Over-cooperation with the state

Over-cooperation with the state

I'll admit it. This story from the Albuquerque area, which has "gone national", has me stumped as to what to think.

A woman who decided she was too drunk to drive, stopped driving, called the cops to report herself, and was then arrested by the grateful LEO.

Now, since she had not hurt anyone, and had pulled off the road like a responsible person would do, and even (foolishly) reported herself to the "authorities", it seems those "authorities" should have had the decency to go easy on her. Perhaps take her home and thank her for being responsible enough to stop driving as soon as she realized she shouldn't be driving.

Instead, as is usually the case when the State (in the generic sense of the term) is involved, she had to be punished. After all, there is no money or power to be grabbed by the state unless criminal charges or "civil penalties" can be levied. Right?

Obviously, her mental state was not right, judging by statements she made to the responding deputy. The same observation could be made about anyone who hands themselves over to agents of the state, though.

I suppose the lesson here is that some people are just too brainwashed into the cult of Ruler-worship to recognize that calling the "authorities" isn't the smart thing to do. I doubt these same people would hesitate even an instant before doing you or I the same "favor".

Odds and ends again

Odds and ends again

One way to know who the truly brainwashed among us are is to watch for the common "mating call" of the statist. It goes like this:

"Stupid libertarian! You sit there and criticize the government, but
without it you wouldn't have the internet, or freedom of speech, or police
(promise?!) or fire protection, or roads, and your children would be stupid
because there would be no schools!"

You will notice, if you are aware, that once a person has been this deeply brainwashed their ability to tell the difference between "society", civilization, and State is fatally compromised. So is the ability to see that there are plenty of ways to provide every service that is truly needed without relying on theft or coercion even a little bit.
________________________________

Live smart. Don't attract unnecessary attention to yourself. You are in enemy-occupied territory. Even if you still like the idea of a powerful, coercive government, that government does not like you.

Even if you think you need that government, you don't. But it does need you. Parasites can not live without a host. As long as you can be fooled into accepting your place as a living host for a deadly parasite it can continue to suck the life out of you. Whether you are aware of the reality or not.

Accept your true place as a sovereign individual with all your rights intact. Accept that those around you are the same, and that they possess the same rights in just as full-measure as you.
Accept that initiating force or sending others to do so in your place is never a valid choice. Doing so makes you the bad guy, no matter how strongly you want that to not be true. Reality is more powerful than your wishes.
________________________________

In the news: Once again, the impossible has happened. Some of you may not be aware, but murder is illegal in Albuquerque. But it happened. Twice in one house!

How can this be? I thought the answer to stopping everything bad was to make it "illegal". I guess guns should have been prohibited, too, so that a jealous madman, intent on killing, would have had to find a different outlet for his rage. More "laws" would have prevented this, right?
And, if you believe that, cut me in on that foreign lottery you just won (according to the emails).
________________________________

Don't forget my books. I even have a completely non-political one for your animal-loving friends and family members. I promise not to judge their life-choices.

Spontaneous order

Spontaneous order

Spontaneous order is not "chaos". Instead, it is anarchy. Spontaneous order is what you get when there is no "control" over a situation beyond things (or people) acting according to their nature. It is what makes a snowflake always form with six sides, and what makes the Universe display other beautiful patterns and function as it does. It is also what would provide for peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions among free people if there were not the insane control-freaks always trying to impose their "better way" from afar.

As spontaneous order in nature gets studied more, and hopefully understood better, perhaps educated people will begin to understand what wise people have known all along: that left alone, things will generally work themselves out in a beneficial way. And if they don't, imposing control wouldn't have made the situation any better anyway.
_____________________

And, in ABQ news- An Albuquerque woman has been indicted on "tax evasion" charges. This is always so disgusting to me. That the government could pretend it is wrong to not pay extortion to a group of thieves wearing the silly hat of government is absurd. Government does not "need" your money to operate, since it can counterfeit all it wants. To threaten to kidnap this woman for up to nine years or to steal $30,000 more from her, at gunpoint, shows just who is committing the act of evil here, and it is NOT Angela Two Bulls. Each individual who sat on that grand jury should be ashamed enough to commit suicide.

No new cops?

No new cops?

The budget crisis has caused the Albuquerque Police Department to close* its LEO academy. So, no new ABQ LEOs. Good first step. Now, what would be the best next step? Remove "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and defense of property. Then fire the rest of the cops.

