Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope

This is an excerpt from a very good book dealing with a contentious subject. Read it please.
Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope

"Manifesto to an Obama Supporter" by Bill St.Clair

I recommend you read this: "Manifesto to an Obama Supporter" by Bill St.Clair

Job 1: Cripple "The Gang"

I have been reminded that I need to reiterate my primary campaign promise: As a libertarian, if elected, I would do everything in my power to cripple the BATFE. I would make it pointless for them to continue their war on gun owners. I would turn the White house into a "pardon factory"; churning out pardons as fast as possible for every person harassed, arrested, or convicted under one of the US's illegal victim disarmament "laws". And don't think I will forget about the "A", "T", and "E" victims, either. No part of that criminal organization's agenda is allowable under the Constitution and I will never forget or forgive.

This does not mean I would pardon anyone who actually attacked or robbed an innocent person. That is a real crime not a counterfeit BATFE "crime".

Any person convicted of any self-defense related charge, owning an unapproved gun, owning "too many" guns, carrying a gun in "the wrong place" or in "the wrong way", or any person being prosecuted for self-defensive actions against LEOs or any other government representatives who were attempting to enforce any counterfeit "law" would also be on the fast-track to a pardon.

Some people may think this is too radical. When facing a metastasizing police-state, radical actions are needed.


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

Opening the "Borders"... Why?

In a comment on a post on War on Guns I have been challenged by David Codrea to comment on my vision of ridding the world of "borders", and why I think it is necessary.

OK. Here goes:

David writes: "I'm not ready to admit any Al Quaeda operative who wants to come on over and stroll freely about." Who's to decide who is an Al Quaeda operative and who isn't? The feds are certainly not very good at it. I would much rather be "allowed" to defend myself and my property than to trust my safety to those who only want control. Many people don't take responsibility for their own safety because of the legal repercussions of doing so. I don't care what someone is or is claimed to be, but only what they do. Initiate force or fraud and I don't care if you are Al Quaeda, a cop, or BATFE, you are my enemy. Come to think of it, who really constitutes the bigger threat to my liberty? I'll bet you know the answer to that one.

David says: "That is not the world we are in, and not likely to be for the foreseeable future. .....Right now, like it or not, we have what we have. ....... In the structure that exists....." and I agree. He is pointing out, quite correctly, that the attitudes of the people and the governmental realities prevent a rational, reasonable, solution to bad guys moving to America and wreaking havoc. You don't cure cancer by removing one cancerous cell and then saying "See, you are still dying!" You must remove all the cancerous tumors and then make certain that any stragglers are destroyed before they can grow into a new tumor.

Tyranny is the same way. I don't think real freedom will ever be accomplished piecemeal. This is why I am a radical. That isn't a popular thing to say. People don't want to face the fact that they will have to relinquish their hold on their favorite bit of authoritarianism. And "immigration control" is a very popular piece of the tyranny machine.

The truth is, the freedom to travel, as long as you don't trespass on private property, is an indispensable part of individual liberty. If government owns all the land around us, or if it owns us and the immigrants as well, then government has the authority to declare independent migrants to be "illegal". Otherwise government is overstepping its authority even if it is a popular stance. Liberty may not always be "safe", but no one who knows liberty demands that it be.

Added: I realize that I left out one important fact, and that is that curing cancer (or tyranny) can be painful and some people choose to forgo the treatment and let nature take its course. That is their choice, but they do not have my permission to make that choice for me.

Libertarianism Frees You Twice

Libertarianism doesn't just free you, it frees you twice.

It frees you from holding onto false ideologies; allowing you to focus on what really matters.

It also frees you from the need to worry over other peoples' private lives; once again, allowing you to focus on more important things.

You may think this isn't a big deal, but think again. The more consistently libertarian I act, the easier my life gets. Try it for yourself and see if it doesn't hold true for you as well.


________________________________

"Lawful Purposes"

When the Supreme Court unconstitutionally ruled on the Constitutionality of DC's victim disarmament "laws", "Justice" Antonin Scalia was quoted as saying "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home." (emphasis mine)

I, for one, have a lot of problems with that statement. Not the least of which is in defining "lawful purposes".

