"All rise as we recite..."

I don't lead children (not even my own) in anarchist chants. I am not out to indoctrinate anyone.

Even if there were a "pledge of Rightful Liberty" I wouldn't make kids recite it. Nor would I make them parrot the Zero Aggression Principle back on cue.

Statists do make kids recite statist chants, though. All the time. In ways both open and hidden.

That's probably why there are so many more statists.

-

GoFundMe?

.

See a good idea? Grab it.

All good ideas are essentially libertarian in nature. Yes, really.

Anyone can have good ideas you should adopt. I get good ideas from people who oppose everything I stand for all the time, because most people are libertarian in their personal lives- otherwise they would be dead. This means they already have libertarian ideas bouncing around inside their skulls. Sometimes those ideas will become public. When they do, grab them.

Any idea which advocates initiation of force or theft is not a good idea. The advocate may believe it's "necessary", or "pragmatic", or some other dishonest justification, but it still isn't a good idea. And it's an anti-libertarian idea.

So, even if the most despicable statist you have ever heard of comes up with a good idea, accept it. If it's good, it's libertarian.

-

GoFundMe?

Answering a possible Borderist

(Previously posted to Patreon)

And I say "possible" because I am not quite certain I understood his point.

Sometimes I get an email I must answer at length. This is one such, inspired by my latest CNJ column:

Human have been migrants for 6,000 to millions of years, i.e. for as long as there have been humans. There are still migrants, willing to move to better their lives. As a retired couple, travelling around in our 5th wheel, the majority of people we meet are migrant Workers. There are the non-migrants that expect the Government provide them with all that they need to live. People take out huge mortgages and then lie to themselves that they own their own home. If their job disappears, the Government is responsible for them to keep their home. If not, they walk and it is evil banks that are responsible for their loss of home. People even Believe that the Government will save the world from “Climate Change,” creating a “Garden of Eden,” where they and their progeny can stay forever and ever. There are migrants that are willing to migrate to where there are jobs, opportunities; the right climate. Not sure why you want to denigrate migrants and bait and switch them with people who are in the US illegally. Wouldn’t that be the “hate” you are religiously judging people of a certain political persuasion to possess?
Waving the Federal flag in their face? You have political parties confused. Republicans want States’ Rights and the Democrat Party wants a strong, centralized “Federal” Government in Washington, DC controlling “We The People.” BTW: the Supreme Entity of the Federal Government has turned our secular government into a Religion/Church. The SCOTUS morally judges “We The People” and commands us how our laws should read.
Calling people who are in the US illegally makes them illegals, rapists and murderers is wrong in your mind? How is that different than saying people who are in the US legally are citizens, Democrats and Republicans? This is not an all or nothing reality. What is rape? 99% of the time it has nothing to do with “sex.” What is murder? People murder Shakespeare all of the time.
In reality, most emigrants, whether legal or illegal, are attempting to be independent and self-reliant. It is the people that Believe that the Federal Church of the United States Government is responsible for the welfare of its flock that is “denying” independence and self-reliance.
Trump, for example, has specifically explained what behaviors he would defend against and then you bait and switch to make it all inclusive. All illegals are migrants or emigrants. Not all migrants and emigrants are illegals. One can’t arbitrarily bounce between these three distinct definitions for the benefit of profit or political gain. But it is obviously done every day. You claim you aren’t taking sides? It is obvious that you have in this case. Don’t you find it ironic that while the Democrat Party claims to “hate” Christians, the majority of issues on their platform comes directly from the Judeo/Christian Bible? Don’t you find it equally ironic that the Republican Party preaches “Family values,” the majority of issues on their platform is derived from the Theory of Evolution: Survival of the Fittest; Adapt; and their favorite Natural Selection?

