How do you react?
I think that how you react to others whose beliefs, habits, or lives may differ from your own goes a long ways toward showing how willing you are to leave people alone to live their own lives as they see fit as long as they are harming no innocent person.
Just a few examples from my own life:
I was once standing in line at a counter when the person in front of me pulled money from his pocket and as he did, a small bag of marijuana fell to the floor. He didn't realize it had fallen out and I quickly scooped it up and tapped his shoulder, saying "You dropped this". He was incredibly grateful.
On a couple of occasions I have had men express an interest in me. I just say I am not interested without making an issue of it. It is no different than having a woman express an interest in me if I am not interested in her. There is no need to get "all macho" and offended over it, and certainly no reason to threaten to beat anyone up as I have seen happen.
A former wife of mine worked in a convenience store and kept bragging that she would call the cops on anyone (other than a LEO) she saw with a gun in "her" store. (Of course, she never complained about my armed presence during the overnight shifts when she worked alone!) One day, after she had finished waiting on one particular man and he had left the store, I casually asked why she hadn't thrown him out or called the cops on him. She claimed she didn't see the (rather large and obvious) revolver on his belt. I just mentioned that she might want to pay closer attention to her surroundings if she wanted to stay safe. Personally, I think it was all bravado on her part, and she had no intention of doing any such thing. Still, I wanted to say so much more than I did.
This isn't to say I have always taken the best course, especially during my teenage years. Life is a journey, and all any of us can do is keep improving. Don't beat yourself up over things in the past that you can't do over or fix.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Property rights and staying consistent
Property rights and staying consistent
Whatever you insist on for yourself, rights-wise, you must be willing to accept for others. You can not make one claim for yourself, but have different parameters for everyone else. Otherwise you become like the statists.
My "Bubble Theory of Personal Property Rights" is not popular, but even if it means I am not welcome very many places, it is still the way I will relate to anyone I invite to my property. If you come to my house by invitation, what is in your "bubble" is none of my business as long as it doesn't break out, and my property rights do not penetrate that space of yours which goes from the outer surface of your clothing on one side to the same surface on the opposite side of you. If I don't like that, no one is forcing me to allow, or invite, anyone and their "bubble" on my property. That is why cops are never welcome on my property.
While I see my own property rights views in an almost concrete fashion, like a solid sculpture that has sharp, well-defined surfaces, I see the other point of view as a fuzzy, wispy phantasm, made up of "yes, buts", "in this cases", and "if, thens", and depending upon which way the wind is blowing at the moment. It seems very fluid and indefinite.
I can see the point that has been made that other people's real-estate rights are supreme to bodily property rights to some people. I don't understand it, and I doubt I will ever actually believe it, since bodily property rights are the source of all rights, and just as you can have no hangnails without hands or feet, neither can real estate property rights exist apart from bodily property rights. However, if that is how others see it, I will try to respect that view and behave as though I agree.
This column is an educational exercise for me, after all. Sometimes, if you find yourself in the minority it may mean you are wrong.
This means I now have to make some hard choices. The reality is that under this view I am no longer able to leave my property without violating my responsibilities in one way or another. That is a disheartening realization, but principles are principles, and consistency is vital.
Whatever you insist on for yourself, rights-wise, you must be willing to accept for others. You can not make one claim for yourself, but have different parameters for everyone else. Otherwise you become like the statists.
My "Bubble Theory of Personal Property Rights" is not popular, but even if it means I am not welcome very many places, it is still the way I will relate to anyone I invite to my property. If you come to my house by invitation, what is in your "bubble" is none of my business as long as it doesn't break out, and my property rights do not penetrate that space of yours which goes from the outer surface of your clothing on one side to the same surface on the opposite side of you. If I don't like that, no one is forcing me to allow, or invite, anyone and their "bubble" on my property. That is why cops are never welcome on my property.
While I see my own property rights views in an almost concrete fashion, like a solid sculpture that has sharp, well-defined surfaces, I see the other point of view as a fuzzy, wispy phantasm, made up of "yes, buts", "in this cases", and "if, thens", and depending upon which way the wind is blowing at the moment. It seems very fluid and indefinite.
I can see the point that has been made that other people's real-estate rights are supreme to bodily property rights to some people. I don't understand it, and I doubt I will ever actually believe it, since bodily property rights are the source of all rights, and just as you can have no hangnails without hands or feet, neither can real estate property rights exist apart from bodily property rights. However, if that is how others see it, I will try to respect that view and behave as though I agree.
This column is an educational exercise for me, after all. Sometimes, if you find yourself in the minority it may mean you are wrong.
This means I now have to make some hard choices. The reality is that under this view I am no longer able to leave my property without violating my responsibilities in one way or another. That is a disheartening realization, but principles are principles, and consistency is vital.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
"Drunk driving" public service ads
You know those stupid draconian "Drunk driving" ads? They crop up everywhere, and the billboards I drive past make me want to grab a can of red spray paint and practice painting circles and "X"s. The TV ads just make me change channels. I don't like people to drive drunk, but I like authoritarian evil even less.
I'd like to post my own "public service announcements" aimed at those public serpents with badges and roadblocks (and syringes):
I know, it isn't harsh enough. Still it would make me feel better.
I'd like to post my own "public service announcements" aimed at those public serpents with badges and roadblocks (and syringes):
If you violate people's rights, we WILL find you. Make no mistake,
you WILL get caught, and you WILL pay for your aggression. Violate a
right; go straight to prison. It's your choice.
I know, it isn't harsh enough. Still it would make me feel better.
"Blacksteading"
Instead of moving into an area already polluted with an abundance of "laws", some people are trying to start colonizing new areas to start with as blank a slate as possible. Seasteading is the most common idea. It sounds good to me, but there are some drawbacks. You would still be in the path of navies and pirates (not much real difference between the two).
I like the idea of "Blacksteading"- colonizing space. I know there are technological drawbacks to that, but there are also advantages. No governments and no pirates. Yet. There is enough room to stay out of their way when they do arrive, and plenty of resources and energy.
I'm not saying to pursue blacksteading instead of seasteading, but along with. Some things learned can be applied to both. I could see myself going either way.
I like the idea of "Blacksteading"- colonizing space. I know there are technological drawbacks to that, but there are also advantages. No governments and no pirates. Yet. There is enough room to stay out of their way when they do arrive, and plenty of resources and energy.
I'm not saying to pursue blacksteading instead of seasteading, but along with. Some things learned can be applied to both. I could see myself going either way.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Pushing the freedom envelope: Here there be dragons
Pushing the freedom envelope: Here there be dragons
When writing about freedom, whether you call it "libertarianism", "self-ownership", or "anarchism", it is necessary to explore the ragged edges.
For example, I doubt anyone who understands freedom thinks slavery is a good thing anymore. Those who don't understand freedom, even if they think they do, make excuses when the slave owner is a government entity. Then euphemistic terms and contradictory mental contortions are employed to avoid acknowledging the slavery.
Then there are areas where good freedom-advocating people have differing opinions. To me it seems to normally come down to a disagreement over the concept and understanding of "initiating force". Others are unhappy with any hierarchy of any sort regardless of whether they are voluntary or not, and still others are unhappy when they think they see rights clashing or overlapping. I think the "problems" are overblown if not already solved, but just because I see these things clearly solved in my own mind doesn't mean I am right.
