Quicksand

There are some issues where agreement is just not possible. Where even civil discussion is extremely unlikely. Abortion and evolution are a couple of these, but not the only ones. How can you discuss something with someone who thinks that you are completely, absolutely dead wrong for holding a different opinion than they do? I recently went through a discussion like this where the mere fact that you hold an opinion that the other person doesn't agree with is grounds for all kinds of accusations. Even when I admit I don't have all the answers, it is not good enough. I can explain that with my current understanding I have formed an opinion that diverges from the one they have formed with their current level of understanding. Unless you acquiesce to the other person's "genius", you are a hypocrite, or worse. I do not expect everyone on Earth to agree with me on every issue. I don't particularly like it when my agreement is demanded by others. With some questions, at our present level of scientific or sociological understanding, there are no answers. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. There are other subjects, that because of religious views or whatever, you will not reach agreement. Ever. You can scream and stomp and demand that everyone accept your view, but you just look desperate. In these areas, I ask those who disagree with me to look at the consequences of their beliefs instead of just at the beliefs themselves. How would it affect freedom if you were to impose your standards on society by way of "law"? Would it increase individual liberty, or would the implications of your position require new privacy invasions, bureaucracy, and punishment enforcements? That may not settle the question, but it usually silences the argument.

Question for Democrats, Republicans and other Authoritarians

Where do you draw the line? If you believe that people should be controlled, how much control is too much? With libertarianism I know where the line is (initiation of force), but with authoritarianism it seems to me that each person or even each new day can draw a new line. I think any government is too much, unless it comes from within (as in "self control"). Yet I see people debating how much government to allow. How do you keep any "OK amount" from ever expanding? What is an acceptable amount of cancer? I know that the human body can fight off many cells that have become cancerous without the person ever knowing it has happened. Perhaps the same could be true of government. Is it worth the risk? For what benefit?

I know that most, maybe all, of the readers of my blog are libertarians or libertarian-leaning. Still I think the question is a good one to keep in mind. Many people will try to trick you into agreeing to some amount of government in response to their hypothetical questions. Don't fall for it.

Help! Our Future is Shrinking!

Our future seems to be getting smaller by the day. Instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, we have iPhones and flatscreen TVs. Is it a good trade? I'm not sure. Maybe for some people it is. Not for me, though. This isn't the future I agreed to when I was a kid. Instead of laser guns, we have "security" cameras and metal detectors. Instead of a wide open frontier in space, we have encroaching tyanny that seems determined to keep us on Earth and subject to its out-of-control governmental power trips.
If humanity is to have any kind of a future that is worth living, we must move beyond this infantile authoritarianism that poisons our present and causes our future to be still-born or stunted. I want the big ideas of the future that was predicted; not these small teasers.

"You Can't Just Make Up Your Own Rules!"

Why not? Who says? The people who "just made up" the current mess of rules, that's who. The arbitrary rules that are imposed on us, as opposed to the real rules like "don't murder" and "don't steal", were made up by someone, somewhere. Making up rules isn't necessarily a bad thing; judge that by the results and unintended consequences of the made-up rule. The ZAP is a rule that has been made up, but instead of stifling human life, it liberates us to be free from coercion. It keeps the prohibitions against real crime, while showing why counterfeit "laws" have no moral basis. The danger to the autoriturds is that the ZAP punches holes in the mala prohibita "laws" that they depend upon for their monopoly on power. It shows the festering fraudulence that fills them and their institutions. For that reason, if for no other, all libertarians and true anarchists the world over should promote the ZAP far and wide, inserting it into every discussion of law and punishment, government, and morality.

Kent's Unfortunate Truths

In the course of my life I have come up with a list of "unfortunate truths" that tend to explain a lot of what I see happening around me. They are somewhat negative, hence the word "unfortunate". I don't exclude myself from being subject to these rules. Don't take personal offense at any of these, as I don't mean them in a mean-spirited way. I am sure you are the exception to the rule.

Unfortunate Truth Number One (UT1): People are idiots. (as I say, I definitely include myself here)

UT2: People rarely do what they assure you they will do. The more insistently they assure you, the less likely it is that it will occur.

UT3: Nothing is ever as important to the other person as it is to you.

UT4: Entropy and adversity forever increase.

UT5: People don't want to hear the truth; they want you to tell them what they want to hear, and then make it true.

UT6: Any solved problem creates new problems.

UT7: Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil.



While I would like to come up with a list of "Fortunate Truths" someday, the above list probably explains why I haven't.

Religion on Sunday

I don't really care what you believe as long as you don't try to force me to join you in your beliefs, and as long as you don't commit atrocities in your god's name. If you feel you must, you can "educate" me with your logic and reason, but don't get angry if I don't come to the same conclusions that you do. If you begin passing "laws" based on your ideas of what a deity wants, even if you have an ancient book to use as a reference, don't be surprised if I ignore your rules. Show me how your way is better, how the world is made better, through your actions based upon your beliefs.

When you begin to justify torture, theft, "wars" on medicines, slavery, victim disarmament, or other abominations in the name of your religion or your god you will have declared yourself to be the enemy of all that is good; and my personal enemy. Your "god" will have taken on the characteristics of what I was told was called "Satan". If you refuse to open your eyes and look at what is happening, you are guilty of helping to implement hell on Earth.

It is said you will know someone by the fruits they produce. What's in your farmer's market?

A Day at the Park

I went out today and exercised my freedom muscles just a bit. It is a very pleasant day, so I went to a park (ick! But it was close), sat under a tree and played with sticks. I nibbled some plants (what you might call "weeds"). I walked along a dry creek-bed and took note of the animal tracks in the drying mud. I watched people going about their lives. Living in America. Not thinking about wars or taxes or government. Just walking with their loved ones and their dogs (and their loved dogs). Coaxing along their oblivious children. I didn't see anyone shooting at anyone else, or beating anyone, or robbing anyone. I didn't witness a single violation of the ZAP. Nope, it was glorious anarchy in action, just as it should be. Nothing but consensual interactions wherever I looked. Cherish the times like these that we still have. They may, or may not, be running out. Amazingly enough, I did not see even one enforcer show his face while I was there, although I stayed away from the crowd, yet chaos did not break out in the absence of government control. Government needs us, we don't need them.

Jim Davidson Weighs In

A recent exchange on the Free State Wyoming forum produced a lovely piece of prose from Jim Davidson. The question was, basically, when does the fight against tyranny justify killing the oppressors, and how do you reconcile that with a moral prohibition against murder. With Jim's permission, I post his response here:

