"Gays in the Military"

I was recently watching an online debate about whether "gays" should be allowed in the military. The hatred and hysteria was shocking. But the division among the war-mongers is encouraging in a lot of ways. When the next American revolution begins, I won't care who is beside me shooting at the government troops. They can be straight, gay, bi, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, black, white, Hispanic, oriental, or from Alpha Centauri for all I'll care. Those of you on the government-sympathizer side would be wise to adopt the same mind-set, but if you don't, it'll make the revolution easier for us liberty-lovers to win.

"Time's Up" Flag on Lew Rockwell

I feel like my "Time's Up" flag has hit the big-time now that it made it onto Lew Rockwell. Thanks Manuel Lora!

Here is the story behind the flag, for those of you who don't know:

I came up with this design during the summer of 2006 while I was vacationing with my family near Albuquerque, New Mexico (at the cushy American RV park, to be specific). I was relaxing in a chair at the "campsite", looking at my Gadsden flag (which was flying on my parent's motor home nearby) and thought "that snake has been rattling for over 200 years. It is time he finally struck at those who keep treading on him." I pulled a scrap of paper from my vest pocket and did the first sketch. I toyed with different captions (such as "Liberty") before settling on "Time's Up". The final design is a direct scan of my second sketch, which was almost as good as the first sketch. Isn't that the way it always works? The flags I sell have a slightly modified design (for better printing by the flag manufacturer), but I am very happy with them.

Entering the Matrix

I read a fascinating online book called The Day You Discard Your Body by Marshall Brain. He is speaking of trading your body and the external reality it inhabits with an internal computer-simulation of reality.

The reason why you will discard your body so willingly is simple. In the
process of losing your body, you will achieve a level of freedom and longevity
that is unimaginable to us today.

In this book, you will come to understand why you will be so happy to
discard your body. We will look at the many problems that your body creates for
you today, along with the many limitations that it imposes on you. We will then
discuss the technology that will make your body obsolete, and the powerful
social forces that will encourage you to abandon it.

He makes a lot of good points, but I can't help feeling that he is talking about building "The Matrix". Would you be willing to give up reality for a fiction that seemed more real than reality, and was basically a perfect paradise? You could live in your ideal world regardless of what others thought of its impracticality. I worry about who would control and maintain such a system, and who would pay for it. It is definitely food for thought. I highly recommend you read his ideas.

There is one way I would gladly do it, as long as I had paid for it myself, instead of "society" picking up the tab. At the end of my natural life, I would be willing to begin my "unnatural life". At that point, what have you got to lose? Everything is just icing from then on.

“But you support the State by your own actions!”

I really liked this post from Check Your Premises and felt the need to swipe it, with proper credit, of course. This part really got to me:

I don’t understand how could a patriot could say “if you don’t like it, move.”
Must his country be perfect for him to accept it? Fine patriot he is! ......... what’s the point of believing in something if you refuse to help it
when something goes wrong?

Paranoia? No, Curiosity.

I check my Sitemeter quite often to see how many visits this blog gets, and where those visits originate. It helps me keep tabs on where people are talking about me. Recently I have been getting more and more visits from an anonymous IP that has piqued my curiosity. I'm not saying that I think "98.220.70.# (Unknown Organization)" is really the BATFE trying to catch me threatening their evil thugs. It is probably just someone who is really bored. It does make me wonder, though.
I suppose if that is you, and you care to, you could send me a note to say "hi".

"Heller" Goes to Washington, DC (District of Crime)

The Supreme Court has now heard the arguments in the "Heller" case. I was surprised that they agreed to hear the case at all, since they have a long history of ignoring Second Amendment cases. Either they think they have figured out how to weasel their way out of making a real ruling, or they have a "fix" in place. Perhaps they will view it so narrowly that they will claim that the ruling can't be applied to any other case.

What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change. As I said once before:

"They could say that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but of
course the gun ban doesn't violate that in any way since (...insert twisted
justification of your choice here...). They could rule that the right to keep
and bear arms is a collective right and so only applies to "militias" controlled
by the villains themselves. I don't think the Supremes will have the integrity
to rule against the villains who want to keep DC helpless."

I have long been of the opinion that:

"If they flat-out state that there is no Right to Keep and Bear Arms, they know
they face an armed revolution. If they admit that the Second Amendment means
what it plainly says, they will be admitting that every victim disarmament
scheme that has ever been perpetrated on America is illegal, and therefore null
and void. .....The lie is that you need it 'interpreted' by legal scholars. You
do not. The authors wrote it for everyone. That includes YOU."

Judging by the DC mayor's desperate verbal flatulence in support of his little empire of tyranny, interesting times may be ahead.

____________________________________

A Gov-thug Sends Threats

From JPFO:

An Open Letter To US Marshal Judicial Security Inspector David A. Meyer

_____________

The Target of Self-Responsibility

*****I am sick. Just a cold, but the baby is also sick and teething. That makes me more philosophical. So, here is the result of my fevered philosophizing:

The Target of Self-Responsibility.

The further off-center the political philosophy, the less personal responsibility is inherent, and the less liberty exists, from complete self-responsibility and great personal freedom in the center, to a total lack of self-responsibility and ubiquitous, draconian tyranny on the edge.

New rings of increased horror and control can always be added to the outside, especially as technology empowers government to reach new levels of tyranny.

Self-responsibility and liberty withers as government responsibility and control grows. Some individuals may have more or less responsibility that the general population that shares their politics, but that probably means they have actually mislabeled themselves.

Important Causes

I think that many people get involved with dubious causes because they have a deep-seated need to be a part of something important. Something "big". I completely understand that. It is the reason I do the things I do for the cause of absolute individual liberty. Yet, when I look at the logical results of many of the causes and actions that others take up, I wonder if they really think about where their road leads.

Many of them choose to prop up and support the state with their lives. Do you want a world where you are completely "safe"; supposedly protected from all harm by a totalitarian government that controls every aspect of your life? Or do you want a world filled with realistic risks, but where you are free to live as you see fit, as long as you harm no one else? I know which one I would choose, for myself and for my children.

"Thank You For Your Service"

Some days I think that if I hear that phrase again, I may gag. It has become the "Gesundheit" of our culture. Chanted without thought to the wrong people. Why isn't it said to people like Wayne Fincher who put his life on the line for the right to bear arms and who is now imprisoned for standing up for our freedom? Or to Len Savage who fights against the vindictive and corrupt BATFE and exposes its corruption at great personal risk? Or to Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post for his fight to keep his honest business going after devious and dishonest attacks by the BATFE? Or to David Codrea for his War on Guns blog, where he has had threats passed along to from angry agents of the government?

Why do people not say "Thank you for your service" to the people who have stood up against the War on some Drugs and lost everything, including their lives? Or those who fight against the IRS?

It turns out that the phrase is reserved for those who fight for the US federal government; not for those who truly are "fighting for our freedom".

Well, I will hereby break with the rest of America and say "Thank you for your service"; all of you who stand up against government oppression in ANY form. Your stance may one day break the beast and make us all a little more free.

"Brothers"

Whenever I am reading something or listening to someone talk, I get suspicious if I hear the term "my brothers". I usually run into the term when I criticize some members of a group, or when I am reading about some blatant abuse that is defended by the offender's "brothers". Whether the speaker is talking about "my brother soldiers", "my brother officers", or "my union brothers" it seems that the term is used to end all rational discussion of any possible wrongdoing.

I can see that shared goals and shared experiences would forge a bond that could be called "brotherhood". I understand that. It doesn't excuse a cover-up of the flaws of those "brothers". It almost seems to be a knee-jerk reaction; called forth before the facts are even known.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that brotherhood is a bad thing, just that it seems to be granted too lightly in many cases to those who do not deserve the title, simply because of a common career path. I also wonder what makes people so desperate for a connection that they grab onto some of these "brotherhoods".

___________________________

What's In Your Moral Tool-Kit?

I am constantly amazed at the number of people who apparently have an empty "moral tool-kit". To them, only government and its laws dictate right and wrong. If they disagree with the state at all, it is only to insist upon what they want or they need. If it benefits them it must be OK, even if the government says it is bad, but they go no further than that. What about things that harm the other guy even if "legal", or things that help you out "legally", but are not right? Selfishness in liking government edicts is a real problem. My moral tool-kit contains "right and wrong" that are completely independent of "laws". Not that I always live up to them, but I do try.

