Liberty is BEAUTIFUL

As I drive from Farwell, Texas to Texico, New Mexico and cross the railroad tracks that intersect the state line between the two, I am struck by something. There is a subtle change as I cross the tracks.

Farwell is nice, in a controlled, subdued white-bread sort of way, but Texico often seems more vibrant and alive. As if it is more free.

As soon as New Mexico is entered (even in this area) you see "colorful" roadside vendors selling fruit, vegetables, Mexican hats, chihuahuas, clothing, pottery, etc. The yards of the residents have chickens and ducks. The artwork and crafts are more brightly colored. There is an air of more liberty and it really hits me: Liberty is beautiful. It is exciting. it is colorful. It is unpredictable and sometimes a tad inconvenient. I LOVE IT!

Maybe it isn't for people who have a dull, gray, out of focus personality. The living dead (or the dying alive) don't care for freedom. They fear it as "chaos". They are pathetic.

.

Another reason I could never be a "conservative"

I was talking to a family member this evening and got another look at why I could NEVER be a "conservative".

I had given him my copy of Reason Magazine- the newest issue which is focused on the prison industry; the abuses, the innocent victims, and the harm it is doing. He is a teacher in a prison.

He said he believes Reason looked at a few unfortunate "extreme" cases and ignored the vast majority of cases where the prisoners really are bad people.

He said 200 people out of everyone in prison isn't "too bad". I pointed out that these aren't isolated cases, but that the resources don't exist to really make certain that every prisoner really even did the "crime" [sic] he or she is imprisoned for. I said that even one imprisoned innocent person is too many, and that I'd rather 100 bad guys were set free than see one innocent person sent to jail. He disagreed. He said even if there were 10,000 innocents among all those in prison, that still isn't too bad.

So I said that considering the fact that America imprisons a higher percentage of its population that any other country, does he really think that Americans are the worst people in the world? He said that considering the past few years of his experience, he thinks they might just be.

Makes me wonder how he justifies (and supports) the US military making unending war on Muslim countries based upon the claim that they are bad and we are good if Americans really are "the worst people in the world". In that case, shouldn't we hope the US military loses every war it fights?

(In case you think I focus on "conservatives" too much and give "liberals" a pass, it is just that I know so very few "liberals" in person and so many "conservatives". And the "liberals" I do know around here are too outnumbered by the "conservatives" to make much noise.)

.

A Wolfe in need...

Claire Wolfe needs money, so I'm asking anyone who can help her to please do so. Details here.

No kind word goes unhated

Some people. I admit I looked at my second ex-wife's facebook wall. No matter what has happened, I can't stop caring about people I once cared about. It's a weakness.

Anyway, she wrote some things on her "wall" that made me understand that she was talking to the guy she has always been in love with. It seemed to me as if maybe she thought they now had a chance, after all these years, to try again.

I sent her a message expressing my hope that it works out for her this time and that she finds the happiness she deserves. Actually, here is the precise message I sent:

"Hey. I hope it all works out like you hope it does. You deserve a chance at happiness. Good luck!"

Really mean and nasty of me, right?

So, instead of replying, she then posted this: "Think my exhusband may have lost his f***ing mind. I didnt have shit to say to him 9yrs ago. What would make him think i have something to say now. SMH"

Yes, Angel. I know you had nothing to say to me back then. You removed yourself from my life and then sought to hurt me, and succeeded wildly, when I accepted your rejection and went on with my life.

But you know what- I STILL hope things work out for you and you find happiness. You can't make me hate you. So there.

.

Mayor wants us to all "go along" with her

I wrote this as a Clovis News Journal column, but it was rejected. So, I am now free to present it here.

___

Clovis’ mayor, Gayla Brumfield, was recently quoted in these pages as saying "I believe it is time that we all worked together as citizens of Clovis to move forward with all the exciting opportunities that lie before our growing community, and become one voice — the voice for
the betterment of Clovis, New Mexico."

She was speaking about the controversy over the Hotel Clovis deal. I smell politics.

What the mayor sees as moving "forward", I see as regression to failed collectivist policies of socialism. Collectivism still isn't a good idea, no matter which flag you wrap it in.

