"Free Market"? Hardly!

"Free market". The term refers to voluntary interaction and trade without government interference or coercion. Seems pretty straightforward, right?

There is an organization I recently became aware of called "The Free Market Foundation". They are not concerned with freedom, but with using government to promote their brand of religion. They do advocate keeping government out of the areas where government intervention would offend their beliefs, but as soon as government meddling can advance their agenda, they run to government.

They fight against the ACLU, which is battling government in many areas. The ACLU definitely has its blind spots as far as supporting some rights while ignoring others, but the Free Market Foundation opposes them because it opposes allowing people to exercise their basic human rights which happen to offend the group's sensibilities. This is mainly because these "free marketeers" wish to get government to support discrimination against gay people. The ACLU also tries to keep the government in compliance with the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and establishment of none; something the Free Market Foundation opposes. This is not "free market" but government intervention. A group really concerned with the free market would only be advocating the removal of laws, not the passage of new ones.

They have the right to call their organization anything they choose, of course. I also have the right to point out their hypocrisy. How would they appreciate a group of Iraqi Muslims calling themselves "The American Christian Foundation"? Probably not too much, and they would probably run to the government to force them to change their name.

I wrote to them pointing out their "error", but I never got a response. In my mind, that just compounds the dishonesty.


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

Let's Be Animals

As a way to survive (and succeed) while we wait for the state to implode, I suggest we behave like wild animals. No, I don't think we should eat our young or one another. What I mean is that we should simply live our lives and ignore the shenanigans in government unless we are cornered.

Animals don't care or worry about who imagines himself the Ruler of America. They don't concern themselves with "laws". All that matters to them is getting on with the business of living. That includes biting, clawing, or flogging anyone who tries to trap them. Don't be a pet or farm animal who grovels or submits to a fleecing. Cling to your hide and defend your territory. And ignore the flatulence wafting from DC or more local sources.

"Wow! The Renaissance of America!"

Here is another mention of my writings, this time in Christian Butterbach's blog: "Wow! The Renaissance of America!"

"The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs"

Here, from a non-libertarian site, is their list of "The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs". I'm not sure what criteria they used to choose, but I was happy to see myself on there. Of course, they included me with the "politicians". Eww! The campaign is over so if I ever was one, I'm not one anymore!

"Forever Stamps"

Do you notice that the US government assumes it will exist forever? I ran across one of those "Forever Stamps" today. You know, the ones that are supposed to be good "forever" no matter what the price of mailing a letter climbs to. I think there is some baseless assuming going on there. "Forever Stamps" are good "forever" only if the US government lasts forever. The courier company that replaces the government monopoly after the US is gone will not honor them. Why should they?

Why would the US government and its supporters make such an irrational and silly assumption about its permanence? Probably because they honestly can't imagine the alternative. But there has never been a government that lasts "forever", and I seriously doubt there ever will be. Few last more than a couple centuries. It just isn't rational to ignore this fact. The more a government meddles, the less likely it is to last much longer. The more strict a government is, the sooner it collapses. And the less mercy its "organs" and collaborators receive.

That doesn't mean that a free society is the inevitable outcome, but it does mean that to make that happen, some plans need to be made. Now. I'm making mine; how about you?

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

An Instinct for Liberty

I hope I am not alone in this, and judging by what I read from a few other people out there, I suspect I am not, but I feel as though I have an instinct for liberty. It just seems to be a natural part of my existence. I am not talking about anything mystical, but a natural, inborn understanding of what liberty really is and why it is important to protect. Read the rest

Life, Love, and Liberty

This is a different kind of post. It is more philosophical than I normally write. You may think I am completely off-base, but I can only judge this by own life. Think what you will.

I think that in order to be happy and fulfilled, humans need life, love, and liberty. When I say "life", I don't mean mere existence, but "A Life"; a "Purpose". Those are the minimum requirements. You can have one or two of those and still be relatively content, but without all three, you may seek a substitute for that missing component.

The substitutions that come first are entertainment, sex, and money. Entertainment can make you forget that you don't have much of a life. After all, living vicariously can make you feel more alive, can't it? Sex can take away the pain of living without love, since it is usually a part of a life that has enough love in it. And money can buy you a lot of privileges that can be almost indistinguishable from real liberty. The only difference is that when the money is gone, so is the "freedom". Yet there is another level down from these substitutes.

The last level can be the saddest. I am not saying these things are necessarily bad, just that if they are your only outlet for those higher level needs, they are not really satisfying. This is the level of diversions, porn, and debt.

Diversions may not really entertain you, but only occupy your time. They keep your mind and hands busy and keep you from thinking about how bad your life is. If your life is normally OK, then a diversion now and then doesn't hurt anything. In that case, it is just a way to spend your down-time. At the worst, they are the busy-work you do while waiting to die. Porn is sex without human contact. While those who have real love can enjoy porn, to have it as your only outlet is tragic. Then there is debt. It is pretending to be able to buy things that you really can't afford. It might give you a little temporary illusion of freedom while it bolts the chains around your ankles. You are betting on an uncertain future.

I would say that most of us have dipped into the substitutes for Life, Love, and Liberty from time to time. It is my hope that you and I do not end up spending our lives down there.

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

Rights Violators

Why is it that most people seem more interested in taking rights away from others than they are in securing their own rights? This is just an observation from the recent election. If it weren't for the promises of keeping some "other people" from "legally" exercising their rights, there wouldn't have been many political ads out there.

Whether it is "gay rights", abortion, gun ownership, migrants, or economics, as long as no one is being coerced, their lives are not your business. Liberty will never be increased while we keep fighting over keeping others from living their own lives as they see fit. Live free and mind your own business around others.



