More on border worship
I can understand the feelings that might lead a person to support "national borders". Fear of being lost in a sea of immigrants who speak a different language, or who have different customs, is a common thing. Change of any sort is often uncomfortable and scary. Especially for those who are insecure or have feelings of inadequacy.
While I can understand the feelings, I don't share them. In the case of those who cling to national borders, but also distrust a powerful government, I can't understand how they manage to hold two such completely contradictory notions in one head.
If you are attacked or stolen from, how is it worse if the attacker or thief was born across a line on a map? You have the absolute human right to defend yourself, other innocent people, and your property from trespassing, aggression, or theft. Regardless of whether the offending person is an "immigrant", your cousin, or a LEO doing the bidding of the state. National borders change nothing in this regard.
Explain to me how this works. How can you believe that you own your life and the products of your life and yet also believe that governments can draw a line on a map and decide who can cross that line, and under what conditions they can cross. Explain how you can have a "national border", and enforce it, without having a strong and coercive national government. Explain how you can support government enforcement of that imaginary line while decrying other acts of government such as gun "laws". Don't you see that the "authority" and power for both acts comes from the same place? You can't assume liberty while you demand the government be strong enough to "secure the border". It isn't rational, logical, consistent, or possible. Answers that contain "yes, but" are not reasonable answers.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
A slave contract does not legitimize slavery
A slave contract does not legitimize slavery
Let's say there were a document that laid out the ground rules for what a slave master was allowed to do, and NOT do, to his slaves. It might state that a slave master must give his slaves adequate food. Maybe insist that he not beat his slaves too much. It might set the rules for selling the slaves in a "humane" way. It might even lay out a list of rights a slave has, as long as that slave doesn't try to escape or disobey. It would probably mention some "obligations" the slave "owes" his master; things like loyalty, obedience, and hard work.
The problem with such a document isn't that it is flawed in its rules, but that it treats slavery as a legitimate human endeavor. It isn't, and no document can ever make it so.
There is another illegitimate human endeavor, based upon theft and murder, that has a document that gives it the illusion of legitimacy to some people. A government is supposedly legitimized by the US Constitution, much to the delight of statists of all sorts. Others of us can't justify the inexcusable no matter who signed what a couple hundred years ago. And just because other governments might be worse is no reason to stick with a coercive state of any degree.
Just as I am not qualified or inclined to pontificate upon the proper treatment of slaves, other than unconditional freedom, I am not qualified or inclined to decide what might be the proper form of government, other than self-government. No document can ever make wrong right. We need to banish the idea that it can before we can move forward. Any other conclusion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Let's say there were a document that laid out the ground rules for what a slave master was allowed to do, and NOT do, to his slaves. It might state that a slave master must give his slaves adequate food. Maybe insist that he not beat his slaves too much. It might set the rules for selling the slaves in a "humane" way. It might even lay out a list of rights a slave has, as long as that slave doesn't try to escape or disobey. It would probably mention some "obligations" the slave "owes" his master; things like loyalty, obedience, and hard work.
The problem with such a document isn't that it is flawed in its rules, but that it treats slavery as a legitimate human endeavor. It isn't, and no document can ever make it so.
There is another illegitimate human endeavor, based upon theft and murder, that has a document that gives it the illusion of legitimacy to some people. A government is supposedly legitimized by the US Constitution, much to the delight of statists of all sorts. Others of us can't justify the inexcusable no matter who signed what a couple hundred years ago. And just because other governments might be worse is no reason to stick with a coercive state of any degree.
Just as I am not qualified or inclined to pontificate upon the proper treatment of slaves, other than unconditional freedom, I am not qualified or inclined to decide what might be the proper form of government, other than self-government. No document can ever make wrong right. We need to banish the idea that it can before we can move forward. Any other conclusion just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
What if people don't do the right thing?
What if people don't do the right thing?
Like just about everybody, I would prefer that people do the right thing. I get irritated when people do irresponsible things and I sometimes grumble to myself about their questionable parentage or diminished mental capacity.
However, I am not delusional enough that I am willing to sacrifice freedom in order to provide a way for the state to punish those who don't always do the right thing. That's all "laws" do- provide for punishment. Punishing others does not help me. It doesn't change the reality or teach people anything. "Laws" simply provide a commonly accepted way to punish those who do things the state doesn't approve of. While many of those things might be "the wrong thing" or irresponsible, many more are not.
