Anarchists and Lotteries

I can understand why people still pay taxes. The guns of the state pointed at your back if you refuse and all that. Less understandable is why people play the state lottery.

I started thinking about this after standing in line waiting to pay for my milk while some guy bought $36.00 "worth" of lottery tickets. One ...... at ...... a ...... time. OK, not quite one at a time, but not quickly either. I am not an impatient person; just ask anyone who travels around with me. I can happily wait for a whole line of cars to pull into the intersection. Or I can invite people to cut in front of me, especially if I am having a lazy day. I was just thinking how much money the guy was wasting, and what he might use the money for if he hadn't been handing it over to the Rulers. Anyway, back to the topic.

Someone once called a lottery "A tax on people who are bad at math". When you realize your chance of winning is less than your chance of being obliterated by an asteroid strike you should put that money back in your pocket. Or buy something useful, like ammo.

The other thing is that it is a completely voluntary tax. There are no goons with guns forcing you to pay. You are walking in and voluntarily handing your money to the state. Money that you could use better and that the state doesn't deserve. Yes, I realize there is a tiny chance of a payoff, and I have succumbed to the temptation a couple of times. Still, that is money that is going to the state, and we who know better should not give a cent to the state voluntarily.

Just something to think about.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mottos

Here are some new mottos for government programs, agencies, and people.


The USA PATRIOT Act: "Protecting you from liberty." or "Giving the government more ability to combat Liberty."

The IRS: "You would have just wasted your money on food and rent anyway."

TSA: "Making air travel safe for terrorists."

BATFE: "Ensuring the government's monopoly on force grows stronger each day."

FDA: "Making your life and death decisions so you and your doctor won't have to."

CIA: "Creating foreign terrorists for the next generation."

The military: "Helping tyranny in the name of freedom."

Department of Education: "Creating submissive serfs through ignorance".

The Federal Reserve: "Making your money worthless to enrich ourselves."

The Democratic National Committee: "Still pretending we are different than the Republicans".

The Republican National Committee: "Still pretending we are different than the Democrats."

The Libertarian Party: "Pretending to still have principles."

The Supreme Court: "Grabbing power that is not ours to take since 1803."

Congress: "Still the opposite of progress."

EPA: "The world's worst polluter ordering you to protect the environment."

Department of Agriculture: "Preventing preparedness through bribery."

Department of Energy: "Innovation in private hands scares us!"

DEA: "Killing for chemicals."

Department of Justice: "Oops. We meant 'just us'"

Border Patrol: "Your friendly jailers."

Police departments across the land: "We are the 'standing army' your founders warned you about!"

National Firearms Act of 1934: "Infringing on your 'militia-appropriate weapons' just to see if we could get away with it. And we have for 74 years and still counting!"

Gun Control Act 0f 1968: "What 'slippery slope'?"

The Brady Act: "Look where momentum will take you."

Obama: "It depends what you mean by 'hope' and 'change'."

McCain: "I hope you mean to change my Depends."

Barr: "I hope and depend on a change in what 'liberty' means.



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

Self Defense Thoughts

From Check Your Premises we get What is self-defense? Part 2. I think this is an important issue for us all to consider. You can read the previous discussion by following his links.

As I said in his comments, I don't usually consider verbal threats to be very serious, even if it is possible for the threatener to follow through. I have had several people make threats towards me during my life, but have yet to have someone really try to carry the threat out. Perhaps it is because I made it clear that I would defend myself if they tried. Perhaps it is because they cooled off or decided I wasn't worth the effort. Whichever, it means I have not been backed into a corner yet.

I realize that the state is a different critter: it threatens by its very existence, and it does carry out the threats against selected victims. Therefore, I think self-defensive actions are justified, if not always wise. I think it is usually easy to escape notice by the state, but I don't expect or demand anyone to live their life as a scurrying rodent hiding from a predator. I guess this is another case of wishy-washy "do what you like": confront, scurry, scheme, "gulch", or strike back. What is right for me may not be right for you in your current circumstance.

I do think that government is irredeemably evil, but I refuse to live my life worrying about what its agents or enforcers think about me. Government: disgusting, morally vacant, harmful to life and liberty, and never to be trusted with even the smallest power, but still almost completely irrelevant. Until something changes, I don't feel intimidated by them and I hope it stays that way.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Sense of "Belonging"

I can understand, in a way, why some people wish to join the military or do other things that make them a part of a group. They want to feel a sense of belonging. It is probably why they obsess over the term "brothers", too. It is unfortunate when those who claim to value liberty join a group that actively works to destroy it, and that is controlled by the worst enemy liberty has ever had, but I can at least see why they willingly blind themselves to that fact. Their need to belong overpowers their love of liberty.

I have rarely had that feeling of belonging. I have always been the black sheep. Maybe it is because I am not willing to turn my back on what I value in order to belong to a group that has opposite values. I would like to be a part of a group (real-life; not virtual) that mirrors my values. I would even enjoy a neutral group that has nothing to do with "values" of any sort, but is simply fun. I used to have that with karaoke. In my current situation, that may not be possible, but I will keep my eyes open to the possibility.


--------------------------------

Family

I had started writing this blog when I discovered that Sunni had already kinda beat me to the punch on some of my points. Oh well. I will go ahead and say what I was planning to say anyway!

Even though my family thinks I am rather odd, I feel that in a lot of ways I owe them for my oddness. It was my family who raised me and therefore encouraged me to exercise my ability to think for myself. I may have come to some different conclusions than they would have chosen, but without the freedom to think for myself, I would have never become an anarchist. With their support I was able to resist the brainwashing effects of the public "school" system. I was able to see through the smoke and mirrors of the state. For those things, and more, I thank them.

I think my differences with my family concerning individual liberty come down to the incontrovertible fact (in my eyes, at least) that is is absolutely wrong to punish a person for activities that harm no one but himself. Particularly as in "drug abuse". That fact stymies them every time. They just can't see it. I don't think it is a good thing to harm yourself with anything (medications, "cutting", overeating, job addiction), but adding "punishment" to the equation is just sick and perverted. Talk about making a bad situation worse!

If a person who is abusing drugs harms others, he is subject to self-defense (or owes restitution) just the same as anyone else. I am not excusing aggression by him or by anyone else. His problem does not give the state or anyone else the authority to coerce him to change his self destructive behavior; not through kidnapping (arrest, or forced treatment) or theft (fines, or civil-asset forfeiture). If you try to do so, you are the one committing the aggression and subject to the price of such behavior. And that is just as it should be.

My family would probably disagree, citing some responsibility to save people from themselves, or to prevent aggression before it happens. Unfortunately, they would be causing more damage than they prevented. Giving the state power over the lives of non-aggressors is the worse possible thing you could do to individual liberty. It just comes down to what you value. I can't speak for you, but as for me, I choose liberty!


_________________________________

"Gun Crimes"

Some anti-gun (or gun ambivalent) people assume that since I despise victim disarmament "laws" with every cell of my body and every spark of my synapses, I have never lost a friend to a gun-wielding attacker. They would be wrong.

My best friend from my teen years was killed by a gunshot to his abdomen when he was 24 years old. The shooter was only charged with manslaughter and I don't know what ever happened in that case. I didn't care because nothing would have brought my friend back. That doesn't mean I would associate with his killer in any way (being a firm believer in the power of shunning), but revenge ("punishment") accomplishes nothing. Could a gun have saved my friend's life? I don't know since only the killer knows what really transpired in those fatal moments. If the killer's story is true, then a gun would not have saved my friend. If the killer is lying, then it was a fatal mistake for my friend to be unarmed. I would not have denied him the tools to have a chance at changing the outcome.

A few years later another very good friend was murdered by an ex-boyfriend whom she had gotten a restraining order against. That "paper shield" didn't work too well. She was working for a lawyer, and he was advising her on how to deal with the stalker, who kept walking away from the mental health facility where he was supposedly living. I wonder if her boss advised her to get a gun and learn how to use it. If not, he didn't do all he could have done. If I had been around her during this time, I certainly would have helped her in that way. Would it have saved her life? I don't know. The killer pulled up beside her at a traffic light and shot her in the head. I don't know if she ever knew he was there. Situational awareness is so important.