LEOs are just the collection arm of the city government anyway. Without them tasked with finding excuses to steal money and property on behalf of their masters, those masters will need to go out and find honest jobs.

LEOs also are "necessary" to maintain the myth of "chaos". They enforce "laws" that make aggression and theft safe for the bad guys so that the "crime" can be used as an excuse for the continuation of the failed status quo. The bitter (for them) truth is that without the "law" protecting the Rulers and the freelance thugs ("criminals") from facing the consequences of their poor career choices, they will either find honest ways to live, or they will die. Either way, it is very good news for the productive denizens of the area.
______________________________

*Government never "closes" anything permanently. A manufactured "outcry" will undoubtedly cause them to either "find" the money somewhere or hold some other program hostage until the "academy" is rescued from the trash heap of statist obsolescence. Just watch.

Dialing '911'- Are you sure you want to take that risk?

Dialing '911'- Are you sure you want to take that risk?

Too many tragic events begin with a person in trouble, or someone acting on their behalf, picking up the phone and dialing "911". Then, into this already tense situation come armed agents of the state whose very job it is to find things to "arrest" people for. This is not a recipe for solving problems, but for manufacturing them. It complicates a situation. Too often the person in trouble, or a family member, ends up being attacked or killed by the responding cops.

There is a huge difference between calling 911 when you are being held hostage by a crazed lunatic and calling 911 because of a medical emergency or a fire. In the first instance it is probably not always the optimum solution to have cops show up; in the last two it can be positively disastrous.

There needs to be an alternative to 911 where cops are not sent by default. Calling 911 has become too dangerous, since there is no situation so bad it can't be made worse by adding a cop, and since LEOs now have the "us vs. them" attitude drilled into them during their training.

Calling 911 could be made safe again, if cops were only sent if the person didn't request they not be sent. Of course, this entirely reasonable request would be seen as an admission of guilt rather than a recognition of the dangers inherent in mixing guns and badges. Obviously this means that what is needed is a free market solution, not administered by the government in any way.

_______________________

In other news, just in case you think LEOs and their leash-holders are the "good guys"- Here is another location following the example of Albuquerque's scam to "legally" steal cars and extort money.

Authoritarianism is the pits

Authoritarianism is the pits

Few people are a solid block of authoritarianism. Most are like a cherry pie of libertarianism with a few pits of authoritarianism hidden inside. There is no problem when interacting with them until you encounter these pits.

The pit may be "abortion", or welfare of some sort ("social security", "farm subsidies"), or it may be a desire for the state to impose religious "values" on those who do not share that religion. Some people are so full of pits that it is impossible to interact with them without the experience being a miserable encounter, and some people have such a small pit it may never be noticed unless you are really trying.

Part of life and self-responsibility should be about discovering your own pits and eliminating them, not about zealously defending your pits or adding more pits to your pie.
___________________________

In a completely unrelated news story, "fleeing" robbery suspects were shot at yesterday by an Albuquerque LEO. Now, I have no problem with anyone defending themselves from attack. Even LEOs and freelance aggressors still retain the right of self-defense. My skepticism comes from the claim that the "fleeing" suspects were trying to run over the LEO. It seems convenient and I have seen other cases where such a claim on the part of LEOs was completely fabricated to justify shooting. Remove the uniform and badge from the mix and would the shooting have been justified (according to the government) or would the shooter be facing charges? Excuse my lack of credulity where the narrative of the LEOs is concerned, but I have seen enough deception from "officials" to make me want proof before I accept their version of events. Maybe there is independent video of the shooting that will show what happened. Until then, I reserve judgment.

Fighting to control the train's rudder

Fighting to control the train's rudder

Electoral politics is like fighting over who gets to hold the rudder of the train. The people who want to control the rudder, or who vigorously support the candidate they want controlling the rudder, are misguided at best.

If you are ever on a train which has a rudder you can be certain it is merely a distraction from the real business of running the train. Possibly for the purpose of keeping the well-meaning but ignorant "citizens" busy and out of the way. The fact is that the real focus needs to be on who built the tracks, where those tracks are leading, and who's at the throttle. But those things are not ever up for a vote. This is not an oversight, but is by design.

Bureaucrats, many politicians, favored corporations, and certain powerful insiders are happy that so many are fighting for control of the rudder. It ensures that no real change will ever take place to threaten the status quo.

