"As we examine this exhibit on the government concept of 'crime' (the government's substitute for 'aggression') you will see that by the end of the 20th century, 'crime' had been solved. The only problem was that government fought back against the solution in order to prop up 'crime' for a few years more. They had to.
"If you will look at this chart, you will see that 'crime' is big business for the statists. That is why they made up the entire concept in the first place. 'Aggression', as everyone knows, was the real problem. The solution was to allow the good people, who outnumber the aggressive people by a huge margin, to properly defend themselves without fear of government retribution. The authoritarians hated self defense as it demonstrated how unnecessary they and their enforcers really were.
"So the government enablers created the concept of 'crime' which was 'any action that went against the demands of the state'; regardless of whether it harmed any innocent person or not. Often there was absolutely no aggression involved, yet the people fell for the scam! Really, I am serious. People actually fell for the scam.
"Huge numbers of non-aggressors were kidnapped and robbed of all their possessions by the tragi-comically named 'justice system'. The people actually allowed the government, the worst offender, to settle disputes; most of which only pitted a person against the fictitious entity of 'The State'. In the instances of actual aggression, restitution was rare, and often any judgements of monetary punishment only went to fund more government. 'Justice' was absent from society.
"I realize that these photographs and artifacts are difficult for more sensitive visitors to view, but it is important that we never forget. This is why we say 'Never again!'
"In the old 'United States', which occupied much of America, the government had a higher percentage of people imprisoned than in any other country during the 'Era of Government'. Many were imprisoned and enslaved simply because of ingesting chemicals. Yet most people did not speak out unless it happened to someone close to them. From our perspective we see the ridiculousness of the statist ideology; the concept of 'crime' and the denial of 'aggression', but to the majority who lived through it, it seemed 'normal'. Such was the world during that dark time.
"Now please turn around to view this next display......."
*********************************
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
"The Museum of Government": Exhibit One
"Welcome to The Museum of Government. For those of you too young to remember the horrors of the state, this should be an enlightening experience. If you will come with me I will lead you through the exhibits and give you my thoughts on each one.
"Here we see the mess that government made of the simple act of educating children. Examine the high literacy rates before government took over the parental responsibility of education. Notice how it only took around a hundred and fifty years for government education to almost totally destroy literacy in America.
"See how the parents came to accept, without question, the government's assertion that without government education, the people of America would be drooling idiots, unable to do the most simple tasks. The parents, being products of the government indoctrination centers themselves, could not see the deception.
"Notice too, that the only real accomplishment of government education was to make the people unable to think for themselves. The end products made good cogs in the machinery of the branches of government and its corporate partners, but for the most part were unable to think critically or to recognize that actions and decisions have consequences.
"Fortunately it did not take long for education to make a comeback after the tragic 'era of government' ended. If you will now please step to this next exhibit......"
Note: This and all my "Museum of Government" posts are inspired by Jim Davies book "A Vision of Liberty". Also, I have added an introduction since I decided I may make this a recurring feature.
************************************
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Well.... Here We Are.....
We pulled in to our destination yesterday evening. This is the first chance I have had to log on to let everyone know we made it. So... we made it... and I am now exhausted.
My Property Rights
A recent exchange on War on Guns has once again made me realize that my idea of my own property rights differs from the idea many other people seem to hold.
I believe that property rights are almost sacred, but they do have a limit: They end where the property ends. That is not really a limit, it is just a recognition that there can be no overlap.
Once again for the sake of clarity I will state that this is just my own idea of property rights. This is how you will be treated if you come onto my property.
I have an absolute right to forbid access to my property. Once I decide to allow people to come onto my property, there are limits to what I can do to my visitors. They do not become my property once they step across my "border".
If I own a business where I invite the general public (in other words "all individuals who are not currently engaged in aggression"), or if I invite a person into my home, I recognize that I have no right to demand to control what objects are inside their clothing or what thoughts are inside their minds. They do not become part of my property when they accept my invitation to come onto my property. My property rights extend to the surface of their clothing or their exposed skin and no farther.
I am "adult enough" to know where my property ends and theirs begins. I can not demand that they carry a gun for self-defense even though it would increase the level of safety on my property if they did. I can't search them for "drugs". I can not demand that they believe the same way I do about state aggression and liberty. As long as it isn't leaking beyond the confines of their "envelope of personal property" I can't demand that they not carry plutonium or anthrax. If they begin leaking radiation, spores, racial epithets, aggression, or bullets I can take whatever steps I deem necessary, since those things, having left the visitor's personal property, are now a part of my property.
It would be a much more polite world if others would recognize their limits. Slavery is such a messy business.
_________________________
I believe that property rights are almost sacred, but they do have a limit: They end where the property ends. That is not really a limit, it is just a recognition that there can be no overlap.
Once again for the sake of clarity I will state that this is just my own idea of property rights. This is how you will be treated if you come onto my property.
I have an absolute right to forbid access to my property. Once I decide to allow people to come onto my property, there are limits to what I can do to my visitors. They do not become my property once they step across my "border".
If I own a business where I invite the general public (in other words "all individuals who are not currently engaged in aggression"), or if I invite a person into my home, I recognize that I have no right to demand to control what objects are inside their clothing or what thoughts are inside their minds. They do not become part of my property when they accept my invitation to come onto my property. My property rights extend to the surface of their clothing or their exposed skin and no farther.
I am "adult enough" to know where my property ends and theirs begins. I can not demand that they carry a gun for self-defense even though it would increase the level of safety on my property if they did. I can't search them for "drugs". I can not demand that they believe the same way I do about state aggression and liberty. As long as it isn't leaking beyond the confines of their "envelope of personal property" I can't demand that they not carry plutonium or anthrax. If they begin leaking radiation, spores, racial epithets, aggression, or bullets I can take whatever steps I deem necessary, since those things, having left the visitor's personal property, are now a part of my property.
