"A Declaration of Separation"

"A Declaration of Separation"

This is taken from here; I don't agree with every single item, but with the vast majority, and could live with the rest. I think it is a good step and needs to be spread far and wide. So I hereby do my part. Presenting....

A Declaration of Separation

====To The Governments & People of Earth: ====

We claim the right to exist, and we will defend it.

We do not seek to overthrow anything. We do not seek to control anything. We merely wish to be left alone.

All we ever wanted was to live in peace with our friends and neighbors. For a long, long time we bore insults to our liberty; we took blows, we did what we could to avoid injury and we worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed.

We no longer see any benefit in working through the world's systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for us, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish us. We hereby reject them all. We hereby withdraw from them all. We hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity.

We now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. We will not initiate force, but we do reserve the right to answer it. We did not choose this – it was forced upon us.

==== To The Governments of Earth: ====

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of our property and our decisions, of our travels and even our identities. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: We reject your authority and we reject your legitimacy. We do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon us and no legitimacy. We have forsaken you. We are no longer your citizens or your subjects.

Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. We are not merely angry young people. We are fathers and mothers; aunts, uncles and grandparents; we are business owners and trusted employees; we are mechanics and engineers and farmers. We are nurses and accountants and students and executives.

We are on every continent.

This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that we no longer accept unearned suffering as our role in life. For long decades we sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. We took no actions; we suffered along with everyone else. But after having our limits pushed back again and again, we have given up on your systems.

If our fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. We will not try to stop them. We, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon us.

From now on, when you hurt us, we will bite back. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. We are happy to live quietly. But if you come after us, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do.

You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

==== To The People of Earth: ====

We seek nothing from you. We do not want to rule you and we do not want to control you.

All we wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, we will be helpful neighbors and generous acquaintances. We will remain honest business partners and trustworthy employees. We will continue to be loving parents and respectful children.

We will not, however, be sacrificial animals. We reject the idea that others have a right to our lives and our property. We will not demand anything from you, and we will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon us. We have left that game. We reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life.

We will shortly explain what we believe, but we are not demanding that you agree with us. All we ask is that you do not try to stop us. Continue to play the game if you wish; we will not try to disrupt it. We have merely walked away from it. We wish you peace.

==== To Those Who Will Condemn Us: ====

We will ignore you.

We welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom we are willing to expose our innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing?

We would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day we will have to accept slaughter for our crime of independence, but not yet.

Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose our philosophy, you oppose our existence. Our presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill us than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human.

You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but we know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, we know you, servant of the state; don't forget, we were raised with you. We played with you in the schoolyard, we sat next to you in the classroom. Some of us studied at the same elite universities. We watched as you had your first tastes of power. We were the boys and girls standing next to you.

Some of us were your first victims. We are not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

==== What We Believe ====

#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. We accept those responsibilities and we embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to us (avoiding consciousness), we accept consciousness and choose to act in our own interest.

We do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do we take refuge in crowds. We are willing to act on our personal judgment, and we are willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: We believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that we oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: We do not believe that our way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. We expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and we are prepared to deal with them. We do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for us. We agree to see to them ourselves.

#4: We believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: We believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: We believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: We believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. We accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: We believe that humans can self-organize effectively. We expect them to cooperate. We reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: We believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: We believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: We believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others - either directly or through intermediaries - and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

==== Our Plans: ====

We are building our own society. We will supplement traditional tools with networking, cryptography, sound money, digital currency and anonymous messaging.

Our society will not be centrally controlled. It will rely solely on voluntary arrangements. We welcome others to join us. We are looking for people who are independent creators of value, people who act more than talk, and people who do the right thing because it is the right thing.

We will develop our own methods of dealing with injustice, built on the principles of negative rights, restitution, integrity and equal justice.

We do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm - ours and the old realm - although we demand that they do no damage to our realm. We are fully opposed to any use of our realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds.

We expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime.

We expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. We expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies, at least at first.

We will consider traps laid for us to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join us are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of our new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

We are The Free and The Unashamed.

Getting through The Great Recession

Getting through The Great Recession

While most of the mainstream media blame the "free market" or "deregulation" for this recession, libertarians realize this is like blaming sasquatch for killing your chickens. You can't blame something that hasn't been around.

This recession, which will probably become a depression before it ends, because of government insistence on "doing something", was caused by socialism. More socialism won't fix it. The economic quacks are bleeding the patient dry and calling it a "cure". But what does it mean for you?

This trying time holds great danger and great opportunity. Do you have silver? Gold? Trade goods which people are likely to run short of and be willing to trade for? You should. As Claire Wolfe has advised in her book "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook" (page 78), stock up now on those things that people are addicted to: caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, chocolate. Whatever it is make certain to break your personal addictions now while the risk is slight. Being stocked up does no good if you must raid your own stores. Stock up on essentials, too. US dollars or dried beans.... which of these things will still be worth something when the dollar is about as useful as a treaty inflicted by the US Government on the indigenous people of North America? Prepare for difficult times so that they will not be as difficult.

Are you still putting "money" in the bank and investing it? Remember the old saying about putting all your eggs in one basket? When that basket is knocked from your hands, what will you have? If you still want to trust traditional banks and investments, don't be foolish enough to rely on them too heavily. Diversify and add some trade goods to the mix so that a disaster to one contingency will not wipe you out.

When the inevitable collapse occurs, you must remember to refuse FRNs in spite of your training and habits. Only accept real money of real value, or trade items that you can use or that you think others will want. Get in the habit of accepting alternative payments now before it is a necessity.

As society moves away from the free market, smart people will embrace the free market more completely, even if it means a move into the "gray" and "black" markets. Just remember to hide your assets, protect your customers, and deliver what you promise. It's just smart.