So don't worry about the rudder, but don't condemn those who wish to hold it for the feeling of control it gives them. If possible point out the truth about the rudder but don't be surprised when people accuse you of not caring that the train is headed for a ravine because you don't share their concern for the rudder. It is a delusion that is deeply seated in a great many people and a lot of effort is expended keeping that delusion in place.

Next time it is election day, please keep this in mind and don't allow yourself to be distracted with busy-work that does nothing for Liberty.


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

'Only Ones' hate competition

'Only Ones' hate competition

An Albuquerque man learned a valuable lesson: Don't be a fake cop because the "real" cops don't like the competition.

He got caught when he ordered police equipment and then didn't pay for it. This is of no ethical difference than what "real cops" do, except they (or their departments) use stolen money to "pay for" the tools they use. It simply moves the theft to a slightly different step of the process. How is that "better"?

The man is a thief, that much seems clear, however I hear no implications that he kicked in any doors in the middle of the night, nor that he electrocuted anyone for not showing him "proper respect", nor that he extorted any money from people for consensual acts. I have heard nothing to indicate that he wants people to be shot dead for exercising their basic human rights. All in all, that puts him in a position of ethical superiority to most LEOs. So, who is the real danger to "public safety"?

The official LEOs have a nice racket going on. They get to spend money that is not theirs to spend, on tools that are forbidden to the rest of us, and then they get to be the Only Ones and have fun enforcing "laws" no decent person would ever consider legitimate. "Laws" that violate their oath and violate their one true duty to protect the rights of the individual, whether the threat comes from a freelance thug or from government. There is no other reason to permit a "police department" to exist.

What I completely fail to understand is why anyone would choose to pretend to be a LEO. Were all the prime gang-wannabe positions already filled?
_______________________

On a closely related subject: Learn to Identify the Humans, by Iloilo Jones.


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

Government protects its own

Government protects its own

Do you need more proof that "some animals are more 'equal' than others"? Look no further than passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO, Sergeant Richard Guzman.

I have mentioned his glowing example a couple of other times, even going so far as to mention that by pulling over and trying to "sleep it off", he did the responsible thing (which is "illegal" at this time). Would he have arrested a non-badged person for doing as he did? I'd be willing to bet real money (silver or gold) that he would have without a second thought.

Now a judge has once again shown that a conflict of interest prevents justice from happening under government-owned courts. Judge Sandra Engle denied the motion for Guzman to be fingerprinted and "booked", calling it "premature."

Would you or I get that kind of professional courtesy? Don't count on it.


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

Seasteading: Let's get to it

Seasteading: Let's get to it

Seasteading- it is already being done by the rich. Let's look at ways it might work for the rest of us. Yes, the "high seas" are a lot different from the high desert around Albuquerque, but a change of scenery isn't always bad. This is just my own brainstorming session, and certainly not the only possible way the project could play out.

First of all, I'm sure there either are some of those gigantic cruise ships for sale somewhere, or soon will be. A huge container ship might even be purchased and retrofitted for the purpose. Either way, it is not impossible to do, and becomes more imperative to try with each new governmental violation of basic human rights.

The only "law" on a "libertarian seastead" would be the Zero Aggression Principle and the related "principle of zero initiated deception". Nothing else would be "enforceable" or expected, because there would be no "authorities". Each person would "enforce" a respect for rights and liberty in their own sphere. Nothing other than mercy would protect bad people from the consequences of their aggression, theft, and fraud. In an absence of government, being an aggressor or thief would be a very, very foolish choice.

In my thought experiment, it wouldn't necessarily "cost" you to live aboard unless you were among the "idle rich", since you would probably run your own business of some sort, rather than having the on-board shops and restaurants owned by the ship's owners (whoever they might be). Nothing would prevent or stifle competition among the residents. If there is already a barber shop, open a better or cheaper one.

Each part of the ship would be private property, including "common areas". How would that work? I'm not sure. Perhaps each person would own the hallway in front of their quarters, along with the privileges and liabilities that go along with it, unless they choose to sell it to someone else. The captain and crew would be employees. The ship itself, such as the engines and hull... who would "own" it? Maybe the residents could each own specific parts or, if people really think it works well (I don't) they might own "shares" in the things such as the engines. How would fuel and maintenance be financed? There could not be "taxation" in the traditional sense, since theft is forbidden for everyone. Maybe "utilities" and services would include the cost of running the ship. Most businesses or residents might be willing to donate money toward fuel and maintenance since that would make it much easier to get goods and travel where they want to go. There would undoubtedly be "free riders", but that is not a real drawback unless you want it to be.