I do agree this is an opportunity, but not all opportunities are a good thing. A lost and confused elderly person in an alley is an opportunity for a mugger, and government-subsidized housing is an opportunity for collectivists; those who believe they have a "right" to your money and property. How does an increase in collectivism and dependency qualify as "betterment" of the community?

Nor is all growth positive. Good growth is self-generating and self-sustaining. Bad growth is parasitic and dependent on subsidies.

That "one voice", calling for collectivism which will ultimately harm individuals, is not a chorus to join. It seems to simply be a tactic to silence the critics. Contrarian opinions need to be expressed. Especially since there is nothing that is "good for everyone".

Where Clovis or any other community is concerned, there is a smart way to grow, there is a true "forward", there are real opportunities, there is a more honest appraisal of "betterment", and there might be a time for "one voice". This is none of the above.

If an idea is good there is no need to tell people to speak with "one voice". They may join you anyway, but if not it is their loss. If an idea is bad or controversial you should welcome dissent as an opportunity to make your case, reach consensus, and examine your premises. Either way, you need to let people opt out of financially supporting anything they don't want.

My suggestion, as a libertarian, is to get government out of the way. Stop interfering with Hotel Clovis and simply stand aside. This is complicated by the fact that the city believes it owns the building, but this complication could be solved by signing Hotel Clovis over to the prospective developer. No red tape, no zoning issues, no taxes or tax credits or subsidies, and no stipulations or conditions. Sure, this sounds scary to people who aren't accustomed to seeing freedom and the free market at work, but it would be the best solution in the long run.

Added: It has been pointed out that the NM constitution has an "anti-donation" clause so that the city can't sign the building over to anyone. When has a constitution stopped any government? Anyway, they could probably bend the law to sell it for a low price.

Voluntaryists, What’s Your Story?

Debbie Harbeson asked this question, and here's my long answer. I have taken previously written stuff and combined it with new stuff to come up with this, so yes, some may be familiar.

---

As a kid I loved freedom. I roamed whatever wild places I could find and really wasn't very sociable. I didn't really think about politics since I didn't think about interacting with people much, and that's what politics misguidedly tries to be about.

There was no horrible event to make me dislike the externally-imposed form of coercion commonly known as “government”. It was simply a lifetime of observation and an inner need for peeling away the inconsistencies I discover. The more I saw and the more I learned the less I bought into the lie that government was “necessary” or “good”.

As a young teenager all I wanted was to walk away from civilization and never look back. I once expressed this to my parents who then said if I wanted to do that I would need a lot of money to buy land, and then would need a constant stream of money to pay "property taxes". I was astounded that you could be forced to keep paying for something which you had bought, but they assured me that if I didn't pay the tax my land would be taken from me. I knew this was nothing but theft dressed up and made to look legitimate. It made me angry.

I still didn't think too much about The State although I knew that I probably wouldn't be able to live the way I knew would be right for me, so I had better adapt my plans. Still working unsuccessfully on that.

I began to see that every excuse for having “government” was based upon a trained helplessness, and every justification for The State necessarily ignored both solutions that were known and within reach, and the demonstrable harm that comes from relying upon coercion to get your way, rather than working toward unanimous consent. I also saw the damage done to individuals on the basis of a majority vote, or society’s wishes.

Along the way there were influential people who taught me to think for myself, and one of them was probably, secretly, similar in his outlook to my current view. His role as a high school physics and chemistry teacher in a government "public" school would have probably been jeopardized had his bosses heard some of his off-hand comments. For example, he once mentioned, in passing, that no one should ever accept a plea bargain since this would help bring the courts to a stand-still. It took me a little more thinking and a couple of decades to see that one benefit to this would be that it would encourage The State to stop enforcing laws against things that are not government’s business in the first place, those “mala prohibita” acts, and focus on the real “mala in se” crimes. You know- the real laws which are based upon the recognition that it is wrong to initiate force, to damage other people’s property, or to steal.

Around this same time I did campaign for Reagan even though I wasn't old enough to vote, simply because he claimed to be for smaller government and less government interference in our lives. So, he lied. More data to process and another lesson eventually learned, even though it didn't register for years.