______________________
Happy Patriots' Day: "4-19"

Today is Patriots' Day. Celebrate it by doing something truly patriotic; like honoring America's heritage of liberty by ignoring the occupying government which is strangling this society. Remember that most patriotic activities are heavily regulated or criminalized now, so be warned. Activities like getting your militia-appropriate weaponry out and conducting some practice are frowned upon, or worse, by the "authorities" in many areas.

Unpopular freedoms can have social consequences

Unpopular freedoms can have social consequences

Actions have social consequences. "Drugs", sex, "profanity"... whatever. The reasons may be total nonsense, but you still need to be aware. Acting like the consequences are not there won't help you any.

While you have a right to do anything to your own body that you want, including killing yourself, you have to realize that people who do not honor your rights have established a system to punish you for exercising them in ways they disapprove of.

You have a right to put any substance into your body for any reason. But in doing so you take a risk of ostracism at the hands of a culture that wants to find an excuse to punish you. You are giving them a handy one. I'm not saying it isn't worth the risk for you; I'm just saying whatever you do, do with awareness.

Profanity, which is really a ridiculous concept ("magical bad words"?), can keep you from having the career you want, or can keep you from succeeding like you otherwise should. You have an absolute right to use any words you want, but are you taking the consequences into account?

Your sex life can be used as a tool to ridicule or punish you. The people doing so may just be jealous of your free-spiritedness, or may have religious reasons behind their treatment of you. Their reasons may be utterly wrong in any of these cases, since consenting, responsible people have a right to do whatever they wish, but the real-world repercussions are just as damaging.

Live free, but remember that "the majority" hates your freedom; and the worst manifestation of "society", government, will gladly kill you to protect you from yourself, and to protect your neighbors from your influence.

Statism is childish in the worst way

Statism is childish in the worst way

Statism is rude and childish. It demands that everyone play according to the "one size fits all" rules it imposes, whether they want to or not, and no matter if it is in their best interest or not.

Statism is selfish. It doesn't consider the impact it has on others. It truly doesn't care if it inconveniences or harms you. It always wants "something for nothing", not caring that the "something" is stolen from the rightful owners, and "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".

Statists don't doubt the legitimacy of government; only the legitimacy of government when it isn't being used the way they want it used. Any power the government uses for their benefit is OK; any power the government uses to their detriment is bad. Taxation isn't "wrong" unless it is used for things they don't like. Statists are easily trapped by their inconsistencies.

Just look at the statists - the authoritarians - surrounding you if you doubt me. Whether they call themselves "left" or "right"; "Republican" or "Democrat"; look how they fit into this description all too well. In the few places where they vary from the description it is because they have chosen to adopt libertarian views, although they are not likely to admit it.

Libertarianism is the grown-up philosophy. It recognizes that life is never perfect, but a life of freedom is the closest humans can get. Libertarianism respects people. We realize that our own decisions have real-world consequences that we must deal with and that we must protect ourselves from the bad decisions of others. We are adult enough to know we have no right to demand that anyone else make what we consider "the right choice" nor do we allow others to make that demand of us.

Libertarianism recognizes that people are free to make their own choices and their own mistakes. Libertarians don't "take liberties", they give liberties by recognizing the basic human right to live as you see fit as long as you harm no one else. Libertarianism doesn't whine when consequences come due and there is a bill to pay. We don't demand to have others pay our bill for us by "taxing" them. We don't excuse those who do, either. Libertarians don't think that because some people are bad, giving some a chance to have great power over others will protect the innocent from the bad, and make a better world. That would be delusional.

You can't miss what you think you have

You can't miss what you think you have

A common comment I have heard from others who care deeply about freedom is that they are shocked at how few other people seem to care. Why do libertarians feel like they are talking to a brick wall when we try to get another person passionate about freedom?

Most people would claim they prefer freedom to slavery, even while they polish their chains. The reason freedom isn't more important to more people is because they have been lied to for so long by so many and told they are free. You can't miss something if you think you have it.

Look how often we are told by the mainstream media and the government (those siblings of slavery) that we are free. Whether it is MSNBC on the "left" or FOX News on the "right", the only difference is in the particular flavor of slavery they are promoting and which lies they will tell you, or which truths they will hide, about your benevolent "leaders". I mean, the government even goes to the trouble of establishing "free speech zones" for us when the president is in town, don't they?

Until people understand that ALL rights belong to everyone, everywhere, at all times, no matter what the regional Rulers might claim, they will not care enough about freedom to do something about it.

This reminds me of my "parable of the Fire-Ant bed":

Each government must convince its subjects that their country is the best
there is, otherwise the people might decide to make some changes. Change rarely
bodes well for rulers.

Blind fools often say idiotic things like "Love it or Leave it!" Wiser
voices say "Love it and Keep Improving it!" It is often said by government
sympathizers that "America is the best, most free, country on Earth." Perhaps,
but there is always room for improvement.

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants. While looking east you see
a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the
lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your
situation is the best that there can be. All the while, west of you, is a green
meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice). If
you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is
the best place there is, and that you are Utopian or stupid for thinking that
there might be a better life, you may believe it.

Tax day thoughts

Tax day thoughts

This so-called "tax day" only matters more than other days (as far as theft-by-government is concerned) if you forget that government steals 87% of the production of the people it claims as its own. You are stolen from under the guise of "taxes, fees, licenses, permits, and fines" every day of the year, not just on the day you are told to write them one of the checks.

Why do people brag about paying "their" taxes? Why is it good to cooperate with your mugger if he calls himself a "tax collector"? Why defend a thief if he is employed by the government?

Is there a TEA Party near you? Lend them your support, and maybe remind them of the truth of the matter. All taxation, even for those things you like, and advocated by those politicians you may support, is THEFT.