It would be a much more polite world if others would recognize their limits. Slavery is such a messy business.
_________________________
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
My Meanest Trick
I recently mentioned my bout with Rat-Bite Fever. I caught it when I was bitten by a sick rat at the pet store where I worked. There was a customer who was apparently jealous of my discomfort and decided he had it as well. J.H. had always been a bit of a hypochondriac; always needing to "one-up" any disease anyone else had contracted. He wouldn't go to a doctor to get checked for Rat-Bite Fever, but came to the pet store several times a day to grill me about symptoms he should be experiencing. When I finally got tired of it, the "fun" began.
After about a week of these constant visits and phone calls, I said "The symptoms you have sound more like 'mitochondrial degeneration' to me. But don't worry, you won't catch that unless you were exposed to blood from your rats; either directly or in the air." I said this knowing that his rat had given birth a few days before and he had kept his nose poked in the cage during the births; "helping" the mother rat. He said "I was exposed to rat blood when mine had babies!" I acted concerned and mumbled something about the chances being small "...but....." He began to panic. He wanted to talk to the vet, who "conveniently" was out of town for a week.
He began researching mitochondria, and discovered that they are the powerhouses of the cell. He decided that was why he had felt tired and run down.
I played it up for a day or two and then admitted my deception. I felt bad because he was actually considering killing his rats. I didn't want to cause that. So I apologized, feeling really guilty now. When I told him that I had made the whole thing up, he was furious and threatened to beat me up (he got his energy back rather quickly, didn't he?) Later he forgave me and decided that the whole episode was funny.
He stopped being a hypochondriac (at least around me) from that day forward. I even went out shooting with him once. Only once. I don't like being around armed people who wave their gun around while keeping their finger inside the trigger guard. He didn't want to listen to me about "safe gun handling" either. He joined the army a few months later.
I know it was wrong of me to lie to him. Even if I thought he needed to be taught a lesson. I wouldn't do that kind of thing anymore. I guess that means I have grown.
After about a week of these constant visits and phone calls, I said "The symptoms you have sound more like 'mitochondrial degeneration' to me. But don't worry, you won't catch that unless you were exposed to blood from your rats; either directly or in the air." I said this knowing that his rat had given birth a few days before and he had kept his nose poked in the cage during the births; "helping" the mother rat. He said "I was exposed to rat blood when mine had babies!" I acted concerned and mumbled something about the chances being small "...but....." He began to panic. He wanted to talk to the vet, who "conveniently" was out of town for a week.
He began researching mitochondria, and discovered that they are the powerhouses of the cell. He decided that was why he had felt tired and run down.
I played it up for a day or two and then admitted my deception. I felt bad because he was actually considering killing his rats. I didn't want to cause that. So I apologized, feeling really guilty now. When I told him that I had made the whole thing up, he was furious and threatened to beat me up (he got his energy back rather quickly, didn't he?) Later he forgave me and decided that the whole episode was funny.
He stopped being a hypochondriac (at least around me) from that day forward. I even went out shooting with him once. Only once. I don't like being around armed people who wave their gun around while keeping their finger inside the trigger guard. He didn't want to listen to me about "safe gun handling" either. He joined the army a few months later.
I know it was wrong of me to lie to him. Even if I thought he needed to be taught a lesson. I wouldn't do that kind of thing anymore. I guess that means I have grown.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Government is Obsolete
I really like this idea, and I do believe it is true. Technology has made government obsolete now, even if it weren't in the past. Everything that government does either should not be done, or could be done better (and without coercion) with technology wielded by the free market. So why do we still have governments?
Humans cling to obsolete ideas and things long past their usefulness either out of fear of change, nostalgia, ignorance, or expense.
We can decrease the people's fear by showing them that they will not be cast aside when the change happens. They will not lose their place in the world; their status. Those in government work can find honest work easily. Yes, they will then be held to a higher standard and will no longer be allowed to rule over their equals (actually, their former bosses). If they choose to reject becoming honest, they can keep on being aggressors ("freelance" from that time forward) and take their chances of being brought to real justice; something that is denied under government. Or they can move somewhere that the illusion of government has not yet had the light of day shined upon it. After all, that is the suggestion the statists constantly taunt liberty-lovers with: accept it or leave.
Those who cling to statism because of nostalgia may be harder to convince, after all, they are probably seeing government through rose-colored glasses to begin with. They are dreaming the "1950s myths" of the helpful policeman, the noble CIA protecting America from communists, and government knowing "what's best" (even if it means treating some people as second-class humans). These people don't want to see reality. Wake them up and they will fight to regain the dream. We may need to let them sleep as long as possible so as not to frighten them. Maybe a gentle wake-up would work.
Those who cling to statism out of ignorance can be taught. TOLFA is a good place to start, when they are receptive. Another way is to simply live your life with peaceful self-ownership and lead by example into a freer future. Once shown the truth, the previously ignorant can either accept it, or can choose to become nostalgic, or fearful of the coming change. In that case the process begins again.
Those who refuse to let go of the state because of the expense are potentially already on our side. We need to show them that for a nominal investment, the return will be immeasurable. Those who are heavily invested in government schemes, getting rich from the coercion of the state, will not let go of that golden goose easily. They must be viewed as any other thieves are viewed. Getting rid of the vampires of the state, who suck the wealth right out of our nation, will be the best investment in the history of civilization. We will be investing in liberty. In terms of actual monetary return, you are looking at getting rid of an organization that takes money from the productive people, spends it wastefully with huge administrative costs and on things no one wants; an organization that then finds a way to dip into the production at every step along the way; stealing value every time it does. Government's counterfeiting scheme, basing "dollars" on nothing but empty promises of value, has driven the average people to their knees as they work more hours for less purchasing power. Free market solutions will work better, be cheaper, and finally be ethical. Theft is a poor long-term strategy. The return, in terms of non-monetary rewards, will be even greater. Self-ownership, responsibility, and self determination have no price tag.