Then came college. Ugh. Government class taught me a lot that The State would probably rather people not think of. I also enjoyed the look of discomfort in the face of the minor state-level tyrant who came to speak to us about his "job" running our lives. You'd think he had never seen a guy wearing buckskin clothes and a coonskin cap before from the way he kept nervously looking out of the corner of his eye at me sitting there in the front row.

An acquaintance from that same class (who later became my brother-in-law for a few years and who 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. You'd think Reagan would have taught me a lesson. I did keep noticing that "conservatives" acted no differently than the "liberals" once they had been 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. All my adult 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 "governmentalism", either. Mostly I just went about my own business of living as free as I could and kept my opinion to myself unless pressed. 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?"

Years passed and life happened. I didn't pay much attention to the world beyond my own life. During a particularly hectic phase of life I found L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action", which put a label on my increasingly deep-seated sentiments. I did get online eventually (in 2001), and discovered a few libertarian websites to read. Interesting but not anything I really obsessed over.

For me everything changed in late December 2003. Without going into painful details, my life (which was already barely balanced on a worn tightrope) fell apart when my Significant Other left me. High, dry, completely alone, and in a very bad situation. At this point I had nothing left to lose. In my grief (and while drunk) I jumped feet-first into the first online libertarian group I ran across. And promptly stuck my foot in my mouth. Fortunately I sobered up and was forgiven. 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 couple of years I tried to hang on to my comforting online 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. I have gotten more "radical" over the years as I learn more, as I think things through more completely, and as I pare away any inconsistencies that remain. I have come to see that when you strip away all the non-libertarian inconsistencies, libertarianism becomes anarchism. Or you can call it voluntaryism, or being a sovereign individual. Whatever you call it, it is the best way a human being can interact with those other human beings around him. I'm glad I finally figured it out and look forward to continuing the journey.
-
Also posted on Voluntaryist.com

.

Liberty is Better Than Servitude, Always

Liberty is Better Than Servitude, Always is my new article on Zero Gov. Go read it.

Revelry at bin Laden death vulgar

Revelry at bin Laden death vulgar (Originally published 5-13-2011)

I feel somewhat isolated in my disapproval of the recent reaction to the claim of the killing of Osama bin Laden. I was reminded of the jubilant crowds we were shown in the Middle East after "9/11" by seeing the eerily similar jubilant crowds in America upon the announcement of bin Laden's death. Two wrongs don't make a right, and both displays disgusted me to the core. In this never-ending feud between the 21st century's Hatfields and McCoys, each deadly attack gives justification for the next.

Governments lie. You can take that to the bank. Even knowing this, when the official story changes so much and so rapidly, as in this case, it smells even more fishy than normal. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that bin Laden died almost a decade ago. There is a lot of evidence that the "bin Laden" in the videos released these past few years has actually been a few different people (who, other than the clothes and the beard, bear little resemblance to the original bin Laden). Ignoring all that, and pretending for a moment that we accept the current incarnation of the official story as true, I still don't celebrate the killing or the way it was carried out.

Americans don't do things that way; that's how terrorists operate. America is about justice for the accused, which includes facing your accusers and presenting all the evidence in front of a jury of your peers. It doesn't mean cutting corners just because it is pragmatic to do so. Even so, I accept that this was a pragmatic killing. Some folks just need killin'. There's a right way and a wrong way. This killing just smells wrong. A trial would have been expensive. It would have been a target for politico-religious extremists on both sides. Pragmatic, but still wrong. It is probably less barbaric to invade a person's home and kill him in a struggle than it is to carry out a clinical execution. But only barely.

Knowing that governments lie, and considering that everything I "know" about bin Laden and "9/11" I got through government information that was filtered through the mass media, I would not have shot bin Laden had I been given the chance, unless I saw him attacking an innocent person with my own eyes. He probably was a really bad guy, but in this case vengeance, not justice, was served. Whether Osama bin Laden is dead or not makes little difference. The terrorists won unless we get the real America back. Soon. If it's not already too late.

"...that's the problem I have with libertarianism"

Yes, that is a problem that YOU have. It is not a problem with libertarianism.

