A Bully Will Arise...

How do you counter the argument that in an anarchistic society a big thug will arise to become the Ruler?

I know that it is a silly objection because that is already the situation we find ourselves in: The strongest, least ethical, monsters have set themselves up as "our government" and made rules that protect themselves to our detriment. I also realize that a fully armed population, willing to defend themselves from tyrants, is the remedy to this, but few people will accept that.

This is the objection to liberty that I find most difficult to dispell, even though I don't believe it myself. How do you convince people, who base their entire lives on this premise, that they are wrong?

Barge World

I don't know if you ever read Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog, but this idea has always sounded good to me: Barge World. Not as "the only way" but as "one possible way".

Stop the Pledge of Allegiance

The following came to my inbox. I am familiar with Rex Curry's investigations and consider this information vital to overturning statism.

For publication (or Letter to Editor)

The official Olympic salute originated in the United States, as did the Nazi salute. Both gestures are products of the early Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in American Schools. http://rexcurry.net/olympics.html

Another school year is here and it is time to teach students about their right to reject the Pledge of Allegiance and its robotic ritualism. Please help inform the public about new discoveries showing that the Pledge was the origin of the notorious stiff-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

The Beijing Olympics did not use the official Olympic salute, and the opening ceremony substituted extended arm waiving that was a odd reminder of the stiff-armed salute from older Olympic games. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1c.html

While China rejected the salute for the Olympic games, China continues to use the stiff-armed gesture officially. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html

A photograph is at http://rexcurry.net/nazi-salute-taipei-times-roc-republic-of-china-government-officials-sworn.jpg

Mao Zegong's portrait and dogma is present at the Olympic games in Beijing. Mao still holds one of the worst records for mass murder with Hitler and Stalin.Mao was part of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was apart): ~60 million killed under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; ~20 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If mass murder were an Olympic event, Mao would have taken a medal. http://rexcurry.net/yuan-china-socialism.html

Beijing is slated to be one of the first cities to host one of five new Wholecaust Museums with Moscow, Berlin, New York City, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. http://rexcurry.net/wholecaust-museum.html

Another school year is here and it is time to teach students about their right to reject the Pledge of Allegiance and its robotic ritualism. Please help inform the public about new discoveries showing that the Pledge was the origin of the notorious stiff-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

New documentary video movies expose the shocking facts on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BssWWZ3XEe4 and as a school resource for teachers on teachertube http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=77b16a03aa81f09499f2

The government also popularized robotic chanting to flags. The swastika was popularized as S-shaped symbolism for "socialism" in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the United States, eventually migrating to Germany with the straight-arm gesture. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html

A frightening photograph is at http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg

More amazing photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html

Those historical facts explain the enormous size and scope of government today, and the USA's growing police state. They are reasons for massive reductions in government, taxation, spending and socialism.

"Stop The Pledge" (STP), a pressure group, works to repeal laws in those states that still retain a daily Pledge ritual in government schools. The group needs help in notifying the public to contribute information (via email at pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net or the contact info below) for a study of how many students are taught the whole history of the Pledge; how many students still chant robotically each day; and how many students feel they would be disciplined or persecuted for refusals. Many students say that they sit during the Pledge because they "refuse to kiss the government's butt every morning." STP pays students to reject robotic ritualism and to"take the pledge not to pledge."

The ongoing Pledge litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California includes these issues in the brief by Attorney Rex Curry at http://www.restorethepledge.com/litigation/pledge/docs/2006-06-13%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Rex%20Curry.pdf

The brief is archived under "current litigation" athttp://www.restorethepledge.com

Dr. Curry showed that the early Pledge Of Allegiance did not use an ancient Roman salute, and that the 'ancient Roman salute' myth came from the Pledge Of Allegiance. http://rexcurry.net/roman-salute-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

Government schools in the USA popularized the straight-arm salute for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSGWP). People were persecuted for refusing to perform robotic chanting to the national flag at the same time in the USA and Germany (to the American flag, and to the German symbol flag).

The dogma behind the Pledge was the same dogma that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): ~60 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million under thePeoples' Republic of China; ~20 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was the worst slaughter of humanity ever.

The author of the Pledge (1892), Francis Bellamy, was a self-proclaimed National Socialist, as was his cousin Edward Bellamy, author of an international bestseller that launched the Nationalism movement globally. Edward's book was translated into every major language, including German. The Bellamy boys promoted "Military Socialism." They wanted government to take over all schools and impose robotic chanting to flags. When the government granted their wish, government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. That behavior even outlasted German National Socialism. http://rexcurry.net/pledgebackward.html

Children are coerced into the robotic ritualism of the socialist's pledge daily, and never learn of America's anti government libertarianism. In addition to the notorious salute, American socialists (e.g. Edward Bellamy teamed with the Theosophical Society) also bear some blame for the notorious symbol used by the National Socialist German Workers Party on its Swastika flag. While Edward and the Theosophical Society worked together,the swastika symbol was used by the Society. It was used as alphabetical symbolism for socialism, and adopted later by German socialists as their flag symbol. The NSGWP had clear roots in National Socialism promoted in theUSA. http://rexcurry.net/theosophy-madame-blavatsky-theosophical-society.html