So, I answered. You'll get a sneak peak at a blog entry I am in the process of writing, because it fit in with what I needed to say to him.:

Thanks for taking the time to write. I'm not quite sure where you were going, but if you think for a moment I believe in "government" or want it to do anything, to anyone or "for" anyone, you are mistaken.
There can be no such thing as an "illegal" person. I am not a believer in documents binding people who didn't physically agree to them, but most people who speak of "illegals" are, and yet the Constitution doesn't allow "immigration control"- it does allow control over the number of slaves imported, but that is different. Until the late 1800s no one believed the government could tell people where they were allowed to live. Since then many different groups have been targeted for "immigrant" paranoia: Catholics, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. It just so happens that the scary "immigrant" of the moment is Hispanics.
One reason those words- migrant, emigrant, immigrant- have different meanings is because people use language to trick people into believing what they want them to believe. And, no person can be an "illegal".
A migrant is someone who moves to a new place.
An immigrant is someone who moves into a new place claimed by a different gang of thugs than the place he left.
An emigrant is someone who moves away from where he lived before. I don't denigrate migrants, because there is nothing wrong with being an "immigrant".
An "illegal" is someone who moved to a new place in spite of unconstitutional "laws"- and the Supreme Court even declared in the early 1800s that any "law" contrary to the Constitution isn't a real law and no one is obligated to obey it. No one. "Immigration control" is a perfect example of that.
Borderists make a lot of assumptions about me based on my unyielding respect for Rightful Liberty. And, if you don't know what Rightful Liberty is, here is Thomas Jefferson's explanation: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." Jefferson knew what a counterfeit "law" was.
Here is some clarification about what I actually believe from an upcoming blog I have written:
I believe in private property, and I think shooting someone for trespassing is sometimes the right thing to do. I would never want to second guess a person who shoots a trespasser- especially an adult trespasser. Or a trespasser who is littering and damaging the property, or threatening the owners.
I would not sit still for people moving into my house and declaring they will live there. But I don't own your house and I know I have no say in who you invite into yours. To pretend otherwise is a form of theft.
I do not want to see "others" move into the area until they outnumber me and begin to push me around. In the same way, I don't like that I am outnumbered and surrounded by people who follow religions I find abhorrent even now. Religions very popular with mainstream America. Including the world's most popular religion: statism.
I do believe some religions are worse than others, and some cultures are sick and twisted.
I do not believe "The Country" negates private property of those living inside the government's imaginary borders, but that this belief directly violates private property rights in the most evil way imaginable- by utterly ignoring or denying them. Just like those the borderists want "government" to protect them from.
I do not believe violating your property rights to make myself more comfortable is right. I don't believe using the force of government to dictate who you can allow onto your property, or rent to or hire, is the answer. It is wrong.
I do not advocate stealing from you ("taxation") to finance a gang to patrol the "borders" and to molest people both along the "borders" and well away from those "borders". Theft is theft, and everything such a gang does- except in rare instances- is an initiation of force.
Borderism is socialism. Sometimes it is even communism. It is always collectivism, theft, and aggression- which is what statism is.
Those who are setting up an armed guard to repel trespassers are acting as though they believe in their own property rights, but by advocating "borders" and "immigration control" they are acting as though they don't believe in private property at all, but only collective property administered by a State. Which makes me see them as being contradictory and deluded. I would gladly help protect my neighbor's property from invaders, using force or arms, unless he advocated taking my property from me under the guise of "government".
If that's what you advocate, own it. Stop complaining when I or others point it out. If your position is right, why be ashamed and why get angry?
I don't believe in government at all, particularly not that it can create a Garden of Eden. I believe all welfare, including Social Security, farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, government pensions, medicaid/medicare should be ended immediately.
There is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't matter if you value "state's rights" over individual rights, or "federal rights" over individual rights. Because "states" and "the federal government" can have no rights. Rights are purely individual, not collective. No collective can have rights- they can have power, but that power is never legitimate- and there is no such thing as "authority" (belief in "authority" is the most dangerous superstition). And most of the people I see worshiping the federal flag most reverently call themselves Republicans, even as they claim to want "state's rights". It's odd. I find Democrats and Republicans equally statist and equally disgusting and dishonest. They only vary in how they propose to violate Rightful Liberty and sacrifice the individual to the collective. If a person who calls himself by one of those labels actually respects Rightful Liberty, then he is showing, by his beliefs and the actions which will result from those beliefs, that he isn't a Good Democrat/Republican, but is instead a good person. You really can't be both.
If an individual commits aggression or property violation, then that individual is guilty. Be it rape, murder, or whatever. Calling people you associate with him a rapist/whatever is wrong if that individual didn't commit that specific act. And, again, breaking counterfeit :laws" isn't wrong, so calling a person who ignored "immigration laws" and "illegal" is dishonest. Are you an "illegal" if you ignore some unconstitutional anti-gun "law"? Not at all. But that's the argument of those who call people "illegals" for ignoring unconstitutional "immigration laws". It simply won't fly.