What good is freedom if you don't use it?

What good is freedom if you don't use it?

People have a lot of perfectly good freedoms they never use. I am not talking about rights, but freedoms that government still "allows" you to "legally" exercise.

You have the freedom to educate yourself about anything that interests you by reading books or the internet. It will undoubtedly get you put on some "lists", but realize you are probably on a few regardless.

You have the freedom to travel and associate with other people. Now, I admit that the state is trying hard to kill this freedom, but for the most part it is largely intact. At least if you can avoid the highwaymen who lie in wait to accost you on your journey and rob you, or kill you if you resist.

You have the freedom to grow your own food, and even tobacco. You can avoid paying taxes "legally" by reducing your need for money. Remember that the government usually considers an even trade to be a taxable profit all around. Just like when you trade hours of your life for money (a "job"). So trade quietly.

Here in New Mexico and many other states, you have the freedom to openly wear a gun on your hip. Some enforcers willfully cling to their ignorance about this legal freedom and will attack you for exercising it. Watch them as a wise man would watch a rabid skunk.

You also have the freedom to buy gold and silver in order to prepare for the day when US dollars are no more than fancy toilet paper. Actually, that day is already here; only held at bay by the delusion that government's promises have worth. Trade those FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) for something a lot better while you still can.

There are also freedoms that may be "illegal", but the chances of being kidnapped or held up at gunpoint (by the enforcers of the state) for exercising them is slim. Since Examiner writers are not supposed to encourage "illegal acts", I'll let you think of those on your own. I'll bet you can. I'd be willing to bet that you are already exercising a few of them.

You can have all the freedom in the world, but if you insist on acting like a slave, you are a slave. While you still can, live free out in the open. Right under the noses of the tyrants, enforcers, and other minions of the state. Some day you may wish you had.

A simple way to spread the message of liberty

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: A simple way to spread the message of liberty

I'm sure all my regular blog readers are familiar with this, but if you don't mind giving me a page view anyway, I would sure appreciate it.

Libertarians can be staid

Libertarians can be staid

Libertarians, in the eyes of a lot of people, are the "party crowd"; the "If it feels good, I will do it ... as long as no one else is hurt" people. While some undoubtedly are that way, it isn't necessarily the case. Libertarians are not usually "libertines", although we will defend the right to be one.

Libertarians can have very staid personal lives. It's not all "burn gunpowder at the backyard range, smoke a joint, and then head off to the orgy". Some have very deeply held moral beliefs which may seem very familiar and traditional, and while realizing that we have no right to tell others how to live, we know that some choices are not right for us.

The difference is that we should know enough to not interfere with the non-coercive behavior of others even if we personally find it disgusting, as long as they are harming no one else. We understand there is no such thing as "harming society" because apart from individuals, "society" is meaningless, and that if no individual is harmed, no one is harmed. Being offended is not the same as being harmed. We understand that our personal idea of "immoral" shouldn't equal "illegal" nor form an excuse for punishing people. Possibly most important of all, we understand the value of minding our own business as long as behaviors are voluntarily engaged in.

There is something to be said, however, for being a libertine on occasion.


______________________

Return to libertarianism and reject statism

Return to libertarianism and reject statism

Government has always been bad. From its earliest beginnings- in the minds of the thugs that preyed off of the labor of the tribe in exchange for not violently plundering them, while supposedly protecting this human herd from other thieves who were ethically exactly the same (whether those "others" actually existed or not)- to the 21st Century Super-Police-State, the type of person who seeks coercive control over others hasn't varied.


Fortunately, most humans have a sense of morality, though. Average, normal, non-governmental society has usually had a strongly libertarian component in healthy societies.

Where society has gone bad is where it has gotten away from libertarian principles that were normal in times past. Things like responsibility for ones actions. Individual self-reliance. Honesty, charity, love for your neighbors, and minding your own business (especially where it concerns the neighbors you may not love quite as much). The tragedy is compounded when some individuals cling to the prejudices and ignoble vengefulness that were also common in times past and use the state to wreak havoc on a historic scale.... or on a very personal one.


I hope that you will join me and make an effort to return to the libertarian principles that have fallen out of favor in our 21st century world.


Have a happy spring-rebirth holiday, whatever you wish to call it.

Voting is usually wrong

Voting is usually wrong

Voting has become a sacred ritual in our society. Anything can and will be excused as long as it wins the vote. This is disturbing.

Realize that almost nothing should ever be subject to a vote. Nothing that involves removing consensual personal choices of others. Nothing that involves coercive government approved theft (dishonestly redefined as "taxation"). The only legitimate votes should involve "would you like to be involved with this, and personally pay a part of the expense?" Anything else is not subject to majority wishes.

If every person on earth, except for one, voted to "tax" the one remaining holdout for ... say 10% of his earnings, it would still be just as wrong as if that one man decided unilaterally to "tax" every other person on the planet for 10% ( or 0.0000000....0001%) of their earnings. Mob rule doesn't make anything right.

The only legitimate type of vote is where a group wants to decide something innocuous, like the color they will paint a wall which they all pitched in to build. So, they vote. The most votes go to "white", so those who do not agree to the results do not have to participate in buying the paint or in painting it. If they wish, like if there was an understanding beforehand that the fence would be painted "brown" or left natural, they could even ask to be paid for the time and effort spent building the fence, since they lost the vote.

Voting to determine how much of someone's money will be taken, who will tell them how to live, how their rights will be violated, or what they may do in the privacy of their own homes is never right. In fact, it is one of the most common, and destructive, forms of evil there is.
________________________________

Here's another way of looking at the practice of voting: link


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

Are 'free riders' a real problem?

A recent comment (to this column) posed the objection that in a free society, where one would contract voluntarily with a private fire department, if your neighbor's house catches fire and your fire department fights it in order to save your house from damage, the neighbor has benefited from your contract without paying anything. True, as far as it goes.

