For what it's worth- Bill of Rights Day

For what it's worth- Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, an actual, real, holiday. December 15th is Bill of Rights Day every year. Everyone needs to realize that while the Bill of Rights gives people zero rights, what it does is list things that no government in the world can legitimately meddle with. It doesn't matter if the government faces this fact or not. The Bill of Rights is a list of grievances against criminal governments everywhere. It is a shame it wasn't backed up with a penalty clause, telling government employees exactly why they would be twisting in the wind the first time they proposed a "law" that infringed on even one of these listed (and unlisted) rights. How much does the US Fe(de)ral government abide by the law that gave it the only inkling of legitimacy? Lets look at the rights protected by each amendment.

• 1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to assemble peaceably, right to petition the government about grievances. -violated by the Patriot act, violated by "free speech zones" around the president, violated by "laws" against "vices", violated by the FCC's very existence, violated by many "laws" being proposed that will be rubber-stamped by the ignorant authoritarians of the Supreme Court.
  
• 2. Right to form militias and the right to own and carry arms. - violated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and by every other "reasonable gun law".
  
• 3. Citizens do not have to quarter soldiers during peacetime.- No, we just have our money stolen by government to pay for their quarters. Is there really that much of a difference? I mean, if they were "quartering" in our homes against our wishes, we would at least have the option of slipping the trespassers rat poison.
  
• 4. No unreasonable searches and seizures.- violated by "sobriety checkpoints" and by the "TSA", and by wiretaps on "terrorist suspects".
  
• 5. Rights of the accused. violated, once again, by the patriot act. Violated every time a person is deceived into confessing in order to "plea bargain". Violated each time some testoster-stoned "drug warriors" kick in a door in the middle of the night.
  
• 6. Right to a fair trial.- violated every time a judge fails to inform the jury about their right and duty of jury nullification- judging the "law" as well as the accused. Violated by the process of making sure anyone with more than a tiny handful of functioning neurons is kept off the jury. Wouldn't want any actual thinking going on in court, you know.
  
• 7. Right to a trial by jury in civil cases also.- What is the point to having a right to have a jury trial when the trial will not be permitted to be "fair"?
  
• 8. No cruel and unusual punishments. - violated when people are killed, kidnapped, or ruined for not caving in to the extortion of the IRS. No government "function" is worth stealing and killing to finance. Violated when people are kidnapped or killed for having done nothing but acted in some way the government doesn't like- for exercising their individual sovereignty in voluntary interactions.
  
• 9. Unenumerated rights go to the people. - violated by almost every "law", especially those "enabled" by the "interstate commerce" lie, and anything justified by "the common good".
  
• 10. Reserves all powers not given to the national government to the states or the people.- Once again, violated by almost everything the federal government does, with the complicity of the equally corrupt state governments.
  

So, there you have it. This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the ways government violates its charter daily. IF the US government was ever "legitimate", which it wasn't, and if the Constitution was ever a protector of freedom, which it wasn't, the evidence of the transgressions are there for all to see. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most useful as an illustration of why government, even "limited government", is a really bad idea.

Your freedom is yours to take responsibility for. Don't depend on governments or documents to do your job for you.

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

These 'clauses' don't give; they steal

These 'clauses' don't give; they steal

The Constitution has fatal flaws. The "general welfare clause" and its equally twisted sibling: the "(interstate) commerce clause", have become the goose that lays the golden egg, for government at least. But that egg gets cracked open while government keeps the gold shell and dumps the radioactive yolk on the denizens of America.

Most people have noticed that government uses those two "clauses" to get away with any new violation of individual rights that they dream up. A favorite use is overriding more reasonable local "laws" that are not in line with the federal government's agenda. Notice the uproar over medical marijuana laws and the firearms freedom acts recently in the news.

It has been argued that the way those clauses are misused is not in line with "original intent", so we shouldn't blame the founders or the Constitution. Maybe, but does it matter anymore?

If a burglar steals your bread knife and uses it to cut off the head of someone in the next house he invades, do you say that he can keep the knife but that he just needs to only use it to slice bread from now on? No, you take the knife from him and shoot him if he resists. So it is with the misused clauses.

