Choosing a President

It is time to ditch voting as a method for choosing a President. It doesn't work very well. Look where it keeps getting "us". I suggest taking a cue from popular culture and doing a "Survivor"-style contest; without the TV cameras and the "voting-off" wimpiness.

In my scenario the site would be chosen; a tropical island or a remote Rocky Mountain wilderness area, for example. An airplane loaded with normal traveller artifacts ... and maybe a few dead pigs to stand in for bodies ... would be slammed into the ground by remote control and then all the candidates, including me, would be dropped off immediately to see who can survive the situation. I'd even do it without a gun, to make it realistic, as if we had gone through the TSA "grope and probe gauntlet" before takeoff. If the plane is on fire, the survivors had better see what they can salvage from the burning wreckage quickly. I'd even forgo the crash injuries just to take that factor out of the equation.

I would gladly form an alliance with Ron Paul against the authoritarians. I would encourage cannibalism among the others, but there isn't a one of them I would want to eat. Can you imagine spit-roasted Hitlary? Ewww! I think most of the candidates would taste like an Egyptian mummy. How many of them do you think could start a fire? Does the TSA allow lighters? I think so, but my dad can't start a fire with a lighter and gasoline soaked wood. Would the candidates fare any better? Yep, there would be plenty of laughs. I think I'd enjoy seeing what happens to the control-freaks when there is no one to do their bidding.

Since there would be no "voting off", the last one to quit (or the last survivor) would be the winner. Then again, maybe I should reconsider the TV cameras. They could be hidden in the trees or in rocks. People should see what the candidates are really made of. I'm no Bear Grylls; I don't take crazy chances just to make for thrilling television. I don't look as good either, unfortunately. I might just try to stay out of their way until they had either killed one another, or died of starvation. We'd better get busy on this; there is less than a year now. We should make certain the President is chosen in time for the formerly important "Election Day, 2008".

Engineering "Sexual Dysfunction"

With the crackdown on little kids hugging, it seems the control freaks in society will not be satisfied until everyone is a bundle of neuroses. How will this trend affect future teens and future adults? Certainly not in a good way. Will responsible parents be forced to hold "hug and touch orgies" for their toddlers to allow them to develop normally? It seems there are plenty of sexually frustrated and repressed people already. Using the excuse of "sexual harassment", the social engineers are destroying a new generation like never before.

There is legitimate "sexual harassment". I am certainly not dismissing that. What I am dismissing, completely and absolutely, is the bogus idea that 4 or 5 year-olds are hugging or touching their friends for sexual thrills. At 6 years old I knew girls were strangely fascinating to me, but I was not sure why. Some people get that feeling about people of their own sex. No one needs to be crippled with guilt over their feelings.

It is natural and necessary for children and adolescents to engage in sexual play and exploration of increasing intensity as they grow into healthy adults. Current policies are derailing that. No one matures and becomes a sexually functional adult in a vacuum. Children and adolescents are being taught that any body contact, such as slapping the rear ends of their friends in a friendly way, is sexual and somehow bad. The control freaks will not be satisfied until every adult is completely neurotic.

Edited to add these links: Schools banning hugs and all contact. Four year old boy suspended for hugging aide.

Wikipedia!

Someone added me to Wikipedia. Thanks to whoever did it!

Marginalized Libertarians

Being libertarian is not the best strategy for assimilating into this society. I know that is not exactly a startling revelation. Does that mean it is bad to be libertarian? I have no answer to that question, although I have seen the opinion of some ignoramuses on that matter recently. I do know some of the implications of libertarianism with regards to "fitting in". I can only generalize, and your experience may be much different from my observations.

Where do we part ways with the "mainstream" of society? Libertarians do not beg for our rights. We do not automatically bow to the "authorities", or suffer from "enforcer worship". We look behind the "laws" to see whether they have any legitimate foundation or not. Because of this, we may decide to not apply for permits or licenses. Our "papers" may not be in order. This causes many of us to be "outlaws" (as opposed to "criminals"), even if we are scrupulously honest and kind.