Although an ancient symbol, the swastika was altered for use as overlapping S-letters for 'socialism.' It was deliberately turned 45 degrees counterclockwise and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as the Volkswagen VW logo. http://rexcurry.net/swastika3swastika.jpg

American soldiers used the swastika symbol in WWI (against Germany) and the symbol was used by the American military during WWII. http://rexcurry.net/45th-infantry-division-swastika-sooner-soldiers.html

The discoveries are part of the growing work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). They have been reviewed and verified on Wikipedia. Every journalist who has examined the new discoveries has confirmed them. The research is receiving growing media coverage http://rexcurry.net/audio-rex-curry-podcast-radio.html

Fan mail is also growing for work exposing the Pledge's poisonous pedigree http://rexcurry.net/pledge_heart.html

The USA is still the worst example in the world of bizarre laws that require robotic chanting to a national flag in government schools every day for 12 years. It has changed generations of Americans from libertarians to authoritarians. The government bamboozled individuals into believing that robotic group-chanting in government schools is a beautiful expression of freedom. http://rexcurry.net/pledgetragedy.html

Real Americans don't pledge allegiance to big government. Help educate students in the new school year.

For more information contact -

Tinny Ray
Stop The Pledge
P.O. Box 8816
Tampa, FL 33674-8816
pledge-of-allegiance@earthlink.net

"A Few Bad Apples"

I hesitated to post this that I found on War on Guns. It infuriated me. Be warned that these pillars of the (statist) community use some pretty colorful language. "We're the Only Ones Audio Blogging Enough"

If "good cops" exist, why are scum like these LEOs allowed to survive?

The Media's Election Manipulation

I have decided that the "mainstream media" may not really be "Leftists". Most are obviously not "Rightists" either. What they are: "Opportunists".

They want and promote the candidate who they think will make the biggest mess. That way they manufacture their own news. McCain was obviously the worst "Republican" candidate, so they pushed him to the top of the compost heap. They had a hard time choosing between Obama and Clinton II, but ultimately chose the one with the most disturbing (to the conservatives) background. After all, some of Hitlary's abominations might have been Bill's fault.

I think they have missed some opportunities, such as Ron Paul or me. Either of us could have given them a lot of news stories by completely overturning the status-quo had we been elected. But our actions would have derailed decades or centuries of more news, so that couldn't be allowed. Therefore it is "more of the same, only worse if possible".

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

Swimming in the Sea of Statism

Being immersed in statism can give one a perspective on its absurdity that would be lacking if one were only surrounded by libertarians and anarchists. I constantly get exposed to statist ideas that give me the opportunity to deconstruct them and find the flaws. Usually it is not even that difficult, since accepting statism is a matter of simply not considering the alternatives. It is a matter of "We have always done it this way!"

Many times I keep my mouth shut and listen to see what will be said in defense of statism. Sometimes, at first, the ideas seem to have some validity. However, after just a little thought, the flaws start to become apparent and the statist dogma starts to unravel.

Not Paying Attention

I don't feel too sorry for people who sit on the toilet and fall in because someone left the seat up. Why can't they look for themselves? I do. Usually. I don't feel too sorry for myself when I do something stupid because I wasn't paying attention, either.

With that in mind I don't feel too sorry for people who are surprised when they run up against the US police state. There is ample evidence and warning. In case you aren't paying attention, I will tell you again: You are living in a police state where the "law" is your enemy, and its enforcers are out to kill, or at least enslave, you. Pay attention or don't ask me for pity.

Water "Safety", Brady Gun-Hater Style

Suppose I teach my kids "water safety" in a similar way to the "gun safety" recommended by those mass-murderer enablers of the Brady Campaign. To them, ignorance equals safety. Don't let kids near water... don't teach them to swim.....marginalize those who enjoy water sports, and blame them for drownings, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis..... forbid drawings or discussions of water.... make exceptions to water bans for professionals such as firefighters..... demonize The Little Mermaid for glamorizing water to kids..... Then act shocked when children drown.

Do they not realize the absurdity of their approach; their "campaign"? Or, as is more likely, do they not care? Their advocacy kills children. Their campaign seeks to take away the most effective tool for defending the small and weak from the big and strong. Yet, they pretend moral superiority. Lest they whine "but water is essential for life" I would remind them that "self-defense is also essential for life". Taking away either one is murderous and insane.

Which Government Owns "Illegal" Immigrants?

It seems to me that if you oppose "illegal" immigration, you are averring that you belong to "your" government and that the immigrants belong to "their" government. If only they would jump through the hoops that give ownership of themselves to your government, then you would welcome them here. Right? After all, you may say: "There are legal ways of immigrating." What else could you mean?

