Are You "Legal"?

I was just pondering (a dangerous pastime, I admit) the concept of people being "legal" in one way or another. Whether you are talking about "legal immigrants", legal drivers, legal age of consent, a host of licenses "allowing" you to go about your business, or a plethora of other issues, some people place way too much emphasis on whether they (or you) have the official government-stamp-of-approval or not. In order to display your "legal" status for everything the government incorrectly believes it has a say in, you would need to carry around a binder filled with all your "proofs".

Who has time for all that nonsense? The government doesn't own you. Why act like it does?

___________________

Counting On Socialist InSecurity?

A couple whom I know just reached "retirement age". Despite my warnings (years ago), they were banking on Social Security to help them have a comfortable retirement. Now the reality strikes: due in part to an error that Social Security made, and in part on not being informed of some bureaucratic rules, they will get substantially less than they had planned on, and will only barely scrape by. That's assuming that the entire ponzi scheme doesn't collapse in the next few years.

When they told me of this development, I refrained from saying "I told you so" (even if I thought it loudly). It is very sad that some people have fallen for the lies of a socialist system instead of planning for an independent retirement strategy. Of course, the money they could have invested was reduced by a very large amount; stolen by the state during their entire careers to pay off the previous retirees.

The Social "Security" scheme can't keep going. No politicians are willing to admit that to those of you who are counting on that money, after being told your entire life that the money was being taken "for your retirement". It wasn't. That was a bald-faced lie calculated to buy your vote. There is no bank account in your name that the money is going into. You are basing your retirement plans on having enough young, working people for the government to steal from to keep paying you. That is a faulty supposition.

Listen: If you must have a job that enables the theft of your money to pay into "the system", please have the foresight to count that money as lost. Make other, realistic plans to finance your sunset years if you don't want to be working at a minimum wage job when you are eighty.

Four-Twenty

Feel free to participate in any "420-appropriate" activities today. Whatever those may be. I wouldn't know.

Balking at Liberty

Admit it. We all make excuses for avoiding the things we don't really want to do. Whether it is taking a personal risk or helping to promote liberty, unless we are really committed we will find some "reason" to shy away.

I have done this with jobs before. I used to "joke" with friends that I hated applying for jobs because I was afraid I might get hired. If you know me, you know I chafe severely under a "boss", and make both of us miserable very quickly, although they tend to try to keep me around for some bizarre reason.

I see the same balking behavior from people who claim to want liberty, but struggle against every notion or idea that comes along. No idea is perfect, but almost all of them can be used or adapted to advance the cause of individual liberty. On the other hand, government is not conducive to liberty at all. You can't make excuses for the state and cling to some of its tentacles while claiming you believe in "freedom". It just isn't rational. Skepticism is a very smart safety tactic; making excuses for clinging to the Rulers isn't.

Happy Patriots' Day - "4-19!"

Today is Patriots' Day. Celebrate it by doing something truly patriotic, like honoring America by ignoring the US government which is occupying this fine land. Remember that most patriotic activities are heavily regulated or criminalized. Activities like getting your militia weaponry out and having some practice.

Divided and Conquered

The Rulers want you to hate other people. They need you to hate other people. Listen to the "issues" they dwell upon. Listen to them pander to you. Depending upon who they think you are, they will promise to punish "them" for you. The Rich, middle class, or poor - Big Business vs family business - young against elderly - gay vs straight - male against female - city vs rural - every race against every other race - even one region of the country against another region. Where will it end?

It ends when you and I refuse to play along. It ends when we realize there is only one legitimate "us vs them" issue, and that is "those who meddle and cause harm against those who mind their own business and harm no one else". It ends when we finally really understand that there is absolutely no reason for not treating everyone equally, unless you wish to cause jealousy and anger, thereby empowering the Rulers by asking them to punish someone for you.

Addictions

I see that there is a phone number for gambling addicts to call. It is announced or displayed on casino advertisements around here. I'm sure it is government-mandated for them to put it into their ads. Can't have people doing things that might harm them, you know.