We are often seen as uncompromising in our views. We do not often go along with the crowd, whether it is in our opinions on wars or public programs, or in what we see as the main problem with society. Our principles may limit which jobs we will agree to accept; which employers we will work for. I have even seen us categorized incorrectly as racists because we don't obsess over race. We are thought to be uncaring because we oppose welfare, and think all people are capable of running their own lives so they can retain their dignity. For holding the most kind philosophy, we are seen as cruel. For holding the most fair position, we are believed to be selfish. For being the most inclusive, we are called separatists. The world is truly topsy-turvy. Maybe it is not desirable to "fit in" after all.

National Borders

National borders are imaginary lines on a map that people are willing to kill and die to keep imagining. I know a lot of people disagree with me on this issue. I am not looking to get into an argument over it; just explain how I think, and why. I have heard all the opposing points, at least I think I have, but they ring hollow to me.

I am not talking about natural physical boundaries like rivers and mountain ranges, or different zones like deserts or forests. These can make real differences in the needs of the people who live there. Those differences can be worked out through cooperation and compromise and trade. I am talking about lines on a map that cut through the natural zones and ignore natural boundaries. Lines that can force different cultures together or separate one culture. Lines that ignore realities of different needs and goals for the purpose of unifying under one authority people who might choose to form a culture of their own. This ignores the basic right of association.

I think national borders are harmful to liberty. Why do they exist?
Is it because our laws are better than the laws across the border? Since almost every single law in any country is absolute nonsense, that can't be the reason.
Is it because "our flag" is better than "theirs"? Its colors are more noble or its design divinely inspired? That is a silly reason to give up your liberty.
Is it because "those people" are genetically inferior to "us". Maybe their IQs are really low and they can barely breathe without help... or maybe they are too smart and would make us feel stupid if they came here.
Is it because their culture is despicable? "They behave like animals and eat their enemy's babies, after all". "They breed like rabbits and overrun the countryside, destroying everything in their paths, like locusts, ya know". "Our culture can't survive if it is exposed to theirs." If a culture can't survive exposure to another culture, it is probably not worth saving.
Is it because their god and his followers are evil? If that is the case, shouldn't your good god be able to defend you against them, with or without lines on a map? Followers of the same god never fight amongst themselves, do they? Is it excusable to be murdered if your attacker follows the same god you do?
Is it to keep terrorists from infiltrating our towns and killing us? Without the government helping terrorists by disarming the population, there would be no real danger.

Do the borders have value because "our" government is honorable and just while theirs is a genocidal tyranny? After Waco (killing people because of their religion), Ruby Ridge (killing people because a gun is 1/8 inch "too short"), Wayne Fincher (kidnapping a non-violent man for owning guns specifically protected by the Bill of Rights), Ed Brown (kidnapping a family for wanting to keep their own money and property), WWII internment camps for Americans of Japanese descent (kidnapping people because of their race), The War on Some Drugs (kidnapping and killing people over the chemicals they choose to ingest), and too many other examples to mention, I have my doubts about any moral high ground here.

No, my belief is that the only value of "national borders" is to be found in governmental control. Borders allow governments to control all the people who live inside the lines. It gives them an excuse to send people to their deaths against the people across the lines. Governments need a "them" to unite the people against in fear; borders empower that. Forcing people to get permission to cross those lines allows governments to keep prisoners and gather information on, and even physically search those who are allowed to cross. Borders are a great psychological tool for people control. I just don't buy into the propaganda.

Racism is Wrong

My recent shock at running into an openly (though self-deluded) racist blogger was an eye-opener. After getting involved in libertarianism and anarchism I had forgotten that such people existed. Everyone has a "right to be wrong"about how they think. That is not the issue. The issue is when you begin advocating actions and trying to spread your hatred based on those wrong ideas. Racism is wrong. Treating someone as a second-class person because of their race is wrong. Giving anyone "special perks" based on their race is wrong. Making an issue of race at all is ridiculous; just as it is to make an issue of sex or sexual orientation , or which side of an imaginary national border you were born on.