If wealthy people want a luxurious suite, they have that option. There would still be plenty of room for suburbs and even "slums". There might even be "tent cities" below deck. People who didn't have much need somewhere to start, and someone might be willing to rent out large chambers for such a purpose.

There would be no "official currency"; people would be free to offer payment, and accept payment, in whatever form they preferred. If they choose to do business off-ship, it might be good to have things that are accepted in port, as well. Private banks on-board might provide a valuable service in this case.

True medical freedom could be found in such a situation, unlike anywhere on land under government "supervision". Even people who might not agree with the operating principles of the community might seek treatment from the doctors on board, and provide an infusion of outside wealth.

Food could be grown on board and harvested from the ocean. Metals might even be separated from seawater or collected from the ocean floor by entrepreneurs on the seastead. And, of course, sunken ships could be found and "mined" as well.

Security would be up to the individual. If you wish to have a metal detector at the door of your business, that is up to you, but don't count on getting many customers. If a port has a prohibition on personal weaponry, then only those willing to take the risk would disembark. Perhaps if the ports did not wish to have an armed ship even docked, there could be shuttles that would make the run to and from the ship, to bring goods and passengers.

I think a gunsmith (or three) would find it a very liberating environment. The next John Moses Browning might find this the perfect situation to experiment without an ATF agent or other parasitical vermin breathing down his neck. Real weapon innovation could once again be tried. Mourn any pirates who try to take over or loot this ship.

To be honest, I have lots more thoughts on this, but this column is getting too long already. Perhaps there may be a "part two", but regardless, let your own imagination run wild. Every "problem" has a solution that does not require coercion. It is just a matter of thinking of it.

'Criminalizing' our way to Utopia?

'Criminalizing' our way to Utopia?

"Laws" will never make the world a better place, and long ago actually started making it worse. Each day we see more and more things criminalized. For what? Usually because someone, somewhere was upset that something unfortunate happened. Yet, unfortunate things will continue to happen no matter how many "laws" are dreamed up.

If you have been reading my thoughts for long, you will recognize my term for this situation: "law pollution". And it is a real threat that grows more critical by the day.

At this point in the history of civilization each new "law" only means that another "danger" will rise up to take its place, once again threatening the small number of people who might actually be saved as a direct consequence of the new prohibition. That is because the world is not static, and neither is human behavior. When you add in the number of people killed in order to finance and enforce the new "law" you have entered negative territory; you are losing ground. Each new "law" results in more people harmed than the "problem" it was (supposedly) intended to fix. Don't pretend that "laws" are not the direct cause of death, because every one of them is.

Just one example (out of an almost infinite number) is the "texting and driving prohibition" nonsense. Innocent people have been harmed and killed by irresponsible people texting and driving (and not only in cars) all over the world, and Albuquerque is no exception. I don't dispute this fact. What I do dispute is the magical thinking that believes that enough "laws" can eventually be passed to make innocent and/or fearful people mostly safe. It can't happen because it violates the way the Universe really operates and pretending it can happen is delusional in the extreme. Do I think people will die as a result of being "legally prohibited" from texting and driving? No. Sensible people will ignore the counterfeit "law" if they need to. But the tragedy is that in today's world, every encounter with a LEO is a potentially lethal situation. Anything that gets a cop's attention and makes him notice you can get you killed. LEOs and all other governmental employees are paid with stolen money- stolen from those in society who produce something of value. Resist or try to keep your own property for your own use and eventually, at some point, as agents of the government continue to escalate the coercion and violence with each of your refusals to be willingly stolen from, you will be killed.

It is time to start thinking from a new direction about solutions for the real dangers that exist. New technology can ameliorate many of them. Removing governmental coercion and minding your own business can get rid of many more. In other words, when you are heading the wrong direction it is time to stop and turn around. Continuing on your suicidal path is not "progress". Life is not safe, nor will it ever be. "Safety" and "living well" have never been compatible.