(I had another friend who was shot by a mugger, but survived. Once again, his situational awareness was nonexistent and allowed the attacker to grab him from behind before he was detected. A gun in my friend's hand would probably have changed nothing.)

The point is that my dead friends would be just as dead had they been killed by fists, knives, bricks, or poison. Why do hoplophobes focus on the gun instead of the violation of the ZAP? To deny others the most effective tools for self-defense ever invented because bad people sometimes use the same tools is positively retarded. Give everyone the chance to choose the tools they prefer, without bowing to the desires of the Rulers and freelance aggressors. Helping the most vulnerable among us helps us all.



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

Eating Our Own

Recent discussions with Joey of The Freedom Symposium have illustrated to me what I think trips up the liberty movement*. The debate has really made me think, and has been very educational and helpful to me. It has helped me understand even more clearly why I believe what I believe (even if am not able to articulate it completely). None of this should be construed as an attack on him or his website, because I certainly don't mean it that way.

If you are a libertarian, you are already free, or at least well on your way to being a free anarchist (don't let that shock you. Just give it time). No one can truly enslave you without your consent, and often-times, with your help. Your body can be caged, it is true, but that isn't the worst enslavement. As long as you refuse to submit, in your mind, you remain free. That is the deepest freedom there is, and forms the foundation of physical freedom.

Most of us want to do so much more, though. We want the rest of the world to experience the joy and wonder of liberty that we experience. There is a stumbling block in our path: libertarians and anarchists will never get far in our quest for freeing the rest of the world if we can't stop "eating our own". It turns off those who may be interested by giving the appearance of a hostile environment. If they want that kind of life they can join the mainstream statists.

So many times we fall into the trap of "the only way". We decide our carefully, logically, thought out approach is the only way that will work to free everyone else. We tend to forget (because liberty is so important to us) that many people are scared of liberty and don't think they want to be free. Those people can be ignored for now. We can only help to free those who want it. The others will come around later, or they will join the statists in trying to kill those of us who insist on "liberty for ALL".

Look at history. "The only way" in any area is almost always wrong. Even paths that have led nowhere in the past may work in the future since the landscape constantly evolves. Don't limit your options, and don't denigrate others who are honestly trying. As for the in-fighting....I don't think it leads anywhere except to more centuries of statist domination.


*Just a joke. But sometimes I feel we are about as relevant to the world-at-large.

"Independence" means.......

"Independence means we have an awesome military!" Huh?

That was an actual quote I heard on the radio during "Independence" day. No wonder so few people understand freedom, liberty, and independence; they are looking in the wrong places for the wrong things. It is very disheartening to hear such vacuous statements as the above quote. How can people work for liberty, or even value it, if they don't have the foggiest clue what it is? How can we educate them when they don't want to hear?

Unless and until the military surrounds DC and cordons it off to keep the tyranny contained, the military has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting "liberty".

"Independence" means you are not dependent. There is no such thing as complete independence since all living beings are dependent on the sun and/or chemicals of some sort, and other life (for us "higher" forms). We should not be dependent on unnecessary things, though. As humans we should never be dependent on theft and coercion, which is all government consists of. For humans "independence" means that we are not a burden on others and do not live as a parasite. It means that we only are part of voluntary associations and do not force ourselves and our preferences on others. Government worship is the polar opposite of "Independence". To support government is to spit on liberty and independence.


_____________________

Is There a Silver Bullet?

Ignoring the state is satisfying, but does it accomplish anything more than making me feel good? I doubt that enough people can be convinced to ignore government to make a real dent. I'd love for you to prove me wrong!

Can education reach enough people, and illustrate to them that government is never the right way to solve anything? To show them that coercion is wrong, and collective coercion is the wrongest of the wrongs? It can help. Spread the news every chance you get!

Resistance is futile. At least for your individual liberty. The state and its sympathizers love to make an example of resisters. Liberty already has enough martyrs. If you have the guts for it, though, go ahead and make a stand, but be sure it can't be swept under the rug or ignored by the general population. Otherwise you are just preaching to the choir.

Can politics be used to gain more liberty for me or for you? Since, as I have said, "politics is a method people use to get along with those they dislike", I have my doubts that it can be used for much, other than harming others in some way. Still, if you can make a scene and get your point across.... there are those who automatically reject more unconventional methods; you may convince a few of them.

Voting is something I am very wishy-washy on. Sometimes it is fun, otherwise I would NEVER do it. I don't feel obligated to "go along" with results of elections that I don't agree with, and you shouldn't either. My rights are not up for vote.

Any form of "working within the system" is crippled by the fact that the patients are running the asylum ... and making the rules. Just try to get on a jury when you know your true responsibility. Yet, if you are sneaky enough, you just might make it on a jury and be able to save some innocent person from being state-raped.

The thing is, I don't know what will eventually topple the state and neither do you. It may be one of the paths already being trod, or it may be something new and completely unforeseen. That is why you should keep trying whichever method you like the most. Pricking, stinging, buzzing, tickling, distracting, and otherwise annoying the state in whatever way you can. Eventually something, somewhere, will be the final straw that will make it crumble like a camel-dung tower. We can't afford to stop trying on even one front.


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

Patriotism and Independence Day

Time's Up for Tyranny.

Many people think "patriotism" is waving the US flag on "Independence Day", or reciting the socialists' "Pledge of Allegiance". Maybe it is. I prefer to not be called "patriotic" anyway.

I stand up for liberty for the individual; not loyalty to a government. Rights should always carry more weight than "authority". Instead of the US flag, I fly either the good old Gadsden flag (the real American flag) or the Time's Up flag. I think about what true "liberty" and "independence" are. I try to stay away from the war-lovers and the tyranny deniers. Those things are negative and negative people bring me down. Life is too short and precious to waste it on them.

If others honor and respect the same things, I am right there beside them; if not.... well, eventually time will show who is right.


PS: If you've always wanted a "Time's Up" flag, but been unable to afford one, here's a nice, free, virtual one you can use anywhere (online, anyway) you want. Enjoy it.

____________________________

The OverRulers

Government isn't just made up of Rulers, but of OverRulers.
They don't like the rules they are required to follow, so they overrule them.
They don't like the medicines or methods your doctor thinks would treat your condition, so they overrule him.
They don't like who you choose to love, so they overrule you.
They don't like the way you would prefer to live your life, so they overrule you.
And we let them do it!

Why?

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

"The Heller Misdirection" By William Norman Grigg

This is the best analysis I have seen of the Heller decision: The Heller Misdirection:

I especially enjoyed this paragraph:

We can't really expect a statist creature like Antonin Scalia to embrace the
view that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of citizens, acting
either individually or collectively, to kill agents of the state when such
action is necessary and morally justified. Any other view of the Second
Amendment is worse than useless; this is certainly true of the view that emerges
in Scalia's Heller opinion.

I guess Mr. Grigg is threatening to kill people, just like I get accused of doing.

I have been saying that the Heller decision is not a good thing for freedom in the long run. It seems more and more people are reaching the same conclusion. As long as you say something is an individual right, yet can be "limited", you are saying it is NOT a right at all, but a privilege that is granted by the state. That is disastrous for ALL our rights, not just the right to own and to carry weapons. As long as we assent to be subject to the whims of the state our rights are meaningless. Do not fall for it.

Your rights are absolute; not subject to limitations or restrictions. No court, not even a supreme one, has the authority to whittle even the smallest sliver off of your rights. So don't let them pretend that they do. Remember that, even according to a previous Supreme Court decision, you have no obligation to obey any "law" that violates the Constitution because, as they said, it is not really a "law". I guess it is a counterfeit "law".

Of course, in that same decision, the Supreme Court justices became criminals by illegally stealing power that was not theirs to have; leading to this whole "interpreting the Constitution" mess that we keep finding ourselves in. But that is just another example of why you and I should not get our sense of right and wrong from the Clowns of Coercion.

Thanks to The War on Guns

Libertarians

It is becoming more and more popular to call yourself a "libertarian". You see many scoundrels running for office or giving misleading opinions under that banner. It is much less popular to actually live up to the label.

I'll ignore what I consider to be the core principle of "libertarianism" for this post, since I can still illustrate my point without bringing it up. I will also not bring up the point that "anarchism" is simply "libertarianism" in full bloom; taken to its logical conclusion. (Ooops! Did I say that?)

