New Constitutional Amendment

By way of The Libertarian Enterprise:

— A PRIVACY AMENDMENT —
To the Constitution of the United States of America

It shall be unlawful for any official, elected or appointed, at any
level of government, or for any government employee, or for the employee of any
company working for the government, to take the likeness—photographic, or by any
other means—of any individual, without that individual's explicit, written
permission.
The yielding of such permission may not be made a condition of
exercising any right, or receiving any service otherwise due to that individual.
Any attempt to violate or evade this measure on the part of any official,
elected or appointed, at any level of government, or for any government
employee, or the employee of any company working for the government, shall be
punishable by no less than 25 years at hard labor, without possibility of
parole, in that prison which currently has the worst record for deadly criminal
violence.

We Are NOT "Losertarians"

Unless we allow ourselves to be. We are the ones with consistent principles. We are the ones with an internal morality that doesn't rely on what is "legal" or dictated. That makes libertarians the winners. Authoritarians such as Republicans, Democrats, and other fascio-socialists sometimes resort to calling libertarians "losertarians" because of our lack of representation in the realm of electoral politics. The fact that most voters vote for the wrong people doesn't contradict this. The only way they can continue to do so is if we continue to allow ourselves to be judged according to "their" rules; in "their" game. Authoritarians have no defense for their monstrous desire to rule over the lives of others, so they try to attack us on election results. They can't honestly attack libertarians on principle; they don't know where that is. They come to the battle of principles unarmed.

"The Gang" Trailer

Courtesy of Red's Trading Post.

Sidetracked By a Statist

The title above refers to the years I spent wandering in "conservativeland" because of a statist's assessment that since I hated government, I was a conservative. Keep in mind that the statist in question was in college and heading toward a life in law offices and politics. His world view had been shrivelled by his blinders.

This person sat behind me in my "World History" class in college and I had made an impression on him because of my buckskin jacket and coonskin cap. (As an aside: It is so much fun watching a state senator twitch and squirm because of the nut-case wearing buckskin, sitting front and center in the class he has agreed to speak to! This is probably "illegal" because of the PATRIOT act now.) When I began dating the classmate's sister (future wife numero uno) he felt it was his duty to assess where I stood politically. I told him I hated government. Some things don't change, you see. He informed me that that made me a "conservative". I said I doubted it, but he assured me that was what conservatives believed, so I simply accepted this without looking into it. I wasn't too concerned about labels even then.

So I spent years watching the conservative "leaders" and wondering why they always betrayed me and made me more angry with each passing year. Had I stopped to think for myself at that point, I would have seen that I was not a "conservative", but an anarchist, or at very least a libertarian. Obviously, I have seen the light in the intervening years (Thank you, L. Neil Smith!). At least I didn't do any damage to freedom as a fake conservative. I didn't contribute anything to the conservative cause since I was fighting it from within, and wasn't inspired to be active in any way.

I am glad that I finally became concerned enough to actually step back and look at what I believed, as opposed to what someone else had labelled me.

Supporting Ron Paul

Yes, I support the campaign of Ron Paul. Do I think he would be "the best President" for 2008? No, I think I would be. However, that is the wrong question. Do I think he would be better than any other Demopublican who is running? Absolutely, with no contest! I also like the fact that he is stirring up debate and making many silent libertarians speak up. I like the fact that he is causing havoc on the internet and is exposing the hypocrisy of the mainstream media. I like the fact that he is exposing the other Demopublicans as the tyrant wanna-bes they are. I like the way his campaign is forcing people to examine their views in ways that no other Presidential campaign has ever done. All of these things are good. Still doubt I will vote for him, as I will probably write in my own name.