Excellent question. I believe that each individual has to answer this
for himself, to his own satisfaction. It is simply not possible to answer
for another.
I believe that God created us in His image. I believe that God has
free will. I believe that the substance of this Scripture is that people
have free will. Since we have free will, we are not only free to choose
what actions to take, each one of us is necessarily responsible for his own
actions.
I believe that the passage in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus tells
His disciples that, although they were previously told to go out and preach the
Good News without worldly possessions, now each one who had a cloak should sell
it to buy arms. Now that there is a flock to defend, the good shepherd
takes up arms to defend it.
I believe that each of us is free to use up to deadly force to defend life,
liberty, and property as in our own judgement we see fit. Yes, I spell it
judgement, to emphasize that you have to be the judge.
Is it time to just shoot the b@st@rds? Claire Wolfe said it was
justifiable to do so, and she said so back in 2004. So it is well past
"Claire." But, she's also pointed out that she gets lots of enthusiastic
readers who write in to say that they'll follow her anywhere, and all she has to
do is identify some pesky bureau-rat or politician, and they'll happily go slay
that one - to which Claire is rather gob-smacked, and to which she always
responds very carefully to the effect that she isn't going to do anything of the
sort.
But, look, using deadly force is not the only way to deter crime.
Presenting deadly force is often sufficient. For example, I was in Chicago
back in 1991, to speak at the World Science Fiction convention there. I
was walking down the street. A young man of athletic proportions was
tasking passersby for money. I found his language and attitude to be
threatening. So, when he was about fifty feet away, I looked him in the
eye, stopped in my tracks, reached into a pocket in my suit jacket, and took
hold of my pistol. I held it just between the lapels. He looked at
me and was coming up, when I glanced down and back up. He followed my
gaze, and stopped, turned, and left. It was completely clear that he saw
the gun and took seriously my willingness to use it. Indeed, he shouted at
several passersby, "That guy has a gun!" as if such a thing were too amazing to
ignore.
Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago that if people had
resisted when the thugs came around kicking in doors, if even ten percent of
those thugs never came home, then there would have been none left to do the
jobs. The others would have been too afraid to take up the work of
bullies. I think there's truth to that, and to the obvious consequence of
that point: if people in Wyoming have guns and show up wearing them all the
time, those who are determined to enslave and bully others are going to think
twice about it.
My point here is that there are lots of things one can do far short of
using deadly force. One might make bureau-rats and politicians look
foolish. One might selectively vandalize the property of the most
egregious. One might ostracize and refuse to do business with socialists
and thugs. One might use various technologies such as auto-dialers to
create mischief. One might buy a billboard or erect one in a prominent
place to provide true information of a damaging nature about some thug or
twit. One might interdict the delivery of tax payments in some really
creative way. Many of these things are criminal in nature, and some are
"mala in se" attacks on persons or property. And I'm not advocating any of
these actions - I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of things one can do
which don't involve killing anyone - justifiably or not.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Why is that? In my
view, God is the only authority. When a man sets himself up as a tyrant,
he is usurping God's place in the natural order of things. Bowing down
before a man is therefore a poor choice.
But, resistance to tyranny does not only consist of killing tyrants and
their minions and agents, but also includes doing other things. Educate
yourself and your neighbors. Teach your children. Recruit your
friends. Be an effective defense force for your home, family, property,
and neighborhood. Elect sensible people in your community to serve you
rather than to rule you. Do things to avoid paying any more tax than
absolutely necessary or required. Do things to make the jobs of those who
enforce idiotic "mala prohibitum" laws a bit harder. Shun those who write
tickets for a living. Be open about why you would do so. And
consider whether the times and the circumstances actually warrant other sorts of
mischief.
Remember those who do more. Commemorate the dead at Mt. Carmel from
April 1993. Commemorate the dead at Lexington and Concord from 1775.
Remember Carl Drega. Remember Vicky and Sammy Weaver. Watch for news
of Ed and Elaine Brown. Honor those who are willing to stand up for
liberty.
Yes, I believe a time is coming when the choice of freedom would mean
choosing to fight. I believe that those who mean to rule us and make us
serve them are going to make it impossible for decent men and women to shirk the
conflict. And, I think war is inevitable because those who refuse to work
very hard, who demand that others work and pay taxes so they can live easily,
are going to push and push until they have decent men and women forced against a
wall. Which, on the whole, is not that bad a thing as defensive postures
go.
And, I say, let it come. Let the war that is coming come, and
let it come in my time, that my children may know peace.
I believe that this war is coming here, to our homes, to our home
towns. I believe that it is about power and control, about a world
government, about the banking cartel, and about numbering the slaves. I
believe that the nature of this war is that it is going to be fought in homes,
on streets, in front of our children. It is not going to be on some
distant battlefield we can see on television and tut-tut about at the dinner
table. War is sinful, it is ugly, it is brutal, it is the flames of
perdition unleashed on Earth.
At some point, "war is the only way," as the Continental Army colonel says
in "The Patriot." That does not mean it is the only way for everyone,
though. Some won't be convinced without seeing atrocities before their own
eyes. And it does not mean that war is the only way now.
Indeed, I think we currently have a number of very interesting
technological and economic alternatives to war. Since war is, in my view,
another form of politics, I think it is unlikely to produce very beneficial
results. And, on those rare occasions when some war of liberation, such as
the American Revolutionary War, has produced benefits far outweighing the costs,
it has still imposed very high costs on those who fought and bled and
died.
Resist tyranny. Disobey authority. Teach your family, friends,
and neighbors. But be wise. Be as deadly as a snake, but appear as
gentle as a dove. Be as careful and as clever as you can be.
Remember that it is ignorance which puts people into slavery. It is
understanding the truth which makes us free.
Regards,
Jim

The Cruelest Slavery

The cruelest slavery, and the most difficult for me to escape, is that which originates from my own mind. It is comparatively easy to ignore the stupid edicts of the state. I am not emotionally bound to them or to the state from whence they ooze. The limitations imposed by my own mind, possibly based on scars from my past, are much harder to overcome. Some of this is probably due to upbringing. Some is definitely due to things that have happened since I became an "adult". Yet almost all of it is due to processes that go on in my head that feed the guilt monster. I am also an incredibly lazy person; at least if it is something I see no point in doing. I can work like a maniac on something I want to accomplish, something that I can see the point in doing, but give me busywork or a task where I see no chance of success and you'd think I was in a drug induced daze. I realize I have no one to blame other than myself, and that makes me angry... at me.

Resurgence of Prejudice

Is it just me or is it becoming more and more popular to be prejudiced, and to be loud about it? Just as long as you are prejudiced against "the right people", of course. If someone doesn't speak English, was born in another country, looks middle-eastern, or whatever the "target of the day" may be, it is OK to make jokes about them or to tell them to "go back where you came from". This sick behavior is just as bad as making people use separate restrooms or sit in the back of the bus, or as classifying them as "mentally ill" for being themselves.

Instead of hating people for things they cannot control and that hurt no one, try condemning people for things they can control; things that hurt everyone. Things like choosing to be a parasite on civilization, such as being a death trooper in the BATFE or DEA or the narcotics squad of the local thug hive. Things like agitating for racial strife and bigotry, while hiding behind the title "Reverend" or "Father", like the two anti-gun-owner bigots in Chicago have been doing recently. Disgusting things like trying to control the lives of others who are harming no one but themselves with their personal lives. People who actively engage in evil, harmful acts of government and control. Those are the things we should shun people for doing.

Smouldering Backlash Against NRA Sell-Outs

Here is a fine essay from L. Neil Smith by way of JPFO: The NRA Disgraces Itself -- Again. He is trying to think of a plan to get a message across to the NRA "leadership" that gun owners are fed up with being betrayed by our supposed friends. I will let you know when I find out the plan. Hold onto that NRA membership until then.

Immigration

I have seen people make the comment that the natives who lived on the land that is now America had no immigration policy, and "look what happened". I don't think this is a good analogy. I would agree that the natives owned the land that became America. The land was not "owned" individually as it is today, but was "owned" or occupied by the tribe. This is what the US government wants us to think the case is now: that "The United States owns America". It does not. I do not think the natives were under any obligation to "share" their land with the immigrants. The reasonable thing would have been for the immigrants to purchase or rent land from the original owners if an agreement could have been worked out (just as today's immigrants do). I don't know if that would have worked back then, because I doubt there would have been an agreement among the natives about who would receive the payment, since the territories were more fluid than today. There was also more of a tendency in those days to view anyone who was not of your culture as less than human. (That mental defect still appears in some of the loudest people today, unfortunately.) Even the natives did this among the different tribes or nations. Their name for their own tribe always meant "the people", and their names for the other tribes were usually not very complimentary or even insulting. The immigrants thought the natives were "backwards", "heathens", or "savages". Thinking in this way made it easier to justify killing the others. The resultant massacres were horrible. Both sides, the immigrants and the natives, committed terrible atrocities. The land was stolen and the less technologically advanced native people were subjugated and stripped of much of their culture and way of life.
The past cannot be repaired (which is a terrible tragedy). The best that can be done is to learn from past mistakes so you do not repeat them. Looking at how the USA is dealing with immigrants, especially those from Mexico, today, I don't think most people have learned from the past. Many people still try to think of these newcomers as "less than human" and don't see that they are paying rent and purchasing their land. They are not invading and stealing the homes and land. Yet, hearing the dabate, you would think they are. Once again I say, get rid of the welfare culture and you will remove incentives for people to move to America in order to be parasites. You will also pull the rug out from under the class of traditional, from-one-generation-to-the-next, parasites that has formed here since the welfare culture was created.

The Philosophy of Liberty

I was recently made aware of this good flash-animation presentation from The International Society for Individual Liberty that explains The Philosophy of Liberty. If you have the computer capability to watch it, I recommend that you do.

World Liberty-Aid

Why can't we have a world-wide concert event to highlight the looming, ever-growing disaster of government? If the environmentally conscious can have a world-wide extravaganza all about the environment, something that is mostly out of our control, then the politically conscious could surely have one about government, something that is totally under the control of people. Plus, since governments are the biggest enemy of the environment, it would fit right into the current theme. I suppose it is out of the question, since the loudest environmentalists are really, first and foremost, just socialists who use the environment as an excuse for more government controls of human activity. Or am I just being pessimistic?
The fascinating thing is that there are enough anti-government songs and films and books out there that you really could have a world-wide Liberty Woodstock (Libertystock?) of massive proportions. When people found out some of the side benefits of liberty they would flock to the events. It would only take a certain percentage of humans on earth to get riled up enough and we could rid ourselves of the scourge of government completely, at least for a while. I'd donate to that cause with my time and non-existent money.