So how long til McDonald's and Burger King are required to give Weight Watchers' contact info along with their advertising? Ha ha. I know. Weight Watchers isn't a government anti-eating program, so it will never be mandated.

Still, it makes me wonder. Why can't we start a "Voter's Anonymous" program for those addicted to the delusion that voting changes anything that really needs changing? Or a place for those addicted to government to go for help. Hmmm. I already did that: KentForLiberty.com. It is hard to help those who don't want to be helped. They'll keep fighting off the life-preservers, but we'll keep tossing them back.

Obama: A Lapse of Logic, or Something Worse?

I heard an Obama ad on the radio today. The focus was on what Obama had done to punish "Big Oil" for the high price of gasoline. Among the socialistic hogwash mentioned, it was stated that Obama had worked to take away "Big Oil's" tax breaks. HE DID WHAT?!?!

Can anyone besides me see the enormous lapse in logic there? Or could it be even worse; a trial balloon to see if the American voters are completely brain-dead yet?

Where does this mental homunculus think the higher gasoline production costs will be recovered? I can guarantee you it will not come out of the CEO's pocket. Did Obama ever consider eliminating the government's extortion to lower the price of oil? If so, it wasn't mentioned. That would be unthinkable to most socialists of his -cough- "character".

If this is any indication of the total lack of thinking ability from Obama, well... start learning how to knap flint and tan bear skins.


____________________

Dangerous Times?

Loren Coleman's The Copycat Effect blog warned a while back about the next ten days (April 16-26, 2008) being prime "massacre" dates. He especially warns about Wednesdays as being the days that the copycat killers seem to choose. I hope he is wrong this time, but stay alert, as always.

It's a Bird...It's a Pterodactyl....It's LibertyMan!

Faster than a speeding bureaucrat, more powerful than a government edict, and able to leap tall border fences in a single bound. Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird; it's a plane; it's .... LibertyMan!

In daily life, he assumes the identity of the mild mannered, and "unpapered", A. Narchist. He comes not from another planet, but from the bureaucratic wasteland that was once an experiment in freedom: America.

With his extraordinary vision, he can see through statist propaganda and excuses. He is strong enough to lift the expectations for liberty of all people everywhere. He is able to cut to the truth, even when others protest that "tax" doesn't mean "theft". No red tape can bind him. He absorbs strength from like-minded anarchists and libertarians around him. His enemies in the various branches of The State shrink before his powerful truth.

His only weakness is the common element "Apathyte", found in the hearts of government-sympathizers and welfare addicts living among the population. It can drain his strength and resolve. He must attempt to avoid these toxic people.

With the support and friendship of the committed liberty-lovers who struggle alongside him, LibertyMan will prevail against the forces of The State, sooner than they expect.

_________________________

The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn

In the battle between liberty and government, the battle lines have been drawn, but not by the liberty-lovers. No, the government and the government-sympathizers drew the lines. They drew a line between Randy Weaver and government-paid murderers. Between Wayne Fincher and BATFEces. Between Cory Maye and government-sponsored home invasions. Between freedom and fascism. Then they pretend to wonder why those who value liberty say "No more!"

There is only a certain amount of pressure that liberty can tolerate before pushing back. Liberty requires a certain amount of space, and when compressed beyond that, an unstable situation arises. There is no frontier to act as a relief valve anymore, so government is going to have to back off soon.

Our predecessors were perfectly willing to allow a certain amount of government to exist. That was their mistake; one we will not make again. Government grew out of control and kept pressing against the boundaries that were established for it. It was not content to keep within its sphere, but kept growing like a cancer, trying to crowd liberty from the face of the earth. In many cases, co-opting the very words of liberty for its own uses.