I suppose you could have a stipulation that your fire department is not to fight fires consuming your neighbors' houses, if they have not also contracted for service, so as not to contribute to their "free-riderhood". The fire department could just sit at your house, hosing it down so the fire doesn't spread to your property. As long as the contract was agreeable to you and your fire department, I suppose you could have just about any conditions put in you like.

Alternately, if your house catches fire and your fire department puts it out, your neighbor has still benefited, since his house is less likely to be damaged now. Or would you prefer that in this case, your fire department set fire to the neighbor's house in order to allow nature to take its course? No, I don't really think anyone would want that.

I think the problem is greatly exaggerated. If people get together to build a bridge, and don't charge a toll for crossing it, does that mean an out-of-town visitor is a "free rider" if he crosses the bridge? He may be crossing the bridge to trade with a business owner who helped pay for the bridge; someone he wouldn't have been able to trade with had the bridge not been built. So is the business owner being cheated since he paid to help build the bridge and the visitor did not? What if this person who crosses the bridge decides to trade with a business owner who also didn't contribute to the construction of the bridge? Does this business owner never trade with the other businesses around him? How did he get the money that he spends in these other stores? Is there no value in keeping his store open for the other people in town?

If people see a benefit for something, they will probably be willing to foot the bill. In a free society, bridges and roads and fire departments would undoubtedly be cheaper and better, since no bureaucracy is eating up the funds and producing nothing but more bureaucracy. There is no reason to whip out coercion to deal with this. A true parasite will suffer the consequences of his decisions regardless whether there is a "government" of any sort to punish him or not.

Besides, everyone will be the "free rider" at times. There is no avoiding it. I think this is only a problem if you look at the situation selfishly or from a "but that's not fair" perspective. Just accept that the times someone else is getting a "free ride" on your dime are paybacks for the times you get the same benefit. It all comes out even in the end, so don't keep a ledger trying to nit-pick every offense. Even if someone seems to come out ahead, are you really willing to give up a little of your liberty to make sure everyone pays in every instance? I'm not.

PS: I just discovered this article which has another, much more detailed take on this: Small-Town Anarchy

The state disproportionately protects the bad people

The state disproportionately protects the bad people

The biggest problem I have with the state is that it protects bad people from the real consequences of their actions.

In a free society, "reputation" would probably be much more important than it is now. The reason for this is that you wouldn't be able to slide by, being protected from "freedom of association", by government "laws". Anyone would be free to associate, or not, with anyone for any reason.

That means if you act in anti-social ways, or have a job that makes you act like you have special privileges, you might just face retribution for your behavior or starve to death. That may seem harsh, but that is the way it should be.

Government short-circuits this societal-protection mechanism, to our great detriment.

Of course, the state also declares authority to regulate self defense against the predators, too, but that's another issue.

Concealed carry laws are nonsense

Concealed carry laws are nonsense

More guns in the hands of honest people makes society safer, and makes the career choice of the criminal more dangerous. That is obvious to everyone ...except for certain people who wish to do things to you which you would not allow if you were able to effectively resist. Carrying weapons concealed gives the good guy a tactical advantage over the bad guy. If the bad guys are unsure who may be carrying, they are less likely to act. They can't watch everyone all the time.

Yet "concealed carry permits" are hideous abuses of governmental authority. A free person does not need permission to exercise his or her rights. Otherwise they wouldn't be "rights" at all, but would be "privileges"; the opposite of rights. Concealed carry "laws" are also ridiculous on many rational levels.

In many places (such as New Mexico) it is "legal" to openly carry your gun on your hip, as it should be everywhere. Yet, in some of those places one simple act can turn you from a "law abiding person" into a "criminal", or even a "felon".

You can be going about your business, fully in compliance with the law (at least in free regions), wearing a gun on your hip. The simple act of putting on a jacket can then turn you into a "criminal" by concealing your gun. Sorry, but that doesn't show me that you are then a bad guy, but it certainly shows that the "law" is nonsense and those who enforce it are committing an evil act. Plus, if a gun is concealed, it means no one can see it. If they do see it, it isn't concealed. Notice the logical disconnect that is necessary in order to hassle someone over a "concealed" weapon?

Every person should be free of legal consequences for the simple human act of picking up a weapon and slipping it into a holster or a pocket before heading out for the day. Anything else only empowers the predators among us.
_________________________________________

To find out how free you really are, visit OpenCarry.org. How does your state stack up?



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

Libertarianism is not 'hypothetical'

Libertarianism is not 'hypothetical'

A "statist" is one who believes that "government" is a legitimate human endeavor. It is a subset of authoritarian who uses the state to impose their authority upon others. One way statists and other authoritarians try to end a debate with a libertarian is to throw up the old "I live in the REAL world, not your hypothetical one" argument. Balderdash.

I assume it is supposed to end the debate right there, and maybe it has worked for them in the past if the only people they have debated are libertarians who are unsure of themselves. It won't work with me. I don't live an a "hypothetical world". I know what works. I know what doesn't. Plus, I see what the authoritarians seem to be afraid of: the failure and subsequent crumbling of their philosophy.

I have never run into a real-world situation where the Zero Aggression Principle failed. I have run into some situations where my human nature would have preferred the short-term satisfaction of violating the ZAP, but to do so would have been wrong, and probably destructive in the long-run. I have never found a situation where a government "solution" is really better than a freedom-respecting solution. Sure, it might be easier to pay for expensive things by stealing the resources, but it is never right. Not if I do it on my own; not if I hire thugs ("elect politicians") to do it for me.

Statism is a failed system. It may not look like it, since it infests the entire globe right at this moment. At one time, you could have said the same about the dinosaurs. We are witnessing the violent convulsions of a terminally ill system. It will get worse before it gets better.