Whatever the problem, it is good to keep poking around those dangerous areas and risk falling off the edge. It is the only way to discover where the real boundaries lie. I will continue to stick my nose into these areas and take my bruises. I have nothing to lose and so much to gain by the exercise.
Update: I have gotten an update on the progress of the website for helping support libertarian letters-to-the-editors. Sounds like it is going to be good. Keep watching for the announcement!
When writing about freedom, whether you call it "libertarianism", "self-ownership", or "anarchism", it is necessary to explore the ragged edges.
For example, I doubt anyone who understands freedom thinks slavery is a good thing anymore. Those who don't understand freedom, even if they think they do, make excuses when the slave owner is a government entity. Then euphemistic terms and contradictory mental contortions are employed to avoid acknowledging the slavery.
Then there are areas where good freedom-advocating people have differing opinions. To me it seems to normally come down to a disagreement over the concept and understanding of "initiating force". Others are unhappy with any hierarchy of any sort regardless of whether they are voluntary or not, and still others are unhappy when they think they see rights clashing or overlapping. I think the "problems" are overblown if not already solved, but just because I see these things clearly solved in my own mind doesn't mean I am right.
Whatever the problem, it is good to keep poking around those dangerous areas and risk falling off the edge. It is the only way to discover where the real boundaries lie. I will continue to stick my nose into these areas and take my bruises. I have nothing to lose and so much to gain by the exercise.
Update: I have gotten an update on the progress of the website for helping support libertarian letters-to-the-editors. Sounds like it is going to be good. Keep watching for the announcement!
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Who is a 'terrorist'; who is not
Who is a 'terrorist'; who is not
It seems like government has fallen in love with the word "terrorist". Anyone who opposes the state is a potential target for the label. Yet, very few of those so designated would really qualify, even if the accusation were not made up out of thin air. You see, government applies the word to those who by definition do not fit it.
A "terrorist" is someone who tries to create the emotion of "terror" through violent attacks (or threats of attack) against innocent non-governmental individuals or targets, and then uses that fear to attempt to force a change in government policy. Violent attacks on governmental targets, while they may still be wrong, are not terrorism, but are "political dissent" or "revolt". They are the last option when all other options have been criminalized or rendered impotent. (This is known as an "unintended consequence".)
Not all bad guys are "terrorists"; some are just regular thieves, attackers, or government employees. The label "terrorist" is a handy way for the state to throw suspicion on anyone who refuses to buy the government's excuses, coercion, and lies "hook, line, and sinker". And when applied to the wrong people, this label is only convincing to those who do willingly buy the government lies.
No attack on a government employee or facility is a "terrorist attack" no matter who orchestrates it, for whatever reason, or how many innocents are killed. It is evil to harm the innocent. This is what government does the best. "Collateral damage" is completely unacceptable even in defense of freedom. It brings the opponents of government down to the level of the thugs of the state.
Governments realize this and will always try to surround their most evil actors and agencies with innocent human shields. They need innocent deaths for photo collages in the event of any attack. Good people will never step into their trap.. Freedom doesn't need martyrs as much as it needs living advocates like you and me promoting the principles as we stand by them. Freedom certainly doesn't need fools and bullies to damage the cause.
Attacks on governmental targets don't terrorize or even scare me. I stay away from such places and people anyway. I don't need the government for anything. I would probably notice if they were gone due to the sudden increase in freedom. It would be an interesting day.
It seems like government has fallen in love with the word "terrorist". Anyone who opposes the state is a potential target for the label. Yet, very few of those so designated would really qualify, even if the accusation were not made up out of thin air. You see, government applies the word to those who by definition do not fit it.
A "terrorist" is someone who tries to create the emotion of "terror" through violent attacks (or threats of attack) against innocent non-governmental individuals or targets, and then uses that fear to attempt to force a change in government policy. Violent attacks on governmental targets, while they may still be wrong, are not terrorism, but are "political dissent" or "revolt". They are the last option when all other options have been criminalized or rendered impotent. (This is known as an "unintended consequence".)
Not all bad guys are "terrorists"; some are just regular thieves, attackers, or government employees. The label "terrorist" is a handy way for the state to throw suspicion on anyone who refuses to buy the government's excuses, coercion, and lies "hook, line, and sinker". And when applied to the wrong people, this label is only convincing to those who do willingly buy the government lies.
No attack on a government employee or facility is a "terrorist attack" no matter who orchestrates it, for whatever reason, or how many innocents are killed. It is evil to harm the innocent. This is what government does the best. "Collateral damage" is completely unacceptable even in defense of freedom. It brings the opponents of government down to the level of the thugs of the state.
Governments realize this and will always try to surround their most evil actors and agencies with innocent human shields. They need innocent deaths for photo collages in the event of any attack. Good people will never step into their trap.. Freedom doesn't need martyrs as much as it needs living advocates like you and me promoting the principles as we stand by them. Freedom certainly doesn't need fools and bullies to damage the cause.
Attacks on governmental targets don't terrorize or even scare me. I stay away from such places and people anyway. I don't need the government for anything. I would probably notice if they were gone due to the sudden increase in freedom. It would be an interesting day.
Giving consent freely or under coercion
Giving consent freely or under coercion
To give "consent" means you are making an agreement with another person. This could be a real "agreement" or it might merely be "compliance". Free individuals in a free society, which is the ideal situation, will give consent that really means something. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a slave's consent to the master's wishes is completely worthless. Consent under duress is not really consent and is not binding. The rest of us live somewhere in between these two extremes, and our consent has greater, or lesser, meaning depending on how freely we give it in the particular circumstance. In a great many cases, our "consent" is coerced in one way or another. Either due to seeking the approval of people who are close to us, or in attempting to survive in society.
Free people in an unfree society are in a difficult situation. The more we are backed into a corner, the more likely we are to give the appearance of consent where none really exists. This may not be right, but it is certainly understandable.
If you are approached by a bully who is bigger, stronger, or tougher than you and he demands your cooperation, you would be likely to agree to it in order to get out of the current situation. Even if there were no overt threat, if you knew the man's history of violence toward those who didn't cooperate, or understood his power to punish you for your lack of cooperation, giving false consent would be understandable. Consent now or suffer now; lie to him now and possibly suffer later. You may be purchasing immediate safety at the expense of future peace of mind. In a free society you could defend yourself from people such as this at the time of the threat, forestalling the "payback". That isn't the "legal" reality of the world we live in right now.
If you are a free individual facing a bully of some sort you should probably just refuse to consent and let the chips fall where they may. Yet, as in the case of the state, I feel there is nothing wrong with lying to thugs. In fact, I think it is often right to lie to them. Do you feel guilt if you lie to the mugger when he asks if you have any more money on you, or is it the right thing to do? Would you pretend to cooperate with the kidnapper in order to get your child back, and then renege on your deal at the first opportunity? Good people don't become bad by confounding the bad people. Good people lose when they deal with bad people as if they were good people. If you don't like the implications, don't initiate force, therefore becoming a bad person. Once you do, consequences are set into motion. I would never condemn a person for giving false consent to bullies or under coercion.