Real Liberty - Fear of the Unknown

Some people undoubtedly fear the changes that will come with true liberty. As unnatural as that seems to me, I do try to anticipate these fears.
Evil government thugs and bureaucrats may fear the loss of being able to order others around; the loss of power, control, bribes, the protection racket, petty meddling, and just generally being "above the law". Recognize these miscreants and don't let their fears or fear mongering stop us. After all, criminals always fear strong individuals. They prefer prey, because prey doesn't shoot back.
Some weak or overly emotional people will be afraid of living without the false security of the "safety net" that government pretends to provide. Point out the failure of government to really help the weak and the sick, and educate them on the true costs of relying on an inefficient bureaucracy versus the charitable nature of people when they aren't being coerced. Also show them what they can do with 8 times more wealth in a free market.
Those who have been brainwashed into believing that they can't protect themselves may fear freelance criminals running amok after the state sponsored criminals are gone from the landscape. Take them out shooting. Teach them the importance of paying attention to their surroundings (this enriches life exponentially, anyway, while scaring away thugs).
Life is too rich and too short to put up with government. Don't let your fears, or the fear of others, hold you back.

Trying to Keep My Blog "Polite"

A lot of libertarian blogs are filled with language that offends some people. That is OK with me, of course. Use any words you want in my presence. I don't really believe that some words are "bad" and I am not offended by anyone's language usage. (Well, that may not be totally true as some people's disregard for others can offend me at times. That isn't what I am talking about, though.) I think the FCC's rules for broadcast "standards" are complete nonsense and should be flushed back to where they belong. Back to my blog: Out of respect for readers who might not wish to expose their families or prospective libertarians to those words, I choose to not use them. I don't delete them from the comments, however, so tread there at your own risk.

I would like for people to be able to direct anyone to my blog without fear that my language would turn them off before my ideas have had a chance to shock and offend them. If you have friends or family who you think might be interested in libertarian philosophy, but who don't want to see "the F word" in every post, send them the links to this blog and my website. Freedom needs all the supporters it can get. Maybe later they will come to realize that it is pointless to fear certain arrangements of letters. Then they will be ready to visit some of the more colorful blogs.

That being said, I still am way more crude than the rest of my family. Such is the role of a black sheep.

US Department of Laughs

I'm not sure if I have ever posted three blogs in one day before, but I just had to pass this along. Here are "warning signs" from the US Department of Laughs. They are real signs that are confusing at best. The helpful USDoL has written new interpretations for them. I may be twisted, but I laughed til I cried!

Two by "El Neil"

Here is an article by L. Neil Smith, published by JPFO: Living Off the Interest, and a link to another article by L. Neil in a similar vein: Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision. These are the kinds of things that make me certain that we MUST attain a free world. Read it for yourself and see why I feel this way.

"It Has Never Been Tried Before"

The most pathetic argument against a stateless society is the one that whines "It won't work because it has never been (successfully) tried before". So? Every new invention "has never been tried before" either. Would you insist on staying in the stone age because the alternatives "haven't been tried before"? What's the difference?

I think it is time to try liberty. And not in some half-hearted "limited government" kind of way, either. Supposedly that is what the Constitution was about. Nope, this time we should try all-out freedom. No government other than self-government. Glorious anarchy instead of government-induced chaos. No badges for the criminals to hide behind. No "laws" setting up mini (or not-so-mini) kleptocracies. No tiny-souled bureaucrats taking out their frustrations on productive people anymore. We wouldn't even need to punish those who would inevitably keep trying to establish a government of some sort. Keep them around to remind ourselves what has been tried and seen to fail time after time, for thousands of years. Study them like a smallpox virus. They are in reality much more deadly, but only if we choose to follow them.

"Supporting My Brothers"

I was reading an exchange between someone who is joining the military soon and some other people who were commenting on his decision. He was asked whether he supported the government or its war in Iraq (among other places). He replied that he did not. He said he was not joining the military in order to fight for the government or to "fight for freedom", but to "support (his) brothers" in the military. So, who are his "brothers" fighting for? If they are all just supporting one another then everyone is chasing their own tail. Someone somewhere is fighting for the government. After all, that is the organization which is signing the checks.