.

Perfection

Abraham Lincoln may just be the perfect politician. He is all things to all statists.

Racists can love him because he was a racist. Abolitionists can love him because the most visible form of slavery ended about the time he died, and he is credited with ending it.

"Conservatives" can love him because he was a Republican. Liberals can love him because he acted in a "progressive" way by bringing an end to the status quo (by ending the "union" and replacing it with "The Union". He "saved" America by replacing it with The United Stated. This is like saying your life has been saved by turning you into a zombie).

Yep. Good ol' Abe Lincoln; the statists' patron saint. How disgusting he was.

-

GoFundMe?

Here, let me fix that

How to solve the "mass shooting problem"- or any other social (or, rather, anti-social) problem:
Make the Zero Aggression Principle normal and expose any and all exceptions. Don't excuse violations by anyone because of their "job", position, or office.

That's all it takes.

Why wait?

-

GoFundMe?

Anti-gunners' predictability

(Previously posted to Patreon)

That feeling of dismay.

I'm sure you know it. It happens when you see yet another headline saying something about "Guns in the U.S."- and you know the author is going to repeat the same agenda-skewed lies and irrelevancies you've heard over and over and over.

Yep, that's the feeling I felt when I saw this: "Guns in the U.S.".

Michael Shermer is a frightened "libertarian", just like Scott Adams. Wishy-washy and unable to stick to principles and reality. He is happy enough to embrace libertarianish reason, unless it leads to conclusions he doesn't want to face. In that case he'll embrace the "progressive" agenda. It makes him look more intelligent. Or so he believes.

What it actually does is expose him as a coward. He's frightened of your liberty and doesn't want to be responsible for his own defense. And that's sad.

I could go through the whole article and point out the bad assumptions, the way the "data" was milked to get the numbers to come out the way the anti-liberty bigots wanted them to come out, and point out what was purposely left out... but I've done it to similar misleading articles in the past, and so have many other people. And the "smart" quasi-libertarians won't listen anyway.

I'm sure Shermer would blame cognitive dissonance for my reaction to seeing his article. The reality is, it isn't cognitive dissonance; it's experience. I've been down this road too many times. And I have the ability to see through the rhetoric to the agenda beneath. Even his "additional thoughts" at the end of the piece expose the faulty conclusions of the rest of it- and yet he still stands by his position. I think there's a phrase for that...

.

"Back to the Future Day" and time travel

Long ago, before I got one of these "computer" things, and while living in a location more befitting my personality, I spent hours each and every day (after work or on my days off) sitting beside a campfire. Yes, I ignored government "burn bans" completely.

Between my house and the river was my camp. My tipi was set up there. I had my tomahawk block handy for when I felt like a bit of activity. I had my setup for processing deer skins into buckskin.

And I had my wikiup.

That's where my campfire was. In winter I would sweep away the new snow before I built my daily fire. In summer I would sometimes crawl into the wikiup to weather a mountain shower. On the floor of the wikiup was a raw elk hide, beneath which the voles had made their little half tunnels. Voles would also run along the beams inside the wikiup as I sat watching. Often, if the rain continued for very long, I would fall asleep for a while- waking up to bright sun.

I had built the wikiup using only materials collected on site. And, as an extra challenge, I had used no tools but my hands and maybe a few rocks. Not even a knife.

Generally I sat outside, on a log in front of the elk hide door of the wikiup, right beside my fire. I never used anything more modern than flint and steel to light the fire- and almost exclusively used the bow drill. Even if I was very tired- or it was raining or snowing- I couldn't bring myself to use matches or a lighter. I got very good at firemaking with all the practice.

