognize that private property lies at the foundation. Even if it means being dissatisfied with how much, or how little, property you have right now.

The right to yell 'FIRE!' in a theater

In almost any rant calculated to justify a government violation of some natural human right (especially those mentioned in the Bill of Rights), usually specifically the right to own and to carry weapons, someone will invariably bring up the old lie that “you can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a theater”.

Well, yes, you can.

The tyranny-enabling statement gets it wrong on so many levels.

It is your absolute human right to do say whatever you want to say. It may not be wise, and in a free society you will be held accountable for any harm you cause by doing so, of course.

The actual statement asserts you have no right to FALSELY yell “FIRE!”, but almost everyone misses that distinction, either through ignorance or by design, and it is still wrong anyway.

Then there is the misunderstanding of where rights come from. I’ll give you a hint: they don’t come from government or any of its documents. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give us any rights at all. In fact, it doesn’t even apply to you or me at all unless we work for government. And for those to whom it does apply, its entire purpose is to stop them from violating the rights of others.

What the Bill of Rights DOES do is prohibit government from enacting “laws” that restrict (violate) certain rights (think of it as a “government shall not…” list). Since the First Amendment protects ALL speech from government regulation or control, it also protects the right to say things that can be destructive or stupid. That doesn’t mean doing so is right — it usually is not — but government can have no legitimate say in the matter. What government can do (if anything), or what a private arbitrator should do, after the fact, is hold the speaker accountable for any harm his act caused.

The best thing is that the Bill of Rights could be repealed tomorrow and it wouldn’t diminish anyone’s rights at all. It might make it slightly easier for government to get away with violating those rights by restricting liberty. Or not. We may get a chance to see.

.

How best to really free children?

How best to really free children?

Is it better to teach your children about freedom, and how to value it; knowing the world they will be growing up in (at least until the state fades away) is determined to punish and crush those who exercise* their freedom? Or is it better, for them, to just let them be raised to be compliant, mindless sheep, whose lives will be comfy as long as they "go along to get along"? At least until their deaths are necessary to the state.

I know the answer to that question in my own heart, although it troubles me some.

Yes, I allow my children to observe that the state is their enemy, and that all its enforcers and supporters are not to be trusted. I also try to teach them not to obsess over that fact. The first part is a lesson I wish my parents had taught me a little more clearly while I was growing up, although I learned it soon enough on my own. The second; a lesson I am continually teaching myself.
_____________________

*Freedom, to be real, must be exercised, not just talked about. Most people who say the word "freedom" have no more clue about what it means than if they were talking about a blue charm quark. These are the people who, like a well-known politician/parasite, claim that freedom is about doing what the government tells you to do or who think "freedom" begins and ends with the Constitution or voting.

Survivor: ZAP

Survivor: ZAP

I'm going off on a little tangent here, but there is an eventual point.

When I first heard of the show "Survivor", I thought it sounded fascinating. Until I watched the first episode. I was disgusted that it had very little to do with survival, and everything to do with drama and personality conflicts. Behavior that would seriously compromise survival was encouraged and even necessary to "win".

So, out of my disgust grew a better idea.

Let's set up the premise. Why not take a jet, filled with everything a typical passenger plane would carry, except for the passengers, and smash it into the side of a mountain? You could then truck in the "survivors" and let them deal with the situation. Is anything usable in the wreckage? Probably, since you'd have to "gently" crash it in order for survivors to be realistic. Put fully-clothed dead pigs in some seats for some pretend "cannibalism" fun. Could "injuries" be randomly assigned? Perhaps a computer program could follow any treatment the other survivors attempt and determine the progress of the recovery... or "death". Of course, you couldn't give the "survivors" real injuries. Could you recruit car wreck victims from an emergency room? I guess that would be too risky.

The possibilities for excitement are endless. Would predators show up to scavenge the porcine bodies? How could they be defended against? Unless there were an air marshal on board, there wouldn't be any guns available for driving off predators. Hmmm. Unless some were in the luggage; on their way to an Alaskan hunt, perhaps. Filming would need to be as unobtrusive as possible. Maybe cover the area with remote-control cameras to minimize the distractions. There would be no contrived "council meetings" with the show's host. No getting "voted off"... you are stuck until you bail out, in which case you "die" and another pig corpse is substituted for you. The winner would be obvious since he or she would be the last player standing.

