Libertarians can afford to be bold
There are very clear reasons why we hold fast to the principles we do. We have clear, rationally derived reasons, so we can be bold when taking our stand. Timidity shows doubt and it isn't necessary. You have weighed your positions, haven't you? Just because our positions may not be popular doesn't mean they are wrong.
When it comes to the absolute right of each person to live life according to his wishes and values, as long as he harms no innocent person, even when his choices are unpopular or scorned by the vast majority, libertarians can't afford to be wishy-washy. There is enough of that out there already. If you only stand up for the popular rights, you are really taking no stand at all.
I'll give you just a couple of examples that cause some libertarians to stammer and try to change the subject.
Guns: Every person has the legacy of tool-use imprinted on his or her body, mind, and quite possibly, DNA. Guns are tools, just like the first flint scrapers or a slightly more advanced copper axe. They give the owner power over his immediate environment. Just like any tool, guns can be used unwisely, however unwise use does not make the tool guilty, nor mean that others who did not use the tool to cause harm must lose their tools. At least, it doesn't mean that unless you are a reactionary control-freak. Then it is "obvious" to you that the tool must be blamed and restricted. Tool prohibition harms innocent people and empowers the predators who live among us. What do we call actions that harm the innocent?
"Drugs": No one owns your life or the vessel that contains it but you. This is the most fundamental "property right" of them all. Without this one, there are not, and can never be, any others. "Ownership" must include the right to destroy the thing you own, or it is meaningless. It gives you no right to steal from others, nor to attack them in any way since this would be violating your victim's property rights. "The drugs made me do it" is a cop-out that would lead to an early grave in a free society if tried very often. However, most people who use chemical substances never harm anyone else, regardless of what the scare-mongers in government wish you to believe. It may not be smart, it may even kill you, but as long as you are harming no one else it is your right. Government has no authority to make certain that you (and your family) are harmed by its sanctions for your choices. To be perfectly honest, that is where most of the harm from "drug use" comes from. Prohibition is a failed concept and a destructive policy. It harms innocent people. That is the very definition of "evil".
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
The absurdity of trying to force freedom on someone
The absurdity of trying to force freedom on someone
Can you "vote yourself free"? Even if you can, what about those who would choose servitude to the state? Is it right, or even possible, to "force people to be free"? Isn't that a contradiction? Does a majority have the right to "impose freedom" on an unwilling minority? Does a libertarian minority have the right to impose freedom (if it were even logistically possible) on a frightened or authoritarian majority?
I don't believe it is possible to force anyone to be free (the current "military mission" in Iraq should be all the evidence anyone needs that it doesn't work). Until the people are familiar with freedom and realize its potential, and then want it, all you are doing is shoving another unwanted edict down someone's throat, just like the last bully-in-charge did. After all, if people wish to voluntarily organize into a socialistic state they should be free to do that as long as they do not force anyone to participate who does not wish to. And there is the problem.
The very nature of the state is that no one is allowed to opt out. It would cause the entire house of cards ("prison of cards"?) to collapse if people were free to choose to be enslaved or not. Taxation is theft, and volunteering to be stolen from is evidence of your slavery. The government claims the "income tax" is "voluntary"... until you stop volunteering to be stolen from. Then you will either submit or the state will keep escalating the aggression until it kills you. This is just one example among millions.
While liberty-lovers would allow a voluntary "statist society" to exist alongside a free society, the state would never reciprocate. It would see liberty as a virus that would spread to those who had previously agreed to live under its "authority". A shining example that it could not shield from the notice of its population. The state would die by attrition.
You can not be allowed, by the state, to choose between tyranny or freedom, because too many would choose freedom, especially if they could see it in action. Those who would choose slavery depend on those who would choose freedom to be the fuel and machinery that runs the society. Without them you have nothing but parasites looking for an absent host. Hmmm. This is sounding like a synopsis of "Atlas Shrugged".
For related material: Under my column "Voting is usually wrong" I have been having a debate in the comments with Eric Sundwall. I recommend you go read it, as it inspired this column. It can give you a feel for the two views of the issue.
Can you "vote yourself free"? Even if you can, what about those who would choose servitude to the state? Is it right, or even possible, to "force people to be free"? Isn't that a contradiction? Does a majority have the right to "impose freedom" on an unwilling minority? Does a libertarian minority have the right to impose freedom (if it were even logistically possible) on a frightened or authoritarian majority?
I don't believe it is possible to force anyone to be free (the current "military mission" in Iraq should be all the evidence anyone needs that it doesn't work). Until the people are familiar with freedom and realize its potential, and then want it, all you are doing is shoving another unwanted edict down someone's throat, just like the last bully-in-charge did. After all, if people wish to voluntarily organize into a socialistic state they should be free to do that as long as they do not force anyone to participate who does not wish to. And there is the problem.
The very nature of the state is that no one is allowed to opt out. It would cause the entire house of cards ("prison of cards"?) to collapse if people were free to choose to be enslaved or not. Taxation is theft, and volunteering to be stolen from is evidence of your slavery. The government claims the "income tax" is "voluntary"... until you stop volunteering to be stolen from. Then you will either submit or the state will keep escalating the aggression until it kills you. This is just one example among millions.
While liberty-lovers would allow a voluntary "statist society" to exist alongside a free society, the state would never reciprocate. It would see liberty as a virus that would spread to those who had previously agreed to live under its "authority". A shining example that it could not shield from the notice of its population. The state would die by attrition.
You can not be allowed, by the state, to choose between tyranny or freedom, because too many would choose freedom, especially if they could see it in action. Those who would choose slavery depend on those who would choose freedom to be the fuel and machinery that runs the society. Without them you have nothing but parasites looking for an absent host. Hmmm. This is sounding like a synopsis of "Atlas Shrugged".
For related material: Under my column "Voting is usually wrong" I have been having a debate in the comments with Eric Sundwall. I recommend you go read it, as it inspired this column. It can give you a feel for the two views of the issue.
A New Obsession - Can You Help?
I have gotten one of my obsessions again. Last time I had a "liberty related" obsession, I designed the "Time's Up" flag. This time it is a 1 oz silver coin which I have designed.
I lost money on the flags, which was OK with me. I'd like to hit on something that would make me financially comfortable, but that isn't the most important thing to me.
The thing is, I can't afford to lose money on another project, not right now, and I don't have the money to have to coins made.
The design I have created should appeal to libertarians, "Three-percenters", Free State Project participants, anarchists, pirate enthusiasts, my "fans and supporters", numismatists (since this will be the most wonderful coin ever designed), and more. And, because the coins would be one ounce of .999 fine silver, they would be a good investment. Since I am trying to protect my design, I won't release it to the public yet, but I like it.
So, if there is anyone out there who would like to commit to buying a certain number of coins, or who would just like to finance the whole venture, let me know and maybe we can reach an agreement. I'd really like to see these coins become a reality so I can get it out of my mind and move onto something else.