Why should immigrants obey the laws of a country they don't live in? I certainly don't even pretend to obey Mexico's or Canada's laws. In order to "legally" immigrate, according to statists, I would have to put myself under those laws before I crossed the government borders. If I felt that I needed to escape to another country, for whatever reason, I would not feel any obligation to sell myself to the government of that country first. Why should anyone do that?

To claim that a government has ownership rights to you and the land you stand on is odd to me. I suppose if you own yourself, you can give yourself to anyone you choose, even a government. But then you wouldn't own yourself and could not give yourself away in the first place. Independent migrants have exactly the same human rights as me or anyone else, regardless of where they stand on our planet. Governments have exactly zero rights of any sort. So, guess who gets my sympathy.

It seems that many people have a strange worshipful attitude about an imaginary line on a map. Lines drawn by governments through treaties and wars. The only thing governments are good for is waging war. War is the main product of government. Do you really want to belong to the War Factory?

Therefore, the answer to the title of the post is: No government owns them (or us).

Besides that, end ALL welfare and you deflate the only reasonable argument against "illegal" immigrants, leaving only the racist excuses.

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

"Performance Enhancing"

I saw the Supreme Statist on television saying that he opposed "performance enhancing drugs" in sports because it sends the wrong message to young people. He said that if you look at the stats from the athletes from earlier decades, you need to know that there is a real comparison with the stats of today. (OK, he didn't say exactly those words, but he did use a couple of multi-syllabic words, I swear.)

Well, using that same reasoning, shouldn't we ban anyone from competing who has had reconstructive surgery after an injury? After all, that option wasn't really available 50 years ago. Shouldn't athletes of today live with the same risk of getting polio that their predecessors did? After all, that eliminated many potential competitors. Nutrition and training are also probably better today. That gives a skewed comparison when looking at the history of sports. Some athletes are cancer survivors who in the past would surely have died. Isn't it unfair to allow them to continue to compete when others with the same disease died?

Today is different from the past. To try to stop progress at some point in the past is something that some religious groups have tried. Unless we all wish to become Amish we need to recognize that change occurs. Some is good, some is bad, but the genie won't go back in the bottle.


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

Evil

I talk a lot about "evil". I don't mean anything mystical by that word, but unlike some rational people, I do believe evil exists. I see the consequences and evidence of evil all around me. I see what concentrations of evil, such as a government, do to individuals. Corey Maye, David Olofson, Randy Weaver's family, and Kathryn Johnston are all victims of this institutionalized evil. A Google search on those names is in order if you haven't been paying attention.

When I speak of evil as a noun, I mean "that which harms the innocent". It is the opposite of "good" which is that which helps innocent people. If a person's life, either public or personal, has done much harm, then I may describe that person as "evil". People such as Hitler, Sarah Brady, and Ted Kennedy fall into this category. No person commits only harmful acts; even the worst will have little sparks of kindness towards certain individuals in particular situations. That doesn't outweigh the harm their other actions have caused, and I stand by my assessment of "evil" when referring to them.

Your ways of speaking of these types of actions and people may be different, but I think we would all recognize that their way is not the right way to live.

Added: Eric Sundwall brings up a good point: "Why not just use 'bad' and not risk the mystical association ?" To which I answer: Because bad doesn't go far enough. Driving a car drunk is bad, as is abusing "drugs". But as long as you harm no innocent person, you have not done evil. With much of the evil in the world, there is an underlying intent. The evildoers may not think of it as intending to harm people, but may see it as trying to control them. As we know, trying to control people invariably harms them. In many cases, though, the intent is actually to harm others to benefit oneself, either by gaining power over them, or by gaining wealth at the expense of the innocent.


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

Solving Problems With "Laws"

I heard about a town somewhere that legalized golf carts for on-road use to help with travel expenses related to the "high price of fuel" (which is really the high price of having fiat money). While I approve of using alternate vehicles for travel, I think it is arrogant of any town to think it should pass "laws". It wasn't a lack of "laws" that caused the legal prohibition, but a glut of "laws". Some misguided or evil person first had to pass a "law" that prohibited the use of golf carts on the road. Other people had to agree that "there should be a law". Conspirators had to pass the "law" and inflict it on the local population. Enforcers had to rob or kidnap those people who violated the counterfeit "law". This "law" that did not prohibit any act of aggression. This "law" that made a new crime that had no victim. This is the reason we suffer under Law Pollution. Don't pass a "law" legalizing something, remove the "laws" that "illegalize" it instead. Think about that when you hear about medical marijuana "laws", or concealed carry "laws". More "laws" are never the answer.

I will re-emphasize: it is wrong... bad... corrupt... repugnant to propose, pass, support, or enforce any law that tries to prohibit, regulate, or punish anything other than actual physical or economic aggression. If you do so you are causing real harm to real individuals and their liberty. You are violating their rights. In short, you are evil. Repudiate evil by working to remove the burden of counterfeit "laws".