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

Revisionist History

Government always lies.

I grew up surrounded by conservatives to whom "revisionist history" was blasphemy. As I have since discovered, it should probably be called "revealed history". History gets revised as new information, long suppressed by those in government who would be exposed, becomes available. Often because the perpe-traitors die off.

As a somewhat frivolous example, the government's OFFICIAL story about "The Roswell Crash" has changed multiple times. If no one had pressed the issue, the government would not have bothered changing its story. Well, other than changing the original official government revelation that a crashed "disc" had been recovered. And, for the record, I don't think an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in Roswell in 1947. But I do know the government has lied about the event ever since it happened. Each current version is said to be the final word... until the next version, anyway.

How many other events were allowed to go unexamined and therefore remained unchanged from the original, dishonest, version? How many have been examined, but the findings marginalized? The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? JFK? Viet Nam? Waco? The OKC explosion? 9/11?

How many evil people have been undeservedly honored by history? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Or all of the above.

The reason history gets revised is because "history is written by the winners". Government always initially lies about an event when the truth would make them look bad (which the truth will always do for a group based upon coercion and theft). The government that "wins" gets its version of the story made "official". The lies become a part of the cultural mythology and are defended with the fervor of a religion. People have a need to cling to those lies and myths in order to not feel they have thrown their lives away supporting an evil, dishonest institution. But the truth is the truth. Sometimes it is painful. Let it go.


________________________

Probably Not What They Bargained For...

Here's some "hope and change" for you: Hooray for Obama!

Will You Remember THIS 5th of November?

An opportunity is knocking. This could be the beginning (or the middle) of the end for government. If we care enough to make it happen. Won't you contribute to the movement? Encourage all your electorally disappointed friends and family to withdraw support of the illegitimate government now.

Now that the election is past, it is time to realize that government can only rule you if you let it. Don't. People should NOT be afraid of "their" government; governments should be afraid of the people. Make them afraid. Get a backbone. Stop bowing. Stop apologizing. Stop obeying. Stop paying any attention to government at any level. They are the bad guys. Remind them of that fact if they force you to. Ignore them otherwise.

We outnumber them. We always have and always will.

____________________

Election Day: No One is "Fit To Be President"

There is no one on the planet who is "fit to be president". Not. One. Person. Voting for someone is going against this simple truth. When you vote, you are saying that you think it is OK for someone to rule others. It is not.

Military "service" does not qualify a person to rule others. Being "dog catcher" does not qualify someone to rule others. Being elected to lower positions and working your way up the ladder of corruption does not qualify someone to rule others. "Experience" does not qualify someone to rule others. In fact, I think all the above should automatically disqualify a candidate. Only insanity would make a person imagine that it is OK for them to rule others. Insane people should not be elevated into positions of power over others where they can do harm.

I include myself in the above assessment. I am not fit to rule others. If I ever believed I would actually be elected when I asked for your votes, I would be insane and/or evil. I still believe it is best to not vote. I would not condemn you for voting, since I understand the desperation. Write in my name to satisfy your urge to vote so that you do no harm. But.... Voting doesn't help. It doesn't protect liberty. It doesn't protect your rights. The results would be thrown out on some technicality if they actually made any difference towards increasing liberty in any meaningful way. Or the results would just be ignored. Examples abound.

The only things that should possibly be voted upon are things that no one disputes should be done and that don't violate anyone's rights in any way. And then those who do not agree should not be forced to participate or finance those actions. The voting should really just be a way to say "I approve this and I volunteer to chip in to pay for it."

I'll let you in on a "secret": Big government is sure to win the election. You and I are sure to lose if we continue to participate and care. It is a done deal. The system is hopelessly rigged.

If you vote, you shouldn't complain about the results. After all, you have agreed that the system is legitimate, and you have agreed to abide by the results whether "your side" wins or loses. So any disaster that results is in your lap.

Now, instead of voting, get out there and do something real with your life.



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

Voting - My Libertarian / Anarchist Opinion

Voting is like choosing your next meal from the tank of a portable toilet behind the downtown bus station.

Enjoy.


_________________

Today in The Libertarian Enterprise

Do you get those ridiculous emails that try to scare you about immigrants by giving you all the statistics about how bad they are? Me too. Normally I just delete them, but this time I decided to do something different. And then I passed it along to The Libertarian Enterprise.
See the results here.

Drunk Driving

The core of this post is taken from an email conversation I had with someone a while back. I got to thinking about those police-state abominations called "checkpoints" and decided I should put this out there for all to see.

The problem isn't driving with a blood-alcohol content ("BAC") of a certain level, but causing harm by driving when you are "impaired". Impairment can come in many forms, not just alcohol or chemical related, but emotional, physiological, distractions, and other "problems". A "standard" BAC is not possible or reasonable. Anyone who causes damage, injuries, or death for any reason should be held accountable. Punishing people for potentially causing harm isn't good, not even if you think they are likely to cause harm.

That is how the anti-gun crowd operates. The fact that other people do bad things is no excuse to violate my rights in even the slightest way.

I think that someone who knows they have a drinking problem might, when they are sober, choose to install an ignition breathalyzer to prevent ruining their own lives. Especially if their insurance company (the only ones who should set any such standards anyway) were to give a discount for it. I also envision car companies in a free society making more crashproof cars and offering different options to defend against accidents. Would people be willing to pay the extra amount? I don't know. The thing is the cost should be borne by the ones who wish to pay it, and not by the ones who don't. As it is, we ALL pay the price for everyone else's stupidity, both real and potential.

Why couldn't cops, if they must get involved, simply help the drunks get home instead of turning it into an opportunity to shove someone around, kidnap them, and rob them? Is it a "power thing"?

