Recognize the Tyranny

Government atrocities are difficult to watch. Black-armored, masked stormtroopers kicking in doors, stomping kittens to death, and then shooting or otherwise brutalizing families is not a pleasant sight. Not even if the family is running a meth lab, though too many times the stormtroopers have the wrong address in their crosshairs.

Watching government enforcers with automatic weapons staring down unarmed, non-violent protesters is a scene from the worst tyrannies in history, yet is played out in America anytime enough people care about an issue to show up at a protest. It makes those who care "just a bit less" stay home instead of doing their duty. The goons would rather you simply vote and then go along with the results they report to you.

When people like Ed Brown, Wayne Fincher, or Ryan Horsley get targeted for persecution, it is easy to point and say "well, if only he hadn't done _____....." instead of realizing that if the government decides you are an annoyance, it will find some excuse to destroy you. Either a new counterfeit "law" will be enacted to get you, or you will be charged with violating one of the millions already "on the books". It is easier to turn away and ignore the tyranny than to hold the enforcers (and those who are supposed to hold their leashes) accountable. Don't be a tyranny denier. Call it what it is.

Some say that violent movies have desensitized the population to horrific violence. Perhaps that is half of the problem. I think the other half is that some people can't look at violence and unpleasant things at all. They pretend that the world is Candyland. They refuse to see the atrocities no matter what, and if confronted by undeniable tyrannical acts, they will blame the person who makes them look, not the person committing the act.

Sticking to Principles or Being "Stuck" By Them?

It is hard to stick to my principles, when in my personal life I am utterly alone. That is overstating the problem somewhat, but not much. None of my friends care about the encroaching police-state. Some of them even see it as a career opportunity. My family, even when they agree, think it is better to just keep their mouths shut. I was actually told "We agree with a lot of your ideas, but for us, it is easier to just deal with things." OK, just don't sacrifice me to the wolves. My girlfriend has suggested that I can keep my same opinions, but not tell anyone anymore. So, really, except for the few people I get letters or comments from online, it seems I am a lone crackpot.

After recent events where my online presence has been used against me, it makes me wonder what value there is in expressing myself. Am I giving other libertarians confidence in expressing their opinions? Am I giving the little shove to get some fence-sitters to finally choose to come down on the side of individual liberty? Or am I simply giving ammunition to those who hate liberty and love the US police-state and need nut-cases like me to point to? It feels like I have been trying to stick to my principles, only to find myself impaled upon them.

"Politics" and Mental Issues

The more emotionally healthy a person is; the fewer irrational fears they have and the fewer people they hate; the less they need "politics". As I have stated before, "politics is the way to deal with people you don't like", and now I would add "and things you are afraid of". Those who use politics to try to insulate themselves from the people and things they hate and fear become authoritarians; the society they create becomes a police-state. They are the ones with the mental problems, yet they try to tell us we are sick. This is why I feel we should strive for a politics-free world.

Libertarian politics is simply a self-defensive reaction to political terrorism on the part of the authoritarians. For the most part, libertarians, as of yet, have not been very proactive (how I hate that pretentious word!, but it fits here). Since we only wish to be left to live our lives in peace, we have been forced to react to the nonsensical, counterfeit "laws" that authoritarians have enacted to control us. We stagger from one blow to the next. So far. Maybe we should start acting first so the statists among us will be caught off-guard and maybe America can regain some freedom before the authoritarians know what hit them.

The Apathetic Middle

I doubt there are too many more confirmed statists than libertarians. The problem seems to be that the people in the middle, the vast majority of people in this country who really don't care one way or the other, side with the authoritarians just because they seem to be the ones in control. It is easier for them to ignore any other viewpoints than to think. Especially when the authorities make sure to punish dissent and marginalize the principles America was founded upon. A lot of those in the apathetic middle would probably just as easily side with the libertarians if the authoritarians were driven out of power and this became a free country. The apathetic middle is composed of our friends, families, and neighbors. The same friends, family, and neighbors who would watch as we are loaded into the cattle cars and do nothing because they don't want to make waves. The ones who would help load us in because the "law" tells them it is the right thing to do; with the police waving them onward with automatic weapons and smiles, probably reaffirming how patriotic they are for making America "safe".

The Video That Started The War

Here is the video that started the whole war with Roy and "caused" him to break a deal which had already been made: "Justice Day".
I did not make the video or write the song. I stand behind its message, though. I am sorry if it offends some people, but seriously, with the exception of the artwork illustrating Bushie giving America the "digitus impudicus" and as a vampire sucking the lifeblood from Liberty, all the pictures there were taken from news photos or videos. OK, there was the stuff from "V for Vendetta", too. The only way I can think of for someone to be offended by this video is if they are part of the problem, supporting or enabling the abuses documented in the video, or be so sensitive that the harsh truth of the current American police-state is too difficult to accept. Or just blindly hate rock music. Either way, there needs to be a wake up call. Oftentimes.... reality is not pleasant, but denying it is not the answer. Just watch "Innocents Betrayed" to see more of what out-of-control government inevitably leads to. Start to stand up for America for a change.

Details on Yesterday's Blog

I am going to assume that the person whose lack of character so upset me yesterday (you know who you are, Roy) has now read that blog post, and will read this one, so I will go into more details.

One of my mother's aunts owns a house that she has not been living in for a couple of years. She has health problems and has been in an assisted living apartment. One of her daughters and son-in-laws knew I was trying to find a rural house in that area and offered to rent their mother's house to me. This daughter and her husband spent a lot of time with me and my girlfriend last summer and got to know us pretty well. They got together with the siblings and all agreed. No problem so far, until....

In the past couple of days the aunt's son discovered my website. Being a reactionary pseudo-American, he became angry over the things I had posted on MySpace. I assume he has also been looking up other things I have written, including this blog, since I have seen some evidence of this. He obviously thinks George Washington was a traitor to the crown, and doesn't believe in the First Amendment (unless he is the one exercising it in his own way, I am sure). Anyway, he called his siblings and told them he refuses to rent to me. Apparently he thinks I am a drug addict and/or dealer since I see through the bogus "War on (some) Drugs" (more info on D.A.R.E. here) and maybe he thinks I would set up a meth lab at the house. I don't think the sister and brother-in-law who actually know me think I would do this. I wouldn't, by the way.

If someone doesn't want to associate with me or rent to me, that is his business. I have a feeling he has nothing to offer me in the way of intelligent conversation, either. The problem arises when a deal had already been made and I was a week from actually leaving here, travelling 1600 miles, and moving in. They had asked what color I wanted the baby's room painted, even. All the arrangements have been put in place, money has been spent, movers have been hired, notice has been given to my landlord and my storage unit, and my girlfriend has quit her job. I have a baby who is only a month old and this person would just leave us stranded. Nice. Satan would be very proud of him.