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

"Time's Up" Flag Stickers

I now have some "Time's Up" flag stickers to sell. They measure about 3 1/2" X 2 1/8". They are vinyl and seem to be well made. I have only had one on my car for a few days, but it seems to be holding up well.

I will sell them for fifty cents each, plus fifty cents for shipping any number. So, if you want one it would be $1; if you want ten, it would be $5.50.

Sex and Marriage: One Size Does NOT Fit All

Warning: due to the nature of this post, reader discretion is advised.

If you are easily offended, I apologize, but feel that this is an important issue that has ramifications for us all. Nothing illustrates the stupidity of such things as the "Defense of Marriage Act" better.

I was recently watching a program on TLC about a pair of conjoined twins. These young women look externally (to a non-expert such as myself) like a two-headed person. Internally they each have their own heart, lungs, stomach, and small intestine. They share a colon and reproductive system. They each control the leg and arm on their side of the shared body, and only feel sensation on that side as well.

Please realize I have profound respect for these girls. They are probably the most inspiring individuals I have ever run across on television. I only refrain from mentioning their names and other specifics out of respect for their privacy and in case the state has decided there is some "law" against speculating on the sexuality of these girls due to age or other factors.

As I understand life, what is a "right" for one person is a "right" for everyone, and what is wrong for one person to do is wrong for everyone. (Thanks to Francois Tremblay for bringing this unconscious understanding into conscious thought for me.) I am not speaking of preferences, but morality. In other words, since it is wrong for me to kick in a neighbor's door at 2AM and shoot his dog, then kidnap him, it is also wrong for a thug with a badge and "official" permission to do the same. Which brings us to the dilemma. The state and most religions would condemn these girls to a sexless life. Even the simple, ubiquitous act of masturbation becomes incest in this case.

The program showed the state giving each girl her own "driver's license" in order to be allowed to operate a car. I would expect the state to think it has the same authority (and "solution") to the marriage question. I would hope that these girls reject the notion of government permission to marry, but in case they choose to place themselves in that position, how would that work?

If they accept the mainstream religious ideas and morals they are doomed to be virgins forever, or be guilty of "sexual sins", since threesomes would be unavoidable. If one girl marries, then the partner is "cheating" on her each time they have intercourse. There is no way to only have sex with one at a time, given the shared nature of their reproductive system. If they both marry one person (a guy, for example) he would be a bigamist in the eyes of the state. If they each marry a different individual, then, once again, in the eyes of the state and religion, they are unable to avoid "adultery".

If they have children, both girls would be the biological mothers. Would the state draw up a birth certificate with three spaces for parents? If not, how would they handle that situation?

Of course, you and I know that asking permission from the state for any of these things is ridiculous. These two wonderful young women may not realize that. Yet. Would the state make exceptions to all these "laws" in their case? If so, then that would mean they should allow any couple or group that wishes, to get a marriage license. If there is no room in your state or your religion for the situation these young women find themselves in, then there is something wrong with your state or your religion. Only in the self-ownership of anarchism could these girls find the freedom to live guilt-free and happily. What is OK for them must be OK for the rest of us, and what is OK for the rest of us is OK for them. If the state doesn't make exceptions, then it would probably force these girls to become "outlaws" like you and I. There are far worse fates.

Persecution and/or prosecution may be avoided due to the state and religion not having thought of these issues yet, or through fear of public outrage (though, even in recent cases of astounding state evil, public outcry has been almost nonexistent).


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

Living With Rules, Libertarian Anarchist Style

I have mentioned this before, but think it may be time to talk about it again. Libertarians don't hate rules, only Rulers. Rules can be right or they can be wrong; depending upon whether they are legitimate or not. Rulers are always wrong; leaders can occasionally be right.

When you have rules for a group of people, the more people you try to include, the fewer (and less specific) the rules must be. Otherwise you end up violating someone's right of self ownership with your counterfeit "laws" that have no moral foundation.

If, for example, I am making rules just for myself, I can be very specific and say "don't smoke, drink Dr Pepper, don't work for government, don't initiate force, wear a hat, etc." It doesn't matter if the rule has any moral basis or not, since the rule only applies to me, and I agreed to it explicitly. If the situation changes, I can change the arbitrary rules, but since morality doesn't change, the rules with a moral foundation would remain. I can't decide that "today, I will kill someone, just because", but I could decide that today I will smoke a cigar while not wearing a hat, just to be different.

If I am trying to decide with another person what rules we are to both operate under, we would need to eliminate those that do not fit the other person. Maybe they like coffee better than Dr Pepper, so that rule gets tossed. Notice that I am not forced to drink coffee under the agreement. The more people you try to cover with your rules, the less specific they can be or they will surely violate someone's self ownership. At some point you must reduce the list down to "don't violate the rights of anyone else". Which, with over 6 billion humans on the planet, is exactly where we find ourselves. No other rules can have any legitimacy when what applies to one, must apply to all.