Not everyone who calls themselves a libertarian or hangs out with libertarians is one. No matter what your own internal definition of "libertarian" happens to be, I am sure you would agree that many so-called "libertarians" hold mutually exclusive ideas and values. You can not embrace individual liberty while thinking the answer to "the problem" lies in more (or more powerful) government and more (or stricter enforcement of) "laws".

"Libertarian". The core of the word is "liberty". So anyone who is opposed to liberty or seeks to limit it in any way (except where it harms innocent people) must not, by definition, be a "libertarian". It is like saying you could be opposed to good health and be a doctor. Not impossible, but definitely irrational.

The "argument" often used by the timid so-called "libertarians" is: "you can't really want to get completely rid of cops or taxes or all gun laws or....? That would lead to chaos and death in the streets!" I doubt it would, but.... Sometimes individual liberty might be inconvenient. It might even be dangerous. No one who values the individual over the collective ever said life would be or should be safe. A safe life (totally imaginary, by the way) would not be worth much anyway. Liberty is unexpected and exciting. It has no guarantees or limits. Even so, the alternative is much worse. The worst among us get drawn toward a position inside the state's machinery where they can use coercion to control and harm others in ways a freelance attacker can only dream of.

There are many socialists of the "left" and the "right" who are trying to have a bit of the libertarian glow rub off on them by claiming the label. Yet they are not willing to leave their love of the state and their distrust of individual liberty behind where it belongs. If this applies to you, you may need to rethink your ideas of yourself. It embarrasses the rest of us who actually believe in real individual liberty and are not ashamed to stand up for it... even when it is inconvenient.



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

"SHHHHH! Don't Make a Scene!"

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I have seen the above quote attributed to several people, so I will let you sort it out. All I can say for sure is that it didn't originate with me. But I do agree with the quote, "extremely".

It seems that there are a lot of people, even self-proclaimed "libertarians", who disagree with that quote, though. Yes, I am an extremist when it comes to individual liberty. So? There can be no compromise; no equivocation; no "ifs, ands, or buts" because: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” (Ayn Rand)

I will not ever call for the killing of innocent people, nor have I ever done such a thing. It violates the ZAP. However: "In self defense and in defense of the innocent, killing is not murder, hesitation is not moral, and cowardice is the only sin." (Dean Koontz). If you do not want to be subject to being killed in self-defense, it is an extremely simple thing to avoid. Don't attack the innocent. It isn't that hard, I promise. If your job makes it an impossible standard to live up to, then you should change jobs.

Don't mistake resolve for anger. I am not angry, and in fact, I am happy and relaxed. I simply will not be pushed. I will not compromise. I will be a soul-mirror: the attitude you approach me with will be reflected. Approach me with a full recognition that I am aware that my rights are an inborn trait, not subject to your wishes, and we will have no problems since I have the same understanding and awareness of your rights. I have no pathological desire to rule you or your children. I will consider any attempt to rule me or my children as an unjustified attack. Yet, I am not angry. Just resolved. Too many have been too polite to those whose behavior and attitude do not warrant politeness. Look where it has led.

If you take this as a threat, then obviously you are planning to attack an innocent person, or you support those who do. Either way you need to examine your beliefs and positions. You are on the side of the aggressors.


________________________

A Letter to the Editor

In the local paper, I read an editorial that got me stirred up. The editor makes anti-government sounds, but he is just anti-this government. He believes that there could be a good government out there somewhere.

I wrote this in response and it was published on June 19, 2008. You can get the gist of his editorial by my response, but it is not available online.
____________________________________________________________

Dear Editor,

In your Border Banter column of June 12, you seemed to be saying that politicians are not doing the "right things"; that with different scoundrels in office, the process would "work". It isn't the particular scoundrels that are wrong, it is the process.

Your hero, FDR, set many of the things in motion that have led to our current situation. Socialism by any other name still doesn't work. Gridlock in congress is the safest course of action. There are more than enough laws to interfere with our lives for centuries to come without any new ones being passed. The best way for government, at any level, to help the middle class is to get out of our way and let us do what we do best: build America one person at a time. The same for the health care crisis. Allow people to choose their medications or health care providers without state interference. Allow doctors to prescribe alternative treatments they feel might work better and cheaper for a particular patient. More government always brings a cost that is greater than the benefit. I have enough sense to make decisions for myself. Don't you?

Inflation is a phantom. The real problem is that our money has been stolen by government printing presses. When your money is not backed by anything of value, such as gold or silver, and more can be printed out of thin air, it will always lose value. Fiat currency creates the illusion of price increases as it sinks towards worthlessness. A gallon of gasoline still costs about the same as the silver content of a pre-1964 quarter. Think about that for a moment. Gas at a quarter per gallon, except that our "new" non-silver quarters are no longer worth a quarter, but only about a penny.

Redistribution of wealth is wrong. Controlling the lives of people who are harming no one but themselves is wrong. To allow a majority to vote to violate the rights of a minority is wrong. As long as you have a system that allows or even demands such things, our society will still be sick with all the bad things you griped about: inflation, silly regulations, clueless politicians, healthcare crises, and a middle class that bears the burden of the parasitic class of Rulers.

Sincerely, Kent McManigal

"The Rejection of Liberty"

Please take the time to read The Rejection of Liberty by Rick Flame. It gives a good review of the reasons people may use in choosing government over liberty.

Using "The Law" Against Its Creators

Most libertarians would recoil at the thought of using "The Law". It is impossible to do without getting the stink of it on your hands. Kinda like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.

Remember that "The Law" is a weapon. When a weapon is used against you in an attack, there are 3 possible outcomes: You will be defeated (killed or surrender, no real difference); You will escape; Or you will seize the weapon from the attacker and use it against him, leading to another set of those 3 possible outcomes.

"The Law" is the primary weapon the state uses against free people. Its guns only come into play when "The Law" has not gotten the result the state demands. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, when attacked with "The Law", to seize it and use it against the aggressor. It is less acceptable to use "The Law" against non-state aggressors. There are more ethical ways of defending yourself against them.

As a possible example of using "The Law" against the state: If your state forbids concealed carry, or "requires" a permit, but "allows" open carry, use "The Law" to rub their noses in it. Carry your gun openly wherever you go. Depending on where you live, you will probably be harassed, so only do this if you are willing to be treated like a leper.

There are plenty of other examples I am sure you can think of. Just remember: don't judge those who use "The Law" against the state, nor those who refuse to do so. Both options may be right for different people.


-------------------------------

Parental Responsibility

How long is a parent responsible for the actions of their child? Obviously a parent is not responsible for the actions of their 30 year old offspring, but what about a 16 year old? Or a 10 year old? I am not sure, since I don't hold anyone responsible for the actions of another.

You can try to instill responsibility and self-governance in your kids, but that doesn't mean it will "take". Even a toddler has the ability to do things that the parents disapprove of. Sometimes without the knowledge of even the most vigilant parent. The tots don't yet have the ability to accept the consequences of their actions, but does that mean their parents automatically are responsible? Even if the parents did nothing wrong and did the absolute best they could? To punish a person for the actions of another is a collectivist idea; one that disturbs me on a deep level, even if the person is assumed to be the "owner" of the other person (which seems to be the assertion when parents are punished for the actions of their kids).

I think about this because my family gets very disturbed by my activism. I am way beyond the age where my parents would reasonably be held accountable for the things I say and write, yet they still feel that what I say, in these blogs and in letters-to-editors, sometimes reflects badly on them.


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

The Supremes on The Second Amendment

I was right. "What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change."

So, they ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that whatever limits they wish to place upon that right, such as permits, licenses, fees, and prohibitions on effective weapons of military design (the exact weapons specifically protected by the Second Amendment) are OK. Just as long as they pretend it is not an outright ban on guns.

Wrong again, psychos. Rights can not be limited, restricted, licensed, or abolished; but only respected or violated. Guess which side of the fence you have come down on once again.


____________________________________

Drug Use and Religion

I rarely write a blog for such a specific group, but this is one of those times. I am only talking to those Christians (or other religious people) who support drug prohibition. Please read the entire thing before getting angry.

