Inevitability

It seems that people expect things to always be like they are now. Maybe small changes here and there, more technology obviously, but basic institutions and such staying pretty much the same. That isn't going to happen no matter what.

Stasis is highly unlikely over the long-term. Changes WILL happen. It is inevitable. The question is, are you going to help the changes tip toward more freedom, or toward more tyranny? The steps you take in your daily life shift the balance more than you think. More than even actions the government takes. After all, they can do nothing if we stand against them.

Relying on cops tips us toward tyranny. "Rugged individualism" tips the scales towards freedom. Behaving like a jerk and not taking responsibility for your life and actions causes a shift towards tyranny. Accepting responsibility shifts the balance more towards liberty. Abusing the rights you have hurts freedom, while using your rights wisely strengthens freedom.

You and I, and everything we do, has a profound effect on liberty for all. Nothing any of us do is irrelevant. So, please, think before you act. Because change is coming. It is inevitable. The direction the change takes depends on what each and every one of us do.

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

The Story of My Run for President

It was suggested by Anne Cleveland of An Octogenarian's Blog that I write the story of my presidential campaign. Bits and pieces of the story are here in earlier posts, and I hope I don't forget or leave out important parts, but here it is.

I had given up on "politics", but liked L. Neil Smith enough that I was wanting him to run for the LP nomination for 2004. He decided against it, but endorsed Michael Badnarik. I read Mr. Badnarik's website and really liked what I saw, so I wrote him. He wrote back and eventually we spoke on the phone a couple of times. I really liked him and couldn't find any point where we disagreed, so I tried to help his campaign and encouraged my friends to look into his campaign and consider supporting him. Against the odds, he actually won the LP's nomination, but didn't do well in the election. The day after the election, I woke up thinking that if a libertarian wasn't going to win anyway, I could lose an election as nicely as anyone else could. So, I decided I might as well run for president; after all, I had 4 years to build momentum. Like a glacier.

That night, I sat down and made a Geocities page, detailing what I would do as president. The same campaign promises are still posted on my KentForLiberty site. Then I went on the Claire Files forum (now The Mental Militia Forums) and made my first public announcement.

I joked and discussed my campaign with a few people, not taking it very seriously. I did get a rubber stamp in order to put my Geocities website, shortened through notlong.com, on FRNs. If you run across any bills stamped "kent2008.notlong.com", that is my work.

Things went slowly for a year and a half, then things exploded. I'm not even certain what happened. People discovered my campaign somehow. I was in the middle of a strange 6 month-long vacation when I was contacted and "challenged" to start a blog to discuss my stand on the issues and allow people to ask me questions. I had never thought of blogging before, and was certain I would run out of things to talk about after a couple of weeks. After all, I had said all I needed to say on my campaign page, right?

Suddenly I had more people writing me than I knew what to do with, but I made sure to answer every single one. Even the ones who told me to perform physically impossible acts upon myself and then die. I started finding my campaign mentioned on different websites every day, often in less than complimentary ways. Although I had never mentioned seeking the nomination of any party, thinking I was too radical for any national party, I was finding myself listed as "Libertarian". Someone suggested I write Selectsmart.com about being included in their candidate selector, so I did and ended up being the only "Libertarian" in the quiz ..... until the last moment when the LINOs nominated by the LP were added.

Eventually I was contacted by the Libertarian Party and invited to seek their nomination. This thing was getting more serious than I had intended. I was interviewed by a few different internet "radio" shows, and invited to take part in different forums ("fora"?) to answer questions about my stand on important issues. I tried to accept every invitation, although I normally only participated until the original flurry of activity died down a bit. I took part in several conference calls between the LP candidates. This convinced me that I probably wasn't cut out for politics. I became somewhat disillusioned listening to the less-than-civil exchanges between certain people.

Then came the detractors who said I didn't look "professional" enough, had the audacity to run for president before I had been elected dog-catcher, refused to accept donations, and wouldn't remove the endorsement of "Breechcloth Day" from my web page. Hey, I thought this was supposed to be FUN!

My Geocities page was also said to be hideous, so I sought advice, and got a real website. The response was positive about that change, at least. Still, nothing was ever enough for those who just wanted something to whine or complain about, and I am stubborn enough to stand my ground instead of doing things just to make people happy.

There finally came a point where I needed to get serious, if I wanted to get serious (which had not originally been my plan). I looked into registering with the FEC so I would have a "real campaign". What I ran into there disgusted me. There was no provision for refusing donations, and the paperwork and reporting requirements went against everything I stood for. I now knew why the same type of people keep getting elected: the system is set up to disqualify anyone else. The game was more seriously rigged than I had previously suspected.

Added to some things that were going on personally, I decided I wouldn't continue to seek the LP nomination, and would stop campaigning. So I made the announcement that I was done. The reaction was immediate and upsetting. So many people wrote me, acting like I had let them down. Had I made a mistake?

After some soul-searching I decided that the best thing I could do was offer myself as a write-in candidate. I knew that without registering with the FEC any votes for me would not be counted, but being unwilling to submit to a government commission's illegal interference with the election process left me with few options. At least, few options that didn't compromise my principles.

I continued to answer questions, and to encourage those who still felt they needed to vote to vote for me. I feel that the best way to avoid "wasting your vote" is to refuse to spend it. No one is qualified to "run the country" or anything else other than his or her own life. Vote accordingly.

After the election, I was dismayed to see that everyone thinks someone else won, when obviously all those who refused to vote for any of the clowns on the ballot were clearly giving me a mandate. All the non-voters outnumber those who voted for the current president hundreds-to-one. I guess I don't want the job enough to get my hands dirty in court to challenge the usurper in the White House.

I have been asked by several people if I will run again next time. I have told them "no"; I can't imagine any circumstance arising that would cause me to do it again. The older I get, the more skeptical I become of any form of organized external "government". Self-government is the only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.


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

"World 'Sexting' Day"

Observing "World 'Sexting' Day":

March 2, 2009 - Today is the day to offer your moral support
to the most recent victims of the government's blatant
violation of the First Amendment and Self-Determination: those teens who
have been persecuted or prosecuted for "victimizing" themselves by sending nude
photographs of themselves, by cell phone, to others. Also victimized
are the recipients of those pics who are targeted by prosecutors hungry for
"child pornography" convictions.

The point of this event is to send "sext messages", of only
yourself, obviously, to everyone you can, even random numbers and email
addresses. As many as possible should go to judges, prosecuting attorneys,
or any other public or private "do-gooders" who have been active in
the persecution of "sexting" teens. Flood them with so many that there is
no way to sift through them all, and even if they do, in order to be consistent they will be forced to arrest themselves.

So, start snapping those pics and sending them on their way. The
clock is ticking!

Random Weekend Thoughts

It is no wonder most children don't know right from wrong. They are told, if there is a problem, call the cops. That is wrong.

People don't understand because they don't want to understand. Denial and "head-in-the-sand" are frequent reactions to things people don't want to understand.

Freedom isn't "easy", but it really isn't that hard either.

Until you stand up for unpopular freedoms, even those you personally despise, you are not standing up for freedom at all, but are supporting oppression and tyranny.

Those who don't learn from history.... get elected and doom the rest of us to repeat it. Unless we are smarter and more prepared than most people.

There is a thin line separating "being helpful" and "being meddlesome"... and the one who gets to define the line is the recipient of your ministrations.

Intrusive Government

Recently, someone I know was stopped by a cop for something that had no conceivable safety implications, but only "identification" issues. The license plate light was burned out. In the course of the traffic stop, the highwayman wanted to know where he was going, why he was going there, who he knew in the area, if he had a job, and numerous other things that were of no relevence.

Not wanting to get shot, he answered the questions (not necessarily honestly), but left feeling dirty, as if he had just been raped as well as having been accused of being unworthy of the benefit of the doubt. If he had said or done anything that tweaked the highwayman's interest, he could have (and probably would have) ended up arrested, tasered, or shot dead.

Is this what the US police-state has become? People who are harming no one in any way, being accosted, interrogated, and basically threatened at gun-point for simply travelling? Yes, it is. The sooner those on the "liberty fence" realize this, the sooner it will end. It is past time.

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

Libertarians Are The Best!

Libertarians have the potential to be the best people in the world. It is because our core philosophy, when followed, will just about guarantee that result. If we aren't it is because we are not living up to our potential.

Other groups have conflicted "principles" in their core beliefs. Things like stealing is wrong, unless it is government stealing for a cause they happen to support. Or murder is wrong, unless it was government doing it and it was an "honest" mistake (or "they deserved it").