______________________
Humans cling to obsolete ideas and things long past their usefulness either out of fear of change, nostalgia, ignorance, or expense.
We can decrease the people's fear by showing them that they will not be cast aside when the change happens. They will not lose their place in the world; their status. Those in government work can find honest work easily. Yes, they will then be held to a higher standard and will no longer be allowed to rule over their equals (actually, their former bosses). If they choose to reject becoming honest, they can keep on being aggressors ("freelance" from that time forward) and take their chances of being brought to real justice; something that is denied under government. Or they can move somewhere that the illusion of government has not yet had the light of day shined upon it. After all, that is the suggestion the statists constantly taunt liberty-lovers with: accept it or leave.
Those who cling to statism because of nostalgia may be harder to convince, after all, they are probably seeing government through rose-colored glasses to begin with. They are dreaming the "1950s myths" of the helpful policeman, the noble CIA protecting America from communists, and government knowing "what's best" (even if it means treating some people as second-class humans). These people don't want to see reality. Wake them up and they will fight to regain the dream. We may need to let them sleep as long as possible so as not to frighten them. Maybe a gentle wake-up would work.
Those who cling to statism out of ignorance can be taught. TOLFA is a good place to start, when they are receptive. Another way is to simply live your life with peaceful self-ownership and lead by example into a freer future. Once shown the truth, the previously ignorant can either accept it, or can choose to become nostalgic, or fearful of the coming change. In that case the process begins again.
Those who refuse to let go of the state because of the expense are potentially already on our side. We need to show them that for a nominal investment, the return will be immeasurable. Those who are heavily invested in government schemes, getting rich from the coercion of the state, will not let go of that golden goose easily. They must be viewed as any other thieves are viewed. Getting rid of the vampires of the state, who suck the wealth right out of our nation, will be the best investment in the history of civilization. We will be investing in liberty. In terms of actual monetary return, you are looking at getting rid of an organization that takes money from the productive people, spends it wastefully with huge administrative costs and on things no one wants; an organization that then finds a way to dip into the production at every step along the way; stealing value every time it does. Government's counterfeiting scheme, basing "dollars" on nothing but empty promises of value, has driven the average people to their knees as they work more hours for less purchasing power. Free market solutions will work better, be cheaper, and finally be ethical. Theft is a poor long-term strategy. The return, in terms of non-monetary rewards, will be even greater. Self-ownership, responsibility, and self determination have no price tag.
______________________
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thoughts From the Road
These are just random thoughts that have cropped up in my road-numbed brain as I have been driving. I may expand on some at a later time. I apologize if they are weird:
Cop cars= "Mobile (State) Aggression Units"
I may start posting entries for my future "Museum of Government". First exhibit: "Education".
We passed Virginia Tech today and I was reminded of the victims of the "Hinckler/Cho Massacre". Yet, nothing has changed policywise. Sad.
I had a really good idea (I think) for a cell phone company. Cut me in for a percentage and it is yours.
I now return you to your pre-posted entries....
_____________________________
Cop cars= "Mobile (State) Aggression Units"
I may start posting entries for my future "Museum of Government". First exhibit: "Education".
We passed Virginia Tech today and I was reminded of the victims of the "Hinckler/Cho Massacre". Yet, nothing has changed policywise. Sad.
I had a really good idea (I think) for a cell phone company. Cut me in for a percentage and it is yours.
I now return you to your pre-posted entries....
_____________________________
Texas or Bust
If I post sparsely for a while, it is because of a major change for us. If things have gone as planned, I left the NorthEast this morning to move back to my ancestral stomping-grounds (where I haven't really dwelt much since I was just a small kid). I am hopeful that it goes better than last October's disastrously derailed move.
Since my internet connection is scheduled to be shut off this morning, this is a pre-written post. Can you tell the difference?
A girlfriend, a baby, and a cat may keep me busy even if there is internet access at the motels. If I have other blog ideas before I leave, I will try the "future post" option for them, too. Considering that I am just about to my limit of stress over this move, I may be too distracted to think for a while.
If you see me on the road, wave at me! Or buy me a gallon of gas!
********************************
Since my internet connection is scheduled to be shut off this morning, this is a pre-written post. Can you tell the difference?
A girlfriend, a baby, and a cat may keep me busy even if there is internet access at the motels. If I have other blog ideas before I leave, I will try the "future post" option for them, too. Considering that I am just about to my limit of stress over this move, I may be too distracted to think for a while.
If you see me on the road, wave at me! Or buy me a gallon of gas!
********************************
UPDATE: We left a day early, so we are miles farther down the road than we had planned. That is good because the baby is tired of this situation already, so we are not making as many miles per day as I had hoped. I'm getting more blog ideas during the mindless miles.
*********************************
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Rhetorical Question?
In promos for his show, Lou Dobbs of CNN is shown asking: "Doesn't anyone deserve a government that works?" Interesting question.
Does anyone "deserve" a government at all? Maybe some individual who has shown that he completely lacks moral character does. Should I have to put up with a government because of that diseased individual? Absolutely not. A government won't make him into a nice person. The only thing that will is surrounding him with a fully armed population. He will either straighten up, or will be darwinized. Either way, he becomes "good" and the good folk win without burdening us all with government. I have done nothing to deserve a government.
