Does Liberty require bravery? Is statism for cowards?

Do you do the right thing, knowing there will be unfortunate consequences?

Do you respect the property rights of others even if you know they may well use their property against you in the future?

Do you support the right of humans to travel anywhere they want to go, with the permission of property owners, even knowing some bad guys are among them?

Do you defend the rights of others to make their own mistakes, knowing some innocent could still be harmed?

If not, why not?

.

Free society can survive just fine

Free society can survive just fine

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 24, 2014)

"But who will build the roads?"

Not only does this question come up anytime someone discusses eliminating government altogether; it comes up when anyone discusses cutting it back- as an example of "essential" minimal government.

What is it about roads that they can't exist without government?

Governments don't build roads. They hire contractors to do the work. So "who would build the roads?" The same people who build them now.

Governments don't even pay those contractors- they coercively extract, from the people, the money paid to the contractors. So, "Who would pay?" The same people who pay now: those who benefit from the road.

Bureaucracy makes everything more expensive, and stifles or prevents innovation, which decreases quality. Roads freed of government would have an automatic advantage in both areas.

When individuals profit or otherwise benefit from a road touching their property, the act of "eminent domain" loses justification.

People who object to privately owned roads complain about paying tolls, falsely believing the roads are "free" now, and believing private roads would be too expensive. You get what you pay for, but government always comes at a premium. Tolls are not the only way roads might be financed. Businesses eager for your patronage could chip in to ensure good roads lead you to their doors.

Not only that, but individuals and companies who owned roads would not be able to duck responsibility for poor road conditions. They could be held personally responsible if they allowed ice or a pothole to damage your car, or a drunk driver to crash into you.

That's right- privately owned roads could still forbid drunk driving. However, they probably couldn't get away with sobriety checkpoints. Their customers might flock to a competitor who didn't hire highwaymen to waylay and molest travelers without cause. People who believe checkpoints increase safety could still choose that route.

I also wonder why people assume a free society would continue to need roads as we know them. Pavement only matters because our cars bounce alone, dependent upon the surface conditions. The flying cars we were promised half a century ago can't seem to get past the various red tape traps erected by governments. The same red tape prevents innovation which could even make future wheeled cars lose the need for a paved ribbon beneath them.

Private vehicles have been a boon for liberty, and governments have- almost from the start- sought ways to infringe this liberty by increasing the cost, inconvenience, and by limiting the allowable benefits. It's time to end this war on travel.

If something is necessary and wanted, a free society will provide it. Better, cheaper, and in more variety than you can possibly imagine.
.

Aggressive non-aggression?

Can you be aggressive without actual aggression being the result?

I think it's possible.

Speaking aggressively, or behaving or pointing in "an aggressive way" still isn't aggression- no force has been initiated- but could be an indication of imminent aggression. A warning to those around to be on guard. Perhaps it is covered under the part of the ZAP which states: "...nor to advocate ... its initiation". It could be taken as a credible threat.

In most cases, acting as if you might soon initiate force could bring self defensive actions into your life- and most people wouldn't blame the person you were focused on.

It's probably better to remain calm and not behave in ways that will probably be seen as "aggressive" unless the situation really calls for you to use violence in defense of person or property. Just to make sure to stay on the right side.

And wearing gang colors- excuse me, uniforms- could well step over that line. 

.

Happy slaves and happy statists

Would it be better to be a happy slave or an unhappy free human? It depends on your definition of "better" I suppose, but I think happiness is preferable. I almost envy those who can be happy slaves. I couldn't be- not without having large portions of my brain removed or destroyed.

And, I'm not sure I could be happy even if I were totally free, if certain things remained lacking in my personal life. Would real freedom make those things more likely to find? I guess that depends on what keeps me from finding them- if it's just personal flaws, then freedom probably wouldn't help much.

That doesn't mean it's better to be a happy statist than an unhappy voluntaryist, though.

A slave isn't harming others by his enslavement. The fault isn't really his, but his enslaver's.