Of course, "laws" to allow punishment of people who don't do the right thing ignore the fact that very few people even agree on what "the right thing" is, at least on peripheral matters. Even true lovers of individual liberty disagree on some specifics. When you add in the less-than-aware masses of public school indoctrinated "citizens", the situation gets even less clear. Some don't see the hypocrisy in talking about "liberty" while propping up the police-state with the labor of their lives or with their support of some government activities. Some don't understand that theft is theft, and having a government title or office doesn't excuse your immoral acts. Smaller matters are even more confusing to them.
The solution isn't to pass "laws" that enforce your vision of "the right thing". If this were justified, you could just as easily find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's bonnet-bee. Just like in the unworkable, chaotic system we live with now. I'll take my chances with free people doing the wrong thing from time to time, with no state ready to strike at me when I act in defense of myself and my property. The cost of having a state is too high a price to pay.
Like just about everybody, I would prefer that people do the right thing. I get irritated when people do irresponsible things and I sometimes grumble to myself about their questionable parentage or diminished mental capacity.
However, I am not delusional enough that I am willing to sacrifice freedom in order to provide a way for the state to punish those who don't always do the right thing. That's all "laws" do- provide for punishment. Punishing others does not help me. It doesn't change the reality or teach people anything. "Laws" simply provide a commonly accepted way to punish those who do things the state doesn't approve of. While many of those things might be "the wrong thing" or irresponsible, many more are not.
Of course, "laws" to allow punishment of people who don't do the right thing ignore the fact that very few people even agree on what "the right thing" is, at least on peripheral matters. Even true lovers of individual liberty disagree on some specifics. When you add in the less-than-aware masses of public school indoctrinated "citizens", the situation gets even less clear. Some don't see the hypocrisy in talking about "liberty" while propping up the police-state with the labor of their lives or with their support of some government activities. Some don't understand that theft is theft, and having a government title or office doesn't excuse your immoral acts. Smaller matters are even more confusing to them.
The solution isn't to pass "laws" that enforce your vision of "the right thing". If this were justified, you could just as easily find yourself on the receiving end of someone else's bonnet-bee. Just like in the unworkable, chaotic system we live with now. I'll take my chances with free people doing the wrong thing from time to time, with no state ready to strike at me when I act in defense of myself and my property. The cost of having a state is too high a price to pay.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Cop says he is tired of getting it from 'both sides'
Cop says he is tired of getting it from 'both sides'
In the comments on another site, in response to comments from MamaLiberty and me, an admitted LEO ("John") whined that he was tired of "getting it from both sides".
I suppose he meant he was "getting it" from "criminals" and "citizens*". Silly little man. He is gravely mistaken about the situation. The "criminals" are his side, since he depends upon them for his "job's" paltry justification. Only the free people who realize that we NEVER "need" a cop are his opposition, since most of the population blindly worships "the badge", at least until they are personally attacked by one of these badge-bullies.
We are the people who take responsibility for our own lives and safety. We are the ones who don't run to the state every time someone annoys us or something doesn't go our way. We are the ones who will take care of ourselves and deal with "situations"; risking the wrath of the state for doing so. We are the ones who realize that humans have the right to make poor choices, and as long as they don't harm the innocent, it is none of our business. We are the ones who see people like him as parasites who feed off of civilization, draining its life-blood, living on stolen money, and destroying society's moral foundations, replacing them with the "law". We are the ones who suspect, with good reason, that cops cause more crime than they prevent.
Cops like "John" can keep doing what they are doing, and calling those who see through them "tinfoil hat people", or some other name. All he is doing is proving my point for me, and adding to the ranks of those who will stand against his kind. In fact, my own activism began with an incident wherein a LEO enforced a counterfeit "law" against an innocent man I knew of only from the internet. Up until that event, I had kept my opinions to myself and simply minded my own business. Unintended consequences. How many more times has a similar thing happened?
"John" doesn't see it this way. Does this make him a bad man? Not necessarily. He claims to have a deep understanding of the Constitution, and claims to obey it. That's a nice start, if true. Now, if he could wrap his mind around the human rights that the Constitution conveniently ignores he might become an asset to freedom instead of a destroyer thereof. I'm not holding my breath.
"John" doesn't have to agree with me, but if he were smart he might take notice that a sizable, and growing, percentage of the regular people feel the way I do. And it only takes one bad experience with a LEO to change a person's perceptions for a lifetime. As it now stands, if I see a cop being beaten by someone on the side of the interstate, my first assumption is going to be that the cop initiated it. Even if he didn't, coming to his defense with an effective weapon would only be asking for trouble from vermin on "both sides of the law".