"Government" was/is a really bad idea. Why should anyone give control of their life over to people who are corrupt enough that they want it? From KentForLiberty.com:

I think government probably began as humans adopted a more settled,
agricultural, lifestyle. Roving bands of marauding thieves began offering
"protection" from other bands of marauding thieves (which may or may not have
actually existed) in exchange for goods and services. Eventually, the thieves
stopped roving and put down roots in the area that they were victimizing; still
demanding their cut of the riches. Unfortunately, the local population forgot
what these thieves really were and accepted them as a "ruling class". It has
been downhill since then.

And these thugs have made opposing them the worst of "crimes"; to be punished with bloodthirsty enthusiasm. Even suggesting that they should be opposed can be punished. Does this fact not ring any warning bells with most Americans? It does with me. Some of the recent new "laws" that legalize intimidation of bloggers (and others) who would suggest that government agents be held accountable are very alarming. As I say, the lines have been drawn by the thugs.

"A Vision of Liberty" by Jim Davies

For all of you interested in liberty, there is a new book "looking back" on the first three years of a truly free society from the year 2030. Jim Davies (of "The On Line Freedom Academy") has written A Vision of Liberty. It is a compact book; just over 100 pages long. Anyone can squeeze that into their schedule.

Which reminds me.... have you enrolled in TOLFA yet? Do it today, and help Jim's vision come to pass. Liberty is important enough to spend a little time on. Time today or bullets tomorrow. Choose wisely.

_______________________

"Our" Theft-Based Culture

If your society is based upon the ritual sacrifice of human beings, would you recognize that there is something deeply wrong with it? Possibly not, if you had grown up in that culture. You grew up surrounded by the sacrifice and immersed in the "reasons" for it. After all, it is necessary in order to keep your culture alive, isn't it?


What if you grow up in a society based upon theft? Would you recognize that there is something wrong with that? If you grew up in that culture, surrounded by the institutionalized theft, and learned to call it "taxation", or "business regulation", or "license fees" or "zoning" would you be able to see past the deception? All those things are simply ways to take ownership of money or property away from the legitimate owner and giving it to a special class of rulers. But it is necessary in order to keep that society functional, right?


Is there something wrong with a society based upon an immoral act? Yes, there is. Are you able to see that from the inside?


_____________________________

Crime in Libertopia

One thing that scares many people away from anarchism is crime. They fear that crime would be rampant without government to keep it in check. Let's think about that for a minute.

Ignore for a moment the vast numbers of crimes that are committed or enabled by government at some level. Does crime still exist in our current society "in spite of" government? Do you believe that there is less crime because of government? If so, why do you hold that belief? Are you certain it isn't just because you have been told that it is so your whole life? If there really is less crime under a government, why might that be? Is it the criminals' fear of being caught and punished? Is it fear of the enforcers; fear that the enforcers might shoot them while apprehending them?

What about "crimes" that only exist because government criminalizes normal (or even abnormal) human behaviors that have no victim? That adds greatly to the amount of "crime" that is perceived.

If the fear of being caught, punished, or shot decreases the incidence of crime, that raises more questions. Do you think that only government-hired enforcers can handle real criminals? Why? Training? Superior moral character? (cough) You do realize that stopping crime is your responsibility, don't you? Why do you shirk your responsibility and try to say someone else should do it in your place? You can hide behind the enforcers and the government, but that doesn't remove or fulfil your responsibility in any way. It only causes more problems by establishing an "enforcer class" that feels that it owns you because you are running from your responsibility.

A free society would be more than able to deal with crime, without the side effects that abdicating your personal responsibility gives birth to. Think about it.


___________________________

Anger

I admit, I do sometimes get really worked up over certain things. Things that I see destroying individual liberty. I really try to keep my temper, but as has been said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue". My friends will just have to "forgive" me if I seem a bit eccentric from time to time.

I also get anger directed at me sometimes. It seems that the things I get the most flak for are when I write about the military, cops, and guns. Some topics are just hot-buttons, I guess. When you care passionately about anything, it is easy to get worked up about it. Especially if your opinions are at odds with the opinions of others; if your views are mutually exclusive.