Real libertarianism for your everyday life

Real libertarianism for your everyday life

There are real-world consequences that occur when individuals (and society) reject principled libertarian positions. I know from experience that the philosophy of liberty is not "Utopian" as its detractors often claim. It works very well for me in my every day real life. Contrary to speculation, I do not live in a cave. I also see the tragedies that occur when people violate these principles in their personal lives and in "public policy".

As an example: When I am out driving and approach an intersection that I suspect to be dangerous, regardless of the state's official signage, I am extra careful. I may slow down or even stop in order to make certain it is OK to proceed. The lives of my loved ones are much more important to me than any schedule or any angry drivers behind me.

In another recently highlighted example, "gun control" laws are always followed by an increase in violence, mayhem, and death. Always. Yet, the victim disarmament crowd refuses to accept reality and back off. They act like campers who feed the bears in spite of the warnings, and then when the bears, conditioned to be unafraid of humans and associating them with food, maul a person, they decide the best course of action is to feed the bears more to try to keep them from being hungry. Absolute insanity! "Gun control", the tactic that should be more honestly called victim disarmament, KILLS. It does this in the real world, leaving a real pile of broken, bleeding people.

On another front, there are lots of things that people do that harm their own bodies. The list includes such things as: chemicals (both recreational and occupational), "extreme" sports, rich food, too much food, taking risks, sex, too little sex, working too hard, working too little, even suicide. Yet, other than showing concern for a friend, you should not meddle. Self-ownership must include even the right to destroy that with is owned. Even if that right offends you. If you go so far as to involve the state in any way, assuming the person has violated some "law", you have probably effectively destroyed the other person's life. What a person does to his or her own body is none of your business. Interfere too much and you will probably only make the problem, if there is a real problem, worse. Remember that the other person may not share your sense of morality. At the very least you will probably lose a friend and have messed up any chance to be a real help in the future. You also lose any chance of that person helping you if you make a wrong choice somewhere down the line. Know the risks; weigh the benefits; make your decisions. Live and let live.

If you know that a condition, place, activity, or person is dangerous, be careful. Use your brain. Don't run whining to the state, asking it to put up more signs, pass new "laws", or increase "fines". Take responsibility for your own safety and stop playing right into the hands of the state. Never blame your deficiencies on "the children". Your descendants will thank you for it.

"Manchurian Shooters"?

Go vote in the poll in today's Libertarian Enterprise. It asks the question "Do you suspect, however reluctantly, that at least some of the mass-shootings over the past two or three decades were deliberately engineered to achieve a political goal?"

I hate to be suspicious and "paranoid", but ...... How many more "Manchurian Shooters" are waiting for their signal?

The libertarian alternative

The libertarian alternative

Most people, except for the worst among us, live rather "libertarian" personal lives. At least they do as long as they want to get along with the people they encounter. They fall back on primitive authoritarian behavior patterns when dealing with the people whom they dislike or feel "superior" to. Few people tolerate being meddled with by some busy-body. Why would anyone make exceptions for busy-bodies who claim the authority to kill you unless you comply?

Most people will probably choose the libertarian alternative - living by the Zero Aggression Principle, not stealing from or coercing others - if they are aware it exists. As long as people understand that it is not OK to harm others, nor to try to thwart their self-ownership with coercion even if you wear the silly hat of government, they will take more responsibility for their own lives and stop worrying so much about the private lives of others. The good thing is that the "uncooperative" aggressors in society don't have to go along to make it work in the real-world. The ZAP allows you to ignore them until they force you to make a decision regarding them. Their act; their choice.

It is very liberating to realize that you alone are responsible for your own life. Your only obligation to other people involves not harming them and not interfering with their lives as long as they mind their own business. That frees up a lot of energy that can be better spent improving your lot in life.

Government, through "schools" and its lap-dogs in the mass media, try to make certain people are not aware of the libertarian alternative. People are trained to accept that there is only the "right" or "left" alternative; which boot do you want on your neighbor's neck until the next election? Never mind that your neighbor is being asked the same question regarding your neck.

Will you continue to fall for the deception, or will you accept your responsibilities?

Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders

Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders

When a tragedy like yesterday's massacre in Binghamton NY occurs, libertarians need to be careful to not say "I told you so" to people who are hurting. It can be hard, because we do keep warning that these things are an inevitable consequence of "gun control". The fewer good people who are armed, the more bold the bad people become.

That doesn't mean we stop holding accountable the tyrants who enable these horrific acts with their counterfeit "laws" against effective armed self-defense. Remember that most people, for whatever reason, can't see the logical outcome of victim disarmament "laws". The politicians and enforcers, however, do know they help madmen kill unarmed innocents. Yet, they keep repeating "don't resist; don't arm yourself. Leave protection up to the professionals". It is almost as if they want you dead. Why would they do that?

Unlike some people, I doubt most of the victim disarmament pushers really want you dead. They want you disarmed for the same reason -the ONLY reason- anyone wants someone else disarmed: to do things to you that you would not permit if you were able to resist effectively. Whether it is to steal your money, your home, your right of transportation or your self-ownership, you might be more dangerous to fleece if you had "claws". They can't keep milking you for "taxes", labor, and votes if you are dead. They need for you to keep lending an air of legitimacy to the established kleptocracy with your vote (even if it is by voting for the lesser of two evils). They also want you to be afraid. They want you to crawl to them for your protection when an event frightens you. They need you to think you need them.

However, there are some who would prefer that you were dead. People who take responsibility for their own protection shine a harsh light of reality on the failure of the state. The minority who doesn't roll over for crazed attackers reminds us all that "give the criminal what he wants" only works if you know for certain he doesn't want your life.