Of course, it is considered very impolite to point out the inconsistencies in the beliefs and philosophies of the "mainstream" groups. That makes libertarians somewhat unpopular at times. It makes those other people uncomfortable, and makes them want to blame libertarians instead of examining their own inconsistencies. Happily, they don't have to agree with us for us to be right.

So, remember your potential, and strive to live up to it. You can point out the inconsistencies, but don't dwell on them since those who do not want to see, won't see. A good example is more persuasive than winning debates any day.

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

Common Sense

"common sense 
–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." - From Dictionary.com
___________________________________________

What is "common sense"? What seems to me to be common sense is often not what the other person sees as common sense. "Common sense" is what works for you in your day-to-day life. It is based on your physical senses and your experiences and is what allows you to function when faced with a problem to solve. But..... It isn't always factually correct. Sometimes specialized knowledge or training steps in where "common sense" fails. There are even cases where, when faced with a problem that requires specialized knowledge, "common sense" responses can get you killed.

The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory, and (apparently) biological evolution by natural selection violate "common sense" for most people. That is because common sense is extremely limited by your own personal experiences.

Because we don't experience travel through space at large percentages of the speed of light, relativity seems counter to our common sense perceptions.

Because we don't experience the incredibly tiny universe of the subatomic particles, quantum effects do not fit our notion of common sense.

Because our lives do not span geologic time scales, we have trouble with the concept of deep time in which natural selection causes species to change until a new species exists.

And - because we exist in a seething maelstrom of statism that is accepted as "the way it has always been done", anarchism seems to violate most peoples' notion of common sense.

"Common sense" has its place, but it also has its limitations. Use it when it works; accept the truth when it fails. Don't rely on it as a crutch in place of thinking and learning.

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

Right to Life?

Why is it that when the right to "bear arms" is discussed, a huge amount of time is spent discussing the responsibilities that go along with it, yet when the right to life is discussed, by certain politico-religious groups, there is never any mention of any responsibilities attached? Is the right to life the only right that carries no responsibilities? No obligations at all? Why is the right to life given a free pass?

Obviously, I believe there is a responsibility that goes along with living: the obligation to never initiate force. Those who are loudest about the right to life seem to not agree.

I would say that, rather than a "right to life", we all have a right to defend our life. If a person isn't able to defend their own life, then someone can step in and defend the defenseless. But do you have a right to defend the life of another? Just thinking....

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

The More Things "Change"... & Ron Paul: Alien Overlord?

Has anyone else ever noticed that no matter the promises, no matter how "good" a candidate looks, no matter what a politician's previous stand has been on an issue, as soon as they get elected or appointed, they keep the government on the same path as it has been on? There may be minor deviations of course, but the reality is there is almost no hiccup in the operation of the state machine.

Obama keeps doing the same things his predecessor was doing, although he justifies the actions with different excuses (and claims this equals "change". His appointees keep following the same policies even though they previously spoke out against them.

It is as if "government" has a life of its own, and really isn't "made up of individual people" as most of us have believed. It is a hive that alters its parts to suit its purposes. A collective mind that absorbs and alters the minds of those who become a part of it. Makes me wonder how Ron Paul has managed to avoid (mostly) this effect. Perhaps he is an extraterrestrial, but is hiding his otherworldly powers ... for now!

This should probably be a clue that it isn't a matter of getting "the right people" elected; but is a matter of needing to abolish the entire system. Although there will be some who keep tilting at windmills and hoping against hope.



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

The "Rich Warlord" Boogeyman

One of the main factors that cause people to cling to the archaic notion of "government" ("the state") is a fear of the "rich warlord" who would supposedly take over your life without repercussions if no government were holding him back. It is claimed that government is the only thing that keeps him contained or from gaining power.

Let's examine this idea.

Would people who have tasted real freedom be so easy to take it from again? Probably not for a generation or two. However, there would undoubtedly come a time when the lure of ease and "safety" would sound nice to the less honorable among us. Then the cycle would start anew. However, I think it is better to start from scratch occasionally than to watch the state get bigger, more tyrannical, and less benevolent. Even if this is inevitable, which I am not convinced of, I think it is good to make them rebuild the state from the ground up ever so often. If you can't dig up the weed, at least chop it off at ground level from time to time.

But considering the "warlord" again: First of all, would this really be worse than the situation we are in now? We already live under a rich warlord who steals over 87% of our economic production, and demands more every year. He will kill us if we refuse to pay. He demands a ransom be paid on our homes or he will steal them from us. He demands control over whether or not we are allowed to own and carry effective weapons of self defense, and has criminalized the most effective ones; the very ones his own Constitution puts off-limits for him to touch in any way. He demands control over our travel, our business, our children, even our own bodies. He pretends to be a benevolent protector, and seems honestly bewildered at those of us who see through his velvety smooth words to the harsh truth behind them. This rich warlord is the main proponent of the boogeyman of the other, unknown, rich warlord.

Perhaps the monster we don't know is worse than the monster we know. What then? I think that the only time to keep the rich warlord from becoming a real problem is before he consolidates his power and passes "laws" that make it hard, or even impossible, to stop him. In other words, kill him upon his first act of aggression. Do you think he will behave nicely his whole life until one day he suddenly starts acting like the blossoming monster he is to become? I would imagine he will have a life-long history of aggression and coercion. Remove the "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and he will not survive to become a real threat. This means we are already at an extremely difficult phase in trying to rein in the full grown monster we currently know. Not impossible, but it will take a paradigm shift where enough people realize it is necessary. What is the tipping point?



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

Eric Holder: Attorney General and Racist

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in
things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many
ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Attorney General Eric Holder
said.
Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but "we, as
average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

Read that last part again: "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." Wow! And that boils down to what racists, like Eric Holder and others, think matters. They want people to keep focusing on, talking about, and obsessing over race so that race will continue to be a divisive issue. Divide and conquer.

It isn't about race, folks. It is about honoring the basic right of every individual to live his life as he sees fit as long as he does not attack or steal. Period. Do this and you are at least OK; violate this and you are a dangerous parasite, especially if you collect a paycheck financed by stolen money. As does Mr. Holder.

The Tip of My Nose....

I had a person write to me, taking issue with my repeating of the common sentiment that "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." His reason was that this constitutes "assault" even before the nose is touched. He is right to a point. I would like to thank him for giving me permission to post my reply here.

Here is my take on the "assault" issue.

I think that "assault" is a legal concept which has no basis in reality, apart from the government. Thinking this, I would still claim that until actual force is initiated, or a credible threat is made, no rights have been violated. A person swinging his fist at a high velocity toward your nose is a credible threat. Inertia would prevent him from stopping before contact is made. Knowing the laws of motion, you could make a reasonable assumption that your nose was in real danger and could strike back.

Otherwise, with "laws" regulating fist swinging, I can't help but wonder how much distance from nose-tip to fist would be demanded. It would vary from person to person, depending on a lot of issues. The "assault" wouldn't even need to necessarily be aggressive in nature for a particularly "brittle" person to make an issue of it. Then again, even a standardized "legal distance" would be pointless since unless the judge and/or jury were present during the event, a subjective interpretation would make the same action seem different to various observers.

This is why I still see the right to swing your fist ending at the tip of my nose, as long as no contact is made, or would be made without intervention.

HOWEVER, in a free society you could take action to defend yourself against perceived aggression using your best judgement (or reflexes) and then take your chances with a dispute resolution organization or a private "court", which would be more open to actually achieving justice than current government courts are. After all, they will have free market competition so will need to maintain a spotless reputation in order to attract "business". If I were hired to rule on such a case, I would not fault a person for striking back against someone who was swinging a fist at his nose, even if the nose in question were not touched. And I seriously doubt anyone else would either.

Just because a right exists does not mean that the exercise of that right is always the best course of action. This is where I think responsibility comes in. You may have a right to swing your fist up to the tip of my nose, yet you have a responsibility to not do so, and if you choose to do so, you may find yourself on the dangerous end of a gun barrel. And rightly so. You must accept any and all consequences of your actions, or you will find yourself getting a bad reputation and possibly shunned to the point of starvation (or living on charity).

Everyone Knows....

At one time, long before Columbus, almost everyone "knew" the world was flat. Some very observant and intuitive people had figured out that the earth was a sphere, but no one would listen to them seriously.

That is the position libertarians are in now. Everyone "knows" that a strong government is necessary to protect "us" from "them", whether "them" is terrorists, immigrants, criminals, dishonest businessmen, stupid neighbors, or even our own stupidity. It doesn't matter that some have observed, through carefully examining the facts, that this is utter nonsense. Everyone "knows" it, so those of us who point out the truth are dismissed.

Time will tell.

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

Cops Cause Crime!