Is there a solution? Should there be one? Do we excuse or try to get along with those who are, in our opinion, undermining everything we are working for? Liberty, or the lack thereof, is worth getting angry over. Yet, will that anger advance the cause or set it back?

________________

Government "Schooling"

The "government indoctrination centers" we are told to call "public schools" may be more successful than I thought. Of course, they are pretty successful at manufacturing compliant cogs for certain industries and authorities to use as they see fit. Their successes go beyond even that.

If they are designed to protect the status quo, they are doing a good job. They have succeeded in destroying the imaginations of Americans who can no longer even imagine how a free society would work. Just debate a few statists and you will see what I mean. No problem is so insignificant that it won't be completely beyond them how it might be solved without government intervention.

At one time I would have supposed that this was an unintended consequence of dumbing down the education so that no one would fall behind (or get ahead). Now I am pretty sure that, overt or not, this is considered a "benefit" of public schooling. At least to the rulers.

______________________

Questions For Statists

I have begun to put together a list of questions to ask statists so I can better understand them. These are not "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, but are things I really want to understand.

• Do YOU want to be ruled, or do you just want OTHERS to be ruled?
• Do you believe in any form of "The Golden Rule"? Are government employees exempt from it?
• Should it be OK for government employees to do things you and I aren't allowed to do? If so, should I be allowed to do things you are not allowed to do?
• Then I would ask if they realize that statism is utopian: "Statism is the belief that a group of people, who possess all the guns and all the legitimacy, able to make all the rules for itself, will not want to exploit its subjects. Instead, they will act completely altruistically and help fulfill the values of their subjects."

I am sure there are more questions that need to be answered. Those questions would go a long ways toward getting me to understand something that is morally reprehensible to me. Perhaps those questions would get statists to really think about their beliefs. Nah.

"Poaching"

Reading this post on The War on Guns, I was surprised to see gun owners defending the idea that government owns the wildlife in the country. "Poaching" is the act of not recognizing government's claim over something it does not own: the wildlife that lives within the country's borders. Buying a license from the government to hunt is admitting that you think government owns the animals. I suppose it is not surprising that they think they own the deer, since they also think they own the humans, but it is a concept we should correct when we run into it.

Hunting is something that teaches people to provide for themselves. It short-circuits the welfare cycle that government depends upon for loyalty and dependence. Pretending to own the wildlife and then "selling" it to hunters simply gives them more unwarranted power over the people. It is another way to take money from productive people and give it to government. Plus, in order to hunt, people need to own effective weapons and have the skills to use them. That is more reason for government to require a license: to keep track of armed people.

I am not advocating mindless slaughter of wildlife. I hate waste. If you shoot it, you had better be prepared to eat it. I also know that some of the money from licenses goes toward habitat and such, but the amount is a tiny percentage (that which is left over after all the bureaucracy is paid for) and could be done much better by the market. Mostly your license fees go to support those who want to exercise control over you and your guns. Wildlife management is often a joke. I have some insight into this, having taken wildlife management in college. I was horrified at their idea of "management".

Labelling Ourselves and Definitions

Invariably whenever I discuss my views with anyone, at some point there arises a disagreement over the meaning of the words I am trying to use. I say "anarchy" and they think "chaos" or "nihilism". They will point out that the dictionary definition of "anarchy" includes and encompasses "chaos" and "nihilism". If I then say I am not speaking of, and very much oppose, "nihilism" as the dictionary defines it, they counter by saying the dictionary definition of "nihilism" is not what they mean when they speak of "nihilism". It becomes a circular discussion over who means what.

When I look up the dictionary definitions of just about anything people are talking about, with regards to philosophies and such, I almost always discover that the dictionary definition is not how the word is being used. Whether it is "libertarian", "anarchy", or "socialism", the adherents always say "but that isn't what it really is!" Yet it seems that only I am expected to stick to the dictionary definition, and always mean the entire list of definitions. I'd hate to debate the definition of the word "ring" with some of these people!