Overthrowing a tyrannical government is never "lawful", yet is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the right to own and to carry arms. Perhaps we could squeak through by emphasizing the word "traditional". The war for independence certainly set up a tradition that we should follow. But then there is also the tradition of keeping the exact same, or better, arms that are current military issue. Of course, the parasites in government "service" have decreed that we may not do that either.

Scalia's mentioning of "self defense within the home" is a cowardly way to try to limit the right. "Self defense" is the same no matter if you are in your home, on the job, in the White House, or on a plane. It is an absolute, unlimited, human right that can never be legitimately subjected to "reasonable restrictions". As with all rights, your right to self defense can be respected or it can be violated. Those who violate it in any way are evil and they are your enemy. Never forget who those predators are.

Do not strive to be "lawful" or "law abiding". Strive to be right.

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

"The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier

If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you want privacy? This is why: "The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier

Thoughts on Hurricane Ike

I don't know if I would have evacuated if I had been in the path of the hurricane. As it is, I am high and dry many hundreds of miles away, though still in Texas. But, had I been in the storm's path, what would I have done?

It would depend upon my assessment of the structural integrity of my house, and the elevation of my location. Each person should make decisions of that sort on their own without threats and panic-inducement from the authoriturds. That being said, I can't understand those clowns who choose to stay and then cry out for the government to rescue them when things don't go well. Grow up and take responsibility for your decisions. You are only giving the state an excuse to say "We told you so"

The really big danger of evacuating is that the "authorities" won't let you go home until they decide it is "safe". That might be the one factor that would cause me to ride it out even if I would have otherwise left. Let people make their own choices.

Given recent examples of government mishandling and exacerbation of natural disasters with incompetence and tyranny, I don't blame people for ignoring government's hand wringing and barked orders.

This is another reminder to stay prepared. Not all emergencies come with days of prior warning.
Then I hear people complaining about "price gouging" in the wake of the storm. Please. It's called "supply and demand" and is a feature of the free market that serves to distribute supplies to those who really need and want them. I am not surprised that the Socialist in Chief has a problem with the free market, but I am surprised that so few people correct his lies regarding this.

On a related note: I know how to stop a hurricane. A sufficiently large asteroid strike would make a hurricane go away in record time, though it wouldn't be any nicer for the people in the affected areas.

SiteMeter's Change- I'm Posting Blind Now

With the new format for SiteMeter, I can't access the data I had come to count on. I will no longer know if anyone is reading this. At least not easily enough that I will actually bother to check.

I'll probably uninstall the whole mess soon if they don't make it easier to use.

While frustrating, it might also be liberating.

Added: I guess I wasn't the only one having problems. They have gone back to the old style for now. I don't mind the new style as long as they have the same data as the old style, easily accessible. They didn't. I hope when they fix it, it has the features I want.
................................................

Diffuse Efforts to Undermine Tyranny

I thought I would put together a list of some of the freedom efforts being pursued. Some are more serious than others, some will irritate anarchists while some will irritate minarchists. Look into these, or others you may know of, and if you find one or more that you are interested in, join them and help the effort. Doing something is better than doing nothing.


Advocates For Self-Government

Alliance for the Separation of School and State

American Liberty Dollar

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Boston Tea Party

Cato Institute

Checkpoint USA

Constitution Preservation

Copper Cards

Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Flex Your Rights

Free America

Free State Project

Free State Wyoming

Fully Informed Jury Association

Give Me Liberty

International Society for Individual Liberty

Libertarian Majority

Libertarianism.com

Loving County

Republic of Lakotah

Seize Liberty Network

Simply Anarchy

Sovereigns of the High Frontier

Take Your Money Back

The On Line Freedom Academy

United States House of Repeals

Building Liberty's Gallows

Are you supplying rope, nails, assistance, or knowledge to those who are building the gallows they plan to hang you on?

If you support ANY government agency, program, branch, or function, you are.

The only justification for being part of the construction crew would be if you were making certain that faulty materials were being used so that the structure would collapse if it were used. Or if you had altered the blueprints so that those following them would end up with a useless product.

In that case you are making a sacrifice for liberty. Don't be surprised if you are not recognized as being on the side of liberty by a casual observer, and be prepared for whatever may come when those ducks come home to roost. It won't be a good time to be mistaken for an enabler.

The Upcoming Election Dilemma- Solved

You want "change"? I've got your "change" right here!