OK, so this is speculation on my part, based upon what I observe about human behavior. I'm not even talking about all the murderers, thieves, and rapists who wear badges, or the crimes against humanity committed "in the line of duty" due to enforcement of counterfeit "laws", but am talking about free-lance theft, murder, rape, and whatever else falls under the label of real "crime". (I am not talking about the peaceful, consensual, victimless, yet "illegal", behavior of others who are harming no innocent person, since those things are only "crimes" to the state, but not to sensible people.)

I have witnessed what happens when someone stumbles. If they are with one person, that person will normally try to catch them before they fall. If the stumbler is with a couple of people, though, often they will fall before the two people act. They each thought the other person would grab the tripping friend. It isn't a purposeful desire to watch someone fall, but is just a result of not acting because there is a question of whether someone else will take care of the situation. Even a slight hesitation is too much. I think the same principle applies to crime.

Crime thrives where people believe it is someone else's responsibility to take action. In big cities it is easy to think someone else will get involved, so you will mind your own business. This is even more true where there are a lot of cops. If someone is supposedly being paid to stop crime, it is even easier to turn away and let them handle it. In fact, cops encourage this poor behavior by criminalizing and punishing self-defense. "Don't be a hero. Call the professionals." Except that cops are under no obligation to protect you from crime. Try to sue the local LEOs after they fail to protect you from crime if you doubt me.

Stop contributing to the success of crime. Ignore the cops and take responsibility for your own safety. If it is your nature, take responsibility for the safety of those around you. Don't wait for some "professional", whose interests are not where you may assume they are, to step up and fix it for you.

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

The Most Important Thing

Freedom is the most important thing there is. That may be a radical thing to say, but it is true. Freedom is the one thing that allows you to pursue whatever else seems most important to you. It is the one thing that can allow you to find your value in life; your joy. You can't be happy without the freedom to be happy, even if you must steal that freedom out from under the nose of those who would attempt to deny it to you.

Freedom is being able to worship what and how you want, or not.

Freedom is being able to make your own mistakes and learn from them.

Freedom is being able to help those around you who are suffering from their mistakes.

Freedom is being able to try to make the most of your life, as long as you are hurting no innocent person, in whatever way you think is right for you.



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

Fairness

A lot of times I read that libertarians are "not fair". Usually this comes from people who don't want anyone to suffer the consequences of their own actions or don't like the fact that some people are living in poverty.

These people are still only seeing half of the picture. They see the "victims" of their own choices or of economic realities, but ignore the people who they would punish for not making bad personal or financial decisions. How is that "fair"? You can't only look at it from the perspective of "the less fortunate" after all. Not if you are really wanting to be "fair". No, you have to look at everyone's situation. I think these "compassionate" people are unduly attracted and sympathetic to the underdog. That is fine, as long as you don't blame the rest of the world for your poor "victim's" plight.

Sure, I would love to be wealthy. But not enough to do what would be necessary to achieve it. That is no one's fault but my own; I weighed my choices. I am not a "victim" of poverty. I have also suffered consequences for personal decisions I have made. I don't ask anyone to rescue me from them. Life may not be fair, but it still follows basic physical and economic laws.

So, what do these people think is "fair"? "Redistribution"? That's just a fancy word for theft. "Liberals" may see themselves as "Robin Hood"; taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but they are actually on the opposite side of the moral fence. Robin Hood was not stealing from the innocent rich, but from the thieves who enriched themselves through taxes and fees, and giving the money back to the theft victims. He was not being generous; he was being "just". You can not be generous with other peoples' money. You can ask them to give, or you can steal from them. One is charity; one is theft. There is no middle ground.

I don't have much respect or pity for those who say libertarians are "unfair". And the more I read their drivel, the faster that little remaining respect fades away.


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

Consequences of Being Unpleasant

You can be an unpleasant person without initiating force and without being a thief. What should the consequences be for bad things that may not exactly violate the ZAP? I am not one to think everything needs to be punished "officially".

Obviously, I think shunning should be used if you feel the need. That is just a part of freedom of association. Most of us use it to some extent already. If you don't like someone, you probably don't go to barbecues at their home. Where we are unable to use shunning is where government criminalizes our free choices of who to associate with.

Just remove the "legal" protections that keep unpleasant people from needing to deal with their issues. The same goes for stupid people. You can't really protect them from the consequences of their actions, so stop penalizing the rest of us.

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

Economic Stimulus

I hear the congresscritters, on the orders of the president, are planning to "save" the economy by giving money to those who didn't earn it. This money they plan on giving away doesn't really exist, but is made up out of thin air, based on the belief that your children will someday pay the government for the privilege of being oppressed by its stormtroopers, through taxes or whatever new scheme is dreamed up in the future.

Now, why would the government give corporations this fictional money instead of simply firing up the printing presses and dumping lots of FRNs all over the country from low-flying planes? That would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and most people would be a lot happier with that "plan". Government won't do it that way because the current plan constitutes a bribe to buy loyalty from those who are being "rescued"; powerful people. Not at all like you or I. This "stimulus" will stimulate something, that's for certain. I betting on more corruption, irresponsibility, and poor business decisions.

However the government proceeds, the long-term effect will be the same: the money in your pocket or retirement fund will be further diluted by all this new counterfeit money. It won't matter if the money has a physical existence or is just digital information; either way it is stealing value from you just as surely as if a free-lance mugger were holding you at gunpoint while you empty your pockets for him.

And yet, almost no one is screaming "No! You will not economically enslave my future!" or refusing to be robbed. Rather, people are debating how much oversight should the government have, or complaining about all the add-on edicts. I, for one, see through the smoke and mirrors. I suspect that you do too.

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

Are You Ready?

Whether it is a gun ban or an economic collapse, just about everyone can see that "interesting times" are on the way. They will be hard times for those who are not ready. I intend to make certain they are not as hard on me as they could be. Sometimes, I think I actually thrive under tangible threats.

Regardless of what comes, there are things we all need to be doing. The following advice is probably worth what you paid for it.

I never have understood the advice to "save your money". It's like putting a snowball in your pocket for next week. It makes a lot more sense to me to buy stuff that you can use or trade when times get tough. Money loses value all the time - well fiat money does, anyway. We all know "fiat" is just a euphemism for "counterfeit" as long as it is government or their associates who are doing the counterfeiting. If you feel the need to have some "savings", at least buy real stuff first. Silver, gold, ammo, guns, toilet paper, dried or canned foods, medicine..... whatever you may need when your "dollars" are not worth anything anymore, and when you discover that your "savings" could possibly buy you a half of a Happy Meal.

Which brings me to another point. If you don't have enough guns, (and who does?) take some of that rapidly evaporating money and spend it on guns. And don't forget the ammo. If nothing else, it is an investment that will not lose value. You may need to be willing to enter the black market in order to cash in, but that is probably the coming reality for all of us no matter what.

A gun in the hand is worth two in the store. Or, a .22 in the hand is worth two .45s in the safe. Or a .22 in the hand is better than worthless money in a checking account. If things get too "interesting" for those who are less than honest, they may decide to separate you from your supplies. Make certain you have the means and the determination to stop them. If stormtroopers decide to separate you from your family, weapons, supplies, or liberty they have crossed the line and should be stopped as well.

There are also other things you can do to get ready for the future. Many of those are mental preparations. Educate yourself so you are not one of those who will panic and be caught by surprise. That will do more toward easing your future than just about anything else. Life is an adventure. Sometimes a test can come along, and if you meet it well you will find a satisfaction that can't be found in "normal" life. Your attitude, along with preparedness, can make all the difference.

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

"Not Everyone Wears a Sidearm"

In some commentary on another website, I was pointing out that children in the park could be, and should be, watched over by parents who would share the responsibility. At mountainman rendezvous I have attended this was standard procedure, though no one ever told us to do so. And, with everyone in camp being armed, no one would risk harming a child (or anyone else).

A commenter said that such a thing sounded good, but wouldn't work in regular society because "not everyone wears a sidearm". Well, why don't they?

Some people don't want to. That is OK. I would never force anyone to carry a gun if they were uncomfortable doing so. Some people wouldn't shoot an attacker for any reason. Sad, but reality. Some people know that they can not trust themselves with a gun. I wonder why they would then trust themselves with anything else that can be dangerous (cars, knives, lighters, medicines, etc.), but that's another issue.