Stop looking so hard for disagreements

Stop looking so hard for disagreements

We who love liberty should not be forced to join together in order to survive. After all "to each his own" is at the foundation of our values. The simple reality is that there is strength in numbers, and as individuals we are easier to surround and defeat. As long as a majority of people believe coercive, external government is acceptable, this will always be a danger. I am not saying liberty is necessarily more elusive for the individual who has no one watching his back, but it is nice to have others you can count on in a pinch. Yet, disagreements over the word "libertarian" and issues like abortion continue to keep us divided. This prevents us from mounting an effective defense against the Orcs of statism. This is very unfortunate.

A big part of the superiority of libertarianism is that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that each individual is valuable. This is not just a trite saying, as it is with authoritarians who parrot the idea, but is deeply thought out and lived with consistency. We know that "groups" are only as good as each member treats each other member and non-member, and deserve only as much respect as they each, individually, give to every other individual. This clashes with the authoritarian mindset which values the collective over the individual and ignores the fact that without the individual, there is nothing. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only has merit if each one of those "few" comes to that conclusion on his own, and not through intimidation or coercion. Otherwise, it is a philosophy of death and destruction.

You, as an individual who understands and loves liberty, have plenty of opposition without trying to look for reasons to disagree with other "libertarians". I want to look for reasons to agree; not to argue.

Ron Paul shows 'the system' is broken

Ron Paul shows 'the system' is broken

Dr. Ron Paul is the only decent person in congress, or in any of the three branches of the fe(de)ral government for that matter. That isn't to say he is right on every issue; he's not. He is also irrefutable proof that "the system" does not work.

You can't convince me that his district in Texas is the most "libertarian" district in the nation, yet even with his largely libertarian stance he keeps getting re-elected.

Nor is he the most libertarian candidate who has run for national office. The others can't seem to get elected. I seriously doubt he is just the perfect "balance" of libertarian and authoritarian that "the voters" prefer. If he ran for office anywhere else in the country, such as in Albuquerque, especially against the local incumbent, I doubt he could win. This is the negative chaos that I have spoken out against that comes from allowing a government to exist.

I'm not saying it is bad that Dr. Paul got elected, I am just saying it shows a flaw in "the system". In the swamp of "red state/blue state" nonsense, there is no "gold (libertarian) state" where someone who rejects the authoritarian status quo can expect to win office, yet he did. The system is broken beyond redemption.


Reminder: Don't forget my books as tools for learning about, and spreading, Liberty.

Abortion: This Libertarian/Anarchist's Opinions

Updated 2-22-2010

Abortion is an issue that is only good for one thing: dividing people. I have read libertarian positions on both sides that were absolutely adamant that their position was right, and that the other side were monsters. The libertarian debate centers on just a couple main points: is the embryo a human being with all its rights intact, or is it a part of the mother's body, or is it a human being, but if not wanted, a trespasser? I am convinced that if abortion is wrong, it would still be wrong even in cases of rape or incest. The embryo had no choice in the matter, and many really good people began in horrible ways.

First off, I will say that no one, including me, knows for certain if abortion is right or wrong, they just think they do. That is because there is not enough scientific data to make a truly rational decision. Emotions on both sides cloud the mind and make coherent thought difficult.

Still, a few thoughts occur to me. I can not tell a human fetus from the fetuses of several other creatures by looking at them. I would bet that even the experts would have a very hard time telling a chimpanzee from a human until late in the pregnancy. A fertilized egg is life, but not a separate life. There are religious ideas of when the embryo becomes a separate life-form from the mother, but not really any convincing scientific proofs. I do know that once a baby is born it is a separate life-form, a person, with all its human rights intact. I can't remember anything that happened to me before I was around 2 or 3 years old. I went through some traumatic experiences that I can't recall at all, so it really doesn't concern me that they occurred. I would not care if I had been aborted. I wouldn't miss me at all.

Almost no one claims that a simple fertilized egg is a person, and almost no one claims that a full-term baby isn't one. The true dividing line is somewhere in between those extremes. No one knows for sure where it is, though many people "believe" they know where. In case of doubt I would tend to side with the mother, whom I can easily recognize as a complete, sapient human being who undoubtedly has all her rights functioning.