These clauses have become like machine guns in the hands of drunk and angry teenagers with knowledge of where to steal all the ammo they could ever want, while the local population is disarmed, bound, and gagged by the teens' parents. The difference is that these teens and their parents are worshiped by a large percentage of the population and these "tools" they wield have been misused, more so than any real gun has ever been, leaving a legacy of massive socialism and the resultant death, destruction, and economic ruin.

These clauses need to be taken away now, permanently, and restitution from the pockets of individual government employees should be made to all injured parties.

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

Wisdom from a libertarian-leaning 'efriend'

Wisdom from a libertarian-leaning 'efriend'

A while back on David Codrea's The War on Guns blog, "straightarrow" left the following wise comment:

I too, engage in political "folderol", but I used to do it because I thought it
would help avoid extreme unpleasantness. I no longer believe that, but I still
do it so my conscience is clear when extreme measures must be taken.

Very well said, "straightarrow"! This is another potential way out, Mr. Government Employee, just like my "justice system" compromise suggestion. It is an offer. It is also your warning.

When a man gives a bullying thief every opportunity to back off and the bully declines, then the unpleasantness that results is on the trouble-maker's head. You are giving the thug an honorable way to "stand down" and leave you alone; he knows you have caught him ransacking the house of freedom. Yes, you do have a loaded 12 gauge leveled at his gut, but you don't want to shoot. The next move is his choice. What will he do? Either he can accept your offer and surrender peacefully (even if he finds the offer infuriating or painful), or he can die.

This is the position government has found itself in, whether its human tools wish to face the fact or not. Never let down your guard for an instant, even if it seems your offer has been accepted, until the predator is defanged and caged. There is no honor to be found in these parasites.

All we ask is to be left alone by those who would control or meddle; to live our lives as we see fit, harming no innocent person as we do. We will deal with any aggressors we encounter ourselves without asking to be "rescued" by other aggressors in silly suits. It is the only civilized way to live.

A compromise for the 'justice system'

A compromise for the 'justice system'

One thing I have mentioned before, but which bears repeating, is the need to wrest the "justice system" from the control of the government, even before government evaporates- a separation of court and state. People sometimes act like I have called for the law of gravity to be repealed when I mention this.

It should be obvious by now that it was a tragic mistake to allow the government to run the misnamed "justice system" and the courts. The courts don't deal in "justice"; they dole out punishment. "Crimes" that have no victim are dealt with much more harshly in many cases than is actual aggression or theft. In fact, when the thieves and aggressors are employed by the same "company" that runs the courts, there is almost no chance of any "justice" occurring, even by accident. How many IRS agents have been jailed for stealing money as part of their "job"? Why are LEOs not put on trial for assault every time they electrically torture some pre-teen or grandmother? Why is Lon Horiuchi not on death row? Because the thugs protect one another. Justice can not happen when you expect the mafia to rein in the mafia, nor when you expect the government to rein in the government. Of course, you realize I am making a distinction where none exists.

This suggestion sounds harsh to people who refuse to wake up and smell the tyranny, but the current "system" doesn't work. It is irreparably broken and corrupt, and was established on a faulty foundation to begin with. It can not be "fixed"; but must be completely discarded.

However, if the solution scares you too badly, I do have a compromise to suggest- if the government keeps control of the courts, then there must no longer be any conflict of interest allowed. Judges ruling in cases that pit government or its employees against "private individuals" must only get paid when they rule against the government, and their base pay must not be increased to make up for any shortfall. Juries must once again be made aware of their right and duty to judge the law before even considering the "facts of the case". If the "law" is judged to be counterfeit, then the accused is set free without so much as a scolding, and the court makes the arresting officers personally pay restitution to the victim of the false arrest. If even one jury nullifies a "law" it is gone forever. No one else can ever be harassed under that discarded "law". If any LEO causes harm during one of these state-sanctioned kidnappings, they face criminal charges, or in the event of a REAL justice system- are liable for restitution, just like any other attacker.

Civilization has given government thousands of years to "get it right" and government has shown no inclination to do so. Time's up.

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

'Don't step in the authoritarianism!'

'Don't step in the authoritarianism!'