My black powder rifle normally hung nearby on a tripod I had constructed for "storage". I usually wore my buckskin clothes while out there. Modernity of any sort seemed out of place. This was the most free I have ever felt.

I would watch rafting tourists and kayakers drift past (and sometimes get dumped into the icy cold water). The times I let them see me, they would usually just stare and forget to return my wave.

And, the fireside is where I chose to socialize. I had a couple of friends who knew this was where to find me. They would show up to sit and visit. One friend would come to tell me about the people who were after him for whatever reason, and his latest "anti-government" theories. And sometimes about his newest run-in with the local "Law". He had a lot of them.

I even helped out lost tourists. Usually lost fishermen who somehow "lost" the river while walking to a new spot to try. Or their cute wives and daughters. Never did figure out how they could lose the river. But, I enjoyed helping the occasional Damsel in Distress find her way back to her family group. Thoughts of shooting people for trespassing never entered my mind.

Well, maybe that's not totally correct. Sometimes rafters/kayakers would beach and poop in my "yard" (in the woods) near the river. There are drawbacks to everything.

Sitting beside that campfire is also how I spent midnight when the calendar rolled over from 1999 to 2000. That night I had no idea my time there was quickly running out.

I guess I am just thinking lately of how drastically my life has changed in "only" 15 years.

Marty McFly and his DeLorean have nothing on me. It's October 21, 2015- the "future" day he supposedly visited in Back to the Future 2. A good day to think about time. I honestly feel like a time traveler most of the time. Maybe now you can understand why.

View out the door of the wikiup

-

GoFundMe?

Appeal of statism understandable

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 18, 2015)

Since it’s a good idea to try to understand the opposition, I try to understand non-libertarians.

I’m not speaking of those who are not part of the Libertarian Party (neither am I), but those who reject the ideas that it is wrong to use violence against those who are neither being violent nor violating property, and that it is wrong to violate property.

Ignore for now the bad guys who rob and attack. They are what they are. Instead, focus with me on those who want to be decent people, but reject the foundation which makes decency possible. Most of these substitute government for principle.

I understand the appeal of statism- the belief that all people should be governed by other people- which is separate from the belief that people should control (govern) their own behavior.

There are bad people out there. Some people want to feel safe from them, and think governments, laws, and enforcers can create safety. They believe the benefits of governing outweigh the risks, and that freelance bad guys are a greater risk than are people to whom power is given- people drawn from the same population known to contain bad guys. They pretend bad guys won't be attracted to a position of power where they can do the bad things they desire, but with "authority" to give their behaviors a veil of legitimacy. Besides, Aunt Tilly feels safer this way.

I understand, but think they are mistaken and Utopian.

I also understand the attraction of nationalism. It's nice to feel a sense of belonging to a group; something bigger than oneself. Instead of actually accomplishing things personally, the nationalist can say "We beat the Commies!" and feel pride in something he had no part in. Or even something he unwittingly monkey-wrenched, but which happened in spite of his "help".

Plus, there is always the comfort of familiar rituals and symbols. Humans crave rituals and create them around the most mundane things. They come to value the rituals more than that which the ritual originally honored. Chants are recited on cue, along with soundbites with which they have been trained to respond when nationalist beliefs are challenged.

And symbols? People love them. They design flags, seals, buildings, offices, titles, and whatever else they can dream up to worship- then incorporate those symbols into the rituals.

So, yes, I understand, but I don't agree. It would all be funny if it hadn't killed around 200 million non-combatants in the 20th Century alone.

.

Yes, Liberty matters!

An interesting bit of information is that one of my most consistently viewed posts is from well over a year ago: Liberty matters!

I wonder why.

Maybe because people instinctively know liberty matters. Maybe because they want to make a difference where it matters. I hope they learn what liberty is, wherever they learn it, and start living it.

Once you know liberty matters, why not live like you know it?

-

GoFundMe?

.