The current "legal" system is a prime example of the chaos that occurs when the opposite path is taken and it is falsely assumed that the more people you try to cover with your rules, the more specific and numerous the rules must be. It gets to the point that every breath you take is violating some arbitrary rule, which some meddling busy-body decided would be good for you. This helps no one but the state and its sympathizers.


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

Hilton vs. McCain

I've never had an opinion of Paris Hilton, so I can't really say my opinion of her has improved, but I love her attitude in this response to the socialist Republi-corpse's campaign video.

Watch the video!

Propaganda Posters

Darian Worden has made some excellent government propaganda posters. Look at them all here: link

How Far Do Your Boss' Rights Go? Rights Can Be Wrong.

Does your boss have a right to demand that you behave a certain way on your own time? For example: completely forbidding tobacco use?

Some people argue that this is part of your boss' right to hire who he wants. I am not disputing that right. What I would warn against is the slippery slope of where this leads. Under this scenario, you would be the property of your boss.

You only sell your time to your boss, or looking at this another way, you rent him your body for a certain amount of time each day. He has no claim to your body during the time he is not renting it, nor can he demand to control the time you did not sell him.


Yes, your boss has a right to hire whoever he wants, but if he discriminates in this way, you and I have a right to refuse to do business with him. Any business or dealings. In a free society this could mean shunning him to the point of starving him to death if he chooses to remain a bigot and enough people care.

If a boss wishes to assert ownership of his employees, he is behaving in an evil way. Slavery is still wrong. Your body chemistry is none of his business as long as you are not contagious or radioactive. Unless the substances leave your body and make you into a hazard it is no one's business what you contain, be it nicotine, THC, or whatever. Making your body chemistry a condition of employment is wrong, but still within his rights. It is also a good way to judge the boss' character.

Your boss' rights do not cancel out your rights. You own your own body and life or you own nothing. You can choose to sell yourself to an authoritarian boss. I hope you don't. If fewer people were willing to sell themselves (as opposed to renting themselves) then fewer bosses would be able to assert ownership over their employees. This would increase real freedom even more than decorating lampposts with swinging predators. Who do you spend more of your life around: the boss or a congressman?

The Myth Epidemic

There is a huge Myth Lab operating in this country. It has outlets in every small town and big city in America. It produces a dangerous, addictive drug that rots the minds of the young and old. This drug is not a chemical, but is an idea. It is the "myth of government necessity" and it kills.

This drug is so deadly that there is no way to handle it safely. Even those who dispose of contaminated materials often become ill from its fumes. It is almost impossible to be in its presence without being harmed.

You may think I am being humorous, but this is incredibly serious. The government myth has killed more people than all the chemical drugs ever created combined. If there can be a war on drugs, then why not a war on a much more dangerous threat?

My Wordpress Blog

I have imported this blog to a Wordpress site. If you are one of those who would rather read my blog without any fancy background or anything, bookmark that one.

Punishment Culture

Punishment enthusiasm seems ubiquitous.

Right-wing socialists get excited to hear about executions, brutal police action (like the illegitimate "War on Drugs"), wars of retribution, and bad guys "getting theirs".

Left wing socialists salivate over big business getting fined for profiting "too much", over gun owners being arrested and demonized, over the racists they don't like being put in their place.

Even I have a difficult time not enjoying seeing socialists suffering the consequences of the world they have created for all of us.

"Punishment" is not the same as stopping an attack. If you see an innocent person being attacked and you jump in and kill the attacker, that is not "enjoying punishment", but is "ending a threat". Human predators deserve to be neutralized when caught in the act.

In some cases, punishment is appropriate (added: I no longer believe this). In many other cases, it is just revenge. It may even be directed against the wrong person unless the guilty person is caught in the act and stopped immediately.


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

The War on Free Speech (and Guns)

David Codrea's blog, "The War on Guns", is one of my favorites. Unfortunately Google/Blogspot has decided it is spam. He is blocked from posting until or unless they decide to allow him to continue posting again. It is their right to block him if they choose, but their decision is based upon a lie, false information, or an agenda of blocking speech they don't like. That is wrong.

If they don't unblock him, I will try to move my blog to another host. Maybe if I can figure out how to put it on KentForLiberty.com, that would be my best choice, but I would probably lose all the comments.


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

Tobacco: Time To Grow Your Own?

With the recent legislative monkey-business from the Swamp of Corruption, it might be time for smokers to grow their own. It might even be time for non-smokers to start growing tobacco just because it will make the meddlers angry. Become a grower before it is illegal. Then continue after it becomes so, if it pleases you.

Of course, similar arguments could be made for lots of activities that are "capital crimes" judging from the state's behavior.


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

Don't Call Me a "Citizen"!

I try to avoid using the word "citizen" when I speak of the people who inhabit a region. The Dictionary.com definition I linked to defines "citizen" as someone who "owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection". By that definition I am quite positively NOT a citizen. I owe no government anything but contempt, and I am not "entitled" to anything from any government but to be left alone.