I have had some authoritarian thoughts sneak into my personal life in the past few days, and they made me miserable. It's no wonder statists are so unhappy and always so determined to take away everyone else's joy. Misery loves company. It really is uncomfortable to feel the desire to control the lives of others and stick your nose where it does not belong.

It is so easy to allow your innermost thoughts to stray into this dangerous territory, especially when others try to pull you in after them. Staying alert to where you are stepping helps avoid this. If you find yourself standing in the "cow patty" of authoritarianism, get out, wipe off your boots, and pay more attention next time.

Once I realized the trap I had allowed myself to wander in to, I corrected my steps and found a great sense of relief. Shaking off that burden allows one to breathe easy once again. Why would anyone willingly choose to burden themselves with statism? In some cases it may be due to masochism rather than hatred of people in general.

Either way, take a moment to inventory your own thoughts and see if you are cluttering up your mind with poisonous things that don't belong there. You'll thank yourself if you find things you need to rid yourself of.

No cape required

No cape required

Superheroes don't have to be only fictional. In fact, you have all the makings of a real superhero. Just as you are, right where you live. You can be a libertarian superhero.

When presented with any situation in your own life just ask yourself "what is the way to handle this without initiating force or deception", then do it. Don't meddle. Don't impose upon other people unless they are harming the innocent. In that case, if it suits you, step in and rescue the person being victimized on your own instead of dialing 911. It might be easier if you accept your basic human right and responsibility to be prepared to deal effectively with aggressors. It will also be facilitated if you train yourself to see through statists' smoke and mirrors. Don't let government or its advocates pull the wool over your eyes.

It doesn't require "superpowers"; only the power to resist going along with the crowd as they head over the cliff of statism. You have the ability to buck the system, so be a libertarian superhero and do it.

Can 'freedom' be spread?

Can 'freedom' be spread?

One subject of discussion that I run into a lot, and frequently participate in, is how to "spread freedom" or at least make more people interested in it.

While I think it is a good mental exercise, I'm not sure that freedom can be spread on purpose. I think freedom is too individual for that. I think the best you can do is work on increasing your own freedom and let others be inspired- or not- by your life's example.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless you only get your self-worth by how many people you can influence or help. You can not normally help someone who doesn't admit they need help. You are also not likely to influence anyone who is heavily vested in the state, either as a simple parasite or as a "tax-eating" thug. This doesn't mean no one will ever be inspired. Simple chance may put others in your path who think clearly enough to be receptive to your "nutty libertarian" ideas.

I prefer to concentrate more on "What can I do about increasing freedom in my sphere?" It really amazes (and often frustrates) me that people make freedom so much more complicated than it needs to be. You just LIVE IT. Sure, there are going to be some detours along the way, but they can be dealt with. Keep your goal in mind and don't let yourself be waylaid. If for some reason you violate your principles at some point, make it right and do better next time. It isn't the end of the world when a new "law" is passed that violates even more of your rights. People choose to either obey or ignore the "laws" every day; knowing there are always consequences with any choice. I'd prefer to live with consequences of violating counterfeit "laws" rather than to have to live with the consequences of not doing what I know to be right.

If living in freedom helps to spread the desire to others, then civilization gets a little better. If not, you have still gained in your own life. Don't underestimate the value in that.

Libertarian- the Definition

Most simply: Libertarians are those who recognize no one has the right to archate (commit aggression or to violate property rights).

When I say "libertarian" I am NOT referring to the Libertarian Party (LP) or any system of "politics". Groups or individuals who wrap themselves in the name "libertarian", such as the Libertarian Party, are only "libertarian" to the extent that they uphold the libertarian principles, and other people who may not like the word are still "libertarian" as long as they also live up to the principles. So, if the LP lives up to this definition, then they would be "libertarian", but if they do not I will judge them by their actions and principles without regard to what label they choose for themselves. I do this in every case with everyone who claims the title.

A libertarian is someone who abides by the Zero Archation Principle, which includes not defrauding others (keeps his word), and not otherwise seeking solutions in coercion. Ever. Not even by using hired thugs wearing the silly hat of government. Self-defensive actions are not "aggression" or "initiation" of anything other than self-defense, but are a result of the aggression or deception of others. A libertarian does not wish to control others, not even "nicely" or for their own good. Instead, he should mind his own business as long as no one is being attacked or harmed. Voluntary interactions between responsible people are no one else's business no matter how much their actions may offend you.