Real life conversations

In real life conversations I am almost never the one to bring up politics or ethics first. If I do bring them up, you can be sure someone just said something absurd or evil in my presence. Or, rarely, asked my opinion.

I just don't care enough about politics to bring it up, and ethics... well, talking about it doesn't really make much sense. Just live it and see how it works out.

In fact, often I try to avoid talking about either one when people want to bring up the subject. I value peace, and telling people their views are evil is not conducive to peace. But lying to them in that case doesn't feel right, either.

-

GoFundMe?

.

Apologies

Having some very distracting financial issues, which are closely related to medical issues (not all mine). Writing does help keep me balanced (or distracted), but I am hoping the quality isn't suffering. If so, I apologize and will try to do better.

-

I hope you don't mind that I will be appending this link for a while: GoFundMe?

.

Unearned legitimacy

A problem which infects even libertarians is the attitude that government deserves some sort of honor or respect. They treat it as something "important" or dignified. As though it deserves attention beyond the attention you would pay to a wasp in your car. That it is somehow serious business rather than childish bullying. They lend it an unearned legitimacy.

Poo on all that.

That's the "inside the beltway" superstition that "respectable" libertarian organizations and publications fall victim to. Sometimes even individuals do, too. It's not befitting of libertarians; it's embarrassing.

Sure, you may need to feign respect to keep from being caged or killed when a bully has the drop on you, but remember it's just an act on your part. It's self defense. The bully is still just a bully.

.

Marching to the beat of a different drummer is still marching

Over the course of my life I have known a few people who I believe went off the deep end. A couple of people I really loved became conspiracy hypothesists. Some were just paranoid- believing that someone was out to get them when it was obvious to me that they were victims of their own actions. In one case the guy was just the victim of his brain chemistry.

Because of this I am careful to watch (and test) my own beliefs.

It doesn't mean I am immune to seeing a conspiracy where none exists. I might even miss seeing one that is real. I am not likely to believe things just because everyone says they are so, or because I am called names for not agreeing with someone who claims to have special insight. But conspiracy hypotheses which fail science, observation, and reason don't have a chance with me. I probably won't argue about them- I could be missing something- but most conspiracy hypotheses have gigantic holes that get ignored or poorly patched.

There seems to be a growing tendency to embrace pseudoscience as a way to "buck the system". The problem is, the ideas being rejected probably didn't come from "the system". While "establishment scientists" may use certain ideas, they probably are not the ones to have come up with them. Just as one example, people had figured out that the Earth was roughly spherical thousands of years ago- without NASA's help.

2+2=4 is true, even though it is taught in government schools and used by IRS employees when they calculate how much to steal from you. Don't reject reality just because some bad guys also use it.

Embracing pseudoscience is not a sign you have risen above indoctrination- just that you are being indoctrinated by someone different. "Ancient knowledge" isn't preferable just because it is ancient. Discoveries are made all the time, and those discoveries, when understood, change the way smart people think about things.

It doesn't mean you are "enlightened" to believe this garbage- it means you are gullible AND not able to reason and observe (or even do simple experiments) for yourself.

.

To which "state" are you referring?

"Security of a free State"? That's a ridiculous oxymoron.

You can be free in spite of a State, but you will never find freedom because of a State.

The guys who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights were so deluded on some issues it's not even funny.

But, you could use a different meaning of "State" and be accurate.

Such as, if "state" were taken to mean "condition", rewording "the Security of a free State" as "to secure a state of Freedom"- as in:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a state of Freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is one state I can get behind.

.

Fixing the past by breaking the future

(Previously posted to Patreon)

My support for a group's agenda goes in only one direction. If you are seeking to get rid of "laws" which violate someone's Rightful Liberty I am right there with you.

If, on the other hand, you seek to make new "laws" which you believe will "level the playing field" or make up for past violations, you are not going to have my support.

I may agree that "laws" or society have been violating you. Perhaps for thousands of years. And I oppose that. However I can't support you trying to turn the tables and using government to violate someone else in the name of "fairness". Becoming the same as your enemy just makes you the bad guy.