A statist, however, would be hard pressed to remain harmless to those around him, just by virtue (or lack thereof) of his belief in the legitimacy of theft and aggression. And if his "happiness" depended on him coercing and stealing, then his happiness is a terrible thing. Everyone else would be better off if he were miserably unhappy.

So, although it is tragic to be free, and non-aggressive, and yet still not happy, to me it seems much more tragic to be enslaved and unhappy. And there just isn't any good to be found in being a statist, happy or not.

.

Attracted to aggressors

So, a woman thinks she wants to marry Charles Manson. That's bizarre, but it's her business.

It's also no more bizarre than women who are attracted to cops or those in the military.

So, why do people seem to be shocked by her decision, but not by women who chase uniforms? If you are attracted to aggressive individuals (including, obviously, those who "only" advocate and delegate aggression), what difference does it make how they carry out their evil? Why would it matter that their aggression is "officially sanctioned"?

It really doesn't.

It seems like a psychological problem to me.

.

Patriarchy

I know this will make some people unhappy.

To clarify my point, I'm against any sort of "-archy" except anarchy. That would include patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, or whatever else you might come up with.

But, when I see people targeting patriarchy specifically- as seems to be the hot new trend- I feel like they are saying that because patriarchy has violated them, now that they have the political power to pull it off, they'll use The State to make sure I get violated for a while to balance things out. That would be aggression.

I'm not claiming that is the real intent, but it sure feels like it.

It feels evil.

I don't want any "laws" to enforce patriarchy, nor to forbid it. It's not within any State's authority either way. Rules made up by Rulers that focus on one group of people, to benefit them or to harm them, are wrong. They are counterfeit rules.

Let individuals choose whether to associate with those who single out "groups". Let the power of  shunning and ostracism work its magic. Let people make foolish choices and suffer the consequences. And stop playing into the politics of division. The ZAP is universal, and theft is wrong no matter who you are. Nothing else is really needed, but just serves to drive a wedge where it can do the most harm. Please stop helping those who want to divide us.

.

Ethan Nadelmann: "Why we need to end the war on drugs".

Even considering the things he's gotten wrong, this is a very good talk.

First of all, "we" don't need to do anything- other than withdraw consent, perhaps. I did end my own war on politically incorrect drugs. Decades ago. I came to realize how ridiculous supporting prohibition was- or is. How hypocritical, since everyone uses "drugs". I haven't used any "illegal" drugs in years, nor have I used any "legal" drugs in "illegal" ways recently (that I can think of). Not because those things are "illegal", but because I haven't wanted to. "Laws" mean about as much to me as the opinions of a drooling idiot- because that's exactly what they are: idiotic opinions, backed up by bullies with guns, which you and I were forced to buy for them to use against us.

There should be no "policy" regarding drugs, beyond "if you don't like them, don't use them" or "if I catch you coming to work stoned, you're fired". It is no government's business. I don't want drugs "taxed" or "regulated" like alcohol (which I also know shouldn't be "taxed" or "regulated"). Those things are just new, sick facets of prohibition. They empower and finance The State, and are just evidence of the troglodytes who are still desperately clinging to the failed experiment of The State.

Drug abuse can be bad. Prohibition is always horrible- much, much worse than any drug abuse can ever be.

Don't do drugs? Don't do prohibition!!

.

David Brown's "The Case of the Cockamamie Killer"

Recently, author David Brown sent me a PDF copy of his book, The Case of the Cockamamie Killer. I'll just say I'm probably not the greatest book reviewer, but I enjoyed reading it.

The tale made me hate the bad guys even worse than I already normally do (the IRS, which has nothing to love about it, anyway) and cheer their fate, and made me identify with the protagonist, even with him being as different from me as he could be. I'm not sure I would have his determination in the face of such evil- but I hope I would. I'm also not sure I could bounce back from such extreme abuse as quickly as he does. I admired his resiliency, resourcefulness, and attitude.

I'll admit to initially being shocked by the sexual preference and trysts of the main character. It just wasn't what I was expecting. I quickly got over that and got back into the story. I enjoy seeing things from a different perspective anyway.