I feel that when the day comes that embryos can be transplanted or put into an artificial womb at any stage of development it will make abortion, as a divisive issue, fade away. So why do "pro-life" activists not spend their time, money, and talents on designing this technology? I think it is because they prefer to tell others how to live their lives instead. It is harder to use unwanted pregnancies to condemn a person's sex-life if the pregnancy is not a burden. In a great many cases, and from personal experience, I do think a desire to demonize sexual activity lies behind much "pro-life" activism".

This brings us to the religious objections. Almost all objections to abortion are at the core religious objections, which is fine until you try to impose your religion on someone else who does not share your religious views. Murder is wrong, but opinion is divided if abortion qualifies as murder. Not that "majority opinions" should decide any issue for anyone. It seems to come down to whether or not you believe humans have "souls". And if they do have souls, are those souls installed at conception or sometime later?

The issue of souls brings up another question in my mind. Just say that the conservative Christian claim that humans have souls and that they get those souls at conception (which is the claim I was raised with) is correct. Then assume for a moment that their other claim is also correct and that there is only one very specific way for those souls to go to Heaven. I was also taught that aborted and miscarried fetuses, babies, and young children got a free pass into Heaven because they did not yet understand "right and wrong", so were still innocent. That would mean that almost everyone (based on percentages) in Heaven would be one of these "free pass" souls. Aborted babies would almost certainly end up in Hell if they weren't aborted, considering that parents who would abort would not train their children in the proper way (once again, according to the conservative Christian position I was raised with). So, it seems a bit cruel to send all those people to Hell just to promote your agenda.

I would not use public funds to finance abortions or any other medical procedures, because there is no such thing as "public funds"; it is all stolen ("tax") money.

I think the best intellectual exercise for thinking about this is what L. Neil Smith asks: Say you are right and abortion is murder. How do you propose to regulate it? Do you make all pregnant women register to make certain that their pregnancies are not terminated? What if you can't yet tell by looking that they are pregnant? Should all women and girls of reproductive age submit to a monthly pregnancy test to keep tabs on them? Where do you come up with the new bureaucracy, "The Department of Reproduction", to regulate pregnancy? Who pays for it?

I am not a woman and can't get pregnant, so for me to pretend that I am an expert on pregnancy or abortion would be dishonest. I do have another thought that does concern men even more directly, though. As long as abortion is legal, men should be able to legally terminate any financial or parental responsibility for a child that they do not wish to father. After all, that is what abortion does for women. If it is right for one person, it is right for everyone.

I would never send government or its agents after a person who seeks an abortion. Mostly, it comes down to my attitude of "keep your filthy government off of my life!"

So, what is my personal opinion? I don't really like abortion, but would not forbid it to people who feel differently than I do about it. I do not think abortion is a good first choice for birth control. There are so many other options that are easier and cheaper. I have obviously never had an abortion, nor have I ever encouraged anyone to have one, even in cases where it would have been very bad for me if a pregnancy had occurred. In this way I have done my part to not add to the number of abortions. Keep your own house in order and mind your own business. It's the way of Liberty.




____________________________

Statist brainwashing still works

Statist brainwashing still works

Recently a person wrote to me to disagree about how government has impacted liberty in America. He made a couple of statements that I think reflect the perceptions of the majority of the people around us. I'm betting that if you have spoken to many people about liberty you have heard the same statements. He starts off with this assertion about freedom of travel:

"I can travel anywhere I want, at any time I want, without fear of being
detained."

That just isn't true, as much as I wish it were. Passports, the TSA, "highway patrol", driver's licenses, "checkpoints", and other such government nonsense have destroyed true freedom of travel in America. That other places around the world may be worse does not change the reality of what travel in America has become. Government now views travel as a privilege to be granted or denied at its whim.

The same goes with jobs, concerning which he says:

"I can work where I want, doing what suits me to earn a living, without
government interference."

Yet that isn't true either. I once needed a job, and wanted one I would enjoy. I applied at a business I really wished to work at, and that I could see really needed the help. They said they couldn't afford to hire anyone. I offered to work "under the table" for less than "minimum wage", but they were too afraid of getting in trouble with the government to agree to it. Licenses, permits, taxes, certifications, and red tape have destroyed true freedom to work where you want, doing what you want, in America. Once again, other countries may be worse, but that is still no excuse to allow it here.

Both examples are what I call the "Fire ant/lava parable", which goes like this:

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants. While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be. All the while, west of you is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice). If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are Utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it. Don't be complacent about "OK" when "better" is within reach.

