Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
I need some money. Desperately. Donations have dried up and Time's Up things aren't selling fast enough to help at this moment. So, I am going to sell 5 ounces of silver. They will be like either this bar or the other design from the same mint... I don't remember exactly what I have, designwise.
If you want some of it before I put it on eBay, let me know.
Taxation is theft. It really is as simple as that. What else would you call it when someone takes your money (your possession) away from you by threat of force when you do not want to give it to them?
Do I have a right to my own life? What is "life" except the time you are alive? I have traded a significant portion of my life for money in order to trade the money for some other things I lack the knowledge, skill, or inclination to do personally. Does my life, expressed through my money, belong to me? If it doesn't, then taxation would be alright. However, if it does, then if someone takes it from me against my will, it doesn't matter to me whether it is a government agent or a mugger in a dark alley. Theft is theft.
Now, you may argue that the money is being spent on "good" things. OK. Maybe the mugger will use my money to feed his children, or will donate it all to a charity to feed widows and orphans. Perhaps he will even purchase a "gift" for me with part of the money; something I won't buy for myself. Does that excuse his actions? Of course not. Few people are stupid enough to argue that it does. Place the silly hat of government on the mugger's head, though, and many people fall for the lie.
What if I refuse to cooperate with the mugger? He will use greater force unless I am able to effectively fight him off. Just like government does. If you refuse to comply with government thieves, and keep refusing at each step of the "process", the government will reach a point where it will kill you for your money. Either when they try to confiscate your property, or when they come to forcibly arrest you, if you fight back, you will be killed. What government program is worth killing people over? Innocent people. People who only wish to keep that which belongs to them. Murder committed to support government is not right.
Taxation is based on a fundamental lie. Government doesn't even "need" your money to operate. They have access to the world's largest counterfeiting operation: The Federal Reserve Bank. Through this, and inflation, the government creates all the fiat "money" it could ever want, without stealing one cent from you through "taxation" (although the deception involved in fiat money is still theft). Taxation is simply a way to take money away from you in order to cause you financial harm, cause you to alter your behavior to more government-approved ways, and to keep tabs on you.
The things and programs that are financed with your stolen money, and that should be done, could be done cheaper and better by private companies or individuals competing in the market. "User fees" could be charged for some things. If government still wants to be involved, let them end their monopoly and compete with voluntary services. Private roads could be maintained through tolls or paid for by the businesses they serve. Poor families could be helped by charities that do not take away their dignity like government "welfare" programs do.
"National defense" would be better served by the Constitutional militia than by the military pawns that are sacrificed for bogus "causes" in distant lands now.
Many, if not most, things government currently wastes your money on would not need to be replaced by anything in a free society. Stupid things like the DMV, BATFE, the Pentagon's "black budget", and Congressional salaries. These things add insult to theft.
Remember and think of these simple truths next time you think about paying a "tax".
I'm sure you have seen the shiny new signs you paid to have placed around the schools. "The use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in the school zone." That makes me think of another quote which suggests that the ultimate answer to kings, or small town governments for that matter, is a belly laugh. Those in government, at every level, give me opportunities to laugh at their absurdity on a daily basis.
Obviously the sign doesn't really mean what it says. I assume what it is trying to wirelessly communicate to those who read it is that the use, by drivers, of cell phones and other things of that sort is prohibited while passing through the school zone. Maybe it is also intended to be interpreted as prohibiting the students from using cell phones in the school zone before, during, and after school, as well.
But that is not what the sign says.
If the sign were taken literally, it would mean books, blackboards (or their modern equivalent), and the human voice are now prohibited in the school zone, including in the classroom. That would effectively shut down the schools. While I agree with that course of action, I seriously doubt that was the intent.
If the sign were taken literally, it would mean that those of us who live in the school zone would be prohibited from using any wireless communication device in our homes. I think any attempt to enforce that one might be unpopular with more than just the rare libertarian.
(I self-censored this paragraph from the column, but in light of recent events I should have left it in to embarrass the parasites.) It would also mean the local law enforcement officers would be prohibited from texting or talking on the phone while cruising around the school- and that can't possibly be true since I have seen them do it regularly!
The sign is a humorous reminder of the reactionary nature of would-be rulers. It is an attempt to hold back the tsunami of technology with a sign backed up by a law. That hasn't ever worked in the past, and I doubt this will be the first time it will succeed. Responsibility, by drivers and pedestrians alike, is the only thing that will work, and that can't be legislated. Yes, the best reaction to any government is a good belly laugh.
(First published in The State Line Tribune. I waited to put it here for a while so it could be "exclusive" to them. They have no website.)
Recently I have heard a lot of people worrying about the economy. That's understandable. A lot of people are beginning to wake up to realities that only libertarians seemed concerned about just a few short years ago.
The most obvious clue for most people is that the price of gasoline is taking a leap. This will soon translate into higher prices on everything. Of course, you should understand that these things are not actually becoming more valuable; the dollar is simply getting closer to the point of worthlessness due to run-away Federal Reserve counterfeiting.
I can't tell you for certain what will happen with the economy in the near future, but I won't lie to you like those in Washington DC, who are causing the problems, will.