Every landlord I have ever had has given me glowing recommendations. I have never had any complaints. No damage has been done, and in fact, I have left every place I have ever rented better than it was when I moved in.

I know I will hear about writing this. People like him don't like to be exposed. Well, he has shown his true colors. What colors do socialists prefer?

Integrity, Character, or the Lack Thereof

Maybe I am just a crazy libertarian and my views are not "mainstream", but at least I have enough character to stand by the agreements I make. Today I am being put into a very bad position by someone who apparently does not.

Because I am a libertarian; because I have the courage and the principles to speak out against evil government programs; because I am able to see that a government that uses torture (and calls it "enhanced interrogation techniques") has no moral high-ground to defend... because of these things I am considered a "bad person".

Because I speak out on the insanity of the continually failing "War on Drugs" and it's evil step-child, the discredited D.A.R.E. police-state indoctrination program, I am assumed to be an addict, and I am not to be trusted.

I am not a mindless, flag-waving nincompoop. I know the difference between the flag and the ideals it was originally intended to embody, but now opposes. I know the difference between right and "legal". It infuriates me that some can't, or don't want to, recognize the difference.

I am sure this person believes himself to be a "patriotic American", yet nothing could be further from the truth. America was founded on certain principles; principles that have been rejected and trashed by the current government. Patriotism demands the courage to stand up for the principles of America and oppose the policies of the current government. Supporting America, supporting liberty, now means having the courage to point at government and say "Tyranny! Be gone!"

Now, I find myself backed against a wall. Simply because I spoke out about the things I feel are important if America is to ever be free again. I am caught between my principles and someone else's ignorance and hate. And I am mad.

"Toward a Police Reform Movement" by L. Neil Smith

In today's Libertarian Enterprise there is a very good article detailing what must be done in order for police to become the peace officers they should be instead of the badged criminals they are: Toward a Police Reform Movement by L. Neil Smith.

To his suggestions I would only add: Police uniforms should be fluorescent orange (with the huge black letters announcing the officer's name and badge number on the back and chest, as Smith suggests) and they should be forbidden to carry any chemical or electical "compliance" devices while on duty.

Kent McManigal or Ron Paul

I want America to attempt freedom once again. Then, when America is finally free, it should lead the rest of the world by example. You can't force democracy on other lands under threat of death or occupation and call it "freedom". Not honestly.

To help form a free world, someone has to go first. The only political ("legal") way that can happen is to elect a Libertarian or Ron Paul. No other Republican and no Democrat will steer America toward anything other than a more oppressive police-state. No Demopublican will even try to imagine anything other than a totally controlled population being watched and nannied every moment of every day. Liberty is their worst nightmare.

I am the most hard-line libertarian running. I will not compromise on liberty. I admit I may be too radical for some of you. If that is the case, then you should support Ron Paul. He is part of the way, a large percentage of the way, down the road to where I want to go. As I have said in the past, if you are scared by my vision of total freedom, at least head in my direction. We can part ways on good terms later when you are as free as you feel safe being. Who knows: You may discover that your appetite for liberty has been whetted and you may realize you are responsible enough for real Liberty after all.

Start at Zero

I was talking to a retired math teacher a while back and I told him that math was my worst subject in school. He said "You wanna know why?" I said I did. He asked "What is the first number?". "One" I answered. He smiled and said "Wrong. It is zero. That is why people have trouble with math."

Maybe that is why people have trouble with a lot of things. The beginning position should be zero; a clean slate. Whether it is governments, gods, laws, wives, presidential candidates, or whatever, we should not start counting at one, but zero. Then add one only if it seems absolutely necessary. Zero is a perfectly valid number, after all. Maybe in many cases it is the best number to choose.

Societal Evolution

I have seen lists where someone proposes that all democracies go through certain stages in their evolution from freedom to bondage. That's funny, since in my opinion, democracies are not very free. Still, it got me thinking about how societies evolve. I haven't put a huge amount of thought into this, but so far here is what I've come up with. I think societies go from bondage to discontent to revolution to liberty (of some degree) to "patriotism" to dependency to bondage again. I think the majority of the people in America are in the dependency stage. The idea that government has the authority, and is expected, to regulate every aspect of life and "pay for" (with stolen money) every "need" of the people makes that pretty clear to me. The discussions I have been a part of recently convince me of that even more. Each person in a society is not at the same stage; some are still stuck in "patriotism" while others are all the way to "discontent". Some may even be living in "liberty" in spite of the best efforts of the current authoritarians.

"Goody Guns"

Here is a new product that I have got to get! "Goody Guns" from JPFO; a gun-shaped cookie cutter!

Circular Arguing With a "Libertarian(?)"

In an online discussion with someone who claims to "lean toward libertarian ways" I have once again run into the phenomenon of someone who will look for any excuse to not be free. This person only used the "debate" to misrepresent what I said at every opportunity and keep proposing his socialist "solutions". If is "leanings" are "libertarian", I guess I am "Shanubi; King of the Gerbils".

Not that it matters, but this person's gripe was that McDonald's food is unhealthy if eaten to the exclusion of all else, and to solve this he would have government mandate that they replace the lettuce on their hamburgers with spinach, and make them pay penalties for selling "junk food". Now, I like spinach, but I don't want it replacing the lettuce on my Big Macs. I do not expect that my health will be perfect it I eat nothing but hamburgers (of any brand or type) for the majority of my meals. What kind of imbecile would?

He equates feeding McDonald's food to children with performing surgery on them at home or feeding them rat poison. Please.

Whenever I answered the points he brought up, he would claim I was being evasive. He would ask the same thing that I had just answered again. He kept going in circles; chasing his tail. He obviously craves an all encompassing nanny-state to dictate what we are allowed to choose to eat and do. Current counterfeit "laws" were claimed as evidence that more "laws" of this sort are OK. I finally realized that he was only trying to pick a fight and I walked away from the discussion.

I wrapped up my participation with this: "I do not want to live in a society where busy-bodies feel they have the authority to tell me what I am allowed to eat. Who owns your body; you or your neighbors? I know what my answer is."

Brett Darrow

Here is a post for my "murder by cop" label, only it hasn't happened yet. This comes from The War on Guns: Time to Widen Investigation in Darrow Case.
If anything ever happens to Brett Darrow, we will know who (or rather, which gang) to blame.

Random Thoughts Fueled by Too Much TV

I hear that the TV show "Kid Nation" caused an uproar because one of the kids killed a chicken. So? Shouldn't kids (and, for that matter, adults) realize where their food comes from? Life only comes from death. That has been a fact of life since at least the Cambrian Period. If you only feel sorry for the warm-blooded animals you eat, you are not fully recognizing plants as "life". That is discriminatory. Good for that kid for taking responsibility to provide food, even if the situation is contrived. I haven't seen the show, so I really don't know how the matter was handled.