*Want to really make me upset? Call me a "citizen". I am the property of no government. I am a denizen, perhaps, but never a citizen.
In the comments on another site, in response to comments from MamaLiberty and me, an admitted LEO ("John") whined that he was tired of "getting it from both sides".
I suppose he meant he was "getting it" from "criminals" and "citizens*". Silly little man. He is gravely mistaken about the situation. The "criminals" are his side, since he depends upon them for his "job's" paltry justification. Only the free people who realize that we NEVER "need" a cop are his opposition, since most of the population blindly worships "the badge", at least until they are personally attacked by one of these badge-bullies.
We are the people who take responsibility for our own lives and safety. We are the ones who don't run to the state every time someone annoys us or something doesn't go our way. We are the ones who will take care of ourselves and deal with "situations"; risking the wrath of the state for doing so. We are the ones who realize that humans have the right to make poor choices, and as long as they don't harm the innocent, it is none of our business. We are the ones who see people like him as parasites who feed off of civilization, draining its life-blood, living on stolen money, and destroying society's moral foundations, replacing them with the "law". We are the ones who suspect, with good reason, that cops cause more crime than they prevent.
Cops like "John" can keep doing what they are doing, and calling those who see through them "tinfoil hat people", or some other name. All he is doing is proving my point for me, and adding to the ranks of those who will stand against his kind. In fact, my own activism began with an incident wherein a LEO enforced a counterfeit "law" against an innocent man I knew of only from the internet. Up until that event, I had kept my opinions to myself and simply minded my own business. Unintended consequences. How many more times has a similar thing happened?
"John" doesn't see it this way. Does this make him a bad man? Not necessarily. He claims to have a deep understanding of the Constitution, and claims to obey it. That's a nice start, if true. Now, if he could wrap his mind around the human rights that the Constitution conveniently ignores he might become an asset to freedom instead of a destroyer thereof. I'm not holding my breath.
"John" doesn't have to agree with me, but if he were smart he might take notice that a sizable, and growing, percentage of the regular people feel the way I do. And it only takes one bad experience with a LEO to change a person's perceptions for a lifetime. As it now stands, if I see a cop being beaten by someone on the side of the interstate, my first assumption is going to be that the cop initiated it. Even if he didn't, coming to his defense with an effective weapon would only be asking for trouble from vermin on "both sides of the law".
*Want to really make me upset? Call me a "citizen". I am the property of no government. I am a denizen, perhaps, but never a citizen.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Oath Keepers could be a baby-step in the right direction
Oath Keepers could be a baby-step in the right direction
There is a growing movement within the "law enforcement"/military community that seeks to demonstrate the gravity they assign to their oath to defend the Constitution, as opposed to simply obeying their bosses. They call themselves the Oath Keepers. I realize they are trying to do the right thing, as they see it. However, as badly as I would like to be excited about the movement, I am very ambivalent about the reality.
My first difficulty is the fact that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it was written on. There are more basic human rights that get priority. Just because the Constitution allows an act of coercion or theft doesn't change the fact such things are still wrong. Plus, the Constitution established a government; a crime against humanity in and of itself.
But beyond that: How can the LEOs and military folk who participate in Oath Keepers activities continue to ignore the fact that they are violating their oaths with almost every action they take? Any cop who takes the oath and then arrests a person for a "drug" offense, a gun "law" violation, or who issues a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, or who demands (or enforces) "identification" has violated his oath. He has done wrong and can no longer be trusted with both a badge and a gun. Enough is enough. A reasonable solution has been proposed, however, and should be actively promoted.
Any member of the military who is deployed overseas without Congress declaring war has violated the Constitution. If they then kill or disarm anyone where they have been deployed they have added more offenses to their "permanent record". You can't shoot back at people who are defending their homes and villages, in any part of the world, and claim the moral high ground without looking ridiculous. Incorrectly labeling them "insurgents" doesn't make it true. If these military personnel assist the government (at any level) against the people of America in any way, they have become "domestic enemies". No ifs, ands, or buts.
Reading on another site I saw claim after claim by military and LEO that they would never violate their oath, preceded or followed by personal stories of them doing just that, in the form of the examples above. Why the denial? Is it really that confusing? Not unless you intentionally get it wrong.