To give "consent" means you are making an agreement with another person. This could be a real "agreement" or it might merely be "compliance". Free individuals in a free society, which is the ideal situation, will give consent that really means something. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a slave's consent to the master's wishes is completely worthless. Consent under duress is not really consent and is not binding. The rest of us live somewhere in between these two extremes, and our consent has greater, or lesser, meaning depending on how freely we give it in the particular circumstance. In a great many cases, our "consent" is coerced in one way or another. Either due to seeking the approval of people who are close to us, or in attempting to survive in society.
Free people in an unfree society are in a difficult situation. The more we are backed into a corner, the more likely we are to give the appearance of consent where none really exists. This may not be right, but it is certainly understandable.
If you are approached by a bully who is bigger, stronger, or tougher than you and he demands your cooperation, you would be likely to agree to it in order to get out of the current situation. Even if there were no overt threat, if you knew the man's history of violence toward those who didn't cooperate, or understood his power to punish you for your lack of cooperation, giving false consent would be understandable. Consent now or suffer now; lie to him now and possibly suffer later. You may be purchasing immediate safety at the expense of future peace of mind. In a free society you could defend yourself from people such as this at the time of the threat, forestalling the "payback". That isn't the "legal" reality of the world we live in right now.
If you are a free individual facing a bully of some sort you should probably just refuse to consent and let the chips fall where they may. Yet, as in the case of the state, I feel there is nothing wrong with lying to thugs. In fact, I think it is often right to lie to them. Do you feel guilt if you lie to the mugger when he asks if you have any more money on you, or is it the right thing to do? Would you pretend to cooperate with the kidnapper in order to get your child back, and then renege on your deal at the first opportunity? Good people don't become bad by confounding the bad people. Good people lose when they deal with bad people as if they were good people. If you don't like the implications, don't initiate force, therefore becoming a bad person. Once you do, consequences are set into motion. I would never condemn a person for giving false consent to bullies or under coercion.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Property rights by contract
Property rights by contract
What does the dictionary say a "contract" is?
"[A]n agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified." Doing. Not peripheral matters, but the "doing or not doing". As in "doing your job". Your race, hair color, type of shoes (as long as they do not prevent you from doing that which you contracted to do), or whether you are armed has no bearing on the "doing or not doing" that is contracted.
Next we have "[A]n agreement enforceable by law" and "the written form of such an agreement". Is the demand that you relinquish your human rights "enforceable by law"? What sort of "law"? Is such a demand valid? Here we are getting back into government coercion which is outside the scope of this article. The remaining definitions don't really concern us here, but feel free to read them.
Is every voluntary interaction a "contract"? Is any conceivable contract OK? Or, are there some conditions that are never acceptable nor "enforceable" due to their reprehensible nature? What about a contract which "allows" or "requires" you to initiate force?
If, as I believe, it is never within your rights to initiate force, is a contract which "authorizes" you to initiate force on people who enter your property valid? Can you agree to a contract relinquishing your right to not be attacked? Can you "contract" to stop being human?
If a property owner makes the rules clear before we enter his property, then we have the choice to agree or not. If the restriction is hidden in the voluminous "user agreement" the reality is that bizarre requests can't be anticipated, so we would need to specifically ask what is permitted and what is not. Once again, it is dangerous to set gun possession restrictions apart from other strange demands that a property owner may make.
MamaLiberty points out "Nobody is forced to take a job or shop in a certain store". That is true to an extent. The reality is that in some places, while you are not forced to deal with one particular business, you may be forced to deal with a particular set of businesses. If they all have the same rules, then you really have no choice but to deal with one or the other. You can't buy milk at the gun store, after all. To claim otherwise is to side with those who say "If you don't like the way things are in America, get out!" I am not saying this proves anything, just that it is something to consider.
I am simply trying to get you to think. Lest you think otherwise, I think it is preferable to try to get along with others. Go along with their requests unless they put you in danger or ask you to violate your principles. If they initiate force against you, you have the right to defend yourself, but you are not required to do so. If someone makes unreasonable demands, avoid them.
What does the dictionary say a "contract" is?
"[A]n agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified." Doing. Not peripheral matters, but the "doing or not doing". As in "doing your job". Your race, hair color, type of shoes (as long as they do not prevent you from doing that which you contracted to do), or whether you are armed has no bearing on the "doing or not doing" that is contracted.
Next we have "[A]n agreement enforceable by law" and "the written form of such an agreement". Is the demand that you relinquish your human rights "enforceable by law"? What sort of "law"? Is such a demand valid? Here we are getting back into government coercion which is outside the scope of this article. The remaining definitions don't really concern us here, but feel free to read them.
Is every voluntary interaction a "contract"? Is any conceivable contract OK? Or, are there some conditions that are never acceptable nor "enforceable" due to their reprehensible nature? What about a contract which "allows" or "requires" you to initiate force?
If, as I believe, it is never within your rights to initiate force, is a contract which "authorizes" you to initiate force on people who enter your property valid? Can you agree to a contract relinquishing your right to not be attacked? Can you "contract" to stop being human?
If a property owner makes the rules clear before we enter his property, then we have the choice to agree or not. If the restriction is hidden in the voluminous "user agreement" the reality is that bizarre requests can't be anticipated, so we would need to specifically ask what is permitted and what is not. Once again, it is dangerous to set gun possession restrictions apart from other strange demands that a property owner may make.
MamaLiberty points out "Nobody is forced to take a job or shop in a certain store". That is true to an extent. The reality is that in some places, while you are not forced to deal with one particular business, you may be forced to deal with a particular set of businesses. If they all have the same rules, then you really have no choice but to deal with one or the other. You can't buy milk at the gun store, after all. To claim otherwise is to side with those who say "If you don't like the way things are in America, get out!" I am not saying this proves anything, just that it is something to consider.
I am simply trying to get you to think. Lest you think otherwise, I think it is preferable to try to get along with others. Go along with their requests unless they put you in danger or ask you to violate your principles. If they initiate force against you, you have the right to defend yourself, but you are not required to do so. If someone makes unreasonable demands, avoid them.
Property rights and governmental meddling
Property rights and governmental meddling
It is not within government's authority to tell anyone how to use their own property in any way, as long as no innocent is harmed by the use. Not if it benefits me personally or if it harms me. I do think it is good if artificial government rules which restrict freedom are removed. Sometimes this is done by passing a new "law" instead of the more rational action of removing the old, offending "law". I know this is not the case in the example that started this discussion.
What about places that have government-mandated signs forbidding guns, rather than a sign the owner wanted to post based upon his own desires? If the restriction is not based upon the property owner's desires, but upon governmental "requirements" then are you wrong to ignore it? How do you know the property owner's real wishes? Do you ask? Do you assume liberty, or do you assume slavery?
On "government property" we have no option, since government is a monopoly. I brought up the fact that government owns nothing to get that discussion out of the way. There is no ethical obligation to obey government's rules, although it may be a smart survival strategy. It is best to avoid government employees and buildings anyway.
I am not saying you should or should not act in a particular way, but I am asking you to think about the issues involved. It is good to understand where you stand and why.