Based as it is on absolute self-ownership and non-aggression, libertarianism can not act in racist ways without violating its own core values. You can't be fighting for freedom if you are making an issue of someone's race. Authoritarianism, however, based as it is on a small group controlling the rest of society, thrives on racism. It helps to keep people angry, resentful, suspicious, and hateful if you want to be able to pass endless laws against the "them" of either side. Therefore they endlessly fan the flames of racism, seeing it everywhere except in their own behaviour. Don't empower authoritarians by falling for this trick. Judge people on their actions. That is what counts, not silly things like how much melanin is in the outer layers of their skin. If you want to hate me, hate me for the choices I make and the ideas I hold, not my genetic makeup.

Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they want for any reason. It is not within governmental authority to control this. Personal responsibility and Darwinian selection will be much more effective in the long run, anyway. Don't expect others to treat you fairly or rise to defend you if you are hateful to any particular genetic group. If there are people out there calling themselves "libertarians" while advocating racist views, they are doing harm to the cause of liberty. They can not really be libertarians. If this is you, please do us all a favor and admit you are an authoritarian. Liberty has no place for your sickness.

Racist "Libertarians"? No Way.

I ran across a blog where libertarians are being called "racists" and "white separatists". That is disgusting and dead wrong. The blogger is just an authoritarian (he calls himself an "independent left journalist") who is completely ignorant of libertarianism, but this type of nonsense could undermine the very message of libertarianism. A racist is someone, anyone, who makes an issue of race. Just like he did in his blog post. Authoritarianism, whether of the "left" or "right", is racist. It depends on the tactic of "divide and conquer". Libertarianism is an open door, open to all who do not attack or defraud others, regardless of anything else. Only a racist could infer racism from that.

He claims to be reading all these "racist libertarian blogs". Investigative journalism of the lazy kind, apparently. I have no doubt that there may be racists who try to claim they are libertarian, but that does not make it true. I can claim to be a rabbit, after all. In his last response, before "shutting down the conversation", he says that I am not a libertarian. He then says I am just an example of "more vulgar far right capitalist libertarianism". This socialist ("independent left") racist doesn't recognize libertarianism when he steps right into the middle of it since it doesn't fit his prejudiced notions of what he incorrectly, or dishonestly, wants to believe libertarianism to be.

Ron Paul CafePress Yard Signs

As a service to my favorite Demopublican"opponent", I have added some yard signs to my CafePress shop promoting Ron Paul. Check them out.

Why "Guns"?

Pierre, this is for you. You say you don't understand my "worship" of guns. There was a time long ago when even I didn't understand it. I wondered if I were wrong. Perhaps I should just go along with the winds of change. After all, it seemed that everywhere I turned, guns were demonized and blamed for everything from crime to suicide. I began to study the facts, and look at history. I finally came to some conclusions. You may not agree with my views, but I would like to explain myself to you. Other readers may wonder the same thing, so here is the question: Why is it that I obsess over guns?

They are, after all, only tools, right? Yes, and no. They are tools, but they are so much more. They are not "good" or "bad", though they can be used in good ways or bad ways. They can be used to hunt food in situations where the supply train has broken down. They can be used to defend oneself from criminals. They can be used for recreational purposes. The second use for guns, even more important than as simple tools, is as a psychological weapon. The main reason I obsess over them is that my enemies, the statists and authoritarians worldwide, also obsess over them. They obsess over keeping me from having and effectively using them. They obsess over demonizing them in the minds of the people who don't quite understand the importance of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) guns. Their obsession feeds my determination to never surrender my guns. Not if they threaten, beg, or continue to brainwash the rest of the world that "no one needs guns in the 21st century". Guns in the hands of the private population is a great psychological lever to use against tyrants. Voting, protesting, educating, and agitating will only go so far. When government gets out of control, there is only one solution. I intend to keep my options open. As long as governments exist, there will be a dire need for guns and people willing and able to effectively use them against tyrants.

Don't Waste Your Vote on Demopublicans

It is the season of political ads. I hear a lot of "Vote for me and I'll turn this city/county/country around" or "Tired of 'business as usual'? Then vote for me!" New & Improved "but-that's-not-all-you-also-get" Hogwash!