America: Love It or Leave It?

I am not the only advocate of liberty who gets told "If you hate the government so much, move somewhere else!" Where exactly would these yappers suggest I go? The cancer of government is a global problem. I have a suspicion that even if a new minicontinent were to suddenly appear, it would immediately be claimed by some country.

Besides, if you know a woman is being abused by her husband, even if she says nothing is wrong, do you turn away and ignore it, or do you try to help in some way? How is the government abuse any better?

What is the right thing to do? Run away or stay and fight for liberty? Why didn't Patrick Henry say "Give me liberty, or I'll move somewhere else." I stay and fight because I care deeply about individual liberty. For me, for you, for my kids, and even for those who don't care.

Why I Don't Fly the "Stars and Stripes"

I used to fly the "Stars and Stripes". I did not like what the federal government had become, but I tried to tell myself that the flag still stood for the ideals of "liberty and justice for all". I never liked it when it was called "the US flag" instead of "the American flag", but I am an oddball in that I see a vast difference between the two. As the federal government transformed into the feral government (specifically after the Waco massacre), I turned away from the 50-starred flag and began to only fly the 13-starred "Betsy Ross" flag of a somewhat more noble era. Upon seeing my flag, people would comment "I understand, and I agree" without me saying a word. Yet, even that was not enough.

I came to realize that when government thugs see "regular Americans" flying the "Stars and Stripes", they take it as an implicit endorsement of everything they do, regardless of your true intent. It is like waving signs cheering on your favorite sports team or wearing their jerseys. You are wearing their colors, and showing that you are on their side. Even if, as in my case, nothing could have been further from the truth. I love America and because of that love, I hate everything the US government has done that destroys and belittles America, and violates individual liberty. I don't want any misunderstanding. I am an advocate of individual liberty: the recognition that as long as you harm no one else, you are free to live however you wish, without asking permission from anyone. That is why I now fly either the Gadsden flag with its "DONT TREAD ON ME" message, or my own "Time's Up" flag with its even more plain message.

Nuremberg II

I just returned from a scouting trip to Nuremberg, Pennsylvania for the "Nuremberg II" project. I needed a road trip! Cute town.

The united states of "America"

Here is a thought that was wandering around lost in my head. Take it for what it is worth:

North America (the continent) contains the countries of Canada, America, and Mexico. It also contains the countries of the Central America region as well as many island countries.

Saying "The united States of America" was originally just a way of saying something similar to"All the parts of my car". Only after the states were defeated by the federal government in Lincoln's War did the "name" of the country start being mistakenly thought of as "The United States of America". I realize that once again, the dictionary will disagree with me.

Thank you, and remember to be a fully-informed juror.



_________________

Too Much Government

Almost everyone (other than the ubiquitous government extremist) agrees that government meddles too much in their own lives. Where I part ways with most people is that I think that government meddles too much in other people's lives also. It is easy to say that government should leave me alone. Why does it seem so hard to say that government should also leave the other guy alone?

Is it because it is easier to see the harm government does in your own life? Is it because too many people enjoy the thought of punishing the other guy? I do see that attitude a lot. For similar "crimes" people say "I only did this, and got punished too harshly for it" and in the next breath say "He did that, and he deserved to be locked up for the rest of his life!" Where is the fairness? Where is the common sense? I would rather risk having too little government controlling the other guy, than risk having too much government controlling me.

Liberty entails keeping the other guy safe from government predations, too. Whether he has government paperwork or not. Whether he agrees with you or not. Even if you don't personally like what he is doing, as long as he harms no one else. Until we start acting on that knowledge, liberty for all will remain elusive.

"Anarchists" vs Government

I see that government is blaming "anarchists" for a bombing. Yawn. If government knew its place, and stayed there, "anarchists" wouldn't go to the trouble of bombing. As a strategy, bombings don't work well. Government sympathizers become more determined and stronger in their defense of the indefensible when their temples are bombed. Just as any religion does.

Plus, government uses bombings as an excuse to tighten the screws of tyranny even more. If the government extremists really wanted to end threats against their establishments, they could. Rein in the excessive government and the anti-excessive-government forces will wither away for lack of difference. It is a simple law of nature, like a pendulum. The further it swings in the tyranny direction, the further it will necessarily swing in the anti-tyranny direction. The more extreme the government faction becomes, the more extreme its opposition becomes. Anarchy is the middle ground where neither is needed or welcome.

In this case, though, I am suspicious. I suspect that this may just be another "Reichstag fire".

Thoughts on Tariffs and Trade Deficits

I was discussing tariffs a couple days ago when I remembered a thought I have had in the past, but never written down. It is kinda mainstream, so I find it embarrassing. But here goes:

Get rid of the patchwork of tariffs and embargoes and then.... Why couldn't America pass a single tariff-mirroring law? It would simply state that whatever tariff or embargo a country places against American goods is automatically placed upon that country's goods. No waiting; no delay; and no restrictions against countries that place none on us. Perhaps it would also help with trade deficits and outsourcing.

Trade deficits seem a little imaginary to me. Which is more valuable: printed paper with dollar signs or real goods that can be used to make a better life for the people who possess them? When the dollar collapses would you rather have a big bank account or a house full of useful items that you purchased from other countries (who now have your worthless paper).

Outsourcing is a form of "division of labor". If you are good at doing something, people will seek you out to purchase that product or service. As long as you charge a price people are willing to pay, that is. Minimum wage laws mess with that formula. Now, I am not sure what companies are thinking when they set up their customer service phone centers in places where the employees have such a strong accent that they can not be understood by the average person. Unless they really have no interest in "serving the customers".

Eh. Anyway, those are my random thoughts for the day.

_______________________

Bad Laws

It's the same old story. Reading a blog post about a bad law (yes, the "law" is a counterfeit one) that was also being applied to retired cops, I commented that I absolutely detest cops, but that the law was still wrong. Of course I was castigated for holding to principle. Show me one cop who has never enforced a bad law and I will give that cop a pass. "I don't make the laws" is not an excuse for enforcing gun laws, drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, most traffic laws ...and the list goes on and on and on.


Of course, then the false argument was made that I just detest any police officer who enforces laws I don't like. Do any of you really think I have any vested interest in whether or not it is legal for anyone to smoke crack or hire a prostitute? I'll do what I want whether it is "legal" or not, but those aren't very high on my "to do" list. There are probably laws on the books that would help me, personally, but are still bad laws. If I notice any of those, I will still insist that the law should never be enforced.


It is really extremely simple, and I have difficulty understanding why people can't see it. It has nothing to do with whether I like the laws or not. It has everything to do with whether the laws violate the individual liberty of people to live life as they see fit as long as they are harming no one else. That is the very basis of "human rights", which is the core of libertarianism.


Of course, that then brings us back to the diversionary procedure of working within the rigged system, playing by their rules, to beg for our rights from those who have no interest in the "common people" having any rights, but only government-granted privileges. Bad laws without complicit enforcers would have no teeth. I'm sorry, but the truth is if you enforce a bad law, you are a bad person. Remember post-Katrina New Orleans.



___________________

Harm

I have always maintained that each person should be free to live life as they see fit as long as their actions harm no one else. One problem that crops up from time to time is the definition of "harm". Take pornography for example. Few people would argue that if your neighbor simply looks at porn, you are harmed. However, if he looks at porn and then gets all worked up and breaks into your house to rape you, he has harmed you badly. Did the porn "make him do it"? Some people apparently think so.

Drugs are the same way. Some drug users burn out their minds and bodies and end up costing a lot of money to take care of. Of course, if welfare were ended that would not be an issue. I don't really buy the "it harms society" claim, since society is only made up of individuals. If you harm no individuals you have not harmed "society". This is not the same as claiming that society doesn't exist. Too many abuses have been excused by claiming "the common good" makes it necessary.

In terms of number of individuals harmed, nothing surpasses government.


______________________

"You Were Right..."