I have not been pushing my write-in campaign in order to avoid irritating you. It is time to speak up again. I am still serious in my promises to you.

Voting for the "OBAMcCAIN" creature is wasting your vote. There is no justification for it. Voting for the lesser of 2 (or 3 or..?) evils is wasting your vote. It is quite possible that voting at all is wasting your vote because it endorses a bad system and a terrible idea: tyranny of the majority.

So, what does a principled person with a conscience do?

The best possible way to spend your vote in this rigged game is by using it to send a message.

If you still think voting is a good idea, why would you vote for anyone other than the candidate who believes you know how to run your own life better than anyone else? That can only mean a real libertarian. I trust you to make the right decisions and be a responsible person. Does OBAMcCAIN? Absolutely not!

Why would you vote for someone who fears you enough to try to immorally take your guns out of your hands while in public (you know, where you need them the most)? Instead, if voting is to be worthwhile, vote for the person who has stated that you should be armed at all times if you so choose, including when in his presence. I'll take my chances with true liberty.

Why waste your vote on some joker who thinks other people own your body and are authorized to tell you what to do with it? Instead, if your vote is not to be wasted, vote for the person who knows that no one has the authority to do anything to your body without your permission, nor to prevent you from destroying your own body if that is your choice.

Why waste your vote on someone who might "allow" you to keep "more" of your money instead of recognizing that no one has any right to a cent of your money except for you? If you choose to vote, vote for the one who knows that your property belongs to you alone.

Why waste your vote on a candidate who supports the continued printing of counterfeit money by the Federal Reserve? Instead, vote for a candidate who will insist on a return to real money.

Why waste your vote on a candidate who thinks he and the rest of the Rulers own your personal property and can control "who, what, and why" you allow to be there. Your property is yours and no one else has any claim on it.

Why throw your vote away on some creep who wants to imprison your children for many hours every day, for more than 9 months a year, for 12 or more years, to train them to be good little cogs, all paid for with stolen money ransomed from homes? Your children and their education are your responsibility. You can do a better job... cheaper and without the Pavlovian training to jump at the sound of a bell... than the state. Vote for the person who will fight to free you and your children.

Why waste your vote on someone who believes that it is OK for "society" to tell people who are harming no innocent person that they are being bad and should be kidnapped and imprisoned? If you are harming no innocent person you are free to live your life however you see fit. No matter who is offended by your choices. This is absolutely non-negotiable in a free society.

Don't waste your vote. The only way to truly not waste it is by voting for yourself. I am volunteering to be your proxy. A vote for me is a vote for yourself. I am a true libertarian who acknowledges that you own your own life, and who will help you fight off any attempts to deny you that self-determination.

Write-in voting is inconvenient. The feds will refuse to count the votes. However, if there are enough of them, and they are mostly for one person, they may still refuse to acknowledge the votes, but they won't be able to ignore them. Those votes, if there are enough of them, will scare the "snot" out of them.

I still believe the wisest thing to do on election day is stay home and prepare, or go out and buy ammo. Many people still see value in voting, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If that is the case, please consider voting in self-defense this time.

If you spend your vote on me, and if I were to win, I promise to never cooperate with ANY branch of the federal (or any) government or with ANY federal (or other level) agency. This is the only way to empower liberty: hobble the state. I am the anti-body for authoritarianism. Inoculate the federal government with a dose of me. Or think of me as chemotherapy to fight off the metastasized cancer of government. Either way, I would be much better than the rest of the candidates.


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

A Triumph of "Gun Control"

In quiet contemplation of "Gun Control Success Day", I post this illustration from Scott Bieser. Remember: They hate us because we are free.

Are You Part of the Reason Liberty is Dying?

Personally, there are a lot of activities I don't like. Guess what... my opinion is less than worthless. As long as you are not harming another innocent person I have no right to stop you, nor does government. In fact, since government is not a person, it has no "rights" at all.

Suppose your neighbor likes to get together with a group of like-minded people and lick stinging nettles and straddle electric fences on their own property. You may think they are crazy. You may decry the fact that they are harming themselves. You may even be disgusted at the fact that your neighbor gets a sexual thrill from his chosen activity. You can question the reasons behind it. You can try to convince your neighbor that he is damaging his body. But the second you try to use coercion, either personally or by attacking him with the state, you are doing wrong.