Religion has a lot in common with drug use. Either one can be used in moderation or can be abused. Both can change your perception of reality. Both can make you happy while the effects last. Both have, at various times, been mandated or forbidden. Neither one harms anyone but the "self" as long as it is not coercively pushed on anyone else, and as long as it leads to no aggression. There are those who can point to a lot of aggression that both have caused when abused. Those who participate in both try to get more people to join them, saying that you just need to "try it to understand it".

To support the "War on (some) Drugs" is to make it more likely that the same excuses will be used to declare a "War on (some) Religions" as well. Remember that you do not own your neighbor's life; he does. Or, if you are of the religious persuasion: God does. In neither case do you have any say in what he does as long as he is harming no innocent person. None. To behave otherwise is to initiate force against him "for his own good", which is never really for his own "good".





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

Eleven Seconds of Anarchistic Peace and Tranquility

Relax.

No one is ruling you right now.

You are the owner of your own life.

This is reality; not the nonsense spewing from those wanna-be dictators who issue draconian edicts in an infantile attempt to control you from afar.

This is the sound of anarchy.

Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------

State Propaganda

Do those horrible statist ad campaigns like "Click it or Ticket" or the local New Mexican abomination "100 Days and Nights of Summer" make you think of historical statist propaganda? They certainly do remind me of such things. Tyranny in catchy blurbs.

What would it have been like in 1930s Germany if their government had used similar campaigns? For Jews, the "Stars or Bars" campaign would have reminded them to wear their Star of David patch. "1 Night of Sparkling Shards" could have gotten more government sympathizers to join in for Krystalnacht. Make up a catchy slogan and anything can be made to seem reasonable to some people, I suppose.

You may accuse me of overblowing the situation with the comparison. Maybe, but if so if is only a matter of scale, not of substance. Once people begin to accept the unacceptable, anything is possible.

Statism isn't "nicer" today just because it uses actors portraying LEOs (Liberty Eradication Officers) in TV ads to indoctrinate or frighten us into accepting oppression. Hitler's disadvantage was that he didn't have the US government's ad men working for him. Oh, and he was probably even more evil (but give them time).

Kelo Day

This isn't as much fun as Anarchy Day, but is a good reason to celebrate anarchy. Kelo Day marks the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo Decision that allows government more leeway for stealing..... I mean "eminent domain" (cough).

I have written before that eminent domain is a disgusting act of theft-by-government. This is an important issue to keep in mind, and refuse to excuse. I wrote this when I began blogging:

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government. I realize this is a
long-established practice, but it is still wrong. If you or I desperately want a
certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find
another piece of land. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality. Government
should not own land, much less steal it. There is no such thing as "the common
good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

Here is some information I received about Kelo Day:

You may have read about one of the Institute for Justice's (IJ)
historic Supreme Court cases called Kelo v. New London, in which a
homeowner, Susette Kelo, held out against a private developer seeking to turn
her home into debris by way of eminent domain. The court ruled in favor of
New London, and paved the way for property rights of individuals to be
substantially and absurdly quashed in the twenty-first
century.

This Monday is the third anniversary for the Supreme
Court's infamous decision. For the anniversary, Susette Kelo is hoping
that those who strongly oppose eminent domain support the IJ in its effort to
end eminent domain abuse. You can help support this powerful
message by donating to the Institute for Justice, and help curtail the
incidence of eminent domain abuse, which in the past five years
alone included over 10,000 cases.

To donate or to view more
information, check out www.ij.org/keloday

And then also:

The lawyer in the Kelo case argued the wrong argument and that is why Mrs. Kelo
lost her case and walked away with a pittance. If the case had been centered
upon just compensation per the Monongahela Navigation Company case, she would
have greatly benefitted financially from the transaction.

Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312
(1893)
“What amount of compensation for each separate use of any particular
property may be charged is sometimes fixed by the statute which gives authority
for the creation of the property, sometimes determined by what it is reasonably
worth and sometimes, if it is purely private property, devoted only to private
uses, the matter rests arbitrarily with the will of the
owner.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/148/312/case.html

The "Punishment Mentality"

It disturbs me a bit to realize that some people live their lives just to see someone else get punished. "Give 'em what they've got coming!" gives them a thrill. I admit, there are some people I can't dredge up much sympathy for (does "initiating force, or threatening or delegating its initiation" ring a bell?).

Maybe it is like a reality show for them. After all, garbage like "COPS" has been polluting minds for many years now. So the "good citizen" hears about Person X and the accusations against him; sees Person X go to trial and then to jail; then gets giddy at the prospect of Person X suffering extra-judicial punishment at the hands of the other prisoners. I just don't get it. I realize that we are all just one set-up away from being locked up on some bogus charge. Yes, even the most "patriotic" among us. The crimes that elicit this response the most often are also the easiest for the enforcers to fake.

On the other hand, when some attacker gets culled from the gene pool by an armed, free Human, I don't shed a tear. It is simply that I don't, and never will, trust the state and its methods or goals.


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

Control-Freaks

I just don't understand why some people have the strong desire to control others. Isn't it enough to control themselves? Yet, so many of those control-freaks don't control themselves. They seem to want to control others instead.

Some of them gravitate towards jobs, such as in government, where they can use coercion to control others, while some simply exercise their coercion and control in their private lives. Either way, they seek to become the tyrant of their own mini-kingdom.

My desire to control others ends at the borders of my own existence: Try to force me to do your bidding, and I will try to control, limit, or end your ability to coerce me, or if that fails, I will simply resist. I think this puts me in a definite minority (again). Ah well. I am used to it.

Financing Government

I hear people calling for tax penalties against oil companies. I say it is a bad idea. I also hate it when some person, even an aggressor, is ordered to pay a "fine". Why?

Because the money goes to finance more government. That is the last thing any of us needs. If a person initiates force against another, restitution should be paid to the victim, not to the state! How does paying the state make sense to anyone? I know that many court cases are "Person v The State of Coercion" or whatever, but unless there is at least one real, individual victim, there was no "aggression" committed.

Tax penalties and fines only make sense to those who see nothing wrong with more money financing more government to pass more "laws" to collect more fines to... and so on, in order to clamp down on individual liberty even harder.

Anarchy Day

Just a quick update, since I actually have internet access for the next day or so.

I spent today, June 18 (and actually, the past couple of days as well), doing my "Random Acts of Anarchy". I think that because no one has suggested another date, I will declare June 18th as my "Anarchy Day". It also happens to be my birthday, but that seems a good date for Anarchy Day to me. Join me if you like, or declare your own date.

If you would like to participate next year, it will give you a year to plan ahead. Maybe the 18th of each month could be a "Mini-Anarchy Day".

So, what did I do to celebrate my public, helpful anarchism? I flew my Time's Up flag and picked up litter in the campground where we were staying. Anarchists beat the statists once again!

Why a "Hooligan Libertarian"?

In some correspondence with L. Neil Smith a few years ago, he mentioned that someone he knows refers to him and those like him as "hooligan libertarians". I liked the sound of it and embraced the term.

I realize that in many European countries, a "hooligan" is a violent criminal; someone who initiates force. That is not what I mean when I use the term, nor do I expect that is what Mr. Smith or his friend meant. A few years ago, I saw a local newspaper call some teens who were being "typical-teen rowdy", but not causing any real harm, "hooligans". I still get a chuckle from that occasionally.

I see a "hooligan libertarian" as someone who is a radical libertarian and who isn't always exactly "safe for work". He will probably tell the truth as he sees it even if he knows it will offend someone's sensibilities. Even if every other self-proclaimed libertarian wants the message to be downplayed and softpeddled, a "hooligan libertarian" will probably not back down from what he knows to be true. This doesn't necessarily mean he is cold hearted, but that sometimes the truth hurts, and the kindest action, in the long run, is to "rip off the bandaid quickly".

So that is why I am "Kent McManigal, the Hooligan Libertarian".


____________________________

Vacation Time

I have a few pre-written blogs so you won't miss me too much, but if you post a comment and I don't respond for a while, that is why. If I have internet access, I may write some more as I find inspiration, but really, this is what freedom is all about: the freedom to ignore politics and the state (while never forgetting that the Clowns of Coercion are lurking everywhere).

Live free or die? Scratch that! Live free or kill those who would prevent it!* Hey, its better than giving up and dying if they try to take your freedom!