He also parroted many of the justifications for government, as well as some of the half-hearted criticisms that are common. Such as "they" want to destroy our freedom, and government protects "us" from "them".

Government and its actions are the only credible threat to our liberties. The US government and its local co-conspirators are the only force "that may want to alter or change the way we are allowed to live and the freedoms we enjoy" (and, they have in fact done so relentlessly); not Arabic goat herders living in caves.

Without a government to "take over" it is useless to even invade a country. Invaders, even if they win the war, need a centralized government and its bureaucracies already in place which they can then co-opt in order to "take over" the country. Having a government puts "us" at risk. It is the same with home-grown socialistic politicians. Remove the legitimacy that they seek through a "vote" and they are no danger to America any more.

Democracy is the opposite of Liberty, for the very reasons he outlined. No group has more rights than any individual because rights are not additive. They are individual. As long as a person is not attacking the innocent nor stealing or defrauding no one has any right (or authority) to tell them how to live their life.

Government education, and the "dumbing down" he also spoke of, is another example. It is not an accident, but by design. Statists need people to believe what "the authorities" tell them, and not be smart enough to figure out the truth.

As you go about your life, whether in Albuquerque NM, Meshoppen PA, or anywhere else in America, remember that this is how most people have been brainwashed to think about America, government, and "freedom".

From Loss to Activism

I was just sitting around today thinking about how I went from a quietly "anti-government" individual to a somewhat outspoken advocate of individual liberty.

It is an evolution I would like to share with you.

All my life I have been characterized by those who knew me as "anti-government". I didn't make an issue of it, but I wouldn't always keep my mouth shut when confronted by "governmentism", either. Mostly I just went about my own business of living as free as I could and kept my opinion to myself unless pressed.

An acquaintance (who later went into government "work") once informed me that I was "conservative" because I did not like or trust government "solutions". For years I accepted this without really examining his contention. I did keep noticing that "conservatives" acted no differently than the "liberals" once elected. They were just as quick as the "other side" to stab me in the back with their every action. This kept me confused for several years. My observation eventually made me forget about looking for solutions from any political party or politician. Once again I was content to ignore the world of politics, except when a new "law" injured liberty in some way that I noticed. I would be irritated, but not surprised. Through it all, and involved in my own little world, I stayed quiet. My attitude was "Who would listen to me anyway?"

That all changed in late December 2003. Without going into gritty details, my life (which was already barely balanced on a worn tightrope) fell apart when my Significant Other left me. At this point I had nothing left to lose. In my grief I jumped feet-first into the first online libertarian group I ran across. I had already found L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action", which put a label on my deep-seated sentiments, a couple of years before. The internet allowed me to find, and interact with, people who felt the same basic way about individual liberty that I did. It made me feel somewhat less alone and lost.

For a few years I tried to hang on to my anonymity, until my presidential campaign made that impossible. Now I am "out". I am no longer anonymous, and am easily found. I am "on record" with a lot of very unpopular statements and opinions.

If I could change the past, would I? I don't know. Some days, I know I would. Other days, I think I might not.

The remaining chapters are yet to be written. I would love to live out my life unmolested by agents of hatred and "governmentism". Maybe I will; maybe I won't. I hope that from my own heartache I have contributed something to the discourse concerning liberty. At least, in that way, it wasn't suffered in vain.

Joe Stack's kamikaze mission to the IRS

Joe Stack's kamikaze mission to the IRS

By now everyone has heard of Joe Stack and his kamikaze mission to the IRS. So much has been said and there is little I can add. The thing that has surprised me is that most of the commentary I have read has been in at least partial support of his actions. I never expected that.

I can understand the sentiment. The IRS is an agency established solely to conduct theft and fraud against innocent people on behalf of an illegitimate, coercive "government". Dealing with the IRS can be very frustrating for the average person because these thieves are backed by the armed agents of government and keep getting away with their fraud and aggression, case after case, decade after decade. There can be no "justice" when the courts are owned by the same thugs who direct the IRS. There comes a point where a person recognizes they can not act in a civilized manner and expect to come out ahead, or even in a draw. The option of simply agreeing to disagree is not available. Not only that, but the simple act of initially standing up for what is right marks a person as a target for "official" harassment and intimidation for the rest of his life.
Some people, when subjected to this kind of pressure, snap.