There were some nice libertarian themes throughout the book, but nothing preachy. And the protagonist wasn't perfect, but he was understandable and likable.

It's not a long book- particularly since I just finished reading The Count of Monte Cristo. If you enjoy detective stories, you might enjoy this one.

.

Liberty doesn’t require you to vote

Liberty doesn’t require you to vote

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 17, 2014)

The great national distraction is approaching. Yes, election day is just around the corner. Campaign signs are popping up in yards and in unclaimed "public" spaces- touting this or that politician or government financing scheme.

People mistake this fervor for "doing something".

I am told to choose between Fascistic Socialist Candidate A or Fascistic Socialist Candidate B. One choice will destroy society and enslave the people, while the other will bring Utopia- or at least delay the decay.

Then, I am told I must choose how my money will be confiscated to pay for government; never is the option to cut off all funding and retain my property placed on the table.

Few would be mature enough, or brave enough, to choose that option, anyway.

It's odd that the only choices I see offered concern who you'll have violating your life, liberty, and property in the near future, depending on which "side" you vote for. Rightful Liberty, empowered by self-ownership and self responsibility, free of official violation, is never offered as an option. It's antimatter to politics.

If you see the game is rigged and refuse to keep playing, you are told you have "lost" your right to complain. This seems backwards to me, since if I refuse to play Russian Roulette, I am not forced to risk my life based on the results of the game, while those who choose to play are explicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome. If you choose to jump off a bridge, don't get upset that I won't hold your hand on your way to oblivion.

If you still believe voting can change things, but insist on voting for the best candidate rather than choosing the lesser of two evils, nationally famous loudmouths, such as Ann Coulter, might threaten to drown you for daring to reject the anointed choices. As if you are obligated to the two "mainstream parties", and not voting for one or the other is stealing votes from them.

Remember: no matter how you vote, government wins every election.

Fortunately, you never need to vote for liberty. Liberty just is. You simply claim it and live it. Rights are never subject to a vote, nor to majority opinion or the law. All those other things can violate your rights by making liberty "illegal". What else would you expect? There will always be those who waylay others for their twisted purposes. You may as well accept it and learn to deal with them.

Participate in the pageant of politics if you enjoy it, but don't expect your participation to really improve anything. You might as well vote to change the colors of the rainbow.

.

"Capitalism" can't be the problem

People who "go off" about capitalism amuse me. Generally, what they are upset about isn't capitalism, but "crony capitalism"/corporatism. Fascism.

It's just easier to whine about capitalism, I suppose. Or trendier. As long as you can hang on to your ignorance, anyway.

• capitalism noun 1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I just can't see what anyone could object to there unless they subscribe to the bizarre notions that private property is evil or "no one can own property". And if that's the case... well, it's hard to debate self-contradictory craziness.

I also don't see any capitalism happening around me.

Even corporations aren't allowed to own the "means of production", control distribution, or exchange wealth without massive State interference- and these corporations are the ones supposedly controlling the government (according to the capitalism haters). You and I both know corporations embrace the meddling (and even promote it to The State) because they already have teams of lawyers, and lots of money, to comply with the new red tape, while upstart competitors find each new requirement makes it harder to get started,

I have some sympathy for the ignorant anti-capitalists. At least until the facts are explained to them. After that, ignorance is no longer an excuse. Pure stupidity or evil are all that remain.

.

"Argumentum ad Hitlerum"

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who try to prevent you from speaking honestly of history hope to repeat it- from the "winning" side.

It's why comparing people who share characteristics with Hitler to Hitler is greatly frowned upon.

If they can make you feel guilty for noticing the similarities, they can shame you into silence. Until it's too late.

Obviously, few politicians alive today have approached the body count of Hitler or other dead tyrants, but it's a matter of scale, not character. Given the opportunity and popular support do you doubt any US president (or "serious" presidential contender) of the past 50 years would have had the principles to not become a Hitler? Do you honestly believe the next president- whoever it might be- would have the character and principles to reject that kind of death and destruction if "the people" became convinced it would make them "safer"? If so, I don't think you have learned from history.