*I don't think this is threatening anyone, but is the very essence of self-defense. If you feel differently, as ENM does, I am sorry, but I don't know any other way to express the commitment to live free without drawing a line in the sand. I have never even hurt anyone, since no one has ever crossed that line (or at least no one has crossed it and stayed across). I hope no one ever forces me to make that decision, but to equivocate about whether I will defend my life and my liberty would be exactly the way the aggressors would like for us to all act. They want us to be too afraid to say "No more!" That just leads to more aggression and less liberty.
________________________

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Ten

"Now that the government has evaporated in this region, 'America', more or less, we have an interesting immigration situation. But first, the historical perspective.

"Back when the old US government was ruling this region, borders and immigration were big points of contention. The borders gave government agents a great excuse to 'earn' extra bonuses and exercise their inflated authority. Too few people recognized that a wall keeps you in as effectively as it keeps 'them' out. Or even more effectively. The state kept demanding more and more documentation of Americans, using the dreaded 'illegal immigrants' as the boogeyman. The true migrant aggressors never were worried about documentation. So, once again, the 'government solution' only harmed those who were not part of the problem. You see the same pattern emerge time and again.

"Only one side of the issue was given much attention: the aggression (usually called 'crime' back in the Era of Government) caused by independent migrants. The other side; the positive benefits, were ignored or downplayed. As is always the case, the migrants were 'taking over', costing 'us' millions, speaking some other 'unAmerican language', or had 'different values'. A hundred years before they would have been accused of cannibalism.

"The government was assumed to own all the land within 'its' borders, otherwise there would not have been an issue. That was the only justification, faulty though it was, for not allowing property owners to administer the use of their own property.

"Now that America has no government, and the governments of some nearby countries are entering their death throes, the border situation has become a bit cloudy. People come here; people leave here. Only the governments worry about it. Many Americans earn a profit ensuring safe passage into and out of free territory. That enrages those nearby governments, but they are too busy trying not to evaporate to do much about it. And each new freedom-loving friend who moves here is one more 'for our side'.

"Since there is no more welfare of any kind, no one moves to America to get free anything, except for opportunity. Since self-defense has become standard practice again, aggressors stay where they are safe: under the wings of government. So many new businesses are started by these 'liberty-migrants' that there is no way to compare the economy before and after. A 'singularity' has been achieved. Businesses compete for any new employee they can get. The pay for those workers has also skyrocketed, and with no more state to tax or extort, they keep that money and then often start more new businesses. You see why I say a 'singularity' occurred.

"As news of free territory leaks back to those other countries, still languishing under government, more people choose to stay and change their own land than choose to move here. Love for 'home' is strong. Liberty is a wildfire sweeping across the face of the planet. I can't predict with certainty, of course, but based on past experience, I would say government as an acceptable human activity is in its last decade. It will die everywhere as it did here, and not a moment too soon."


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

My Childrens' Book

I think I may have mentioned that I have written and illustrated a picture book (titled "Indy-Pindy") for kids that teaches, I hope, independence and self-reliance. I am still looking for a publisher, since my online presence may be scary to traditional publishers. If the above page looks interesting, let me know. If you are a publisher, maybe this book could be right for you.

Update: The book is available here: Indy-Pindy, the Liberty Mouse

Liberty

I am going back to basics because it seems that so few people understand the basics. At least the basics as I understand them; as I mean when I speak of them.

"Liberty" means doing what you want to do as long as you are not harming any innocent person with your actions. It means that YOU own your body and your life and are the sole proprietor thereof. If you destroy yourself, you accept the responsibility and you deal with the consequences. You do not blame others or take the easy way out by becoming a parasite.

"Libertarians" are people to value "liberty" above all else. They are not people who value the "US Constitution" above everything, but they can and do use it to point out how far America has fallen from its early semi-libertarian ideals. Liberty is not possible when there is a government calling the shots. Even a very small, weak government harms liberty. It is just not possible for government to exist without doing so. This is why libertarians are also anarchists. I know there are those who disagree with me. They can take it up with greater experts than me.

"Anarchy" means "no Rulers"; not "no rules". Yes, I know the dictionary also equates it with "chaos", but that is because common, incorrect, usage has burdened the real definition with the faulty one. This has happened with many words because we speak a living, changing language. To have a word that means "'No Rulers'; not 'no rules'" we would need to make up a new word every few years. It is the nature of language and can't be avoided. This is why, when I speak of certain things, I post (somewhere in my blog) what I mean when I use the word. This is one of those cases.


__________________________

"Right and Wrong".... It's Not That Hard

It is wrong to harm an innocent person. This means that rape, murder, and kidnapping are wrong. There is no justification for these acts of aggression.

It is wrong to steal from people. That means that Nigerian scams, taxation, armed robbery, burglary, looting, and shoplifting are wrong. If it is not yours, and the owner doesn't want to give it to you as a gift, you have no right to take it. Making veiled threats to coerce the owner into parting with his property is just as bad. There is never any justification for these acts of aggression.

It is wrong to break an agreement such as a contract without an agreement between the signatories. If one party unilaterally breaks the deal, the deal is off. For one side to break the deal and then try to hold the other side to their part of the deal is wrong. Business or marriage partners, and constitutional governments are frequent violators where these deals are concerned. It is also wrong to trick someone into getting into an agreement (by lying or hiding the truth) that they would not otherwise accept. This behavior is wrong. There is never any justification for behaving in this way.

If you are doing something that harms no one but yourself, you have the right to continue doing it. Even if everyone else thinks you shouldn't. In that case, even if you are doing something stupid and self-destructive, if they use kidnapping ("arrest") or theft ("fines") to punish you or to force you to stop, they have crossed the line from right to wrong. Your "saviors" are committing evil.

There seem to be a lot of people in the world who believe that "right and wrong" are not clear concepts. Especially if the government is the organization committing the evil actions. Perhaps their parents did not choose to teach their children to respect others. They should have still learned the lessons before they lasted very long in "the real world". Unfortunately, most people get their "education" at the hands of the government indoctrination centers. These "public schools" have no interest in teaching such concepts since it might make children question why it is that evil acts are OK if the state is the the one doing them.



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

Defending Liberty... And Getting Lashed Angrily

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

America in 2008 is a land and a time of universal deceit. It is odd, and disheartening, that when I speak out in defense of liberty I get accused of being a bad person. It happens time after time. Just because I think it is deplorable that dishonest cops can entrap pedophiles online, I am assumed to be "pro-pedophile"...or worse. Just because I will not turn my back on my parental responsibilities and let bad(ge) guys do my job for me, I am assumed to be childless.

It is absolutely sickening that America has fallen so far down the collectivist rat-hole that people can say such things about my comments on a newspaper's website, and about me personally, and no one else says "Hey, you know... maybe it is wrong for cops to become online predators themselves in order to catch pedophiles." Who cares if the Supreme Court says it is "legal"? "Legal" is not the same as "right". Am I the only one who still believes that two wrongs DO NOT make a right? If you violate the worse aggressor's rights, you will violate the most innocent person's rights, too. Just give it time.

Notice too, that they threaten to initiate force against me, by throwing the state at me for speaking out. Who was supposed to teach them right and wrong? They are also against free speech, I guess. I wonder if they believe like Bush does when it comes to the highest law of the land: the Constitution. They obviously have no respect for the Bill of Rights.

To think that these poor people believe they are "patriotic Americans". They turn a blind eye as the police state grows and becomes more and more dangerous with each passing day. They are so wrapped up in wanting to punish someone that they can't see that these same methods will eventually be used against them as well. Everyone does something that either is, or will be, frowned upon by the state. And not all of those things involve actual initiated force or fraud. Yet the state kills those people just as quickly.

It is sad that they feel the need to hate me so much. They are comfortable in their ignorance. I hope they enjoy being loaded onto the cattle cars by their "friends" in government when their "patriotism" isn't enough anymore. I'll still be speaking up for their rights when it happens.... if I am still around.


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

Ask Your Doctor if "Government" Is Right For You...

"I didn't know liberty could cause anxiety and loss of certainty! My doctor prescribed Government to give me back the illusion of security. Thank goodness for Government!

"When I suffered from liberty, I was always facing consequences for my actions. Some of those consequences were scary and uncomfortable! Now I don't need to take responsibility for my actions anymore. Government will take care of me!