I would also say that government already "works" too much. Its objectives are directly opposite what is good for the individuals who live under it, but that is what the Rulers are working so hard at. They are working to increase their power and control over us, while taking away our money (which would allow us to resist them more effectively). Government works to convince us that we are too stupid or evil to live our own lives without them telling us what to do with each moment of our lives. I have no desire for a government that works. This is why I celebrate "gridlock". Gridlock is like a blessed dam that holds back the flood of tyranny.
Does anyone "deserve" a government at all? Maybe some individual who has shown that he completely lacks moral character does. Should I have to put up with a government because of that diseased individual? Absolutely not. A government won't make him into a nice person. The only thing that will is surrounding him with a fully armed population. He will either straighten up, or will be darwinized. Either way, he becomes "good" and the good folk win without burdening us all with government. I have done nothing to deserve a government.
I would also say that government already "works" too much. Its objectives are directly opposite what is good for the individuals who live under it, but that is what the Rulers are working so hard at. They are working to increase their power and control over us, while taking away our money (which would allow us to resist them more effectively). Government works to convince us that we are too stupid or evil to live our own lives without them telling us what to do with each moment of our lives. I have no desire for a government that works. This is why I celebrate "gridlock". Gridlock is like a blessed dam that holds back the flood of tyranny.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Blank Slates Again
When I have expressed my opinion that humans are born as "blank slates"; that such things as "gods and governments" are then scribbled onto their minds, I usually get one of two responses. Those who agree with me, or who disagree with me, on both counts don't usually say anything.
Those who cling to statism will often say they agree that atheism is probably the default setting for religion, but that humans "obviously need government, otherwise why do they always set one up?".
Those who cling to magical thinking will often agree that statism must be indoctrinated into children, but that "people need God, otherwise they wouldn't have such a driving need to learn about Him."
These responses make me believe I am on the right track. Those who are heavily invested in a particular notion look for any reason to defend it, but others, who are more able to look at the situation rationally, see the truth.
Those who cling to statism will often say they agree that atheism is probably the default setting for religion, but that humans "obviously need government, otherwise why do they always set one up?".
Those who cling to magical thinking will often agree that statism must be indoctrinated into children, but that "people need God, otherwise they wouldn't have such a driving need to learn about Him."
These responses make me believe I am on the right track. Those who are heavily invested in a particular notion look for any reason to defend it, but others, who are more able to look at the situation rationally, see the truth.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Blind Spots and Tender Areas
I read a few libertarian blogs every day. As I am sure most of you do, too, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this. Right? (How's that for reasoning ability?)
In my readings I get amused, confused, or bewildered by some of the bloggers. Especially those who are mostly libertarian, but with a specific statist blindspot. They can be right on the money for weeks on end, but when someone jabs at their statist "tender area", they freak out without seeing the complete irrationality of their reaction.
Coercion is wrong, and coercion by a big, powerful group is especially bad. "Pick on someone your own size" is the phrase that comes to mind. You can't claim to want liberty while "enjoying" certain areas of government coercion that benefit you personally, or that you have invested large parts of your life in. Wrong is still wrong.
In my readings I get amused, confused, or bewildered by some of the bloggers. Especially those who are mostly libertarian, but with a specific statist blindspot. They can be right on the money for weeks on end, but when someone jabs at their statist "tender area", they freak out without seeing the complete irrationality of their reaction.
Coercion is wrong, and coercion by a big, powerful group is especially bad. "Pick on someone your own size" is the phrase that comes to mind. You can't claim to want liberty while "enjoying" certain areas of government coercion that benefit you personally, or that you have invested large parts of your life in. Wrong is still wrong.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Competent Adults or Dependent Babies?
Do other people know enough to make their own decisions? Are they smart enough to use books, the internet, or other resources to find out what they need to know to make smart decisions? Are they smart enough to realize when they need more knowledgeable help? Could being "babied" by the nanny-state for generations have created a stupid population that now needs to be protected from itself? Should helplessness be encouraged, or should it be allowed to do its job and be eliminated from the gene pool?
Are YOU competent to make your own decisions? If you can read this, then yes, you are.
I recently had an annoying health issue (which I will not go into) that I self-diagnosed with the help of the internet and books, found a solution, and treated myself. I will admit, not enough time has passed for me to be able to tell you whether or not I have cured myself or not. So, if I soon die mysteriously, you will know why. The liberty to live as an adult is, to me, worth the risk.
In the interactions I have had with doctors, the diagnosis has been hit or miss. Just get an odd disease and see how long it takes for a doctor to figure out the problem. I once had "rat bite fever"; caused in my case by Streptobacillus moniliformis. It took over a week to be diagnosed, even though in my first doctor visit I had told the doc that I had recently been bitten by a rat and had had some symptoms show up within a couple days. After a battery of tests, over the course of a week, the doctor asked me if I had been bitten by a rat. I answered "yes", thinking "What did I tell you the first time I came here?" Doctors are useful, no doubt, but should not be over-valued.
Anyway, freedom includes the freedom to make your own mistakes and accept the consequences. The information is out there for all to see and use. You do not need a specialist for every health problem, and should have the liberty to choose the level of expertise you need for your particular situation. Private certification could more efficiently demonstrate the qualifications of the doctors you could choose between.
"Buyer beware" is always good advice, but is no reason to give up your own responsibility. Government oversight, paperwork, and licensing is not needed, and raises the price of medical care beyond the reach of many people.
Once again, government is obsolete.
Are YOU competent to make your own decisions? If you can read this, then yes, you are.