Do they really think there is a bit of difference between themselves and the other authoriturd-wanna-bes they are running against? Are they hucksters trying to sell you a load? The Demopublicans spend a lot of time and advertising money trying to convince voters that they are really different from their opponent. Don't buy it. Unless the person running for office is a libertarian, they are exactly the same as every other Demopublican who has held that office for the last several decades. Authoritarian control-freaks one and all.

Do they think it is OK for government to steal your money for "public projects" or government programs? Is the only difference between criminals, I mean "candidates", in how they want to use your stolen money? They are nothing but tax predators.

Do they respect the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, in any way they wish, openly or concealed, wherever they desire? If not, what are they afraid of? What is it that they wish to do to you that you would not submit to if you were able to defend yourself? Even giving the benefit of a doubt, the nicest conclusion is that they do not trust YOU and deserve no trust from you.

Do they support The War on (some) Drugs with all its abominable human rights violations? Then they think rights are negotiable and disposable. No one with this paleolithic attitude should ever have any authority over another human's life.

If you choose to vote on this coming election day, DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE by voting for more of the same authoriturds. Either vote for libertarians or do America a favor and sleep in on election day.

Remember the Fifth of November

Regardless of the historical beginnings of the day's importance, it is clear that "the 5th of November" should become (and has become, to some degree) our new Independence Day. In light of that, Andrew G. Eggleston Sr. has adapted V's speech for this week's issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I reprint it here:

"Hello freedom loving peoples everywhere.
Allow me first to apologize for intruding on your day. . .
I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine. . . the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition.
I enjoy them as much as any of us.
But in the spirit of commemoration. . . whereby important events of the past. . . usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful, bloody struggle are celebrated with a nice holiday.
I thought we could mark this November the 5th (Guy Fawkes Day). . . a day that is, sadly, no longer remembered by taking time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak.
In the near future, orders may be shouted into telephones and men with guns would soon be on their way.
Why? Because while the riot club, tear gas and water hoses may be used instead of conversation - words will always retain their power.
Words offer the means to meaning and, for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
And the truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression, and where once you had the freedom to object, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", to think, act and speak as you saw fit - you now have legislation restricting you and moneyed interests controlling the mass media and impromptu searches and surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting submission.
How did this happen? Who's to blame?
Certainly there are those who are more responsible than others.
And they will be held accountable.
But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid.
Who wouldn't be with; escalating crime rates, war, disease, 9-11, Oklahoma City, Waco, Columbine High School.
There were a myriad of problems, which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you, and in your panic, you turned to the United States Government, currently presided-over by George W. Bush.
They promised you order, they promised you protection, they promised you peace and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Now we should seek to end that consent, the USA Patriot Act is a complete infringement upon your rights as an American under the Bill of Rights. The Central Government has removed your rights, declaring how you will act, speak, and think. They will listen to your personal phone conversations between you and your family, friends, or lover. They will tap into your computer and hack into everything about you, they will listen to your intimate conversations that take place in the privacy of your own home. And when they have decided you are a significant enough threat, they will break down your door and point guns into your face until you do what they say.
More than 400 years ago, a great citizen wished to imbed the 5th of November forever in the memory of free people everywhere.
Guy Fawkes hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words.
They are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this Central Government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the 5th of November to pass unmarked.
But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, and remember that the 5th of November should never, ever be forgot."

Predatory Candidates

Reading the website for a local candidate for sheriff, it is easy to get discouraged. Is this the best "we" can do? Obviously this clown is not remotely worthy/libertarian. Almost every single "pledge" this person makes is based on the enforcement of counterfeit "laws". He is almost giddy at the prospect of "cracking down" on drugs and alcohol. Even the promises he makes that do not involve such "law enforcement" are way outside the legitimate authority of anyone in government, such as "fighting for our youth" and "helping them". He even pledges to seek more stolen ("tax") money for the "benefit" of the county. Shouldn't a sheriff recognize that accepting these stolen funds from the federal and state tax-predators corrupts him? Completely sickening. Especially considering that the incumbent is just as bad. I am glad that I do not seek leadership from these people; I would be lost if I did.