***********************
It is not within government's authority to tell anyone how to use their own property in any way, as long as no innocent is harmed by the use. Not if it benefits me personally or if it harms me. I do think it is good if artificial government rules which restrict freedom are removed. Sometimes this is done by passing a new "law" instead of the more rational action of removing the old, offending "law". I know this is not the case in the example that started this discussion.
What about places that have government-mandated signs forbidding guns, rather than a sign the owner wanted to post based upon his own desires? If the restriction is not based upon the property owner's desires, but upon governmental "requirements" then are you wrong to ignore it? How do you know the property owner's real wishes? Do you ask? Do you assume liberty, or do you assume slavery?
On "government property" we have no option, since government is a monopoly. I brought up the fact that government owns nothing to get that discussion out of the way. There is no ethical obligation to obey government's rules, although it may be a smart survival strategy. It is best to avoid government employees and buildings anyway.
I am not saying you should or should not act in a particular way, but I am asking you to think about the issues involved. It is good to understand where you stand and why.
***********************
Property rights- body, stuff, and real estate
Property rights- body, stuff, and real estate
Whenever someone of MamaLiberty's caliber disagrees with me, as she does with my previous column on personal property "bubbles", I know it is time to stop, re-evaluate, and give the subject some deep thought and careful examination. This is one of those times.
Do your property rights exist if you don't exist? No. What are "property rights"? Having property rights means that if you own something, you have the right to use that thing in any way you wish, as long as by doing so you do not initiate force and thereby violate another person's rights to "life, liberty, and property". As a point of clarification: Governments never respect any property rights but their own, which ironically don't really exist since there is no individual who holds the rights over the property that government claims, along with the fact that government possesses nothing which it did not steal. Stolen property does not belong to the thief. Just to be clear: Government has no property rights.
There are three types of property rights that I can see. There are property rights over your body, which for the purposes of this discussion I will call "bodily property rights" (otherwise known as "self-ownership"). There are property rights over the stuff you own, such as your cars, guns, boots, knick-knacks, appliances, and skull collection. I'll call this your "stuff rights" (as opposed to "right stuff"). Then, there are property rights over your real estate- property such as your land, home, or business location, which I'll call your "real estate rights".
Take your living body out of the equation and the other two types of property rights vanish (along with all your other rights) except that they may transfer to someone else. This means that your existence brings into being your "bodily property rights". Your rights to own, use, and destroy your stuff and your real estate derive from your existence.
If one thing (such as a right) brings forth another thing, then the fundamental thing outranks that which derives from it. That means that your "bodily property rights", from which your "stuff rights" and your "real estate rights" come, must necessarily come before any other property rights if we are to be consistent. After all, you can't have a hangnail if you have no hands or feet; nor any broken bones if you have no bones.
Now, what about a property owner's "real estate rights" trumping a customer/employee/visitor's bodily property rights? If you invite someone, can you really demand they leave their bodily property rights behind? Is that even a real invitation? Is such a demand valid? Does such a demand violate a person's rights by initiating a kind of force? Do you own the space between their skin and their clothing when they enter your property so that you can dictate what resides there? Does the ownership of that space change as a person travels from place to place throughout the day?
When you really consider that concept, the absurdity becomes apparent. That doesn't mean that the absurd implications are wrong, but it should at least cause you to question the idea more thoroughly. I know I have no claim on your "bubble" of bodily personal property no matter what I might prefer, nor upon anything that may be there as long as it doesn't make an appearance on my property. Be warned that others may disagree and lay claim upon your body, your clothing, and the space that exists between the two. That doesn't mean they are right.
I think that the position that "real estate rights" trump the "bodily property rights" and the "stuff rights" of anyone invited to enter the real estate comes from a real desire to be nice and respectful of the real estate's owner. That is fine. It is not always the wisest thing to exercise every right you possess at every moment. I do think it is putting the cart before the horse, though. Perhaps people are afraid of the reaction the general public might have if this realization were to become common.
Coming soon: MamaLiberty thinks the issue comes down to "contracts". She may be right. I will look at the idea of "contracts" which require you to give up your basic human rights in a subsequent column.
Whenever someone of MamaLiberty's caliber disagrees with me, as she does with my previous column on personal property "bubbles", I know it is time to stop, re-evaluate, and give the subject some deep thought and careful examination. This is one of those times.
Do your property rights exist if you don't exist? No. What are "property rights"? Having property rights means that if you own something, you have the right to use that thing in any way you wish, as long as by doing so you do not initiate force and thereby violate another person's rights to "life, liberty, and property". As a point of clarification: Governments never respect any property rights but their own, which ironically don't really exist since there is no individual who holds the rights over the property that government claims, along with the fact that government possesses nothing which it did not steal. Stolen property does not belong to the thief. Just to be clear: Government has no property rights.
There are three types of property rights that I can see. There are property rights over your body, which for the purposes of this discussion I will call "bodily property rights" (otherwise known as "self-ownership"). There are property rights over the stuff you own, such as your cars, guns, boots, knick-knacks, appliances, and skull collection. I'll call this your "stuff rights" (as opposed to "right stuff"). Then, there are property rights over your real estate- property such as your land, home, or business location, which I'll call your "real estate rights".
Take your living body out of the equation and the other two types of property rights vanish (along with all your other rights) except that they may transfer to someone else. This means that your existence brings into being your "bodily property rights". Your rights to own, use, and destroy your stuff and your real estate derive from your existence.
If one thing (such as a right) brings forth another thing, then the fundamental thing outranks that which derives from it. That means that your "bodily property rights", from which your "stuff rights" and your "real estate rights" come, must necessarily come before any other property rights if we are to be consistent. After all, you can't have a hangnail if you have no hands or feet; nor any broken bones if you have no bones.
Now, what about a property owner's "real estate rights" trumping a customer/employee/visitor's bodily property rights? If you invite someone, can you really demand they leave their bodily property rights behind? Is that even a real invitation? Is such a demand valid? Does such a demand violate a person's rights by initiating a kind of force? Do you own the space between their skin and their clothing when they enter your property so that you can dictate what resides there? Does the ownership of that space change as a person travels from place to place throughout the day?
When you really consider that concept, the absurdity becomes apparent. That doesn't mean that the absurd implications are wrong, but it should at least cause you to question the idea more thoroughly. I know I have no claim on your "bubble" of bodily personal property no matter what I might prefer, nor upon anything that may be there as long as it doesn't make an appearance on my property. Be warned that others may disagree and lay claim upon your body, your clothing, and the space that exists between the two. That doesn't mean they are right.
I think that the position that "real estate rights" trump the "bodily property rights" and the "stuff rights" of anyone invited to enter the real estate comes from a real desire to be nice and respectful of the real estate's owner. That is fine. It is not always the wisest thing to exercise every right you possess at every moment. I do think it is putting the cart before the horse, though. Perhaps people are afraid of the reaction the general public might have if this realization were to become common.
Coming soon: MamaLiberty thinks the issue comes down to "contracts". She may be right. I will look at the idea of "contracts" which require you to give up your basic human rights in a subsequent column.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The 'bubble' of personal property
The 'bubble' of personal property
This subject has been discussed in this column before. The fact, as I see it, is that rights don't overlap. If you have a right to something, the right doesn't go away just because of where you are. This most often crops up in gun rights discussions, where I am in the minority with my views. There is no need for "laws" that affirm your right to not be raped while at work or at the store. So it is with your other rights. No one can claim that by hiring you or opening for business their act negates your rights in any way. That would mean you have no rights; only privileges.