I recognize libertarian to be the same as anarchist to be the same as sovereign individual to be the same as "live and let live", abolitionist, Voluntaryist, and to be "the only true standard of consistently ethical behavior"; the only right way to live. If you hyphenate "libertarian" with something else that compromises the foundational principles in any way, however "minor", then you have negated the "libertarian" part of your name in its entirety. It is really much simpler than many people would have you believe. When a person fails to live up to this description in some areas, in those areas he falls short of all the above terms.

So there you have it. You may not agree, but at least you will know where I am coming from.


.

Supporting 'acts of government' makes you guilty

Supporting 'acts of government' makes you guilty

The death sentence which was recently "handed down" by the Saudi Arabian government against a Lebanese TV psychic is barbaric, but it is no more barbaric than the acts of any other government. No government that has ever existed can be trusted with the power of life and death. They all inevitably use that power unethically.

I think science shows pretty clearly that psychics have no real "powers". Many people would disagree with me vehemently. That's fine. I am free to ignore or ridicule psychics and their followers regardless of any government's edicts. And others are free to order their lives by the psychic's advice. I don't know if this particular psychic has defrauded anyone intentionally or not, but even if he has that doesn't deserve death-by-state. If you go around executing everyone who believes in imaginary things, or who profits from that belief in others, that would be quite a massacre. Let people defend themselves and their own property from fraud; don't hand over that authority to anyone else- especially not to those known to always abuse it.

Yet, there are always people ready to applaud government goons handing out death and destruction, as long as it targets someone else. The people who turn out to watch the executions for entertainment are reprehensible excuses for "humanity", but are no more reprehensible than those who wave flags, pledge allegiance, and celebrate the invasion and occupation of other countries by the military force of their choice. It isn't even as if this is the "other side of the coin", it is completely indistinguishable.

Face it; those who cheer the executioner are no different than those who cheer or defend the police, the military, or any government agency. Support of government can't be justified.

Imagine looking down on all the government maneuvers here on Earth through an unimaginably advanced telescope on some other planet. If you were to arbitrarily distinguish between governmental aggression and mass aggression of any other sort, you would see that government is the same everywhere; and it is inexcusable in whatever form it is being imposed.

Beware the real 'ancient evil'

Beware the real 'ancient evil'

It is a common theme in books and movies that an "ancient evil" is somehow awakened and wreaks havoc on unsuspecting "redshirts". Yet, in our daily lives we are surrounded by the most horrible ancient evil of them all, and most of us don't even recognize it. It is government.

In all its thousands of years of existence it has killed and harmed more innocent people than any other totally avoidable thing. Yet, without complicit individuals it doesn't even have an existence and can harm no one.

Now, do you choose to side with this ancient evil, betraying all that is good in order to gain favor and receive temporary rewards- or because you want people to be controlled, or do you choose to oppose the ancient evil? Your answer tells a lot about you.

Admit your limitations

Admit your limitations

Kevin Wilmeth's observation in yesterday's comments that a good teacher admits when he doesn't have an answer really struck a chord in me. It reminds me of when I lost respect for a state-employed teacher over a silly act of "saving face".

Our class was preparing for a zoology test on taxonomy, where we would look at examples of different animals and assign them to their proper order, class, and family.

Things were fine until I got to a tiny pickled flatfish in a jar. The teacher said it was a "ray". Now, that is a major discrepancy, since a flatfish is a bony fish (Osteichthyes) and a ray is a cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes); almost as different as two fish can be while still being fish. When I pointed it out to the teacher, he said I was wrong. I knew I wasn't. I got reference books and showed him the pictures clearly illustrating the differences. He got very angry and said "You're beating a dead horse. I don't care if you are right; for our purposes it is a ray." My respect for him plummeted as a result. He was not only unwilling to face the truth for himself, but he was also actively teaching false information to people who had been trained to accept whatever "authorities" told them.