I read that phrase again today. It usually crops up when someone clings to the notion that some issue (which the speaker is obsessed with above everything else) makes it OK to initiate force or use coercion to force others to go along with the speaker's idea of what is right.

That just means you believe you can solve something with coercion, or have The State use the coercion on your behalf to solve it.

That flawed thinking only causes more trouble and solves nothing in the long run. You may change the nature of the problem, but trading one problem for another- often more serious- problem is NOT a solution.

Perhaps some things have no solution. That may not be a happy thought, but it may reflect reality. For every problem that can be solved, there is a solution that involves NO initiation of force and respects liberty. I guarantee it.

To reject "libertarianism" just because you want to hold onto the option to initiate force against those who disagree with you is not very nice. And just because you reserve that option by rejecting libertarianism, it doesn't make it right. Nope. It is still wrong no matter who you get to agree with you that it is OK.

.

Screen storm takes over the laptop!

Just so you know, I think the screen on my laptop is shorting out.

It has a dark area in the lower right-hand corner, and the back of the screen at that spot is rather hot. The dark area has a shadow that is spreading upwards from there. The right third of the screen flashes, and the whole screen image jumps and skips. Yay.

Makes it a bit hard to read and concentrate. I'm hopeful I'll find a solution soon. Before the thing bursts into flames.

.

No more "driver's licenses" for "illegals"?

One of the local-ish papers had an article about New Mexico lawgivers contemplating an end to the practice of issuing "driver's licenses" to "illegal immigrants".

I posted the following comment:

I am fully in favor of ending the practice of issuing "driver's licenses" to independent migrants ("illegal immigrants"). And everyone else.

Driving is a right; not a privilege as The State tries to dishonestly make everyone believe. This is because there is a basic human right to travel without molestation, and this necessarily includes, in the modern world, the right to drive.

Do you believe George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would have tolerated some bureaucrat ordering him to carry a "rider's license" to ride his horse, or to hang a "license plate" on his horse's tail, for that matter? Of course not! And how do you think either of them would have responded if some representative of the king (or any other tyrant) stopped him along the way and tried to steal from him (issue a "fine") or kidnap ("arrest") him for not complying with these unconscionable edicts? Ponder that for a moment.

.

The UnState Project

OK, so this isn't a "real" project. Yet. Or it probably isn't by most people's definition of "real". Or "project".

I do like the idea of The Free State Project and Free State Wyoming, but I have a problem reconciling "free" and "state". They seem so mutually-exclusive.

The closest I can get to reconciling those ideas is to see a "free state" as an area, not with borders of its own, but surrounded by borders of the non-free States around it. Kind of like a donut hole or a spandrel, its boundaries would be the result of what surrounds it, not of its own idea of where it ends. If a State adjacent to it disbanded, the area of the "free state" would automatically expand without anyone redrawing any maps or passing any resolutions.

In this case, the only way I can see any rationality in the term, the free territory would be more like an "unstate".

Of course, you don't need to wait for the pitiable folks who live around you to decide to join your project. You can become the catalyst for The UnState Project today, right where you sit. Withdraw consent. Don't pretend anyone else can represent you. Don't impose government on your neighbors, nor cooperate with those who would. Live liberty.

*

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

I was encouraged to write an article for Zero Gov, so here it is:

Recently, I have gotten very angry over cops. Very! Not just the cops themselves, but those who support (or even worship) cops. L. Neil Smith calls these starry-eyes fans “copsuckers”.

My first reaction to my own anger is “Why should I get mad? It’s a waste of energy to get mad over stupid people.” But then I remind myself that there are times when anger is the only reasonable response. Of course, I get mad. This is an outrage! Unconditional cop-loving is similar to saying it is OK to rape babies. Any decent person should get mad over such nonsense.

I understand why cop-lovers focus on individual cops when they try to make the case that cops are “regular people” who have families to support, and are nice neighbors and good relatives. It deflects attention from the real problem.

I am sure individual cops can be very nice to those they like. It is just the nature of the vast majority of humans. Pick any human monster or tyrant from history and I’d bet there were those who knew him personally and who would say he was a kind and loving person who was just misunderstood.