A recent column by the Dallas Libertarian Examiner caused me to think about this again. The more I contemplate it, The more clearly I see it this way, and the less I am able to see the other point of view. I know that's not good. So, convince me I am wrong.
Here is my explanation of how I view the subject:
I believe we each carry with us a "me-shaped bubble" of our own personal property. That personal property bubble remains intact no matter where we are. It consists of your body, your clothing, and the space between the two. No one can claim ownership of me and eliminate my property by posting a sign. Property rights don't overlap, and no one, under any circumstance, can trump your right to your own body, and that includes what is inside your clothing, as long as it doesn't make an appearance or "leak" out (like radiation or viruses).
I am not going to, nor should I, ask every property owner if I am allowed to enter his property "whole" when the property is open to the public or if I get an invitation. Do I also need to ask if my private thoughts are acceptable? My underwear? My brand of deodorant? Not one of those things is any less dangerous to someone who is not attacking the innocent than is my gun. It is a dangerous precedent to single out guns as the only thing that we need to declare to everyone, everywhere we go, every time we step out our front door. This is what hoplophobes would like us to do: think about guns differently than any other object.
If you have no "bubble" of personal property when you leave your home, on your body or in your vehicle, then the real-world implication is that you have no property at all except when you stay home. Anywhere you go, the property owner can demand that you hand over your money, your clothing, or your life. After all, someone claims every square inch of land you must traverse as you go about your day.
This brings up the subject of employees' cars in the employer's parking lots. Your property inside your car is also in a personal property "bubble". The presence of your car itself is a different matter. No one is obligated to allow it (or your body) on their property, but once they do, they accept it ALL as a package deal. If your car is still your property while it is on someone else's property, then the space inside your car is still your property, not part yours and part someone else's, and certainly not all someone else's. To claim otherwise is what government tries to do when it claims that by using "public" roads, we are consenting to whatever they decide to do to us and our cars. it is utter authoritarian nonsense and is not consistent with liberty.
No one has the right or the authority to make a contract which trades your right to not be molested or killed in order to enter their property. They have the right to not allow you on their property at all, or they have the right to ask you to leave if for some reason they decide they do not like you or what you have on your body. Everyone has the right to be a hermit if they so choose. They also have the right to use self-defense if you attack someone on their property, and I would never second-guess their determination of "how much" force they use in the defense of life and property. So don't cross that line if you do not wish to face the consequences.
As I go about my life I "assume liberty". Obviously, if you rightly assume liberty, but are then asked to leave by a property owner who doesn't believe in allowing you to be a sovereign individual who is responsible for yourself, by all means, leave and don't go back. No one like this has your best interests at heart and this person is not your friend. The only reason anyone wouldn't want you to be armed is so they can do things to you which you would not allow if you were adequately able to stop them.
I understand that ALL rights are, at their foundation, property rights. People say: "Entering someone else's property is a privilege, not a right." I agree. And my body remains my property no matter where I am, because that is a fundamental right that can't go away. You can't enter my property without my permission. If I invite you, I will always assume you are prepared to be a fully-functional human being. Anything less is disrespectful or worse. If you don't trust someone to be armed, you don't trust them and have no business inviting them onto your property in the first place.
This subject has been discussed in this column before. The fact, as I see it, is that rights don't overlap. If you have a right to something, the right doesn't go away just because of where you are. This most often crops up in gun rights discussions, where I am in the minority with my views. There is no need for "laws" that affirm your right to not be raped while at work or at the store. So it is with your other rights. No one can claim that by hiring you or opening for business their act negates your rights in any way. That would mean you have no rights; only privileges.
A recent column by the Dallas Libertarian Examiner caused me to think about this again. The more I contemplate it, The more clearly I see it this way, and the less I am able to see the other point of view. I know that's not good. So, convince me I am wrong.
Here is my explanation of how I view the subject:
I believe we each carry with us a "me-shaped bubble" of our own personal property. That personal property bubble remains intact no matter where we are. It consists of your body, your clothing, and the space between the two. No one can claim ownership of me and eliminate my property by posting a sign. Property rights don't overlap, and no one, under any circumstance, can trump your right to your own body, and that includes what is inside your clothing, as long as it doesn't make an appearance or "leak" out (like radiation or viruses).
I am not going to, nor should I, ask every property owner if I am allowed to enter his property "whole" when the property is open to the public or if I get an invitation. Do I also need to ask if my private thoughts are acceptable? My underwear? My brand of deodorant? Not one of those things is any less dangerous to someone who is not attacking the innocent than is my gun. It is a dangerous precedent to single out guns as the only thing that we need to declare to everyone, everywhere we go, every time we step out our front door. This is what hoplophobes would like us to do: think about guns differently than any other object.
If you have no "bubble" of personal property when you leave your home, on your body or in your vehicle, then the real-world implication is that you have no property at all except when you stay home. Anywhere you go, the property owner can demand that you hand over your money, your clothing, or your life. After all, someone claims every square inch of land you must traverse as you go about your day.
This brings up the subject of employees' cars in the employer's parking lots. Your property inside your car is also in a personal property "bubble". The presence of your car itself is a different matter. No one is obligated to allow it (or your body) on their property, but once they do, they accept it ALL as a package deal. If your car is still your property while it is on someone else's property, then the space inside your car is still your property, not part yours and part someone else's, and certainly not all someone else's. To claim otherwise is what government tries to do when it claims that by using "public" roads, we are consenting to whatever they decide to do to us and our cars. it is utter authoritarian nonsense and is not consistent with liberty.
No one has the right or the authority to make a contract which trades your right to not be molested or killed in order to enter their property. They have the right to not allow you on their property at all, or they have the right to ask you to leave if for some reason they decide they do not like you or what you have on your body. Everyone has the right to be a hermit if they so choose. They also have the right to use self-defense if you attack someone on their property, and I would never second-guess their determination of "how much" force they use in the defense of life and property. So don't cross that line if you do not wish to face the consequences.
As I go about my life I "assume liberty". Obviously, if you rightly assume liberty, but are then asked to leave by a property owner who doesn't believe in allowing you to be a sovereign individual who is responsible for yourself, by all means, leave and don't go back. No one like this has your best interests at heart and this person is not your friend. The only reason anyone wouldn't want you to be armed is so they can do things to you which you would not allow if you were adequately able to stop them.
I understand that ALL rights are, at their foundation, property rights. People say: "Entering someone else's property is a privilege, not a right." I agree. And my body remains my property no matter where I am, because that is a fundamental right that can't go away. You can't enter my property without my permission. If I invite you, I will always assume you are prepared to be a fully-functional human being. Anything less is disrespectful or worse. If you don't trust someone to be armed, you don't trust them and have no business inviting them onto your property in the first place.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Are you a 'controller'?
Are you a 'controller'?
There is a clear dichotomy in people. As Robert A. Heinlein said, it comes down to "those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
While that is the root difference, there are some further implications that result from that difference.