..........................................
I lost money on the flags, which was OK with me. I'd like to hit on something that would make me financially comfortable, but that isn't the most important thing to me.
The thing is, I can't afford to lose money on another project, not right now, and I don't have the money to have to coins made.
The design I have created should appeal to libertarians, "Three-percenters", Free State Project participants, anarchists, pirate enthusiasts, my "fans and supporters", numismatists (since this will be the most wonderful coin ever designed), and more. And, because the coins would be one ounce of .999 fine silver, they would be a good investment. Since I am trying to protect my design, I won't release it to the public yet, but I like it.
So, if there is anyone out there who would like to commit to buying a certain number of coins, or who would just like to finance the whole venture, let me know and maybe we can reach an agreement. I'd really like to see these coins become a reality so I can get it out of my mind and move onto something else.
..........................................
Welfare has become a way of life
Welfare has become a way of life
I know of a person who lives near me who is said to be a "welfare queen". She is sneered at by most of her neighbors. Neighbors who, in a majority of cases, happily ignore the fact that they too are living on welfare.
It is hypocritical to denigrate the neighborhood "welfare queen" while you collect your Social Security, your farm subsidies, your Medicare, while you "benefit" from public schooling, or go off to your government job.
It is all the same: living off the wealth and production of others. In other words, theft. Some are OK with this, thinking that it is somehow different in their personal case. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but there is no difference. At least have the integrity to accept welfare for what it is, whether it is being paid to you or taken from you, and don't turn your nose up at others if you are in the same boat.
Consistency in applying your principles. The importance of this can not be overstated.
I know of a person who lives near me who is said to be a "welfare queen". She is sneered at by most of her neighbors. Neighbors who, in a majority of cases, happily ignore the fact that they too are living on welfare.
It is hypocritical to denigrate the neighborhood "welfare queen" while you collect your Social Security, your farm subsidies, your Medicare, while you "benefit" from public schooling, or go off to your government job.
It is all the same: living off the wealth and production of others. In other words, theft. Some are OK with this, thinking that it is somehow different in their personal case. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but there is no difference. At least have the integrity to accept welfare for what it is, whether it is being paid to you or taken from you, and don't turn your nose up at others if you are in the same boat.
Consistency in applying your principles. The importance of this can not be overstated.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
New Mexico gets rid of death penalty
New Mexico gets rid of death penalty
The rulers of the territory of New Mexico recently decided to do away with the "death penalty". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am one of those who feels the only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the moment of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer.
There is no government anywhere that I feel is honest enough to be trusted with power over life and death. They demonstrate time after time, year after year, that they can't be trusted with small things, why on earth would we entrust them with the most important thing there is? Too many on death row have been vindicated, after decades of imprisonment, by DNA evidence. Getting a conviction, so as to appear to be "doing something", is more important than finding the truth to those who depend on an active "criminal justice system" to make money. Lastly, governments always turn to their court system to punish those who oppose or annoy them. Those like you and me.
"What about crime?" you may ask. I don't believe that keeping the death penalty as an option really reduces crime; every attacker thinks they will be the exception to the rule; the one who gets away with it. Once a person is captured they are no longer a threat to the general population. When the killer is no longer a threat, killing him is revenge rather than justice. It doesn't return the victim to life. Nor does it truly protect any future victims. The only thing that does that with any success is a universally armed population, which New Mexico can, and should, have.
Fellow prisoners should be protected from the truly violent predators (rather than the "crime of passion" types). Of course, no one but violent attackers should be in prison in the first place. Others, those whose crimes are of a financial nature, should be working on their restitution rather than living off the stolen money of the state. Those other people who were kidnapped by the state for counterfeit "crimes" which harm no one (in other words, the majority of those in prison) should not be incarcerated to begin with. Not in a rational society, anyway.
The rulers of the territory of New Mexico recently decided to do away with the "death penalty". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am one of those who feels the only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the moment of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer.
There is no government anywhere that I feel is honest enough to be trusted with power over life and death. They demonstrate time after time, year after year, that they can't be trusted with small things, why on earth would we entrust them with the most important thing there is? Too many on death row have been vindicated, after decades of imprisonment, by DNA evidence. Getting a conviction, so as to appear to be "doing something", is more important than finding the truth to those who depend on an active "criminal justice system" to make money. Lastly, governments always turn to their court system to punish those who oppose or annoy them. Those like you and me.
"What about crime?" you may ask. I don't believe that keeping the death penalty as an option really reduces crime; every attacker thinks they will be the exception to the rule; the one who gets away with it. Once a person is captured they are no longer a threat to the general population. When the killer is no longer a threat, killing him is revenge rather than justice. It doesn't return the victim to life. Nor does it truly protect any future victims. The only thing that does that with any success is a universally armed population, which New Mexico can, and should, have.
Fellow prisoners should be protected from the truly violent predators (rather than the "crime of passion" types). Of course, no one but violent attackers should be in prison in the first place. Others, those whose crimes are of a financial nature, should be working on their restitution rather than living off the stolen money of the state. Those other people who were kidnapped by the state for counterfeit "crimes" which harm no one (in other words, the majority of those in prison) should not be incarcerated to begin with. Not in a rational society, anyway.
Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism
Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism
The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.
Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.
The consistency of libertarians is frightening to some authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".
These scenarios are normally either of the "deserted island" or the "powerful warlord" variety. Of the two, the "powerful warlord" scenario is the more realistic, since that is the situation we find ourselves in now.
A powerful band of warlords, calling themselves "government" has declared that they own us and the products of our lives. We are told we can choose which of them is the anointed figurehead for a certain number of years, but are not allowed to officially opt out of the system entirely. A choice that makes no difference is not a real choice. They demand to be paid tributes for "giving" us the privilege of having them rule over us. They pretend to be protecting us from the very sort of threat that they themselves pose to our lives, our liberties, and our pursuit of happiness.
Since authoritarianism failed to prevent a gang of powerful warlords from taking control, why keep looking to the same misguided delusions in an attempt to protect us from yet another powerful warlord? The answer lies in accepting and exercising responsibility for your own life, and in the determination to not let anyone usurp that self-ownership under any pretext.
These scenarios are no problem for a libertarian grounded on a solid foundation of self-ownership, non-aggression, and responsibility for one's own actions. If real exceptions exist, I have yet to find one.
The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.
Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.
The consistency of libertarians is frightening to some authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".
These scenarios are normally either of the "deserted island" or the "powerful warlord" variety. Of the two, the "powerful warlord" scenario is the more realistic, since that is the situation we find ourselves in now.