Now substitute a real-world activity for the nettles-and-electricity scenario (not claiming no ones does this, just that there are others easier to imagine). Do you love liberty enough to defend the right of the person doing the thing you hate the most, as long as they are not harming others? If not, why not?

Do you seek to throw the state at others in any way? Do you have any pet project that uses the state, but that you defend "just in this one instance"? Do you fall for the propaganda that serves to divide freedom lovers and empower the state as it attempts to control every aspect of our lives? Do you defend the speech rights of those who say hateful things, while still proclaiming that they are wrong, or do you seek to use the state to make them be quiet? If so, you are helping build government, not to dismantle it.

In this time of mega-state Big-Brotherism, we must fight even harder against those who would infringe on even the most bizarre and unpopular victimless activity. Otherwise we are playing right into the hands of the worse enemy human civilization has ever known: government. They know the game of "divide and conquer" and they have been using it for millennia. Don't play their game. Join with your neighbors and smash the state.


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

Extremists Defending Absolute Human Rights

The defense of absolute human rights is only an "extreme" position to those who wish to violate those human rights. Violating absolute human rights always leads to death. When you are called "an extremist", remember who is speaking.

Is your accuser dressed in black bullet-proof clothing; riding in an armored personnel carrier, carrying weapons that he would kill you for possessing?

Is the speaker sitting in an office thinking up new ways to take what belongs to you, while counting on those with the "prohibited-to-you" weapons to enforce the theft?

Is the speaker calling for you and your friends and family to be killed to make way for a new, enlightened world?

Is your accuser wanting to see a river of blood usher in his version of "justice"?

Can you tell the difference between extremism in defense of liberty and extremism in the cause of tyranny? Yeah? So can I.


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

Threatening Your Values

My mother has a calendar from the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family hanging in the house. Speaking about the group's activism, it has the statement "...when a moral issue threatens the values we hold dear...". That phrase makes me wonder: How can your values be threatened? Either they are your values or not. If you get new information which shows you that your values were wrong you can either change them, or go into denial mode. You may feel threatened by new information or different views, but your values are not.

There is some obfuscation at work here. They are not really worried about their values at all. What the group is really worried about is not being able to impose their values upon others who may have different values. My values recognize that as wrong. They should be worried; the era of legitimized coercion is coming to a close.

Anarchy: Freedom From Statist Filth

Your life is an empty vase. You fill it with things that add value. You try to keep the bad things out. Of course, "value" and "bad" are subjective and will vary from person to person.

As long as your vase is not contaminated by the excrement of "state" you are in a condition of "anarchy". You are free of state coercion. If you allow your vase to be smeared with the state, or allow a dollop of the state to be placed inside, you are no longer living in anarchy. Even a microscopic amount will cause your liberty-health to suffer.

It can be difficult to clean up the contamination, but the effort is well worth it. And once clean, you will fight harder against new contamination.


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

Children and Guns: France and Beyond

I was recently asked my opinion of "children and guns" by a reporter from France. Here is the article: McKenzie, the 11-year-old who can field strip and reassemble a rifle in 53 secs.

Conformity

I have never been good at conformity. I figured that out at an early age.

I recently read an article in The Libertarian Enterprise that contained an admonition for men to stop cutting their hair short, as it is "the preferred hairstyle of imperialists and mass murderers throughout history". While I much prefer long hair (on men and women), and I have noticed a tendency for the worst Liberty Eradication Operatives (LEOs) to have that ridiculous tiny rug in the center of their otherwise scraped-bare scalp, I can't really condone a call for conformity in hair-cuts either.

Just because evil people have adopted a symbol does not make that symbol evil. Whether it is swastikas, suits and ties, or short hair. Still, with an entire history of fashion available to us today, why exclusively choose the incredibly unimaginative dress of mainstream society? And if your choice of hair-style and clothing can make the statists uncomfortable, why not go for it?

Liberty, remember?

______________________________

Note: The pic above was for my niece who wanted to see me in "pirate mode". I don't usually dress quite like that. Yes, she put eye makeup on me and then wouldn't help me remove it. The things I do for people!

Psychotic Libertarian Blog!

I am pleased to note that I was the 5th entry when someone did a Google search for "psychotic libertarian blog". Of course, the search results are based upon words in my blog, not peoples' opinion of me. Or so I believe....