Here is the libertarian angle: I propose a new twist to this "reality show" of mine. Let's take a group of people of all sorts- but who all agree to abide by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), have gone through the TOLFA course, or who at least understand that ZAP will be the only "law"- put them in my plane crash scenario, or even on an island or in the middle of some other remote location, and see what happens. Let's see whether a group of people can really live by the ZAP under more extreme conditions than everyday existence. Let the fun begin! I volunteer enthusiastically.

Making life easier for cops

Making life easier for cops

I like to do my part and contribute to society in a meaningful way. That is the spirit in which I make this suggestion.

If the LEOs could bring themselves to just get over their authoritarian brainwashing, they would realize that they could ignore all the libertarians without endangering themselves or "the public" in any way.

It could make their lives and jobs so much simpler, plus by treating us as we should be treated, we would gladly take on some of their "responsibility" ourselves, since most of us know we alone are responsible for ourselves, and most of us also accept the responsibility to protect and defend the innocent around us.

Instead, most LEOs insist on waging war on those who otherwise would pose no threat to them at all. This is completely insane behavior on their part.

Bad things happen- don't make them worse

Bad things happen- don't make them worse

Bad things happen. That is just a harsh fact of life no matter what else is going on around you. That doesn't mean you have to make it worse. Throwing government on the situation is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It doesn't change the past. It doesn't restore a victim to his pre-attack condition. All it does is feed the blood-lust of those who have been absorbed into the cult of the punishment mentality.

In spite of the claims to the contrary, punishment doesn't serve as an effective warning to others. If that worked in real life, none of us would have to make our own mistakes since we would listen to the admonitions of our parents or learn from the experiences of our friends. It doesn't work that way, as everyone knows from personal experience.

There is also little hard evidence (in spite of wishful thinking by authoritarians) that currently popular forms of punishment really teach anyone "a lesson". Imprisonment does, however, immerse the prisoner into a new, anti-social, culture which reinforces the "us vs. them" dichotomy which teaches them to think it is OK to hurt the "other side". It also forces the prisoner to learn new skills from more experienced or creative fellow convicts. The really tragic part of this is that only a very small percentage of prisoners are there because of real aggression; most are there for victimless "crimes" against the state's insane edicts. All punishment does is strengthen the state.

The only ethical thing to do is to insist upon dispute resolution and restitution, and when that doesn't work, to exercise the right of self defense consistently. Apart from any government enforcement or control. It requires a separation of justice and state- on our way to the real pot of gold: the separation of life and state.

Going postal over freedom

Going postal over freedom

I post my older columns on a local newspaper's website. I also frequently comment on the news items therein. This general vicinity is not very libertarian at all, even though the newspaper is owned by the libertarian Freedom Communications. I am often the only voice for freedom when I comment on a story; the rest of the comments are made by people fully entrenched into, or absorbed by, the punishment mentality- the cult that results in bombed weddings in Iraq, DEA no-knock raids, Guantanamo torture, and automatic guilty verdicts (regardless of the facts) when the magic words "child molestation" or "child pornography" are uttered by the authoriturds.

The rationality of "my opposition" can be seen in this comment left by a reader on my newspaper blog:

"Shut up!~!! Your blogs are not interesting, have no meaning to the
well-informed citizens, and sometimes are just scary to read. Keep your opinions
to yourself and go out to your backyard and fire your gun to keep your sanity!!!
You need to find a support group, or make a friend who shares your interests in
order to keep you from going "postal". Please spare us from having to read your
annoying comments, and give us space to comment to people who care!!!"

Now, I have been told, on more than one occasion, that I am the most laid-back person you could meet. I've never been in a serious fight and I don't think I have ever been in danger of "going postal", as I much prefer to avoid a fight rather than feeling the need to start one if I have been "disrespected". And, of course, I will not initiate force.

I have to assume that freedom so frightens this person that she is striking out at me in terror without engaging her mind first. Is freedom really this frightening to the general population? I would hope not, but perhaps- to people without self-control, or without the ethical principles to guide them- it is. Especially if they assume everyone else is just like them.