Speaking of eating creatures..... I get really tired of seeing catch-and-release fishermen on TV commercials. How is hooking a fish for no other reason than "recreation" more noble than only doing so for the purpose of getting food? Isn't that just kind of a "feel good" thing? How is it different than going deer hunting and only shooting-to-wound the deer, and then letting it go after your photographs? I'd be willing to bet that a lot of those fish die afterwards.

At least it seems like the glut of "cop glorification" programming garbage has finally peaked. About the only cop program I ever identified with was The X-Files. It was probably the most anti-government program ever on TV. The rest of the shows either show cops as above-the-law or as noble saviours; saving "us" from ourselves. Phooey on that. For that matter, I can't stand the stuff that glorifies freelance bad guys either. Like the mafia jerks or others who murder, kidnap, steal, threaten, and beat up other people without a shred of conscience. Not at all like the decent outlaws of Firefly. Let's have some good anarchist heroes on TV again.

Last and possibly least: Not TV related, but still random: Government, any form other than self-government, is a hideous thing. I know this with every fiber of my being. So why don't more people see this fact? They cling to a stone-age concept that some people should lord over the rest of us. Come on people. Evolve already.

Anti-Gun Racists

Why is it that rural or suburban gun owners, who may or may not be members of that victim disarmament group called the NRA get the blame for "gun crime", and for blocking "reasonable gun laws", when it is inner-city criminals who are doing the vast majority of the shooting?

Then those who pretend to speak for the inner-city criminal/victims call for banning guns. If it were important to stop the shootings (which I think it is), why don't the criminals just stop shooting one another and innocent bystanders? Why keep blaming the people who are not shooting one another? Do you think that your pet criminals will stop killing when the peaceful gun owners are disarmed? What color is your unicorn?

Racism on the part of the gun banners is a big part of the reason. They are racist against the rural gun owners and they are racist against the inner-city shooters. They merely hide their racism behind the curtain of "progressiveness". Sneaky racists like these are the worst kind. They blame everyone else for their shortsightedness.

AARG!

A group that claims to lobby for the "rights" of retired Americans is using, exploiting, children in its TV ads. It is using them as spokespuppets advocating its pet socialist wealth-redistribution schemes. That is pretty low. I realize these kids are actors who are getting paid for their work, and I would never begrudge them that right. They have no clue what they are being used for. They are not the ones who are targeted by these ads.

The kids are a weapon aimed straight at the hearts of their parents; the working men and women who actually have to pay to support the socialized medicine and social "security" schemes being touted by the group. They are being used to manipulate their parents to vote for politicians who will keep supporting bankrupt programs instead of being honest and saying, "Look, we politicians have made a grave mistake. Some of us have downright lied to you. We have been taking your money and making promises that we cannot really keep; not without taking vastly larger amounts of your money to keep the pyramid scheme propped up. It will be unpleasant, but it is better to end this now than to keep crippling our country with these lies. Please help one another, voluntarily and charitably, however you can while our country recovers from these scars of socialism."

If you feel the need to vote, demand that your candidate face reality for once. Ask when they will finally end socialism in America. It is decades past time. Really.

Zero Tolerance = Zero Brains

I see so many instances these days of "Zero-Tolerance" policies, especially at schools. Just pay attention to the news. In the past I have heard of: kids drawing pictures of guns (or gun-like shapes) and being punished; little boys seen kissing little girls (and not even against their will) being labelled "sex offenders" and sent for counselling; kids with fingernail clippers-of -mass-destruction. These are psychologically normal, healthy kids until they are caught and then punished with draconian penalties that will scar them for life. They may even be placed on medication in an attempt to treat their behavior. Possibly, if humanity is lucky, the unintended consequence will be that this inappropriate response to normal behavior will make these kids aware that government and other authoritarians are their enemies to be opposed at every turn. Zero Tolerance removes any need on the part of the authoriturd to actually think. I guess it is easier that way being the thinking-impaired creatures they are.

Bedtime Story

How about a bedtime story? This is a true story about an evil prosecuting attorney whom we will call "WA" and his chosen victim. This story takes place several years ago in the southwestern part of a mountainous western state.

A friend of mine, we will call him "LW", had an argument with an acquaintance. The man showed up at LW's house with a shotgun. He pulled up in front of LW's house, yelled at him to come out, and leveled the shotgun at him. Fortunately, LW is not a victim type of person. He had his Dan Wesson revolver and pointed it at the attacker, and told the man to leave. Seeing he was outgunned, LW's attacker angrily fired a shot into the air and left.

A few minutes later the cops, those "protectors of justice", showed up and arrested LW for firing a gun (which he hadn't done). They confiscated his revolver.

In the course of the trial LW was found not guilty, much to the irritation of Mr. WA, the anti-gun prosecuting attorney. LW asked for his gun back. You would think that once found not guilty, the government would be obligated to return any property they stole, but apparently you must beg for it. WA told LW that he must fill out paperwork to get his revolver back, so he did. He jumped through every hoop that was demanded of him to no avail. It was never returned.

If I were to speculate, I would guess that WA probably took the gun with him when he moved up to being the District Attorney for the whole region, or maybe he gave it to one of his cronies. Corrupt little anti-gun worm that he is. The end.

Rights Rationed are Rights Denied

Where did the idea that governments can ration our rights come from? Do we have the right to live and protect our lives or don't we? I know the answer that comes from "On High". We have the right as long as we don't try to assert it in places where we might be angry at the authoritards; like courthouses. We have the right as long as we don't try to exercise it on an airplane. We have the right as long as we beg permission for a "permit" if we want to do it in public.
Do we have the right to say what we think or not? We have the right as long as we don't point out the abuses of government too clearly, otherwise we can be declared "domestic terrorists" and disappear into the "justice" system. We have the right as long as we don't try to use any technology to effectively get our opinions out to too many people. The only reason you and I can still speak our minds on the internet is that it is so chaotic and fragmented that few people will find any particular opinion. Still, little girls a continent away who say something online that the authoritards can construe as "threatening" to the Traitor-in-Chief can be harassed and intimidated by his goons.
These are just two examples of how government denies our rights by rationing them. Either something is a right, not subject to limitation except by the rights of another individual, or it is not. Government today does not recognize the concept of rights and is brainwashing the population into redefining rights as privileges; something that the government will permit you to exercise if you have asked the right person for permission and gotten your papers all approved, signed, and stamped. That is just wrong.

Giving Voice to the Voiceless?

Some say this is what I am doing. It isn't true. In the grand scheme of things I am a nobody. We all have a voice that we can use to call government sympathizers on their nonsense. Don't sit quietly and wait for me to speak out. I may not ever get around to speaking out on the issue that is most important to you.