Jury Rights Day, September 5th

Don't forget that September 5th is Jury Rights Day. Support the Fully Informed Jury Association!

What Do You Mean By "Freedom"?

Recently, on the War on Guns blog, MamaLiberty made an observation. I quote the relevant points:

"I had it all explained to me by a politician the other day. ....... He was
telling a room full of people ........that all of the laws are necessary in
order to preserve our freedom. .......Then it dawned on me. We are not using the
word "freedom" in the same way. What politicians mean by "freedom" is freedom
from risk, from being offended or challenged with any real responsibility for
ourselves or our lives. "

Sadly, politicians aren't the only ones. Listen to a song recorded since "9/11" that contains the word "freedom". Chances are the singer is singing about that same kind of false freedom. Ask a person on the street if they are "free". Then question them about their answer.

It has been said that if you tell a person that they are free long enough, they will believe you no matter what the truth is. Well, if you redefine "freedom" to mean the opposite of "freedom", I guess the result is the same.



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

Choosing Your Enemies

I suspect it may be an unfortunate fact of being human that we all "need" someone to dislike. This is why racism, sexism, religious wars, and gay-bashing is a problem. But, not all "dislikes" are arbitrary like those.

If that is the case, that we all "need" someone to dislike, I am happy to choose to dislike those who choose to harm innocent people: the statists and authoritarians. Of course, the statists and authoritarians choose to dislike those who disagree with them, even though they harm no one. They even threaten to make a "river of blood" flow. Guess who is the dangerous, bad person. It isn't us "radicals" of the libertarian variety, that's for sure.

We libertarians would stand alongside those who are hated, belittled, or denigrated by the statists, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, and fight for their right to live unmolested. By some peoples' standards, that makes us racists. Go figure.

The Tragic "Cop-ification" of Gun Magazines

Not all (or even most) honest gun owners are cop-worshippers. That is something gun magazines would do well to acknowledge.

I was a charter subscriber to Concealed Carry Magazine. After a few wonderful issues I even wrote the editor praising his avoidance of the term "legally licensed" which seems to always precede "concealed carry" in the other gun magazines I subscribe to. He wrote back expressing agreement and his disdain for the term. That was then, this is now.

Now, just like all the other gun magazines I get, it has been taken over by either cops, or cop-worshippers, judging by the articles. "Legally licensed" is scattered throughout the articles, and enthusiasm for cops, and belittling of real freedoms, is rampant. Their weekly email newsletter even highlighted a drug test for home use to "check out" friends and family members. Absolutely unbelievable!

These magazines need to realize that cops are not the friend of the average, peaceable gun owner. In fact, as Hurricane Katrina, as well as a thousand incidents in a thousand cities and small towns every day, should have illustrated, cops are worse enemies to us than are the "violent criminals" who we are told to fear and despise.

I let my subscription to Concealed Carry lapse after writing the editor once again, this time expressing my building disappointment. I got a response from an assistant, who said the message would be passed along. I heard nothing more. I have better ways to spend my money than to send it to enemies of real freedom.

Gun Giveaway

I shouldn't do this since it probably lowers my chances of winning, but if you haven't signed up for the Gallery of Guns monthly giveaway, you should do so. They have a new one each month. I have yet to win, and with my fuzzy resident status, it might be difficult to take delivery, what with all the illegal gun "laws" being enforced these days.

The "Bigtime"

I didn't make this joke video, but I like it anyway: Who is Kent McManigal? The sad part is, that generic "news" story is about as in-depth as the "real" ones get.

Thanks to The War on Guns.

A Really Good Time to Sneak Up and Say "BOO!"

Assuming that the guy's cap really indicates his employer. Which, judging by his intelligence, I'm guessing it does.

Agreement

As a libertarian/anarchist I believe that I should not attack or steal from other individuals. That isn't a very radical position. Except for sociopaths, there is little disagreement over this.

I think even most statists believe in the same ethics for individuals. Where they go terribly wrong is that they think that agents of the state are exempt and have a different ethical standard. They are desperate for a reason to justify this unjustifiable insanity. So they call those acts by different names. Or they simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

I refuse to do either.


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

Liberty Works For Me

I have never run into a situation where liberty doesn't work. With all the nebulous "what if"s out there nothing has ever happened that "required" me to initiate force.