Many people today hate insurance companies, and don't want them having anything to do with driving. I think the biggest problem with insurance companies comes from the state requiring insurance. If they had to compete for your business, other than just assuming you have to pick someone, I think they would be much more innovative and helpful in their dealings with customers. They would have much more leeway in what behaviors they penalized and rewarded. Some things obviously increase their financial risk, and that is why they would reasonably charge more for someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. However, you might have such a good driving record that it would more than offset their risk and cause them to give you a discount. I don't really know what all might happen.... BUT, in a FREE market you would probably pay a tiny fraction of your current expense no matter what. That is the effect of eliminating the monopoly.

I would pay more for a car with active collision avoidance technology. Even though I don't drink. I have almost fallen asleep at the wheel too many times. That would also help pedestrians who would otherwise be in danger of being run down by drunk drivers. That is part of what I mean by "crash proof". I am also thinking that there are other ways of protecting the occupants and other vehicles that haven't been implemented yet. I wouldn't mind having a car that could drive itself as long as I could override that option if I wanted to. I have issues with letting others have control (even a machine).

As always, I am sure these are not the only solutions to the problem, since the market is more responsive, and people are much more clever, than is usually recognized. If a problem exists, it can be solved without violating rights. Once again, government is NOT the solution.
__________

Added: Eric Sundwall posted this link in the Haloscan comments and I think it needs to be read: Legalize Drunk Driving.

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

Hearsay or Observation

Authoritarians, both left and right, base all their fear about a certain candidate on hearsay: "He said if he got elected he would.....do this horrible thing! I just heard about it from Statist News Channel" Oh No!! Gasp! Or: "I'm afraid of what he might do if he is elected! You know how those people are!" Please.....

Libertarian types base our assessment of a candidate on his observed attitudes about liberty and on his demonstrated respect for individual rights. It is much a more reliable and honest method. I like "easier and more accurate", don't you?

Ignore the gossip and cut throught the crap. Does the candidate think it is OK to tell others how they must live even if they are harming no one? Then that tells you all you need to know.

Spreading the Lust for Liberty

This blog is pointless if it never gets read by people who are not already sold on the idea of liberty. "Thank you" to those of you who have helped me get readers by alerting friends (and enemies) to my blog. I appreciate it a lot. If those of us who have a strong longing for liberty don't spread the desire to those who may be on the fence, we won't get very far toward a free society.

If you can string words together, start a blog. If I can do it, it must not be very difficult. If thinking up subjects to write about on a regular basis seems too daunting, there are other ways to spread this "liberty virus". Comment on blogs or on newspaper websites. You can find lots of news items that could use a libertarian or anarchistic perspective to counter all the deluded cheerleaders-for-the-state.

If you can't seem to find the words to express what you are thinking and feeling, then post links to libertarian blogs and websites everywhere you can. There are lots of good ones to spread around (check out my links on the sidebar). The main thing is to expose people who would otherwise never learn about it to liberty, its philosophy, and its ideas. Every little bit helps.



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

"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street"

A good article By Michael Shermer: The Welfare Queens of Wall Street.

Candidates Exposing Themselves to Libertarians

I have noticed a humorous thing about political ads. Whenever Candidate A tries to show how evil Candidate B is, he always inadvertently exposes his own evil. "Candidate B has tried to destroy the sanctity of marriage" is code speech for "I, Candidate A, don't believe that all people have the same rights."

When they say "Candidate B advocates the redistribution of wealth", what that tells us is that Candidate A also advocates the same thing, just in a different way, and he hopes you won't realize that fact. Otherwise he would call for an end to all taxation and welfare, and he isn't doing that, is he?

When Candidate A announces that Candidate B doesn't support "reasonable regulation" of guns, I would love to see the definition of "reasonable". I would also love to see, in writing, where Candidate B recognizes the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, in any way they desire, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Anything other is a restriction, and is way beyond "reasonable".

Most things should not be up for debate, from either side. "Hands off my rights, you meddling parasites!"

For every political ad, there is a clear exposure of both candidates and their absolutely evil opinions about key issues.

See how being libertarian frees you up to see the truth?

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

Why Is It Wrong To Harm the Innocent?

It just is, but why? Is there a logical reason? Does there need to be a logical reason? I suppose I'll examine the issue in my own warped way. I'm sure others have better reasons based upon ... who-knows-what.

"Wrong" in this case means something that is undesirable for moral reasons; in other words, something that is "bad". Bad actions damage those they are directed against. Bad food does not nourish the body properly. Bad car parts don't function correctly and are replaced with good ones. Bad plans result in failure. Bad people can be killed in self-defense without guilt (though not always without "legal" consequences). "Bad" is to be avoided and can result in the elimination of its source. Once again, some would say this is too "utilitarian". Yet, you may as well make your plans according to the existence of gravity if you are in our universe. Ignoring the truth or complaining that you don't understand exactly why it is as it is doesn't get you anywhere. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to get to the foundation. There may be a "Moral Grand Unified Theory" out there somewhere.

So, moving along- "Innocent" means someone who does not deserve harm, at least in the immediate instant or situation. So, it is bad to harm someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.

If it is not wrong to harm the innocent, I would say there is NO such thing as "wrong" at all. I know that is not a good reason. Everyone understands at an instinctive level that it IS wrong to harm the innocent.

Or, sort of. People who are not mentally ill know it is wrong to harm innocent people that they know, or who live around them, but they often think it is OK to harm innocent people that they don't know, like strangers in Iraq or Pakistan. That is just part of the human tendency toward tribalism. It is OK to want to protect your own, but it is not OK to think of others as "less than human". Remember the term "collateral damage" if you want a name for this evil way of refusing to think.