"Thinking for myself is a thing of the past. I don't have to wonder now if something is right or wrong; Government tells me if it is 'legal' instead! Talk about convenience!

"Government makes the decisions about what medications I should be allowed to use; how and where I can travel; how to spend my money; and so many other things that used to burden me so terribly! But no more!

"Government saved me from the burden of self-ownership. Ask your doctor if Government is right for you! You'll be glad you did!"

Warning: Government may cause lack of morality and/or common sense. If victim disarmament or genocide occur, discontinue use and see your doctor immediately. If tyranny persists, or gets worse, discontinue use and do not seek a replacement Government. If you have a Government that lasts longer than 150 years, make nooses and seek revolutionary solutions. Government is a product of Coercion Unlimited, International.

Truth in the Media, Accidentally

Along with a story (which has since gone away due to the revamping of the CNJ's website) about a sheriff department's online entrapment scheme, I found this on the screen. The caption probably was more truthful than they intended.

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Nine

"We have previously seen the ridiculous law pollution that made a 'law-abiding' existence impossible and undesirable during the Era of Government. Now we will look at the enforcers of those counterfeit 'laws'*; the police.

"Police forces only existed for less than two centuries, yet many of the people feared that without them, society would erupt into chaos. We may laugh at their fears now, but to them, under constant brainwashing, it seemed a real threat.

"So police forces were set up everywhere. The counterfeit 'laws' that they enforced became more important to them than the safety or liberty of the people whose stolen money paid their salaries. Most of them began to see themselves as 'above the law'. They were rarely held accountable for the aggressions they committed. On the occasions where a person dared to stand up to their abuses, any lawsuit awards were paid with more stolen money rather than through restitution by the aggressor. This did not teach the out-of-control enforcers any lesson other than that they had a blank-check to commit tyranny. They were issued electrical torture devices that were somewhat less deadly than their guns, and they had a heyday zapping people of all ages for the slightest infraction of their rules.

"A few people spoke up against these badge-bullies. When this happened, the enforcers always lied that 'I don't make the laws; I just enforce them'. As we all know, without enforcement, there is no 'law'. Therefore the blame rests directly on those who make the conscious choice to uphold tyranny. Real rules need no enforcement by a special group. It is, and has always been, up to each of us to own and protect our own interests without harming any innocent person. Society will see to that through self defense, freedom of association, and shunning.

"After the evaporation of government, you might expect that all these enforcers joined their masters swinging in the breeze, yet the existence of the Enforcers' Homes proves that forgiveness is always an option. Most of these pathetic creatures would have died for lack of anyone willing to trade with them due to the popularity of shunning. Yet, charities were set up by those who felt that every human life, even the most destructive, has value. It is true that only about half of the residents of these Homes are actually former enforcers; the rest were 'criminals' from the other side of 'the law', but the two sides have always had a symbiotic relationship and more in common with one another than with the peaceful majority of people. It is a good arrangement."

(*Counterfeit "laws" are those which attempt to regulate or control anything other than actual initiated force; either physical or financial.)

Financial Aggression

Someone stole my debit card number and cleaned out my bank account. All the recent "ID verification" stuff the government puts us through didn't stop it from happening. The "partnership" between the bank and the government didn't stop it from happening. All the inconveniences I have put up with just so I can have the convenience of a bank account did nothing to protect my FRNs. So, can't we just have our liberty and privacy back? I am willing to risk having this happen again and again if I could walk into a bank and open an account without being treated like a terrorist. After all, my money is gone either way. In the long run, I'd much rather have my liberty and privacy back, and keep the thieves, governmental and freelance, out of my bank account. It would be a small price to pay, since, as those who don't understand what they are saying often say "Freedom is not free".

PS: I'm fine, so don't worry.

You Don't Have to be an Anarchist.....

You don't have to be an anarchist once you acknowledge that government is a very bad thing. After all, I know people who understand that there are associations in their lives that are harmful to them, but they do not break away. There are also those who keep thinking that with just the right tweak, government will become a wonderful protector and provider; a nursemaid in their feeble twilight years. And leprechauns will bless us all with pots of gold as we ride off into the Eastern sunset on the backs of multicolored flying unicorns..... Sorry.

So, you don't have to be an anarchist once you face the truth about government, but when you do face the facts, why would you not free yourself from fealty to the Clowns of Coercion? After all, you don't need them; they need you.


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

FreedomOutlaws.com

Have a little fun being a "freedom outlaw". Go to FreedomOutlaws.com and expose yourself. No, not in that way....


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Root of the Problem

One category of those horrible, yet hilarious, "Clowns of Coercion" that may cause the most damage are the meddling busybodies who work locally. When some local clown is bragging about getting an ordinance passed you should act like they just confessed to a murder, because in a very real sense, they did: the murder of Liberty. They should hang their head in shame, yet if they don't, you should by all means act shocked and disappointed at their selfish, coercive behavior.

As long as they continue to think of themselves as important or "involved" while destroying liberty one ordinance at a time, they will keep doing it. Ridicule or a good "shunning" may make them see that what they did is wrong. If not, at least you will know where the root of the problem lies.

Liberty can not survive as long as we keep allowing these nutcases to have their coercive enforcers run more and more aspects of our lives. These people and their actions are absolutely despicable and should not be tolerated any more than you would tolerate a slave-trader operating next door.


_________________________

The Clowns of Coercion

You know the village bureaucrat who looks for things to meddle with? The guy who feels some pathological need to make certain everyone has the proper permits and is doing everything "by the book"? You know the ATF agent who feels it is OK to lie and kill while enforcing counterfeit (and completely illegal) "laws" regulating things the government has no authority to regulate? You know the president who lies in order to get to have his war which results in near-genocide and more danger from foreign terrorists and domestic enemies inside government? How about your neighbor who swells with misplaced pride when the ordinance he proposed becomes another festering pool of law pollution? Well, all these people are "Clowns of Coercion".

They are the ones who feel justified trying to run (and ruin) your life. It gives them and their worthless lives "meaning", at least to themselves. Some of them wear clownsuits with badges; some wear business suits that come with their own nooses as standard equipment. None of them deserve any respect; only derision and ridicule. Adults mind their own business; spoiled children try to control those around them. It is time to start being amused by these clowns when they put on their act for us, and long past the time for taking them seriously and obeying their nonsense.

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Eight

"There once was a document that was widely believed to protect liberty. Unfortunately, it established a government; the opposite of liberty, as we all know. The document was called 'The Constitution of the united States of America'.

"This is one of the only surviving original copies. As you see here, it has no weapons with which to kill tyrants, so it couldn't actually protect liberty in any way. It didn't even spell out the penalty for violations by government agents. Therefore, the government became more and more coercive until it collapsed.

"That 'united States government' ignored the Constitution when it was inconvenient, which was anytime it would have impeded the growth and power of the government, with one criminal president even making some rather profane remarks about it when it was pointed out he was operating outside its authority. It was, as his fundamental point reminded Americans, just a piece of paper which did nothing to actually rein in his abuses. He forgot that it was the basis for any authority that he or his government had ever had, and once violated, 'the deal was off', as they say.

"That turned out to be a very good thing for individual liberty in the long run, but it did lead to some pretty bad short-term difficulties. When the government refuses to obey the laws that apply to it; the highest law of the land as it were, the people realize that they are no longer obligated to obey any of the 'laws' that the criminal government imposes upon them. When they have not been taught self-responsibility, bad times are sure to follow.

"A large number of ignorant aggressors, both former government and free-lance, died before a peaceful anarchy settled in. Such things always happen in order to allow the fit to survive. It is the way of nature and can be cruel, but in this case, the 'darwinized' individuals had a choice, they were even marginally educated about it if they survived more than a few weeks, and still they chose aggression and doom. Weep not for them, but celebrate our survival and our true liberty."


_____________________
Edited to change the number. Apparently I can't count!

An Open Letter to All Libertarians From Francois Tremblay

"The surest sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Libertarians, is what you’ve been doing working, and if not, why do you keep doing it? Has the constant compromise of your principles (culminating in the nomination of Bob Barr for candidate, who is about as libertarian as George Bush) resulted in any success?"
Read the rest here: Check Your Premises

A Subterranean Perspective

A Subterranean Perspective (ASP) is a libertarian-themed news source that provides an alternative commentary that samples the entire spectrum of libertarian thought-from constitutionalist to pure anarcho-capitalist and everything in between. Check them out.