I am not claiming that the dictionary is wrong, just that it is insufficient to really capture the meaning of the words we are actively using as we speak. That is why, from now on I will try to remember to preface my explanations with "when I speak of 'X', this is how I mean it". After all, all my life I have heard people do the same and thought it was an accepted practice.

Obliviousness

In the course of my life I have noticed that most people walk around in a daze. They don't notice things that are directly under their noses. When I am "hiking" around (what others see as wandering aimlessly) I don't like to encounter other people. I have discovered it is a simple thing to avoid. Usually I don't use trails. Other times, if I am on a trail, I just get off the trail a couple of feet and sit there. People walk by, staring at the ground, and never see me.

Even their dogs are usually just as oblivious. I once startled a dog by simply saying "hi, boy" as it trotted past; nose to the ground. The dog almost wet itself before running back to the safety of its people.

Another time I was sitting beside a well-used trail in a park; "Cooper Ranch" just outside Gunnison, Colorado. There was a stump inhabited by a mother chipmunk and her babies, so I sat down beside it to watch. The babies were ignoring their mother's protests and crawling on me.

Suddenly they all darted back into the stump as a person approached. As she walked past I said "Hi". The woman yelped and jumped in the air. She said "I thought you were a statue!" (Why there would be a full-color statue of a guy in buckskin clothes reclining against a tree alongside the trail, I don't know). I knew the truth. She was staring at the ground just beyond her toes and missing the world.

I suspect that most people are doing the same thing politically. They are oblivious to what is going on around them. Unless they personally become caught up in some government abuse of power, they don't know, or care, that it is happening. They don't wish to be made aware of it either. It disturbs their quiet, simple little world. Besides, if they noticed, they might feel guilty for not "doing something" about it, or for being a cog in the gears of tyranny. In moments of extreme frustration I have, in the past, referred to such people as "oblividiots". I am usually nicer now.

Partnership For a Drug-Free America" Admits They Are Evil!

I saw one of those horrible PSAs for the Partnership For a Drug-Free America that was hilarious in its irony. Irony that I am quite certain is lost on the neopuritans that support such things. The ad preached: "When you give up the ability to decide for yourself, you give up what makes you you".

Yes, Partnership For Drug-Free America, that is what we have been trying to tell you all along, you disgusting ninnies! You and your "drug warriors" have decided to take away the ability of all Americans to decide for themselves. So Americans who go along with you have given up the liberty that makes them free Americans. Do you get it now? Probably not.

"This is your brain on drug prohibition"

_______________

"Ask A Cop"

The title was "Ask a Cop", so I did.
I asked "Do you ever feel guilty that your job is based upon enforcing counterfeit 'laws' that should never be enforced? Do you worry that 'I was only doing my job' wasn't an acceptible excuse at Nurmeberg?"
The cop's answer: "Kent, let me do my job. I work hard to do it well. You go right ahead and question my job, but I work hard and I love what I do. "
That answered my questions better than I could have hoped.

Violent Anti-Gunners

Almost every time (or, possibly, every time) I have been in a debate with an anti-gunner, if the debate goes on for long enough, the person eventually gets around to saying something along the lines of "So if I can carry a gun anywhere, I will just kill the next person who makes me mad!" That is enough to make me think that the victim-disarmers are right: they should not have guns.

The rest of us, since we don't struggle with the burden of a barely suppressed desire to kill people, should not be similarly tyranized.

"Expect Delays" by Darian Worden

I liked this article for several reasons. The problems of government roads, "drivers licenses", artificially extending childhood, and possibly other related nonsense are all touched upon.

Restore the Constitution

Petition to Restore the Constitution. Read it. If you agree, sign it and pass it on.

What is "Right"?

Is theft right? What if you call it "taxation" and promise to only use the money to benefit the victims? What if you call it "asset forfeiture" and hint that the victims deserved it? How about home invasion? Is it right if there might be dried leaves of a forbidden species in the house? What if it results in the murder of the people who live there? As we have seen, it is not called "murder" if it is perpetrated by agents of the state.