I recently had an annoying health issue (which I will not go into) that I self-diagnosed with the help of the internet and books, found a solution, and treated myself. I will admit, not enough time has passed for me to be able to tell you whether or not I have cured myself or not. So, if I soon die mysteriously, you will know why. The liberty to live as an adult is, to me, worth the risk.
In the interactions I have had with doctors, the diagnosis has been hit or miss. Just get an odd disease and see how long it takes for a doctor to figure out the problem. I once had "rat bite fever"; caused in my case by Streptobacillus moniliformis. It took over a week to be diagnosed, even though in my first doctor visit I had told the doc that I had recently been bitten by a rat and had had some symptoms show up within a couple days. After a battery of tests, over the course of a week, the doctor asked me if I had been bitten by a rat. I answered "yes", thinking "What did I tell you the first time I came here?" Doctors are useful, no doubt, but should not be over-valued.
Anyway, freedom includes the freedom to make your own mistakes and accept the consequences. The information is out there for all to see and use. You do not need a specialist for every health problem, and should have the liberty to choose the level of expertise you need for your particular situation. Private certification could more efficiently demonstrate the qualifications of the doctors you could choose between.
"Buyer beware" is always good advice, but is no reason to give up your own responsibility. Government oversight, paperwork, and licensing is not needed, and raises the price of medical care beyond the reach of many people.
Once again, government is obsolete.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Settling For a Libertarian Government
I don't know about you, but I would settle for a libertarian government. It wouldn't be the best solution, but it would be better than the current hive of authoritarians. In my heart I know I really want to eliminate government in all its forms, except for self government.
I don't want or like chaos; only anarchy. That is where my heart is. Anything that moves me in that general direction, I will support. Anything that moves toward bigger, more intrusive, more ubiquitous government, I will oppose. Any lateral shift I may ignore.
I don't care if there is "a good reason" for more government or not. Nothing government can do is worth trading an iota of liberty for.
I don't want or like chaos; only anarchy. That is where my heart is. Anything that moves me in that general direction, I will support. Anything that moves toward bigger, more intrusive, more ubiquitous government, I will oppose. Any lateral shift I may ignore.
I don't care if there is "a good reason" for more government or not. Nothing government can do is worth trading an iota of liberty for.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
I'm Not Perfect?!
As surprising as it may be, I just may not be perfect. I get emails to that effect pretty often. Maybe they are getting through to me.
I know how I think I should always behave, yet being human, I have not always done what I should. I'm not really sure why people feel the need to remind me of my shortcomings. I guess they are perfect. I really don't remember ever claiming to be perfect, but I must have at some point, otherwise why would anyone act like I made that claim? Another fault someone can point out, right?
I think the best I can do is to try everyday to not add to my pile of regrets. Don't violate my principles. This means don't harm anyone who isn't harming me. Don't support the state. Live and let live. But even this is a little unrealistic in some ways. After all, there are some principles I hold, that if I don't violate them, government enforcers will kill me. So, just like you, I do the best I can, with the reality I live in. Who can do more?
I know how I think I should always behave, yet being human, I have not always done what I should. I'm not really sure why people feel the need to remind me of my shortcomings. I guess they are perfect. I really don't remember ever claiming to be perfect, but I must have at some point, otherwise why would anyone act like I made that claim? Another fault someone can point out, right?
I think the best I can do is to try everyday to not add to my pile of regrets. Don't violate my principles. This means don't harm anyone who isn't harming me. Don't support the state. Live and let live. But even this is a little unrealistic in some ways. After all, there are some principles I hold, that if I don't violate them, government enforcers will kill me. So, just like you, I do the best I can, with the reality I live in. Who can do more?
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Quackery From a Different Duck
Medical quackery is almost universally condemned. Sometimes people don't agree on what constitutes "quackery"; some swearing by a particular treatment while others point out that the "cure" has more in common with magic or wishful thinking than with science.
There are other kinds of quackery, too. Such as the moral quackery called "laws".
Laws are bad. They claim to solve a problem while doing no such thing. Like all false solutions, they distract people from finding a real solution. Precious time is wasted. The only thing they provide for is a specified punishment if the "law" is violated, but they do nothing to stop aggression (theft and fraud are "economic aggression"). Most "laws" don't even pass the test of morality in the first place; criminalizing good behavior and encouraging destructive behavior.
There are other kinds of quackery, too. Such as the moral quackery called "laws".
Laws are bad. They claim to solve a problem while doing no such thing. Like all false solutions, they distract people from finding a real solution. Precious time is wasted. The only thing they provide for is a specified punishment if the "law" is violated, but they do nothing to stop aggression (theft and fraud are "economic aggression"). Most "laws" don't even pass the test of morality in the first place; criminalizing good behavior and encouraging destructive behavior.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
The Libertarian Party Nominee
My life is in turmoil, so If I don't say this now, I may forget again, and I wanted to say it before the Libertarian Party convention.
After I chose to run a "write-in only" campaign, I have stayed out of the LP's business. I have had my preferences as to their nominee, of course, but unfortunately most of them were negative preferences.
That changed a while back. I'm not "endorsing" anyone, not that my opinion matters anyway, but I know who I want to get the LP nomination: Dr. Mary Ruwart. I was reminded of this after reading Chris Bennett's post on Last Free Voice where he endorsed her.
Good luck, Mary. I will be pulling for you!
*********************************
After I chose to run a "write-in only" campaign, I have stayed out of the LP's business. I have had my preferences as to their nominee, of course, but unfortunately most of them were negative preferences.
That changed a while back. I'm not "endorsing" anyone, not that my opinion matters anyway, but I know who I want to get the LP nomination: Dr. Mary Ruwart. I was reminded of this after reading Chris Bennett's post on Last Free Voice where he endorsed her.