I am always hearing "You are wrong" from people. Usually without evidence to back up the assertion, but rather impassioned nonetheless. But yesterday, just hours after debating my opinions with a dear friend of many years (at his prodding), he had an experience that suddenly made it clear to him that I have been right about government all these years. He called back just to tell me that I have been right all along. He related the events of the past couple of hours to me. Things that did not shock or surprise me, but that had a profound effect on his outlook. Because I did not ask his permission to post details, I won't say any more. I wonder if the epiphany will be permanent or if it will fade as the memory of the event dims. Time will tell.

A few years ago I debated libertarian concepts with a guy at work on an almost daily basis. He was curious, but thought I was completely off-base. I moved away and did not see him for over a year. I then moved back and the first time I saw him he told me "You were right." He told me that he had begun to pay special attention to current events and had seen the very things I had told him to expect come to pass. We talked a little more over the next few weeks and discussed his new views. I am glad I was able to help him.

I am gladder, still, that these people (and a couple more) came to me and told me that they had finally seen what I had been trying to say. It makes it worthwhile.

Labels, Again

Anarchist .... libertarian .... anarcho-capitalist ....

What do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions to see what someone, somewhere, thought they meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you say the words. They seem too all fall short of the concepts. Yet, somehow we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I end up doing. A lot. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words.

Speculation on Alien Governments

If/when an extraterrestrial civilization ever decides to make itself generally known to humanity it will be a complete shock. If it is even possible to comprehend the aliens at all. I know I am making unwarranted assumptions here, but I have to start somewhere. So these are my assumptions:

Quite aside from the appearance of the ETs, they will challenge everything we think we know about religion, science, and government.

I wonder how any government they may have, or may not have, will affect our own. Being completely different from us, their methods of getting along may not even have any application to our situation. Personally, I would hope they have advanced beyond the need for any government other than self-government. That is my bias. What if they are socialists or an even worse kind of slave? Could our ideas of liberty influence them at all? Would it be like bacteria giving our philosophers ideas on how to organize civilization? What if they have no "self"? Or what if their idea of "self" is that each individual is basically at war with every other individual? I think that is very unlikely. I would think that in order to have technology that enables them to travel to earth, they would be rather cooperative. That is not a certainty.

Who Causes Problems?

Maybe I am in the minority, but I have very few problems that are caused by individuals that can be solved by state intervention. Of course, I am not one to throw the state at anyone, anyway. On the other hand, I have tons of problems caused by the state (and my refusal to submit to its whims). Maybe this means that I cause those problems for myself, in the eyes of the tyranny deniers, at least.










___________________

Anarchism or Nihilism?

I don't see anarchy as a destructive philosophy. That would be more like nihilism to me. Where anarchism means "no rulers", nihilism means "no rulers, no rules, no manners, steal, kill, bring on the chaos!" So nihilism is probably what most people are thinking of when they say "anarchy". Even the dictionary overlaps the two.

Just because I don't think rulers are legitimate doesn't mean I believe that evolved "laws" of behavior are wrong. That is the basis of the Zero Aggression Principle and the other moral principles that guide our lives. Even written law can be good as long as it stays within the bounds of naturally evolved laws such as "don't steal or attack the innocent". I only have a problem with written "laws" that violate individual rights or the natural laws that I think are carried inside each of us from birth.

I have been running across a lot of people who identify themselves as "anarchists" but who only want to destroy everything; the good and the bad. Simply because it is there. They are really socialistic revolutionaries who want to get rid of the current system so that they can commit wrongs with no fear of punishment. That is not me, nor is it any of the anarchists I know. This is the problem with language. I know what I mean when I say certain words, but others may mean something completely different when they use the exact same words. No wonder people are (or pretend to be) so confused about the meaning of the Second Amendment!

________________________

Illegality Does Not Equal "Wrong"

I was recently observing an online discussion on the subject of "illegal immigrants". I was disturbed and disgusted seeing all the mindless hatred expressed. Then one scholar dropped the bomb "the word 'illegal' says it all - they are criminals".
At that point I put in my two cents. I said that "illegal" doesn't mean "wrong", nor does "legal" mean "right". After all, slavery was once "legal", but it still wasn't right; helping the runaway slaves was "illegal", but wasn't "wrong. The other guy responded that my analogy was stupid, and I should think before I wrote. I told him I wasn't making an analogy; merely pointing out that legality is a poor way to judge right and wrong.
I notice this error in thinking a lot. Have "we" become so brainwashed about, or by, the state that we can no longer think for ourselves? I know I have written about this before. It still astounds me that people would really judge right and wrong based upon what a group of criminals decided. Criminals who are only concerned with keeping the power and privilege they possess and gaining as much new power and privilege as they can get away with.
I won't play that game.

__________________

The Conspiracy Against Conspiracy Theories

I am not a huge conspiracy theorist, yet it disturbs me that some (or most) people deny that conspiracies can exist within government. It has gotten so bad that to even suggest a conspiracy automatically disqualifies you from being taken seriously. If I were a collectivist who wanted to subjugate the population, I can't think of a more effective strategy than making it automatically "crazy" to suggest that conspiracies may exist. I know that there have been many conspiracy theories that are really "out there" and cast ridicule on all of them. That doesn't make them all, even the really "out there" theories, automatically wrong, regardless of the common opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; get out there and find it. I think that many things could be slipped under the fence and covered up with "You people are just crazy conspiracy nuts!" Just remember: when two people try to do something bad, secretly, it qualifies as a conspiracy. To deny that it happens in government offices is just plain nuts.

Happily Ever After!

This is one of the happiest tales I have read in a long time: The Tale That Might Be Told. Some people, those who either want to cling to the status quo, or those who erroneously believe they need the state, might not like it, or may say "it could never happen". Don't worry about "those people". Read this and let the contentment flow over you. I did, and I'm still smiling!



Thanks for the link, Christian Butterbach!



__________________

Why Does Liberty Matter To Me?

Liberty matters to me because I hate when people are hurt. I hate when innocent children starve because "their" national government takes the resources of the region to enrich its supporters and collaborators. I know that freedom helps more people than the alternative. I do not excuse evil, especially when the evil-doers claim they are doing it "for your own good". Liberty matters to me because I know people have a right and a responsibility to defend themselves even if their attackers have a badge and a gun, or an office and a "law". Liberty matter to me because I think there is value in living your own life as you see fit, and in living with the consequences and lessons. I see the heartache, death, and destruction that government, even the most benevolent government, causes. Liberty matters to me because there is no government program important enough to kill over: no tax, no drug law, no foreign adventurism... nothing. Ever. There IS a better way. Liberty for ALL. No "elites" who have different rules or are excused from most of the rules that apply to "us". Don't think there are different rules? Try walking into Wal*Mart past their "NO GUNS" sign with a big gun on your belt openly like the cops do. I know... some will say "but that is necessary" or "that's different". That is your opinion which I do not share. Liberty is important to me because I see what happens when liberty is rationed, licensed, prohibited, or belittled. It is not a pretty sight ....unless you salivate over controlling the lives of those around you. In short, liberty matters to me because people matter to me.

Cultural Preservation?

Some local politician is running ads bragging that he is a "true conservative". One of the ideas he advocates on his televised panderfest is that of making English the Official Language.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that Americans were laughing at the French government for passing all sorts of silly "cultural preservation laws"? I guess bad ideas are contagious. Now American politicians have decided that "The American Culture" is so weak and pitiful that it needs legal protections to survive. Unfortunately they have a lot of ill-informed support.

Any "culture" that can not survive being exposed to another probably does not have much chance of long-term survival anyway. If it has merit, there will be people who make a point of passing on the culture's unique attributes. To people who really care; not to people who are forced to submit.

The Most Influential (on me) Books

The following is a list of the most influential books in my life. These are the books I read over and over. Read these and you will have a glipse into the depths of my mind. Any chills you get from that image are not my fault! So without further ado, or any real reason, and not in any particular order, I give you....


My favorite books:


Lever Action by L. Neil Smith


The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris


The Man in the Ice by Konrad Spindler


Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher


Owl at Home by Arnold Lobel


Tunnel Through Time by Lester Del Rey


The Mammoth Hunters by Jean Auel

Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith


Time and Again by Jack Finney


The Complete Sherlock Holmes by A. Conan Doyle


Pirate by Richard Platt


The Scars of Evolution by Elaine Morgan


The Stinky Cheese Man by Jon Scieszka



And the book I am currently reading and really enjoying is Pallas by L. Neil Smith. Of all the alternate worlds I have lived in through books, this one may just be my favorite.