That doesn't mean that my life has gone perfectly. Just like everyone else, some things have seemed unsolvable.

In order to "fix" some things, people would probably need to commit murder. Since that violates just about every legal, moral, and ethical code in existence (not just my personal one) I can discount that "shortcoming". The unforeseen consequences would undoubtedly be worse than the situation which was "fixed". Plus, it would just be wrong. As they say "extreme cases make for bad law". So it is with personal philosophies. Since liberty continues to work, I will continue to live it. It is the right thing to do.

"Criminals For Gun Control" Video

Check out this video: Criminals For Gun Control. Obviously, this applies to the badged ones as well as the free-lancers.

Scared of a Plant

No government that is so afraid of a plant that it lies, kidnaps, and kills people deserves any respect. It deserves scorn and contempt. And not just from us anarchists, but from the statists, too.


I mean, your government is supposed to be such a big, strong daddy that it keeps you safe from "those other people" who are scary to you. It supposedly knows all the answers and tells you how to best live your life. But when confronted by a plant that has been used medicinally and recreationally for thousands of years without killing anyone (also used for rope that has killed countless people, both good and bad, but that's another issue) this big, strong state gets so scared that it behaves irrationally and spreads absurd propaganda about the feared plant through the national media; propaganda that knowledgeable people laugh at. And you still think your government is "big and strong"? Pshaw.

Keep Hoping, Statists

I think there are a good many people out there who are desperately hoping that libertarianism and its more radical child, anarchy, can never work. They have a lot invested in statism and keep looking for reasons why liberty "can't" work.


It is up to libertarians and anarchists to prove them wrong.

We can do this in our private and public lives on a daily basis. We can do this when we have a conflict between ourselves or with statists by taking the high road. We can do this by never initiating government contact when there is a conflict. If they initiate it, we can still deal with the situation in a principled way, though it may be harder.

Prove to the statists that the state is not only unnecessary, but undesirable, to us, at least. Show them that they are being ridiculous when they claim we will all kill one another without the guns of the state pointed at our heads; keeping us in line. Let them keep hoping while we keep proving them dead wrong.


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

Libertarian and Anarchist

I have had a revelation. I have always maintained that libertarianism and anarchism are related, as in "Anarchism is libertarianism in full bloom". I think I just figured out a deeper relationship.

"Libertarianism" describes my interations with other individuals. I respect their rights and expect them to also respect mine.

"Anarchism" describes my interactions with Rulers of any sort. I ignore their illegitimate authority until the issue is forced, and then I regard them as the parasites upon civilization that they have proven themselves to be throughout all of recorded history.

Learning "Obedience to Authority"

Public schools (and their private counterparts) are not really in existence to teach you science, history, geography, language skills, or math. They are there to teach you to obey authority and jump at the sound of a bell.

It has been estimated that you can be taught all the skills you need in order to take care of your own education in about 100 hours. The rest of the time, usually 12 years of formal schooling, is used for teaching you something that is much more difficult. It teaches you to betray yourself. This lesson didn't set well for some of us.

In high school, when a teacher used a small pickled flounder as an example in a test and called it a skate (as an example of chondrichthyes) I refused to go along. The teacher got very angry at my insistence, but I felt it was important to not give the kids false information. He never admitted he was deceiving the class, but he knew I knew.

I'm sure my life would be easier had I absorbed my lessons in obedience, but I would not trade my independence for ease. Well.... maybe sometimes.

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

Libertarian, But.....

You have probably noticed, as have I, how many supposed libertarians cling to government at some level. It is as if they are scared to take that last step. They come up with excuse after excuse for why that last vestige of government is necessary to keep us all from killing each other.

Often they point to the Constitution, the "founders", religion, or their own military career as justification for their beliefs. They resort to insults such as the over-used "If you don't like it, move". Brilliant, Sherlock. And where exactly would you suggest as fertile ground for freedom? The entire globe is infected with your statism.

I am so tired of hearing them make excuses for blocking freedom. If you are scared, fine. Get out of the way and at least stop being a traitor to liberty. This really makes me angry. Governments should have "friends" like these.

So, should we simply write those people off as hopeless? I don't know, but I think they are even more stubborn and dangerous than flaming statists.