A powerful band of warlords, calling themselves "government" has declared that they own us and the products of our lives. We are told we can choose which of them is the anointed figurehead for a certain number of years, but are not allowed to officially opt out of the system entirely. A choice that makes no difference is not a real choice. They demand to be paid tributes for "giving" us the privilege of having them rule over us. They pretend to be protecting us from the very sort of threat that they themselves pose to our lives, our liberties, and our pursuit of happiness.
Since authoritarianism failed to prevent a gang of powerful warlords from taking control, why keep looking to the same misguided delusions in an attempt to protect us from yet another powerful warlord? The answer lies in accepting and exercising responsibility for your own life, and in the determination to not let anyone usurp that self-ownership under any pretext.
These scenarios are no problem for a libertarian grounded on a solid foundation of self-ownership, non-aggression, and responsibility for one's own actions. If real exceptions exist, I have yet to find one.
Libertarians defy the usual labels
Libertarians defy the usual labels
One rather humorous invective that gets hurled at libertarians occasionally is that we are "just liberals who like guns". Being outside the traditional political "right vs left" nonsense confuses those who wish to insult us. "The Right" calls us "bleeding heart liberals"; "The Left" calls us "heartless right-wingers". The truth is we are the only ones who remain consistent.
Not all libertarians agree on all the issues, so I can only speak for myself here. On the "liberal" side I oppose the death penalty, since no government is worthy of being trusted with power over life and death. I am against drug prohibition since if you don't own your own body, to dispose of however you please, you own nothing. I am against "laws" regulating or controlling sexual activity between responsible consenting individuals for the same reason.
On the traditional "conservative" side I oppose any attempts by any government to regulate weaponry. The right to bear arms ("to own and to carry weapons") existed before the Second Amendment and will still exist after the USA is a historical footnote, no matter what the prevailing legal environment demands. I am against government becoming a burden on business, through "taxation" or regulation. I am against penalizing people and businesses for success. I am against government interference with any sort of religion; believe what you want, just don't pass "laws" attempting to control non-coercive behavior based upon those beliefs. I am for property rights; it is your property, do with it as you wish as long as it doesn't escape your property to harm others. You may have noticed that by my yardstick there are no longer any "conservatives" in government at the national level, regardless of their claims.
There are some things that "both sides" disagree with me over. Democracy is not the Holy Grail of freedom; it is "the tyranny of the majority". There are very few things that should be subject to a vote, and a vote should never determine whose rights to violate.
I recognize that taxation of any amount is blatant theft. It doesn't matter how much you love to see the money spent on your favorite program. Theft is always wrong.
I accept that there is no right to not be offended. Stop running to government every time someone says or does something that offends you. Get a thicker skin.
Public schools are a disaster and are indoctrinating children to accept socialism without question. They are financed by ransoming the homes of the people in the area. You can't teach children to be good people with stolen money. Real education is much too important to leave to government bureaucrats.
National borders are a handy way to control people. Anything that can keep "them" out can keep "us" in. A fence works both ways and really only helps the farmer to control his livestock until it is time to butcher.
Immigration is only a problem if welfare is available. End it. Return to a time when charity was the safety net, instead of weaving one from theft. Charity is voluntary. You get to help whoever you like for whatever reason you have.
So, as you see, when libertarians are accused by one branch of authoritarians of belonging to the other camp of authoritarians, they miss the boat so completely as to appear silly. It is your choice to laugh as you walk away, or to try to correct them. Good luck.
One rather humorous invective that gets hurled at libertarians occasionally is that we are "just liberals who like guns". Being outside the traditional political "right vs left" nonsense confuses those who wish to insult us. "The Right" calls us "bleeding heart liberals"; "The Left" calls us "heartless right-wingers". The truth is we are the only ones who remain consistent.
Not all libertarians agree on all the issues, so I can only speak for myself here. On the "liberal" side I oppose the death penalty, since no government is worthy of being trusted with power over life and death. I am against drug prohibition since if you don't own your own body, to dispose of however you please, you own nothing. I am against "laws" regulating or controlling sexual activity between responsible consenting individuals for the same reason.
On the traditional "conservative" side I oppose any attempts by any government to regulate weaponry. The right to bear arms ("to own and to carry weapons") existed before the Second Amendment and will still exist after the USA is a historical footnote, no matter what the prevailing legal environment demands. I am against government becoming a burden on business, through "taxation" or regulation. I am against penalizing people and businesses for success. I am against government interference with any sort of religion; believe what you want, just don't pass "laws" attempting to control non-coercive behavior based upon those beliefs. I am for property rights; it is your property, do with it as you wish as long as it doesn't escape your property to harm others. You may have noticed that by my yardstick there are no longer any "conservatives" in government at the national level, regardless of their claims.
There are some things that "both sides" disagree with me over. Democracy is not the Holy Grail of freedom; it is "the tyranny of the majority". There are very few things that should be subject to a vote, and a vote should never determine whose rights to violate.
I recognize that taxation of any amount is blatant theft. It doesn't matter how much you love to see the money spent on your favorite program. Theft is always wrong.
I accept that there is no right to not be offended. Stop running to government every time someone says or does something that offends you. Get a thicker skin.
Public schools are a disaster and are indoctrinating children to accept socialism without question. They are financed by ransoming the homes of the people in the area. You can't teach children to be good people with stolen money. Real education is much too important to leave to government bureaucrats.
National borders are a handy way to control people. Anything that can keep "them" out can keep "us" in. A fence works both ways and really only helps the farmer to control his livestock until it is time to butcher.
Immigration is only a problem if welfare is available. End it. Return to a time when charity was the safety net, instead of weaving one from theft. Charity is voluntary. You get to help whoever you like for whatever reason you have.
So, as you see, when libertarians are accused by one branch of authoritarians of belonging to the other camp of authoritarians, they miss the boat so completely as to appear silly. It is your choice to laugh as you walk away, or to try to correct them. Good luck.
Friday, March 20, 2009
What Will I Call Myself Today?
I think labels are over-rated. I started out calling myself "libertarian", then started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then "anarchist". Now, for purposes of writing for Examiner.com, I am calling myself "libertarian" again, since they didn't want an "Anarchy Examiner". My attitudes haven't changed throughout all this shuffling of labels.
MamaLiberty says she calls herself a "individual sovereign". I have always liked that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.
I still think all these terms are different ways of expressing the same thing. As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying.
MamaLiberty says she calls herself a "individual sovereign". I have always liked that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.
I still think all these terms are different ways of expressing the same thing. As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
ALE update
Just a little update on the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner.
The first few days I was consistently the #1 Albuquerque Examiner. I supposed it was because I was new, and because of my attempt to get the word out. Since a couple of days ago, I have been pretty regularly #2 or #3, with occasional slips to #4. Still, I don't consider that too bad since I don't really have the time to push the project as hard as I should. Obviously I'm not even on the radar for the national Examiner stats. That will come a little later, right?
I really want to thank all of you who have been visiting faithfully everyday, even though I am kind of giving an elementary overview on the site right now.