Shunning Experiences

I have been on the receiving end of this ancient practice several times in my life. Even my recent experience with pseudo-patriot Roy and the rental house qualifies, although he should have reimbursed all the money spent for the last-minute aborted move.

A little over a year ago I was on a long road trip and a motel refused to rent to me. I am not sure if it was my appearance, the fact I was paying cash, or the fact that there was some confusion while getting the room which seemed to unnerve the desk clerk. Either way, while irritating, it was the right of the clerk to decide not to rent to us. She said "I think you should go somewhere else. I have a bad feeling about you." Now it is kind of funny to me. After a long hard day of driving, it really wasn't.

You and I have an absolute right to associate, or not, with anyone for any reason. We may be justified, or we may be wrong. No government agency or "law" can ever abrogate this right, no matter how severe the penalties.

I encourage the use of shunning against the thugs of the BATFE, and pretty much any other government employees who advocate or enforce counterfeit "laws". Even if it means that I will sometimes fall victim to the tactic. It is a small price to pay for self-determination.

Computers Get Sick, Too

My computer has picked up a nasty virus, so I am using someone else's right now. Posting may be spotty until/unless I can get things straightened out. Can I scream in frustration?

This has made me think.... What is the crime that computer virus "Typhoid Mary"s commit? I suppose it qualifies as fraud. It certainly isn't "victimless". Would I be justified in shooting the person who created this virus? I wouldn't take my chances if I were him.

I would like to see a computer "corbomite device" that would reflect and amplify any hacking or virus attempt, sending a pulse of destructive energy right back at the attacking computer, in this case some website with the domain name "safenavweb.com". That would be satisfying right now. Hey, let me dream. It alleviates the irritation a little.

People of the Gun

I finally got my picture added to the People of the Gun webpage. If you are brave (or foolhardy) enough to have a picture of yourself with a gun posted online for all the anti-gun world to see, send them a pic. I think it is nice to see normal, non-violent people posing with their guns. It is a shame that it is necessary to pause to consider if such an action is wise. Don't forget: WE have nothing to be ashamed of. Gun owners are not the ones going around threatening to kill anyone who we disagree with. The victim disarmament perpetrators are the ones doing that.

Captivity is Unhealthy

I have had a lot of experience with wild animals. I was always warned that "wild animals do not make good pets". As I got more experience I came to realize that the reason for this is that too many people do not respect the animal's need for freedom. A raccoon in a cage becomes frustrated and angry. Boiling just below the surface is barely-suppressed rage, waiting for an opportunity to erupt. The captive lashes out at its jailer and both suffer. The wild animals I "kept" still lived life on their own terms; they retained their self-determination and came and went as they wished. They did not depend on me for food, as I didn't feed the adults. Large sexually mature raccoons who choose to stay around do not become resentful, seeking to attack or escape at the first opportunity.


This observation can be applied to people as well. Whether struggling under a tyrannical government or an oppressive relationship, if freedom is suppressed, resentment will fester just below the surface, waiting for a moment of weakness to erupt. People are not well evolved for a life of slavery. Wise people will recognize this fact.

Candidate: "Are You a Libertarian?"

Ads for (slimy) candidates for political office are flooding the airwaves. The first, and often the only, question that needs to be asked of each and every one of these pretenders is "Are you a libertarian? No? Next!"

If, on the rare occasion one of them answers affirmatively, your follow-up statement for the purpose of clarification should be: "So you trust the people of this city/state/country to run their own lives with no meddling from government whatsoever, right? No 'permits'; no 'licenses'; no victimless 'crimes'." If the candidate does not trust you, there is no reason to trust him. "NEXT!"