An act like this is unequivocally wrong. There is a chance that innocent people could have been in the building, and "collateral damage" is always wrong, whether committed by government agents or by freelance aggressors like Mr. Stack. It is what makes "us" different, and better than, "them".

I read a comment posted elsewhere that claimed that Joe might have been justified in his actions, except for the fact that "the IRS doesn't kill people over unpaid taxes". Really? If you think the IRS doesn't kill people over "unpaid taxes" I have a lot of examples I could point you to. If you are interested in correcting this misconception, you might be interested in reading "The penalty is always death." But Joe wasn't face to face with his attackers when he struck. To me, that makes a world of difference.

Reading over Joe's "manifesto" I can't honestly tell for sure if he had ever been a friend of Liberty. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Especially when they just don't seem to get the fact that there is no excuse for ever turning your back on the Zero Aggression Principle. I can't help but wonder; if he had been my friend, could I have gotten through to him and made him see things in a different perspective?

The 'Sleep it off' bill

The 'Sleep it off' bill

The passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO should have waited a while. He and the deputy who gave him "Only One" treatment might have avoided a lot of trouble if they had waited until Senate Bill 151 passes.

The bill would once again make it "legal" for a drunk person to "sleep it off" in their parked car. Rational people have already pointed out that this is the responsible thing to do when you realize you are not sober enough to drive, but the current "law" makes it seem better to take the chance to get home rather than risk the almost certain fate of being arrested for recognizing you shouldn't be driving. After all, a sleeping person is a stationary target.

The bill would also stop LEOs from "arresting" people who are "under the 'legal' limit". Obviously, they shouldn't be doing that anyway. If they had any sense, that is. It is sad that people think there is a need to pass a "law" to stop LEOs from doing something that is already wrong for them to do. LEOs should discover the difference between right and wrong on their own. I know. It won't happen; they are too far gone.

As I have advocated before, the solution to this manufactured problem is to abolish the counterfeit "laws" that make this new "law" seem necessary. "Potential to cause harm" doesn't pass muster. No harm; no victim; no crime.

'Glass control'- can it be far behind?

'Glass control'- can it be far behind?

Let's pretend for a moment that the government has gotten its way and guns have been banned and are all gone (except for those "owned" and carried by government agents who enforce the "laws" against the rest of us, of course).

How much will an absence of guns slow down truly bad people? According to this story about a disgusting "piece of work" in Albuquerque who shoved broken glass in his girlfriend's mouth, then covered her mouth with a rag and made his dog attack her, it won't slow them down much. How is that better than if he had shot her? The truly delusional hoplophobe may try to point out that "at least he didn't kill her" with the weapons he used, yet guns are not universally fatal either.

Someone like this monster can always find weapons to use against other people; weapons such as glass, a dog, and a rag. Or hands, rocks, dog leashes, or water (oh, wait, that's a government-approved weapon in certain evil hands).

How has this "man" managed to keep his neighbors and girlfriend fearful for so long? I could be wrong, but I'll bet if there are any neighbors who are properly armed, they are not afraid of this creature. They may be afraid of what his actions will make them do, and the inevitable "imperial entanglements" that will result from true justice being dished out, but if they are properly armed there is no reason for them to be afraid of him. Never let a bully intimidate you. Not an independent one, nor one backed by the force of government. Once you let one get away with it, the bullying never stops.

Space Shuttle thoughts

I know the NASA space shuttle program is scheduled to have 4 more missions, but I keep having this feeling that it will suffer another disaster and be cancelled before the final 3 are flown. I hope I am wrong.

Being a government program, I don't find this particularly surprising, and even when the shuttle program began I kept wondering how the inevitable disasters would be handled, but I hate to think of the wasted lives and lost scientific data. After all, my money has been taken against my will to pay for it. (However, if my feelings are borne out by future events, and some govgoons are looking for someone to beat up as punishment and they run across this blog, I have neither the inclination nor the know-how nor the opportunity to sabotage any space mission. Nor would I assist anyone who did, since that would be as distasteful to me as assisting government. Just so you know.)

Until and unless government either gets out of the way, or people advance the science in defiance of government, space exploration will continue to be stalled where it sits now. I should be writing this blog from the moon or an asteroid by now. Or, at least have that option. Government keeps guarding the gates of the future, keeping humanity trapped in the solved problems of the past. That is inexcusable.