The first few days I was consistently the #1 Albuquerque Examiner. I supposed it was because I was new, and because of my attempt to get the word out. Since a couple of days ago, I have been pretty regularly #2 or #3, with occasional slips to #4. Still, I don't consider that too bad since I don't really have the time to push the project as hard as I should. Obviously I'm not even on the radar for the national Examiner stats. That will come a little later, right?
I really want to thank all of you who have been visiting faithfully everyday, even though I am kind of giving an elementary overview on the site right now.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Should you exercise every right you possess?
Should you exercise every right you possess?
A common assumption that authoritarians make about libertarians is that since we talk a lot about "rights", we believe in a free-for-all. That is completely wrong.
I am a firm believer that just because you have a right to do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Common courtesy and self-responsibility should temper your actions.
An often-quoted erroneous statement about rights concerns the right of free speech. The claim is that rights are subject to "reasonable" legal restrictions. They are not, because then they would not be "rights", but "privileges" granted by a government. The opinion is that while you have a right to speak freely, you have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That is dead wrong. You do have that right, since rights have no limitations, however if you choose to exercise that right you will also bear the responsibility for any harm that comes as a result. This is a perfect example of a right that is better left unused. Only a fool or an evil person would commit such an act. Responsibility doesn't end there. If you are sitting in a theater where someone yells "Fire!", you have a responsibility to react to the situation without trampling the other patrons. It would make sense to look around, sniff the air, and see whether there is any cause for alarm before attempting to navigate the stampede. Watch out for yourself and for those you have a responsibility toward.
The problem is that self-responsibility has atrophied from disuse. You have to give people a chance to make the wrong decisions and take responsibility for the outcome. If every action is either mandatory or prohibited where does judgment come into the picture? Children don't learn to walk if they are carried everywhere. Neither do people learn to take responsibility for their choices if they are never allowed to make any but the most trivial of choices. The state is preventing a lot of people from growing up. Of all the damage government does, this may be the most lasting. How can a generation that never learned to self-govern teach their children to be responsible?
A common assumption that authoritarians make about libertarians is that since we talk a lot about "rights", we believe in a free-for-all. That is completely wrong.
I am a firm believer that just because you have a right to do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Common courtesy and self-responsibility should temper your actions.
An often-quoted erroneous statement about rights concerns the right of free speech. The claim is that rights are subject to "reasonable" legal restrictions. They are not, because then they would not be "rights", but "privileges" granted by a government. The opinion is that while you have a right to speak freely, you have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That is dead wrong. You do have that right, since rights have no limitations, however if you choose to exercise that right you will also bear the responsibility for any harm that comes as a result. This is a perfect example of a right that is better left unused. Only a fool or an evil person would commit such an act. Responsibility doesn't end there. If you are sitting in a theater where someone yells "Fire!", you have a responsibility to react to the situation without trampling the other patrons. It would make sense to look around, sniff the air, and see whether there is any cause for alarm before attempting to navigate the stampede. Watch out for yourself and for those you have a responsibility toward.
The problem is that self-responsibility has atrophied from disuse. You have to give people a chance to make the wrong decisions and take responsibility for the outcome. If every action is either mandatory or prohibited where does judgment come into the picture? Children don't learn to walk if they are carried everywhere. Neither do people learn to take responsibility for their choices if they are never allowed to make any but the most trivial of choices. The state is preventing a lot of people from growing up. Of all the damage government does, this may be the most lasting. How can a generation that never learned to self-govern teach their children to be responsible?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Resources for libertarians
Resources for libertarians
What if you are new to libertarianism, or are simply interested in finding out more? Where, besides here, can you go for more information? You are in luck.
If you are looking for online news or commentary, you should check out The Libertarian Enterprise every Sunday when the new issue comes online. A variety of writers, from everywhere along the spectrum of "libertarianism", write on just about any imaginable topic. The Price Of Liberty has good, solid libertarian commentary on the news, and a lot of current "keep and bear arms" information. There is also Liberty for All, which often has some incredibly good articles. There are also hundreds of libertarian blogs; some better than others. Search engines can lead you to them. You will need to judge for yourself how "libertarian" the writers are.
If you are looking for information on how to express your newly recognized freedom more fully, there are some websites that can give you an education. One of the best, in my opinion, is The On Line Freedom Academy, or "TOLFA". This will guide you step-by-step through the process of showing why government is never a good idea, and how to get past the conditioning of the state. There is also Strike the Root, which has a huge collection of very good columns aimed at striking at the root of tyranny and evil. The Advocates for Self-Government has many resources for further reading, plus the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" so you can find out where you stand. They also have a list of libertarian, and libertarian-leaning, celebrities, in case that sort of thing interests you.
Perhaps you enjoy reading the printed page. You won't be left out. Non-fiction books include Lever Action, a collection of essays from L. Neil Smith. This is the book that caused me to realize I had always been a libertarian. A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies (the originator of TOLFA) describes the possible scenario after government has evaporated. There are also books by more historical liberty lovers like Henry David Thoreau and Rose Wilder Lane. Mark Twain even had a pretty strong libertarian streak running through him. Of course, there are also the early heavy-lifters of the philosophy of freedom such as Frederic Bastiat. A quick internet search can turn up dozens of others in short order.
If your tastes run to fiction there are still a lot of choices, many of them science fiction. That genre lends itself to libertarianism. Robert A. Heinlein's books are generally among the favorite with libertarians. L. Neil Smith has also written quite a few good science fiction books. The Probability Broach being my personal favorite. Of course, one can't forget Ayn Rand. Love her or hate her, her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, have had a huge influence on many libertarians. It is interesting to see Atlas Shrugged being acted out by the clueless or diabolical clowns in government even as you read these words. (It wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual!)
If you simply want to connect with other like-minded freedom lovers join the Get Your Hands Dirty forum, or The Mental Militia forum. There is also Bureaucrash Social, which is fairly new, but attracting good folks quickly. You may even be lucky enough to find a libertarian Meetup group near you.
If you would like to see "the other side", read criticisms of libertarianism and notice the flaws in the argument. Or, find things to agree with him on. Please remember that just because he says "this is what libertarians believe" doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. Always.
Last, but not least, if you are simply looking for a little good-natured "PG-13" entertainment, cruise on over to Libertarian Hotties. After all, if the revolution isn't fun, why bother?
What if you are new to libertarianism, or are simply interested in finding out more? Where, besides here, can you go for more information? You are in luck.
If you are looking for online news or commentary, you should check out The Libertarian Enterprise every Sunday when the new issue comes online. A variety of writers, from everywhere along the spectrum of "libertarianism", write on just about any imaginable topic. The Price Of Liberty has good, solid libertarian commentary on the news, and a lot of current "keep and bear arms" information. There is also Liberty for All, which often has some incredibly good articles. There are also hundreds of libertarian blogs; some better than others. Search engines can lead you to them. You will need to judge for yourself how "libertarian" the writers are.