We who recognize government as a bad idea in general are the ones who are right. We need to stop being intimidated just because we seem to be outnumbered. Don't sit quietly ashamed when you hear someone parroting the "official line" or advocating a new "law". The only new laws that are needed are laws aimed at government. On the other hand, there are millions of laws that need to be discarded.

Libertarians have been too polite for too long. I am not suggesting that you pick fights. What I am suggesting is that obvious government meddling and overreaching is shoved in our faces every day. Don't let it pass without being pointed out. Even if you feel it is best to comply, tell that bureaucrat that what they are doing is wrong. Let the people standing in line with you hear it as well. When put through the wringer before you are allowed to buy your cold medicine, tell the clerk that the War on (some) Drugs is an abomination. Don't blame the clerk personally; she probably hates the "rules" as much as you do.

America will never be free unless you and I are willing to speak up, loud, proud, and often, in defense of liberty. Start today. Your enthusiasm might be contagious.

News Channel Polls and Questionnaires

Watching middle of the night TV recently, I see a lot of polls that are touted to be significant by the news channels. As if society should be run by mob rule. Don't you just "love" the way poll questions are phrased? Either you are not given the choice you really want to make, or the question asks the completely wrong thing. Then the answers are proclaimed to mean something. The same thing happens with almost every questionnaire I run into. I am asked to choose between A and B when I see that the real answer should be C, or the question will be about whether the government should mandate X or Y when it is obvious that the government has no authority in the discussed area whatsoever. These polls are designed to manipulate the debate. Yet it seems that few people catch on to this. I think I may just start answering every poll I can find and always choose "other" or the most nonsensical answer on every one.

"We" Are NOT the Problem

It seems to me that most of government's "solutions" to their contrived problems only penalize the people who are NOT part of the real problem. From the "War on Terror" which only hurts the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to victim disarmament laws which only affect people who are willing to obey laws in general, to the BATFE's disgusting intimidation campaign against Red's Trading Post, innocent people find themselves in the cross-hairs. Why? Because it makes the authoritards look like they are doing something other than giving off greenhouse gases from their orifices.
Government is pretty much helpless against those with real criminal intent, unless regular, honest people help them or the criminals turn against one another. In order to justify their jobs they pick on the innocent, who by their very nature as peaceful people can not or will not, fight back effectively. Look government, if you want to threaten and jail people, start with those in your own house first. Show us, as Americans, that you are serious about right and wrong, and not just about enforcing your nonsense counterfeit "laws". When disgraced government employees outnumber "unapproved medicine" users in prison I will believe you mean business. Until then, leave America alone.

Liberty Geniuses

Why are there no real "liberty prodigies" or "geniuses of anarchism"? There are none that everyone can point to and say "They have it completely right!" We all have our personal favorites, of course, but there is no Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking for libertarians to be dazzled by. I can't help but wonder why.


Is it because we are so individualistic that one size does not fit all? I can recognize when someone is pointing in my direction, even if they do not go as far as I do (or if they go farther). That makes me think that this is not the reason. Is it because freedom is not a science? There is no "E = mc²" of liberty. Or is there? Maybe there is and none of us have found it yet.

Still Breathing

Perhaps you have noticed my lack of blogging recently. Perhaps not. Some things which I can not go into have made me extremely upset. This has made me question .... everything. As disgusted as I am, I have come to the conclusion that this "way" I have embraced is still the "right way", at least for me. I still see no better way of living among other people in a free society.
I hope I can get my enthusiasm back. Thank you for your patience.

"A Farewell to Freedom"

"A Farewell to Freedom" by Kevin Van Horn:

(Sung to the tune of "American Pie", by Don McLean, but with fewer verses.)

[Prelude]
A long, long time ago. .
Who can still remember
That sweet music, hearing freedom ring?
And with our minds and hands unchained,
Our tongues unbound, our wealth undrained,
We were sure we could accomplish anything.
But well-dressed thugs with tongues of silver
Our sacred rights began to pilfer.
The Constitution weakened;
Each year its outlook bleakened.
So as I watched each plane collide
And that cloud of death spread far and wide,
I knew the end had now arrived,
The day that freedom died.

So bye, bye, Lady Liberty sighs,
You made your free state a police state
That I can't recognize.
Well, you sold your soul
For empty slogans and lies,
Now I'm weeping while America dies,
Weeping while America dies.

Read the rest

I wish someone would record this. Any takers?

The Day I Violated the ZAP

I admit, this is probably not the only time I violated the Zero Aggression Principle, but it is the most recent example I can think of. It was my junior year in high school. I was a geeky, nerdy kid with thick glasses. Lanky and klutzy (even worse than I am now), and odd. I was also very reserved and quiet. For some reason one kid (David) decided it was his job to torment me every time he saw me in the halls between classes. I never had done anything to him that I know of; I rarely spoke to anyone, and certainly never in a rude way. However, he began saying "Fag, fag, fag...." every single time he saw me. I wasn't sure why he chose me to taunt, and I ignored him for months. I never got angry about it. Until the day he caught me in a bad mood.

I don't remember why I was irritable that day. I was walking to the bus after school and walked past him. He began his taunts. I felt the rage rise throughout my body and the heat in my face. I dropped my books, turned around, and grabbed him by the collar. While shaking him I warned "You ever say that to me again, I will kill you!". I just remember him dangling there like a rag doll, looking stunned. I set him down, picked up my books, and, quaking with adrenaline, continued on my way. As soon as I was a few steps away from him, he started saying "Come back here and fight". I had control of myself by this time and kept walking.

The next day I was afraid or ashamed to even be at school. I passed David in the hall and he just said "hi". Never again did he taunt me or even act like there was any problem between us. In fact, he seemed like he was trying to be friendly. A couple of years later a friend of mine who was also a friend of his asked me about the incident. It seems David had told him about it and said that he respected me for not hitting him that day. Strange.

Still, I now realize I was wrong to have reacted the way I did. David had not attacked me in any way. Although his taunts irritated me, there was no real harm in them. In today's school environment, I would have been ordered into treatment for attacking and threatening to kill someone. Possibly I would have been arrested. I would probably have been ordered into sensitivity counselling for reacting negatively to the word "fag" (although I think it wouldn't have mattered if he had chosen the word "human"; it was the tone and ongoing nature of it that made me snap). The potential punishments are not what makes it wrong to violate the ZAP. It is recognizing that I can't claim that this is a universal principle and ignore it myself that makes it wrong. I do much better these days.

Two Wrongs Make a Policy?