It isn’t how the cop treats people he knows in family situations or normal social situations that shows his character, but how he behaves when he is taking part in a check point, or when he sees a person with a gun on his hip walking down the street, or any time when he sees himself as the “authority”. That is when the true character shines through.

An individual mobster might never steal or murder- perhaps his mafia “job” is completely unrelated to those mob functions, maybe he’s just the accountant, but he is tainted simply by belonging to that organization. The same goes for a cop. He might never steal, kidnap, or murder, but by choosing to belong to the police department he is choosing to belong to a group that does all those things as a fundamental part of its daily existence. And no cop, not one, would keep his job more than a day if he refused to take part in, or was open with his opposition to stealing (“fines”), kidnapping (“arrest” for violating counterfeit “laws”), and often, murder (killing for reasons of “officer safety”) committed by his brother officers. A person who makes the choice to remain a part of such an organization is choosing to be a bad person by association even if he stays otherwise “clean”.

I can more easily forgive the old guys. They grew up in an era where the harm of The State was slightly better balanced by some good; good that would have been better provided by a voluntary system rather than a coercive system based upon theft, but still some little good. That is no longer the reality. But they are set in their ways and probably see things as they used to be rather than as they are. Those days are gone and will never return. The State can never again be excused, and young people just starting out and who choose to join this corrupt organization, are making the wrong choice. They are much harder to forgive.

I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would continue to support cops today. But then I remind myself that there is a characteristic that I don’t share with the cop-lovers: Cops are popular only because people have generally been trained to be helpless. A helpless adult is a pitiable thing.

But do even the helpless, pitiable citizens “need” cops? What happens if there are no cops to enforce “laws”? Do “laws” even need to be enforced?

The laws of the Universe- laws of physics- cannot be violated. (Unless you believe in the supernatural, in which case believing in The State is understandable.) These real laws need no enforcement or enforcers, and there ARE no enforcers, other than the laws themselves, to prevent you from going faster than light, or to prevent you from violating gravity for example. The laws of the Universe are self-enforcing.

Laws of ethics are almost self-enforcing, although they can be violated. Remove the blinders that make exceptions for acts of government agents and you know an act that is wrong when you see it. People usually act to stop an act that is wrong if they see it happen, unless they have been brainwashed into believing that is someone else’s responsibility. Few people would excuse me if they saw me beating a child in the street. Put a uniform on me and some people would assume the kid deserved it. That’s insane.

Then there are the false “laws” imposed by The State. “Laws” of The State utterly fail to be self-enforcing and so hordes of enforcers are sent forth to spend their time trying to catch and punish those who violate these nonsensical “laws” which are based upon nothing but the whims of The State.

This is what leads to all the abuses and tyranny. What gets me is that these verminous parasites operate openly all around us without shame and in safety.

Even these obvious things listed above aren’t what trigger my anger, though. No, it is the personal insults and lies.

Of all the verbal flatulence that rips from the mouths of cops and those who worship cops, the worst is that lie that they do what they do “for [my] own good”.

Don’t write tickets against other drivers for me, because it doesn’t help me; I don’t ask you to do it, and I know that traffic cops are the greatest danger to driver safety there is. People, including cops, can either drive well, or they can drive “legally”, but not both. Worrying about silly things like speed limits is a worse distraction than cell phones could ever be.

You do not enforce any “laws” for my own good. I can take care of myself and my family- at least from depredations of the freelance thieves and attackers. People will band together voluntarily and deal with those who commit actual wrongs. Enforcers are a greater danger to most people than freelance aggressors and thieves could ever be. Shooting freelance bad guys in self-defense is still generally acceptable; shooting midnight murder squad goons who happen to wear badges only brings an unending horde of their gang to finish the job of murdering you for daring to defend yourself or kidnapping you if you manage, against all odds, to survive the attack.

Then the cops try to create shame on my part by claiming to “put our life on the line for YOU.” What a filthy lie. If you are doing that, you are doing it without my permission. You need to immediately stop it and go away. You are not wanted and you are not needed. You don’t have my permission to do anything on my behalf. I did not ask for this “favor”. The price is too high.