What about those people who would like to, but don't? Why don't they? Government regulations and prohibitions are the most likely reason. Some people still want to see themselves as "law abiding" although that is not a good thing when the laws are immoral. So, instead of doing what is right and necessary, they fearfully and irresponsibly obey dangerous prohibitions. If you fall into this category, maybe it is time to shed misplaced respect for a reprehensible system that expects you to sacrifice yourself for the convenience of the parasites and thugs among us. Both governmental and free-lance. Think about it and do what is right instead of what is "legal". Society, which is just to say each innocent individual, will be safer for it. It may just make you a better, more aware and caring person, too.


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

"Know Thine Enemy"

THE SEVEN VARIETIES OF GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE by Gus Cotey, Jr.

"The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. " Read the rest

States Declare Sovereignty

I got this interesting tidbit from blogger Bill Hicks. Go read it: link

Now, if only people would realize that their individual sovereignty outranks ANY political entity. Some of us know that already.

The Political Parties- a Personal Perspective

A post on another blog got me to consider how I see the political parties. I am not talking about objective specifics, just how I see them very subjectively.

Republicans are the moralizing father. Strong and a little harsh. He wants order and obedience out of all those unruly children around him. He is deeply religious, but many times must insist "do as I say; not as I do". He will never "spare the rod" on those he thinks need a good whipping, "for their own good" of course. He only wants "what is best" for his naughty children and feels that without his guidance they will turn into smelly, lazy hippies.

Democrats are the permissive mother. At least she will make you believe that while she guilts you into obeying her desires. She may use some of the same methods as the father, but she is sneakier about it. In her heart she wants everyone to just get along. She believes everything should be fair, and will impose fairness, as she sees it, on everyone around her, even if it means forcing a child to share his most charished toy with a sibling who will break it on purpose. She is slightly neurotic and delusional and can't understand why anyone would disagree with her, since she only wants what is best for the poor, slightly stupid children around her. After all, without her to protect them they would poke their eyes out.

Libertarians (the LP) are the cool uncle who you can tell all your secrets to. He knows how things really are, but he doesn't want to offend the Mother and Father, so he tries to downplay the truth around them to avoid causing problems in the family. He might smoke a joint with you when the uptight parents are not around, or discuss things your parents would rather pretend don't exist, but often will keep his mouth shut if the family starts scolding you for your wayward behavior. After all, it is his family, too and he still wants to be recognized as a relative. He will also give you a hand or bail you out of jail without subjecting you to a lecture.

Then there are people like me. This is obviously the least objective description of all. We are the black-sheep of the family. We see where the others get off-track and try to avoid their mistakes. We also see where the others are right and embrace those positions fully, although we may not admit it if they thought of it first. We try to stay consistent instead of holding one position for one person and the opposite position for another person, as we see the others do. We know what we want, and we actually live it day to day in our personal lives, but we get really tired of hearing that our concrete reality, where we actively live, is a fantasy or "Utopia".


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

Strength in Numbers

I frequently hear people say that good people can't do anything about bad people and that is why cops and government are necessary. Nonsense! Good people outnumber the bad people by a huge margin. If that weren't the case no number of cops, even if they were interested in protecting the good guys, would be able to hold back the tide of violence. The bad guys know they are outnumbered, but they depend upon you and I not realizing that fact.

This makes me think of a program I recently watched about modern pirates. Small crews of heavily armed pirates outgun large crews of defenseless merchants. It is ridiculous! If ships' crews would arm themselves properly, the pirates wouldn't have a chance, but "laws" and "custom" dictate that the honest people be sitting ducks for those who feel no obligation to die for your convenience. It's time to stop being silly.

People who do not want to personally steal from others or harm innocent people are the majority. We should start behaving as though we realize this fact. Even most statist-socialists will not do the stealing personally; they depend on the government to do it for them. If the rest of us stand up to them, they will be powerless.

You Don't Need Money to Live

It seems like it should be obvious that you or I don't need money in order to live. You could grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house, and trade for things you can't provide yourself- making use of talents you possess that others do not. Money can be a convenient placeholder of value, to be used in trade for what you do need, but that is all.

Except, government makes it "illegal" to have no money. The primary reason money is necessary is to comply with the state's extortion schemes. Government demands money for its extortion payments such as property "tax", and its numerous fees and permits, which you will pay or government will kill you.

You could be rich in possessions, but without "money", government will attack and kidnap you, and if you resist you will be murdered. It seems like a bizarre situation until you realize that it is necessary if government is to exercise control over your life. If it could "allow" you to take care of yourself, government would have much less power.

That is another important reason that all government theft, whether called "taxes", "permits", "licenses", or "fees", must be ended forever. Let those who would be fine without money live unmolested.

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

Texas "Open Carry" Movement

I got this message and would like to pass it along.

Subject: Final Pre-bill Push for Texas Open Carry Petition Needs YOU!

Open Carriers Across America:

Representative Riddle (R – Houston) will soon introduce historic legislation to restore the right to open carry handguns in Texas. But that does not mean the fight is over – it’s just beginning. That’s why we need to drive up the signature count on the petition for Texas at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.petitiononline.com%2Ftexasoc%2Fpetition.html

And all Americans can help just like in 1836 when volunteers came from many states to help Texas fight and ultimately defeat an invading Mexican Army.

So if you known anyone who lives, works, or goes to school in Texas, now is the time to contact them and urge them to sign the open carry petition for Texas at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.petitiononline.com%2Ftexasoc%2Fpetition.html

The petition is now at over 54,000 signatures but we need to drive that signature count well North of 55,000 in the coming days to send a clear signal to Austin that open carry needs to be passed this year.

And if you blog in Texas, or can spare a few moments to add this message and/or the petition link to Texas blogs, please do so immediately. And remind folks to use valid email addresses so that they can receive vital updates on legislative matters from the Texas Open Carry working group which is going to be a permanent and effective pro-gun force in Texas to be reckoned with this year and in the future!

Please act on this message today.

Mike Stollenwerk,

Co-founder, http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://Opencarry.org

What if They Outlawed Sugar?

In thinking about the absurdity of the evil "war on (some) drugs", and the violence that comes with any prohibition, I started wondering what would happen if the government outlawed sugar. Of course, instead of sugar it could also be anything that people are able to "legally" enjoy today, even though it may not be great for them. Things like fat, caffeine, TV, or games. There is no real incentive for the prohibition of sugar, nor can I imagine one, but logic and reason have no place in governmental actions. So for this mental exercise, I will pretend that by royal edict, or by majority rule, sugar is outlawed as of now.

Of course, sugar substitutes would fall under this prohibition as well. Can't allow people to get around the prohibition that easily. Kind of like how anything with similar effects are outlawed as fast as they are found in the "war on (some) drugs". It is the effect that is prohibited as much as the specific substances.

Do you think a black market would arise for sweet treats? Of course it would. And with black markets come artificially inflated prices. And with artificially high prices and increased risk in providing the substance come bad people who are already accustomed to such endeavors. Soon gangs would fight over their share of the sugar trade. New names would be coined to covertly describe the product; each new name becoming obsolete when "decent society" started calling sugar by its "street name". Greenhouses and attics with grow lights would start growing plants that could be refined for their sugary sap. Basement set-ups where sugar cane and sugar beets were turned into "sweet gold" would crop up everywhere.

Maple trees would have to be cut and burned. Even many kinds of wild grasses with sweet juices would suddenly cause a homeowner to forfeit his property, if the feds discovered the wild plants growing on private land. Home chemistry labs where artificial sweeteners of undetermined purity could be mixed up would be started. Dangerous chemicals would undoubtedly be used in the manufacture of such things. But the demand would still be there.

I know it would be impossible for even a draconian police-state such as the US to carry out such a massive eradication program, mainly because the moral busy-bodies are not decrying sugar.... yet. Not to mention the environmental destruction that would result. But it really isn't as far-fetched as it might seem at first.

Even if "drugs" were as bad as the perpetual liars in government claim, the loss of liberty and violation of rights under the misguided, Constitutionally illegal, and evil "war on (some) drugs" is not worth it.


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

A "Milestone"?

This is my one-thousandth blog post.

Wow. I never dreamed I would keep blogging this long; never thought I'd keep coming up with things to say. Of course, I am one of those people who have actually spent 6 to 8 hours at a time on the telephone. So, talking (or writing) has never been a problem...unless someone wanted me to keep my opinions to myself.

It also helps that I have a subject I care passionately about. As you know, I can go on and on about liberty. Just look at any of the discussions I have taken part in on this or other blogs and websites. Evidence of my wordiness abounds. Liberty is important. Not just to me and other libertarians, but to those who don't realize its value yet. If, in some small way, my words can get someone to reconsider the importance of liberty, then my life was not a waste.

I have noticed that lately, when I do a Google search for "libertarian blog", my blog comes up 6th or 7th. That amazes me. Of course, maybe Google knows I am the one searching and gives me my own blog as a higher ranked result so my feelings won't be hurt. Who knows.