I can't support any system or group that uses these tactics to carry out its objectives. Some people call me "idealistic" or "unpatriotic" for being this way. Say what you want, but I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I supported such career criminals. Because to me, criminals who use badges or agencies to commit crimes are worse than free-lance criminals who hold no self-serving delusions about their actions.

My morals not not shimmer and shift depending on who I am talking about. If it would be wrong for me to do it, then it is wrong for a cop to do it. If it would be a crime for my friends and I to go out and do it, it is wrong for government agencies to do it. On the other hand, if it is OK for government agents to own, such as machine guns, then it is OK for you and I to own. After all, which of us is more likely to kill people? It isn't me. I expect to go through my entire life without ever killing anyone. Right and wrong; It really isn't that hard to figure out. Is it?

Inevitable Outcome of Democracy

After reading this article, I got to thinking. Fred seems worried that Mexican immigrants will soon be able to out-vote the government-approved hereditary American voters. But, isn't that the whole point of "democracy"? That the will of the majority, even if you are not IN the majority, will become government policy? Or, is it only a "good thing" as long as the "right people" make up the majority of voters?

Those who worship voting think that the majority can vote to violate the rights of the minority, as long as it doesn't violate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Even if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster, the majority can change that Constitution to get rid of the pesky limitations. That is a mighty crumbly ledge to be clinging to. Isn't it better to acknowledge that there are rights that are held by all people that no one, and especially no group of people (be they "voters" or "government") can violate under any circumstances.

"Engraved Invitation - To Steal" by L. Neil Smith

I suppose you have heard about the BATFE's request for Leatherman tools engraved with the reminder to its agent to steal all they can get their paws on. I have been thinking about this news item for a couple of days. I even have a protoblog written about "right and wrong" inspired by the disgraceful arrogance and complete lack of morals in statists like these. L. Neil has written a good article about it. Go read it, please.

Again For the "Anarchy-Phobes"

Another "argument" against anarchy that I run into frequently is that "humans need organization and leaders", so they will never accept anarchy.

I see no problem with organizations or hierarchies for those that need them. However, unlike today's society, these organizations would be strictly voluntary. You could organize yourself into any groups you desired, even communistic ones if that is your dream, but you would not be able to force your group onto anyone else. This is a great disappointment to people who get their jollies from coercion. It would be hard to convince people to join your happy little dictatorship if they have a choice in the matter.

As I have said before, there is a great difference between "leaders" and "rulers". Leaders would have a place of honor in anarchist society; rulers would be exposed as the parasites they are. Leaders lead by example; like a trailblazer through the wilderness showing others how to safely traverse the territory. Rulers avoid personal danger; sending others to take the risks, often at gun point or through deception, while reaping the rewards for themselves and their co-conspirators. Rulers also have a pathological need to meddle in affairs that are not their concern, usually using "it's for your own good" or "for the children" as the ready-made justification.

The superiority of a society organized on anarchy is clear. Unless you don't wish to accept responsibility for your own actions or have the need to see others ruled. Or if you are a thief who wants the illusion of legitimacy backing you up. In which case you might be uncomfortable or scared. Poor baby.

Proof That Government is BAD!

The most common argument against anarchy that I have run into is that it won't work because there will always be some thugs who will pay people to fight for them and just steal from everyone around them. So, basically, the argument is that anarchy won't work because bad people will re-establish another government. Isn't that a funny argument? It seems to me to be a pretty clear admission that government is established by the bad guys for the bad guys.

Freedom From Hatred

It feels good to be a libertarian/anarchist. While the rest of the world wallows around in hatred over silly things like race, gender, sexual preferences, the status of "official documentation", region of origin, wealth, generational differences, religion, or appearance, I only concern myself with those things that cause actual harm to people. Things like theft, coercion, aggression... you know, things that government and its sympathizers (and the other true criminals) do best.

Some days, it is good to step back and remember how much easier we can have it if we just let a lot of things roll off our backs. I know it works for me when I see the conniptions others have over the weirdest things.

"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.