There is no liberty, no self-responsibility, no civilization, without the people being willing and able to meet the challenge. "It can't happen here." Are you willing to bet your life, and the lives of your children, on that? Will you be cowering under a desk, or will you at least put up a fight? Don't look to the government; this is up to you. I am asking YOU.

Massacre in Binghamton NY

Massacre in Binghamton NY

People who are not too concerned with the reality of the way the world works, and don't understand that murder is already illegal (so more "laws" will not stop killers), might think I am psychic due to this: "Gun Control keeps on killing and killing and killing..." They would be wrong. I am not psychic. It is a simple matter of seeing behind the curtain. Next prediction: Watch the blood-dancers start clamoring for more unarmed victims for other evil people to target.

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA

I realize all my long-time blog readers have already seen this. It just seemed appropriate somehow.

Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?

Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?

I am a radical libertarian; an anarchist. I recognize that any government is too much and can never really be controlled or contained. It is a cancer. The US Constitution was a good try, but its failure to rein in government should be a lesson to all the minarchists out there. Statism of even the mildest sort is hopelessly Utopian.

Those who are bold get scolded that they "make us all look bad". How can that be? The pragmatists always lose their consistency somewhere along the line. That is where they part ways with the bold libertarians. Somewhere they betray liberty in order to look more like an authoritarian of the "right" or "left". Have they then betrayed their own principles in order to be accepted by some authoritarians? I can't say since I don't know what makes up any other person's principles, but it does appear that way to me.

Is there a place for "pragmatic" minarchist libertarians? Yes. They can follow the bold libertarians who are not afraid of the scorn and ridicule that comes with telling the plain unvarnished truth. As I often say, as long as we are going the same direction -toward more liberty and away from a powerful government- I consider us on the same side.

This struggle is like a tug-of-war, with some pulling harder than others, and all pulling on a very slightly different tangent, but those on the same end of the rope are all contributing in some way. If, sometime in the future, society becomes as free as you are comfortable with, you can rest while others of us keep pulling.

Whether it is "you don't really think there should be NO laws against drugs?" or "but you don't think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, do you?" the answer is always, consistently, that freedom of any sort is less dangerous than authoritarian control- but even if it weren't, liberty is still the birthright of every human. Someone needs to stand up for that.

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

Not Only does "gun control" kill. The mere mention of possible new "gun laws" triggers killing sprees. Don't believe me? Pay attention when new "gun control" laws are first mentioned. It won't be long before a new mass murder occurs. Or several. It is happening now. It happens every time. So, it must be that there are people out there with fragile mental states who crack up when politicians, or their lapdogs in the media, start suggesting new victim disarmament "laws".

Either that or someone has gone to a lot of trouble to "prepare" people, chemically or hypnotically, to go on murderous rampages just when it is "needed" to promote support for a new round of immoral and illegal laws against guns. And that would be tinfoil-beanie paranoid, right?

Just to be clear, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" anyone the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). That right has existed since before the first human picked up a rock, regardless of any law or government. What the Second Amendment does do is prohibit anyone from passing or enforcing ANY laws regulating weapons in any way. That's right: it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any "gun control" laws, and those, like the mass-murder cheerleaders of the Brady Campaign, who advocate for new "laws" are guilty of encouraging others to become criminals.

No "laws" meant to disarm the violent bad guys will fail to make it more difficult for the good guys to remain armed. After all, it is only the good guys who concern themselves with obeying "laws" in the first place. It is evil to try to disarm people. There is just no excuse for it.

Just in case the "dated language" of the Second Amendment is too difficult to understand, I offer my "illuminated" version:

"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

Principles must be universal or they are meaningless

Principles must be universal or they are meaningless

If one has real principles, one must be consistent. All people have the exact same rights as all other people, regardless of the demands of the local Rulers and enforcers. Regardless of constitutions or bills of rights. Regardless of "laws".

If something is wrong for me to do, then it is still wrong for me or anyone else to do even if we put on "the silly hat of government". Each person is free to do as he or she wishes as long as they harm no innocent person. Are you prepared for that?

By your actions you may set in motion a series of consequences you may not like, but no one has any obligation to save you from yourself; from the consequences of your own actions. In fact, attempting to do so without being asked is meddling, and asking for help when you caused the situation to begin with could be seen as becoming a parasite.

Accepting your responsibilities willingly

Accepting your responsibilities willingly

Some things are your responsibility whether you wish to accept it or not. Just because there is a government "professional" who claims that he is now responsible for your "welfare" doesn't mean you can stop thinking and start grazing on your meadows of clover.

It is your responsibility to provide for your own personal safety and protection. You can attempt to shirk this responsibility and rely on police, but they never have your best interests at heart. After all, they are normally more concerned that you obey all their nonsensical rules than whether you are in danger. (A recent event in Dallas should illustrate this quite clearly) No one can be paid well enough to care as much about your own safety as you already do.

It is your responsibility to educate your children. How you choose to do that can make a huge difference in their lives. No government employee cares one fiftieth as much as you do how your children are prepared for life. No one at the school is as concerned for the safety of your children as you are. There is no way to pay them enough that they will care as deeply as you do.

Your financial future is your responsibility. No government program is sufficient for all your needs and wants. The fact that the program has been stealing your money for decades doesn't mean it will be there when you need it. You need to either hide any future money from the muggers, or plan for a future without that source of income.

Your health is your responsibility. Socialized "free" health care isn't the answer (unless the question is "what is the least likely way to get quality health care?"). No profession survives being taken over by the mafia without becoming beholden to the thugs who call the shots and hand out the money. Your health takes a backseat to other concerns.

It is your responsibility to make your own choices and then deal with the consequences. You may try to shift the blame when things go wrong, but the responsibility is yours alone. Will you accept it or try to ignore the truth?

Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?

Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?