Healthcare a "Basic Right"?

In my daily internet cruising, I ran across something somewhere (I can't find it now, of course) that asked why libertarians don't recognize "an obvious basic right to healthcare". Simple answer: because it doesn't exist. At least not in the way the "compassionate" socialists think of it. Most "healthcare rights" advocates think government (using stolen money) should provide the healthcare, or at least, force doctors to provide it. Nothing can be a basic right if it involves forcing someone else to do something against their will. A basic right can only be met by getting government out of the way. Allow people to self-medicate with whatever they see fit. Don't allow a government agency with a political agenda, and with favors to repay, to be the authority who decides which medications or procedures we are "allowed" to choose.

In a free world, healthcare would be a basic right. You would have the right to buy whatever healthcare you were able to afford, just as you do now. The difference would be that without government standing in the way, your choices would be greater, medications more plentiful and much more affordable, and you would not be forced to pay for the healthcare of anyone else. A similar example is that I have a right to own a fully automatic AR-15 even though the government interferes with this right through counterfeit "laws" which raise the price of the gun, and would punish me for owning one without their permission. Even if you disregard the "laws", no one has an obligation to provide me with the rifle. I can buy the gun I can afford, which may only be a yard sale BB gun. If someone decides to give me an AR-15, without being coerced into it, I would accept it. No one is forced to provide anything to anyone else, even if it is a basic right. It is only wrong to stand in the way of the free exercise of rights; not to refuse to subsidize someone else's rights.

...Governments Should be Afraid of Their People!

Guess what. They are! Do you think all of the draconian control-freak laws are imposed because the government wants to protect you? Hardly. They pass those laws to protect themselves; the parasites who attempt to rule over us. They are scared to death that Americans might get fed up and grow a backbone again. You and I are the ones that the authoritards want to protect themselves from. So they pass enabling acts "authorizing" huge illegal power grabs. They declare that free speech is treason and seek to insulate themselves from it. They "outlaw" any guns that might be highly effective in thinning the herds of jabbuts, while they demonize the rest. They try to convince you that voting is the only proper way to change America while ignoring that the anti-government rebellion in 1776 wasn't fought in the voting booth. Freedom is never won, and almost never increased, by voting. Government knows this and is outlawing true freedom as fast as it can get away with. Even a "good" ruler should never sleep well at night, but wake in terror at every sound. Watch them building their fortress of laws to protect themselves from the individuals in America. See their actions for what they truly are: panic that they may one day be held accountable.

Libertarian Friends

I love my friends. They do not understand me, though. I sometimes think it would be so nice to have some local libertarian friends to talk to and hang out with. I'm not even talking about having deep, philosophical discussions (though that might be nice, too) , but simply having friends who do not look at me oddly if I display one of the "quirks of libertarianism" in public. I have had aquaintances who called themselves "anarchists", but when you really looked at their beliefs, they were socialists in anarchist clothing; they hated the current regime, but only wanted to replace it with a new, socialist regime. I have had friends who loved guns, but who cheered the military slaughter of muslims, or advocated the beating of homosexuals. I have had friends who hated government sanctioned oppression and war-mongering, but stated that "there is no reason to have guns; they should all be destroyed". I have had some friends who have too much invested in the status quo, such as a dependency on welfare or family members in brutal government agencies, and so can't see the government for what it really is.

I have looked for MeetUp groups without success. It would be difficult to attend, since my statist girlfriend would insist on coming along. Sigh. What is a libertarian/anarchist to do?

Have a Happy, FREE, Independence Day

Enjoy the one blatantly anti-government holiday that is still officially recognized, although its message has been obscured and diluted. Don't wave the US Federal flag of stars and stripes on this day; instead proudly fly the American Gadsden "Dont Tread on Me" flag or the Time's Up flag. Declare your independence from the authoritarians and from the outdated notion that government is legitimate. It is not! No one is fit, morally or intellectually, to rule anyone other than themselves.

Spend the day exercising your rights. Don't limit yourself to the ones listed explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Explore those rights hinted at in Amendment IX. Now get off the computer and get out there! Have fun and survive for the coming new battle for independence.

Confession: I Don't Really Like Fireworks

I know. It is a sad confession to make. I don't like the noise. It makes me jumpy. I can live with it though, knowing as I do that it is a direct affront to the authoritarians. It is a reminder of freer days which control-crazy states are trying to restrict in every way possible. Ironic that the statists don't see their hypocrisy in trying to "outlaw" the symbol of independence on Independence Day. They encourage people to go to professional displays. That is not what "independence" is about. It is about taking the risk to do worthwhile things for yourself. If blowing up small explosive devices is worth the risk to you, don't allow any government thugs to deny you that pleasure.


I think a more appropriate way to declare your independence is by going out shooting. Noisy, but with a point. The thing about real liberty is that you do what is important to you, without asking anyone's permission, as long as you do not violate anyone's rights.


So, get out there and set off all the fireworks you can. Legal, "illegal", whatever.... and thumb your nose at the authoritarians. If you get a chance, go shooting. Imagine your "favorite" authoritard's face on the bullseye. Remind them what "Independence" really means!

The Online Freedom Academy

A friend on The Claire Files started a thread about The Online Freedom Academy. I hadn't heard of it before, so I checked it out. It seems like a really good way to educate people about freedom. I would recommend that you look into it for yourself.

Why Do I Write?

Is writing about freedom "doing something" or is it just a way to soothe myself? Are there better things I could do? I am sure there probably are. There are many ways in which I am far from being free. Financial freedom is never to be mine. I have an amazing ability to repel money ... like two north poles of a magnet. It does not matter how well something works for everyone else, as soon as I try it, it stops making money and begins to cost. Even such seemingly simple things as having a "job". Romantic relationships have also been difficult for me all my life. I think a large part of that has been my unwilling vow of poverty. My previous wives only seemed to see me as a source of money (one of them still tries), and when I was never able to produce the funds to their satisfaction, they became disillusioned and angry. Marriages can not survive that forever. Then there is also the unfortunate experience that most women who I know do not understand or want freedom. They are content to let government "take care" of them so they don't need to worry about "those things". They tell me I am being difficult or weird. "Can't you just go along?" No, I am sorry, but I can't.

Is writing about freedom simply a way I use to try to express my frustration? A frustration that is really about myself? Am I searching for a way to be free of me? I have no answers, only questions. I wonder about those questions a lot.

People Should Not Be Afraid of Their Governments...

Yet many are, and for good reason. Governments across America and around the world are a major source of death, destruction, and yes, even chaos. Government thugs murder innocent people with impunity, and if people dare to fight back or even talk back, they are labeled (incorrectly) as "terrorists". It is often stated that people get the government they deserve. I don't believe that is right, since to me that is equivalent to saying a rape victim deserved to be assaulted because of the way she dressed. It is excusing the actions of the criminal.

People need to be educated. They need to recognize that they hold the power and the authority; not the immoral zombies with titles and badges who sit in offices bought with stolen money. Governments need to be afraid of the people again. I see a shift in this direction with the metastasizing of the police state. This is not to "protect society" as is claimed, but is only to protect government. As the government grows more and more afraid it will try harder to control the people more completely. It will give more people reasons to be afraid of government. In doing so it will put the final nail in its own coffin.

Average nonviolent people fear to write certain words in their blogs or emails because it might be seen as advocating violence against government thugs. Many times I edit sentences because I wonder how some idiot at the Department of Just-us might interpret what I have said. At the same time, government never fears to harass, kill, steal, or kidnap people - because they never are held accountable for their crimes. Government never hesitates to propose another tyranny-enabling law for fear of overdue and justified backlash. This needs to change. There needs to be a day where government authoritards are deeply fearful of every action they take or every word they utter officially because they know to their very core that they will be made to pay for their despotic ways.

Mummified Rulers - The Best Kind!