If the candidate is still on your side, the final test is the big one. Ask if they are willing to back up that position with the Kent McManigal pledge, the pledge that I took as a candidate for President where I state that if elected, I ever support the enforcement of a counterfeit "law", if I ever advocate violating the ZAP, I recognize it as the duty of every American to try to assassinate me if I do not "straighten up", with my successor under strict instructions to give executive clemency to the patriot. If the candidate is still standing by this position, by all means, vote for him or her! Otherwise, find someone better suited for office.

Time to Blind Big Brother

New York City's head tyrant is planning to install hundreds more surveillance cameras to "protect" people on the streets. (No doubt he will soon be followed by his clones in other cities.) Add these to the hundreds already out there, and the thousands of private cameras which are aimed out of their property, and are therefore optically "trespassing", and you have a situation where there is no privacy. This is an intolerable situation. It is a situation that can be solved, though. Make it more expensive to maintain these eyes than they are worth, or make the cameras worthless for the enforcers or as a psychological control tool.

Blinding the cameras is justified, but how? I would never encourage anyone to commit a crime.... Shooting the cameras is tricky since it is often impossible to do without endangering people or property behind the target. Vaseline paintballs are too easily cleaned up. Spray paint doesn't have the necessary range. Lasers are mostly ineffective, especially for the cameras which filter out certain wavelengths of light. However, government does not feel the pinch when paying for new cameras every month. After all, the money doesn't come out of their pockets; it is stolen from you and me.

I have no qualms about blinding government cameras, but privately owned ones .... any type of private property.... should be sacred. The problem is that the owners of those private cameras are only too anxious to hand over their videos to the enforcers, becoming a partner to the oppression. They also aim their cameras across the street or at the crossroads nearby instead of on their own property. They should be given a chance to redirect or remove their cameras, unless they have a clear history or aiding tyranny.

Perhaps there is another way to make those cameras worthless, but I doubt it. Disguises would make you a "person of interest" everywhere you went, unless you were an expert makeup artist. The little dramas and plays acted out for the cameras in some cities have done nothing to make the public aware and enraged. Too many people falsely believe that being watched unceasingly makes them safe. It doesn't work in London; it won't work anywhere.

I think the real value of the cameras (for tyrants) is the psychological effect on people who know they are being watched constantly. Government is not truly concerned with preventing or solving crimes, but only in getting people to "sit down and shut up!" Cameras seem to be very effective at that. It's time to stand up and be LOUD.

Certified Domestic Terrorist

With this bit of treason-by-government it seems my "Certified Domestic Terrorist" banner is becoming more and more true every day. I would suggest that eveyone with a blog, MySpace or Facebook page, or website add Homeland Stupidity's "CDT" banner to your pages. Only by shining the light of ridicule can we reflect the absurdity of the US government.

Thanks to War on Guns for calling this to my attention first.


......

The Libertarian Enterprise

Once again, The Libertarian Enterprise is at its alternate URL.

Pomp, Ceremony, and Goofy Haircuts

Too many people feel a inordinate respect for and are highly impressed by trappings of military pageantry. They crave silly rituals, ridiculous uniforms, and goofy haircuts. As the police become more and more militarized, notice how they adopt those same things. Especially the "goofy haircuts" part. (I guess they go along with the full-auto firearms that protect "them" from "us".)

Getting back to the topic: Could libertarians use this knowledge to our advantage, somehow? Not being one of those who are impressed (or intimidated) by such, I have a hard time coming up with a way to "use" the information. It would need to be solemn, at least to the participants. The rest of us can giggle to ourselves. It would also need to be completely voluntary. That way, those of us who have evolved beyond such needs could overlook it.

The problem is, people who engage in militaristic pomp and ceremony (and goofy haircuts)quickly begin to see themselves as better than those who do not. Would (or does) that hold true even in a libertarian society? I'm afraid it might.

On a side note, I just invented a new word by way of a typographical error: "libertarina". Perhaps that could be a new label for female libertarians. We need more libertarinas!

Tell Me About Yourself

It's your turn, dear readers. You know all about me, now tell me something about yourselves. You don't need to give away deep, dark secrets; you can remain anonymous if you prefer. I am simply curious who is reading this blog, what region you live in, and what your opinions are. What is your background? Tell me why you read this; maybe what your primary interest is. What do you like or dislike about this blog? What subjects have I ignored or given too much focus? If you would prefer to not publish a comment, email me privately and I will not make the information public.