How many of the students he deceived went on with life, never questioning whether what they were told was the truth? How many became good little cogs in the machinery of the state due to lies even more egregious than this? On the other hand, how much did this event help cement my own suspicion that "authorities" were at least as likely to be wrong as anyone, and less likely to admit it when they were?

This one experience may have helped make me the anarchist I am today. In that case, thanks Mr. S.


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

Being right means being ignored

Being right means being ignored

One thing I have experienced many times in my life is knowing something with absolute certainty while others fumble about in confusion, without being aware of, or admitting, their confusion.

One manifestation of this occurs when I am out and about with other people and I see an animal track; especially of an odd species or in a somewhat unexpected spot. In most cases the species of animal that left the track is as clear to me as it would be were a label attached to it. However, if I don't know what left the track I am not afraid to admit it. Even if I don't know what species did leave the track, I can usually know for certain the species that did not leave it.

If the other people with me have no knowledge of tracks at all, and have no outdoorsman egos to protect, they will usually accept my assessment. If they imagine themselves knowledgeable, however, they frequently ignore my conclusion as their theories become more outlandish and their justifications become more unhinged from reality. Sometimes I will silently listen to the bizarre guesses of other people around me, as they try to assign the track to some species that does not leave similarly shaped tracks, is of a vastly different size, and lives only on the other side of the planet from the track in question.

If, at this point, I again speak up and tell these observers what species the track belongs to, my input is almost invariably ignored completely. It is as if I never said a word. It doesn't change the nature of reality, though. So, I just sit back and watch the show, trying to learn from this lesson.

The same has occurred with regards to wild plants as well. I don't eat wild things harvested by others, without checking it carefully first, for this very reason. I can't understand why people have such a hard time seeing what to me adds up to obvious differences, but then I am the same way with cars; to me a car is a car, unless I manage to read the label. Wisdom comes from knowing who to listen to on each individual subject.

So it is with freedom. Most of the "big issues" have government's tracks all over them. I, and many others, point this out time and again only to have the majority continue to chase obviously false leads. Our observations are unwelcome and unfamiliar, and lead to "scary" conclusions, so they are ignored. Those who think they know some of how "politics" or "society" function are the worst about acting like this. They will continue to argue over which is the best way to control others and make them do "the right thing" while the correct answers (all involving respecting the freedom and rights of the individual) are offered on a silver platter right under their little statist noses.

Well, you can lead a statist to information, but you can't make him think.


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

A new way to be a snitch: 'Text-a-tip'

A new way to be a snitch: 'Text-a-tip'

Some places are very innovative in the pursuit of death and tyranny. If it isn't cameras watching our every move, and a permit check for every activity, it is finding ways to recruit the lowest common denominator of "society" as eyes and ears for the state.

Just in case you want to be able to hand people over to the government, call it "violence-by-proxy", but you are too cowardly to risk the real-world consequences of doing so openly, the LEOs are anxious to accommodate you. You can now anonymously (so they say) text a tip to the local enforcers.

The dramatic cases used to give the above-linked story "human interest" will not be the reality of the system. No one wants actual thugs to get away with their aggression (unless you are a badge-licker and those thugs are the enforcers you worship). The fact is that the vast majority of "crimes" are non-coercive, individual behavior or consensual acts between private individuals rather than acts of aggression or fraud. So, which type of "crimes" will make up the majority of these texted tips?

What do you think the chances are of remaining anonymous for long if you used the "tool" to report aggression by the state's own hired thugs, or reported an IRS employee for theft?

Your authority- use it wisely

Your authority- use it wisely

Government has no authority that isn't given to it, or that it didn't take under false pretenses, or that it didn't steal at the point of a gun. None. Not the authority to do one piddling little thing.

The authority is yours. All authority is yours. No one can honestly take it from you, but you can be fooled or coerced into giving it away. You betray yourself when you hand it over to someone else (government or others) by voting or "going along" and then you become part of the problem when those others use your authority to harm the innocent. In this case, if you allow government to act on your behalf, using your authority, your authority is in the wrong hands and has been misused. People have been harmed and even killed with the authority you willingly handed over.

This is like if you loan a friend your gun and he goes on a shooting rampage. You didn't pull the trigger, and you may not have known what he would do with your gun, but it is your responsibility to take back your gun at the earliest opportunity. It is also a wake-up call to not hand your gun to someone whom you do not trust completely.