The coming collapse of the US dollar has caused some people to question whether it is time for a "one-world currency".

Should there be one? Yes and no. There should not be a government-mandated "one-world currency", especially not of the "fiat" variety, but there should still be "one currency" anyway: freedom of choice. Ditch the government monopoly on money, which orders you to use worthless printed paper, and let people across the entire world choose what to use as a placeholder of trade value. Everyone will choose their own personal favorites.

Gold and silver are obvious choices for money, but if you would rather work for (literally) peanuts... or ammunition, or sexual favors, or bottle caps, or whatever .... that should be your choice. And truthfully, it always will be.

No government can coerce you into using its worthless fiat money in all your dealings, no matter how hard it tries. It's time to start trying out your freedom wings. Exercise now will make it a lot easier to fly on that day when you are pushed off the cliff.

Are libertarians weak on national defense?

Are libertarians weak on national defense?

"Isolationist"? "Anti-war"? I hear some people use those reasons as an excuse for why they can't support libertarian philosophy (and Libertarian candidates).

It is dead wrong and absolutely absurd.

I am not "isolationist" in the slightest. That would be barring the door and ignoring the rest of the world. No, I agree more with the founders of America who warned that we should pursue "Trade with ALL nations; entangling alliances with none". That is reasonable and logical behavior. It avoids the mistakes that have marched deluded folks off to foreign battlefields and made otherwise sensible people into murderers in foreign lands. Yet, the false "conservatives" use this excuse a lot to avoid facing their own lack of consistency.

I am "anti-war" in as much as I know it is wrong to invade another country with government troops on false pretext. Starting a war of aggression makes you the bad guy. "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the excuse of a bully. If you really want to believe libertarians are "anti-war" see what happens if you send troops to our neighborhoods. I have no qualms about "fighting them" here. At least there is no mistaking who the guilty party is in that case.

How does it promote "national defense" to create enemies through meddling, destroying, and killing in other countries? Might the reality possibly be that such acts raise up new generations of individuals who (mistakenly) blame the people of America for the actions of the rogue US government? Doesn't that undermine "national security"? Doesn't that put us all in danger?

If the alternatives to the supposed "isolationist" and "anti-war" views of libertarians are the policy of meddling in everyone's business and the "invade and kill them all before they do something to America" dogma that is chanted in place of intelligent debate, then no thank you. I'll laugh while you call me names.

I Got Twitterpated

In an attempt to get more readers for my Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner column I am now on Twitter. My readership dropped through the floor over the past couple of days, so I am looking for ways to boost it a bit.

Twitter always seemed a little creepy to me. I'm sorry, but I refuse to post my every move on there, but I will let you know when a new ALE column is posted. Who knows, I may even post a few extra things from time to time. I suppose I am open to suggestions as to things you would like for me to post. Within reason.

The war on drugs is a war on us all

The war on drugs is a war on us all

The "War on Drugs" is as likely to be won as a "War on Gravity". That is probably a good thing. Even if a "War on Gravity" could be won, it would destroy the universe. If the War on Drugs were won, it would destroy part of what makes us human. There is no real danger of either happening.

Whether it is alcohol, THC, or any of the so-called "hard drugs", the fact is that a majority of people enjoy feeling "altered" mental states of some sort. From early childhood humans seek out the sensation. I'm sure you have noticed young children spinning until they can't stand, haven't you? "Drunk" is like dizziness. It is a manifestation of the same desire. It is an integral part of the human condition and it is ridiculous and evil to try to change that in any way other than gentle persuasion. "Laws" and punishments can't make people stop. I can understand that, why can't the state? (I have my suspicions that they really do "get it", but have their own reasons for fighting this endless war.)

Just as gravity can be used in many ways, including in counterintuitive ways such as to make an airplane fly, so could the basic human desire to feel "altered" possibly be used for seemingly counterintuitive purposes. Yet, aside from government labs where the "laws" don't apply, any exploration of this possibility is tightly regulated and often prohibited.

This isn't even a moral issue, although some will try to tell you it is. Is it wrong to listen to a song that alters your moods? Is it wrong to skydive? Why are some things "legal" and other things "illegal" when the resulting feeling is very similar? It isn't the potential for harm, or alcohol would be "illegal" and marijuana would be "legal".

Pure and simple it is about three things: control, money, and the power that the state can seize. There are huge profits to be made, as long as drugs remain illegal, on both sides of the "law". The crime and violence that logically result from prohibition can be used to scare the population into begging to be saved by government. Government can use the violence as an excuse to attempt to disarm the population, in particular, those who are not part of the problem.

The "War on Drugs" is a distraction. Pursuing it is evil and stupid. It is really a war on your freedom. Just say "No!" to continued prohibition!

Dear Dull 'Hawk, #1

Dear Dull 'Hawk,

The government steals from us all the time. That seems to mean that government people are thieves. Thieves don't have any moral right to what they have stolen, as I understand it. If we steal (really: take back,or homestead) things from government or from government people, do we act morally? If so, what of the fact that what we liberate will be repurchased with funds that come from insurance pools that include non-state people who are guilty of nothing?

Anonymous

[First, here is advice from Mike:

Well, anonymous, Since it's "free market" advice, I'll take a shot.
I'd have to say first and foremost that the collective "we" is out of place
here, and it muddles things considerably. If you, or any other actual person
with a name, has had some specific piece of property taken from you, then, yes,
you have a moral right to it, no matter who took it. Of course, if you you try
to take it back from the government, expect to be jailed or killed for your
trouble. Morality and reality are not the same thing-ask Jesus.