The recent identification of a mummy dug up in 1903 as the Egyptian Pharaoh/Queen Hatshepsut has got me wondering why we don't mummify (or just stuff) our Presidents. Do dead Rulers need to age like wine in order to become valuable? Maybe. They are a dime a dozen presently. Would they be more interesting if dug up 3500 years from now? It took over one hundred years for the mummy of Hatshepsut to be identified. With a little prior planning, future generations could be spared the frustration of trying to figure out which body (technical term: "people jerky") used to be which Ruler, although a plague of "John Adamses" and "George Bushes" complicates matters a bit, not to mention the "Johnsons" and the "Roosevelts". Cram a ceramic tablet engraved with the name and Wikipedia URL in the mummy's mouth to save future archaeologists time and effort. And why stop with only the President? We could stuff Congresscritters, Supreme Courtjesters, governators, and even local potentates. Speaking of "stuffing": there are a few big, modern pyramids in America that we could use as tombs. I have driven past the one in Memphis a few times. We could collect private donations to purchase one. I'm sure that as soon as word of our noble mission got out, many people would rush to help. How many mummies could fit into a building such as that? Since the walls are much thinner in these modern structures than in the pyramids of antiquity there is a much larger storage capacity. Skip the sarcophagi and stack the "mummies" like firewood and I'll bet you could fit millions in there. Especially with a little tamping after they get dry and crunchy. After all, comfort won't be a factor. This concept is thrilling to contemplate! Just wait though; some crybaby will probably whine that we should wait until they each die of natural causes before we stuff them.


PS: I should have mentioned Ron Paul in order to get more hits on my blog today. Oops, I guess I just did!

Race Baiting

Government loves to keep people divided and uneasy. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on schools and race has once again fanned the flames. Forget for a moment that government has no business "educating" anyone. No, wait, don't ever forget that fact! When will people learn that race will stop being an issue when they stop making it an issue? When will government forms stop including that section with the boxes to check to assign yourself a race? Probably never. It is a great source of strife they can use to divide the population into easily manageable groups, and then pit the groups against one another in order to grab more power for themselves.

I am a big fan of refusing to fill out government paperwork altogether. If you feel the need to allow the government to waste some of your time anyway, then skip that whole "race section" completely. Maybe it is "illegal" to skip that section. Then be a good firefly (freedom outlaw) and skip it anyway. After all, there is a good libertarian tradition of civil disobedience. Nothing is more civil than not allowing yourself to be used as a weapon against other people. Or monkeywrench the database by always checking "other". That is probably the most truthful answer in 99% of the cases. My DNA is so mixed up there is no telling what is in there, and I would be willing to bet yours is too.

Hot Libertarian Topics

I have nothing to say (for once), so I will let my mind wander a bit. It is very small and shouldn't be left to wander alone for too long. Kinda like when I used to take my kids into the mountains and say "If you get attacked by a bear, scream really loud and I will come shoot it." They never screamed and were always right where I left them.

So, anyway. Ron Paul is still shocking people with his libertarian answers to some issues. The issues for which he has only Rep(tile)ublican answers ("immigration"?) shock no one. No one except libertarians, anyway. He should start giving libertarian answers to those questions too. Just to shock the general populace more. Couldn't hurt, and it might get him more attention. I notice his webpage has "borrowed" Alexander Hope's slogan. He isn't quite Alex Hope, but maybe with a little encouragement....

In other current events, a jabbut (jack-booted thug) in Hot Springs, Arkansas was caught on video choking skateboarders. This shocks no one anymore; we are getting desensitized to the thuggery of the authoritards. It does make some of us really mad, though. Well, me at least.

Wayne Fincher is still in jail for owning guns the tyrants are scared of (and hurting no one). Red's Trading Post is still being harrassed by the BATFE (Barbaric "Anti-Truth and -Freedom " Extremists) who have hissy fits over paperwork while ignoring the total lack of integrity in their dead, fishy heads.

Ed Brown seems to be going crazy because of the seige. The feds have ruined this man's life simply because he wants to keep his own money. Money that he and his wife earned; not the federal government. Just because he doesn't want to give in to thieves with badges. Sad.

I'm getting a growing number of hits on this blog from countries other than America. Welcome guys! We are all in this together, and I appreciate your interest.

In other words, it is a typical day in America. Get out there and enjoy it while you still can.

Idiots Have Freedom of Speech, Too

First this:

NEWS RELEASE
CCRKBA DRAFTS LEGISLATION TO STOP
JACKSON-STYLE GUN SHOP PROTESTS

BELLEVUE, WA – After denouncing the demagoguery of Rev. Jesse Jackson in
his continued protests at a suburban Chicago-area gun shop, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today announced that it has drafted federal legislation that would prevent such protests from interfering with legal businesses.

“This is not an attack on the First Amendment rights of Jesse Jackson or
anyone else,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “But it would put an end to
the kind of publicity-seeking shenanigans that Jackson and his cohort, anti-gun
Catholic priest Michael Pfleger, have been conducting at Chuck’s Gun Shop in
suburban Riverdale for the past three weeks. We’re working on Capitol Hill right
now to gather sponsors.

“Nobody is saying Jackson can’t protest a gun shop,” Gottlieb added. “We
are, however, seeking the same protection from interference that is now
guaranteed by federal statute to reproductive health services facilities.”

Added CCRKBA Public Affairs Director John Snyder, “It is against the law
for anti-abortion activists to block access to these clinics, and it should be
just as illegal for anti-gunners to block access to gun shops. This is neither a
First or Second Amendment issue but rather a Fourteenth Amendment issue relating to equal protection.”

Jackson and Pfleger have been demonstrating at or near Chuck’s Gun Shop for
the past few weeks. Last Saturday, both men were arrested by Riverdale police
after their activities created access problems for Chuck’s customers.

Under CCRKBA’s proposal, anyone who uses force, a threat of force, or
physical obstruction, or intimidates or intentionally injures another person who
is attempting to enter a gun shop, or who operates such a store, would be
criminally liable. Three weeks ago, Pfleger caused considerable alarm by telling
a crowd that he would find gun shop owner John Riggio and “snuff him
out.”

“This proposal would provide protection to law-abiding firearms retailers
and their customers nationwide,” Gottlieb stated. “Chuck’s is a legal business,
operating under state and federal statutes. Jackson and his followers don’t have
to like it or agree with it, but under this proposal, they will have to accept
the fact that a firearms dealer has as much right to operate a business as they
have to shoot off their mouths. They have no right at all to prevent public
access to a gun shop, or to intimidate or otherwise discourage customers from
entering.”

Now, the commentary. Jesse Jackson is a two-faced media-whore. Michael Pfleger is an anti-christian. They still have the absolute right to say whatever they wish to say. Freedom of Speech, ya know. But ... while they have a right to display their infantile, coercive ways, they do not have a right, no one does, to initiate (or threaten to initiate) force or fraud. Once they do, they should be subject to darwinization (not terribly applicable, I know, since Pfleger has supposedly done us that favor with his "priestly" vows of celibacy). Are Jackson and Pfleger trespassing? I would bet they are, if they are able to effectively block the entrance. What is the ethical method of dealing with intentional, hostile, repeat trespassers? If the gun store owner or one of his customers is touched in an unwelcome way or if these clods threaten to initiate force (as has already been done on video by Pfleger) while trying to go about their business, then force has been initiated .... with all the ramifications that go along with it. New laws are not the way to solve boorish or dangerous behavior. Dealing justly with these control freaks, under the constraints of the Zero Aggression Principle, is the proper response, and one that would lower the chances of bad behavior like this happening in the future. We have been too "nice" for too long; allowing parasites to get away with behavior that should not be tolerated. Time's up, vermin!

Tyranny Fears....

What are the things tyrants fear the most? Guns and brains. In the hands of the people, anyway. They love their own guns (pointed at us) and their own brains (insane with lust for control).

Tyranny fears guns, because regardless of whatever "laws" and security it enforces, there is always the risk of a patriot doing the world a favor by culling a mentally diseased control-freak from the herd. Leaders have no reason to fear armed regular people. Leaders do not drag us along behind them. Rulers force us along a path that we have no desire to be on. This makes us cranky. This means if we get a chance to rid ourselves of the tyrant, we will take it. It is therefore necessary, in the tyrant's unbalanced mind, to impose more draconian edicts on us to take away our weaponry. As if this will stop the inevitable. No one who wants to take your gun, any gun, away from you does it for your benefit. They do it so that they can do bad things to you that you might resist effectively if you were armed. Once they utter an intention to pass a "law" regulating some aspect of gun ownership they have declared that they intend to hurt you in some way. Never forget that fact.