In the first group, "those who want people to be controlled", you have those individuals who think that everyone except possibly themselves is just looking for an opportunity or excuse to go on a violent rampage. These are the people who generally hate and distrust everyone else, except, sometimes, their own little in-group of like-minds. This person will look for excuses to suspect and hate others, and lacking one, will invent a reason. In this group you also have those who religiously worship the state and its tools. These individuals will carefully ignore the fact that if people are inherently evil, as they claim, helping them form big gangs with a monopoly on violence, and giving them more power over the lives of others, is an incredibly stupid thing to do. This person will usually look down on, yet want to "help" (with your life and property), everyone whom they feel is inferior to themselves. They are very pessimistic, yet project this trait onto everyone else. They also refuse to see their own preferred social organization to be Utopian, while placing that label of the views of those they fear might be right.
In the second group, "those who have no such desire" to control everyone else, you generally find the individuals who like people and get along well with others, and who are not afraid of every conceivable thing in the universe. These are the people who look beyond the scare tactics of the state and mainstream media to see individuals as they really are. This is where you will find the individual who is confident that they can run their own lives without being told what to do. This person can take care of themselves in most instances, as well. The Utopian and irrational nature of the state and all external government is obvious to most of these individuals. A person who fits within this group can stay consistent with his or her principles without making excuses. Often, this person will get frustrated by the stubborn individuals in the first group who seem to insist upon sticking their fingers in their ears and endlessly repeating "La la la...I can't hear you..." when confronted with reality.
Of course, these are generalities. Some people seem to pick and choose from the available menu, even though it isn't necessary. Both groups contain individuals who can get incredibly cranky with anyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with them on every tiny issue. This just shows that, regardless of any other differences, we are all just human.
There is a clear dichotomy in people. As Robert A. Heinlein said, it comes down to "those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
While that is the root difference, there are some further implications that result from that difference.
In the first group, "those who want people to be controlled", you have those individuals who think that everyone except possibly themselves is just looking for an opportunity or excuse to go on a violent rampage. These are the people who generally hate and distrust everyone else, except, sometimes, their own little in-group of like-minds. This person will look for excuses to suspect and hate others, and lacking one, will invent a reason. In this group you also have those who religiously worship the state and its tools. These individuals will carefully ignore the fact that if people are inherently evil, as they claim, helping them form big gangs with a monopoly on violence, and giving them more power over the lives of others, is an incredibly stupid thing to do. This person will usually look down on, yet want to "help" (with your life and property), everyone whom they feel is inferior to themselves. They are very pessimistic, yet project this trait onto everyone else. They also refuse to see their own preferred social organization to be Utopian, while placing that label of the views of those they fear might be right.
In the second group, "those who have no such desire" to control everyone else, you generally find the individuals who like people and get along well with others, and who are not afraid of every conceivable thing in the universe. These are the people who look beyond the scare tactics of the state and mainstream media to see individuals as they really are. This is where you will find the individual who is confident that they can run their own lives without being told what to do. This person can take care of themselves in most instances, as well. The Utopian and irrational nature of the state and all external government is obvious to most of these individuals. A person who fits within this group can stay consistent with his or her principles without making excuses. Often, this person will get frustrated by the stubborn individuals in the first group who seem to insist upon sticking their fingers in their ears and endlessly repeating "La la la...I can't hear you..." when confronted with reality.
Of course, these are generalities. Some people seem to pick and choose from the available menu, even though it isn't necessary. Both groups contain individuals who can get incredibly cranky with anyone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with them on every tiny issue. This just shows that, regardless of any other differences, we are all just human.
'What can I do?'
'What can I do?'
If there are any freedom lovers out there who keep wondering "What can I do?", here is a suggestion.
There are a lot of times that a letter to the editor will be published and the statists immediately descend in droves to ridicule the sensible voice under a flood of insults and "Arguments from Apocalypse". In many cases word gets around to rally help from the woodwork, but sometimes it comes a little late- after the reasonable voice has been buried, drowned out, or frightened into silence. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.
I would like to see someone start a service for libertarian responses to letters to the editor, or any other online posting such as blogs or media stories that allow comments.
I think that it could be done one of two ways, or maybe even a combination of the two.
There could be a website that when a relevant letter to the editor is brought to their attention, either by the letter's writer or just a reader, they would post the details, including the main topic of the letter and the objections being used by the statist apologists, and a link. If, during the course of the day, a freedom advocate gets a few free minutes and wishes to weigh in somewhere, he or she could check out the site to see if anything gets their attention. People who are interested, or are experts, in the particular topic could then add their voice to the discussion.
Alternately, or in conjunction, there could be an email list, where you sign up to get alerts on specific subjects, say "gun rights" or "free market advocacy" for a couple of examples. When a letter or post dealing with that subject is brought to the website's attention an alert would go out to those who asked to be notified on certain subjects so they would have a chance to counter the statists. Too many "Guns only kill the innocent" or "Deregulation caused the financial crisis" lies, just to focus on two popular subjects, slip past without being refuted properly by knowledgeable freedom fighters. Or, in many cases it is one lone freedom-loving person defending freedom against a horde of state-praising zombies. That is discouraging to those who dare to speak out.
If someone is already providing this service, let me know so I can add it to my daily to-do list.
It's just an idea. If I weren't already overloaded, I would do it myself.
Update- And here is the final result: Project LTE. Visit it soon, and often!
If there are any freedom lovers out there who keep wondering "What can I do?", here is a suggestion.
There are a lot of times that a letter to the editor will be published and the statists immediately descend in droves to ridicule the sensible voice under a flood of insults and "Arguments from Apocalypse". In many cases word gets around to rally help from the woodwork, but sometimes it comes a little late- after the reasonable voice has been buried, drowned out, or frightened into silence. That shouldn't be allowed to happen.
I would like to see someone start a service for libertarian responses to letters to the editor, or any other online posting such as blogs or media stories that allow comments.
I think that it could be done one of two ways, or maybe even a combination of the two.
There could be a website that when a relevant letter to the editor is brought to their attention, either by the letter's writer or just a reader, they would post the details, including the main topic of the letter and the objections being used by the statist apologists, and a link. If, during the course of the day, a freedom advocate gets a few free minutes and wishes to weigh in somewhere, he or she could check out the site to see if anything gets their attention. People who are interested, or are experts, in the particular topic could then add their voice to the discussion.
Alternately, or in conjunction, there could be an email list, where you sign up to get alerts on specific subjects, say "gun rights" or "free market advocacy" for a couple of examples. When a letter or post dealing with that subject is brought to the website's attention an alert would go out to those who asked to be notified on certain subjects so they would have a chance to counter the statists. Too many "Guns only kill the innocent" or "Deregulation caused the financial crisis" lies, just to focus on two popular subjects, slip past without being refuted properly by knowledgeable freedom fighters. Or, in many cases it is one lone freedom-loving person defending freedom against a horde of state-praising zombies. That is discouraging to those who dare to speak out.
If someone is already providing this service, let me know so I can add it to my daily to-do list.
It's just an idea. If I weren't already overloaded, I would do it myself.
Update- And here is the final result: Project LTE. Visit it soon, and often!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
"Argument from Apocalypse"
The "argument from apocalypse*" ("AFA") is the term for the beliefs of those who, when faced with the idea of shedding government coercion say some version of "We'll all DIE!!" It is usually expressed as "Everyone will run around raping and killing whoever they want if there is no government there to stop them".