You don't know who will be using your authority when you hand it to government. It is like leaving your gun on a park bench with a note saying "please don't misuse this gun". It is irresponsible and dangerous. I would even claim it is lazy and unethical.

Take back your authority and don't give it away again.


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

Life is not horrible unless you make it horrible

Life is not horrible unless you make it horrible

A comment on the Libertarian Examiner column has a statist asking:

"what is it about Libertarians that they hate just living life? every
Libertarian speaks as if living life was horrible."

That is just so sadly misinformed. I don't hate living life. I certainly don't appreciate it when people attempt to meddle with my ability to live my life as I see fit, when I am harming no one, by trying to bind me with "laws" and surround me with militarized enforcers. In my day-to-day life I pay very little attention to the edicts of the statists and I generally manage to avoid those enforcers. The things that make me happy are the things I will continue to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary. I may have to become more secretive, though. If I allow the authoritarians to make me unhappy that is as much my fault as theirs. They and their opinions are just not that important to me.

It seems to me that people who feel the need to rule and control those around them are the miserable losers. Why else would they feel that life is so awful that they need to try to take away the free choices of their friends and neighbors? I'm perfectly happy letting other people live as they wish as long as they don't agress against, or defraud, me or others. Miserable people don't live like this.

Statists must resent the fact that those of us who understand freedom don't just wink and nod at their plans for genocide and those policies they push which eventually lead to genocide. Because we take their threats seriously they think we are miserable. Or maybe they are just upset that we are paying attention and hope that by calling us names we will feel guilty enough to back off and let them "win" by default. Sorry to disappoint them, but it's not going to happen. We are not the ones "in the wrong".

Now, back to the original comment. I don't agree with every detail in Mr. Crowley's column; he is much more "conservative" than I, but I definitely didn't see any "life is horrible" stuff in there at all.


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

Perfect-sized states?

Perfect-sized states?

Any time the subject of "secession" comes up, you get the apocalyptic hand-wringers saying that the "USA" must stay united at all costs. Isn't this the justification Lenin/Lincoln used to facilitate the murder of multitudes of people? Yet, the same people who vociferously defend holding the "USA" together in spite of all the reasonable arguments to the contrary are the same ones who oppose "one-world government". So, which is it? They can't have it both ways.

How much "state" is the perfect amount for the statists, and how do they know that the current size of the "USA" is "it"? What are the odds that the status quo is the best possible situation? Maybe it would actually be the "perfect size" by annexing New Zealand (no offense to Kiwis) or by kicking out Florida. Or perhaps a better situation could be had by splitting the "USA" along the Mississippi River. America is not "united" except by a common enemy: the US government.

It is unthinkable to these people that America be "allowed" to break up into smaller, more appropriate bits. Bits based upon demographic regions or simply based on states seceding. They speak about how "we are stronger together". Yet, if that were true, or if they really believed it were true, there is no stronger, bigger "unit" than the entire planet.

Just as I don't support "nations", I do not support "one-world government". Not even if I were able to emigrate to a new politically-unspoiled world. That is because I know there is nothing good or ethical or even "safer" about coercive government of any size.

I advocate the ultimate in secession: down to the level of the individual for permanent "social unit size". For temporary, voluntary, collectives, any size or combination is acceptable, but only as long as membership or participation is completely voluntary and can be unilaterally abandoned by anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason) with no punishment, as long as their legitimate commitments were satisfied. That goes against everything the statists believe. And it shows their hypocrisy beyond any shadow of doubt.

'Letter-to-the-editor project' now online!

'Letter-to-the-editor project' now online!

The "letter-to-the editor" project which I suggested a while back is now up and running.

Find it here: http://www.rationalreview.com/project-lte Thanks to Thomas Knapp for bringing this to life.

Give it a look, and if you have a little spare time give some support to the cause of freedom, especially when it is being buried under statist absurdity. Let's let no statist claim go unchallenged, and no unpopular freedom advocacy go unsupported. This is something YOU can do RIGHT NOW for the cause of freedom.