Tyranny fears brains possibly more than it fears guns. They have tried to sabotage knowledge through government controlled "education". They may have delayed their downfall by a generation or two. Some people are immune to the mind-numbing effects. Anyone with a mind can devise an effective weapon, even a gun, from things that are so common in an industrialized country that it is completely impossible to prevent. This scares tyrants out of their minds. And it should. They can outlaw, confiscate, and destroy every gun and bullet in the world, and by the next morning there could be enough new guns and ammunition to cause Rulers to have a very bad, very short, day. As long as the knowledge still exists. (On this note, I recommend that everyone immediately go to this website and buy this guy's book(s). Do it now... I will wait...) Besides the danger to tyrants of "us peasants" making guns, the awareness of what constitutes tyranny and oppression is dangerous for them. If we thought they were justified in their "governments" we would probably be content in our shackles. Knowledge of liberty, the Zero Aggression Principle, and the Covenant of Unanimous Consent make for a smoldering volcano lying just below the surface. Rulers never know which new rule will cause an eruption. We know that what they attempt to do is wrong. We know how to make weapons, poisons, and traps. We know how to communicate our knowledge to others. To get rid of the knowledge, they will have to kill us all, burn all the books, and erase the internet. They can't do that. They have lost; they just don't know it yet.

Self Righteousness

Is it "self righteousness" to say what you really believe?

I often do a Dogpile or Google search on myself to see what crops up. I ran across a forum where I was being discussed (as a minor part of a SelectSmart discussion). One of the posters was infuriated by me, saying that I am "self righteous" and that everything I say is "the Libertarian Party line". Strange argument.

I don't know if I am self righteous or not. I do know that I am much more radical than the LP. Last summer's LP reform has seen to that. He claims that I am "saying the same stuff that the LP was saying 11 years ago, using the same wording half the time." So? I was not a member of the LP back then and never read any of their literature. How many ways are there to say the same thing? Maybe everything I say is strictly libertarian in nature, but I am libertarian, what else can I do? If a physicist says things that happen to agree precisely with the way the world really operates does it make him wrong? Do you demand that he incorporate creationism into his observations to soothe your bruised ego? Gimme a break!

OK. Let's go to Dictionary.com to look up "self righteous". Hmmm. "confident of one's own righteousness" does not fit me. I am confident of my rightness, but not of my righteousness, and there is a big difference in the two. I am not saying I am not righteous. I do try to be. I don't believe anyone can judge that in themselves. So we go on to the next part: "smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others" is the exact opposite of what libertarianism is all about. There are many behaviors that I find personally repugnant that I defend on a daily basis, precisely because I understand that my personal opinion on these things is trumped by individual liberty. As long as no one else is being hurt people should be free to live however they see fit.

The poster in question has no personal knowledge of me. How can he decide if I am self righteous or not? I think he is simply threatened by my confidence that I am right, and maybe afraid he is wrong. If you think I am wrong, tell me so in the comments. Others have. You may not convince me but I will not delete anything you say (unless you decide your comments make you look foolish and ask me to delete them, as I have done for one person in the past). Perhaps your words of wisdom will keep some other misguided person from embracing individual liberty and responsibility. I still think I (and others who think like me) are right, and those who worship the state are dead wrong. If I doubted that for an instant I would shut up and stop blogging.

"Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!" by Wilt Alston

By way of The Libertarian Enterprise and KarenDeCoster.com comes this article by Wilt Alston about 9/11.
Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!

Wanted: A Frontier

For the first time in all of human history, there is no readily accessible frontier available for those of us who need to move beyond the grasp of "civilization". Never pretend it is not a NEED. This is a tragedy that may spell the end of our species if it is not remedied soon. Social pressures and nonsensical "rules" are not easy for some people to deal with. These people need to be able to move to freer spaces. To force them to stay in crowded, regulated areas is a recipe for disaster. This does not mean they are bad people; just that over-management has unintended, but entirely predictable, consequences.

Without going underground, undersea, extra-dimensional, into interplanetary space, or building a new continent, we are trapped. Of these options, I think leaving Earth completely is the best long-term option. Governments will try to prevent it if they discover your plans, and will risk everything to shoot you down upon launch. Can't allow any subjects to declare independence, you know. The problem is that projects like this will probably be large group projects and will be prone to becoming "governmental" in their complexity and administration. Maybe it would be possible to form a group based upon Unanimous Consent. It's worth a try.


There is also the fact that a planet-wide catastrophe could cause human extinction. It is imperative that humans get spread out away from our planetary cradle before that happens if we want to survive. If left to governmental agencies, we will never leave Earth in large enough numbers to form sustainable populations elsewhere. If any of you have a nice Firefly-class ship full of kind-hearted "pirates", I can clean toilets for passage.

Seeds of Freedom

I have lived in a few places around America. Some places are pretty free; others are very socialistic. Some places actually have pretty bad laws governing them, but most of the people ignore the laws and simply go about their lives regardless of what any "authorities" demand. Where I am living now is not too bad as far as the laws go, but the people have a fawning attitude toward "authority" that I find disgusting. They live as though they are subject to more rules than they actually are. My flippant attitude toward the stupid laws meets with shocked disbelief. Even my close friends will say "You don't CARE what the law is???" I refer to police officers as "enforcers" or "terrorists" depending upon what they are doing at the time. I have a Time's Up flag flying from my house and a small one on my car. Freedom, true freedom, comes from your own mind. I don't know how many of you have read this article I wrote for Strike the Root a while ago, or this one I wrote for The Libertarian Enterprise.

I don't know how much the "authorities" watch people who write things like this. They probably ignore us completely, thinking that as long as we keep venting our frustration harmlessly, we will not start the revolution. What they don't realize is that the revolution starts in our minds. We are watering the seeds of freedom with every thought. We are ignoring the government edicts a little more every day. It has begun and will only grow. Socialistic governments only cause those seeds of liberty to germinate faster and spread to more minds with every idiotic law or control they impose on us. Don't let the state worshippers trick you into accepting your chains. Toss them aside, or turn them into jewelry if you can't.

Don't Fall Into a "Cult of Personality"

Everyone is fallible. Even the most brilliant person is capable, with his next breath, of uttering total crap. This is why we should all avoid "cults of personality". Yes, there are people whose written words I read hungrily. I try to keep my BS detectors engaged, though, so that I can filter out anything that doesn't meet the test.

Form your own opinions and don't let others weigh you by how much you are like or different from someone else. Some great (famous?) libertarians of the past and present had horrible ideas or inconsistencies in some areas. Nowhere does this get more discussion than with Ayn Rand, but it is true of everyone. Cull out the bad and keep the good. In this way you can build upon the foundations others have laid while you rise higher than they could. Liberty wins.

Sometimes I even have the alarm bells go off in my own head at my own thoughts. When I am falling asleep I have the most remarkable epiphanies at times. The next morning some of them reveal themselves to be absolutely ridiculous. Aren't you glad I get to sleep on these ideas instead of having them automatically blogged? I mean with some of the things I post even after cogitating.... I shudder to think....

Libertarian Left, Right, or Wrong?

I see a lot of blogs and websites that claim to speak for "the libertarian left". I haven't run across any from "the libertarian right" but I am sure they are out there somewhere. I don't know about you, but I think that distinction is nonsense. Either you are "libertarian" or you are not. I am not talking about "libertarian purity" or anything silly like that here. You may hold some left-over views, call them "scars", from your past, but don't pigeonhole yourself by those aberrations.


I considered myself on "The Right" long ago. Does that make this blog "a blog of the libertarian right"? I hope not. I have moved beyond all that. Or at least I think I have. Yes, I defend the "keeping and bearing" of guns. I also renounce the supreme stupidity of drug prohibition and "enforcing the law at all costs" that seem to be such a turn-on for The Right. Unlike The Left, I don't believe there is any such critter as "social justice"; either each individual gets justice or no one does.


I just think the false distinctions of "left" and "right" miss the boat completely. They are both authoritarian scavengers patrolling the bottom sludge. The libertarians are up top, in the light. Therefore this is "a blog of the political top".

Welcome to The New Dark Ages

This article in Wired, Don't Try This at Home, about the government's war against home chemistry got me thinking. It really does seem like we are entering a new "dark age" with it's own witch hunts and inquisition. Mystical superstitious nonsense like creationism is replacing scientific inquiry. Intelligent, curious people are being targeted by government thugs as "terrorists".