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

"Officer Safety"

The belief that any of us should give up the slightest of our rights, or even conveniences, to protect the troops of the "standing army" that occupies our towns and countryside is disgusting. Whether it is a prohibition on tinted vehicle windows, or "laws" concerning the carrying of weapons, no "officer" is entitled to protection or safety that infringes on the rights of the people.

I am not saying that they don't deserve safety, just that they deserve no special safety above and beyond that which any of us deserve. If it is right for one, it is right for all. I have no right to insist that you give up any of your rights in order to make me feel safer. Neither does a cop.

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

Speaking With "Authority"

People who don't know their history too well, or who have an unfortunate addiction to the state, have a way of seeming to speak with a voice of authority and scolding libertarians for "not living in the grown-up world".

They can sound like they know what they are talking about, and seem to be "adults" while at the same time completely ignoring reality.

And they claim libertarians are "utopian".


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

"2AToday for The USA"

This is a good video from JPFO: "2AToday for The USA". Spread it around.

State Addiction

Those who rant the most about "drug addicts" seem to be the most susceptible to being addicted to the state. Why do they so vehemently hate other addicts? Maybe it is because between the two, addiction to the state is by far the more destructive addiction. The numbers of "dead-by-chemical" can't even begin to compare to the numbers of "dead-by-state".

Face it, any addiction can be harmful. Some people are addicted to video games. Some are addicted to coffee. Some are addicted to music. Some are addicted to control and intimidation. Some are simply addicted to the worship of those who are addicted to control.

Liberty for ALL is the treatment for state addiction. Withdrawal may be painful for some statists. Some may not even survive. In a case like this, if the state-addicts were not a danger to everyone else they could be left alone to live out their days in their extremely crippled state. Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of state addiction is that it severely impairs the ability to mind one's own business, and causes the addicts to form highly aggressive gangs. Therefore, treatment of statists is self-defense. They should all be given the choice, however: "Leave us alone and go on your way, or keep attacking us and receive treatment."



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

It's Up to You

No elected "official", not even the president, is going to "save" the country. He might be able to destroy it, but he can't help it in any substantive way. It's just a sad fact.

It is up to YOU to save the country, one person at a time. You must free yourself. You must ignore counterfeit "laws". Yes, that means you will have to become an outlaw. Don't worry; you are already a "criminal", at least according to the state.

You must fix your own personal economy. Don't wait for some ignorant bureaucrat to bail you out. Don't wait for some politician to protect your job. Don't wait for your FRNs to become fancy printed toilet paper.

Don't even wait for enlightened extraterrestrials to swoop in and solve all of humanity's problems. It will never happen in your lifetime.

Start now. Keep working at it. Never stop.


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

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner

If you are concerned about gun rights, check out David Codrea's latest project: Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.

Tattling to the State

How do you know if something is none of your business?
How do you know if you should probably just keep your nose out of it?
If it is something you can (and should) deal with on your own, then as long as you are not violating anyone's rights, go ahead.
If, however, you feel the need to tattle to anyone, you are probably in the wrong.

Shortsightedness

Someone I know pretty well sent me a copy of a letter-to-the-editor she wrote. I was disappointed in it, to say the least.

She was writing in support of "rent controls" in Los Angeles.

What I don't understand is why people can't see the unintended consequences of government interference. I mean, it is obvious, isn't it? Can't people see that if you control rent (in other words, keep it artificially low in spite of the market) fewer people will be willing to become landlords and places to rent will become more scare, thereby harming the very people the government meddling was claimed to be intended to help? This isn't rocket science and anyone should be able to understand the consequences of such "laws".

I guess this is why bitter statists say libertarians "refuse to grow up". We won't play their grown-up lying games.

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

Living the Life

Sometimes, when I read the blogs, it seems that some of the commenters think that "we" who value freedom should all go out into the world with a chip on our shoulders. If I state that I will not back down if confronted by a certain abuse, I am asked why I am not out there being shot or arrested "for liberty". Amusingly, the comment usually comes from those too afraid to even call a tyrant "a tyrant".

It seems to me the true test of a decent way of life is in being able to actually live. Yes, there are things you may come across that confront your resolve to not be a victim, and there will be a line-in-the-sand somewhere. But those things are extreme circumstances. In dealings with everyday people and situations those events should be rare. Especially if you make a point to avoid dealing with agents of the state if at all possible. Why seek out the sick and deranged? If you know a rabid badger lives in a hole, do you shove your hand down there just to annoy him? I don't.

Liberty As I See It: The Island Scenario

I sure do run into a lot of people who don't seem to understand "liberty" in the same way as I understand it.

Some of them, it seems to me, seem intent on finding the hard cases where liberty might break down as a philosophy. Yet, even in those cases, liberty still seems the best available option, even if it doesn't solve all the difficulties. The other options certainly don't solve anything.

A recent example: You and I are stranded (shipwrecked or plane crash survivors) on an island with no available food (hard to believe there is nothing to eat, but let's pretend). If you found the emergency rations and refuse to share, and I need food in order to survive, do you violate my right to live if you don't hand your food over to me? The person proposing this scenario to me certainly thought so.

So, lets think about this. Does communism solve the problem. Take from the "have" and divide it between them both. Where did this government suddenly come from that is now dividing the rations? Maybe I found a gun among the wreckage and can coerce you out of your food by myself. So, then instead of a greedy person, we have a greedy person and a thief. That's not any better.

Does democracy solve the problem? We vote on it, and the vote will undoubtedly end up a tie. Even if I somehow trick you into thinking I have two votes to your one (Wilson votes to share!), how will I enforce your compliance with the "election". Once again, we see that force (theft) comes into play.