If you are looking for information on how to express your newly recognized freedom more fully, there are some websites that can give you an education. One of the best, in my opinion, is The On Line Freedom Academy, or "TOLFA". This will guide you step-by-step through the process of showing why government is never a good idea, and how to get past the conditioning of the state. There is also Strike the Root, which has a huge collection of very good columns aimed at striking at the root of tyranny and evil. The Advocates for Self-Government has many resources for further reading, plus the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" so you can find out where you stand. They also have a list of libertarian, and libertarian-leaning, celebrities, in case that sort of thing interests you.
Perhaps you enjoy reading the printed page. You won't be left out. Non-fiction books include Lever Action, a collection of essays from L. Neil Smith. This is the book that caused me to realize I had always been a libertarian. A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies (the originator of TOLFA) describes the possible scenario after government has evaporated. There are also books by more historical liberty lovers like Henry David Thoreau and Rose Wilder Lane. Mark Twain even had a pretty strong libertarian streak running through him. Of course, there are also the early heavy-lifters of the philosophy of freedom such as Frederic Bastiat. A quick internet search can turn up dozens of others in short order.
If your tastes run to fiction there are still a lot of choices, many of them science fiction. That genre lends itself to libertarianism. Robert A. Heinlein's books are generally among the favorite with libertarians. L. Neil Smith has also written quite a few good science fiction books. The Probability Broach being my personal favorite. Of course, one can't forget Ayn Rand. Love her or hate her, her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, have had a huge influence on many libertarians. It is interesting to see Atlas Shrugged being acted out by the clueless or diabolical clowns in government even as you read these words. (It wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual!)
If you simply want to connect with other like-minded freedom lovers join the Get Your Hands Dirty forum, or The Mental Militia forum. There is also Bureaucrash Social, which is fairly new, but attracting good folks quickly. You may even be lucky enough to find a libertarian Meetup group near you.
If you would like to see "the other side", read criticisms of libertarianism and notice the flaws in the argument. Or, find things to agree with him on. Please remember that just because he says "this is what libertarians believe" doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. Always.
Last, but not least, if you are simply looking for a little good-natured "PG-13" entertainment, cruise on over to Libertarian Hotties. After all, if the revolution isn't fun, why bother?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Authoritarians want to punish those who harm no one
Authoritarians want to punish those who harm no one
Most garden-variety authoritarians, commonly called "conservatives" and "liberals" in modern America, are probably pretty nice people. They don't go around attacking their neighbors, even though that is the reality of the philosophy they follow. They simply haven't thought their positions through that thoroughly. They are your friends and neighbors, your family and co-workers. Maybe even you. So why do they cling to authoritarianism?
I think some of it has to do with the emotional need to punish those who hurt others. That is understandable in a way. I'll address the "punishment culture" another time. The problem is that the same irrational emotions get co-opted and aimed at those who are harming no one, except, possibly, themselves. No matter how much their actions or behaviors may offend you, their private lives are none of your business. Until they initiate force against you.
Of course, some authoritarians cry out that drunk drivers, drug abusers, gun owners, or independent migrants ("illegal immigrants") could cause harm if they aren't punished first. Probably so. So could everyone else, since nothing is 100% safe.
If anyone causes harm to another, drunk or not, addicted or not, whichever tools he might use, regardless of his "legal status" with the government, he should be held accountable.
The crime that is often associated with drug use comes not from the drugs, but from drug prohibition. If sugar (and sugar substitutes) were outlawed tomorrow, criminal gangs would start fighting turf wars over that commodity, too. The price would go up, and people who wanted it would be forced to become criminals to get it. It's the same story every time prohibition is tried. Most drug users live perfectly average lives until they cross paths with the enforcers of prohibition. Then it is a downward spiral caused by the sanctions placed upon them and the public scorn. Often from people who are engaged in the exact same behaviors, but who have not yet been caught.
Most gun owners never shoot anyone, much less an innocent person. Yet anytime a violent attacker uses a gun in his attack, the gun owners who never hurt anyone are targeted by the government nannies. All this does is make future attacks more likely, and likely to be more deadly. It is complete insanity.
Independent migrants only become an issue because of their imagined drain on "tax supported" social services. Since ALL welfare is immoral and based upon theft, it should be ended, thereby destroying the argument.
None of these issues justifies meddling in the private affairs of your neighbors. Why not shrug off the heavy cloak of the control-freak and let yourself relax? You might be surprised how liberating it is.
Most garden-variety authoritarians, commonly called "conservatives" and "liberals" in modern America, are probably pretty nice people. They don't go around attacking their neighbors, even though that is the reality of the philosophy they follow. They simply haven't thought their positions through that thoroughly. They are your friends and neighbors, your family and co-workers. Maybe even you. So why do they cling to authoritarianism?
I think some of it has to do with the emotional need to punish those who hurt others. That is understandable in a way. I'll address the "punishment culture" another time. The problem is that the same irrational emotions get co-opted and aimed at those who are harming no one, except, possibly, themselves. No matter how much their actions or behaviors may offend you, their private lives are none of your business. Until they initiate force against you.
Of course, some authoritarians cry out that drunk drivers, drug abusers, gun owners, or independent migrants ("illegal immigrants") could cause harm if they aren't punished first. Probably so. So could everyone else, since nothing is 100% safe.
If anyone causes harm to another, drunk or not, addicted or not, whichever tools he might use, regardless of his "legal status" with the government, he should be held accountable.
The crime that is often associated with drug use comes not from the drugs, but from drug prohibition. If sugar (and sugar substitutes) were outlawed tomorrow, criminal gangs would start fighting turf wars over that commodity, too. The price would go up, and people who wanted it would be forced to become criminals to get it. It's the same story every time prohibition is tried. Most drug users live perfectly average lives until they cross paths with the enforcers of prohibition. Then it is a downward spiral caused by the sanctions placed upon them and the public scorn. Often from people who are engaged in the exact same behaviors, but who have not yet been caught.
Most gun owners never shoot anyone, much less an innocent person. Yet anytime a violent attacker uses a gun in his attack, the gun owners who never hurt anyone are targeted by the government nannies. All this does is make future attacks more likely, and likely to be more deadly. It is complete insanity.
Independent migrants only become an issue because of their imagined drain on "tax supported" social services. Since ALL welfare is immoral and based upon theft, it should be ended, thereby destroying the argument.
None of these issues justifies meddling in the private affairs of your neighbors. Why not shrug off the heavy cloak of the control-freak and let yourself relax? You might be surprised how liberating it is.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The "Zero Aggression Principle"
The "Zero Aggression Principle"
"No human being has the right - under any circumstances - to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."