The subject of the Wired article, Bob Lazar, is well known to UFO/Area 51 aficionados. His is a fascinating tale. He may be a pathological liar, or he may know some bizarre things about the government's UFO cover-up. Either way, it is his sales of chemicals that has government goons after him. Chemicals that used to be available in home chemistry kits, but which the government now fears for their potential use in unapproved medicines or "things that go bang". How is our country supposed to advance with a government crack-down on experimentation? Demand a separation of government and science. Remember: tyrants want you to be helpless and stupid.

"If I Can't Dance..." by Jac

Here is something written by "Jac" at The Claire Files that I ran across recently. I think it is pretty good.

If I Can't Dance... or A Certain Person's Manifesto

"I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for
anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand
the denial of life and joy."--Emma Goldman

When tyranny reaches a certain level in a society, as it always does (which
may sound strange coming from an anarchist, but hey, I'm a realist), the freedom
lover has a number of choices, which, in essence, are really three: he can
commit suicide, he can hide, or he can fight.

Suicide in the face of tyranny is, I think, more frequent than any of us
care to imagine. How many "stress-related" heart attacks and strokes in the
United States do you think have more to do with a simple lack of will to live? A
society such as we have today is truly a killer, and whether it's through
cowardice, lack of direction, or simply a lack of physical or emotional stamina,
many people succumb with little resistance. Even some who live a "full" life
commit a form of suicide, if they repress their desire for liberty; if one
allows his passion to die, can his continued physical existence
truly be called a life?

On to hiding. As often as some of the "hard core" types dismiss it as
cowardly, I see hiding as a very valid option for the liberty lover. Indeed, my
own goal is to run away (which is a subset of the hiding choice). In fact, this
continent was largely settled by those who fled tyranny rather than fighting it.
As my friend George Potter says, statism is largely a function of population
density. It is always around but, like any parasite, requires certain conditions
to truly flourish. And often, when so many people are subject to such a
parasite, quite a lot of them actually form a symbiotic
relationship with it, and rely on its survival for their own. And when a
despotic government commands such support, and has access to the resources of a
large civilization, what recourse is left to the liberty lover but flight?

Which brings us to fight. The favorite of novelists (some of them quite
good) and die hard patriots (some of them quite sane). But really, the reason I
saved fighting for last is because, despite the romance toward it felt by some,
or the terror others imagine it with, fighting tyranny is the one thing that every liberty lover does at some point along their chosen path.
The "quiet one" who goes toe-to-toe with the cops before eating his gun; the CEO
who struggled with her principles in school before accepting her "inevitable"
fate; the gulchers who fight in court for their right to homeschool, or keep
goats; the expatriates who dodge Uncle Sugar's taxes. The computer geek who
posts rambling screeds to the internet. Ahem. All of them choose their path, and
all of them fight their battles against the same enemy. In fact, the only real
difference is the weapons they choose, which is what this piece is really about.
Specifically, it's about that most potent of weapons: laughter, and those who
wield it.

Throughout history, one of the greatest banes of kings and presidents,
princes and popes, has been laughter. Whether inspired by subtle satire or
dick-and-fart jokes, tyrants cannot stand to be laughed at. Jokesters have been
the cause of revolutions and the target of book burnings and press smashings
(and people hangings).

So, I stand before you today (actually, I'm hunched over a legal pad in bed
writing this, but you're reading it on a computer, so I'll go with some dramatic
license)... I stand before you and proudly join (as an acolyte, of course... I
could only ever dream of attaining the satirical summits
reached by some) the ancient and noble line of Certain Persons, members of which
include: Tom Lehrer, Groucho Marx, H.L. Mencken, Emma Goldman, Samuel Clemens,
Ben Franklin, Jonathan Swift, Aristophones... so many more.

As one of our wiser contemporary members recently wrote (actually, he's not
really all that wise; kind of a goof really, but he's the best writer of us all
and, as a writer, needs an ego boost now and again): "I am convinced, now more
than ever, that the best action against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of
all that is best about being human, is to be human. Inconquerably human.
Unapologetically joyful."

So, if you are offended by our smart-assed smirks, or our immature sounding
attacks against statists, or our seeming lack of regard for The Cause or The
Party or The Mission, perhaps you should think twice before admonishing
us.

Because if you can't have fun in the pursuit of liberty, what, really, is
the point?

Fun With Acronyms

BATFE=Barbaric Anti-Truth and -Freedom Extremists

CIA=Cannabis Importers and Assassins

DEA= Destroying Everything American

DHS=Department of Hitlerian Schemes

FBI= Feral Brutality Instigators

IRS=Insane Revenue Stealers

TSA=Traveller-Squeezers Anonymous

USA (as opposed to "America")=Usurpers Supressing America



Laugh at them, then abolish them ALL!!

Why I'm Radical

I'm a radical libertarian and an anarchist because I see what happens if people continue to believe that government has a legitimate function. It grows out of control. The way I see it, in the alphabet of government, too many people say "the government should regulate A but leave everything else alone". The problem is that there are other people who then pipe up and say "government should regulate X or Y and leave everything else alone". Government is always only too happy to begin to regulate something new, but never decides it is time to back off. It is like saying that cancer is good because it kills a few really bad people while ignoring the fact that it kills more far more good people. Government is not worth the destruction it causes even if during its existence it occasionally does something good. Government: there is no excuse for it.

What Good are "Laws"?

Do you think laws make you safer? Do they somehow protect you? Laws are not passed to prevent or stop any crime, but only to provide for punishing those who have committed the crime, if they survive to escape the scene and are later caught and proved to be the guilty party. How does this protect you? What about the really stupid laws designed to protect you only from yourself?

Guns in the hands of the intended victims can (and do) stop and prevent crimes. But this takes power away from the government authoritards. That is one reason they don't like privately held weapons. Another reason is that in too many cases, the authoritards in question ARE the attackers.

Some people think that fear of punishment will keep bad people from committing crimes. I don't think that works very often. Premeditated murders would never occur if that were the case. Everyone thinks "I won't get caught!" Criminals who have been interviewed admit to being more afraid of armed victims than of being caught by cops.

Civilized people need to be able to stop a crime just as it starts. The best and most effective way of doing this without putting yourself in even more danger, is to have a gun, know how to use it, and be willing to do so.

Hey NRA, Please stop "Helping"!

I have written to the NRA again expressing my disgust at their "help". Wayne LaPierre: at this rate, you will negotiate away all of my guns. Compromise is for losers. Compromise is what you do if you are on the losing side of a battle. Or if you think you have done something wrong. It is like plea bargaining. Schumer and McCarthy should be begging gun owners to allow THEM to plea bargain instead of you, supposedly representing ME, running to them to show them how to rape our rights more effectively. Our side can't be the losing side; we have the moral high-ground, we have objective reality, we have the guns. Of course, the feds have more guns. They also have you worshipping them and their stormtroopers.

How can you have time to help to violate gun owners? There are plenty of REAL crises happening right now that you could be working on instead of helping the traitors in Congress to outlaw gun ownership. If you really want to help the good guys, Mr. LaPierre, join with JPFO in calling for the shutdown of the BATFE. Hold them and their accomplices accountable for their harassment of Red's Trading Post. Insist that they immediately release Wayne Fincher and return all of his guns and pay for the militia headquarters that burned. Make them pay from their own pockets, not from "public funds".

Either start helping gun owners or merge with the Brady Massacre Fan Club. You couldn't hurt us any worse than you are now.

Ed Brown and The Feds

What is this case about now? It is purely to punish someone for not paying their bribe. How much do the feds claim Ed and Elaine "owe"? How much have the feds (and their state and local co-conspirators) spent trying to "get" the Browns? Is this a cost effective siege? What function of the US government is so important that it justifies killing a person or taking their home or business? Over tax money? Get real, Uncle Scam.


I know all the arguments about "they were convicted in a fair trial". Your definition of "a fair trial" may be different than mine. Taxation is theft. Theft can not be justified or made right by passing "laws" authorizing it.


I would much prefer that Mr. Brown refuse to pay on the grounds that taxation is immoral rather than using the "show me the law" tactic. That isn't my call. America is watching the US government. What will it do? Murder or otherwise destroy lives over some money? Why not. It does this and worse on a daily basis. Just ask gun owners, or non-sanctioned medication users, or un-papered drivers, or........

Scared Sheep? Or....?

When people run into my ideas unprepared they get frightened. They call me a wacko, insane, loony, nut case, a weirdo, "Krazy Kent", and a variety of other creative names. They suggest I go back to smoking my crack pipe and leave opinions to the traditional statists. The really funny thing is a lot of this comes from people who take the Presidential Candidate Selector and find that I am their top-scoring (former) candidate.