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

True Environmentalists Don't Support Socialism

I love the natural world. I value unspoiled wilderness and wildlife. I can't stand litter and can't fathom why some people are ignorant enough to toss trash on the ground instead of putting it in trash containers. It has never hurt me even a tiny bit to hold onto my trash for a few minutes. People who crap in their nest by polluting and damaging the world are no friends of mine. But neither are the people who think that Law Pollution is the answer to trash and chemical pollution.

Those who embrace government protection of the environment are ignoring the fact that governments the world over are the worst despoilers of the natural world. They also fight against technological civilization while glamorizing tribal herdsmen; ignoring the fact that technology usually lessens the impact of the individual on the environment.

I have nothing against tribal herdsmen nor against high-tech societies. I have a lot against those who think the solution to anything is the growth of government control at the expense of the individual's liberty. Once again, government is not the answer. People generally protect that which they own, but even in the cases where they don't, they OWN the property, not the government, not society, not the neighbors. Taking their use of their own property is theft.

If you pollute or otherwise damage your neighbor's property, you should be held accountable. Your damage is not OK. Not even if you are a government weapon facility.

To give the biggest, worst polluter and despoiler the authority to tell others how to dispose of or use their own property is socialism. It is wrong. Real environmentalists support private property. They will educate property owners so they will understand how taking care of the environment helps their own interests. And they will leave those alone who do not go along.


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

Life As It Should Be

Do what you want and don't bother me.

That should be enough. Initiate force against me and you are bothering me. Victimize innocent people and you are bothering me. Steal, murder, or kidnap under color of "law" and you are bothering me. Otherwise meddle in stuff that is none of your business, and you are definitely bothering me.

I don't want anything from anyone except to live in peace and to not be victimized by the state if I need to defend that peace. That is the essence of libertarianism and of anarchy. Is that too much to ask?

Open Letter to the NRA (With Updates)

Dear NRA,

I have written you numerous times. Your only response has been those infuriatingly vapid "thank you for contacting us" form letter emails. This email, and any responses from you will be published on my blogs and sent to my friends and contacts who may also be NRA members. I am tired of being ignored. I am tired of being sold down the river by your support of authoritarianism. I am sick of being shoved aside and sacrificed to your police-state buddies, their liberty destroying programs, and your absolutely delusional assessment of the situation. I regret ever joining your organization, and especially regret shelling out the money for a life-membership. I may as well have joined one of the other victim disarmament gangs.

My September 2008 copy of your official journal, America's 1st Freedom, arrived this week. Can you say "last straw"? I am angry and I will be heard.

In past Presidential (and other) elections* you have ignored the true pro-gun candidates of the Libertarian Party in order to endorse your darlings of the Republican Party. Now look where it has gotten you. In this copy of America's 1st Freedom, you go to great lengths to decry Obama's anti-gun history while ignoring McCain's even more disturbing anti-gun history. I say "even more disturbing" simply because this is the traitor you are pushing as the gun-owners' candidate! The man is a traitor in more ways than one, and on gun ownership is no better than the other traitor, Obama. Only McCain lies more smoothly because of your help. His history is swept under the rug, again with your help. Stop it NOW! In this election, partly because of your ignorance, the LP doesn't even have a pro-gun candidate. Did you orchestrate this situation on purpose? Because you couldn't have sabotaged gun owners any more thoroughly if you had.

Then, once again in America's 1st Freedom, your official voice, we are treated to an absolutely delusional assessment of the Heller decision. You crow about the "victory" while ignoring the fact that the black-robed traitors have effectively rubber-stamped any victim-disarming scheme short of an all-out ban. Any permits, restrictions, or other infringements are well within the scope of the "allowed" prohibitions. "Shall not be infringed" could not be any more clear. Where is the wiggle-room?

Stop supporting and endorsing police-state programs such as PROJECT EXILE. Stop supporting the enforcers who prop up these programs. No LEO ("Liberty Eradication Operative") who has ever enforced even one gun law is worthy of your adoration. Authoritarianism and gun rights are mutually exclusive. Choose sides and stop sitting on the fence. It makes you look like fools.

"Concealed Carry legislation" is unnecessary. Don't pass new laws, just strike the old illegal laws from the books. Or ignore them. Whatever you do, don't train people to beg for permission to exercise their basic human rights. It is a dangerous, slippery, slope that leads nowhere good.