I would like to say a BIG "thank you" to all my readers, regardless of whether you are new or someone who has been around since the beginning. I also invite you to look over my old posts. I feel bad that the old posts have faded from sight. You don't want me to start publishing a "best of", do you?

I just have one question that keeps sneaking into my head: Does this mean I am a "writer" yet?


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

"Patriotism" of the Past

I think it was easier in the past to justify supporting the state. Back then, the evil just under its veneer was more difficult to see. You could always point to a greater evil that was looming over the horizon (even if it was exaggerated by the agents of the state). There was a tangible difference between the freedoms which were left at home, and the tyranny abroad. You could be "patriotic" and still feel like you were really supporting individual freedoms and liberty. Such is no longer the case.

Now "patriotism" consists of waving the federal flag in support of its many invasions across the globe, and in support of brutal human rights violations at home. Those who think of themselves as "patriotic" generally think it is OK to kill multitudes of "them". They frequently think it is OK to ignore human rights, even the ones mentioned in the Bill of Rights, in order to "get" the bad guys. The claim is that is makes "us" safer somehow. It doesn't.

It's time to shed the snakeskin of "patriotism" and start living your life free; standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, everywhere, for all times. Lead by example. Lift the banner of freedom high.



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

New Meetup Group - Clovis, New Mexico Area

I have started a new Meetup group to see if anyone in my area (around Clovis, New Mexico) is interested in getting together. It is called The Tumbleweed Territory Libertarians.

If you know anyone in my area who might be interested, please let them know about it.

Who Defines Your Liberty?

Yesterday, I was pointing out that many people get their definition of "freedom" from government and its indoctrination centers (called "schools"). Government wouldn't know "freedom" if it stepped in it, and would avoid it if it did.

This makes me think of the virus my computer recently became infected with. It masqueraded as a solution to the problem it caused. Just like government does. Look at recent and ongoing events if you doubt me.

Economic disaster? Blame the "lack of regulation" instead of seeing that it is caused by the exact opposite: too much government meddling in the market.

Too much "crime"? Look at who empowers the violent criminals: government and its drug laws and victim disarmament "laws" lead the list of causes.

Government redefines "freedom" to mean whatever suits its purpose (and doesn't threaten its power). It tells you what freedom is, and how to use it. It tells you the price of liberty, and insists you can only purchase it from the state. Don't let the virus sell you the false cure.

Do You Value Liberty?

I think most people love freedom. At least, they claim to love freedom. That is good, but it isn't nearly enough.

I, too, "love liberty" but that is merely the beginning. I also recognize its value. I could "love" gold; appreciate its beauty or lustre, without knowing what its value is, or what its uses are. The same goes for liberty. A blind "love" that is based on ignorance or is not backed up by actions is worthless.

To appreciate the value of freedom, you must know what it takes to purchase it. You must buy it for yourself. No one can "give" freedom to you, nor can anyone else "fight for your freedom". Anyone who claims to have done so is lying to you in order to brainwash you into giving up some of your liberty, either to them or to their "masters".

In order to really value liberty, you must see what it can be used for, and you must put it into action. Words are easy; actions are important. If you don't "live your liberty", you don't value it enough. It will be easy for power-hungry tyrants to steal it from you. Make freedom a habit. Assume Liberty in all situations, rather than assuming you will need to ask permission from someone.

There is also the problem that many people don't even know what freedom or liberty really are. They think freedom is whatever government (or its schools) tell them it is. It isn't. Tune in tomorrow for my thoughts on this.

Initiation of Force

Part of the reason for this blog is to educate myself; show me where I may be wrong. So, for your perusal I offer this from a discussion on The War on Guns:

TJP- "I'm a law-and-order kinda guy. I can think of examples--from disturbing
the peace to murder--where some stranger (including me) may be required to fill
the role of initiator, because the injured party is indisposed."

With "disturbing the peace" there is no "injured party". With actual aggression, if the injured party is indisposed, you would not be initiating force if you step in for the victim.

"Are there universally understood indicators of the initiation of force?"

Yes. "Force" is the exertion of physical power, or, I would say, the credible threat to use such. "Initiate" means to begin or originate. So, an "initiation of force" is beginning an exertion of physical power, or a credible threat to do so.

"Does your answer take into account that some people understand the display of a weapon to be an act of aggression, no matter the context?"

Those people are wrong. Seeing a weapon does not constitute a credible threat to exert physical power. You can't worry about the people who simply want to be in a knot about everything. There is no right to not be offended.

If you are seriously interested, I suggest you check out The On Line Freedom Academy.
_______________________________________

I recommend you read the entire comment thread. A big point of contention was that "disturbing the peace" IS an initiation of force. So, maybe I am/was wrong about this. I think there is a big difference between being annoyed or offended and being injured. If I am wrong and you are being "injured" by someone disturbing your peace, then it would obviously be your right to step in and defend yourself. If not, it would be wrong.

There have been other cases where I suspect I may have a higher threshold for annoyance than most people. Or, maybe it is that so many things annoy me that I have learned how to control my responses. This may just be a case where you have to do what you think is right, and deal with any consequences later. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need to call the cops on anyone; certainly not for bothering me. I am not saying it could never happen, but I do know that I would feel dirty afterwards if I did it.

Let me know if you have other opinions on this, and I'll keep thinking it over in my own mind. I am confident that there is a right solution, and I intend to find it.

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

Looking for the Good

A lot of times, whenever a new figure emerges on the political scene, I try to see the good in them. That usually comes back to haunt me, since no one can ever live up to the standards of myself or other anarchists. But I do try. The example in the link is just the latest person to crop up, but not one I have an opinion on one way or another.

The sad thing is how often I get chewed out for saying something nice about someone. Seriously, I have no desire to live my life looking for things to dislike about everyone. It would be an exhausting and lonely existence. I am learning to keep my mouth shut in most cases.

I do know that no one who gets elected is ever going to be a philosophically pure libertarian or anarchist. It's just the nature of the "game". They will all do things that are horrible, if they haven't already. Or they will associate with some really unsavory statist monsters. However, a lot of people have some things we can appreciate as long as we don't get caught up and lose sight of the goal.

Worship no one, no matter how wonderful they may seem at first glance. Be willing to praise people when they are right. Don't wallow in a hate-fest regarding the people you just can't say anything good about. Some people are just beyond help.

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

Blame Sasquatch

The socialists in government and in the media who say that the current economic mess was caused by the free market would probably also blame sasquatch for killing their chickens. We know it was their own dog doing the killing, just as we know government meddling caused, and is still causing, the economic collapse. Denial is alive and well, and surrounds us.

The government supporters need to realize that something as rare as the free market couldn't possibly have destroyed the entire economy. It takes something ubiquitous, like government control, regulation, meddling, and interference.

The free market can be as elusive as sasquatch; reports of sightings come in from everywhere, but when you try to track it down, at least in the places you are told to look, nothing is found. It isn't found in Detroit automakers. It isn't found at Walmart. Corporatism is not the free market. Protectionism is not the free market. They are the exact opposite. Government can't advance the free market by any action other than by going away.

Still, the free market can be found, usually when and where you least expect it, in back alleys, at flea markets, or at your neighbor's farm. Often right under the state's nose, and in violation of its "laws". It is just out of sight of the prying eyes of those who would protect you from the "unfairness" of it all. It's time to poke out those eyes and connect with, or build, your own free market where you live.

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

"Also- I Can Kill You With My Brain.."

Another bizarre Government-supporter claim is that "You don't know how many terrorist attacks have been prevented by the government; there hasn't been one since '9-11'".

Looking at this claim about all the terrorist attacks that have been "prevented", I'd like some evidence from someone other than the people who gain power or prestige from the newly erected police state. I truly think that if there had been any of these hidden "terrorist cells" in America, they would have struck on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, while people were distracted. That no further terrorist attacks happened is pretty good evidence that there were no "cells".

I don't doubt that there are small groups of angry people plotting death and destruction (there's Congress, obviously), but that doesn't mean they can carry out the plans regardless of the KGB.... oops, I meant "Homeland Security".... violating the rights of everyone else to keep us "safe".

Anyone can make claims about things that didn't happen. I could make the claim that I have prevented asteroid strikes from happening. Using the awesome power of my mind, I have deflected incoming asteroids before astronomers saw them, manipulating the very fabric of space and time, thus saving countless lives, and perhaps even civilization itself. I can point to the fact that there have been no major asteroid strikes in recent centuries as proof of my claim. That claim is about as believable as the government's claim that it has averted terrorist attacks since 2001. I don't believe them either.