C'mon, Get a Hobby!

My brother-in-law is a public school principal in a small Texas town. He knows how I feel about those government indoctrination centers, but that is a topic for another day.

I was talking to him a few days ago and he mentioned some of the odd things that the students are wearing. He was talking about the bizarre colored contacts (something which I thought of many years ago. I wanted mirrored or glow-in-the-dark ones). I said I thought that was really cool. He said that he has had townspeople call him after seeing kids with them after school hours and ask if they are allowed by the dress code! As if the school should regulate what the kids wear after school! This is when I told him he should tell those "concerned citizens" that they really needed to get a hobby!

It is no wonder society is so messed up. People are so worried that someone is not "conforming" that they make it their business to meddle with things that hurt no one in any conceivable way. It explains a lot.


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

Out of Touch

I may be out of touch for a couple of days. But perhaps you think I am always out of touch. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Practice those random acts of anarchy!

To Each His Own...

One big reason anarchy is so superior to other ways of living is that no other way allows for the different needs of individuals. I need liberty. Someone else (apparently a LOT of someone elses, by the way people vote) might have a need to be ruled. Only in an anarchistic society can both of our needs be met.

In a country ruled by a government, everyone is forced to "go along" regardless of their wishes. In an anarchistic society, if you wish to have a Ruler and live according to his whim, you would be allowed to do that. Everyone would pity you as they would pity a dying addict choking on his own bile in the gutter, but as long as you made it clear that it was your choice (probably by signing a contract of some sort), no one would force you to be free. Of course, if your Ruler tried to force any free person to live by his edicts, the Ruler would have a very, very short lifespan; just as it should be.

Others might feel a need to have a democratically elected government that would only affect those who signed on for the game. As long as they keep it to themselves and don't coerce others, they would be free to do that. They might wish to move to a compound somewhere and keep their dirty secret... well...private, but there would be no federal raids to force them to accept polite society's standards. That is how civilized humans operate.

Inspiring Anarchy

As you know, my first loyalty is to individual liberty; also known as "anarchy". It is hard for me to stay interested in electoral politics when there is no real choice who has a burning passion for individual liberty as I do. When there is a Libertarian candidate who lights a fire in my heart like Michael Badnarik did, I get interested and excited. When there is not, I get very apathetic OR I get more determined to write in my own name and encourage others to do the same. Some people might interpret both choices as different expressions of the same thing.

My commitment to voting is a day-to-day proposition. I will vote in this next election (for myself) unless something more important comes up. Next time... who knows? I don't think voting really helps, but I sometimes enjoy doing it. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother (that is the essence of liberty, you know). Inspire me to go out of my way to vote for you and I will. Bore me and I won't bother. And I certainly won't feel guilty either.

I don't know why, but I would like to be inspired by others. It is so freakishly hard to keep inspiring myself all the time (LOL). Yet, the funny thing is, I do inspire myself. It is fun living in anarchy. It is fun to look at "the way things are" and realize that there is no earthly reason for it to be that way other than lack of imagination or awareness. It is fun to know that I own my own life. Yes, I will comply or obey just enough that "they" won't murder me, but only if I think noncompliance is not worth the risk. It is invigorating to be free. Enjoy the freedom you have, don't give up any liberty, increase it whenever you can, and don't stress over the stuff that is out of your control. Tomorrow, maybe those things will be within your power to change, too.

Convince Me, Bob

While you may gather I was not pleased with the Libertarian Party's choice of Bob Barr as their candidate, I am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. Let him prove to me that he has seen the error of his ways and is willing to move America towards more freedom. Let him show me through words and actions that he knows he was dead wrong in the past and has forsaken those previous positions. Support no new laws, but only the repeal of existing ones. You betrayed us with the "Patriot" Abomination; stand up firmly against Real ID.

As I have said in the past, as long as you are willing to travel in my direction, even if you wish to stop before me, I will consider you a fellow traveller on the journey to liberty. Liberty is addictive and I don't think that once a person has experienced a little of it, they will want to stop halfway. Anarchy is the goal; libertarianism is a good rest stop.

I will probably still write my own name on my ballot, since no one has yet convinced me to do otherwise. Besides, I want to know I got at least one vote. But, here is the challenge: Convince me, Bob, that you deserve my vote.

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Seven

"So, how did the state pay for all this waste and oppression? They didn't do the logical thing and simply print more of their 'funny-money'. No, they actually engaged in theft; stealing from the people in order to enslave them. They justified their theft by passing laws that made it 'legal', and they called it 'taxation'.

"There were even a lot of liberty-lovers who denied that taxation was theft and supported the government's actions in collecting the money. They pointed to the 'laws' that had been passed and said that made it 'OK'. They didn't seem to understand that, no matter how many 'laws' the government might pass, theft is never right. It is like 'legalizing' rape. No 'law' can ever make it an acceptable act.

"There was no function of government that was worth harming even one person for, yet it happened. Many people were destroyed by the tax-thieves. Their homes and businesses, along with their money, were stolen to make an example of them. They were kidnapped and imprisoned for years. Some were murdered if they kept refusing to cooperate with the thieves at each step of the attack. This horrible abuse was perpetrated in order to frighten other people into compliance with the thieves. It worked very well. Here in this display case are some examples and dioramas showing some of the tax-thieves at work, and describing some of the victims' stories.

"People became so brainwashed that they spoke of 'owing' the government. They might as well have been speaking of 'owing a mugger his take'. Those who wished to give the state their money were well within their rights to do so, of course, but that wasn't enough for them. They wanted to give the state other people's money as well. That is where they crossed the line into advocating aggression.

"It was obviously a terribly sad era, this 'Era of Government'. That era lasted about 5000 years too long and will not be missed or mourned. Except by those mentally ill individuals who still constantly attempt to establish a new government in order to save us from liberty. It is good to keep them around as a warning of what not to do."

The Haunted House

Suppose you are considering a house to purchase. You are warned by a helpful busybody that the house is "haunted". If you don't believe in ghosts, what do you care? That which doesn't exist can't harm you, after all. Granted, those who do believe in ghosts could harm you, either by charlatanism or by over-reacting to their own overactive imaginations. The well-meaning believers, or people who wish to separate you from your money, can cause you harm using the "ghosts" as an excuse.

Government is the same. It doesn't really exist except in the minds of those who believe in it. It can not harm you, but its "fan club" certainly can. Stop believing in it, keep a suspicious eye on those who believe in it or work for it, and stop letting it rule your life.


________________________

Is There a "Libertarian for President"?

Remember that you can still write my name in if you cannot stomach voting for any of the offered candidates. My positions are still to be found at KentForLiberty.com and haven't changed. The vote will not count because of FEC rules, but the way the system is set up, I have never felt that my vote counted anyway. You may feel differently. I am constantly reminded that I am more of an anarchist than a Libertarian. Isn't that a good thing? Compared with some others who are being sold to us as libertarians, I think it is.

Lowering the Barr

Oh, great. Bob Barr? Libertarian Party nominee? How do you turn Cinderella into a princess without a fairy godmother? Or is this more like a case of needing to turn a lump of coal into a diamond? I don't know, but something is severely lacking in the Libertarian candidate: libertarian principles. I am hoping that he will get a good, quick, education, but I'm not really counting on it.

Edited to add: I guess I should have said something about the "Root of the problem", too. Sigh...


___________________________

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Six

"This next exhibit shows what happens to the right to travel freely when government gets its hairy paws on it.

"When I say 'travel freely' I don't mean you don't pay for the services you may use, but that you are not subjected to the whims of someone who has no interest in allowing you to move about from one place to another. While someone else may own the vehicle or the path, they don't own you.

"As you probably know, back during the "Era of Government" almost all roads were owned and maintained (poorly) by government of one form or another. This was taken as 'authority' to demand that people carry a license that was used as identification and for tracking purposes. The Nazis had started this practice, but the governments of the early 21st century took the concept and expanded on it greatly.

"Counterfeit 'laws' were passed insisting that cars have a visible registration number to allow the state's enforcers to identify the drivers. People were targeted for extortion if they were not wearing a restraining belt while they travelled, or if they travelled faster than the enforcers dictated, or... well, it was a very long list. The 'highwaymen' of earlier times were rank amateurs compared to the 'mobile extortion units' employed by the state. The entire business of travel became a huge windfall for the authoritarians.