There are better ways to support your brothers. How about trying to get them home alive? Signing up for a war that serves only government interests does not "protect freedom" in America or anywhere else. Staying in America and fighting against the implementation of the US police state does. Bring your "brothers" home and then all of you surround DC to contain the malignancy that is centered there.

Need Evidence That I Am Crazy?

Here is a little "human interest story" for all of you Kent-watchers out there.

Dimensional shift makes man feel like he's not alone
Jason Offutt
The Examiner

Time is not always as it seems. The human invention of chronicling time by
the movement of the planet fits well with our linear lives, but sometimes things
aren't so linear.

Kent McManigal lived in his pet store in Gunnison, Colo., the spring of
2004 when he experienced something he couldn't explain.

Now, I will say there are a couple of details the reporter got wrong: The catalogs in question were for different, unaffiliated companies. The web address from the missing knife catalog was in my generic "favorites" folder but I had not moved it to its specific "favorites" folder yet. That was also confirmation that it was the newest "favorite" I had added. I don't know what the reporter means by this making me feel I am "not alone". I never felt anyone did this to me. As I have said before, I have never seen a report that got everything right.

Now, did I imagine this? Am I lying about it? All I can say in my defense is that I do not believe in supernatural occurrences, but I got the strangest feeling as soon as the odd events started to unfold. I don't have any explanation for what happened, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a rational explanation. At least I would never base national policy on or start wars because of bizarre events.

TOLFA: The Next Step

I have finished my studies with TOLFA (The On Line Freedom Academy). I think it is a very good concept, plus I enjoyed it. I really think that this could be a major help in educating people about the ideas of liberty. The more of us who go through this, the faster government will lose its veil of legitimacy. For my part, I pledge to keep encouraging people to "enroll". Please consider trying it out. If you have wondered what you can "do" to promote liberty, well, this is one thing. Let me know if you decide to try it.

"Get Your Filthy Government Off Me!"

I don't wish to have any coercive government in my life. It is completely unwelcome. I am expected to feed it; house it; obey its whims; excuse its "messes" and the "accidents" it leaves everywhere. I'd rather have a spoiled 4 year-old with a gun in my home than the "nicest" government agent or employee within sight of my house.

I don't need or want government's "justice system", "law enforcement", "services", or whatever else it tries to convince me I can't survive without. I would rather take my chances with free-lance criminals I can shoot at in a free, "anarchist" world than have government forcibly inserted into my life. I am fully capable of taking care of myself and of controlling my behavior. I do not depend on government to dictate my morality. Neither do you. Admit it: you know right from wrong, and if government suddenly dropped dead (happy thought!) you would not go on a killing spree would you? What about the truly bad people? You know, the ones not included in the governmental "dropping dead" mentioned above. You and I would be able to end a criminal's career if he foolishly thought that without government there to protect him he could get away with aggression, wouldn't we?

So, when do "we" start driving government from our lives? When does the foreign, occupying force known as government get handed notice that it is no longer welcome? The sooner the better. Don't you think?

Don't forget: Starve the terrorists of the ATF!

Owning Private Property

In a recent exchange, someone told me that they have similar views to mine except that they do not believe in "private property". He referred to himself as a "left anarchist" (there are those seemingly mutually exclusive terms again!). I invited a discussion since this is such a bizarre concept to me. Sadly, I have yet to hear back. I wanted, and still want, clarifications. Does he mean any kind of private property or only real estate? Does that mean I can live in "his" house with him? Or at least set my tipi up in "his" yard if I want to live there? Can just anyone use "his" car if they wish to? What if I browse around "his" house and take what I think I need? Does he really mean that nothing can be owned? How can you consume food if you can't own it? Where does that leave the foundation of libertarianism: that we each own our own bodies and lives? Can we even say "my own body" if we hold this belief? What would make someone come to this rather odd conclusion?

To be honest, I have always considered this type of argument to be the whinings of someone who doesn't own everything they want, so they declare that they are against private property for everyone. It is what makes a communist a communist. I concede that I could be wrong. I would like to own a lot more than I do, especially real estate. I feel it would be phony of me to be against private property.