Terrorism is always absolutely wrong, but "fighting" it by rejecting liberty and embracing tyranny is just as bad, or possibly worse. The reason it may be worse is that to do a great harm to a country's population while claiming it is for their own good is more dishonest than simply admitting that you hate them and will try to kill them. That kind of honesty coming out of DC would be refreshing for a change. The US government has become the terrorists they claim to be fighting. Do they think the terrorists will go away if they remove all difference between America and any other oppressive regime? Judging by the government's actions, they must. Is the government trying to remove the motivation for attacks? Remove all protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights like they have been doing and why would the terrorists attack again? Perhaps only because their tyrants are not the tyrants running the show.... yet. The actions of the US government are moving America rapidly in that direction. If not a Muslim theocracy; then a Police State. I don't buy into the lie that one is better than the other, and in fact the theocracy might be easier to convince the average apathetic American to take up arms against.

Something Awful

The folks over at the Something Awful forum have noticed me again. I have been called by a poster "UFO / evolution skeptic, libertarian, unemployed and violenty (sic) sociopathic Kent.". Wow. I'm not sure where he got that idea. OK, let me go down the list:

• I enjoy reading about UFOs, but I am very skeptical that they are being flown by extraterrestrial (or other-dimensional) visitors.
• I am not an "evolution skeptic". Evolution happens and has been scientifically demonstrated. What is there to be skeptical of?
• Libertarian? Yes.
• Unemployed? I am a stay-at-home dad. I guess that is "something awful".
• Violently sociopathic? Well, I have never hit or otherwise attacked anyone. I feel that most people are basically good. I rarely have any bad encounters with anyone. I trust people to do what is right unless government coercion is involved. I have lots of friends, and no enemies (that I know of). Or do they consider advocating univesal gun ownership to be "violently sociopathic"?

Make up your own mind, but if this is who you think I am, you really don't "get" me at all. That means I am not doing a very good job of communicating my ideas, and that is truly "something awful".

A Blueprint

From The Libertarian Enterprise comes this reprint of an idea to end the US Police State's victim disarmament schemes:

To end the kind of victim disarmament that annoys you most, you must end
all victim disarmament. To end all victim disarmament, you must end all
violations of the Bill of Rights, even those you may quietly approve of. To end
all violations of the Bill of Rights, you must end all forms of socialism.
Socialists got us where they want us by offering us "candy"—social security,
national health insurance, federal highways, national parks, public shooting
ranges. As painful as it may be, it's time for America to go on a diet. Read
more...

ATV Laws "For the Children"

While watching Headline News in the middle of the night I saw a report on the growing (?) numbers of ATV injuries among young children. While I agree that it is a bad thing, I can't understand the knee-jerk reaction touted by everyone who spoke on-air that "there oughta be more laws!"

I am sure some kids are very capable of operating ATVs, while others have no business on one. One size does not fit all. Adults get killed and maimed in ATV accidents as well. Life is risky, remember? Teach your children how to handle a tool of any kind and they benefit. Forbid them from using it and their lives are cheapened. There is also the danger of them needing to use it in an emergency and being incapable.

Some people are stupid. When they reproduce, their children are under increased danger of being removed from the gene pool. That is a shame, but is no reason to punish the rest of society. Everyone does stupid things from time to time. Most of the time we "luck out" and don't suffer for it. Occasionally we get caught by the odds and pay heavily. If you pass laws that are supposedly to protect the children of irresponsible parents, they will find other ways to place their children in harm's way. You can not close every loophole. One unintended consequence of such "laws" is the "dumbing down" of the rest of society as well, making for more problems in the long run. Just like gun "laws" have done.

Protection From Government "Protection"

If you watch the television news you will begin to think that mortal danger lurks around every corner. Fear is the fashion of the moment. Of all the dangers in today's world, the one that seems to get completely ignored is the danger posed by the existence of government. Ignored by everyone except for cranks like me, that is.

When government gets me really angry is when it interferes with my ability to take care of myself and my family. Forcing me to leave behind my gun when I enter some place, which by the presence of metal detectors, has been admitted to be dangerous, is the most hostile manifestation of this. Government fans the flames of fear, yet imposes penalties on the normal person who takes steps to actually protect themselves and their families.

I understand that some people feel a need for a "big daddy government" or a "nanny state". I don't. The fact that government endangers me and my family by its very existence can make me a bit hostile. That gets back to the metal detectors and their "gun-free (in the hands of the right people, anyway) zones". You interfere with my ability to take care of the people I love, and you are my enemy. No excuses; no justifications. I am never afraid unless I am in an area surrounded by organs of the state who expect me to lay down my responsibilities and depend on their "good nature" and abilities. No one is able or motivated to protect me or my family as much as I am. The assumption that if I have a gun I am a "public menace" is absurd. It doesn't matter if I am in the courthouse, on a plane, or in a mall. I am not the problem. No cop or security guard will ever be as capable or willing to defend me and my family as I am. Period. Forcing me to be without my gun in these obviously dangerous places is an act of aggression against me. One that I will not forget or forgive.

Futility

Back to the forum discussion again, a person who claims to be a "former market anarchist" says that the reason he rejected his former position is that "market anarchism doesn't work". He claims that any system will always turn back into something indistinguishable from a government, and that "big projects" that need all of society working on them can't be accomplished with unanimous consent. Here is my response to him, and to anyone else who feels the same way:


I still don't agree with what I see as your very pessimistic view, but assuming you are correct, is there a way to form a society where someone like me can fit in, or should I find a cave where I can hide until I am rounded up and institutionalized as crazy?

Seriously, if your view is correct, what is the point of trying? Do you really think the growth of government will slow, stop, or reverse? Or will it keep getting bigger and more oppressive but "that's OK"? Government is getting more and more restrictive every year and, unless something stunningly unexpected occurs, will soon reach the point where it has pushed further than I can adapt. Everything I enjoy is becoming illegal or, because of regulations, too expensive or inconvenient for me to engage in. What kind of existence is that? Should I be ashamed of my "likes"? Should I get therapy to change the things I enjoy? Previous generations would not have thought I was doing anything wrong; only the current police state has a problem with me.

Do I just allow myself to be numbered, "chipped", disarmed, and loaded into the cattle car? Or is liberty something worth fighting for? Is "a little liberty" OK, within the confines of what an overbearing government will permit? Is that liberty at all or just privileges? Do people like me need to be eliminated so everyone else can go about their business building a perfect, fuzzy-safe police state? Where does it stop?

Human Nature

In some discussions I have had on some forums, I have come to the conclusion that one reason I feel anarchism is a viable "system" is that I think people are generally pretty decent. I also see that the people who feel that "freedom won't work in practice" think that people are generally just barely holding back their urge to kill everyone around them.

How do you view humans? As basically bad or basically good? I think that most people do seek out their own self interest, but not if it obviously hurts other people. If they find out they inadvertently hurt someone, they usually change their behavior. Most people also understand that it is in their best interest to not defraud or take unfair advantage of others. At least in my experience. There are obviously some truly evil people out there. Many of them seek government positions where they can use force to destroy lives and fortunes with less risk of repercussions. The others become freelance criminals (or just jerks).