No, I have no right to your food if you don't want to share. Your actions might mean you are not a nice person, but you have no obligation to keep me alive.

My thought is that in this case cooperation would be advantageous to us both. I can start fires without any modern aids, I can make rope and stone tools, and shelter, and might just be able to find some of that "nonexistent" food and fresh water. Whatever skills you might be able to add to the equation would just increase our odds of survival. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will want to cooperate.

If the roles were switched and I had found the food, and you had the gun, I would probably walk away from the food and let you fend for yourself. After all, as long as I stayed away from you, I would soon have the whole island to myself.

Liberty does not eliminate the bad people, it just takes away most of their power and ALL of their legitimacy. Something no other system or philosophy can do.


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

OBAMcCAIN the Muslistian/Chrislim

I get really tired of listening to the people who are worried that half of OBAMcCAIN might be a Muslim because of his name or parentage. I never realized that your beliefs were dictated by your name, but...whatever. It is just a diversion from the real issue: the man is a socialistic monster who thinks you belong to "society". You have no value except as fertilizer for the collective. You are just unprocessed Soylent Green.

In other words, his real opinion of you is exactly the same as that of his other, presumed Christian, half.

If he can't use you, he has no use for you. OBAMcCAIN will tell you whatever it thinks you will be most susceptible to. That is reality, based upon an examination of its real actions and history, and not based upon imaginary things. Don't fall into the pointless debate, but keep returning the discussion to the real, objective, world.

And don't, under ANY circumstance, vote for any incumbent or "major party" candidate. In fact, just don't vote. But if you still feel you must, write in my name.


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

The Cruelest Utopia: Minarchy

Minarchy, the "smallest possible government", is a cruel idea. It means no pension for government employees, that's for certain.

Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." In other words, every generation or so, in order to keep government in check, and to keep liberty alive, those who love liberty need to kill off all the politicians.

Admit it. The idea made you smile. That would make it a lot less likely to have lifetime career parasites... uh.... politicians and bureaucrats. If they still wanted that power over the lives of others that badly, they would want to get in and out as quickly as possible. Maybe like a thrill-seeking thing. Still it is a very bad way to organize a society, especially since the bloodshed is unnecessary if you just keep tyrants from gaining power to begin with.

Government is a cancer. It is not possible to leave a small tumor inside and scold it into not growing. You must cut the thing out. If you leave a bit of it, you will need to repeat the surgery every time the tumor gets dangerously large. It is simpler, more effective, more realistic, and less painful, to get rid of ALL of the cancer at once.


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

Government's Role

What is the "proper role" of government? Besides as a discredited historical curiosity, I mean. Government, IF it is "necessary", which I do not believe it to be, should only be your bodyguard. And only if you are somehow too defective to defend yourself, of course. Your bodyguard can defend you from attack, but should not tuck you in at night, feed you, or wipe your butt. If that is what you need, you need a nanny. I don't.

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

Libertarian Parenting

I wish I had the answers to this one. Really. I welcome any thoughts and ideas from you. In the meantime here are my random thoughts on the subject.

Do parents "own" their children? No. Children are not slaves to be forced to do the housework or yardwork that the parent doesn't feel like doing. Children should not be subjected to counterfeit "laws" or rules anymore than adults should be. That includes such things as fashion, music, and hairstyles. If others, such as public school "officials", try to enforce nonsensical rules on your kids, I would hope you would stand behind reason and not behind "authority". (That is, IF you haven't taken the self-defensive step of removing your kids from those government indoctrination centers.)

Parents do bear a huge responsibility to protect kids and teach them how the world works so that they can grow up independent and realistic. Sometimes that means letting them see that the world isn't often fair or rational, and that the majority seems to love authoritarianism. Show them why the majority is wrong. I try to show my kids that libertarianism frees them and makes them better people. I try to show them it gives them a better way of dealing with others. I'm trying; I'm just winging it.

My belief is that all parents screw up their kids in some ways, and the best parents try to minimize that and give their kids the mental and emotional tools to overcome it.

My two older kids have grown up to be pretty libertarian. I am pretty happy with them, and I like them as people. What more can be said?

My youngest kid (pictured above), well, what can I say ... all toddlers are cuddly anarchists.



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

Rights, Liberty, and Responsibility

Rights exist by virtue of being a person.

Liberty is a consequence of exercising those rights.

Personal responsibility is how you retain your liberty and keep from being killed by others who are also exercising their rights and protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

At least, that is my take on the relationships.


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

Optimism and Denial

Happy optimism is one thing, but denial of a bad situation helps no one. You need to be realistic.

That's why, when you "support America" no matter what the US government does, or when you gloss over the aggression that has become standard operating procedure for the police... alert, critical thinkers dismiss you.

Good things surround you. Acknowledge those things and be happy about them. Recognize the bad stuff, too. You can't change the bad stuff if you refuse to see it. Take the first step.

When the bad stuff overwhelms the good stuff, no amount of laws or body armor will protect the tyrants against unintended consequences. That is Liberty's ace in the hole.

"The Bad Guys Won't Play By The Rules"

I often see people complain that a society based upon the ZAP (or any other nice libertarian or anarchist principle) won't work because the bad guys won't cooperate. Face it; the bad guys don't cooperate with the system in place now. Not only that, but they use the system to their advantage. They often get elected to public office, or put on a badge, where they can prey on society with much less personal risk. This would not be possible in a ZAP-based society.

The reason I like these principles; the really great thing about them, is that they don't depend upon the cooperation of the bad guys. That's right, the bad guys become irrelevant. Can your proposed system achieve that?