Another of the definitions is "an inhabitant". I do inhabit this area, although I don't worry about the local (or other) Rulers who, while lording over the compliant inhabitants, may think they have authority over me. As an inhabitant, I could be considered a "citizen", although that usage sounds silly.

I am just me. There is no need to label me because of where I live.





_________________________________

Nothing to Hide?

Some government sympathizers scold the more sensible among us for not wanting government snoops poking around in our private matters by saying "If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you care?" or by proclaiming "I have nothing to hide!"

Fine. Then let me come to your house and look through your underwear drawer, medicine cabinet, computer files, and under your mattress. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?

Or do your doors open only for those who can kill you if you refuse? Why does it matter?

Think about it.



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Don't Let Anyone Tell You "Driving is not a Right"

When I am reading about "sobriety checkpoints", "drivers' licenses", or other statist nonsense, I notice some person always makes the comment that "driving is a privilege, not a right". What utter balderdash.

If the right to travel freely is not really a right, then there are no rights. And don't say that you can walk wherever you wish to go, but to drive a car you need government permission. If cars were a recent invention, and were not so necessary to integrate yourself into modern life, that might hold water. But that hasn't been true for many decades. Nope, operating your car without asking permission from anyone is a right. Neither can you claim that because the state has a monopoly on road ownership, that they can set the rules for travelling on their roads. If they didn't maintain that monopoly with coercion and theft, that might be true. Aggressors are not allowed to set the rules in a free society.

That doesn't mean that owning a car is a right. Just like the right to own and to carry firearms, no one is obligated to give you a car. However, if you can afford to buy one and fuel it, no control-freak has the authority to stand in your way. Get the coercion out of the equation and cars would be affordable enough for anyone, and fuel cost wouldn't be an issue.

If you own a car, or are loaned one for your use, using it to travel wherever you want to go, as long as you are not trespassing or harming innocent people or their property, is an absolute human right not subject to regulation by the state. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply trying to give the state power over your life.

----------------------------------------------------
Added: Eric Sundwall posted this excellent link on my Haloscan comments: http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
I recommend you read it.
----------------------------------------------------

My Responsibilities

When you refuse to allow the state to use you as an excuse to tyrannize your neighbors it means you take on some responsibilities. These are not difficult. Nor are they unusual. Just a few years ago, they were "normal", but they are not recognized too frequently anymore.

It is my responsibility to watch out for drunk or otherwise dangerous drivers while I travel. I do not ask the state to conduct immoral checkpoints on my behalf. I may not see all danger coming, but neither can the state protect me from all potential dangers. I'd rather take my chances with random accidents than with intentional bullies with badges, attitudes, and roadblocks.

It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family from attackers and thieves. I do not need the state to use its enforcers to oppress the community, or the world, pretending that it does this for my "safety". If they continue to do this, it is not for me. Just get out of my way and let me do my duty.

The foods, chemicals, and other substances I put into my body are my responsibility. If they make me obese, insane, or dead, it was my poor choice that did it. Don't kick in my neighbors' doors or kidnap their children to protect me from these things.

It is my responsibility to educate my children. Don't demand a ransom from my neighbors' houses on my behalf to pay for your government indoctrination centers. Don't expect me to train my children to salivate at the tone of your bells, either.

It is my responsibility to find food and shelter without taking money stolen from my neighbors by agents of the state. That may mean I live in my car and eat weeds that grow wild. It wouldn't be the first time. I will try to avoid that situation from now on, but if it can't be avoided, it is still preferable to living off the fruits of coercion.

Obviously, this is not a complete list. I am not suggesting that your list would be the same as mine, but I imagine there would be substantial overlap.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Pathetic Statists

Whenever a liberty advocate points out the folly or the evil of the state, some pitiful creature will always respond with a "but my child was killed" story.

That is sad, but does not excuse the existence of the state. Obviously if your child died from an act of non-state aggression, the state's liberty-crushing efforts did not prevent it. Why sacrifice my children on the altar of tyranny? Is this your idea of "an eye for an eye"?

Whether it is "sobriety checkpoints" or victim disarmament schemes, children still die.

There are thousands upon thousands of draconian, immoral, unethical, stupid, and evil "gun laws". They don't stop death from happening, and in many cases actually empower the attackers. They give renegade federal agencies permission to destroy gun owners.

Those disgusting checkpoints don't stop drunk driving; they destroy an absolute human right to travel unmolested. They also give the Liberty Eradication Operatives (LEOs) "exciting" new ways to snoop and intimidate normal, peaceful people. That may be their real purpose: to desensitize formerly free people to living under the boot of the police state. Even if that is an unintended consequence, it is enough to condemn such abominations.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pro-Liberty

Even though I have been called "anti-government", and have even referred to myself that way on occasion, I am not ... really. I am just extremely "pro-liberty". If government were a way to increase liberty, instead of the greatest threat to it, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, history has shown a clear picture of what happens when liberty and the state meet. Oil and water? More like gunpowder and flame.