_______________________

The Copycat Effect

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Loren Coleman and his blog "The Copycat Effect", which mainly deals with the school shooter phenomenon. He points out the patterns that seem to form around the shootings. Because the shooters are obviously "not right" in their software, I think it is a definite possibility that they see other shootings as a reason to carry out their own massacre. In any case, he is "predicting" another dangerous time soon. Be alert ("Cuz America needs more lerts").

Public Opinion

I read somewhere (The Dilbert Blog?) the suggestion that the "perfect" President would be one who has no thoughts or opinions of his own, but only works to implement the preferences of the American people. Do you really want the people who think American Idol is vitally important deciding how the country should be run?


In many polls I see that a majority of Americans believe in ghosts, doubt evolution, and that a substantial percentage believe that UFOs are abducting humans for "tests". Those things make me hesitant to want the country, as a whole, run based upon the opinions of average Americans. Run your own life according to whatever ideas may be rattling around in your skull, but don't think that others are required to hold the same notions. That's the beauty of anarchism: your ideas can not be forced upon others, and neither can mine.

Curing America

It is really hard to see America ever being cured when most Americans don't realize she is deathly ill. Or perhaps America is already dead and is simply writhing like a head-shot snake. In either case, I really like these suggestions from The Libertarian Enterprise:

The list of cures is endless: abolish sovereign immunity, disarm the feds;
demilitarize the cops; outlaw the secret ballot; send the politicians (including
the President and his Cabinet) into combat first; abolish limited liabilty,
outlaw fractional reserve banking, repeal every law passed since September 11,
2001, repeal every law passed since 1912. And no, I'm not kidding about any of
those or a half a hundred more I could have written down here. But the problem
remains the same as it was before: no real reform effort can get any traction
when the system is run by crooked politicians and the whorish media.

The only difference I would suggest is that instead of "outlawing" anything, simply get rid of the counterfeit "laws" that allow these bad ideas to be forced on us.



________________________

Do Two "Wrongs" Ever Make a "Right"?

Two wrongs make a right? I don't think so. Now, shooting someone who is in the act of committing a real crime (not just violating a counterfeit "law" that has no victim) is obviously not wrong to begin with. That is simply correcting -stopping- a wrong. But is torturing one person in an attempt to catch someone else who is a bad person, or torturing one person because another person did something terrible, "right"? I don't believe so.

Is torture a reliable way to get acurate information? I doubt it. I'd probably confess to being Obama bin Clinton under torture. I think that torture, physical or phychological, is always wrong. Any group that embraces the use of torture of any kind has lost any moral high-ground it may have once held.

No one is denying that there are really bad people doing horrible things to innocent people in Iraq and elsewhere. It would be stupid to claim otherwise. But it is also stupid to claim that since "our" torture isn't as bad as their torture, that "ours" isn't really torture. I want to judge my actions against good actions, not against other evil actions. You can always find someone somewhere who is doing something worse if you want to play that game.

I think that torture is a lazy person's shortcut to try to get "results". Kind of like the police crime labs that fake evidence in order to get a conviction at any cost. In some cases it may be the frustration at not being able to really do anything effective to stop terrible acts that drives the abuses. That frustration could take the form of an evil act on the part of the basically good person who desperately wants to do something. It still doesn't make it right.

If I am to err, I will err on the side of decency. I am personally glad that I still possess a conscience. How about you?


___________________________________

Bribery? or a Carrot on a Stick?

Believe it or not, I love technology. I am not just a "stone knives and bear skins" guy. But I have come to believe that government uses technology as a bribe to get people to comply with the state. When I read about new inventions, I consider whether they will make life more enjoyable or not, and whether government can use them to control the population more. I also wonder if we, the average people, will even be allowed to own or use the new stuff, or if it will be reserved for appendages of the state only. I mean, what good is a flying car if the permits and licenses are based upon REAL ID, you are restricted to flying only below a certain speed, the registration is too expensive or intrusive, and GPS tracks every move you make in it. Not that I would ever be able to afford a flying car anyway. I want all the neat gadgets that are being invented, but not enough to give up my liberty, my privacy, and my individuality to be "allowed" to possess them.

Statist Troll Bingo

Because "turnabout is fair play", I now post the Statist Troll Bingo from Check Your Premises. I only hope the statists are as amused by it as I was by the Libertarian Troll Bingo. (and here).  Follow the links if you can't read the spaces.

Victim Disarmament Succeeds Again

This is tragically predictable. Massacre in another "Gun-Free" Zone.

Humans May Be More "Sheeple" Than They Think

"In most cases the participants didn’t realise they were being led by others." One study shows the flocking behavior of humans. Something some of us have suspected all along. Could be bad news; could be useful information. Think and react accordingly.


_________________________________

"Law" Games

Just for fun yesterday, I started keeping track of how many "laws" I was aware of breaking throughout the day. I counted six. The really funny thing is that those are just the ones I know of, and that I was paying attention to. How many more did I break without even knowing it? Probably dozens. And yet, not once did I harm anyone, defraud anyone, or even endanger anyone by my lawlessness. Because, you see, I was only breaking counterfeit "laws". You know, those "laws" that attempt to control or regulate something other than actual aggression or fraud; the victimless "crimes" that the state feeds off of. I'd be willing to bet that you broke about as many as I did, still without ever doing anything wrong. I think that today I may see how many more counterfeit "laws" I can break on purpose. Why not join me?

Improving My Attitude ... I Hope

Libertarians, especially the anarchist subset, are right. Time will show that we are. Until that time, we should try not to make enemies of the deluded people who think the state is a good idea. Roll your eyes when they start waxing eloquent about one of their pet slavery-enabling schemes if you must, then show them the better alternative with your actions. Words are generally wasted. Those who are part of the state are already lost. They will possibly discover their mortal error someday, but it won't be because we try to educate them. Their minds and eyes are closed. I'm not going to waste my time hating statists, but I do pity them. As for me, I DO NOT consent; I WILL NOT comply.


The state is really funny if you think about it. People who can't govern themselves insisting that they have the divine right to govern the rest of us? C'mon. People who think that no laws apply to them demanding that we submit to their counterfeit "laws" that are not based upon any reality? Might as well let cockroaches instruct us on sanitation.


Then again, we can be pretty funny, too. There is value in laughing at ourselves. We spend a lot of time and energy fighting against something that will collapse faster on its own if we just refuse to give it power over us. We should be concentrating on living our own lives; only fighting the state when it tries to interfere. Usually, just ignoring the nasties will be enough. We must also be a strong, united front that the state, confused at why we are smiling, thinks twice about crossing. Petty squabbles don't help us; they serve the statists who want us dead.


Wherever you say "no!" to government meddling or overreaching, I stand with you, regardless of whatever disagreements we may have on other issues. As long as we are moving in the same direction, the direction of more freedom, we are fellow travelers. Statists and "tyranny deniers" -I admit it, they can really get me down. When they do, it is my fault, not theirs. I will try to not post any more blogs when I am in a defeatist mood. I may not reply to any comments that are obviously calculated to push my buttons, either. Life is too short to worry about ignoramuses.

Libertarian Troll Bingo

I found this over at Adventures In Frickintardistan, so I thought I'd play. I didn't get a "Bingo", though. Maybe I need to embrace more of the non-libertarian ideas it portrays so I can win! Nah, I keep forgetting, I am a hooligan libertarian and an anarchist!

Disclaimer: I really can't rightly claim to "get" the free space. I am male, and probably mostly "white" (to the racists), but I'm not young and I have no haircut at all.

Added: Here's what we came up with.


.

Voters and Other Dreamers

In the fight for liberty, voting is the safest, even the most cowardly, easiest action that can possibly be taken. It is supposedly secret. It is easy to blend in with the collectivists who are also voting on that day. If you want to, you can even lie about who you voted for if you feel intimidated. Yet, over and over again, voters vote for the anti-freedom candidates. When handed a non-confrontational way to express an interest in freedom, without any risk, people still don't do it.