Don't forget that the good people, the ones who would cooperate with such a just system, vastly outnumber the bad guys. The morally neutral people, those who will go along with whatever the social norm happens to be, will tip the odds in our favor even more.

The bad guys will either cooperate or will get killed quickly in a truly just society based upon the ideas that initiating force is wrong, and that the rule applies to EVERYONE equally. A few might even decide it is easier to become honest people rather than risk annihilation at the hands of a universally armed society that no longer has to fear retribution from the state when defending life and property.


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

Even A Stopped Clock.....

A while back I was told I should reject the scientific fact of evolution because it is taught in government schools. Remember that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

This has a couple of implications.

If you need to know the time, you don't run to check the stopped clock first. However, if you have other ways of verifying the time, you don't decide they are wrong just because the stopped clock happens to display the same time. This is where intelligence and reasoning ability comes into play.

So, don't look to the state for answers, but if you find a truth somewhere, don't discard it just because the state might happen to acknowledge the same truth. You would probably have a different take on it or reach different conclusions anyway.

Take A Breath

Government is stupid. It is based upon ridiculous suppositions and false premises. It is without moral justification. It is made up of fools, liars, and tyrants. It is cheered on and supported by imbeciles and co-conspirators.

I need to remind myself of that from time to time and remind myself that government has nothing to do with life.

This is one of those times.



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

"Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

This is one of the best things I have read recently (although it appears to have been written in 2005): "Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

What Would it Take?

What would it take to make YOU personally oppose the federal government (or any state or local government)? What would it take to make you actively oppose it rather than just saying that they have "gone too far" this time?

Concentration camps filled with your neighbors? Gun confiscations? Martial law? Tanks rolling down your street? Tax rates of 90%?

Would you only take real action if movies and television or sports were banned? Or if food became scarce? Or if cars were outlawed? Or if the US dollar became (more) worthless?

This is a question which I would seriously like to get you to think about. For some people I think there is nothing that would ever make them oppose "their" government, at least with meaningful action. For others, maybe more than the government is aware of, the next step might be the final straw. Some of you may have crossed that line long ago.



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

OBAMcCAIN Debates Itself

Doesn't that qualify as "masturdebation"? I don't feel like watching this sad creature trying to gratify itself on planetwide television.

Strange Priorities

Since when it is "important" to harm people who are harming no one else? Since when is it a "family value" to violate the rights of others? Or to steal the property of others... or to invade other countries.... or to use coercion to get your way? Why can't some people see that if it were OK for them to do to others, it would be OK to have it done to them. And why would anyone make it a priority to pursue this kind of activism? Fear? Hatred? Prejudice? Ignorance?

Watching the various political factions fighting over who can steal from others better or more fairly or more efficiently makes me feel like I am in a bad comedy. A poorly scripted and acted one at that. I just need Joel and the 'Bots to make rude and clever comments about the action. I could find humor in it if it wasn't harming real people in real ways.

This really is bizarre. I can't understand the mind-set. Does that make me the oddball?



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

Energy Crisis or Too Much Government

Most problems, even those few not directly caused by government, could be solved by keeping government out of the way. Running to the state to "save" you is the one thing you should never do. It is a complete waste of effort, and will only serve to further enslave you.

The so-called energy crisis could be solved almost overnight if government would just get out of the way. Stop "taxing" fuel and the production and delivery thereof. Stop subsidizing those energy businesses that can't compete in a free market. Let the market set the price of fuel. Let the market determine the desire for new technology. And stop interfering with innovation. Supply and demand.

Yet too many people want the government to "do something" to "save us" from energy problems. They want new regulations to cause hardships that will force people to look for new power sources, and "laws" that will prohibit the use of traditional sources of energy. They spend a lot of money on mass-media advertisements to incite the people to beg government to help. They are really just selling their children to the state. Not a very nice thing to do, in my estimation.


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

I HATE Politics

Since I think of "politics" as an attempt to get along with those we dislike, I hate politics. I don't want there to be "people I don't like". If there MUST be people I don't like, I would be content to just "live and let live". Why can't they do the same?

I would like to see the world be free of politics, OR make politics become a club that exists only among those who choose to join. As long as they can't affect the rest of us, they should be free to wage war among themselves. That would go a long way towards making the world safe for the rest of us.

Wouldn't that be an amusing situation? A club where the members argue over whom to coerce, and in what ways. They could talk about "right" and "left" or "conservative" and "liberal" while the rest of us ignore their infantile bickering. They could tax one another, and redistribute the wealth of the members, order one another around, whatever..... but they could not touch anyone who did not sign up to be a part of their twisted club. The rest of us could live our lives with a real free market, with liberty for ALL, and knowing that we will not be kidnapped for defending our lives and property from the few parasites who survive real liberty.



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

Young Voters, Lend Me An Ear

One half of the OBAMcCAIN abomination is counting on the votes of the young idealistic voters to sweep him to victory. He may be right, but not if they understand what they are voting for. He cries "change" while representing the exact same socialistic nonsense that has been actively destroying freedom for centuries. Your future is at risk from this man and those like him!

Young people need hope. They look to others to provide that hope, only to be used as pawns for ambition. I aim to give them real hope by pointing out that "hope" should come from inside, not from others. I would tell them "Trust your own abilities". I trust them, and all people, to know what is best for their own lives. You can't get experience in living your life if no one lets you.

The state, and much of society, wants to keep them dependent and helpless for many years beyond their real childhood. And then it blames them when they act like the irresponsible children they have been trained to be. That's ridiculous, and cruel.

Look, if you are young and idealistic, don't fall for the trap of voting for more of the same masquerading as something new and different. If you do, those who only want to use you will win.