Shunning: Exercise Your Right of Association

In my call to Starve the ATF, all I am suggesting you do is to exercise your basic right of association. You have the right to associate with anyone you want. You also have the right to refuse to associate with anyone you do not want around you - for any reason. You own yourself and you can (and should) choose who to let into your life. Your reasons may be good, or they may be stupid or racist, but the right is still yours. Others also have the right to choose to not associate with you, so don't engage in foolish shunnings lightly. Government tries to violate your right to associate with whom you choose in every way possible, usually by forcing its minions upon you. Shunning does not violate the ZAP in any way. Even if you choose to shun the family members who may be enabling the jack-booted behavior of ATF terrorists.

Some have suggested to me that to capture the agents' actions on video to shine the light of day on their behavior is a better, nicer, method of dealing with these vermin. I think surveillance can play a part in bringing them down, but I don't feel it is enough. You do what you feel is right of course, but please, do something.

Assume Liberty

In day-to-day situations we should be able to assume the default position of expecting liberty to be respected. This should be obvious. The problem is that under the US government and its local co-conspirators, liberty has become the aberration instead of the norm. Presumption of guilt has become the default setting. Instead of putting a gun in your pocket before going out of the house, you may worry about whether such a standard, common sense action is forbidden by the "authorities" in your area. Instead of simply doing some repairs to your home, you may feel the pressure to beg for a permit first. This is unconscionable. How was this allowed to happen? I don't know, but I do know it has got to change.

Not everything about the present day is bad, nor is everything about the past good. You have the power to recognize what to pick and choose from the glorious buffet of history. Toss out the tainted oysters of tyranny. Assume that liberty will be acknowledged and respected, and soon it will be again.


And don't forget: Starve the deviants of the ATF!

Tyrannofascism In America

Isn't it funny how the government twists the language to suit their agenda? They make up new nonsense words and phrases like "islamofascism" (which is self contradictory) and they redefine other words like "patriotism" and "insurgent" to mean the opposite of what they have always meant.
On the other hand, freedom fighters try to do the same thing, but without the help of the big media conglomerates who fall all over themselves to spread the newest government word. The word "hoplophobia" has been around for decades, but won't be heard on the nightly news or read in any big newspaper. It doesn't fit with their agenda.
We can have fun with this anyway. A few I have made up include "jabbut" (from the commonly used "JBT" or "jack booted thug"), "tyranny deniers" (those who refuse to see tyranny in the actions of government agencies, especially the IRS; as a counter to the phrase "tax deniers"), "counterfeit 'laws'" (any law which seeks to control something other than actual aggression), and "law pollution" (the state of having so many laws that they all become nothing more than clutter). The word "tyrannofascism" in the title seems very fitting to describe government. I am not sure if anyone has used it before; I couldn't find it in any online searches. It seems very self evident to me. I don't expect any of these to find their way into common speech, at least not with their original meaning.

Libertarian or...? So Many Labels!

After my screed on Left Libertarians and such I keep seeing debates about what labels we may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Labels divide us. I suppose I am a clumper. When asked, I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and probably more that I can't think of right now. I can find common ground among conspiracy theorists, minarchists, right-wing gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where any group member calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.

I usually simply stick with L. Neil Smith's definition of libertarianism: a libertarian is someone who lives by the ZAP (does not aggress upon others). Some people don't like this definition and have their own favorite. I know a fellow firefly (freedom outlaw) when I meet one. That is the important part.

"US Department of Theft" Loses Another One

Here is some good news in the fight against the US Department of Theft (also incorrectly known as the IRS): IRS Loses Challenge to Prove Tax Liability!

America's Problem: The US government

America has a drug problem. It is the DEA. By the same token, the only "gun problem" America has is the BATFE and the mindset that government has the authority to regulate guns in some way. I guess what it really comes down to is this: America has a government problem. Enabling the problem are those among us who believe government is necessary for civilization, instead of recognizing that civilization exists in spite of government. Even worse are those, like a certain Republican Presidential candidate (Rudy G.), who says "freedom means obeying the authorities". America is a great country, but it is being held back (and held down) by buffoons calling themselves the US government. America does not need the "USA". America needs to give freedom a chance. It is what we were promised; it is time we took it.