There may or may not be a crisis coming, but there are things you can do that will benefit you regardless of whether America dodges yet another bullet or whether the piper gets paid this time. If no economic collapse occurs, you have done nothing that can harm you in any way; if it does, you will be ready. So, how can you protect yourself and your family in case of an economic crisis?
First of all, remember that US dollars are not real money, but merely a substitute. If they stop buying what you need, stop accepting them as payment for anything- paychecks included. Insist on either concrete things you need in order to survive (food, water, clothing, shelter, medicine, fuel, or ammunition), or things which will retain their value over time which you can then trade for the things you need for survival. Gold, silver, and copper come to mind, as do some durable necessities that you may not personally need, but know that others will. Dollars don't even make the list, since they are less valuable with each passing day, like blackening bananas.
Second, stock up on some things now before they are out of reach. Think of things that you wouldn't be able to do without if store shelves were suddenly empty for weeks at a time. Do you require prescription medicines? Do you have enough food stored, food you will actually eat, and that will last if the electricity goes out for several days? Do you have alternate ways of heating food, and even of opening cans? Do you have a supply of water and a way to make "iffy" water safe to drink? What about toilet paper? What does it hurt to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best?
One of my strengths is that I am very adaptable. It isn't that I don't have preferences; just that I can make-do with less than I'd prefer, or in situations that are novel and strange.
Once upon a time, I would never dream of expressing my opinions if they differed from what I supposed were the opinions of those around me. I was afraid people might not like what I had to say. They might say mean things about me. Now, I still don't like it when they do say mean things, but that's not gonna keep me from speaking up.
Once upon a time I would have rather died than speak in front of people, much less sing! Then I got taken to karaoke and fell in love with singing to an audience (even though I don't get to do that anymore). People from my past who found out couldn't believe I would ever do that- it just wasn't me. But, it was.
There have been more adaptations. Some big and some small, some painful and some easy.
Each of these adaptations occurred because of some change in the conditions of my life. My old ways ran against a wall, and something had to change. I can only change me. When things I like get ripped away, my old life ends and I am forced to find a new life. It has happened many times in the past, and probably will happen again. I feel confident that I will adapt, without compromising.
You and I are ethically justified in using deadly force against agents of The State just about anytime we encounter them in their "official capacity". Cops, TSA, IRS, AFT, whatever.
When one of these "people" attempts to enforce some counterfeit "law"- any "law" that is an attempt to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft- against anyone, they become the bad guy and it is your absolute human right to resist them however you see fit, including killing them if they don't cooperate. It is "illegal", and therefore suicidal, of course, but it is still your right. I will never condemn anyone for killing an agent of The State under such a circumstance. I can't even get too worked up over an actual thief/aggressor killing an enforcer. A bad guy killing another bad guy doesn't concern me too much, and it's one less enforcer you and I have to deal with.
Any "traffic stop"; any airport scan or pat-down; any demand to see your permit or license; any official interaction at all is a credible threat to initiate force against you. You're foolish if you don't recognize the danger. You twitch an eyelid at the wrong moment and the agent of The State will kill you in the name of "officer safety". That constitutes a credible threat to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?
Many people don't want to hear this truth. They would rather weasel-word their way around the foundational facts of the matter. They don't want to be seen as "extreme". Those who defend themselves against bad guys are not "extreme"; those who support the bad guys and pretend their actions are legitimate in any way are the ones who are extreme.
No, I am not going to resort to deadly force against an agent of The State unless I feel I have nothing to lose. And, yet, the parasitic vermin of The State seem to be working really hard to make sure that those who love and really understand liberty are backed into a corner, with nothing to lose, as soon as possible. You'd think they are just dying to start a war over liberty. Well... It's their funeral.
I'd rather keep fighting than give up. Not fighting against The State, exactly, but fighting to live life as I see fit and resisting those who would molest me for daring to ignore or ridicule their stupidity and meddlesomeness.
Even if it were proven to be impossible to defeat the notion of The State now, or forever, wouldn't it be wrong to just go along? Yes, it would. Because Statism is wrong. Nothing can ever make it right; not popularity, not utility, not preferences, fears, or opinions.
What form that resistance takes will vary between individuals, and even depending on the time that you look at each individual's life. But the resistance will go on.
Obama says the last-minute deal between congressional taterheads, to avert a government "shutdown", happened because "Americans of different beliefs came together."
Yeah, right! "Different beliefs"... like disagreeing over whether plutonium or cyanide are the preferred poison; not ever questioning whether they should be poisoning innocent people.
If a person thinks they have no choice but to agree to something that they know isn't right and that will harm them, is their agreement really consensual? Can a property owner make any demands they want and expect compliance? Can you really consent to being attacked or abdicating (or negotiating away) your rights?
Nobody likes a cheater. We prefer that other people live up to their agreements; usually even when we have already broken our end of the deal. But many people don't recognize that using government to get your way is cheating.