Stop advocating the disarmament of children and teachers in government schools. Is there any place more dangerous than where parents can not be to protect their children? Bad people will always find a way. Stop giving them the advantage by supporting hideously cruel "gun-free" zones.

The Second Amendment prohibits the Federal government from passing or enforcing any law regarding personal weapons of any sort. That means your call to "enforce the laws we already have" is dead wrong. There is no way that enforcing any gun law helps me or the rest of us average, non-violent gun owners. Any prohibitions against "felons", "mentally ill", or anyone else possessing any type of guns, does not help anyone but the state, and does not make you or me safer in any way. Any prohibition or restriction on any sort of gun is prohibited by the Second Amendment. Yes, that includes machine guns. Any limitation of where or when or HOW (openly or concealed) anyone can carry any type of personal weapon is strictly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Stop tip-toeing around the issues. You may shock or scare some people, but really, how much more can the gun-banners hate you anyway? Stop catering to them. Start standing up for the people who want to be on your side. A principled stand will show you are worthy of the support of gun owners again. Maybe some of those "as long as I can keep my deer rifle..." gun owners will get a clue and follow your lead. If nothing else, you can see who is really supportive of the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

I will not resign my membership, but feel free to kick me out. I, and principled members like me, will continue to be your conscience. Will you continue to ignore us?

Signed,
Kent McManigal
NRA Life member (#-------)

Added: Four days and counting and no response other than the "we received your email" reply.

An "answer" from NRA; five days later, and obviously a somewhat dated form letter. Notice how my points were completely ignored:

Dear Sir,

Please know that the NRA is a non-partisan organization. When considering candidates for endorsement, our political action committee, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), reviews several aspects of a candidate's campaign. In addition to determining a candidate's position on the Second Amendment and firearms ownership rights, we also review other factors such as viability, likelihood of making a runoff, campaign strategies, methods and staffing, and, finally, whether or not a candidate has a possibility of success in a particular district or state. Obviously, some districts are so one-sided in relation to partisan politics that support for any other candidates or parties would be fruitless and wasteful.

NRA-PVF has an obligation to our contributing membership to support and assist the best pro-gun candidate, and you can rest assured that all serious candidates are considered and reviewed. Regardless of party affiliation, all candidates are given the same consideration. But when it comes to a pro-gun incumbent running against a pro-gun challenger, we will almost always side with the incumbent.

McCain certainly is not perfect, but he is far better than Obama on gun issues. Obama has a near perfect anti-gun record, while McCain has voted on the wrong side only a few times. McCain voted to restrict our lobbying activities (McCain-Feingold) and to increase regulations at gun shows, but he voted against the Clinton gun bans and voted to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among many other pro-gun votes.

As for the Heller decision, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kennedy, our individual right to keep and bear arms was formally recognized by the highest court in the land (Justices Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens).

The Washington D.C. gun ban is now overturned, and this new precedent will be the foundation for furthering the protection and expansion of our right to keep and bear arms, both legislatively and judicially, especially in areas with restrictions as severe as California's.

Further, NRA has already filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs. The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as "incorporation." Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

We believe violent criminals who use guns during the commission of crimes should serve long, mandatory prison sentences. We will not change our stance on that issue. We believe that crime control, rather than gun control, is the solution to the violent crime problem.

We don't support the idea of "gun-free zones": http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=260

We are not all-powerful. We cannot suddenly have all anti-gun laws repealed. However, we are the most powerful lobbying organization in the country and we will continue to use our influence to steer legislation in a way that will protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although we may not get everything we want all of the time, everything we do is aimed at improving the current situation.

We do not cater to anyone but our members, fellow gun owners, and others who believe in the sanctity of the Second Amendment. I hope this helps.

Cordially,
Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots

Added 9-24-2008:

So... I got my NRA magazine again and I see an election primer, spelling out which politicians are "pro-gun", at least by your reckoning. How in the world am I supposed to trust what you say? Your organization gives good marks to anti-gun oppressors who might have supported one of your pet pieces of legislation while ignoring TRUE pro-gun people who haven't had a chance to help out the cause because you refuse to endorse them. I might as well be voting blind.

-

*Of course, this was written well before I realized the stupidity of participating in the rigged game known as "elections". Abstain from Beans!

.

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.





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