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

Today's "Gun Rights Examiner"

If you are interested in what gun owners will soon be facing, at the direction of the probable next Attorney General, read today's Gun Rights Examiner column. Lock and load.

The Language of Tyranny

Some of the weirdest arguments in favor of government come from those who are afraid of every little thing. Such as those who claim that without a "strong" (tyrannical) government, "We would be speaking German now."

OK. So let's look at this rationally. Do you really think it matters if you and your local tyrannical police-state representatives and enforcers speak German or English? I don't. My ancestors probably didn't lose an awful lot of sleep worrying about what language I would be speaking now, in 2009. I know that the claim is short-hand, used instead of thinking, for the fear that without the US fedgov's wars, we would be living under a Nazi police state now, instead of the US police state we currently have.

That's highly doubtful. My feeling is that the Nazi police state, had it overrun America, would have collapsed by now anyway. People would have been much less cooperative with a sudden invasion than they have been with the slow and subtle creep of the socialist police state we have experienced. Our frogs are boiling and we don't smell the soup.

It's the same with any other group the government exploits for its own purposes of inciting fear. There is less danger from sudden invasion than there is from a slow and steady erosion of liberty. And who is responsible for that erosion? Not Muslims, "illegal aliens", or terrorists; but your local mayor, cops, and council members; bureaucrats and politicians at the federal level; and everyone who goes along instead of opposing them.

Face it, in America even today, with our 20,000+ victim disarmament ("gun control") "laws", an invading force and its native quislings would be getting shot from every side. They wouldn't stand a chance, not even if "laws" kept such acts "illegal". Yet, the same outcome is being deviously implemented by "your friends" in government. "Friends" who protect themselves with "laws" that forbid the very actions the founders of America believed necessary for ensuring liberty. And gullible people go along and support these domestic enemies at every turn. How's that for a quiet invasion?

So, tell me again how it matters which language is being spoken?


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

Hypnotized by Obama?

I have been very surprised at the number of "libertarians" who have seemingly fallen under the spell of Obama's smooth voice. They seem to want to "give him a chance" by ignoring his personal political history and his admitted agenda.

Obama is nothing to celebrate. All the "change" nonsense and the "new beginning" garbage is thinly disguised racism, and nothing more. Look beyond the man's surface to his socialist core. He wants your loyalty, but will not respect your individual human rights. All this talk of "unity" is just "get-on-the-bandwagon propaganda" designed to make you forget that he is not a friend of liberty in any sense of the phrase.

Bush was BAD; I am glad he is gone. But make no mistake, Obama is no better. He is not a better person. His motives are no more pure. He doesn't value liberty any more than any other president has. What he is, is a more compelling speaker. That makes him more dangerous. Remember the compelling speakers of the past, such as in Germany in the 1930s? Don't get hypnotized. Stay alert. See the reality of the soothing words and the comforting tone of voice. See through the deception. Don't be distracted from the goal: ALL liberty, for EVERYONE, everywhere, for ALL time.

Do "Rights" Exist?

I have read some other freedom-lovers' opinions that "rights" don't really exist other than as a notion that has been indoctrinated into the minds of people. I considered that and eventually came to the conclusion that I disagree. It has taken me a bit of thinking to decide why, exactly, I disagree.

The reality of rights doesn't just take away the state's authority, although it definitely does. There is more.

"Rights" are those things which you can do without harming any innocent person, and that no reasonable, peaceful person would ever try to prevent you from doing, although you can be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. Some rights are more important to liberty than others.

"Rights" are also the thing that frightens the state and its supporters so much that they will constantly try to convince you that: "RIGHTS: Liberties granted and regulated by the Governing body." I actually copied that quote directly from a discussion I was having with a person who kept trying to bait-and-switch. That is either an utterance of total ignorance or an absolute blatant lie. Statists are so frightened because rights trump any authority the state can claim. Their lies, ignorance, and fear don't change anything, though.

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

Another Virus

I seem to have fallen prey to another computer virus. It isn't letting me access my emails, so it I don't respond to comments on here or emails you have sent, I am not ignoring you intentionally.

This virus calls itself "Antivirus 2009" and pretends to be from Microsoft. When I roll the mouse over any of its links, they lead to "microsoft.securityinfohelp.com/..." with other things after the slash. But when I type that in, without all the stuff after the slash, it either takes me to the microsoft page or it blocks the page with a warning from itself. Even the pages it allows me to access, it puts a warning bar across the top of the page with a little warning shield and saying "The page you are opening is probably contains spyware, adware, etc.. Your system might be at risk, Click here to protect your system with Antivirus 2009."

Well, I have now gotten into my email through a roundabout way, but I don't know how long it will last. Wish me luck.

UPDATE: McAfee's virus removal service got rid of it, after everything else I tried failed. Thanks for all the suggestions, and thanks to McAfee!

FreedomPolitics

A new news and opinion website for politically minded libertarians has recently launched. FreedomPolitics is from the folks at Freedom Communications, which owns the local newspaper hereabouts.

I know from personal experience, these are good people. Check them out.

Us vs. Them: Some Thoughts on the "Punishment Mentality"

I recently participated in some online debates surrounding someone who was arrested for something which I consider a bogus "crime", but which is very unpopular among the general population. I get very disgusted by all the neanderthals out there who hope for the person (and me -for pointing out the stupidity of "the law") to get raped to death in prison. But it does get me to thinking.

My feeling is that this is a tribal thing. Those who imagine themselves of the side of "Law and Order" enjoy seeing someone get defeated by "their team". They cheer enthusiastically without considering the reality of the situation. Never mind that at any moment "their team" could turn on them and they could find themselves on the other side. They don't see that unpleasant little fact, and would never admit it if they did.

But then, I get happy at the thought of the Nuremberg II trials putting the criminals of the out-of-control US government in the hot seat too. Although, I think the difference is that I would be more than happy to let those pathetic parasites go live their lives in peace once they were stripped of any power to harm innocent people ever again. At least without facing instant retribution. I don't really want "punishment"; I simply want the crimes to stop.


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

A Laugh for Today. No, Not THAT One

In celebrating the absurdity of the state-worship circus happening today, I offer this:

I found this "definition" of "libertarianism" on Uncyclopedia. It's good to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

I was shocked to see they have a picture of a "typical libertarian" during his internet time there close to the bottom of the page. Did they sneak a camera into my compound and catch me off-guard? Did DHS help them? Where was my tinfoil beanie?

They also have a "definition" of "Anarchy" which is even more hilariously off-base than the definition of libertarianism. They seem to have made the common error of mixing up "anarchy" and "nihilism", just like everyone else. It's good they didn't get a photo of me celebrating my anarchism! That normally involves capybaras and body paint.


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

Wanted: A Cave

I admit it: I am depressed.

Recently the overwhelming realization has hit me that very few people want to live free. While that won't stop me, it does mean that I know I probably will not be living in a free society at any point of my life. I would like to have company.

I have never claimed that freedom will be easy for everyone. What can you expect when the majority of people have been trained from birth to depend on the state in some way? What I do claim is that it will be better for everyone who does not intend to live the life of a parasite. No other philosophy can honestly make that claim. I do not seek to force people to be free; such an idea is so full of contradictions as to be ridiculous. I do expect to be allowed to live free, the way I choose, and will resist any attempts to stop me. I expect no better than coercion from the dependant and stubborn statists around me.

That isn't the worst of it.

The thing that confuses and hurts me the most are the people who claim to want liberty, but who will search for any excuse they can find to hide from it. These are the people supposedly on my side! It has become obvious that even they want nothing to do with liberty. The very idea either paralyzes them with fear or it sends them into a frenzy of "but"s. OK, I get it: you are scared of freedom and will do anything you can to stop it from becoming the "norm". Fine. I am not going to violate the ZAP and try to force you to grow up. Still, it is disappointing in the extreme to see liberty denigrated and replaced by a statism-lite in the debate for freedom.

Maybe it is time for me to find a secluded cabin or a cave and withdraw from civilization. I think it would do me good. Anyone have a nice cave they could loan or rent me?

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

"Say No to Cops"

From The War on Guns, I found this article: "Say No to Cops". I guess its time for the tyranny deniers/cop lovers to send me death threats again.

Homosexuality and Rights

First of all, no one's sexual orientation is any of my business unless that person decides to make it my business. I don't care unless you need me to care for some reason. And then it is probably still irrelevant.

Every human on earth has the exact same rights as every other human. There are no qualifications, no tests, no legitimate "licenses".

A person's sexual orientation or preference has absolutely no bearing on his or her rights. None.