Some have tried to establish governments in order to "secure liberty". It's like trying to get healthy by giving yourself cancer. It is doomed to fail every time. This tactic has been tried because some people fear bad people so much, feeling that the world is crawling with them, and imagine that there is no defense without the state. The solution doesn't lie in giving the most crafty of those bad guys an incentive to seek political power with which to prey upon the decent people with near-impunity, but in freeing people to take care of themselves without fearing reprisals from the state.

If you think I am joking about "near-impunity", just watch what happens when someone tries to make a video of police "doing their jobs". Point out that "sobriety checkpoints" are wrong and ineffective for the stated purposes, but excellent conditioning for soviet-style society. Or suggest that some congresscritter is a traitor who should be held accountable. Or notice how often LEOs are found to have done "nothing wrong" when committing acts that would get you or I many years in prison, IF we were not shot on the spot. Point out the many crimes of the state and you will be treated like a criminal, not just by the oppressors themselves, but by the majority of society who will deny the existence of tyranny as it loads them into the cattle cars. Question not thy masters. That is pretty close to impunity if you ask me.

I will continue to be "pro-liberty". If that seems "anti-government" to you, you may be a statist.





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

Good Neighbors

Not that I have any personal experience, but I would think that libertarians would make excellent neighbors. Who doesn't want a neighbor who minds his own business and is willing to help out? And don't underestimate the value of a neighbor who will work things out if there is a problem without getting the enforcers involved.

One problem might crop up if your libertarian neighbor chooses to use his property in ways you don't approve of. I have been "guilty" of this. But it was my house and, except for offending the neighbors, it was causing no harm. I didn't even complain when the neighbors used pneumatic power tools on their cars late at night, but they sure squealed about my tall grass and poultry. "If you mow your yard and find a car, you might be a ....." well, you know the rest. Add to that the occasional gunshots, campfires, and somewhat unconventional landscaping. Hey, the neighbors annoyed me, too.

So, on second thought, I was probably wrong. I guess libertarians would make excellent neighbors for other libertarians, but a major pain in the posterior for control-freak types. This is why I know that I should only live in the boondocks far from "more civilized" types.


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

"To End War, Prepare For Peace" by L. Neil Smith

Here is another great article by L. Neil that has some very fun suggestions for ending government tyranny.

You Know What They Say About ..... Statistics...

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that." ~ Homer Simpson

During a recent endeavor I was told that I needed to cite statistics and quote experts in order to bolster my credibility. I tried, but I guess I am not cut out for statistics. That, plus the government agency I was trying to get the statistics from either had no data to share or the real data showed they were full of male Bos taurus fecal matter.

The problem I have is that I don't tend to believe statistics when I read them. They are so easy to manipulate. And when they come from government.... well, any possible believability just flew right out the window.

Oh sure, I will cite a statistic now and then, when the mood strikes and the statistic is easy to find. Don't believe the ones I post either. Here's what to believe: your own experience. Or that of people you trust. Don't trust agencies or groups who have an agenda, especially when the statistics cited would give them an excuse to have more power to control your life. They might be (gasp!) lying to you!

The point is, I am not here to quote statistics or to tell you what the experts think. I am here to tell you what I think and to get you to then think for yourself.

Therefore, I will leave you with another quote from an expert:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain

The Solution to "Government"

I am becoming convinced that the solution to the problem of "government" is to just get over the delusion that it is necessary. It's not, even if you can't currently imagine life without it. For every argument for government, several alternatives present themselves if you spend a little time thinking outside the carefully constructed, mirrored, box.


Those government indoctrination centers that we are encouraged to call "public schools" cripple our critical thinking skills where government is concerned. I'm sure that isn't accidental.


I'd love the chance to see what one month of absolutely zero government at any level would bring. You can bet that the former Rulers would try their hardest to monkeywrench the experiment. That might present some wonderful opportunities for ridding ourselves of that type of destructive parasite altogether. Would you allow your glorious anarchistic liberty to degenerate into chaos? Me neither.

Together we could teach the truly aggressive individuals that they had better shape up or be darwinized. Then, even if by some tragedy government came back, society would still be better for lack of bad guys. I wonder if any cops would survive the vacation from tyranny. A few might be able to behave themselves for a month.


____________________________

Uphill Battle? It's a Wall!

The article was about a "meth lab bust". My comment was "Prohibition deja vu. Sigh. Outlaw something that people want and are willing to pay for; the price goes up and bad people (and some not-so-bad people) get involved in providing the product. Lessons learned? I guess not."