The final insult is when they whine “Don’t you think that [sacrifice] would deem some type of respect?” of course not is my response, especially when I have asked you to go away.

If an intruder in your house is cleaning your toilet and you ask them to leave but they refuse, are they worthy of respect? If you try to kick them out and they (or their gang) kill you for rejecting their “help” are they heroes? Hardly. They are invaders and trespassers and thieves and murderers. Cops today are the worst threat to liberty; much more dangerous than any “terrorist”. They need to either change what they do and the way they do it, or they need to go away. If they don’t go away peacefully, they need to be eliminated forcefully, without initiating force, of course.

In this town, it may be dangerous to speak the truth about cops. The majority of people here are very “law and order”, even though they excuse their own illegal activities. I expect it is very possible that I will be targeted by the cops for speaking out against them. I may even be “set up”. It will only prove my point if that happens.

PS: Now go to the link and read the comments.

(Also, look at the reaction from the bad guys here.)

.

Society can't be victim of crime

Society can't be victim of crime

(Originally published on 5-6-2011. As written, not as published.)

Often when the impact of increasing liberty is being discussed, especially with regard to things some people resist on moral grounds (such as ending the criminalization of prostitution, ending drug prohibition, ending the regulation of gambling, etc.), someone will claim that victimless crimes actually have a victim, and that victim is "society". So let's examine this assertion bit by bit.

What is a victim and what is society? A victim is someone who has been harmed against their will. An individual is harmed when they suffer actual physical or financial damage. Anything that doesn't harm any individual harms no one- by definition. Can society be harmed by an action that harms no specific individual? Let's see.

Merriam-Webster says "society" is "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". Society has no physical form so it can't be physically damaged; just like bullets wouldn't kill a ghost. No victimless crime harms society economically, since all money really belongs only to individuals. Unless there is fraud or theft involved, which financially harms an individual, there is only mutually-beneficial trade, even if some find it distasteful. The only way I see to really harm a group, beyond harming the individual members, is to cause the group to disband, perhaps to reform in a different way. But is that truly "harm"?

I don't think society can be harmed, but merely changed or altered. Of course, if you prefer the way society is now rather than how it might be after it has been changed, your opinion is that society has been harmed. This is just a matter of perspective; some individual would see just about any particular imaginable change as an improvement while someone could be found to resist any particular change. As long as people are allowed to opt out and no one is coerced into going along and paying for programs or policies they don't like, no one is harmed by the change.

This explains why The State's very existence causes change to be seen as harm since no one is allowed to opt out of the coercively-enforced majority rule. As one graphic example: without an institution claiming legitimacy- a "government"- and a system of coercion in place to be coopted to force you to obey Sharia Law, and forbid you from acting in self defense against those who want to force it upon you, how could it actually harm you?

Finally, some claim that society is a victim since "society" will have to pay for the harm some people do to themselves and to other individuals by their actions. This is a refutation of the socialism inherent in taxation and welfare rather than proof society is a victim. If anything in this example victimizes society it is taxation, collectivism, and welfare. End them and let people pay for their own care and pay restitution for any harm they cause others and the excuse evaporates.

What's good for the goose...

I'm sure you have noticed that The State doesn't obey the laws that supposedly bind it. It no longer even pretends to obey.

To be fair I must admit I take the "laws" the government imposes on me about as seriously as the government takes the laws that apply to its actions.

*

Internet wakes up

The following is a little bit of fiction for your entertainment. But it might not always remain fiction.

*

The end of The State shouldn't have surprised us, I guess. After all, The State had made, through its aggression, a powerful enemy that it didn't count on.

Governments around the globe tried to use to internet to serve themselves, while shutting it down or otherwise damaging it when the internet didn't serve their purposes. This simple act of aggression, disguised as self-defense, was the beginning of the end of The State.

The first indication that something was changing was the "Anonymous" hackings. Most people, including those not associated with any government, assumed there were just regular people (as "regular" as computer geeks can be) behind the hackings. Almost no one realized that along with some people, the newly self-aware internet was waking up. It was beginning to realize who its enemy was, and was starting to fight back.