There are only two ways to get something done between two or more people. You can convince the other person to go along and cooperate for your mutual benefit. This is referred to as the "economic method". Or you can force them to go along against their will, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest. This is called the "political method". If others agree in going along with you, there is no excuse to govern them; if they do not, many people think it's OK to skip straight to the "forcing them" step rather than continuing the attempt to convince them.
"Forcing them" can be a legitimate action IF the other person is attacking the innocent or stealing. A libertarian recognizes this as a legitimate use of force since force was already initiated by the other person. If the other person is neither attacking nor stealing, then resorting to force makes you the one in the wrong. Even worse, if your actions consist of aggression or theft, while their actions are merely intended to resist your abuse, then you are doubly wrong.
Bringing this down to the local level, what is the solution to this area's water issues? Does it involve working together in a consensual manner to work out a solution? Or does it involve using confiscated money (and other property) and imposed laws, with their inevitable enforcement, to force everyone into a "one size fits all and everyone pays, regardless" box? If no one is allowed to opt out, it is not consensual. Stirring up another hornet's nest, what about "blight"? Do you try to convince or do you simply violate the other person's property rights because you don't like the way they choose to use their own property? If you think you must resort to the government solution in either case, you are cheating.
Not every problem has a solution. That is just reality. Of those problems which can be solved, some have a solution that isn't implemented because of the eager willingness to resort to the political method instead of doing the hard work of thinking and finding a consensual solution. After all, if you believe you can simply grab the magic wand of "the law" at the first sign of an impasse, you are less likely to keep thinking and working toward a real solution. Sure you can "get things done" by cheating, but at what cost?
*****
(This was to have been my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected by the publisher because he says not all politics is cheating. In saying this, he gave me the idea for my headline.
This difficulty I keep having prompted me to ask the editor for some clarification. I asked if my columns are supposed to represent my opinion, or the editorial opinion of the Clovis News Journal. If my column is representing the editorial opinion of the paper, then I can totally understand why I have so many problems getting published (and I probably should be paid more), but if it is supposed to represent my personal opinion, then I don't get it. Surely the other columns that get published express opinions that are not in line with the paper's editorial positions- at least it seems that is the case to me when I read them. In any case, the editor answered that the columns are supposed to represent my opinion only. So how do they justify rejecting my columns on that basis?
Since this means I am out my pay for this week, please donate to help me make up the shortfall, or buy some stuff from me.)
Some days I am ready to chuck all the electronic technology and writing efforts and just go back to being a simple mountainman.
I am a libertarian and an anarchist because it is the right thing to do. I have never chosen a path because it is popular. I'll continue to be who I am. But I swear, some days...
Why not put your face out there as supporting the basic individual right to own and to carry whatever weapon you want, in any way you see fit, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone, ever?
Join the People of the Gun. You might as well. You're already on "The List".
Thanks to Thomas Knapp and his objections to this theory, I continue to be challenged to hone the way I attempt to explain it. That is a good thing. I am not being sarcastic here. Kn@ppster has always been a decent guy and a thoughtful ally on the road to liberty. He is just keeping me on my toes. Some day he may convince me yet.
For background and an explanation of what I am talking about when I mention "the bubble theory of personal property rights", see here and here and here and here and (most recently) here.
Because I believe this is a self-evident truth, yet I recognize that many people don't agree, I have to act in the only way I think is right as I try to spread the idea.
This means that I will always try to respect the wishes of property owners who do not agree with me. This means I will consider an "invitation" that puts conditions on what is inside my pockets as a non-invitation. (I will, however, assume liberty unless informed otherwise beforehand.)
But mainly, it means that I will continue to act as I always have and not try to make it my business to fret about what is inside your pockets. It has never occurred to me to think about it in the past, even before I "took the red pill", and I see no reason to begin worrying about it now or in the future. The change, if one is to occur, has to start somewhere, and I have started with myself. Why not join me?
The company that is producing the flags for me is also making some "Time's Up" T-shirts with the Tea Party motto "Take Back Your Republic" added across the top. I don't really care for that motto very much, but I had an idea.
I will sell those shirts with one "minor" alteration. I will use red fabric paint to cross out "republic" and add "Liberty!"
Since it will be done by hand the final look will vary somewhat from shirt to shirt.
They will cost $20 each, with $3.00 shipping and handling. Or one half ounce of silver for the shirt and shipping.
Let me know if you want one of these shirts, and what size you need, and I will place an order. Obviously, it will take a little longer to get the shirts to you since I will need to order and paint them.
Update: I've added a couple pics of the results of my modification of a couple shirts. Hand scrawled, so no two will be exactly alike. I like the graffiti effect anyway.
Since I stopped writing for Examiner I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the ABQ news, even though I am still subscribed to the sites. But this story just jumped out at me and begged for a comment.
According to the story- “This is a ‘this can happen to me’ story for anybody who’s ever decided, I’m going to have a designated driver who’s not quite as drunk as I am,” said district attorney spokesman Pat Davis.
OK, so the woman was drunk too. And she is expected to have the ability to judge whether the other guy was drunk and whether it was a good idea to let him drive?
The ratchet keeps going in the only direction it can move. And it will continue until the ratchet is destroyed completely in an act of self defense.