.

Who's on the right side?

Cops should like me. I am on the side cops pretend to be on. I am against theft and aggression. I advocate stepping up and defending people who become victims of either one. Isn't this what cops are supposedly in favor of? Isn't this why many of them claim they took the job?

If a cop opposes me it exposes that he isn't on the side he pretends. It shows he's on the side of the bad guys. Yes, it is as simple as that.

If you are on the side of Rightful Liberty, and opposed to counterfeit "laws" (which, by definition, violate Rightful Liberty) and the enforcement of those "laws", then you are on the right side. Those who oppose you are simply exposing themselves as the bad guys they truly are.

They'll never be honest about it, so I'll continue to point at them and draw attention to what they are.

.

You are only responsible for your own actions

It's the hardest thing to let people make what you believe to be mistakes- by living a life of dependency or entitlement, or working for the State- when it isn't your business to stop them.

The State is a trap. It may look good in the short term. "Free stuff" or a theft-financed paycheck. It's easier than doing the work required to get it by mutual consent. But too many of our loved ones- or people we are thrust into association with- don't see it that way.

It's normal for decent people to want to warn someone they see stepping into a trap- to save them from themselves. But, if you warn them and they insist on stepping in it anyway, it's not your fault. For them to then be angry at you for your concern is absurd. And, for other observers to somehow blame you for "allowing" it to happen is just as ridiculous.

And, when it goes badly for them it's not your fault.

You can even be justified in saying "I told you so". Because, it's the State; what do you expect? Such comments will not be appreciated, but the truth is often unpopular.

.

If possible, please donate or subscribe

OK. Sorry to interrupt and do this again, but I'm in need of some extra funds. The things I have been doing to try to get extra money aren't paying off, and I hate to ask.... but I'm asking.

So, if you can and you want to, please donate or subscribe at the buttons to the right. At this moment, Paypal is more immediately helpful than Bitcoin- although I won't complain about Bitcoin.

Thank you, and I'm very sorry to be asking.

.

Net "Neutrality"?

"Net neutrality" isn't neutral. It is pro-State in the extreme. Pro-tyranny.

It is to internet access what Soylent Green is to food. I guess that makes Soylent Green "Food Neutrality".

Yeah, no thank you. I don't want some bureaucrat or puppetician's ideas of "net neutrality" screwing up the internet and making it less of a threat to their plans.

Keep your filthy State- and its legal excrement- off the internet and all forms of communication.

.

Killing cops?

I don't advocate for anyone to go out and kill cops.

I DO advocate for everyone to defend themselves and their property from aggression and theft with whatever amount of force they have to. Including deadly force.

If cops (or copsuckers) see that as calling for cops to be killed, then, obviously, they are admitting that what cops do- or are likely to do- could be seen to qualify as aggression and theft.

That means someone does need to change their ways, but it isn't me.

.

Health crises work themselves out

Health crises work themselves out

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 10, 2014.)

Sometimes it takes me a while to realize when people are seriously concerned over something like the current Ebola scare.

I've seen enough of these well-publicized health crises fizzle to know they generally work themselves out before much happens. As an American you are nine times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by terrorists, and you are much more likely to die of something boring, like heart disease, than Ebola. It's just not as dramatic and newsworthy.

We see how government is handling the Ebola scare- either as well as can be expected, or on par with the average preschooler, depending on who you believe. Everyone has their own ideas of what government should be doing, but how could a free society deal with such a terrible disease in the absence of The State?

Since a free society would have no borders of the kind you have become accustomed to, but private property lines instead, there would be no such issue as "immigration". People would either be trespassing or not, and property owners, not government, would be making that determination. So immigration is irrelevant for this discussion.

Airlines (and other transportation providers) would be free to set any rules they see fit for passengers, including cutting off service to places with dangerous epidemics or even requiring on-site medical tests before allowing anyone to board. Failure to take sufficient precautions could scare people away from using their service, could cause liability problems and restitution owed, and might drive them out of business.