Starve the ATF! Part Two

Why target the BATFE (Barbaric Anti-Truth and -Freedom Extremists) when there are so many government agencies deserving of abolition? Because we have to start somewhere. They brought it on themselves by kidnapping Wayne Fincher and by trying to destroy Red's Trading Post. The malignant octopus that is government needs to be crippled by lopping off its tentacles, or by removing its head which controls them. The "head" being the sick notion of government legitimacy; it will take years for most people to awaken to this core problem. Government was a bad idea that has outlasted its time by several millennia. We don't have the luxury of time anymore. The ATF must be brought to its knees and then destroyed while it is down. This is an agency which by its very nature and every part of its "mission" is completely illegal in America (according to the highest law of the land: The Constitution). Shun everyone associated in any way with BATFE! (Here is a good start: Linda Young, the ATF agent who has been "investigating" Red's) There is no more deserving group of criminals than the ATF, except, perhaps the IRS. They're next.

Starve the ATF!

I almost never tell you what I think you should do. So you should listen closely this time as I make a plea for your action. Because of the systematic harassment of Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post, I suggest that everyone immediately cease doing any business at all with any ATF agent, clerk, secretary, or their family members. Don't sell them food, clothes, gasoline. Nothing. That's right. Let's starve the monsters to death! In the old days it was called "shunning" and was used when unrepentant people would not turn from their unacceptable ways. They became "dead" to the rest of the community; sometimes for lack of food and shelter, they died for real. It is time to bring that tradition back. If you know of anyone who works for ATF in any capacity you should refuse to have any dealings with them whatsoever. Unless their immediate family members publicly renounce their corrupt relatives and join in the shunning they too should be shunned.

Why am I calling for such drastic steps? Because of the extreme actions of the ATF agents involved in trying to drive Red's Trading Post out of business. They have been actively harassing Ryan and his staff, and have recently resorted to accusing him of harassing and intimidating them - for simply shining the light of day on their criminal behavior! Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black"!! They are trying to forbid him from blogging information about their criminally punitive "inspections"; forbid him from allowing customers or supporters to photograph the monsters during these "inspections"; demanding a blackout of publicity of any kind regarding the "inspections. They are using tactics straight out of the old Soviet Union's playbook. Hide from public review while harassing and destroying their moral superiors.


These are the same festering hemorrhoidal hominids who have kidnapped Wayne Fincher for owning guns that scare them (when in the hands of the rightful bearers of arms, that is).

David Codrea at The War on Guns blog is keeping an eye on the developments. Ryan is still blogging about the case, at least until they "get" him. Where is the NRA? Don't let this criminal gang get away with it any more. Look, we vastly outnumber these whoresons. Isn't it time we let them know who is in charge? I'll answer the question for you: Yes, it is time!
___________________________________________________
Update: It has been pointed out to me that some family members would have nothing to do with the evil ATF employee's career choice and should not be punished, even if they do not denounce the bad guy. Also, that the ATF vermin may have friends and neighbors who help support them through any shunning and who would be spared in any such action. I realize that this solution is not perfect. So, do what you think is right.

Government Of, By, and For the Defectives

I am not into debating about, or comparing my views to, the libertarian thinkers and philosophers of the past. I don't try to decide which economic "school" I follow or which conspiracy is "the One" which will bring down the Ruling Parties behind the scenes. Strange as it may seem, I am not a very political person. Why do I do this then? Because I care deeply about individual people and their freedom. I want liberty for all! I want, as much as possible, a "politics-free" world. I want people to not need to worry about ridiculous regulations inconveniencing them (or worse). Perhaps I am a simpleton for operating this way.
I don't need any government. In fact, about the only way to become my enemy is to get government involved in my life. I can work out my differences with other people without calling in the enforcers. So can just about everyone else. The ones who can't are defective. To structure our entire society to accommodate the defectives among us is insane.
I don't like unnecessary complications. To my way of thinking, that is all government really is: unnecessary complications. Busy-work on a monumental scale. People know how to get along without nonsense "laws", and they normally do just fine. They also know, at an instinctive level, what "justice" is. Only when you stir in a little "government" does the whole thing get murky.