Thanks!

.......

Informative Articles and a Request

Here are a couple of articles I ran across while searching for something else. "Gangster cops" is about a tragic, but inevitable result of the War on (some) Drugs, and the other article is about domestic enemy and authoriturd extraordinaire, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

What I was originally looking for, but never found, was a flyer I had once run across online that warned of a new criminal gang, the "Blue Gang", and listed the typical behaviors and style of dress of cops and warned people to be alert and to regard this gang as extremely dangerous. If anyone can point me to it, I would be grateful and I will blog it here.

Wolves, Sheepdogs, and Sheep

The "wolves" in this common analogy are the criminals. The "sheep" are the average sleepwalking people-on-the-street; people who will never take responsibility for their own protection. Usually the "sheepdogs" referred to are the cops, which is mostly nonsense. The real "sheepdogs" are the alert, frequently armed, people who take seriously their responsibility to make the world within their sphere a better place. Sheepdogs are not out looking for trouble, or causing it. Some cops do fit this definition. Most no longer do.

When cops enforce counterfeit "laws", they are preying on the sheep around them. They have joined the wolf pack. It is up to the true sheepdogs to then come to the rescue of the sheep. The best, simplest solution would be for the sheepdog cops to keep the badged wolves in line, or to cull them from their ranks. They should never support policies of home-invasion "drug raids", and should certainly never take part in such crimes. They should never make a "gun arrest", but only arrest those who have committed a crime against another person.

A fully armed population is the best defense against criminals. Sheepdog cops know this and recognize their fellow sheepdogs; badges or permits are irrelevant. The wolves hate the sheepdogs. They either take advantage of, or enforce laws aimed at rendering the sheepdogs helpless. We need to turn the tide to make most cops once again join the ranks of sheepdogs, and turn from their wolfish ways. I'm not overly optimistic; the allure of predation is very strong.

The Libertarian Enterprise

The Libertarian Enterprise is hiding at a different URL this week. Find it here.

Useful Forms

Here are a couple of forms that you may find useful when dealing with authoriturds. The Bureaucracy Encounter Form and the Denial of Rights Under Color of Law form could both be used as a self defense tactic or as intellectual ammunition. I would warn you, however, that government thugs do not like being reminded that they are the criminals. Expect to be tasered.

"Firearms Refresher Course" Email

I got this in an email and reposted it here after correcting a lot of things. Feel free to spread around this corrected version.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'~ Thomas Jefferson

1. An armed individual is free. An unarmed subject is a slave.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. "Gun control" is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are stolen by "law", we will use swords ... while we build new guns.
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words and matches cause arson.
7. Free men do not ask permission from government; particularly not to bear arms.
8. If you don't exercise your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution. Do not resuscitate. RIP.
11. The Bill of Rights did not create rights; it listed a few of them.
12. The Second Amendment was a gentle warning to politicians who ignored the others.
13. 64,999,987 American firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have three enemies; rust, politicians, and other ignorant people.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sanctioned Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. Murderers and their friends love "gun free zones"; their bleeding victims don't.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its people tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. There is not a single legal "gun law". Look up "infringed".
24. When you ignore the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves, outlaws, and criminals.
25. The first American Revolution started because of gun control. Will the second?
26. The 9/11 plot succeeded only because of "gun control".

Petition the NRA

If you haven't already given up on the anti-gun antics of the NRA, here is a petition that you, as a life member or an annual member of 5 years or more can send them to encourage them to dump one of their most recent tongue stompers (as in, his foot is deeply and actively in his mouth), director Joaquin Jackson.

There are some other tidbits of news on this at the War on Guns Blog.

The Only Good Government Agencies

If there were a government agency or two that actually did only good, without any harm to any innocent party, that could be financed without stealing money to do so, I would support that agency's existence, even if it wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.

Using those criteria, here is my list of good government agencies:




....