This version of The Zero Aggression Principle, formulated by L. Neil Smith, is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. Personally, I DO think this is the foundation of libertarianism. This is how you show your respect for the self-ownership of those around you. If you follow this principle, you may not be a perfect person, but you would probably be a pretty good neighbor. You would definitely be a good example of true libertarianism.
The ZAP has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others; each culture has its own way of saying basically the same thing. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Even small children understand the concept of "he started it!" Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Only someone physically attacking you or making a credible threat against you has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force.
You may have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smart to simply walk away. This is not always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.
Some people may claim that this is "Utopian" but I know it works, for real, in everyday life. I have never run across a situation where it failed to provide the proper perspective in dealing with others. If you don't want to accept it, you can sit around and formulate all sorts of "what if" scenarios that you will probably never face. That just shows me that you have a desire to keep open the option of attacking someone you don't like, even if they have not attacked you first. That is a sign that you may not be a trustworthy, or nice, person.
"No human being has the right - under any circumstances - to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."
This version of The Zero Aggression Principle, formulated by L. Neil Smith, is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. Personally, I DO think this is the foundation of libertarianism. This is how you show your respect for the self-ownership of those around you. If you follow this principle, you may not be a perfect person, but you would probably be a pretty good neighbor. You would definitely be a good example of true libertarianism.
The ZAP has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others; each culture has its own way of saying basically the same thing. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Even small children understand the concept of "he started it!" Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Only someone physically attacking you or making a credible threat against you has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force.
You may have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smart to simply walk away. This is not always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.
Some people may claim that this is "Utopian" but I know it works, for real, in everyday life. I have never run across a situation where it failed to provide the proper perspective in dealing with others. If you don't want to accept it, you can sit around and formulate all sorts of "what if" scenarios that you will probably never face. That just shows me that you have a desire to keep open the option of attacking someone you don't like, even if they have not attacked you first. That is a sign that you may not be a trustworthy, or nice, person.
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner
Good news and bad news. I am now the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner. That probably means most of my blogs will be written for that site, with only an introductory paragraph here. After all, even a libertarian anarchist likes a little money now and then.
Please continue to visit me there.
Thanks.
---------------------------
Please continue to visit me there.
Thanks.
---------------------------
Friday, March 13, 2009
Philosophy of Libertarianism explained
Philosophy of Libertarianism explained (My first Examiner column)
In case you are unfamiliar with libertarianism I'll explain what the philosophy means to me. Most people talk of "left" or "right"; "Liberal" or "conservative", when they talk about politics. This is a misdirection. The true distinction is between those who wish to control your life, the "authoritarians", and those who do not, the "libertarians". Liberals and conservatives are just different aspects of the authoritarian end of the political hierarchy, or as I frequently say: different sides of the same cow patty.
The term "libertarian" encompasses different degrees of libertarianism, from "libertarians" who really would fit better with the authoritarians (*cough* Bob Barr *cough*), through the minarchists, all the way to "libertarianism in full-bloom": the anarchists. I am definitely on the anarchist path.
Don't worry, though, I am not about to start lobbing Molotov cocktails anytime soon. The people who do that are not really "anarchists", but are instead anti-business, and anti-society. They are socialists; just another aspect of the authoritarians. "Anarchy" means "without rulers"; not "without rules". There is a huge difference. "Anarchy" is not "chaos", no matter what news reports may claim. The words are not interchangeable, although common, incorrect, usage has put "chaos" into the dictionary under "anarchy". Some people are searching for a new word that hasn't yet been corrupted to describe the philosophy, but none has yet caught on.
What I am talking about here is a recognition that all humans have the exact same rights, no matter what the "laws" surrounding them may claim. You have the absolute right to live your life however you see fit, as long as you are harming no innocent people. You own your body and your life. You can throw them away if you want to. No one has a right to stop you. No one has any claim on you or the products of your labor. You are free to enter into any contractual agreements you wish. No one has any obligation to protect you from your own poor choices. They can offer help if they want to, but charity is not forced. You have no right to interfere with the private lives of others, no matter how much their choices may offend your sensibilities, as long as they are harming no one else by their actions. This is summarized quite well by The Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
Walk with me and I will attempt to take you on a journey where I can show you what "liberty" and "freedom" really mean.
*********************
In case you are unfamiliar with libertarianism I'll explain what the philosophy means to me. Most people talk of "left" or "right"; "Liberal" or "conservative", when they talk about politics. This is a misdirection. The true distinction is between those who wish to control your life, the "authoritarians", and those who do not, the "libertarians". Liberals and conservatives are just different aspects of the authoritarian end of the political hierarchy, or as I frequently say: different sides of the same cow patty.
The term "libertarian" encompasses different degrees of libertarianism, from "libertarians" who really would fit better with the authoritarians (*cough* Bob Barr *cough*), through the minarchists, all the way to "libertarianism in full-bloom": the anarchists. I am definitely on the anarchist path.
Don't worry, though, I am not about to start lobbing Molotov cocktails anytime soon. The people who do that are not really "anarchists", but are instead anti-business, and anti-society. They are socialists; just another aspect of the authoritarians. "Anarchy" means "without rulers"; not "without rules". There is a huge difference. "Anarchy" is not "chaos", no matter what news reports may claim. The words are not interchangeable, although common, incorrect, usage has put "chaos" into the dictionary under "anarchy". Some people are searching for a new word that hasn't yet been corrupted to describe the philosophy, but none has yet caught on.
What I am talking about here is a recognition that all humans have the exact same rights, no matter what the "laws" surrounding them may claim. You have the absolute right to live your life however you see fit, as long as you are harming no innocent people. You own your body and your life. You can throw them away if you want to. No one has a right to stop you. No one has any claim on you or the products of your labor. You are free to enter into any contractual agreements you wish. No one has any obligation to protect you from your own poor choices. They can offer help if they want to, but charity is not forced. You have no right to interfere with the private lives of others, no matter how much their choices may offend your sensibilities, as long as they are harming no one else by their actions. This is summarized quite well by The Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."
Walk with me and I will attempt to take you on a journey where I can show you what "liberty" and "freedom" really mean.
*********************
Dreaming
Last night I dreamed I was sitting in a bar. It was a comfortable place where I fit in and felt at home. As I sat there a crew of people swarmed in and started redecorating around me. The fixtures were swapped out and lots of chrome and "bling" were added. The walls were covered with huge photos of smiling "urban" celebrities and a motif of "PPP", which I understood to stand for "Pretty People Posse", was on everything. Suddenly the place was full of people dressed in expensive clothing who acted like I was covered in oozing sores. They all kept laughing at my hat as I sat there in my chair, where I had sat during the entire transformation. They seemed stupid and shallow; talking a lot without saying anything. At last a big bouncer type walked over and motioned for me to get out of the chair. I stood up and was escorted from the premises and was told I wouldn't be seeing the inside of this establishment again. I felt a bit lost, as I had not changed; only my surroundings had.