There was a time when I truly thought the worst of people. I was a hermit at heart and wanted nothing to do with the rest of my species. Now I see that any negative experiences I was having were a direct result of my attitude. If you act like you expect that people are bad, they will respond accordingly. Likewise, if you expect that people are good, they will probably strive to live up to your expectations. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but be willing to protect your interests. In other words: Be nice and carry a gun.

This is why I see a great future for anarchism.

Hiding Behind Magical Portals

Courthouse metal detectors are designed to keep out the good people who are armed. A bad guy would just crash the door and start shooting. The best way to defend against that would be to have as many armed people inside as possible; ideally everyone inside should be armed. Obviously the people who work in courthouses and such are more afraid of honest people with guns than they are their competitor criminals. There is probably a good reason for this.

Much of what goes on behind those magical portals is rotten to the core and should be stopped. Rulings are made on a daily basis that are completely opposite of "liberty and justice for all". Juries are lied to and instructed to convict the defendant no matter how bogus the "law" may be. "The Law" must be upheld even as its fetid fluids drip down the arm of Justice. Real justice is swept aside while activist judges work to cripple any chance of freedom against the police state. It's no wonder the amoral beasts inside the courthouses feel safer with the layer of protection between them and us.

The metal detectors should be removed so that the authoritarians behind them would be more accountable for their actions. Of course, I feel that should be the case for every level of government. There is little danger of assassination if you do not spend your career destroying the lives and fortunes of the productive people in society. Since those who hide behind the magical anti-gun portals can't leave behind their life of parasitism and get an honest job, they fear us.

Demand a "Penalty Clause"

It is time for "The Penalty Clause". Recently I have read new writings from Bill St. Clair and L. Neil Smith calling again for a "penalty clause" in the Bill of Rights. The idea is that America needs a way to enforce the Bill of Rights against government predations. I have read of this idea several times and feel it is getting more critical all the time. I usually despise the very idea of any new "law". This is different. It would not affect anyone in any way unless that person chose to work in government "service". Don't want the law to apply to you; then stay out of government.

When some thug wanna-be gets a job with the government, or takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, they need to understand that they have an obligation to really obey that law. Not "interpret it" as they wish it to be, but to live and work within the very clear, plain language that sets down absolute boundaries limiting what they are allowed, under the law, to do. They need to realize that if caught violating the Bill of Rights there will be definite, personally painful, punishments. No hiding within the bureaucracy for them anymore. No hiding behind some corrupt judge's ruling that the Bill of Rights doesn't mean what it actually says.

The Constitution is by no means the "be all - end all" of liberty. I did not agree to submit in any way to the government it established. Still, it is a good way to illustrate that the monsters in DC have completely turned their backs on America and pledged allegiance the US Police State. The government hates liberty. They won't even stay within the bounds of the neutered liberty allowed by the Constitution, much less real freedom. Let's force them to show their true colors by demanding that the Penalty Clause be enacted.

Under this new system the BATFE would no longer be a dangerous threat to peaceful Americans, but would be running for their pathetic lives; knowing that their treason was no longer protected by counterfeit "laws" and collaborators in Congress.

So until we can jail the BATFE, let's starve those traitors.

Blog Anniversary

Today is the one-year anniversary of my blog. In the beginning I was very hesitant to start blogging. I didn't think there was any way I could come up with much to write about. I guess that fear was unfounded.


If you have been reading from the beginning, or have gone back through the archives, you have gotten to know me better than you may have wanted. I tried to keep my personal life completely out of the blog while I was actively campaigning. Recently, I have let that self-imposed prohibition slide.

I hope you have enjoyed reading my thoughts, whether you agreed with them or not. I also hope that in some small way, the words I have written have made someone, somewhere decide to embrace liberty in a way they would have never considered before.

Thanks for reading!

Keep Your Filthy Government Off My Child!

This past week was an eventful week, to say the least. It has been educational as well. I feel that the hospital employees and doctors did a fine job of caring for my girfriend and our new baby. There was only one think I take issue with, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of care they received. With the new baby, I see that the hospital staff makes the assumption that every child will be numbered and signed up for Uncle Sugar's handouts. Refusing completely bewilders them. They just keep pushing and pushing and then saying "Do you mind if I ask why?" Yes, actually I do mind. Why must I sign my child over to the state? When did the assumption that your baby belonged to you and you were going to take care of her by yourself die out in America?

The USA's Political Prisoners

It used to be that people in prison were there for actually doing something bad. Whether they were guilty or not is a different issue, but they had been convicted of committing some act of force or fraud against an innocent, individual, victim. Not so anymore. Now while there are still bad people in prison, the average prisoner is strictly a political prisoner, convicted of violating some nonsense "law" and "victimizing" the government which falsely poses as "society".

Things that should be treated as a medical or emotional problems, like severe addictions, are punished in harsh ways, causing innocent lives to be destroyed. Not submitting to the government's theft schemes is a big no-no today. Caesar must be given tribute. Things like peaceful gun ownership are punished with draconian penalties that would have been ridiculously unthinkable a generation ago, even though the "law enforcement culture" was not that good even then.

There is also the problem of the average juror not knowing their responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. In this way, many people who deserve no punishment are railroaded into prison by corrupt judges who work for the government; the very government which is the problem. What do they say about letting the fox guard the henhouse?

We all need to stop automatically thinking of people in prison as criminals. Now that the criminals run the "justice system", the distinction is rather dicey.

Best Laid Plans....

I am really sorry I missed oput on the Ammo Day/Exercise-Your-Gun-Rights-Day celebration. My new daughter chose that day to be born. It was a pretty nice trade off. Maybe it is a sign of her future hobby. I hope someone bought some extra rounds on my account!

I am so far behind on all the news that I may not catch up. Have patience with me, please.

Update Soon...

Due to circumstances beyond my control I will probably not blog for a few days. IT'S A GIRL!!

Buy Ammo Today!

Today is the day. Buy ammunition. You KNOW you need more. Sorry I posted this late!

Tomorrow is "The Day" - Buy Ammo

Don't forget: Tomorrow, August 28th is the day to buy ammo. Let's clean the store shelves to send the Brady Mass-Murderers Fan Club a clear message.

Societal Fairness vs. Authoritarianism

Whatever you wish to call my philosophy, libertarianism, anarchism, impractical simpleton-ism, it is the only one I have found that is completely consistent. I never take any rights or liberties that I do not also assume for everyone else. To me this shows that it is the best. There are no rivals.

I try to answer any and all objections to my views. I listen to the arguments against them, but I have never run across any argument that does not include some type of justification or exception where priviliged groups or classes of people are allowed to do things that are prohibited to other, less elite, people in the society. If the "lesser" people have been conditioned to expect this foul treatment, they may not notice it. Even if they do notice they may not complain because "this is the way it has always been done".