I really don't understand this reaction. Do people think so little of their own opinions that they secretly think they are crazy? Do they fear anyone who voices these things out loud? Or do they read only snippets of what I have to say, and then take them out of context. Surely that is the only way they could be exposed to my brilliance and be unconvinced. (<---- a joke)

Claire Wolfe Time

Claire Wolfe, in her book 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution, made the statement "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

The question constantly arises, "Is it time, yet?" Yes, it is time. It has been time since the dawn of humanity. Look back at history and you will see there has never been a time that fighting against oppressive rulers was the wrong thing to do. If our species had always remembered that fact, and exercised it, we would not be in the situation we are in now.

Our problem is that we abdicated our responsibility when it was easy to fulfil. We thought that the tyrants were not too bad; besides we knew them personally. Now the rulers have erected a huge wall of "laws" designed to ensure their "continuity of government". People with a blind sense of "lawfulness" will point to those laws and say that it is wrong to fight back against the evil rulers. Only if you look at it through the eyes of the tyrants themselves is it "wrong". Of course they will forbid fighting back. Tyrants always do.

Before anyone gets worked up, I'm not advocating any actions here, I just want you to realize that regardless of whatever "laws" the tyrants erect around themselves, fighting against tyranny, with whatever you have, is never wrong.

Safety Nets?

I know some people (OK, a LOT of people) feel that modern society owes some sort of "safety net" to the poor, sick, or disadvantaged. I don't think it is a case of "owing a debt", but I do think that a civilized society will provide something to assist those in need. In fact, just about every society always has. Where I have the problem with a "safety net" is when it is financed through theft. Government runs on theft and is not legitimately responsible for taking care of anyone. Private charities (or even "private charity" as in "personal kindness") are not coercive and are more able to adapt to the individual situation. They are also more likely to detect those who abuse "the system" and become parasites. "Kindness" does not then attempt to take possession of the lives of those it helps. "Safety nets": another empty excuse by people who fear freedom and do not trust themselves to do the right thing if no one is holding a gun to their head.

Legitimate Government

What is the legitimate purpose of government? From my radical libertarian perspective, the only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect the rights of the individual from being violated. This is what The Declaration of Independence was talking about. If the government fails in this it has to go. If the government becomes the main culprit violating individual rights it has negated the very reason it had for existing in the first place. Therefore in order to fulfil its duty to protect the rights of the individual it is necessary for that government to abolish itself.

Every government sooner or later, usually sooner, becomes the people's worst enemy.

My Neighbor's Nuke

The right to own and to carry any weapon is often belittled using the extreme scenario of your neighbor having a nuclear bomb in his garage. Forget for a moment the fact that extreme cases make for really bad laws. If you have an absolute right to own any weapon, what can you do if your neighbor has a nuke?


If my neighbor had a nuke, and I thought he was that much of a danger to me, I would try to destroy his bomb or shoot him before he had a chance to use it. Then I would take my chances with a fully informed jury. "Self defence" applies here, as it does in any instance of imminent danger. My neighbor would also be able to claim "self defense" if he shot me when I tried to get him, so it would probably be better to try to reason with him first. If I felt he was so mentally unstable that reason would not get through to him, then I'd take my chances.


What I would not do is use this case to argue that since my crazed, nut-case neighbor wanted to threaten my life, and the lives for miles around, by keeping a nuclear weapon in his garage that government should ban me from owning guns or ban children from having and using rubber band guns. That is insanity.

Help Red's Trading Post

Red's Trading Post is the oldest gun store in Idaho. The thugs from BATFEces are trying to shut it down. There is a lot of background information at War on Guns Blog about this case and today there is a suggestion on what YOU can do to help.

It's a Protest Vote - Really

I realize that any write-in votes for me won't be counted by "election officials" because I am not willing to jump through the hoops to become "legitimate" as far as the feds are concerned. I am a write-in candidate only as a protest; just like if you write in "Bart Simpson" or something. The difference is that I stand for something. If you tell someone that you wrote in "Kent McManigal", they can Google me (if they can figure out the spelling) and see exactly what I am all about. I think we all know Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of being the Republican nominee; not the way the system is rigged. (If he did become the nominee, I would need to question whether the system is rigged like I think it is.) A Libertarian has even less chance of winning the election than Ron Paul has of being the Republican nominee. If you still feel that not voting is shameful, then you can write-in my name, knowing the Powers-That-Be will not count it, but still sending a message, just the same.

Domestic Enemies in Black Robes

When elected officials take office they pledge to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Then they immediately break that oath by not recognizing that almost every thing the federal government does is in direct violation of the Constitution, and trying to stop it. In direct violation, but sanctioned (wink-wink) by federal courts.

How can you protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic when some of the worst domestic enemies have placed themselves in charge of deciding what the Constitution means? Whether or not the Constitution is worth defending is another matter. As has been said, either it established this governmental monstrosity we now suffer under, or it did nothing to stop it. Fortunately "freedom" does not depend on a piece of paper, but on each of us as individuals. Freedom is ours to take and live, if we will only do it. Pay no attention to the black-robed gremlins of the court. Let them paint themselves into a corner with their pronouncements-from-on-high. Just get on with the business of living free from coercion.

Leaders or Rulers?

Leaders can be a good thing. They lead by showing the rest of humanity the trail, and then striking out along that path, alone if necessary. If you trust the Leader, you follow him. If not, you find your own path.


Rulers dictate which path you will follow, often times from the safety of their fortresses. A Ruler may send an envoy in front of you as a decoy to make you believe you are following the Glorious Leader. You are given no choice whether to follow the path the Ruler chooses for you. A set of imaginary rules will be enacted to show you that the Ruler's way is the only right way.


Is the President (or governor, senator, etc.) a "Leader" or is he a "Ruler"? If you have a Leader and he begins leading you astray, you are free to stop following. If he threatens you or forces you to continue following him by dragging you along, he is no longer a Leader, but a Ruler. The Rulers in the US claim we are free to follow them or choose another "Leader" in the next election. We will be dragged along unwillingly until that time, of course. The "Leaders" insist we are not free to say "No thank you. I don't need a Leader".


Leaders lead; governments drag. Which situation seems more like America in 2007?

"Bill of Rights" or Simply "Rights"?

A group I belong to, JPFO, is working to educate people everywhere (not just in America) about the Bill of Rights; advocating what they call a "Bill of Rights culture". I would like to live in such a culture, but I don't think it goes far enough. People need to be reminded that rights were not created by the Bill of Rights. Some of the founders of America were afraid that if a Bill of Rights were written, government would try to claim that those rights mentioned were the only ones held by the people. Even though the 9th and 10th Amendments were adopted to try to avoid this, it has still occurred. Plus the government has "reinterpreted" away any protection of rights enshrined in the document.

Instead of a "Bill of Rights culture" I think we need a "Rights culture". A deep understanding that rights exist regardless of government attitudes or usurpation; are inseparable from responsibilities; are inborn in every person everywhere; do not come from "Bills", government or anyone else; are not additive or divisible; are absolute and not subject to restrictions; are the opposite of privileges; and are worth defending to the death.

The Bill of Rights was a good idea, but learning that actual Rights exist with or without government permission is more empowering. At least it has been for me.

New CafePress Products

Check out my new "Government is Evil" and "Live Free Today" products on CafePress. Straight to the point, don't you think?

Consistent Liberty

Freedom is not "pick and choose". I can't acknowledge that government in all its incarnations is evil while begging government to "keep out the foreigners" or to punish "hate speech". If freedom is a good thing for me, then it is also a good thing for my enemy. I must be consistent. I can't turn to government for help when something happens that I couldn't stop. If I can't stop it, then neither could government, at least not without violating someone's rights. You must live up to the principles of freedom even when it makes you uncomfortable.

"The Gang" from JPFO

The JPFO documentary "The Gang" is now available ($29.95). This film details the history and the abuses of the BATFE, one of the most vile and disgusting of all the criminal organizations inside the US government (my words; not theirs). Beat me to the draw and get your copy before I get mine!

Forum 21

There is an interesting forum that I have joined. It is called Forum 21 and is run by Phil Defer. It is based in France, but they have started a thread about me in English. Phil asked for an interview and I explained that I am not actively campaigning anymore, but answered his questions anyway. He invited me to join his forum to answer the participants questions, so I did. I find it interesting to see how other cultures view "liberty". Go on over and take a look around. If you can't read French, use Babel Fish to translate. You can even ask me questions there, too.