I am not one who worships "America", but once upon a time America was founded by people who weren't that different in philosophy from me. I probably would have fit in very well. Then the place was changed around me. I didn't change but became a pariah by standing for the things that at one time were common. I'll keep standing for Liberty for ALL - All rights for everyone, everywhere for all times.
I am not one who worships "America", but once upon a time America was founded by people who weren't that different in philosophy from me. I probably would have fit in very well. Then the place was changed around me. I didn't change but became a pariah by standing for the things that at one time were common. I'll keep standing for Liberty for ALL - All rights for everyone, everywhere for all times.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Honesty
Most of us like to think of ourselves as fairly honest people. When we do lie, we excuse ourselves. I know I do.
Is it ever OK to lie? I really think it is, although I could be wrong. If I were hiding a person from state aggression; because of issues involving ANY counterfeit "law" for example, I wouldn't think twice about lying in order to protect them. Lying to a liar in order to protect the innocent is the right thing to do, in my opinion. I have no problem lying to anyone in government anyway, as the entire organization is built on a foundation of lies and theft. You don't owe the state the truth when that truth will be used to rob or otherwise harm you or other people.
I will also lie to protect my friends from harm. I don't lie in order to hurt people, nor would I go along with the lies of another that are hurting some innocent person. I once had a disagreement with some good friends because they lied to another person and hurt her, and when she asked me about it I told her the truth. On several occasions I have had problems that result from lies others have told about me; where a third party thought I was lying because of the lies they were told about me. Because I didn't go along with the original lie, I was accused of being the liar, and was never able to totally clear my name. But that is just how it goes.
The truth is probably easier in the long run, even when it hurts someone right now. Unless you are facing the thugs of the state. In that case, do what your conscience tells you is right.
..........................
Is it ever OK to lie? I really think it is, although I could be wrong. If I were hiding a person from state aggression; because of issues involving ANY counterfeit "law" for example, I wouldn't think twice about lying in order to protect them. Lying to a liar in order to protect the innocent is the right thing to do, in my opinion. I have no problem lying to anyone in government anyway, as the entire organization is built on a foundation of lies and theft. You don't owe the state the truth when that truth will be used to rob or otherwise harm you or other people.
I will also lie to protect my friends from harm. I don't lie in order to hurt people, nor would I go along with the lies of another that are hurting some innocent person. I once had a disagreement with some good friends because they lied to another person and hurt her, and when she asked me about it I told her the truth. On several occasions I have had problems that result from lies others have told about me; where a third party thought I was lying because of the lies they were told about me. Because I didn't go along with the original lie, I was accused of being the liar, and was never able to totally clear my name. But that is just how it goes.
The truth is probably easier in the long run, even when it hurts someone right now. Unless you are facing the thugs of the state. In that case, do what your conscience tells you is right.
..........................
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sorry, But The World Is NOT Flat....
I run into a lot of situations where someone I know is wrong; they hold an incorrect idea or belief, and insist on bringing it up at every opportunity. Many, but not all, of these beliefs concern the state in some way.
Just a few examples that come to mind:
"Illegal immigrants" are not destroying "our society" no matter how much "they are costing us". Welfare, in the form of food stamps, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, "public schools", and a multitude of other scams, is. Face the real issue here.
There is no excuse to "enforce the gun laws we already have" since every single one of them is illegal, immoral, and evil. "Conservatives" are just as wrong on the issue of guns as "liberals" are. Every gun "law" is wrong and should NEVER be enforced against ANYONE. Regardless of how much you dislike them, and no matter how much of a threat they pose to the state.
Taxation is theft and there is no excuse for it. None. It doesn't matter how important you think the government programs you happen to like are. No government program is important enough to steal in order to finance, and none is important enough to kill those who don't want to fork over their property. If you like the government program enough that you think it is OK to steal and kill to support it, then I suggest you try to do it on your own instead of sending badged and uniformed thugs to do your dirty work for you. I also suggest you try to develop some character so you can shed this immoral belief.
The War on some Drugs is completely evil. I see news reports of how many people are being killed in the drug trade and want to scream at the top of my lungs: "Prohibition will ALWAYS produce the same results!" It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong to use drugs or not. It is completely stupid to sacrifice so many lives for your delusions. If you support prohibition, the blood is on your hands.
There. I got some of those out.
I have been trying to learn to keep my mouth shut after my first run-in with these erroneous beliefs. After all, the person obviously knows I don't agree with them. Especially if they caught me off-guard when they mentioned or acted upon the belief in the first place. If they want to examine their belief more closely, I will help. It does no good to state why they are wrong every time the issue crops up. This will only make them cranky, and make me frustrated, and I would be a jerk for making it into an argument every time. Still, I consider it a little boorish of the other person to keep harping on things I know are wrong, and that they know I know are wrong.
......................................
Just a few examples that come to mind:
"Illegal immigrants" are not destroying "our society" no matter how much "they are costing us". Welfare, in the form of food stamps, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, "public schools", and a multitude of other scams, is. Face the real issue here.
There is no excuse to "enforce the gun laws we already have" since every single one of them is illegal, immoral, and evil. "Conservatives" are just as wrong on the issue of guns as "liberals" are. Every gun "law" is wrong and should NEVER be enforced against ANYONE. Regardless of how much you dislike them, and no matter how much of a threat they pose to the state.
Taxation is theft and there is no excuse for it. None. It doesn't matter how important you think the government programs you happen to like are. No government program is important enough to steal in order to finance, and none is important enough to kill those who don't want to fork over their property. If you like the government program enough that you think it is OK to steal and kill to support it, then I suggest you try to do it on your own instead of sending badged and uniformed thugs to do your dirty work for you. I also suggest you try to develop some character so you can shed this immoral belief.
The War on some Drugs is completely evil. I see news reports of how many people are being killed in the drug trade and want to scream at the top of my lungs: "Prohibition will ALWAYS produce the same results!" It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong to use drugs or not. It is completely stupid to sacrifice so many lives for your delusions. If you support prohibition, the blood is on your hands.
There. I got some of those out.
I have been trying to learn to keep my mouth shut after my first run-in with these erroneous beliefs. After all, the person obviously knows I don't agree with them. Especially if they caught me off-guard when they mentioned or acted upon the belief in the first place. If they want to examine their belief more closely, I will help. It does no good to state why they are wrong every time the issue crops up. This will only make them cranky, and make me frustrated, and I would be a jerk for making it into an argument every time. Still, I consider it a little boorish of the other person to keep harping on things I know are wrong, and that they know I know are wrong.
......................................
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Ruled by Emotions
It seems as if most people are ruled by their emotions. Whenever there is some "crime", everyone is out for blood, regardless if the accused actually did it or not, and regardless of whether the "crime" harmed any people or not.