But, when you say "we" and "us" you get into very dangerous territory,
since you have no claim on something stolen from someone else-only your own
stuff. That means that if you "liberate" something, be it money or other
property, that was stolen from me, or that someone else like an insurance co.
has a claim on, you are still a thief, but morally and legally. Since just
because it was once stolen, does not make it fair game for you to take as
well
This is part of why collectivism is so terrible, it confounds morality. But
that's just me. Can't wait to hear Kent's thoughts.]

Dear Anonymous,

If some of your property is in government possession, if you take it back you have acted morally. I will blog about the injustice of your arrest (kidnapping) or honor your memory. Since you know the government will continue to steal from others to replace your property if you take it back, the only permanent solution is to make certain the thief can't continue to steal.

Then Mike asks:

"Since at one point virtually all property was stolen, particularly land, is it really possible to have a claim to private property? In the strict principled sense, or is there a degree of pragmatism involved since true original ownership is impossible to determine?"

Dear Mike,

If the original owner of a piece of land, or specific descendants, can be identified, I think they should be reimbursed. If the real original owners are lost in the mists of time, then no living person was stolen from, and no one alive is guilty of theft. I don't hold people responsible for what their parents did, much less for the actions of their great-great grandparents. I can wring my hands over the injustices of the past, or I can focus on making sure no more injustices occur. Just my opinion.

End the government monopoly; give people a choice

End the government monopoly; give people a choice

In the comments under the column on welfare, "straightarrow" mentioned that he thinks Social Security should be voluntary. I can fully agree to that. In fact, that is all I am truly saying on any of these issues: let people have a choice to opt out of government programs if they so choose. Don't use coercion to force people to use, or at least pay for, government "services" they don't want or need. End the government monopoly!

I have no problem paying the city for the water I use. I would prefer there were competition so that quality would improve, and price might go down, but I have no desire to get something for nothing. Trash pick-up is the same way. I get a service; I pay for it.

What I would really rather not have is a "once-a-month rabid skunk delivery service" mandated by the state, and charged to me even if I insist I don't want it. That is what most government "services" are to me.

If parents wish to home-school (or "unschool") their children, don't force them to keep paying for the system that they have come to realize is socialist indoctrination. If a person realizes that they don't need "police protection", but can do the same job better and cheaper for themselves, don't expect them to pay for the "protection" of others who are not as self-responsible. If an inventor creates a flying car that uses no government roads, don't steal money from him in the way of "road taxes" every time he fuels his vehicle. Choices, options, and an end to the destructive and coercive monopoly.

I don't want or need police "keeping drunks off the road" by violating the basic human right to travel unmolested. I can watch out for myself. That is my responsibility, after all. In fact, I don't want or need police at all.

I don't want to pay for the FCC to fine TV stations on my behalf (though, of course, THEY keep the money) to protect me from things the government thinks I shouldn't see or hear. If the TV offends me I can turn it off. If it offends you I will be glad to show you where the off-button is.

I don't want to pay for the "privilege" of having a Congress. If they want to be "in the club" so badly, let them pay a membership fee and work as volunteers. Best of all, let any "laws" they create only apply to those who are members of their club and leave the rest of us alone.

I don't want the DEA murdering people, for my "benefit", because they have hemp leaves in their possession, nor killing people who are manufacturing chemicals that the state has created a demand for through prohibition. Also, it certainly doesn't benefit me to have government keep these victims of government-gone-amok in prison, at my expense, with the real aggressors and thieves.

I don't want or need a wall built along the southern border to keep "those people" out. If you own property, you have the only say in who may or may not cross it. The US government owns NO property legitimately. Don't let it pretend it does. Do you worry about the "drain on the economy" that you imagine immigrants cause? Then demand an end to all forms of welfare immediately. Worried about the "drug crime" that crosses "the border"? End prohibition and destroy the black market for the "drugs". Otherwise you are just being hypocritical.

Now, if you want some of these "services", then you should be happy to pay for them out of your own pocket. Don't force me, at gunpoint, to "contribute" to your cause. If your "services" violate anyone's rights, even my sworn enemy's, expect me to hold you accountable.

Dear Dull 'Hawk, .....

I would like to try something a little different. Just as an experiment. How about a "liberty advice column", right here on this blog? You can either pose your questions in the comments (avoid using the Haloscan comments for this) or email them to me at: dullhawk@hotmail.com (please reference this blog post in the subject line somehow) and then I will see if I can give you some advice on the blog the next day. Of course, unlike most advice columns, other commenters may disagree and give you competing advice. Free-market advice.

Make up a nice pseudonym and have at it. This is important- If you don't want the question and answer to be public, please tell me and I won't post it on the blog, otherwise....

PS: I am still looking for any "investors" who would like to help get the coins into production.

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

Different labels describe the same basic concept

Different labels describe the same basic concept

I keep seeing debates about the labels we liberty-lovers may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons, usually having to do with "too much baggage" attached to the word. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Then there are some who call themselves "Libertarian" who certainly don't normally act like they are. Is there any use applying "labels"?

Labels can divide us and are over-rated. I am a "clumper". I started out calling myself "libertarian", then because of the inadequacies of the word, started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then I embraced the term "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. If pressed, I could, on different occasions, say that I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and many more. I can find some common ground with conspiracy theorists, minarchists, "right-wing" gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where anyone calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only real "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.

These definitions that people apply to their philosophy, what do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions in a dictionary to see what someone, somewhere, thought the word meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you use the words. They seem to all fall short of the concepts. Yet, we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I sometimes end up doing. This column is an example of that. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words, or that we may use different words to express the same concept.

MamaLiberty says she calls herself an "individual sovereign". I can identify with that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as the word "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.

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. I know a fellow traveler on this road toward freedom when I meet one. That is the important part. So, for the purposes of this column, I will use the term "libertarian" to mean all of those things.

You asked; I deliver

OK. Here is the rough draft of my coin, the "Silver Dubloon".

Libertarians can afford to be bold

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".

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.