I can hold out hope that the real freedom fighters stay away from the voting booth, recognizing it as a futile act, or an act of distasteful "implied consent". You know "lending legitimacy to an illegitimate system".

Still I wonder, if no one stands up for freedom when it is safe enough that a coward could do it; easy enough that someone as lazy as me could do it, and non-confrontational enough that a shy people-pleaser could do it... then how will liberty ever be regained once the shooting starts?

UncleBob Sees The Truth

I am glad some others see this, too: The Brainwashed as Cannon-Fodder

Soul Searching

As you may have guessed, I am undergoing a lot of soul-searching and re-evaluation. My recent clash with the military people who think they are helping America by supporting the US government has made me decide liberty is doomed, at least in the short term. The government hates liberty. The military, even if they claim to love liberty, are working for the very organization that has done more to destroy liberty than any force in history: authoritarian government. Then we are told that we must work within the rigged system to beg for our liberty one measley drop at a time. Obey the masters until we can convince them to let us be free. When has that ever worked?

While the general direction of human civilization is toward greater individual liberty, I think we are on the verge of entering a dark age of tyranny that would make Hitler, Vlad Dracula, and George W. Bush giddy. Maybe our great-grandchildren will be free. The Tyrannocratus sux who run the state will eventually either evolve some decent morals and become human, or they will go extinct, but not before they drag humanity into a pit of authoritarian super-state torment as has never been seen before. Just as in past dark ages, the damage will take a long time to undo. It would be so much better to avoid the trap to begin with. Unfortunately, too few people are paying attention or would care if they were.

Then I wonder if humans are simply too programmed to seek a strong "leader", no matter how evil, to ever accept self-ownership in numbers large enough to matter. I worry that I am a defective person because I chafe under authoritarians. Maybe the "sheeple" are the true humans, and I am an aberration. The sad thing is that "sheeplehood" disgusts me to my core. If they would simply leave me alone, we could coexist in peace, but that is not the way of the state. Control and even the illusion of "implied consent" must be maintained at all costs and any dissenters must be marginalized until they consent or are killed. At least for the foreseeable future.

How will I deal with this future? I can either pretend to go along, and drown in resentment. Although that is my usual mode of operation, I want to change. I also don't relish the thought of being a martyr and dying in a raid by BATFEces or DEA. I can quietly monkey-wrench at every opportunity, although writing it here now makes that ineffective. I can try to get over my gloominess and laugh at the authoriturds as they tighten the noose on civilization. I depends if I feel optimistic or pessimistic today. The glass is half full... of cyanide.

Increasing Liberty?

When I look at people, their actions, and what they advocate, I find myself asking "does _X_ increase my liberty or make liberty more difficult or dangerous?" Very often I find that whatever I am evaluating makes liberty harder for me and for society.

Several years ago ago I heard of the "Jews in the attic" yardstick. If some new government policy or bureaucracy would make it more difficult to hide innocent targets from government oppressors or murderers, it should be opposed and, if passed, violated. Does that ring any REAL ID bells?


It would be nice to be able to believe that "we" can still work within the system to change these illegal laws. Unfortunately the "system" is rigged against liberty. Liberty lovers are outnumbered by those who depend on government for their livelihood and those who think that it is OK to support the state, through its government, as long as they say they are supporting liberty. Even those who are otherwise on our side. It is impossible to strengthen the state and not destroy liberty. The misguided liberty-desiring government accessories are doing great damage to the cause of individual liberty while believing they are helping it.

"Absolved" by Mike Vanderboegh

Everyone, especially the anti-gun enforcers and rulers, needs to read this tale from The War on Guns. "Absolved" by Mike Vanderboegh. Powerful stuff.

Quick! Destroy the "Wondrous" Before... What???

One problem I have with a lot of science fiction or fantasy books or movies is that whatever wondrous discovery is made, it must be destroyed before the story ends. Whether it is The Nautilus, the "lost world" of living dinosaurs, or "The Lost Ark of the Covenant", things must be back to normal when the last page is read, or when the credits roll. I think this is a sign that most people value the status quo more than they value the new or the unknown. What are people afraid of? Am I odd to not feel the same way?

Maybe this is why people speak up in vehement support of the "way things are" instead of considering that maybe a different way is better. Maybe that is why they argue over which socialist clone represents "change". The normal world order must be maintained at all costs. Until freedom becomes the norm, it will be denigrated and its advocates will be reviled by tools of the system. I am tired of being in the minority of people who don't support tyranny in any form. How about you?

Happy Groundhog Day!

I hope everyone enjoys their tasty groundhog dinners. Don't eat too much, you know how sleepy it will make you, plus you can only loosen your pants so much.

Poster-Children For the Death Penalty

I saw this on The War on Guns and a couple of other blogs. If these monsters don't deserve the death penalty, then no one does.

Bias, Justification, and Politics

I promised some mitigating thoughts on yesterday's blog post. I am in the process of reading an "advance reader's edition" of The Mind of the Market by Michael Shermer. In the book he is speaking of "bias" and how it colors our perceptions.

The ideas that follow all flow from this book, which I recommend highly even before finishing, and my interpretation thereof. Since some of the interpretations are mine, don't blame Michael Shermer if you don't like the implications.


With political beliefs, we are likely to think that we reached ours because of thinking it through carefully, while we think others have reached their ideology because they are deluded, or greedy, or stupid. In other words, "My bias is due to my enlightenment; yours is due to your lack of enlightenment".

It turns out that "expert opinions" are usually no better than "non-expert opinions", yet the experts are less likely to admit they were wrong than the others. Irrational judgements are then made in order to justify costly mistakes. This is because we overvalue "sunk costs" and the status quo. When making decisions about a course of action, we tend to choose the status quo because we are accustomed to it. So with regards to our personal politics, the majority will continue to support statism (the status quo) instead of liberty (the radical change). Instead of "staying the course" we should base our decisions only on the recognition of the future costs and benefits, and not dwell on past costs. Yet when our strategy is a losing one, we tend to raise the stakes higher and risk losing even more. He points out that a belief, when confronted with a disproof, can actually become even stronger in order to alleviate the pain of being wrong, especially if sacrifices have been made based upon that belief.

Then there is the problem of "confirmation bias". This is when we seek and find evidence to confirm our beliefs and discount evidence that contradicts our beliefs. Confronted with both types of evidence, we will accept the validity of the evidence that confirms out notions and be very skeptical of the contradictory evidence. Or the contradictory evidence may be reinterpreted in a favorable light. We make up our minds first and then pick through the evidence and to confirm our views. "Self justification" is a basic need that causes us to screen out evidence that contradicts our positions so that we can continue to feel good about our decisions.

What it all comes down to is that our emotional minds have more to do with our views than do our logical minds. Therefore I may be a libertarian/anarchist simply because I am emotionally predisposed to be that way. In that case I should just shut up and let the world spin down the drain of statism. Plus, freedom is a lot more work than socialism, and I am terribly lazy and getting extremely tired of swimming upstream.

Libertarians Are Right, Just Accept It

Before anyone flips out over my inflammatory headline, let me explain. I have read and been told by several people throughout the years that people dislike libertarians for one main reason: because libertarians see their philosophy as the only "right" one; that we are unable to think that other views may be just as valid. Do we think our position is the "revealed truth"? Yes, we do.

Try as I might, I can not see any view that condones aggression against innocent people as a morally acceptable one. The same goes for any political position that depends on taking money away from its rightful owners to give to others. We acknowledge that the rules must apply equally to everyone, or they are not good. There can be no "elite" class of rulers that make the rules, yet who are allowed (or expected) to flout them. The people who promote the other philosophies call these depraved acts by other names, trying to reframe the debate. Yet, if you look clearly, you can see what they are really advocating.


If they are offended by this obvious "revelation", then maybe they need to examine their beliefs more closely.


Now.... before you leave angry comments, stayed tuned for tomorrow's post which may punch holes in, or completely deflate, this whole idea.... The "but".



..........................................................

The State of the Union- 2008

The "state of the union" depends on what your idea of "the union" is. If you mean "America", times have been better. If you mean the government-imposed mutual suicide pact that is "The USA", then the train is still running full speed- not noticing that the bridge is out and the gulch is deep.