This strikes me as "unfair". How do you like that word? I know that life is not fair. Good people sometimes die young of terrible diseases, while a child molester may live into old age. A car wreck can kill the sober mother of three, while the drunk politician walks away unhurt. That is life in the universe. Where I expect fairness is where people make a conscious choice in some matter. The universe does not care, but people should.

When designing a political system to base a society upon, it should be set up in a fair way. A choice is being made. There should not be certain people who are officially allowed to steal while it is forbidden of others. There should not be a special class of people who can walk around with guns for the safety of themselves and others while everyone else is expected to be a potential victim, waiting to be rescued. The same rule or rules must apply to everyone in that society, from the exalted Decider to the "lowliest" gum scraper. Otherwise, keep looking for a better system.

Peace Officers or Law Enforcement Officers?

Back when there existed the "peace officers" there was no widespread hatred of cops. Now that there are "Law Enforcement Officers" instead, there is. Why is that? The cops would probably say it is because our society has degenerated into one where no one in "authority" is respected. Or that "drugs" have made society more dangerous. Is it possible that the cops themselves, with their grossly inflated attitudes of authority, could be to blame? If you walk into an area with a swagger, hand on the butt of your gun (wearing those leather biker gloves, of course) acting like you are looking for trouble... well... why should you be surprised when trouble finds you? People generally don't like trouble-makers. On an instinctive level most people are coming to view cops primarily as trouble-makers. Trouble makers of the worst kind because they have a near immunity from the consequences of their actions. Shoot an innocent person: it looked like he was going for a gun. Kick in the wrong door: they acted on good faith that the information was correct. Examples abound. Only the most blatant examples of "bad cops" get punished in any meaningful way. And then, if there is a way to "justify" the criminal actions, it will be found. The cops who disarmed the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina should have been dealt with like any other violent home-invading thief. Yet they still live (for the most part) and go about their "jobs" as if they committed no crimes. Many people are also beginning to recognize the absurdity of the majority of "laws". If a law must be enforced it is probably not a good law to begin with. Those enforcing the bad laws are themselves a huge part of the problem. "Just doing my job" didn't cut it in the past and will not cut it in the future. Think about that, Officer.

Campfire Lessons

There are many hours I have spent around a campfire. With friends, my kids, and alone. From time to time I took a good book with me. I suppose some people might think I am wasting my time sitting there.... talking, daydreaming, even napping. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the way that sleep, with dreaming during REM sleep, clears the cobwebs out of your mind, these campfire times clear the garbage from my soul.

There is something about a campfire that reaches a primal part of your being that nothing else can. I take it a step further by usually wearing buckskin clothes, only using primitive methods to start the fire, and surrounding myself with things that I enjoy. I had built a wikiup beside the river, behind my house. In front of its door I had a small firepit and some driftwood logs arranged around the fire to sit on. There was a tripod I set up to hang my rifle and whatever else I had with me upon. Truly a sanctuary from the dreary aspects of modern life.

I remember the day 10 years ago when I was sitting at my fire when a friend of mine came up and told me that John Denver had died in a plane crash. I had just been riding along in a car the day before singing his song "Grandma's Feather Bed" with my sister.

I watched the year 2000 come in while dressed in buckskins beside my fire. I wouldn't have known when midnight arrived except that I began to hear gunshots and fireworks. That was the best way I could think of to bring in the year 2000.

I had heart-to-heart talks with both of my kids there. Times that are precious to me for the simple fact that they were forced to stop so suddenly. I used to make up silly stories for my daughter that she still mentions occasionally.

There were a few times that sudden rain made me retreat into my wikiup, where I usually fell asleep. Snowstorms - I either sat in the wikiup or just let myself get covered. The voles who also enjoyed my wikiup were like slightly annoying friends when I was napping.

I had some fun times with girls beside the campfire (and in the wikiup), too. I'll spare you the details. ;)

My friends knew that when they came to my house, they should check out by the wikiup first before going to the door. They knew where I was more likely to be.

I have worked out some of my life's deep questions, and honed my philosophy of life and liberty, around those fires. I've daydreamed myself into trouble there, too. My current situation prevents me from indulging in this activity right now.... and I feel it.

Hung Up On the Details

I know, I do this too. I see a lot of people getting all excited over the one detail that is their particular "specialty". Whether it is precise language usage, knowing exactly how "X" will work in a free society, or "but what about the children/handicapped/sick?", it seems something always detours freedom fighters from the road to Libertopia. These things may be really important. The problem occurs when or if they distract us from our true goal: unfettered liberty. Am I just imagining that this is the goal? Am I speaking out of turn? If this is not your goal, I apologize for presuming to speak for you.

Why do these detours happen? Part of the reason is that, in general, freedom oriented folks are more intelligent than the average person who is content to be told what to eat, how to dress, and when to pee. They have to be in order to survive in the midst of authoritarian society. Yes, there are some dimwits among the fireflies, but they are more rare in this movement than they are in the general population. That intelligence means fireflies can get caught up in details more easily.

I get bogged down in absolutely refusing to accept any limits on my right to own and to carry any weapon I wish. Then there are those who run up against this insistence and get bogged down in worry that I will stick a nuke in my hip pocket and stroll through the mall. (How about I make the promise right now that I will never attempt to own a nuclear weapon? Now, stay out of my gun cabinet, OK?) I also get tangled in my firm insistence that all taxation is theft and is never right under any circumstance. I am sure there are more examples.


I can overlook or forgive a lot as long as you are moving in my direction. I hope you would give me the same courtesy. If you wish to stop before I have reached my destination, I will not hold it against you as long as you don't try to force me to stop when you do. You might just discover you want to come along anyway.

Toxic Toys From China

Why does no one notice that these toys come from an authoritarian country where personal responsibility has withered away under tyranny? Why is the first reaction always "More Laws! Government save us from this!"? More tyranny will make this problem go away, how? The company caught the problem and is working to resolve it. Thier reputation has been harmed by this and I can assure you they will go overboard trying to make certain this doesn't happen again, laws or no laws. The market works.

Definitions

For purposes of clarity I will put into writing some of my definitions. This is what I mean when I use these words:

Libertarianism - An absence of belief in the legitimacy of government.

Authoritarianism - The belief that some people are entitled to wield power over others, such as in a government.

Anarchy - No rulers. See also "Libertarianism".

Chaos - Either a complete lack of rules or more dangerously: arbitrary or unnatural rules. See also "Authoritarianism".

Evil - That which goes against human nature and is harmful to the individuals it is directed against. See also "Authoritarianism" and "Chaos".

Government - An organization of people who wish to tell others how to live, and enrich themselves in the process, using "laws" and rules that they establish without regard for those they attempt to control. Its defining characteristic is that it rules by force or threat of force.

Police/Cops - The enforcers used by government as the first line of control against the people.