The Island of Unrestrained Government

I find the artificial island projects off the coast of Dubai fascinating, and it gives me an idea. It makes me think we should build an island somewhere and banish all government to it. To kill two birds with one stone, we could use garbage to build this "Authoritopia". That should help mask the smell of government somewhat, too. I would donate all my garbage quite willingly to such a noble cause. Since this would be a self-defensive act, we would be completely justified in rounding up all the authoriturds at gun-point to deport them.

Maybe a warning could be issued first: "If you try to enforce any counterfeit "law" from this moment forward, you will be deported at gun-point to a new location where your mental defect will no longer harm society. Walk away from your authoritarian mind-set and job today, unless you consent to being forcibly relocated. Any resistance will be interpreted as direct treason and will be dealt with forcefully." Then, just to be fair (much more so than the auhoriturds have ever been with the rest of us) we would leave them alone until they tried to enforce some counterfeit "law". Think how many "volunteers" we could round up at each "sobriety checkpoint".

On their island, the former tyrants and bureaucrats could govern each other to death if they wanted. Just as long as they knew that no such nonsense would ever be allowed in the rest of the world, and any escapees who tried to sneak ashore to spread authoritarianism to the rest of us would be shot immediately, and the shooter would be celebrated worldwide. Well, worldwide with the exception of "The Island of Unrestrained Government".

Government Harms Babies

It seems that everyone I know either just had a baby or is pregnant. Looking into those innocent little faces, you want to be able to protect them from everything. Especially from government agencies that pretend to exist to protect them.

One new mother I know nicked her baby's chin with his zipper when she was dressing him. She was wanting to take him to the doctor's office for a stomach problem, but wouldn't for fear that the "Child Protective Service" would think she was abusive and take him away. Her mother was eventually able to help her with the baby, and it turned out he was OK, but her fear of an overreaching government stood in the way of seeking professional help.


I also knew of a couple in another state who got into an argument with their neighbors who then carried out their threat and called the state and reported them as child abusers. The last I knew they had still never seen their children again. It is hard to prove yourself innocent, which is why the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecutors. (Tell that to the IRS!)

In many cases the fear of these things happening is overblown. The problem is that you can never tell which tiny thing will get the snowball rolling. On some occasions children do need to be rescued from abusive parents. I don't think that is government's job. Sure, the scorpion of government can sting those who harm children. But that scorpion is stupid and blind and doesn't notice who it stings. The children are often its victims. Is it worth the risk to let that beast near your child?

Parasite in the News

It is all over the news that "the first baby-boomer" has signed up for Social(ist In)security. Why is that news? Did anyone really think she or those who will follow her down the path of parasitism would have the integrity to say "No thanks"? She has been brainwashed all her working life. The lie is powerful, comforting, and ubiquitous. I doubt the thought even occurred to her to refuse.

I heard her saying that she will now start getting back the money she has paid in for all those years. No she won't. Her money is long gone. It was spent before it was taken; paid out to the parasites of her parents' generation (and for the salaries of the bureaucrats who encouraged and administered the system). Now she will be taking the money of those who continue to work and have their money stolen by government. Just because her money was stolen for years does not give her the right to live off of stolen money now.

If you continue to allow government to steal your money, you should consider that money gone, and plan for the future without counting on "getting it back". Otherwise you will probably have a rude awakening when it is "your turn" and you discover that your retirement welfare check won't keep you warm and fed. Don't allow yourself to be used as an excuse to keep propping up the dead system.

You may think that calling welfare recipients "parasites" is harsh. Perhaps. It is not a judgement; only an observation. Parasites live by draining life from the host without giving back as much as they take. Parasites do not cause themselves to evolve that way. The environment causes them to evolve into a parasitic organism. Remove yourself from the mental environment where it is OK to live off of stolen money. Remind yourself what is really being spoken of when "Social Security" is referred to. Choose to evolve into something other than a parasite. Become symbiotic and give something back in exchange instead of living off the lives of the younger generations. It will enrich you more than cashing those filthy checks.

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!