Good luck, Mary. I will be pulling for you!
*********************************
Friday, May 02, 2008
Anarchy: It Just Might Work, Now
One of the most strange arguments against anarchy that I get hit with time and again is that "it has never succeeded anywhere before, so it will never work". I know that even that is a dubious claim, but pretend for a moment that it is true. Suppose it has never worked before; in all the history of humans on earth (since it absolutely does work for many other species, we will ignore that for our statist friends).
Is the playing field still the same as it was back in 1750 or 1950? If not, what has changed that might make anarchy feasible now, even if it wouldn't have worked in 1950s America? Technology has increased exponentially since then, that's what has changed.
The Rulers and enforcers are at this moment using technology as fast as they can to enslave us, but that is not the only way it can be used.
I think that many of the government "solutions" can be replaced by an internet based, decentralized system. Other problems would have already been solved by technology had government not had a vested interest in restricting liberty. Here are just a few ideas of how technology would enable an anarchist society. You probably have many more.
Is the playing field still the same as it was back in 1750 or 1950? If not, what has changed that might make anarchy feasible now, even if it wouldn't have worked in 1950s America? Technology has increased exponentially since then, that's what has changed.
The Rulers and enforcers are at this moment using technology as fast as they can to enslave us, but that is not the only way it can be used.
I think that many of the government "solutions" can be replaced by an internet based, decentralized system. Other problems would have already been solved by technology had government not had a vested interest in restricting liberty. Here are just a few ideas of how technology would enable an anarchist society. You probably have many more.
- Justice could easily be served by the capacity of the internet to provide good information on dishonest characters. In order to clear their record so that people would associate or do business with them again, they would need to pay their restitution.
- An online "invasion watch" set up similar to the SETI @ Home project could keep America safe from an increasingly unlikely sneak attack.
- Schools should obviously be internet based. It is just the natural progression.
- I think vehicle development could make roads as we know them obsolete, and with them, the government road-building-monopoly.
- Air-traffic control should not be overseen by humans anyway. Not since the days of a few hundred planes in the air has that been a safe system. It should be decentralized with components in each aircraft, along with internal collision-avoidance systems. Can you imagine how dangerous the roads would be if ground traffic were "controlled" like air traffic is?
- You could check on the certification or reputation of any doctor online, to see if you would want to trust your health to him. Businesses would be subject to the same feedback.
- Trials could be conducted online with jurors getting better information. I am not of the opinion that ignorance makes for a fair juror.
So, next time you are feeling down because some statist has told you "it can't work", just remember that it can, and it will.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Evil Is Additive
Did you ever have a friend that you got into trouble with? Bad things that neither of you would have ever dreamed of doing on your own seemed to "just happen" whenever the two of you were together? Or: How about a friend who, when you were with them, the two of you just did spontaneous good things that were far beyond anything you would have dreamed up on your own? Of the two scenarios, I am guessing the first one is much more likely.
The reason is that, unlike goodness, evil is additive. By "evil" I mean actions which hurt others.
Think about this for a minute. Groups of people do come together to do good things. With lots of planning. Normally the only people who join such groups are those who are already reaching out and doing nice things on their own. They seek out others of a like mind and together can do more good than they could do separately. It takes a lot of work and planning to fight off the entropy that keeps trying to tear such groups apart. Most such groups fail after a short time.
Yet, evil is spontaneously additive. People who have no driving need to harm others will gather into groups and, without planning for it or even meaning to do it, start harming others. Either they just go along with things that are already occurring, or they become convinced that their victims "deserve it" after a short indoctrination.
This is why government is an unworkable utopian delusion. There are too many people who are simply joining the collective, and without an extremely strong moral awareness, they gradually sink into doing evil things without thinking about it. They begin proposing or enforcing "laws" that should never be. They begin to believe it is OK to tell other how to live, even if their actions would harm no one other than themselves. They become obssessed busy-bodies. They begin to excuse murder, kidnapping, and theft as long as it is done under "color of law".
Few people have a morality strong enough to resist the additive evil that becoming part of government exposes them to. And of those, the ones already flawed enough to join government are so outnumbered that they can't stop the tide.
The reason is that, unlike goodness, evil is additive. By "evil" I mean actions which hurt others.
Think about this for a minute. Groups of people do come together to do good things. With lots of planning. Normally the only people who join such groups are those who are already reaching out and doing nice things on their own. They seek out others of a like mind and together can do more good than they could do separately. It takes a lot of work and planning to fight off the entropy that keeps trying to tear such groups apart. Most such groups fail after a short time.
Yet, evil is spontaneously additive. People who have no driving need to harm others will gather into groups and, without planning for it or even meaning to do it, start harming others. Either they just go along with things that are already occurring, or they become convinced that their victims "deserve it" after a short indoctrination.
This is why government is an unworkable utopian delusion. There are too many people who are simply joining the collective, and without an extremely strong moral awareness, they gradually sink into doing evil things without thinking about it. They begin proposing or enforcing "laws" that should never be. They begin to believe it is OK to tell other how to live, even if their actions would harm no one other than themselves. They become obssessed busy-bodies. They begin to excuse murder, kidnapping, and theft as long as it is done under "color of law".
Few people have a morality strong enough to resist the additive evil that becoming part of government exposes them to. And of those, the ones already flawed enough to join government are so outnumbered that they can't stop the tide.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Am I Repeating Myself?
I wonder if I have begun to repeat myself too much on this blog. Am I saying anything new anymore? I can't usually remember if I have talked about a particular subject in just the same way previously. Not that it matters since I doubt many people search the old posts.
Anyway, it's just a question that is running through my mind.