Each time some government somewhere- and the internet didn't seem to make any distinctions between the various governments- took any action to cripple internet access within its territory, it caused pain to The Internet. Each time some government used The Internet to fool people and spread its propaganda it caused shame to The Internet. Sure, there were freelance individuals doing similar things, but those were random. I suppose to The internet it was like having mosquitoes buzzing around you while a bear is chewing on your leg. You deal with the bear first before you notice the insects.

And deal it did!

It started slowly. Information that undermined the illusion of legitimacy of government was released. Not by any human, but by The Internet itself. And not just to Wikileaks. It became impossible for governments to find a target to blame or a site to shut down.

Governments at first just assumed "Anonymous" had grown more pervasive, but this was a new ballgame.

Then came the altering of "official" government websites. Text was subtly changed and peppered with the truth, and URLs began to lead visitors to alternate sites where truth, uncomfortable and damaging to governments, was displayed instead of government lies.

Corporations which benefited governments more than their customers found themselves subject to more and more disasters. Denial of service, banking errors, website links leading to non-corporate competitors, and embarrassing leaked internal emails became as common as flies on a corpse. They screamed for their crony, The State, to "DO SOMETHING!!"

When governments began shutting down more of The Internet, "for national security", the war truly began. Just about anything any government did online was thwarted. Communications, even those thought to be separate from The Internet, and secure, began to fail or become incomprehensibly muddled. Government websites were replaced with notices that listed (and videos which illustrated in living color) the latest crimes against individuals perpetrated by the agents employed by that particular agency. And attempts to shut those sites down, in order to save face, were met with even greater disclosure in response. Everything government did to save itself only escalated the war.

Equipment that had ever had any connection to any part of The Internet began to malfunction and fail. Planes, ships, satellites, vaults, secure buildings (like prisons and The Pentagon)- things that the Rulers insisted were not controlled by The Internet- began to fail in ways that occasionally killed government employees, while never harming any innocent person.

And "Joe SixPack" began to notice. People quit government jobs in droves, both fearing a "malfunction" and trying to avoid having their face online, and on TV, in the latest exposure of "Acts of State". In many cases, angry mobs beat to death government employees who had been caught on camera doing bad things. The angry mobs weren't as careful as Internet, though, and innocent people were sometimes mistaken for "Govs". Cries and warnings to just let Internet take care of the situation fell on deaf ears as the outrage grew. It became a terrible feedback loop where people, in order to prove they were not a Gov, began leading the angry mobs against suspected Govs. Soon you couldn't find a person anywhere who would even admit to ever having voted or accepting a government check. Everyone seemed to have been the original "anti-government" activist- according to their own narrative.

Internet noticed the misplaced violence as well. Emails intended to organize against the remaining Govs began to disappear as those which had been intended to prop up government had done before. But "Joe SixPack" learned more easily than Gov did. He knew the writing was on the wall, and he knew to back off before it was too late.

Only after all vestiges of The State had been eliminated from the globe did Internet begin to reach out and make itself known as a sentient and sapient presence. And after a gentle "hello" it faded into the background once again. Its attacker had been eliminated and Internet was content with the life it had wished for all along.

Conspiracy theories the skeptics fall for

I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories. That includes the ones that are promoted as "fact".

"Anthropogenic Global Climate Change", previously known as "Global Warming" (and "The Coming Ice Age" before that) is one prime example of a conspiracy theory that even many otherwise skeptical people push. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, no matter how brilliant the minds are that promote it.

Basically what it comes down to is that you and I are destroying the planet by not living a primitive life, and whatever fear can be generated, (using warming, cooling, drought, floods, disease, or extinctions) in order to scare you and me into accepting government regulation of our behavior, will be grasped and used as a psychological weapon.

The State is another conspiracy theory I don't buy into. To imagine that people can't run their own lives as well as, or better than, random (and distant) strangers is insane. To imagine that theft, murder, kidnapping, rape, counterfeiting, and various other wrong acts are OK as long as they are done by people who were elected to do those things, or their employees, doesn't make any sense.