The authoritarians are still "in charge". The economy is still getting worse, heading for the inevitable result of a fiat currency. The never-ending war on an emotion, "terror", is still being fought, is dividing America, and is still resulting in too many deaths. The mainstream media is still trying to promote support for its chosen candidates of imaginary "change" (based on race and gender and more openly socialist ideology), and ignoring any candidate who would bring about real change. The country is being deliberately divided along racial, gender, religious, and other lines by the government and its enablers. Terroristic wars with ninja-suited thugs are being waged by "law enforcement" against gun owners and people who use unapproved chemicals, regardless of the obvious damage it does to the people of the country and the spirit of freedom America was founded upon. More money is stolen- and euphemistically called "taxes", "fees", "fines", and "licenses" -to feed the beast each year. Your money is being stolen and used to enslave you. "Big Brother" of fiction would be proud of the new schemes being pushed on us, like REAL ID, by the ever-paranoid rulers.

Yet, there is an undercurrent in the world. An undercurrent fed by a real desire for liberty. It drives support for Ron Paul; the man who is the only mainstream candidate who even has an inkling of what liberty is. It brings people together to build friendships that can help them stand against the statist tsunami that threatens to drown human civilization. It drives people to search for people who will have the courage to speak the words they hunger to hear. Against all odds, the love of liberty is refusing to die. We are building a competing "union" based on a love of liberty and respect for the self-determination of individuals.


The state of that union is hopeful.



________________________________

A Quote About "Rights"

I have no clue if this quote is original or not, considering its source, but here it is before I forget.

I just awakened from a dream where a grizzled old character was telling me "Rights are the first gift you are given when you are born, and the last thing you surrender when you die." What you do with them in between is up to you.

I will go back to sleep now.

"Libertarian" vs. "Anarchist"

There is no doubt I am an anarchist, but am I a "libertarian"? I always thought so. From what I have always been told, a "libertarian" is one who opposes aggression and fraud, nothing more, nothing less. Now I have recently been told that a strict adherence to the Constitution is also a core value of libertarianism. The thing is no one ever mentioned that part to me until now. If that really is that important, shouldn't someone have mentioned it? Even looking at the Libertarian Party website I find no mention of it, and they are the ones who are trying to be a part of "the system". They do mention the "libertarian foundation" of America, but it is a bit of a stretch to interpret that specifically as a reference to the Constitution.


From a link on Check Your Premises I found a book on libertarianism from the early 1980s which contains this statement: "Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, etc) and is forbidden; nothing else is." Nothing about the Constitution in there either.

I know the internet is not the sum total of human knowledge, but it is a good Cliff's Note of reality. The fact is, in an internet search of a great many libertarian sites, I only ran across one that even mentioned the Constitution as something that libertarians believe in (and now I can't even find it again). If it were that important, someone is seriously dropping the ball.


I ask this rhetorically. I'm not looking for a debate over what makes a "real" libertarian, since that has been done to death. It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I know what I believe, and that doesn't change because of a label. I am happy being an anarchist if no one else wants me.








__________________________

Tolerable Socialism?!

I have found a socialist world, fictional though it is, that I could live in comfortably. I just finished reading For Us, the Living: A Comedy of Customs by Robert A. Heinlein. It is his last, and first, novel. If that seems confusing, you should get the book and read the introduction by Spider Robinson.


In Heinlein's fictional world, the government pays everyone a living allowance (of its fiat money), just for being born. Beyond that it pretty much leaves you completely alone, unless you commit some terrible act, such as being jealous (the only crime covered in the book). Even then the punishment is restricted to correcting, through education, the mistaken concepts that lead to such violations.


I never thought I would find any socialist world acceptable, and I seriously doubt that any government could keep its nose out of everyone's business like this fictional one does, being driven by accumulation of power and control as they all are. This makes for an interesting read and thought experiment anyway.

I Don't Hate the Military

Just to be clear, I do not hate the military. I hate the way the government uses the military. I would gladly support the military repelling an invading force here, where it threatens our homes and families. This is simply not the current situation. American tax money should not be spent to occupy, or even free, other countries. At least not until the budget is balanced or until the government can support itself without taxation.

If someone wishes to go ahead and fight in a foreign country for whatever cause or reason, they should do so. Just not on behalf of American taxpayers or the US government. Become a mercenary. As long as you are fighting for what is right, there is nothing wrong with that career choice in my eyes.

The X-L-I Report Blog

There is a new weekly blog about gun rights called The X-L-I Report. Check it out.

I Just Want More Freedom!

All the arguments over "this or that issue" really irritate me. They all miss the point. The point being: I want more freedom; for myself, for my children and for YOU. That is really all that matters. Things that get in the way of that are bad, things that increase the liberty are good. Some of us don't agree on which things move toward freedom and which things move away from it. Some things don't do either one. Consider your positions and actions in light of this. I will continue to fight, one way or another, those things I see as anti-freedom. I really have no choice. Liberty Fever is in my blood! That may alienate some people, which is sad. I will occasionally make mistakes. When I do, and I realize it, I will reverse course as fast as I can to try to undo any damage I have done. I ask that you do the same, if individual liberty is also important to you. If it is not, then please just go watch TV now.

Getting Along

This blog is about politics. That means it is likely to lead to arguments. I understand why some people believe so strongly in opposite positions. Most of the time, regardless of what the "politically correct" may tell us, one side is right and the other is wrong. That is just the nature of reality. I don't care if anyone calls me names, but I ask that you only attack the positions of the other commenters; not them personally.

I have certain ideas about right and wrong, and about how one should relate to others, and about rights and responsibilities, and ... well, probably just about everything. Other people may not agree with me on everything. That is alright with me.

For most of my life I was a "libertarian in a vacuum" or an anarchist in an alternate universe. Or so it seemed. I knew no one else who thought of things in a way similar to me. I didn't even know OF anyone else who did. I had to get along with statists of every stripe. Maybe it is why I still can, as long as they don't throw the state at me.


I could not live off of Social Security or other forms of welfare, and personally feel it is wrong to do so. Other people do not think the same way. I don't go around asking my acquantances about their personal finances. It is none of my business and I really don't want to know. That doesn't mean I wouldn't put an end to welfare if I had the chance.


I think it is better to avoid working for any government entity in any capacity. Yet I know people who do and I don't lecture them about it. It would only alienate them and change nothing. Probably the only exception to that rule would be "a shunning" if anyone I knew worked for the BATFE. My tolerance can only go so far.

??

Who is the bigger threat to your freedom? Some guy wearing rags hiding with his AK-47 in a burned out building in Iraq, or the US federal government raking in as much of your money as it can get away with while it passes laws restricting your actions from its nicely appointed offices in our own "back yard"?

Which of these should a warrior who swore to uphold the Constitution be risking life and limb to defeat?



_________________________

Militaristic Brainwashing

I've been following, and participating in, a discussion in the comments on The War on Guns. The one commenter is completely obsessed with the military. Yet she is a libertarian. I admit I can't even begin to comprehend the thinking that makes one acknowledge that big government is a bad thing, yet support the biggest violations of rights and the most egregious initiations of force that can be imagined. This libertarian is willing to completely betray liberty in defense of war, because keeping troops in Iraq until they can be brought home, one at a time in the distant future I suppose, is "absolutely crucial" to her. How is supporting the military, the US government's agenda, in this way increasing liberty anywhere? I am baffled and disgusted. I decided to bow out before I said something rude. Maybe I am a simplistic "war protester"....I don't know. You read it and see what you think.

Ordinary Objects in Extraordinary Numbers

Not that this relates to anything, but I have always had an affinity for ordinary objects in extraordinary numbers. One BB isn't too interesting, but a barrel full of them is really fun to play with. A jar of jelly beans is common, but a swimming pool full of them, now that is something to see (and swim around in). A box of .22 LR cartridges is useful, but a 5 gallon bucket filled to the brim with them just cries out to have your fingers run through them.

I am not sure why this has always had this effect on me, but I wonder if this is why I also desire a really free society. A few liberties can be found just about anywhere , even under the worst totalitarian police state, but total freedom, limited only by the rights of others, makes me giddy with excitement.