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

One Less False Authority

I have heard it said that atheists simply believe in one less god, among the thousands which have been worshipped throughout history, than do believers. So it is with anarchists: we simply believe in one fewer false authority than do the statists.

I had this brought home to me after I made a comment on another "libertarian" blog where statists are reviled on a daily basis. (This person does have a favorite government activity, however, and I once stepped on some toes by pointing out the hypocrisy of that position. I guess the memory still irritates.) A comment from me elicited an angry reply, effectively ridiculing my stance, even though I had not mentioned anything in my comment that was even slightly at odds with the blogger's point of view. I hadn't even hinted at "anarchism".

If I choose to comment on another blog, I realize I am there at their whim. I am subject to their rules and desires. I do expect consistency and rationality from them. However, that blogger immediately went back to blasting statists, the exact same subset of statists, in the very next post after becoming angry at me for the exact same position! I don't get it.

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

"They Differ Where It Matters To Me"

Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same: socialists who want to kill you unless you agree with them and allow them to control every aspect of your life. As has been said "When there is a boot on your neck, it doesn't matter if it is a right boot or left boot".

Yet fearful "voters" still clamor to be victimized by the group that they believe shares their values. It is just hype. Or a vicious lie. Or sweet, seductively whispered lies, saying just what the desperate person wishes to hear. They want, or need, to believe that the state is at least partially their friend. They want to believe that if only they could get the "right people" elected, things would be OK. They want to feel good about helping the "right side" win the cultural battle against "those people" (whoever that might be).

However, when I recently pointed this out to someone, she said "There are still differences between Republicans and Democrats. They differ where it matters to me." No, they don't. They only trick you into believing that with lies. This belief is pathetically sad and delusional and it leads to the Nazi "showers".

The Democrats and Republicans only really differ in who they lie to. When they are trying to get the votes of a particular segment of society, they will lie to that segment in order to make them falsely believe they are on "your side". Since they usually focus on one segment of society and ignore the rest, they frequently get away with their deception. Only when they try to pander to opposing sides does their duplicity become obvious.

One group I see fall for this trick over and over again is the "religious right". The Democrats have no chance with the "religious right" so they don't even bother to pander to them, choosing to pander to the "progressive churches" instead. The Republicans, however, know they can still fool gullible, desperate, scared "Conservative Christians" into thinking that they are on the same team. Unless those Christians are on the side of genocide, socialism, torture, and tyranny, they are not on the same side. And if they are, then they are enemies of liberty and are to be reviled along with the rest of the statists. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. If you advocate violating the rights of one group you are playing into the hands of the state. Remember my analogy of the "snake's jaws"? Both sides work in apparent opposition toward the same goal. The only way to win is to refuse to be grabbed.

If you advocate violating the rights of any "other" group, be it gays, Christians, a "racial" group, "drug users", or gun owners, you are playing right into the hands of the state. The state will thank you for your help, I am sure. You forget that there are others who feel it is equally important to oppress or victimize you in some way. That is why ALL rights for EVERYone, EVERYwhere for ALL time is the only way. It is called "libertarianism". We will not forget who betrayed us.


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

"If You Don't Like It, Get Out!" - Refuted Again

Don't you get tired of hearing that statement? It is regurgitated by the unthinking zombies of the state whenever they are confronted with evidence (or even a suggestion) that America could be made better. It is either a well-ingrained reflex or a post-hypnotic suggestion. Usually it gets shouted out when liberty-lovers begin criticizing the military being used to fight for the government, but it can crop up almost anywhere.

My usual response is that I love my home too much to abandon it to statism. I also recognize that those who call for the exit of those who love real freedom have a serious moral deficiency. I am not including those who simply ask why the freedom-lovers haven't yet left, but only those who demand our exit.

If the good people leave the country, the evil ones win by default. Perhaps they know that, and that is why they feel compelled to use their ultimate rationalization.

Leave my home to the likes of them? They wish!


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

My Opinions: Baseless Rants?

Of course, you realize that all of this, everything in this blog and everything on my website, is just my opinion, right?

Where do my opinions come from? In the simplest terms, all my opinions come from my belief that all people have the exact same rights, no matter what society or the local enforcer squads may think. They also come from my belief that coercion and theft are always wrong no matter the circumstances or who is doing it to whom.

If these beliefs are somehow flawed, then, of course, my opinions are the worthless rantings of a madman.






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

"TimePeeper" by L. Neil Smith and Sherard Jackson

If you like graphic novels, especially of the science fiction variety, check out TimePeeper. I have been following the story for a while now, and it recently concluded. It's good entertainment.

Necessary Evil? No Such Thing

I keep hearing the federal "bailout" called a "necessary evil". I don't buy it (even if the government expects me to pay for it).

Those who worship government cry "But it will be so much worse if we do nothing!" I doubt it.

If people are going to be harmed if you do nothing, and people are going to be harmed if you do something, it would be better to do nothing and spend your time trying to help those who have been harmed while the situation corrects itself. But lend a hand as a private individual, not as a government parasite using stolen money and coercion.

I look upon this as similar to this scenario: The government put a time-bomb in a room. Now that its explosion is imminent, they storm into the room and shoot the people pointing out the bomb, and reset the timer for a little extra time, while adding more explosives to the bomb. Too many people only question how much explosives to add, not whether any should be added at all. Ask them why.


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

"Bailout"? Wrong Answer, Parasites

As long as people keep looking to government for the answers, whether it is about energy, finances, the environment, or morality, people will keep getting the wrong answers.


Just look at the huge government-caused financial meltdown that all the professional parasites are up-in-arms about. Yes, the government caused it; more government will not fix it.