Of course, you and I both know this is ridiculous, but a lot of people claim to believe this apocalyptic scenario.
*This term comes from Stefen Molyneux's Practical Anarchy. Thank you to Puck T. Smith for reminding me where the term came from!
Of course, you and I both know this is ridiculous, but a lot of people claim to believe this apocalyptic scenario.
*This term comes from Stefen Molyneux's Practical Anarchy. Thank you to Puck T. Smith for reminding me where the term came from!
Defending the indefensible
Defending the indefensible
So many times I see political discussions degenerate into factions that love or hate one particular country or another. It is just so much nonsense.
I can't stand any "country" on the face of the globe. They are all just territories delineated on a map, and claimed by thugs who enforce a monopoly on force within their sphere of influence- just disgusting government fictions. I am so tired of people either extolling the virtues of one country, or denigrating the existence of another. They are all founded upon murder... to the very last country on the globe.
The people in each territory are a different story. As long as they attack no "innocents" I have no problem with them, regardless of their religion, personal habits, or opinions. Once they do initiate force, they have declared themselves an enemy to all that is good, and yet their "nationality" is still meaningless.
The same goes for religion. It doesn't matter which religion they blame for their acts, or which government is entangled with which religion. There is right and there is wrong, and your politics and your religion will be judged by how you follow the principles; by how the followers of one government or religion actually behave in real life. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, just as a rotting corpse will be known by its stench.
So many times I see political discussions degenerate into factions that love or hate one particular country or another. It is just so much nonsense.
I can't stand any "country" on the face of the globe. They are all just territories delineated on a map, and claimed by thugs who enforce a monopoly on force within their sphere of influence- just disgusting government fictions. I am so tired of people either extolling the virtues of one country, or denigrating the existence of another. They are all founded upon murder... to the very last country on the globe.
The people in each territory are a different story. As long as they attack no "innocents" I have no problem with them, regardless of their religion, personal habits, or opinions. Once they do initiate force, they have declared themselves an enemy to all that is good, and yet their "nationality" is still meaningless.
The same goes for religion. It doesn't matter which religion they blame for their acts, or which government is entangled with which religion. There is right and there is wrong, and your politics and your religion will be judged by how you follow the principles; by how the followers of one government or religion actually behave in real life. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, just as a rotting corpse will be known by its stench.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
J Nick Puglia -the Western Oregon Libertarian Examiner - recently asked if I have done an article on The Covenant of Unanimous Consent, after I had mentioned it in a previous column. I have not, and it is past time.
The founders of America were human. I think they were more normal than many of their admirers would admit. They were each a mix of good and bad, with each man leaning a little more to one side or the other. The same as we all do.
The problem was that the "good" allowed the "bad" to mix a little poison into the recipe for the Constitution. As Ayn Rand said "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” So, the little bit of evil that was incorporated into the document doomed the whole document to failure and poisoned the entire effort. Any document must avoid this if it is not to be destined for the same fate. No "poison" (coercion/theft/evil) can be added to the mix.
I have said before that the more people anything ("law", rule, government) is supposed to apply to, the less specific it must be. The lowest common denominator must be found. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent follows from the Zero Aggression Principle and is exactly as specific as it must be, but no more specific than it should be. It fills the bill as a very good "social contract".
For a more in-depth dissertation: "Why I think the Covenant is more important than the Constitution" by Dennis Lee Wilson
J Nick Puglia -the Western Oregon Libertarian Examiner - recently asked if I have done an article on The Covenant of Unanimous Consent, after I had mentioned it in a previous column. I have not, and it is past time.
The founders of America were human. I think they were more normal than many of their admirers would admit. They were each a mix of good and bad, with each man leaning a little more to one side or the other. The same as we all do.
The problem was that the "good" allowed the "bad" to mix a little poison into the recipe for the Constitution. As Ayn Rand said "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” So, the little bit of evil that was incorporated into the document doomed the whole document to failure and poisoned the entire effort. Any document must avoid this if it is not to be destined for the same fate. No "poison" (coercion/theft/evil) can be added to the mix.
I have said before that the more people anything ("law", rule, government) is supposed to apply to, the less specific it must be. The lowest common denominator must be found. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent follows from the Zero Aggression Principle and is exactly as specific as it must be, but no more specific than it should be. It fills the bill as a very good "social contract".
For a more in-depth dissertation: "Why I think the Covenant is more important than the Constitution" by Dennis Lee Wilson
Monday, September 28, 2009
'Law sewers'
'Law sewers'
I believe that people should be free to choose what kind of society they live in. That means that those who wish to live under a powerful government with "laws" controlling or regulating every aspect of their lives should be allowed to do so. Of course, that also means that those of us who want no form of external government at all should be free to pursue our path as well.
There are no longer any places that are not "legal cesspools". Some localities are worse than others, and some LEOs are worse about enforcing all the "applicable edicts" than others, but no place is any longer immune from the overbearing statism that infects America in these early years of the 21st century.
Just about every place is now drowning under a tsunami of "laws", regulations, licensing requirements, permits, ....and the list goes on. Some people obviously like that kind of an environment.
Different strokes for different folks. I have seen houses that were dirtier than a hog pen, too, where the occupants seemed perfectly content. However, it is wrong to make others live in your filth by polluting their homes as well as your own.
This means that in order to be free of such, freedom-lovers may have to carve a bit of freedom from the grasp of the tyrannies of the world, unless the tyrants, and those who are content to live under tyrants, can be convinced of our resolve to live unmolested.
"Law pollution" is a real problem. If people want a huge load of "laws" controlling every aspect of their lives, there are a couple of peaceful solutions that can be reached. Let them congregate in a few big cities like New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles. Then let them regulate each other to death if that is what they want. Or, let them just leave the rest of us alone while we live among one another; overlapping societies in the same space.
What this comes down to is "keep your filthy government off my life".
********************
I believe that people should be free to choose what kind of society they live in. That means that those who wish to live under a powerful government with "laws" controlling or regulating every aspect of their lives should be allowed to do so. Of course, that also means that those of us who want no form of external government at all should be free to pursue our path as well.
There are no longer any places that are not "legal cesspools". Some localities are worse than others, and some LEOs are worse about enforcing all the "applicable edicts" than others, but no place is any longer immune from the overbearing statism that infects America in these early years of the 21st century.
Just about every place is now drowning under a tsunami of "laws", regulations, licensing requirements, permits, ....and the list goes on. Some people obviously like that kind of an environment.
Different strokes for different folks. I have seen houses that were dirtier than a hog pen, too, where the occupants seemed perfectly content. However, it is wrong to make others live in your filth by polluting their homes as well as your own.
This means that in order to be free of such, freedom-lovers may have to carve a bit of freedom from the grasp of the tyrannies of the world, unless the tyrants, and those who are content to live under tyrants, can be convinced of our resolve to live unmolested.
"Law pollution" is a real problem. If people want a huge load of "laws" controlling every aspect of their lives, there are a couple of peaceful solutions that can be reached. Let them congregate in a few big cities like New York City, Chicago, or Los Angeles. Then let them regulate each other to death if that is what they want. Or, let them just leave the rest of us alone while we live among one another; overlapping societies in the same space.