It is wrong to beg for permission from government to marry whoever you want, although I realize that gay rights activists are simply trying to level the playing field. I understand that desire, while recognizing that the "playing field" is the wrong locality. It is a diversion.

Marriage licenses are a relic of racist bigotry even at their best, and need to be disposed of. Find the one(s) you want to marry, make an agreement, and then get on with your lives. No permission needed from anyone. It is statist evil to have "laws" that reward or penalize anyone for things that are no one else's business. Get government OUT of all our lives, unless it is to protect the innocent from the parasitic aggressors (something I think government is spectacularly ill-equipped to do). Gay people are not harming anyone; being offended is not being harmed. You have no right to not be offended.

I have never had a gay person try to seduce me or "convert" me. I have certainly never had one try to sexually coerce me. I can't say the same about straight females (but I am not complaining, mind you).


This rant was inspired by this opinion-piece. He has deleted a few of my comments on other subjects, so any comments I have previously posted on this article may be gone by now.

Added: I see new comments are still disappearing about as quickly as they are being posted.

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

"Terrorists": The Least of My Fears

"Terrorists": those who use violence against innocent non-governmental people in order to cause societal terror so that the government will change its official policy. Doesn't work if you don't fear the little vermin, now does it?

I have a hard time thinking of ANYTHING I fear less than "terrorists". In fact, since they cause absolutely no "terror" whatsoever in me, they don't even exist in my universe. How about you?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, afraid of "terrorists". Funny, but those who accept the responsibility of being armed and prepared to protect those around them are called "paranoid" by the very people too afraid to be free. Who's paranoid?

So, Mr. Presidolt, don't use an imaginary "problem" to excuse overrunning my home with your thuggish stormtroopers. Don't use them as an excuse for violating more of my rights. Don't turn this society into a police-state on account of me. If you do, you are lying and have become the very thing you pretend to hate. YOU are a TERRORIST. You'd better turn yourself into your "non-torturing" buddies at Guantanamo Bay so that they can help you see the error of your ways.

My Journey to Anarchism

I'm not perfect, and despite what some might think, I've never believed I am. This life is a journey, and I am not "there" by any stretch of the imagination.

I've always been what could be called "anti-government", but I used to make certain exceptions for things like the environment or "justice". That was because of holes in my thinking processes. I have since patched those holes. You can't fix problems with initiated force or theft. Even if you have the illusion of the problem being fixed, worse problems will be caused.

As a consequence, I try to understand those who still think coercion can be right under some circumstances. It can be bewildering to watch the mental gymnastics used to excuse such things. I guess I was never so sold on the idea that I expended much effort in trying to defend it. I abandoned any support for the state quite easily. So, while I still think supporters of the state are wrong, I try to remember that at one time, I might have been nodding my head in agreement with them. I keep believing that, given time, the intelligent ones will come around.

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

Making Assertions

I assert it is wrong to walk up to a stranger who has done you no harm and stab him. I assert it is wrong to take another person's property against her will.

If you need these things to be proven, you are out of luck. I can not "prove" these assertions in the same way a physicist can "prove" his hypothesis or a mathematician can "prove" his theorem. Now, that doesn't mean some philosopher hasn't formulated some incomprehensible mess that his followers hail as "proof", just that, even if he has, I don't feel like chasing it down. I don't need to.

I certainly don't depend upon consensus to show me that my assertions are correct. I know they are. Maybe it is encoded in my DNA. I suspect if it weren't, humans would have been extinct long ago. I also suspect that anyone who doubts these assertions does so for less than "nice" reasons.

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

Help Out an Ally

Following David Codrea's excellent Gun Rights Examiner column every day (just as you do, don't you?) led me to the Libertarian Examiner.

This guy needs some support from freedom lovers. It seems he gets buried under an avalanche of hatred from tyranny deniers with very little help from people dedicated to liberty. So, if you have the inclination and the time, lend a hand and help the voice of reason rise above the noise.

A Few "Good Apples"?

Whenever the latest murder-by-cop occurs, I hear the state's apologists say "yes, there are a few 'bad apples', but not all cops are bad". Hmmm. Interesting speculation. Care to try proving it?

I do believe there are good EX-cops; I have met them and they usually hate the new crop even more than I do. I think there may even be some new cops who have not been dragged down by the hubris and "us vs. them" inherent in the system, although I think police training weeds almost all of the good people out before they even start the job. I don't think it is possible to remain a good person, and have a career in "law enforcement". Not anymore.

It is my contention that if there were a significant number of "good cops" out there, they would be exposing and eliminating the rot that wears the badges in today's police state. And the disgusting tyrants who send them out into the world. Where are these mythical "good cops"? Why are they silent?

So, until I see evidence otherwise, I will continue to assume that LEOs are really "Liberty Eradication Operatives" who earn the eternal, justifiable, contempt of free good people with their every action.


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

Government Control

Government. There is no tool in existence that does more harm to the innocent when wielded by people with bad intentions (and I have my doubts that anyone who is successfully elected has anything but bad intentions of one type or another). Yet, its supporters claim that government is what can protect the weak and innocent from being harmed. Where does this disconnect with reality come from? Wishful thinking?

So, government and its most ardent supporters see nothing hypocritical about trying to regulate weapons in the hands of average people while doing nothing about the most powerful weapon in the world being in the hands of those very people least trustworthy with any sort of power whatsoever. Would you leave your 10 year old daughter in a room with any President, cop, or governor? Me neither. Unless she was armed to the teeth.

The world needs a lot less "gun control" and a whole lot more "state control". The irony is that one counters the other. That is why the villains of the state want everyone else to be either disarmed, or armed at the whim and permission of the state.


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

Something For the Freedom-Fighter's Toolbox

Suppose there were "wanted posters" that displayed the worst of the enforcers for all the world to see. If a person, hypothetically speaking, wanted to know where to strike at those offenders in order to balance the scales of justice somewhat, they could check the posters to identify the enemies of freedom.

Well, such things do exist. They are even animated and have audio, and are broadcast for all the world to see. You can watch the rights violators at work, and see their attitudes clearly. You can see for yourself that the "bad apple" has no limits to his or her abusive nature and has no respect for either the Constitution or basic decency. You can see for yourself which ones are parasites without virtue. Right there on your TV screen.

Shows like COPS are a disgusting illustration, and in my opinion a partial cause, of the burgeoning police-state. They can also be a tool which can be put into the toolbox for future use. I even glimpsed a show about the parasites who put "boots" on cars in some big city. More identifiable thugs.

I can't bring myself to watch those types of shows. It would cause me to do things that would get me killed quickly. But for some others it might be something to think about and a tool to put aside for when it is needed.


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

Don't Forget TOLFA

I haven't mentioned this recently, but it is time to remind you, once again, to enroll in The On Line Freedom Academy (if you haven't already).

Jim Davies keeps developing new content, and is doing a great job to make this effective and interesting. If you really value liberty, please spend a little time attending The Academy. The time you spend will not be wasted.

This is a practical way to spread the desire for liberty to a lot of people who might not otherwise take the time to think about it. Other methods can help, but until people understand what freedom really is, and see it working in your life in the real world, they may not pay much attention to it. Remember that the most common stumbling block is "the bad guys won't cooperate" or "it won't work in the real world". Show them that the bad guys are irrelevant. Enroll in TOLFA and live its lessons daily in your regular life. Lead by example.

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

The Easy Way Out

Why do some people cling to authoritarianism? Maybe they have no choice. Perhaps because it is more primal; the "reptilian brain" is all that is needed. Authoritarianism is so much simpler. It is a refuge for those afraid, or unable, to think.

I come to this conclusion from personal experience. The only times I am prone to take the easy way out and have authoritarian thoughts is when I am extremely tired or sick and my mental faculties are not up to speed. I am not a morning person. The thinking part of my brain doesn't wake up until around 10 AM. If the baby wakes me up too early it is so much easier to just bark orders instead of working to solve any conflicts.

I pity those who live in that mindset all the time, incapable of growing up and moving past that type of mentality. To them, the answer seems to always be in ordering others around and punishing those who have different opinions or cultures. Fear, control, and punishment: the three horseman of the weak-minded. The tools of the state.


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

Mass Transportation

If you want me to have any interest in "mass transportation" in any form, there are a few minimum requirements you need to meet. These are "needs", not "wishes", by the way.

1) Don't subject me or anyone else to any violations of our privacy. In other words, no metal detectors or "sniffers". No onerous ID requirements. No racial or psychological profiling. No baggage searches or cavity searches. No prohibition of personal weaponry of any sort. Period.

2) Fit my schedule and needs; don't expect me to go way out of my way to accommodate an inconvenient itinerary. I may be willing go be slightly inconvenienced once in a great while, but not everyday.