One brilliant ninny* wrote back "....you either have a strange sense of irony and humor, or you really are that stupid and ignorant. Methamphetamine is a highly addictive substance with devastating consequences, which include anxiety, violence and psychosis. Give reading a chance." He then posted a link to a government information site. (Yeah, you'll get "truthful" info there! LOL)

Blind, deaf, and illiterate ignorance displayed all in one paragraph! He's probably a LEO (Liberty Eradication Operative) or a relative of one. Where does this person read in my comment that I think that using meth is a good way to spend your weekend? Acknowledging the futility (and evil) of the War on (some) Drugs does not equal an endorsement of using them, Taterhead! Yet, this is what most people probably think first when confronted with the truth. The thought that killing people over chemicals might be stupid and evil never crosses their "mind". Their knees jerk and force words out of their mouths instead of their brains forming thoughts that turn into words.

This probably made me more angry than is warranted, but it gets tiresome fighting against such deeply ingrained stupidity on a regular basis. When someone posts a comment like that, he should be buried under an avalanche of ridicule and derision. Yet, there is only silence. Are people even awake?

Why is meth production profitable? Prohibition.
Why do violent aggressors get involved in the production and distribution of meth? Because Prohibition keeps out the nicer people.
Why do people choose to spend their money to purchase meth, knowing (yes, they know) that it will harm them? For the same reason that humans have always used mind-altering substances: it is a hard-wired part of being human to seek these experiences. No "law" or "war" will ever change that no matter how badly the control-freaks wish it were so. To pretend otherwise, and make policy decisions based upon that fantasy, is delusional. The harm those policies cause to civilization is inexcusable.


*This waste of skin posted a comment today making fun of the winner of the "Ms. Plus America" pageant. I guess his stupidity and rudeness knows no bounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Messy Freedoms

There is a bell-curve of acceptance of liberties. It is shaped like the cross-section of a sunny-side-up fried egg, with the yolk being those things that no sane person doubts: the right to not be raped, murdered, kidnapped, or stolen from.

The "egg white" is the liberties that are really the same, but with the understanding that government and its agents are also not allowed to be doing those same things to anyone while calling them "taxation", "arrest", "law enforcement", etc.

The "messy freedoms" I speak of are the ragged edge of the egg where the grease has spattered and bubbled: the freedom to trade sex for money, the freedom to own and carry a fully automatic gun as you walk around town, the freedom to destroy yourself with chemical abuse, the freedom to end your own life if you decide to. These things are just as important as the ones that the majority agrees on. Maybe even more so for the simple fact that while the timid may deny it, the rights are the same: the right to live your own life however you see fit as long as you do not harm another innocent person. "Harm" does not include offending someone's sensibilities, or violating their sense of morals, either.

Maybe you could call these things "fringe liberties". These are the things "polite society" tries to prohibit, control, or otherwise regulate, but in doing so, initiates force against those who choose to pursue happiness in those things. That is wrong, no matter how you slice it.




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

Me, a "Bad Example"

I was recently reminded that I am used as a bad example by some people. "You don't want to turn out like Kent!" goes the warning.


Well, if you want to turn out to be a "citizen" who belongs to the state, then I would be a bad example. If you want to worship Rulers and their "laws", then you might want to choose another person to emulate. If you want to control the lives of others even though they are harming no one but themselves, you need another hero. If you idolize the military or "law enforcement", then I am not your man. If you want to be rich, not that there is anything wrong with it, then look elsewhere for a model. I don't dress like a typical 21st century American, so you might want to look at GQ or something for fashion ideas.

I am not wealthy, or even successful. I have had failed businesses, marriages, and quests. On the other hand, I don't beat my kids or my girlfriend. I do take charity from family sometimes, but I don't accept welfare. I try to help people when I can, even at risk to myself. I have never hit anyone in anger, although I have come close. My friends like me, and I make new friends easily when given the chance. Even people who don't like me are given a chance. Life is too short to make enemies. Why waste the time and energy?

Really, it seems the only people who don't like me are those who have tried to cheat me and were thwarted. I don't really care for them too much, either, if you get right down to it. The difference is that they can't get over it, and I have.

I am living life to the best of my ability, using what I have. If that is not good enough, then I don't know what to say.


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

Ambassador For Anarchy

I don't always live up to what I am trying to do, but....I am trying to be an ambassador, not a sniper, for anarchy. That means not shooting the fence-sitters. That means I sometimes listen to what others are saying about the state without giving my (wonderful, informed, well thought out, insightful) opinion. You wouldn't believe how hard that can be. Well, yes, I'm sure you know exactly how hard it is.

In my moments of listening I find that, even among the government sympathizers, dissatisfaction is running high. They know something is wrong, but are too blind (or brainwashed) to see what it is.

It is not "which scoundrels" we elect; it is the entire idea of electing Rulers to control our lives that is disastrous. It is the fact that we have been lied to and deceived into believing that every problem can be solved by passing a new law. A "law" to control or restrict the other guy; to steal a little more of his liberty to enrich our own lives in some way. It does not work and never will.

Each piece of "the other guy's" liberty we steal is also stolen from our own liberty. As Ambassadors for Anarchy I hope we can steer others to find the real solution. Otherwise, it's gonna get messy.

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).