The Abusive Relationship

Do people enjoy abuse? Do we seek out or stay in abusive relationships because somewhere, deep down, we like being miserable? I know people who seem to. Government is like an abusive partner. It steals from our bank accounts and wants more, claiming ownership of all our possessions while contributing nothing of value. It sets bizarre, arbitrary rules with extreme punishments for even accidental infractions. It demands to know every detail of our private lives "for our own good" as if we are stupid children needing constant supervision. It claims moral superiority over us while behaving like a drunken lecher. It warns us of dire consequences if we ever dare to tell it to hit the road. "You'll be sorry! You are nothing without me! You'll never make it on your own! Everyone will kill each other without me to make them behave!" Yet we keep defending its indefensible actions, and behaving like it really does have some claim on our lives. Kick the bum out. If it resists, you know what to do.

Pragmatic Perfectionism

"The perfect is the enemy of the good". I hear this quote a lot in libertarian circles. Usually quoted by the "pragmatists" and directed at the radicals (like me). They are wasting breath because I already know this fact. I think on a personal level it is a good thing to remember. Don't waste your life spinning your wheels with your bumper against a brick wall. On the other hand, why bother at all if you don't have "perfect" as a goal? Don't ever forget: all government is totally evil. With that in mind, it exists, and probably will all of your life, so use it against itself if you can. Don't use government against individual people unless they are an instrument of the state. "Live by the state; die by the state" you might say. Work toward Libertopia within the current system when you must, and outside the system when you can. Acknowledge that nothing will ever be perfect, but LIVE free now, and never stop striving.

What Kind of "American"?

I am a human being who lives in America. Beyond that, I hold the values that were apparently espoused by the founders of America in high regard. I believe that each person is a sovereign individual who owes nothing to anyone else other than to not aggress against them. I am not a "Soviet American" such as runs the government and fawns over the institutions of tyranny. I support freedom of speech; not laws against "hate speech" and Free Speech Zones which protect the President from hearing dissent. I do not support government spying on Americans under the pretense of trying to catch terrorists plotting. Torture is evil no matter who is doing it and no matter what you call it. You do not protect freedom by torture. You do not increase Liberty by restricting Liberty. Outlawing self defense and the tools which facilitate it is plain wrong. I do not support government programs or agencies which label as "domestic terrorists" anyone who believes the same things that the founders of America believed. I do not seek Liberty for myself and then use the bludgeon of government against those who irritate me. I believe that the US is the worst threat America has ever faced, and I don't know if America can survive the threat.

Drugged Drivers

I know of someone who is suffering from injuries received in a car wreck a year ago. The driver of the other car was at fault, and was on drugs. Now my friend will probably suffer pain from nerve damage for the rest of her life, and need powerful pain medications in order to function. This fact has made her question her libertarian opinion as to drug prohibition.

I can understand her thoughts. No one wants impaired drivers careening into them out of nowhere. On the other hand, driving while impaired or even distracted is already illegal, and yet things like this still happen. The current War on Drugs destroys freedom on a massive scale and yet doesn't prevent things like this from happening, so what can we do? Is there a real solution? Or do we simply accept that tragedies will always happen as a part of life?

Memorial Day: Remembering Our Past, Considering Our Future.

JPFO ALERT:

Memorial Day: Remembering Our Past, Considering Our Future.

Each year on Memorial Day, JPFO reminds our readers to honor those who died in America's wars. We mourn for them and we thank them.

But we also remind you that as the United States becomes more like the brutal police states we once fought, we must mourn as well for the loss of our freedoms. We mourn the loss of the great promise that once was America -- now betrayed by politicians, bureaucrats, thuggish enforcers, and uncaring citizens.

We've been heavily advertising our new documentary The Gang because it showcases the BATFE as a supreme example of this betrayal. Corrupt, inept thugs enforce not just unconstitutional laws but arbitrary bureau "policies" against honest citizens. And no one speaks up ... because they could be next.

Recently, the television show "Boston Legal" aired an episode entitled "Stick It". You can read a summary at http://www.boston-legal.org/19-stickit/ep19-stickit.shtml . More importantly, you can watch the video (or read a transcript) of a closing argument by one of the show's characters (scroll down to "Alan Shore's Closing Argument").

This speech is probably one of the most eloquent, timely, and terrifying recitations of the dark turn our country has taken over the last few decades. It concludes with the statement, "I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights -- we have to live up to that. We simply must."

Indeed.

On this sad holiday, we urge you to take a moment to consider not only what we've lost, but why and how we've lost it. Consider, too, how we might get it back. There are 100 million gun owners in this country, and only 2300 agents. So why are we putting up with this treachery?

We can start by abolishing the BATFE and all federal control and regulation of firearms. Ultimately, though, we must attain a Bill of Rights Culture.Let's make it happen.

- The Liberty Crew

PS: The day after JPFO aired our "Talkin' to America" interview with Ryan Horsley, owner of Red's Trading Post, he was visited by THREE BATFE agents, including an area supervisor. Read Ryan's update at www.jpfo.org/redsupdate2.htm . Yet another example of the BATFE's vindictive actions against honest American gun owners. By allowing this activity, we are allowing the deaths of our fallen soldiers to be in vain.

Mr. Wood

A few blogs ago, I mentioned the high school teacher who was instrumental in teaching me to think critically about what I was being "fed". Mr. Bill Wood taught Physics, Chemistry, and a "special" class. After spending two years in his classes, he is to blame for a lot of who I am. I would skip other classes to sit in the library and read; but I never skipped his classes. That was the only class time, since first grade when I learned to read, where I learned anything important.

During my high school years there was a big creationism uproar occurring statewide. He even testified in the court case. He encouraged us to look at the issue critically from all sides. He never hid his opinion, but had his students on both sides attempt to defend our own position coherently during discussion. He also led us in a study of advertising and the ways it influences our thoughts. I was always dreadfully bad at math, but he often gave me credit for being the only person in his physics class who understood the concepts being discussed. Even if I never got through a calculation without an error during the entire year. The main thing I remember from all his classes was this: while other teachers told us what to think, he emphasized how to think.

I heard through hearsay that he quit teaching within a couple years of my graduation. The politics of the "education system" are an obstacle to education, screening out the best teachers. Just another reason for the separation of school and state. Mr. Wood was the best teacher I ever had.

When I think of him I feel that he would be disappointed in me today. After all, I never made anything of myself. He would have told me I could do better.

Permits: The All-American Bribe

America; land of the free... as long as your pay your bribe to the right agency to get official permission to practice your freedom. Only, in this case, the corrupt bribe-takers are so morally vacant that they actually keep a record of their criminality! The bribes have been institutionalized and codified.

Want to add a room to your house? Get a building permit that not only gives your "permission" to do the work, but gives "implied consent" to the local government to tell you how you can build it, and allows them to trespass to "inspect" the work (and maybe just snoop a little while they are there). Wish to carry a gun for self defense? Apply for a permit that puts you into a database of criminals for government to keep a wary eye on. A permit that can be denied or revoked on a whim and can be used to track you when it is decided that common folk no longer "need" to own guns. Want to drive your car? That entails a whole stack of permits if your wish to have official sanction. Once again, by getting their permits and trying to work within the system, they claim you have given implied consent to go along with all the anti-American garbage that the authorities commit. Things like "safety" check-points, seatbelt laws, and DUI (known as "drunk driving" back when it really was about being drunk while driving) laws that have become meaningless by their pettiness.

Freedom-by-permit is not freedom at all. It is slavery. It is "freedom if you can afford to pay for it". Be an outlaw and take your freedom without begging permission from any government thug.

"Continuity of Government"

Leave it to the parasites of government to think that they are so important and their job so critical, that even if some event destroys all of the productive people in America, the government MUST survive! That is like preserving the disease organisms after the host is dead. Take the most useless sector of the population, and the one thing we can all do completely without, and make certain it survives. After disasters, people who sit and wait for the government to rescue them frequently die. What makes anyone think it would be different next time? What "job" does government do that would still be "necessary" if the rest of the population was dead? I mean, really, who would be left to care? Other than those disease organisms who call themselves "government". Plus, those who would be left after such an event would most likely be the people who are least reliant on government bail-outs, and also the least compliant with government orders. Do the authoritards think it will impress China that America will still have a government rattling its sabres after doomsday? Unfortunately, they probably do.