One BIG point of evidence for this is that when I read of a "drug bust" on the local newspaper's website, a majority of the comments are cheering the bust, never even considering the truth behind the evil and stupid War on some Drugs. Never even considering if the arrestees are actually guilty of doing what the state says they did. Just celebrating their downfall.
It is also the same if someone is arrested on "child pornography" charges. It doesn't matter to them if the charges are true or not in the slightest degree. Or if a real attack occurred. Remember that cartoons; fictional, non-existent characters, who have no real "age" at all and therefore can't be "minors" no matter how they were drawn to appear, involved in imaginary acts that never occurred, can qualify as "child pornography" if the state decides it does (which it always will), and can be used by the state to destroy lives. Yet those who are ruled by emotion jeer and say they hope the accused suffers the most hideous assaults while kidnapped by the state.
It's as bad as the gun owners who say that gun owners like Wayne Fincher and David Olofson "got what they deserved" when they were arrested for having "illegal" machine guns, even though neither of them ever harmed or threatened anyone in any way. No government has the authority to regulate guns in any way, with or without the Second Amendment. Yet, emotions say to rip apart the victims while they are down; like a pack of wolves would do. It really makes me sick.
Stop acting out of emotion. Think. Reason. Grow up.
.......................................................
One BIG point of evidence for this is that when I read of a "drug bust" on the local newspaper's website, a majority of the comments are cheering the bust, never even considering the truth behind the evil and stupid War on some Drugs. Never even considering if the arrestees are actually guilty of doing what the state says they did. Just celebrating their downfall.
It is also the same if someone is arrested on "child pornography" charges. It doesn't matter to them if the charges are true or not in the slightest degree. Or if a real attack occurred. Remember that cartoons; fictional, non-existent characters, who have no real "age" at all and therefore can't be "minors" no matter how they were drawn to appear, involved in imaginary acts that never occurred, can qualify as "child pornography" if the state decides it does (which it always will), and can be used by the state to destroy lives. Yet those who are ruled by emotion jeer and say they hope the accused suffers the most hideous assaults while kidnapped by the state.
It's as bad as the gun owners who say that gun owners like Wayne Fincher and David Olofson "got what they deserved" when they were arrested for having "illegal" machine guns, even though neither of them ever harmed or threatened anyone in any way. No government has the authority to regulate guns in any way, with or without the Second Amendment. Yet, emotions say to rip apart the victims while they are down; like a pack of wolves would do. It really makes me sick.
Stop acting out of emotion. Think. Reason. Grow up.
.......................................................
Friday, March 06, 2009
Criminals and Outlaws
Since it is absolutely impossible to live without breaking the "laws" the government has invented, that means that we are all "criminals" in the eyes of the state. There are two classes of "criminal": those who have actually initiated force (economic or physical) and those who are only guilty of violating some counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in reality.
Of those "criminals" who are only guilty of violating counterfeit "laws" there are two groups: those who are still under the delusion that they are "good, law-abiding citizens", and those who know the score, and accept their status as "outlaws".
These "Outlaws" are the only honest people left. I happily count myself among them.
---------------------
Of those "criminals" who are only guilty of violating counterfeit "laws" there are two groups: those who are still under the delusion that they are "good, law-abiding citizens", and those who know the score, and accept their status as "outlaws".
These "Outlaws" are the only honest people left. I happily count myself among them.
---------------------
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Blood Money
I don't want to "give" any of my money or other property to the government, and I don't want government to "give me back" any money taken from others. I am not "entitled" to stolen money, not even to "pay back" money that has been stolen from me. I'll get into why I believe this in a minute.
This is the fallacy behind "Social Security", tax refunds, stimulus checks, and anything else government "gives" the people. This money is either stolen, or it was printed up out of thin air. If you or I did this, the government would call us counterfeiters. And they would be right, although they would excuse their own actions in spite of there being no real difference. Even if it was stolen from you originally, it is still tainted by the time you get it back. It's a difficult moral dilemma. What was stolen from you 6 months ago is gone. Spent. What the government "gives" you back was stolen from someone else more recently. And since everything government does is backed up by a monopoly on force, and ultimately by threat of death, the money was stolen at gun-point. It is blood money.
The same goes for any wages paid by any government entity. That money was stolen from someone, somewhere. This is why I think it would be best, if you do choose to work for government in any capacity, that you do so on a volunteer basis. If it is really that important to do, it will be done by volunteers, right?
Now, would I scold you for accepting these "benefits"? No. Maybe your understanding of morality and ethics differs from mine. But as for me, no thanks. Keep your blood money.
.......................................
This is the fallacy behind "Social Security", tax refunds, stimulus checks, and anything else government "gives" the people. This money is either stolen, or it was printed up out of thin air. If you or I did this, the government would call us counterfeiters. And they would be right, although they would excuse their own actions in spite of there being no real difference. Even if it was stolen from you originally, it is still tainted by the time you get it back. It's a difficult moral dilemma. What was stolen from you 6 months ago is gone. Spent. What the government "gives" you back was stolen from someone else more recently. And since everything government does is backed up by a monopoly on force, and ultimately by threat of death, the money was stolen at gun-point. It is blood money.
The same goes for any wages paid by any government entity. That money was stolen from someone, somewhere. This is why I think it would be best, if you do choose to work for government in any capacity, that you do so on a volunteer basis. If it is really that important to do, it will be done by volunteers, right?
Now, would I scold you for accepting these "benefits"? No. Maybe your understanding of morality and ethics differs from mine. But as for me, no thanks. Keep your blood money.
.......................................
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
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.
..............................
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.
..............................
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
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.
......................................................
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.
......................................................
Monday, March 02, 2009
"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!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Random Weekend Thoughts
Friday, February 27, 2009
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.
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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.
............................
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.
............................
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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.
........................................
–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.
........................................
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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....
----------------------
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....
----------------------
Monday, February 23, 2009
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.
................................
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.
................................
Saturday, February 21, 2009
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?
...........................
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?
...........................
Friday, February 20, 2009
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.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
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).
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).
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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.
.................................................
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.
.................................................
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
............................................
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.
............................................
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
..........................................................
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.
..........................................................
Saturday, February 14, 2009
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.
------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------
Friday, February 13, 2009
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.
....................................
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.
....................................
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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.
................................................
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.
................................................
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
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.
..................................................
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.
..................................................
Monday, February 09, 2009
"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.
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------
Sunday, February 08, 2009
"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
"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.
Now, if only people would realize that their individual sovereignty outranks ANY political entity. Some of us know that already.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
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".
.......................................
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".
.......................................
Friday, February 06, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
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.
.........................................
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.
.........................................
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
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
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.
................................................
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.
................................................
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
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?
---------------------
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?
---------------------
Monday, February 02, 2009
"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.
-------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)