"Unfortunately it did not end there. Peoples' safety was thrown aside in order to allow government to have even more control. Airlines were not openly owned by the government, but in practice it was a different story. Passengers were disarmed and subjected to 'state-rape' before being allowed on airplanes. Here you can view a slide show of the excuses for the abuses spouted by the authorities... and the debunking of each and every one. For other kinds of travel, the oppression was the same. People were kidnapped and robbed by enforcers for carrying tools of self defense on their own person through zones where you were 'legally' required to die peacefully when attacked. It was never about 'safety'; it was always about 'control'.

"Most people were so thoroughly conditioned to the lies of the statists that they couldn't even imagine the world we live in now; where roads are privately owned (although that is redundant since that is the only kind of ownership that has ever been real) and only marginally necessary, and people do not give up their rights simply because they leave home. The whine "But who will build the roads?" was one of the biggest barriers for some otherwise rational people to let go of the fiction of government. As you see, it was a non-problem that was solved simply once our 'conditioning' was overcome.

"Now, please turn around for the next exhibit."


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

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Five

"I hope you are refreshed from your break. Back to the tour.... If you can believe it, there was once a political party that claimed to be working within the corrupt system to provide more freedom. It was a good idea, but was probably doomed from the start. Here is a display of some of its symbols and photos of some of its more influential leaders.

"As you can see from the trinkets, they called themselves 'The Libertarian Party'. Those who could see that the other political parties were all heading towards a police state, racing one another toward tyranny, yet still thought there was value in participating in the rigged system, chose to support the Libertarians. The problem is that no one has ever 'voted themselves free'.

"The illusion of government was so strong that even those who knew better got caught up in the fever. When you are told from birth that you have a duty to vote, or that if you don't vote you are consenting to whatever rulers get thrown at you, it has a detrimental effect on rational thinking ability even in the best of us.

"Still, one can't fault them for trying. The alternative methods were made 'illegal' by the very rulers who needed to be deposed. Trying to be 'law abiding', the Libertarians got distracted from what was necessary for America to finally become free. Each passing year brought new threats from new 'laws' until people became frantic trying to stay 'legal'. It didn't work and the unintended consequences are what finally brought down the regime, as I am sure you are aware.

"The LP, as it was called, did make more people aware that there was an alternative to more 'laws', and more enforcers, and more taxes, and more government. So, the effort wasn't a total waste. Plus, some people who had no stomach for more confrontational methods were able to quietly slip in amongst liberty lovers by way of the LP. Some of those became very strong leaders towards the end of the 'Era of Government'. But not the ones you might expect.

"In the end, the Libertarian Party was a dead-end on the evolutionary road to our free society. Scholars still debate whether it was a wasted effort or not, and since I am no scholar, but only a lowly tour guide, I'll leave that assessment to you.

"Watch your step as we move into the next room."


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

Random Acts of Anarchy

I think it is time for anarchists to take back the term from the nihilists who have stolen it. I think we should have an "Anarchy Day". If anyone has a suggestion for a good date, let me know and I'll promote it as much as I can.

On our Anarchy Day, all of us anarchists could commit random acts of helpful, public anarchy. Each of us recognizes, of course, that we all, even the most enthusiastic statists, live our daily lives in a basic condition of anarchy. For one day, I would like to see us show the rest of the world why anarchism is the only philosophy that really works.

Choose something that needs to be done, then wear something (as unoffensive to the sheeple as possible) to indicate your anarchistic philosophy. I would suggest such acts as picking up trash in a local park, without asking for permission. Or buying a meal for a needy family, without asking government's permission. Fill an elderly man's gas tank, without waiting for someone else to do it. Repair a piece of playground equipment, without waiting for permission from the bureaucrats. See a pattern? Helpful. Public. Self governing.

In some instances, you may risk arrest for doing what is right without waiting for the parasites to "allow" it. Think of the publicity you could generate if the authoriturds do try to stop your random acts of anarchy. Be sure to have a trusted co-conspirator who will contact the media and publicize your arrest online if that happens. In the long run, that might even be the best outcome.

Each of you knows of a way you could help in your local neighborhood. There may be some government "process" that pretends to have jurisdiction or authority over that particular area. Instead of behaving like a statist or a government sympathizer and whining "Why won't they DO something about it", just take charge and do it. And when you do, be sure to emphasize that WE are the anarchists. WE get the things done that should be done without waiting for Uncle Scam to do it. We don't go to the city council meetings to beg for stolen money to pay for "help", but take control of the situation and do what our morals tell us should be done. As free individuals. Without coercion. Without theft. And best of all, without government.

(I apologize for using the terms "us" and "we", but couldn't think of any other way to say this. I am not presuming to speak for you. Really.)

Added: This post formed the basis of an article I sent to The Libertarian Enterprise.
******************************

Ted Kennedy

Hmmmm. "Senator Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a malignant brain..." Well, duh! It took this long for people to figure that out? I would think that anyone who has not been in a coma for the past several decades would have known that. His brain has killed and enslaved millions of people throughout the world. His brain has conspired against America and the liberty that was intended to be our birthright. His brain has spread its creamy filling of socialism far and wide, and ... Oh, wait... "...a malignant brain TUMOR." Never mind.

FDR: "Conspire With Me To Destroy America"

This is an old letter that has been passed down in my family. I have no idea what my great-grandfather's response was to the letter. Did he fall for it? I fear that he probably did.

To quote from the letter: "I am particularly anxious that the new Social Security Legislation just enacted, for which we have worked so long, providing for old age pensions, aid for crippled children and unemployment insurance shall be carried out in keeping with the high purposes with which this law was enacted." (gag... choke!) Why doesn't he mention the fact that his program of "high purposes" will become a tracking number that will be forced upon you if you wish to remain a part of the above-ground economy? Why doesn't he acknowledge that the entire thing is nothing but a ponzi scheme that depends on ever greater numbers of victims to pay the recipients? Probably because he was an anti-American socialist who would have approved of all these consequences. The old tyrant knew how to make his evil schemes seem palatable to the uninformed, didn't he?

Of Course I'm an Anarchist! Aren't You?

When talking with people, something of a political nature will often come up. Kinda like a bad burrito. My libertarian (what many call "anarchistic") views are sometimes met with disbelief. "You don't really mean you would completely get rid of (government program of discussion), do you?"

"Absolutely! Wouldn't YOU?"

I am opposed to theft, kidnapping, murder, slavery and every other form of aggression. Why would I support the worst offender (as far as organizations go)? Putting the bad guys in charge of "justice" causes chaos. It makes people stop thinking about self-responsibility. Putting average, normally good people, who have no agenda, back in charge of justice causes... well... JUSTICE.

So, of course I'm an anarchist! Aren't you?


_________________________

Perspectives

Since The Move I have been helping my parents install a sprinkler system in their yard and garden. It is not my first choice of activities since I think monocultures of grass are unattractive and silly, and I think a hose waters the garden just fine. But, it's not my yard.

When I was growing up, the biggest threat that was held over my head was that if I wasn't careful, scholarly, and industrious, I would grow up to dig ditches. Well, I guess the failure is complete since that is what I have been doing.

While sweating out under the hot Texas sun with a shovel in my hand, I am reminded of how little exercise I have gotten in the past few years. To make the job seem less daunting I remind myself I am making a tiny little scratch on the surface of a tiny speck of dust in an insignificant solar system lost on the edge of an unassuming galaxy adrift in an unimaginable vastness of Universe. That perspective made the job easier until my mother, in her wisdom, said "Yeah, but you're pretty tiny compared to those things, too." Thanks Mama.

"The Eternal Flush"

A "Museum of Government" bonus feature:

"This monument is found on the grounds of The Museum of Government. It is, of course, "fully functional". Originally, it included the "all-seeing eye" atop the pyramid, but vandals destroyed that part less than a week after the unveiling. The museum decided the "vandalism" was actually an improvement so it was never repaired.

"An amusing point of interest: the patriot who began this monument almost ran out of funds about half way through the construction. When word spread of this crisis, so many donations came pouring in, from people anxious to show their respects to the memory of government, that the project was expanded and there are now similar monuments across the country."