At home, a free society wouldn't be confiscating money through "taxation", but experience shows people will chip in when they know it's in their interest to do so. Since it would be in just about everyone's best interest to treat and cure epidemic diseases, charitable hospitals and research facilities would probably be common, well-funded, and would cover the medical bills of those unable to afford even the vastly less expensive and more advanced medical care which will have been freed from the burden of government rationing and regulation.

A sick person who chooses to expose people to his communicable disease, actively infecting others, is just as guilty of aggression as someone shooting into a crowd. This could mean forcible quarantine if he didn't voluntarily cooperate and permit treatment. As a last resort, a contagious person could even be subject to self defensive violence of a more direct nature.

No one can predict exactly how a free society would approach such a problem without violating any innocent individual, but judging by history, and by what is happening now, government's supporters have no better answers.
.

Thank you for your service

To the girl who I watched sweeping the floor of the fast food place, smiling even as she did a job I knew she probably didn't love, Thank you for your service.

To the guy at the register of the store where I ran in to buy a couple of things, Thank you for your service.

To the person who delivered my daughter's favorite chips to the convenience store, Thank you for your service.

To the person who recently helped me at the tire store, Thank you for your service.

To Jillian at Amagi Metals, Thank you for your service.

To those who keep civilization running in spite of the best efforts of government, Thank you for your service.

You make my life immeasurably better, and I am completely serious when I say Thank you for your service. No one else's "service" even comes close. Especially not those whose "service" only helps the bad guys gain and retain power. That's a "service" I would prefer to do without.

.

Choices and consequences

If you choose the life of a test pilot, you greatly increase your odds of dying in a crash. Sure, you could be minding your own business and have a test flight crash on top of you, but it's unlikely.

 If you immerse yourself in the company of aggressors, you greatly increase the odds of being a victim of aggression- even if you are completely innocent.

 It turns out that the girl murdered on the trail here yesterday made that particular bad choice.

Her fiance is in jail for murdering another guy back in 2013, and was already a career thug when he got arrested for that death. Even if he is innocent of everything he has been accused of, it would still be unwise to stay close to him if you value your own safety or the safety of your kids. He was obviously immersed in the local aggressor culture, which she then became a part of by willingly choosing to associate with him. Why would anyone willingly choose to make themselves a part of that company?

 No, I am not saying "she deserved it". She didn't. But choices have consequences, even if they aren't "fair". If you surround yourself with people who employ aggression or who hang around with people who do, don't be too surprised when some of it spills over onto you or your loved ones. You can love someone and still understand that, for your sake and the sake of your kids, you have got to drop them like a radioactive diseased skunk.

In a perfect world you would only face consequences for the actions you take. As long as you weren't the aggressor, no harm would come to you. You could love, live with, and hang around with Hitler, a gangbanger, or a cop, and no matter what they were involved in, nothing would rub off on you. We all know the world is not perfect, and you can't just do whatever you want and expect no negative consequences will come of it. It's not fair; it's reality. Go into it with your eyes wide open, and think about whether it is really worth it.

.

"Sovereign citizens"

Besides some of the consistency problems the "sovereign citizen" folk have in other areas, such as philosophically, the very name they call themselves is completely self-contradictory. "Sovereign"? "Citizen"? Pick one or the other- you can't be both.

"Sovereign" individuals own their own life and the products of that life. It doesn't mean they are immune to being robbed by thieves, but anyone can be robbed. You are sovereign; act like it.

"Citizens" are owned by a State. They are said, by definition, to "owe allegiance" to that State. That's the opposite of self ownership.

They are basically claiming to be "self-owning property"- a "self-owning slave". That term would make just as much sense. Which is none.

I understand the sentiment- or at least some of it. They want to express their independence, while celebrating what they think of as "their country" or "patriotic heritage". But, really, there must be a more sensible way to express that sentiment. Or, just drop all the contradictions and come to the free side. We have... well, everything worth having.

.