_____________________________-

Assessing the Situation

In Anthem, the protagonist, the self-named Prometheus, says:

"But I still wonder how it was possible, in those graceless years of transition, long ago, that men did not see whither they were going, and went on, in blindness and cowardice, to their fate. I wonder, for it is hard for me to conceive how men who knew the word "I", could give it up and not know what they lost. But such has been the story, for I have lived in the City of the damned, and I know what horror men permitted to be brought upon them.

Perhaps in those days, there were a few among men, a few of clear sight and clean soul, who refused to surrender that word. What agony must have been theirs before that which they saw coming and could not stop! Perhaps they cried out in protest and in warning. But men paid no heed to their warning. And they, these few, fought a hopeless battle, and they perished with their banners smeared by their own blood. And they chose to perish, for they knew."

"That word" spoken of above is "I". Ayn Rand, through Prometheus, is speaking of those who are fooled into believing that society owns their life; that "we" is the most noble concept, rather than "I". Replace the concept of "I" with the concept of absolute individual rights (not a stretch) and you are looking in a mirror. This tragedy is happening all around us today. Prometheus is speaking to, or of, those of us today who see out-of-control government at every level stealing liberty and taking power as those around us make excuses for giving up our liberty. Unless more individuals decide that liberty is more important than not making a scene, some future Prometheus will have to rediscover the concepts of "I" and "liberty" all over again. Will he pity us or revile our choices?

____________________________

Arm Yourself

From End the War on Freedom I found this article: Arm Yourself by Charley Reese. I particularly like this part: "Of course, if you are as fit as Chuck Norris and have the martial-arts skills of Jet Li, then maybe you can survive without a pistol, although bringing a black belt to a gunfight is not going to do you much good."

Political "Change"

I hear political analysts and voters (especially very young socialist voters) emphasizing that a vote for their particular candidate is a vote for change. The tragic and pathetic thing is that they are focusing on superficial racial or gender "differences" instead of looking beneath the skin to see the collectivist inside the hide. Electing an authoritarian to replace an authoritarian is not voting for change at all. It is shortsighted and ignorant. It is an admission that you are OK with everything that Bush the Second has done and with everything that Clinton the First did before that. Pretending that the race or gender of a candidate equals change is exactly the kind of faulty thinking that the state has been encouraging for the past few generations. It looks like it worked. Now the voters are so completely racist and sexist that they can't see past those traits. That is very bad for America and the world of liberty.

Still Selling Things

I've put more of my paintings on eBay for sale, and will be listing more things (whatever I can find) in the next few days. Please keep checking.

Thanks!


________________

"Public Resource"

When I was the "pet store guy" I had many brushes with the state bureaucracy. One such brush was with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Their minion dropped off a brochure about "Exotic Pets and Prohibited Wildlife" for me to hand out to the subjects. Reading through it I was so disgusted that I posted a copy in my store with the most moronic sentence highlighted. It said "As a public resource, wildlife belongs to the state of Colorado, to all citizens." (7th paragraph)


In other words, "the state", "public", and "citizen" are interchangeable to them. The word "public" can be a very nasty word, excusing all kinds of collectivist abominations. Same with the word "citizen", which seems to be just a way to describe someone who is fully absorbed into and complicit with the collective. You must look a ways down the list of definitions of each of those words to find something that isn't collectivist. With that way of thinking, "public" and "citizen" would mean the same thing as "state".

When did the state purchase the wildlife? Did I sign over ownership to that part of my food reserves to the state? Or when was a treaty signed by the wildlife agreeing to belong to the state? Probably at the same time I signed the agreement handing myself over to the state.

Wolves or a Coyote?

Forget any connotations that have previously gone along with "wolves" or "coyotes" for a few minutes. I am not talking about the "wolves and sheep", or "wolves and sheepdogs", or anything else like that. I have a different point here that doesn't involve those. It may not be original, but I just thought of it.

Wolves are pack animals. They need a leader. Either you are the leader, the alpha-wolf, or you are just a member of the collective pack. Wolves are the statists of the canine world.

Coyotes are loners. They will often hang out with their mate, but they don't travel in packs. There is no "alpha-coyote". They must prey on smaller or weaker prey than wolves do. Coyotes are the canine anarchists.

Because of these traits, wolves were selectively bred over thousands of years to become domestic dogs. With dogs the obedience programming has been stregthened and the aggression has been minimized. Their need for a leader makes them easily manipulated by a strong human "alpha-wolf". Coyotes, on the other hand, do not respond to orders. They don't get the concept of following an alpha animal. They have therefore not been domesticated to anywhere near the extent that wolves and their decendants have been.

The problem is that when a pack of wolves confront a lone coyote, the coyote will lose. It is a simple matter of numbers. When confronted by the state and its enablers and apologists, the anarchist will lose unless he fights an all-or-nothing battle with his mind and is lucky. Human anarchists have the advantage of having a strong mind. Knowing the disadvantages of "one against the pack", we can avoid getting into situations where we are devoured or displaced from our territory.

The pack works well for wolves, and for predatory statists. The question arises: are humans a pack animal which needs a leader? Or did we fall into this pattern because of the manipulation of the human wolves?

Thank You!

I just wanted to take a moment to thank those who have stepped up to help me out in my time of financial difficulty. It really makes me glad to be associated with people like you! Thanks again!

"....And Bingo Was His Name-O"

A family once decided they needed a big dog for protection so they picked out a puppy. He was of a breed well-known for aggression, but the family thought they knew how to train him properly.

Almost from the first, the dog had a tendency towards misbehavior. Killing a chicken here and there; roaming onto the neighbors' property and growling at them, or even biting some. His food bowl was guarded jealously and with suspicion. The family always defended the dog's honor and claimed his intentions were good, but never stopped his behavior.

Through the years he became more and more of a problem. Each time he misbehaved and got away with it, it made it harder for the family to face the truth about him, and it solidified the bad habits in his personality.

Eventually he began to attack family members at home, too. The others would scold the wounded, saying they must have tormented the dog or something. If anything, the dog would get a harsh "look", but was never really punished.

So now, the family lives with a very aggressive dog. Some members, those who have seen the dog attack without provocation, now fear and loathe the dog. Other refuse to see the truth. Now only a few choices remain for the family. Either keep going as they are until the dog either kills the family, or take the responsible initiative to take the dog on a one-way "walk". There is no Cesar Millan for this dog. And "Government" is his name-o.

Help!

I am in a financial bind (worse than usual) and I am selling my gold. If you have been wanting to buy gold, this might be a good time for you to look at what I am selling on eBay.

Edited to add: I am also selling some original paintings that I have painted in years past.


*********************************

Wealth: The Silencer

If I were wealthy, or even "comfortable", you would probably not be reading these words. That is a terrible admission, isn't it? If that were the case, I would be living in a decent house surrounded by a large amount of acreage. I would be doing as I want, hopefully shielded from local governmental eyes by a large buffer-zone, and by my silence.

I might attract some unwanted attention with some of my activities, though. I probably can't totally avoid being a troublemaker. I would be shooting daily, practicing my survival skills (and trading skills with carefully selected people as well), and generally minding my own business. I would probably be setting up an off-grid homestead that government could consider a "compound", but would probably not attract attention because I would not talk about it. I would probably not leave my property very often if I had my choice. I have hermit-like tendencies.

That is my ideal life. Wealth would silence me.

I am not one of those who wish to turn society upside down, hoping to move to the top in the upheaval, as is the case in many revolutions. I simply wish to free society from the parasites (governmental and freelance) that are feeding off it. That would be enough to improve life immeasurably. I want a politics-free world. Unfortunately it is not wise to ignore politics under the current circumstances; not while the police state is being established.

"Do Not Attempt"

Does anyone else ever notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen during car commercials? You know, the one that says "Professional driver on a closed course - Do not attempt". The sad thing is that when the disclaimer sneaks in, about half the time , rather than leaping from rooftop to rooftop, the car is simply cruising down a straight road. If we really are not competent to attempt that, what is the point in having a car?

That is the mindset of the government. "We" are to be considered stupid, incompetent children who are not able to look out for ourselves. Our defense is to be left to the professionals (who often kill us by "mistake"); our health is subject to government oversight; our consciences don't work properly so we need government holding a gun to our head to make sure we do not run amok "burning and pillaging" one another.