Watch Me On Video... If You Dare!

I have mentioned my meet-up and interview with Eric Sundwall previously. Well, here is the video that resulted: Kent For Liberty! Now I will sit down and watch it, too!



Enjoy your day!

It's a Conspiracy!

But I don't have tHe patience or attention span to really look into it. Any time two or more people plan to do something evil to advance their agenda, it qualifies as a conspiracy. I have bEen reading a lot of conspiracy theory information this past week. People have clearly done a lot of research to find this stuff. The thiNgs they have uncovered may be true. I don't know. What i do know is that there are "open conspiracies" (like victiM disarmament, the IRS), "secret conspiracies" (like, perhaps 9-11, JFK assassination, Roswell), and outright lies and bumbling incompetence (like everything else); all of which are pandemic throughout government at every level. Whether any particular event was carried out by government agents, allowed to happen to advance tyranny, or simply used to facilitate the US police state after the fact does not alter my perception of the authoriturds at all. Keep researching, though. Your labors may be what is needed to finally convince someone who can really make a difference.

Don't "Do Wrong"

If you think something is wrong to do, don't do it or don't compel others to do it. The problem occurs when you think something is wrong, and you try to force people who do not share your opinion to go along with you. You hate guns? Fine; don't own one. Think abortion is wrong? Great, don't have one or don't force your pregnant girlfriend to have one. Where I think most of the conflict arises is when you try to force your views on others. Your hatred of guns does not give you the right or the authority to impose your disarmament scheme on everyone around you. Does that irritate you? Too bad. If you are really afraid of being shot, take precautions like wearing body armor. Think that is extreme? It isn't as extreme as trying to force society to accommodate your mental issues.
To me this is the basic difference between the mindset of libertarians and that of authoritarians. Libertarians realize that we are fallible and do not have all the answers. In our awareness of our ignorance we are opposed to forcing everyone to go along with us. Authoritarians do not recognize their ignorance for what it is and blindly demand that do as they say, or else. You can't force people to be free, but you can force them into slavery. The US police state is evidence of that.

Safety Zombies

Craving safety above all else is a horrible depravity. Especially when you victimize others to feed your craving; when you force your ideas and standards of safety on others. I get really disgusted at people who spend their energy trying to keep everyone else "safe". Safety is an illusion. There are risks, both acceptable and unacceptable. To be human means you evaluate your own risks and decide which ones are acceptable for you. Government nannies have no place in an adult's life. Grow up. Make your own informed choices and deal with the consequences. Help your children recognize and evaluate the risks instead of looking for someone in government to "protect" them. Nothing worth doing will ever be accomplished if "safety" is your only concern. Forget the cry of "if it saves even one life". Where is the concern for the lives cheapened, the dreams crushed, by the brain-eating, soul-withering zombies who run around trying to force their "safety" on us all?

Eric Sundwall Meet-Up

I just had the pleasure of meeting, live and in person, Eric Sundwall. He had told me a month or so back that he would be passing by here and wondered if I would like to meet. I jumped at the opportunity.

I suggested a park near here where we could meet. He got there early. I am not the most punctual of people, I suppose. To his credit, he didn't hold that against me. We talked about campaigns, libertarianism, and life. He gave me some things to think about for the future. He pulled out the ol' video camera for a while to save some of our meeting for posterity. Maybe I should have worn a nicer hat!

Our time ran short as he is on is way to an LP function in Pittsburgh. He seems like a genuinely nice person, and I am glad to have had the chance to meet him and talk for a while.

Thanks, Eric!

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.