Leader - Someone who sees a problem and offers to show others the way out.

Ruler - Someone who sees or creates a problem in order to increase his/her power and control over the local population.

War - An all-out celebration of government resulting in much chaos and evil.

Freedom - Living life as you see fit without harming anyone else in the process.

Slavery - Living life as someone else sees fit for you to live, within the parameters they have established for you, without regard for the harm it may do either to your body or your "spirit". See Rudy Giuliani's definition of "freedom" to understand the slave-owner mentality. ("Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."-Rudolph Giuliani)

Terrorism - Attacks by free-lance or government agents against ordinary people (who are not doing "government work") for the purpose of scaring them into compliance. Attacks against government employees or installations are not "terrorism".

Rights - Something that you can do, simply because you were born human, without asking anyone's permission. Rights can never overlap, as in: your rights can never violate someone else's rights.

Personal Anarchy

In your day-to-day life, why do you behave? Is it fear of being arrested? Is it fear of being beaten by your victim? Or is it because you are mostly a good person? I don't think most of us alter our behavior on a daily basis because of "laws". If fact, I think that the main reason we obey the "laws" as far as we do is because they don't get in our way too bad. As long as we can ignore them, we do. Once "laws" become too unwieldy and intrusive - where they start seriously impacting the lives of the apathetic average person like they do the Freedom Fighters, there will be an outcry and widespread "lawlessness". Then the authoriturds will start cracking skulls even more, and by doing so bring about their own destruction.

The Road to "Here"

How did I become an anarchist or a libertarian or whatever I am? I think it was by a careful examination of the way things are, and the way things work. Coupled with a respect for the absolute rights of everyone, even my "enemies" to live free of coercion. I don't expect anyone to respect any rights of mine that I would deny others. If I want to do something I can step back and think "Would I allow someone else to do this?" If the answer is "yes", then I can do it without any guilt. If the answer is "no" then I should not do it or I should examine why I answered "no".
I think the libertarian philosophy is the best for me personally and for everyone else as well. It doesn't "level the playing field" like some other philosophies, but lets everyone choose whichever playing field or hill or valley that suits them best. Only in the absence of coercion can someone rise to their full potential.
It is also the only philosophy that recognizes that every "rule" applies to everyone. No privileged class of overseers who are immune to the rules they impose on everyone else. There is only one basic rule: The Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right - under any circumstances - to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation." This same idea has been stated in many ways by many cultures. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... "An it harm none, do what ye will".. Same message; different words, because this is the one rule that is inborn in us all. It is why children cry "He started it" when they disagree. We all understand at an instinctive level that "starting it" is wrong.
I can't understand why it is so hard for authoritarians to get out of the way of people's liberty. Some people just have a pathological desire to control the lives of those around them, I suppose. It sounds like a mental illness to me. Is there a treatment for that? I know there is an academy where you can learn to escape the chains of authoritarianism.

Libertarianism: The Clean Slate

I believe that libertarianism is the default position of human existence; the "clean slate" we are all born with. Culture, society, your family, and your experiences immediately begin to scribble things on that slate; some are true but most are complete nonsense. We may never be able to erase everything that is written on the surface, nor may you feel it necessary. I do think you need to realize that the things written there are not "givens", but should each be evaluated upon their own merits. You may spend your life adding to the slate and erasing things that have proved to be useless. Don't leave the garbage written there; it will make it harder to read the important things. It is up to you to keep your slate as clean as possible.

Forgive Me, For I Have Shrugged

I apologize for shrugging my blogging duties a lot recently. This thing called "life" sometimes takes precedence over philosophizing. That doesn't mean that the philosophizing is less important to me, just that there is a hierarchy to life. This is what "Living Liberty" is all about.

The same old evils are still out there: activists decry self-defense, taxes are increased and collected, people are killed because of the medications they choose. Until WE change these things, they will not change. The statists are only too happy to stay on course for destruction. Yet, the simple act of living your life the best you know how has great power to defang the authoritarians. This is and always will be my core message. The state and its enforcers can imprison or kill your body. That power does not make them right, it only demonstrates how low they are willing to sink. Your mind is untouchable. The state has only the power over your mind that you give it. Psychological torture so loved by authoritarian monsters notwithstanding.

August 28th ... Buy Bullets For the "Brady Bunch"

Over on The War on Guns blog, David Codrea has suggested an action that you and I can take to combat the Brady Mass-Murder Cheerleaders "national day of protest" against guns planned for August 28, 2007. Buy ammo on that day. Yes, I realize there is already National Ammo Day, but you always need more ammo, right? Especially with idiots running around blaming you for the crimes they enable.

Religion Debate Forum

Regardless of where you find yourself on the spectrum of religious beliefs, there is a fascinating forum where you can debate with people who disagree with you. It is the "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" Forum. Why not go browse around. Maybe you can join and dazzle them all with your brilliance.

I Believe...

That everyone is capable of running their own lives better than government can run their lives.... That there is nothing government can provide better than the market... That politics is a sad thing to waste an entire life on..... That everyone needs toys of some sort..... That a human's main job is to pursue happiness, without harming anyone else.... That work is a terrible thing to build an "ethic" around.... That love makes the world go 'round, or at least makes it worth the ride.... That good conversation is better than a great meal..... True friends are worth dying for.... That libertarianism needs to be served more gently to some people..... That the best things in life are not always free; sometimes you get what you pay for..... That something well-made and useful is more beautiful than a beautiful, useless object.... That I will never really "grow up".... That I have an almost magical ability to repel money.... That words are meaningless if not backed up by behavior.... That liberty, REAL liberty, is the best choice in every single situation imaginable and that the ZAP is always applicable.

Take the Future. It's Yours

Let's move boldly into the future; not waiting on the ponderous, peanut-brained Governmentosaurus retch to reluctantly lead the way. Government, by its very nature, cannot lead the way; it can only react by chasing the true leaders; free individuals. Technology; society; philosophy; liberty; we must take the lead in all these areas if we are to survive as a species. This means ignoring "laws" that are toxic to individual liberty and empowering to government. This means resisting with as much force as is necessary to free the 21st century slaves called "citizens", "voters", or "taxpayers". This means that each and every good person will become an "enemy of the state" because the state has become an "enemy of the decent individual". Real progress is up to free people now, just as it always has been throughout history. If humans are to reach space ahead of government, we can't wait on government to take us there. If "laws" are enacted to keep us grounded, we must fight against those "laws" as if our very lives depended on it, because they do. If humans are to invent new wonder drugs in the new dark age of prohibition, we must do the work without government sanction; beyond the prying eyes of the control-state. Great rewards come at great risk. They always have and always will. Looking to the government safety-meddlers will only kill us in the long run. I plan to leave a freer world than I was born into; not a global concentration camp. How about you?

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.