One half of the OBAMcCAIN beast was on the news declaring that "Time is short and doing nothing is not an option". Really? That is odd because in every other decision in life, "doing nothing" is always an option, and is very often the RIGHT option. What if "doing nothing" is the right choice in this government-created financial nightmare? Are you and your fellow "congressites" so determined to be seen "doing something" that you will shove us off a cliff instead of stopping to realize who and what is to blame? Yep. That is what you and your fellow parasites will do. Happily.


The bigger and more critical a problem is, the less likely it is that it can be solved by government. Only very trivial matters should be attempted by professional parasites in government. Let them worry about the color of their office stationery (or begin training to survive in the post-government economy). Let the free individuals who make up the market keep ourselves safe and our finances in working order. Get your pathetic, mentally diseased, carcasses out of the way and let the FREE MARKET do what it will inevitably do (as long as you stop meddling)! Collectivism is NEVER the solution. Only a traitor would even consider it.

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

Tyranny's "Black Hole"

The qualities of the cosmic anomaly called a "black hole" have some lessons to teach us about tyranny.

The more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational field. Add enough mass and there will come a point where the gravity will be so great that the escape velocity of the body will be greater than the speed of light. The object will become invisible, although its existence can still be observed by looking at its effects on nearby matter and light. (This skips over the whole description of the object collapsing upon itself until it becomes a "singularity" of infinite density condensed to a single point which is smaller than an electron. Although that, too, has certain similarities to government)

If you are falling into a black hole, there is a point of no return, called the "event horizon", where you will disappear from the view of the outside world (or, possibly, appear to be frozen in time right at the event horizon to an outside observer). Yet you would not notice anything different, other than the constantly increasing gravitation and acceleration. Once you pass the event horizon, there is no escape, you must go into, or possibly through, the singularity. You will either be squeezed into oblivion and add to the mass of the object, or hypothetically you might come out elsewhere in the universe. Probably not a pleasant prospect either way.

That is just a complicated introduction to get you to this:

This is similar to falling into tyranny.

From the outside, such as through the lens of history, it may be obvious, though to you there is no clear point of no return. However, it is real and you really don't want to go there. Turn around before it is too late, because you won't be able to see it coming, and you may not make it to the other side. The real problem is that your family and friends will also be dragged along.

Much easier to avoid than to survive.


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

Obeying the State

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."- Robert A. Heinlein

There are times I do things that the state demands, that I would rather not do. Paying some taxes is one of those things, and hiding certain activities is another.

When I do obey the state, it is not because I think the state is right, it is to avoid being killed by its enforcers. When you obey to avoid being killed, you also accept that you may need to act in self defense. Especially if you see an opening. Time after time it is demonstrated that working within the system only works to increase state control. If you don't think that "the game" is rigged, you are not paying attention.

Is that really the situation the government wanted to bring about? Does intent even matter at this point?

Remember: Vote for the ONLY presidential candidate who is on your side and on the side of real liberty! Me! Spread the word far and wide.

Getting Along

I get along very well with almost everyone I meet. There are a few people who decide they aren't going to like me based upon my appearance. Even most of those change their mind after they get to know me. I can fully expect to go through my life with no major problems between myself and other individuals. I do expect there will be problems, though. All caused by different organs of the state and my refusal to simply obey. The only difficulties that arise are because of the state at one level or another.

Even when I have a deep difference of opinion with someone, it doesn't usually get too personal. As long as they don't force me to act as though I think they are right, and then force me to act against my principles, there will probably be no problem, at least from my end.


Individuals who have allowed themselves to become pawns of the state may have problems with me. I know that their "authority" is illegitimate. I know that almost every one of the rules they enforce are counterfeit. Their entire lives and purposes are based upon lies. They really don't like to encounter people who recognize that fact.

Preserving "Our Culture"

One of the main reasons expressed to oppose independent migrants is that they will supposedly overrun the country and destroy "our culture".

The culture changes all the time. Take a look at television shows, magazines, comedy routines, and popular music. Is it all the same as when you were young? Most of those who want to protect the culture are also quick to complain about the decline of that same culture.... which they then turn around and want to protect. Confused? Me too. Do you think immigrants are to blame for this "decline"? And that is just pop culture, not real life.

The predominant "culture" is just the "shared values" of the majority of society, or at least those members of society who are over a certain age. This predominant culture is already at odds with my values.

I value independence and innovation. The predominant culture values safety and conformity.

I value liberty. The majority seems to prefer "patriotism".

I value those who take responsibility; the culture would rather place blame.

I value your freedom to observe whichever religion (or none) that you have accepted, as long as you don't try to force me to pretend to agree with you. Society seems to enjoy the "we are righteously enlightened; they are monsters who eat babies" mentality when comparing religions.
I don't understand the obsession with sports and entertainment that seems to rule society.

I value justice; The culture I live among now claims torture is OK as long as it is "our side" doing it and as long as we call it something else.

Instead of becoming a short-sighted xenophobe who willingly sacrifices liberty on your altar to the "borders", try spreading a love of real liberty for ALL to your new neighbors. If they see a consistency in you, including a refusal to accept government handouts, they may be more receptive than you think. If nothing else, drown any authoritarian tendencies in lavish freedom. There are, and will always be, more good people than bad. They can't win without our help. Only by acting like the bad will we help them win.

You can't frighten me with your dire predictions of TEOTWAWKI from migrants. I already live surrounded by barbarians who think my refusal to bow to the state is a threat to them.

If "preserving our culture" is the best the statists can come up with as an excuse to "seal the borders" I'll risk it. After all, there is little left to value in this culture anyway.


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

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.