Anyway, it's just a question that is running through my mind.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Shifting the Blame
A recent event has illustrated for me that if someone tries to cheat you in a business deal, and they are thwarted in their plans, they will sometimes try to blame you, their intended victim, of being a "thief and a liar" instead of owning up to their own misdeeds. Is their denial so complete that they actually believe what they say? Or do they believe that by putting their lies into writing it will make it somehow true?
Whatever the case may be, it is disgusting.
Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
_______________________
Whatever the case may be, it is disgusting.
Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.
_______________________
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Enough "Gun Control", It's Time For "Goon Control"
The government protects its enforcers yet again. Sean Bell's murderers have gotten away with it. Murder-by-cop is OK, according to the "judge" who heard the case. The murderers didn't want to take their chances with a jury. What lessons can be learned from this?
Gun control, more honestly known as victim disarmament, increases crime. It doesn't make anyone safer (except for politicians and other amoral parasites). The armed goons of the state are a real and present danger, especially when they are armed. Instead of gun control, there should be some serious goon control.
Time to rein in the goons that hide in the dark alleys and in the well-lit offices of government. It is time to control those goons who hide behind their tiny shields. Free-lance and government goons are both a danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but of the two, the government goons are much more dangerous. They commit their crimes with the implicit assumption that they are "right". To try to prove otherwise is pretty much doomed.
There is only one way to really control both kinds of goons: be armed and ready to defend yourself and those innocents around you. Sad, but true. As I say, WE didn't choose this war.
_______________
Gun control, more honestly known as victim disarmament, increases crime. It doesn't make anyone safer (except for politicians and other amoral parasites). The armed goons of the state are a real and present danger, especially when they are armed. Instead of gun control, there should be some serious goon control.
Time to rein in the goons that hide in the dark alleys and in the well-lit offices of government. It is time to control those goons who hide behind their tiny shields. Free-lance and government goons are both a danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but of the two, the government goons are much more dangerous. They commit their crimes with the implicit assumption that they are "right". To try to prove otherwise is pretty much doomed.
There is only one way to really control both kinds of goons: be armed and ready to defend yourself and those innocents around you. Sad, but true. As I say, WE didn't choose this war.
_______________
Friday, April 25, 2008
Why "Government"?
I know that the following phrase is in the Declaration of Independence. It is still utter nonsense. Saying that government is instituted in order to "secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is like saying the KKK and the NAACP are instituted in order to promote racial harmony and mutual understanding. Ain't gonna ever happen, and if you think about it, it is obvious why. It goes against the very nature of the beast.
________________
________________
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Extra Work For Nothing
Why walk twice as far, to a less-than optimal destination? Inertia? To get exercise? Fear?
I watched as a woman at the grocery store, after putting her bags in the car, walked to the cart corral, which was twice as far from her car as the front of the store where more carts were lined up. I obviously couldn't read her mind, but I tried to figure out why she did that. Was it because she was already moving in that general direction, and without thinking she simply continued going that way. Was she oblivious and didn't notice the distances involved? Did she think she needed the free exercise "for her health"? Was there some person lurking in the shadows near the front of the store that she wished to avoid?
Why do people walk twice as far, and work twice as hard, to prop up government, as it would take to become free of those professional parasites. Possibly for the same reason that the woman I observed went out of her way to get to a second-best destination. But I have no clue what that reason might really be.
________________
I watched as a woman at the grocery store, after putting her bags in the car, walked to the cart corral, which was twice as far from her car as the front of the store where more carts were lined up. I obviously couldn't read her mind, but I tried to figure out why she did that. Was it because she was already moving in that general direction, and without thinking she simply continued going that way. Was she oblivious and didn't notice the distances involved? Did she think she needed the free exercise "for her health"? Was there some person lurking in the shadows near the front of the store that she wished to avoid?
Why do people walk twice as far, and work twice as hard, to prop up government, as it would take to become free of those professional parasites. Possibly for the same reason that the woman I observed went out of her way to get to a second-best destination. But I have no clue what that reason might really be.
________________
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"...As Long as You Harm No Innocent Person.."
Any law that attempts to regulate or prohibit anything other than actual aggression or theft is a counterfeit "law", and has no ethical foundation upon which to stand. As long as you do not cause harm to innocent people, you are free to live life however you see fit. Notwithstanding the edicts of whichever Rulers think they own you. It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?
The "arguments" against this concept seem to stall at the point of not understanding the "harming others" idea. Invariably the dissenter will say something like "You don't really think 'speed limits' should be ditched, do you?". Yes I do. "Speeding" harms no one by itself. If you exceed the speed at which you can safely operate your vehicle (which has nothing to do with the speed limit) and hurt someone, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
So then the whiner will claim that not everyone is smart enough to drive within their ability or that going fast makes it more likely to wreck and hurt people. So?
Obviously, you should not regulate everyone because of the idiots among us. Punish only the idiots when they cause harm or they will not learn a lesson. You also can't base "laws" upon what might happen. If that were a legitimate action, you should be prohibited from ever giving anyone food. After all, they might choke, or they might have an allergic reaction to some ingredient. Actual harm to someone who is no immediate threat to you is the only basis for a real law.
It makes me believe that the dispute that arises over "as long as you harm no one else" is just because some people cling desperately to the outdated and discredited notion of "government".
______________
The "arguments" against this concept seem to stall at the point of not understanding the "harming others" idea. Invariably the dissenter will say something like "You don't really think 'speed limits' should be ditched, do you?". Yes I do. "Speeding" harms no one by itself. If you exceed the speed at which you can safely operate your vehicle (which has nothing to do with the speed limit) and hurt someone, you are responsible and should be held accountable.