'Hate crime' plot exposed in the nick of time

'Hate crime' plot exposed in the nick of time

As I have mentioned before, I think the concept of "hate crime" is ridiculous. However, I know of one example of a act that was calculated to defraud, and to spread hate. This act should be classified as a "hate crime" by those who support the stupidity of "hate crime laws" IF they are to be consistent. I'll not be holding my breath.

Now, I dislike "the right" about as much as I dislike "the left". Both "sides" are really only different flavors of "what can our hired thugs do to you today?" However, in the case of dead census-taker Bill Sparkman, his killer quite definitely intended to make the blame fall upon the innocent people of "the right". Of course, he was his own killer, but that doesn't change his act.

A person owns his own life and has the right to use it or dispose of it in any way he likes, as long as he harms no innocent person. In this case, the innocent person was not the dead man, but those he knew he was intentionally implicating in his death by scrawling the word "FED" on his own body: the people who were rightly suspicious of this man and those others from government. He didn't care if someone ended up being sentenced to death due to his suicide.

Sparkman's main intent was defrauding an insurance company, and for this fraud to be successful he placed blame and incited hatred toward those he apparently hated. Some innocent person could have been kidnapped by government or killed in the aftermath of his act as a direct result of his deception, either by government's hired guns or by some government sympathizer. The fact that his apparent motive was "only money" makes his act all the more evil.

Obviously, I do not really support government prosecution of a dead man, nor of any one else for that matter. The guilty party can't harm anyone now, and in this case no restitution is necessary since the plot was foiled in time. Without the absurdity of "hate crime" to contemplate, this man's death would have just been another suicide. By using the socialists' own "laws" against them, I only mean to illustrate the stupidity of such "laws" and their unintended (?) consequences.

'Remember the Bushwhackers!'

'Remember the Bushwhackers!'

Here is an entertaining video. Like it says at the end, these were flawed people fighting for a flawed cause. Harming the innocent is never right under any circumstance. We have the moral high-ground over the state and its supporters. Let's keep it. Still, we need to learn from the experiences of others who were fighting against a powerful enemy government when and where we can so we don't make the same mistakes they made.
Enjoy.. link

.................................

Happiness- pursue it with the proper tools

Happiness- pursue it with the proper tools

There is something I have been meaning to address for a while. That is the fact that happiness is more important to me than freedom. In a reply comment on her blog, Tessa Rose had this to say:

"...freedom is not my highest value, either -- happiness is. If I believed that
happiness for all of humanity could actually be achieved by a ruling elite, I
would be okay with that. I believe that maximum freedom is the road to happiness
for all, but anyone who wants to argue the point with me is free to do so!"

I agree with her. My only clarification would be that I don't think happiness for all of humanity can be achieved by any one strategy, be it freedom or "safety". Fortunately, freedom is not "one strategy", but encompasses an almost infinite number of ways to seek that which you really want. I know freedom is the best tool for finding your own optimal happiness. Freedom is the means to the end of happiness. Only freedom allows many different strategies to be used concurrently by different people with different values to find their own version of "happiness", or die trying.

Freedom means that if you want to live in a tightly controlled socialist community that has almost no liberty whatsoever, as long as you don't force unwilling people to join you (either by kidnapping them or by saying "this is now our territory- like it or leave it"), you would be free to do so. People need the freedom to give up their own freedom if the rest of us are to be consistent. Yes, I realize that sounds incredibly contradictory. Just remember that the rest of us have no obligation to house, clothe, feed, or otherwise rescue them from their own bad choices. Suicide is their absolute human right as long as they take no innocents with them.

The only thing that can never be allowed in this "pursuit of happiness" is those whose happiness depends upon harming the unwilling innocent. That means if it would make you happy to be a Ruler or other sort of sociopath, you are out of luck unless you find people willing to let you harm them (the basis of all government). You can not impose on those who are unwilling, and if you do, your victims have every right to stop you in any way necessary; your "rules" to the contrary notwithstanding.

My own pursuit of happiness means I would not waste my time telling those others how they should live. If they wish to pay attention and learn from examples, they would benefit. It also means that I will not submit to live under their system of restricted liberty, either. This is the offer of peace that statists can not abide because it undermines their entire society. Too bad for them.