3) Don't try to turn me into a sardine. I am not averse to being near people, but I also have no desire to have jittery strangers sitting in my lap.

4) Don't develop a partnership with the Enforcers, encouraging them to be a menacing presence on your trips. I don't invite vermin into my house; I do not wish to be forced to share my commute with them.

In conclusion, private vehicles are the most convenient form of mass transit ever developed. To beat them, you will have to do a lot better. Passing "laws" that require me to use your transportation is not "doing it better". If you get your friends in government to do so "for the common good", and then make us run the disarmament gauntlet to get on board, I will personally do all I can to undermine you and your transportation monopoly. Consider that a promise; not that you care.

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

Our Consequence-Free Society

I think our society has become mostly free of consequences. Not for getting caught at big stuff (like murder) or at things that threaten the power of the state (like owning guns or avoiding taxes), but in everyday boorish behavior. Jerks feel safe acting like jerks because they know their victims are most likely disarmed and afraid to stand up for themselves due to "legal" restraints.

In a truly free society, cops (actually private security officers) would approach with their hats in their hands, their heads bowed, apologizing profusely for wasting your time. Behaving like the lowly servants they are.

People would NOT try driving down the center of the road just for the fun of watching others swerve out of the way.

People would not walk out in front of traffic simply for the amusement of forcing drivers to slam on their brakes to avoid the "crime" of hitting a pedestrian.

TSA goons would all be picking up trash on the side of the road. Just kidding. In reality, they would all have died long ago from trying to eat rocks and plastic fruit. Or from fighting their shadows and reflections to the death.

The point is, as Robert A. Heinlein said: "An armed society is a polite society". I am ready for a universally polite society again, where instant consequences remind the jerks among us to think about their actions.

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

Well-Intentioned Insanity

"I don't believe most statists (those who believe "government" is a legitimate human endeavor) are bad people. I believe they are mostly well-intentioned. I also think they are a bit insane. Or at least in serious denial."

This is the first paragraph of my newest article in The Libertarian Enterprise. Read the rest here.

Airports: Just Say "No!"

My daughter, who is 17, came to visit me for the holidays. Despite my misgivings, she insisted on flying. A trip of 700 miles, which she has made in around 12 hours by car several times, ended up taking 19 1/2 hours. She was jerked around by the incompetent airline employees (who no longer concern themselves with making the customer happy, but only with satisfying their federal masters), had some of her possessions stolen by the goons of the TSA, and ended up crying. This girl is tough and doesn't cry.

Needless to say, I needed a few days to calm down before I wrote about this incident. I long ago realized that flying is no longer an option for me. The last time I did it, back in 2000, I ended up getting to my destination and discovering a .22 round in my pocket. This was in spite of practically stripping off everything I wear in order to prevent such from happening. Now, if the TSA goons discovered something like that before I did, I would probably be raped by them or tasered to death.

There needs to be a real free-market airline. One that tells the feds where to stick their terroristic regulations. One where the pilots and attendants are armed, and where the passengers are assumed to be as well. I know this would mean that the liberty-free zones euphemistically called "airports" couldn't be used, since they have been stolen by the feds. I also know that the feds would fight any such attempt, claiming ownership of the sky or some such socialistic balderdash.

Still, it is time. Don't believe me? Watch this: TSA brutality.

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

Not My Choice to Make

I am absolutely unbending in my recognition of the right of everyone to own and to carry weapons everywhere, without permission. I stand up for this right almost everyday, in some way.

There are a lot of people who I feel are not responsible enough to own guns. Many of them work for government in some capacity, but that is a tangent for another day. The thing is, it doesn't matter what I think about anyone else owning a gun. It is not for me or anyone else to decide for them, unless or until they make it so by misusing the gun. That is the way it should be.

I might prefer that my "under aged" daughter not have sex. However, she is not my property and I know she is responsible enough to make her own decisions regardless of what "the state" dictates. I can offer advice, if asked, but can't make legitimate demands of someone who owns her own life and accepts the consequences of her actions. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

I am not free to run the lives of others, just as they are not free to run mine. This is why I would not make a good authoritarian: I understand where my boundaries lie.


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

A "New" Year

The logical place to divide the year is at the solstice, so I think this is a little arbitrary, but "Happy New Year" anyway.

Now, what will I do to make this coming year better than the previous one? I'm open to suggestions.

The Year in Review

Not really, but isn't that what we are supposed to say now?

All I want to really say is a big "thank you" to my loyal readers. I hope 2009 will be better for you than 2008 was. I hope you will make a commitment to be freer in your personal sphere this coming year.

I'll just leave you with this thought:

Liberty happens one person at a time, in spite of the claims to the contrary. Take charge of your own liberty. Don't worry about the moronic agents, enforcers, or bureaucrats of the state. They will bring about their own demise if we let them. So, let them.

Stay safe, but not too safe.


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

Consistency

The inconsistencies that make a person take on authoritarian attributes confuse me. I respect consistency. I may hate a person's stance on a particular issue, but if they are completely consistent, I can at least respect the fact that they are not a hypocrite.

Yet, while I have met people who seem consistently "libertarian" (something that can be done without much effort, as long as you overcome your brainwashing), I have yet to find anyone who seems consistently "authoritarian". They always make exceptions for themselves, and often for their friends. This is how you can tell that they are wrong.

This doesn't mean that everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is consistent, just that it is more obvious and glaringly ridiculous when they aren't. All rights for everyone, everywhere, for all times without exception. That's where "consistency" dwells. Any "but"s show the flaws that are still present in the person's thinking.



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

"Well, That's Different"

The government's "War on (some) Drugs" depends upon ignorance in order to retain popular support among the population. Unfortunately for rationality, ignorance is rampant.

As an illustration: Someone I know recently handed some prescription medications to another person who was in pain. I pointed out that, by DEA standards, the act made both people "drug criminals" and made the "supplier" (who, by the way, supports the stupid and evil "War on Drugs") hypocritical. The "supplier" said "Well, I think this is different." I said "That's why it is hypocritical."

I just wonder how many other things are "different" to the state-hypnotized mind.

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

People

On the whole, I like people. There are some whose actions I despise, and some people are so devoid of any redeeming characteristics that I just write them off and do my best to avoid them. Still, most people are not too bad, even if I don't agree with them.

On the other hand, most people who hold authoritarian ideology seem to hate and distrust everyone. This is how they justify trying to control every aspect of other people's lives. Even some people who dubiously claim the label "libertarian" seem to be this way, and it is probably what diverts them from the path to liberty.

Don't waste your time hating people or looking for ways to punish them. Most "offenses" should probably be ignored. Only respond with force when you are attacked.

That doesn't mean that I will let others, who say they only want to "help" me, have any authority or control over my life. Their right to tell me what to do ends where it runs up against my self ownership and my self determination. Live and let live, or there may be unpleasant consequences.


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

Hello, Everyone

After being without internet for a day and a half, I'm back, but I'm taking a couple of days off to spend time with family. Enjoy whichever variation of the winter solstice celebration you observe.

Merry Christmas!

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

Rules of the Road

A common misconception of us liberty types is that we "refuse to stop at stop signs". To this, I reply: Not usually. Remember, most of us have no problem with legitimate "rules", but only with rulers. I oppose (and sometimes ignore) rules that are obviously ridiculous and designed to only control actions that have no victims.

Stop signs are not usually in that category. Although I could point one out, if you would like, that I never saw anyone stop at. Yes, It was that ridiculously placed! Normally, stopping at stop signs is just a case of common decency, and one rule I follow.

Another legitimate rule of the road is the rule for driving on a particular side of the road. It makes sense that certain rules permit me to know what to expect on the road as I come around a blind corner, at least up to a point. Technology will one day make this a moot point, but for now, please stay on "your side of the road". It is simply courtesy and responsible behavior.

"Speed limits" usually are pointless and distracting. They force a driver to divide his attention between safely operating the vehicle and watching an arbitrary parameter. However, as long as the speed limit doesn't unnecessarily endanger me or my passengers, I normally follow it anyway.

That does bring me to a serious road hazard. Speed traps, or whatever you wish to call them, are a serious danger to safe travel on the roads. Notice how often drivers who are not even "speeding" slam on their brakes at the sight of one of the highwaymen hiding in his extortion collection vehicle. And when these parasites actually pick a victim, they pull off to the side of the road and compromise "public safety" even more; sacrificed for monetary gain by the state. The drivers singled out are rarely causing any danger, but are simply violating an arbitrary rule about velocity. This "traffic stop" behavior is a violation of the rules of the road, in my opinion.


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