So then the whiner will claim that not everyone is smart enough to drive within their ability or that going fast makes it more likely to wreck and hurt people. So?
Obviously, you should not regulate everyone because of the idiots among us. Punish only the idiots when they cause harm or they will not learn a lesson. You also can't base "laws" upon what might happen. If that were a legitimate action, you should be prohibited from ever giving anyone food. After all, they might choke, or they might have an allergic reaction to some ingredient. Actual harm to someone who is no immediate threat to you is the only basis for a real law.
It makes me believe that the dispute that arises over "as long as you harm no one else" is just because some people cling desperately to the outdated and discredited notion of "government".
______________
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Review of "A Vision of Liberty"
A little over a week ago I mentioned I was getting the book, A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies. I have now read it and thought you might like to know what I thought.
First the "bad". It was too short. I guess that is also a "plus" since it is quick and easy to read, but I will admit I wanted more. I'm not sure what else could have been covered, though, since it seemed pretty inclusive.
Mr. Davies needed a better proofreader, since I found quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors (but then, I probably like commas too much). It didn't detract from the book for me since I am accustomed to reading much less coherent things than this on a daily basis. As long as the meaning is conveyed... Seriously, it wasn't as bad as I made it sound, and I will admit, I am much too picky.
Now, the "good": I really liked the book. It wasn't a book of esoteric philosophy or in-your-face preaching, but a pleasant vision of what a truly free society might be like to live in. Bring it on! Reading this made me feel hopeful and optimistic. I am not normally that way. I mentioned that the book was too short. My solution is that I am reading it again immediately. I think the book is an excellent complement to his TOLFA website. They could work together to instill a desire for the end of government in the fence sitters who need to be convinced in order for this to come to pass. Mr. Davies admits that his book is speculative and that events might work out differently. I think that if the liberty-meme can be spread as he proposes, his vision could be very possible.
I think Mr Davies has a very optimistic view of the future, which is good, and I hope he is justified. Some of his personal preferences were evident in his vision, which is understandable. I might not reach the same conclusions, for example, about what music will be popular in this liberated future, but I also realize it wouldn't matter to me if he is right or wrong about that minor detail.
I recommend that you pick up a copy of his book if you have a few FRNs to spare. Read it and then pass it along to someone who could use the help to envision how freedom would feel and how it might work.
***********************************
First the "bad". It was too short. I guess that is also a "plus" since it is quick and easy to read, but I will admit I wanted more. I'm not sure what else could have been covered, though, since it seemed pretty inclusive.
Mr. Davies needed a better proofreader, since I found quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors (but then, I probably like commas too much). It didn't detract from the book for me since I am accustomed to reading much less coherent things than this on a daily basis. As long as the meaning is conveyed... Seriously, it wasn't as bad as I made it sound, and I will admit, I am much too picky.
Now, the "good": I really liked the book. It wasn't a book of esoteric philosophy or in-your-face preaching, but a pleasant vision of what a truly free society might be like to live in. Bring it on! Reading this made me feel hopeful and optimistic. I am not normally that way. I mentioned that the book was too short. My solution is that I am reading it again immediately. I think the book is an excellent complement to his TOLFA website. They could work together to instill a desire for the end of government in the fence sitters who need to be convinced in order for this to come to pass. Mr. Davies admits that his book is speculative and that events might work out differently. I think that if the liberty-meme can be spread as he proposes, his vision could be very possible.
I think Mr Davies has a very optimistic view of the future, which is good, and I hope he is justified. Some of his personal preferences were evident in his vision, which is understandable. I might not reach the same conclusions, for example, about what music will be popular in this liberated future, but I also realize it wouldn't matter to me if he is right or wrong about that minor detail.
I recommend that you pick up a copy of his book if you have a few FRNs to spare. Read it and then pass it along to someone who could use the help to envision how freedom would feel and how it might work.
***********************************
Monday, April 21, 2008
Needy Voters
I just saw a Hitlery Klinton commercial. The pathetic voter portrayed on the screen said "I need a president who will help me". Sad. I just want presidents (and lesser governmental parasites) to stop trying to HARM me. That would be a monumental improvement, don't you agree?
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?
___________________
Who has time for all that nonsense? The government doesn't own you. Why act like it does?
___________________
Sunday, April 20, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, April 18, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
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.
____________________
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.
Monday, April 14, 2008
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.
_________________________
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.
_________________________
Sunday, April 13, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
"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.
_______________________
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.
_______________________
Thursday, April 10, 2008
"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?
_____________________________
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?
_____________________________
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
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.
___________________________
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.
___________________________
Monday, April 07, 2008
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?
________________
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.
______________________
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.
______________________
Saturday, April 05, 2008
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.
Friday, April 04, 2008
"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".
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".
Thursday, April 03, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
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"
_______________
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"
_______________
Monday, March 31, 2008
"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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
"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?
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?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
"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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
"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.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
"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.
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.
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.
Friday, March 21, 2008
“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?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
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".
I suppose if that is you, and you care to, you could send me a note to say "hi".
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
"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:
I have long been of the opinion that:
Judging by the DC mayor's desperate verbal flatulence in support of his little empire of tyranny, interesting times may be ahead.
____________________________________
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.
____________________________________
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
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.
Monday, March 17, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
"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.
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.
Friday, March 14, 2008
"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".
___________________________
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".
___________________________
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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.
_________________
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.
_________________
Sunday, March 09, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
"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".
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".
Friday, March 07, 2008
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.
_______________________
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.
_______________________
Thursday, March 06, 2008
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.
___________________
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.
___________________
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
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.
______________________
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.
______________________
Monday, March 03, 2008
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)