This is why I oppose "affirmative action" and all such "equality laws". New "laws" weren't necessary- just get rid of any old ones that caused the problem. By passing new "laws" you copied the violent behavior of those who violated you. By making new "laws" you demonstrate that you don't believe you are good enough to make it on your own merits, but need to force others to favor you, or to oppress those who aren't you.

It's a libertarian thing- to support someone's desire to stop being violated while opposing their chosen coercive method to achieve it.

.

U.S. Police State infographic

Here's one of those infographics for you.


 
Source: CriminalJusticeDegreeHub.com

The right way to live

Regardless of current fashion, there really is a right way to live, and a seemingly endless number of wrong ways. Not all behaviors are equally valid- just as not all opinions are equally valid. Some are simply wrong. Maybe they are innocently misguided, or they may be willfully evil. You should be able to evaluate and judge for yourself, using reason.

How can you tell the Zero Aggression Principle, and by extension, libertarianism/anarchism is the "right way"- the ethical way- to live?

Just consider these questions:

How would the world be if everyone lived by it?
What if most people lived by it?
What if no one lived by it?

I have addressed these questions, and explored the answers, in a Patreon post.

.

Kentucky clerk’s morals fall flat

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 11, 2015)

Everyone seems to have an opinion about the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

First of all it needs to be understood that everyone has a right to live by their faith, but no one has a right to a government job — a right that can’t exist.

If a job would require you to do things you believe are wrong, don't take the job. If you hold a job and the requirements change so you would be asked to do things you believe are wrong, it is your responsibility to find a different job. No need to raise a fuss to get attention, just resign and move on. It's that simple.

This clerk's morals seem fluid. She has apparently never had a problem with processing divorces. Or with living on money forcibly extorted from the local residents. She seemingly never questioned whether it's ethical to hold a position which licenses basic human rights; activities not subject to government permission.

What if she refused to issue marriage licenses for anyone who had been previously divorced? If she were living consistently by her faith, she would not only be refusing marriage licenses for same sex couples.

What if she were Muslim and her faith forbade her issuing drivers licenses to women? Would her supporters still be standing with her decision?

This is why her claim of standing up for her morals falls utterly flat with me. Her morals seem to be a convenience, giving her an excuse for refusing to do something she doesn't want to do. It's like if I were a janitor, but claimed my morals forbade me cleaning the new toilets.

She wasn't letting anyone else in her office issue marriage licenses, either, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter.

I don't believe in government, and certainly don't believe government has any "authority" to issue licenses for anything, including marriage. Knowing this, should I take a government job which includes issuing licenses and then refuse to do so? Should I still expect to be paid?

But jail? She should not have been jailed for refusing to do her job. It was a ridiculous penalty, calculated to cause maximum drama. If a person won't do their job, they should be fired, not caged.

None of this would be an issue if government were forced out of the marriage business- where it never had any business getting involved in the first place.

-

(Note: I said anyone who doesn't do their job needs to be fired. My editor said no one is "authorized" to fire Ms. Davis. So I changed the wording for the newspaper column. I put the original wording back for the blog. I still believe anyone who doesn't do what they were hired to do needs to be fired. It's not my fault the State sets itself up to fail.)

.

Theories, or justification?

So many "political theories" seem to only exist to justify the "statist quo".

I try to make sure my own political theory doesn't fall into the opposite trap of only existing to justify the opposite of the status quo.

So I test it. I examine it. I pick it apart in my mind. And, when it fails the test, I change it.

So far the result is that I get rid of more and more justifications for statism of any kind.

It's liberating. Give it a try.

.

Give them the chance

People already know they should be libertarian.

They know right from wrong. They know using violence against the nonviolent or those who aren't violating property is wrong. They know violating property is wrong.

Their only problem is they have been tricked into imagining irrational exceptions to these truths. This indoctrination has taken a lifetime to achieve. It takes one honest moment to shed.

They are probably already libertarian in their heart of hearts. The external statist shell is a mask.

By sharing libertarianism with them you are not trying to "trick them into it", you are giving them permission to be honest with themselves. To be what they already know they should be.

They may still try to fight you, but I hope you offer the chance to everyone you know anyway.

.