What this comes down to is "keep your filthy government off my life".
********************
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Mapping freedom
.JPG)
Mapping freedom
Freedom is a large, almost infinite, landscape, and to cover it all takes a mighty big map. No single person can explore it all, nor would any one person want to.
Freedom is a large, almost infinite, landscape, and to cover it all takes a mighty big map. No single person can explore it all, nor would any one person want to.
"FreedomLand" contains the territories of "Gun Rights", "Medicinal Freedom", "Sexual Enjoyment", "Property Rights", "Religious Freedom", and a multitude of other zones. Some of these zones share borders or overlap with one another. Some are on opposite sides of the map. One person can be at home in many different areas, yet may never have any interest in visiting some zones at all. That is natural and normal.
Your area of interest may overlap the area of another person's interest, but there can be two liberty-lovers whose areas have no overlap at all. It doesn't mean you area at odds, though. Only a person who is not "on the map" at all is against you. You know, someone like Obama, Bush, or just about anyone who works for government at any level. Sometimes even a cretin such as these has a point where their perpendicular philosophy of authoritarianism intersects the map of FreedomLand, because perpendicular planes can, and often do, intersect. That just means that on some particular point, they have the right idea. It doesn't mean they are right anywhere else, or that they are on the side of freedom. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean that if you need to know the time you look there first. Neither does it mean that if that stopped clock agrees with your observations you should reject the information you got independently.
So grab your map, get out there, and check out the scenery. You'll like what you discover! To paraphrase a quote: "See Freedom First!"
Saturday, September 26, 2009
News vs philosophizing
News vs philosophizing
Why do I not analyze very many "news" stories in these columns? Because I'd rather help you learn to use the tool between your ears which will allow you to do the analyzing yourself. Plus, the news is just the same old thing, day after day: authoritarians against those they can push around.
Pick just about any news story and you will see the same. The players are interchangeable in most cases. Sometimes it is strong authoritarian types going up against weak authoritarian types, such as in the G-20 protests. Rarely it is people who really understand freedom going against authoritarians in "high places". Often it is just authoritarians attacking or planning an attack against people who have done nothing wrong, but who only want to live their lives unmolested. The rest of the time it is freelance thugs who commit the same acts as their governmental brethren, but without the silly hat of government as a protective talisman.
I could pick apart a particular news item each day, missing hundreds of local, national, or global events in the process, or I can try to help you see how to analyze and weigh the things you run across on your own. I have chosen the latter. There are plenty of extremely capable individuals doing the former. Give them a visit.
Why do I not analyze very many "news" stories in these columns? Because I'd rather help you learn to use the tool between your ears which will allow you to do the analyzing yourself. Plus, the news is just the same old thing, day after day: authoritarians against those they can push around.
Pick just about any news story and you will see the same. The players are interchangeable in most cases. Sometimes it is strong authoritarian types going up against weak authoritarian types, such as in the G-20 protests. Rarely it is people who really understand freedom going against authoritarians in "high places". Often it is just authoritarians attacking or planning an attack against people who have done nothing wrong, but who only want to live their lives unmolested. The rest of the time it is freelance thugs who commit the same acts as their governmental brethren, but without the silly hat of government as a protective talisman.
I could pick apart a particular news item each day, missing hundreds of local, national, or global events in the process, or I can try to help you see how to analyze and weigh the things you run across on your own. I have chosen the latter. There are plenty of extremely capable individuals doing the former. Give them a visit.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Understanding right and wrong is not hard
Understanding right and wrong is not hard
How do we tell "right" from "wrong"? When I ask this I am not talking about choosing the "right" color of car, or what to eat for lunch, where one choice was determined to be "right" and the other "wrong" based upon your mood or values. Rather, I am talking about "good" and "evil".
So, how do you discern between the two? Do you need a God or a religion? Do you need other people to tell you? Do you need a government to decide for you with its "laws"? Is "right" and "wrong" subject to a majority opinion, or a "vote"? Or, is it something that is set in your human genes, only to be altered by trauma, serious brainwashing, or abuse?
"Evil" is any act which harms those who do not deserve to be harmed right now, in other words, it is anything which harms "the innocent". It doesn't change its nature because you wish it would. It doesn't change because you "need" it to change. It doesn't change because your God (or a representative thereof) tells you it has changed in order to get you to commit some act you otherwise wouldn't. It doesn't change because some Ruler has passed a "law".
Every human, other than those who have been mentally or emotionally damaged, understands this concept instinctively. Experimentation and observation even show that some non-human animals have more of an understanding of "right" and "wrong" than has usually been suspected. In humans who have had this basic wiring altered, where does the damage which short-circuits this understanding come from? It can be from a physical or chemical problem with the brain, but it is usually the result of manipulation by an authority or "collective" which depends on confusing this natural human understanding. Religions and states are the two biggest offenders, but even individuals can be guilty of this. Sometimes it is decided by an individual who thinks it will "help" him to hurt others for some reason. In the short-term, it can "work". But it is still wrong.
I am quite certain you understand the difference between the two, even if you pretend you don't in order to get away with something without thinking badly of yourself.
Libertarianism, anarchism, or whatever you want to call the philosophy of liberty, flows logically from the acceptance of this simple understanding of the differences between "right" and "wrong". It really isn't that difficult to understand, unless you try really hard to miss the point. If that is the case, you might want to ask yourself "why?"
How do we tell "right" from "wrong"? When I ask this I am not talking about choosing the "right" color of car, or what to eat for lunch, where one choice was determined to be "right" and the other "wrong" based upon your mood or values. Rather, I am talking about "good" and "evil".
So, how do you discern between the two? Do you need a God or a religion? Do you need other people to tell you? Do you need a government to decide for you with its "laws"? Is "right" and "wrong" subject to a majority opinion, or a "vote"? Or, is it something that is set in your human genes, only to be altered by trauma, serious brainwashing, or abuse?
"Evil" is any act which harms those who do not deserve to be harmed right now, in other words, it is anything which harms "the innocent". It doesn't change its nature because you wish it would. It doesn't change because you "need" it to change. It doesn't change because your God (or a representative thereof) tells you it has changed in order to get you to commit some act you otherwise wouldn't. It doesn't change because some Ruler has passed a "law".
Every human, other than those who have been mentally or emotionally damaged, understands this concept instinctively. Experimentation and observation even show that some non-human animals have more of an understanding of "right" and "wrong" than has usually been suspected. In humans who have had this basic wiring altered, where does the damage which short-circuits this understanding come from? It can be from a physical or chemical problem with the brain, but it is usually the result of manipulation by an authority or "collective" which depends on confusing this natural human understanding. Religions and states are the two biggest offenders, but even individuals can be guilty of this. Sometimes it is decided by an individual who thinks it will "help" him to hurt others for some reason. In the short-term, it can "work". But it is still wrong.
I am quite certain you understand the difference between the two, even if you pretend you don't in order to get away with something without thinking badly of yourself.
Libertarianism, anarchism, or whatever you want to call the philosophy of liberty, flows logically from the acceptance of this simple understanding of the differences between "right" and "wrong". It really isn't that difficult to understand, unless you try really hard to miss the point. If that is the case, you might want to ask yourself "why?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)