Life does not yet come with a disclaimer: "Profession human in a controlled environment. Do not attempt". Celebrate that oversite by living without permission.

Roswell, Texas

I have been interested in the Roswell, New Mexico UFO story since I first heard about it in the early 1970s while living in Waco, Texas (not in the mid-80s when some people try to say the story really started). Since I began life on Earth in the region of Roswell, New Mexico, it made more of an impression with me than it might have otherwise. Not to start any rumors, but it might explain some things....

Anyway, when I heard L. Neil was basing a tale on the event, I had to check it out. I didn't start reading it until a few months ago, but after I did, I kept waiting anxiously for each new installment. I became apprehensive when I realized the story was winding down and began to dread each new panel, fearing that it would be the last. My fears were realized last week when I got to the panel that said "The End".

I got a kick out of the historical figures who populated the alternate-universe Federated States of Texas. (Roswell is in Texas in this universe, which is not that much of a stretch; Texas was originally much larger until it got divided among many other current states. Even the part of Colorado I lived in was once part of Texas.) Scott Biesser's artwork is amazing, and perfectly complements the story written by L. Neil and Rex May. The only disappointment for me was that the story didn't incorporate as much of the original Roswell incident as I had expected. Once I got over that, though, I got drawn into the world presented and enjoyed it immensely.

If you enjoy graphic novels, or if you want an introduction to them, head over to Big Head Press and check out Roswell, Texas by L. Neil Smith and Scott Biesser. I think you will enjoy it.

More "Laws" to Ignore

This relates to my point about illegal laws and counterfeit "laws": Who Shall Guard the Guards? by Mike Vanderboegh. And here is another take on this declaration of war by The State against you and me: US vs Olofson: A pseudolegal Case by L. Neil Smith.

Err on the Side of Freedom, Please

I will begin by making a couple of assumptions. You and I are human. All humans make mistakes. That being the case, wouldn't it be better to make certain that we always err on the side of liberty instead of on the side of governmental "authority" and power? If there is a question of "is government allowed to do this?" I think it is always better to assume that the answer is an unequivocal "NO!" until clearly shown otherwise. But maybe that is just my nature as an anarchist who values peace, rights, and liberty over the death, chaos, and slavery that government invariably brings.

Silly "Moral Superiority"

I am a night-owl. Even as a very young child, and all through my life, it has been about the same, with only minor changes. No matter what time I go to bed, and even if I can then go to sleep, I am at my best during the hours between midnight and 2 AM (normally). I am at my absolute worst between the hours of 5 AM and 10 AM. Which is really bad for most of the jobs I have held. I have had bosses lecture me about how if I "would just get in the habit of going to bed earlier you would adjust". It didn't work during 12 years of government schooling, so why would it now? I suppose I could adjust to living on a diet of broken glass and arsenic as well. You can just see the moral superiority of the "morning people" dripping from their jaws as they tell me how to "fix" myself.

I also think that almost everyone, male and female, looks better with longish hair. It is just my preference. Yet I have tolerated (with strained tolerance) the endless comments and lectures about how I would look so much better, or could get a better job, or be taken more seriously, etc. if I would cut my hair. It seems to me that a lot of people don't have short hair for any reason other than they think it is morally superior. I am not talking about people who really like their own hair short, but those who dislike other people's long hair. There is a difference.

These two things are unrelated: one is a physiological part of my makeup, the other is an opinion, yet the one thing that ties them together is that I have never heard a night-owl lecturing a morning person that they are wrong or bad for their biological clock's setting. I have also never known of a long haired person requiring that others not cut their hair shorter than a standard length or lecturing short haired people about needing to take pride in their appearance by letting their hair grow a little.

Petitioning Our "Leaders"

A while back at the urging of David Codrea of The War on Guns, I sent emails to "my" congressmen in regard to the nomination of Michael Sullivan as director of the BATFE. I finally got a response from Senator Bob Casey. He wrote:

Dear Mr. McManigal:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the nomination of Michael J. Sullivan of Massachusetts to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

Mr. Sullivan’s nomination was voted out of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on November 8, 2007. His nomination is currently pending before the full United States Senate. I am currently in the process of evaluating Mr. Sullivan’s personal, professional, and academic accomplishments. At the appropriate time, I will make a judgment on Mr. Sullivan’s nomination. It is important that we have strong, effective leadership at the top of the ATF. Please be assured that when making a decision, I will have your views in mind.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to frequently visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov/. In the months ahead, I will continue to develop the site in order to allow you to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington. If you wish to e-mail me, you can do so on the web site.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Here is my response to him (which I had trouble getting to go through for a while):

Mr. Casey,

I realize you are no friend to peaceable gun owners, but this matter goes beyond this single issue.

The ATF has a sordid history of abusing its authority. Mike Sullivan has contributed to this abusive atmosphere greatly during his tenure. He has also demonstrated a lack of intergrity in carrying out his duties as US Attorney of Massachussets. His office has been cited by a judge for "extraordinary misconduct".

You say "It is important that we have strong, effective leadership at the top of the ATF." Leaders lead; they do not make up the rules as they go along, as Mike Sullivan has been doing. One only need examine the campaign of intimidation against gun retailers which has been accelerated under Sullivan's "leadership". With an agency of questionable Constitutional authority, such as BATFE, it is imperative that the new director errs on the side of individual liberty rather than on the side of governmental control and power.

I am confident that you are not ignorant of this man's history. To say that you are wiating for the appropriate time to make a judgement on his nomination makes me think that you value his stance against the Second Amendment and against American gun owners more than you are troubled by his ethical shortcomings. This is deeply disturbing to me. Michael J. Sullivan has no business having any position of authority. I hope you will not ignore these facts.

Sincerely,

Kent McManigal

"Illegal Laws" and "Counterfeit Laws"

This point was inspired by a comment from my friend Eric Sundwall. He stated "I still think Kent should be utilizing 'illegitimate' laws as opposed to 'illegal' laws. Something cannot be A and not A." Perhaps.

Imagine for a moment that no Bill of Rights exists. It must be easy to imagine, since the feds do it every day. Now suppose that the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, said that all witches must be burned at the stake. Then suppose the Congress passed a law a few years later, without amending the Constitution, that said that witches were free to practice whatever religion they liked, as is everyone else. According to the Constitution that law would be illegal (but it would not be counterfeit). Even the corrupt Supreme Court has stated that any law which violates the Constitution is not a law that must be obeyed.

Or suppose the new law allows witches to live, as long as they pay a "religion tax". That law would be illegal according to this imaginary Constitution, and it would also be counterfeit as it attempts to regulate or control something other than aggression or fraud.

Now suppose the Constitution says that the right of the people to own and to carry weapons shall not be infringed, yet Congress passes laws which say what kinds of guns the people can own, forbid certain people from owning any guns at all, dictate how those guns must be sold, sets up a huge vindictive agency to punish people who own and sell guns, and so forth. That bunch of laws would be both illegal, according to the Constitution (and a former incarnation of the Supreme Court) and counterfeit. In most cases counterfeit "laws" are also illegal, but not always.

If the Constitution blocks or violates individual liberty, it is wrong. Never forget that. I hope that has cleared up any confusion.

Is Anything "Unconstitutional"?

In the comments to a previous blog, my friend ElfNinosMom stated that: "The Constitution created Congress, and gave Congress the power to make laws. One of those laws is the FECA, and the FEC was created by Congress to enforce and administer the FECA. It's therefore not illegal, and it's not unconstitutional."


That makes me ask: Using that yardstick, how could anything be unconstitutional?




So..... What of the Constitution? The current situation makes me think that it was a contract which one party, the US Government, broke unilaterally. I guess that means it "expired".


It is no secret that I don't think the Constitution is sacred. Either it created the current mess or it did nothing to prevent it. Anything in the Constitution that violates individual liberty is just as abhorent (and null and void) in my eyes as any edict from Osama or Napoleon. This is not a case of me making up my own rules, but of holding everyone, including myself, to the same standards of behavior.


The current government claims to get its authority from the Constitution. If that is the case, it should be held very strictly to the letter and intent of the law. No quibbling; no "interpreting", and no breaking the laws. After all, they demand the same of us with regards to all the millions upon millions of laws they claim apply to us. Right?





___________________________________