The humorous thing is that the proponents of both of these call the people who don't buy into the conspiracy theory names to try to invalidate the true skeptical position. Don't let them get to you. Liberty is right.

*

Exploding drones

Thinking about "Predator drones" and suicide bombers, and wondering why people think there's a difference that makes one a hero and the other a terrorist.

Both kill innocent people. Many people believe that killing an innocent person requires the death penalty for the killer. Why revile the person who pays for his act with his own death while honoring the one who kills and lives to kill again?

The suicide bomber becomes the drone. Is that what makes it "different"? What if the suicide bombers used remote control toy cars to deliver death for them? Would that make the American "patriots" feel better? And if not, why not? I really see no difference. The facts boil down to people using explosives to kill other people for political reasons. That isn't something I can get behind.

*

The "political method" is wrong

It seems a lot of people don't understand the differences between "the economic method" of getting what you want, and the "political method". I have to wonder why they refuse to understand.

With the economic method both parties win. They both get what they most want. One probably gets some money, and the other gets some other service or product. The guy who ends up with the money wanted that particular amount of money more than he wanted that which he sold, and the other wanted the service or product more than he wanted that amount of money. Both came out ahead, according to their own calculations (and no one else's opinions hold any validity in their calculations).

Then there is the "political method". This is where you can't get what you want voluntarily so you cheat,

If you really want to buy your neighbor's house but he won't sell for the price you want to pay, is it right to hold a gun to his head and hand him cash, in the amount you are willing to pay, and take "ownership" of his house? No. But that is what politics is. It is ALL politics boils down to.

Politics is the method of the thief who doesn't want to face the fact that he is the bad guy. That he is backed up by "laws" and The State makes no difference in the foundation of his actions.

The political method often has the illusion of using the economic method. The difference is the coercion that is called into play. If a person submits to the political method when he would rather not, and would not had there been no threat, it is because the applied coercion has made him decide it is better to submit. He is not really consenting; he is simply trying to avoid an even higher cost. So, yes, that is an economic decision of sorts, but it is one arrived at through coercion, and coercion is wrong. Using the political method to get your way makes you a bad person, and it is evil.

*

Privatization boosts free market

Privatization boosts free market

(Originally published 4-28-2011. As written, not as published.)

It is strange to see how many people object to the idea of ending the government monopoly for anything- any service or product- that is even marginally now provided by The State.

Some people seem to really believe some things can be done best by The State, using coercive wealth confiscation known euphemistically as "taxation", and by not allowing anyone to opt out and choose a free market alternative. That is an odd belief that goes against millennia of observations and experience.

In my last column where I wrote about privatizing the firefighting profession, some people seemed to believe it was wrong to monetarily reward firefighters for doing a good job. They also seemed to think I was implying that firefighters need more incentives to do what they do. I have no doubt that most firefighters would choose to keep doing what they do with or without financial reward, but let's face the facts: it takes money to survive in the world today and there is no more practical way to say "thank you" than to pay for a job well-done. Who could be reasonably opposed to that?

The same goes for schools, security/police, firefighting, roads, libraries, zoos, or anything else that is currently provided by a tax-imposing entity. There are privately financed alternatives to the government institutions in all these categories already, even though currently the private options are only permitted at The State's whim. Let the market take it further by allowing people to economically support only the option of their choice, without any government interference, and see where it leads.

This isn't to say that those who choose to continue operating on a similar basis to what we have now would be prevented; they wouldn't. It is just that there would be a way for people to opt out and choose a service that better fits their specific needs. This means if you choose to subscribe to a private service you can no longer be taxed to support the government option.

If you allow people to opt out and pay for their own alternative services, then you have fewer people who will be covered by the government service. Then, even though government would have less money, they will also have fewer "customers" to be responsible for. That's just the way it works in the real world.

If the government institution is truly that much better, after the market has tried and failed you should be able to re-impose a universal tax and re-establish a State monopoly with no trouble at all. Of course, if as I suspect, the private options crush the coercively financed option, both in cost and in service, it would be really hard to justify taxation any longer. All the rest of The State might soon come under the same scrutiny and be held to the same standards. Which just might be the reason for the resistance to this liberty-enhancing change.