So many of these folk blame Obama for their new-found ethics. Well, guess what- Obama didn't invent the act of violating basic human rights in order to steal more power for himself and his successors. Obama is just following the example of every president before him, all the way back to the despicable George Washington, who wrongly and unconstitutionally quelled the Whiskey Rebellion; an act that violated his oath of office and should have resulted in his corpse becoming a tree ornament somewhere.
I am not opposed to Oath Keepers by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see widespread refusal to obey illegal orders and nationwide refusal to enforce counterfeit "laws". Something I am not seeing even on a minuscule scale. Oath Keepers can be a good first step, raising awareness and making people think about what they have signed up for. But don't stop there or you have missed the entire point. There are better oaths to keep.
There is a growing movement within the "law enforcement"/military community that seeks to demonstrate the gravity they assign to their oath to defend the Constitution, as opposed to simply obeying their bosses. They call themselves the Oath Keepers. I realize they are trying to do the right thing, as they see it. However, as badly as I would like to be excited about the movement, I am very ambivalent about the reality.
My first difficulty is the fact that the Constitution isn't worth the parchment it was written on. There are more basic human rights that get priority. Just because the Constitution allows an act of coercion or theft doesn't change the fact such things are still wrong. Plus, the Constitution established a government; a crime against humanity in and of itself.
But beyond that: How can the LEOs and military folk who participate in Oath Keepers activities continue to ignore the fact that they are violating their oaths with almost every action they take? Any cop who takes the oath and then arrests a person for a "drug" offense, a gun "law" violation, or who issues a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, or who demands (or enforces) "identification" has violated his oath. He has done wrong and can no longer be trusted with both a badge and a gun. Enough is enough. A reasonable solution has been proposed, however, and should be actively promoted.
Any member of the military who is deployed overseas without Congress declaring war has violated the Constitution. If they then kill or disarm anyone where they have been deployed they have added more offenses to their "permanent record". You can't shoot back at people who are defending their homes and villages, in any part of the world, and claim the moral high ground without looking ridiculous. Incorrectly labeling them "insurgents" doesn't make it true. If these military personnel assist the government (at any level) against the people of America in any way, they have become "domestic enemies". No ifs, ands, or buts.
Reading on another site I saw claim after claim by military and LEO that they would never violate their oath, preceded or followed by personal stories of them doing just that, in the form of the examples above. Why the denial? Is it really that confusing? Not unless you intentionally get it wrong.
So many of these folk blame Obama for their new-found ethics. Well, guess what- Obama didn't invent the act of violating basic human rights in order to steal more power for himself and his successors. Obama is just following the example of every president before him, all the way back to the despicable George Washington, who wrongly and unconstitutionally quelled the Whiskey Rebellion; an act that violated his oath of office and should have resulted in his corpse becoming a tree ornament somewhere.
I am not opposed to Oath Keepers by any stretch of the imagination. I would just like to see widespread refusal to obey illegal orders and nationwide refusal to enforce counterfeit "laws". Something I am not seeing even on a minuscule scale. Oath Keepers can be a good first step, raising awareness and making people think about what they have signed up for. But don't stop there or you have missed the entire point. There are better oaths to keep.
Time For the News?
The "news" just pisses me off.
The wrong things are emphasized, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong conclusions are drawn . What more could the national news media* do to make themselves irrelevant?
I hate to admit it, but I really have little interest in the news, especially where politics is concerned. If it relates to my opinions, then I may pay a bit of attention to it for a moment or two. I weigh its implications as it relates to my opinions and see if I need to alter my views in light of the new "information" (or, more likely, propaganda), and then I put it out of my mind.
What about new national "laws" that may affect me? I long ago made the decision that I will not obey any "laws" that are counterfeit unless it is convenient to do so, or unless I am staring down the barrel of a loaded Liberty Eradication Operative ("LEO"). Assume liberty.
I'm not saying this is the best attitude to have, nor would I ever put anyone down for having more interest in the news than I have. It's just that if you come here or visit my Examiner column to read my opinion on the latest proposed "law" or political scandal, you will usually be disappointed. If, however, you want to read what I think about the world in general, and liberty specifically, then I am your man. And you never know: occasionally some bit of "current events" may just sneak in.
*To a certain extent, the local news matters a little more. It is more likely to affect me directly today. I still go through periods where I just can't stomach it, either.
The wrong things are emphasized, the wrong questions are asked, and the wrong conclusions are drawn . What more could the national news media* do to make themselves irrelevant?
I hate to admit it, but I really have little interest in the news, especially where politics is concerned. If it relates to my opinions, then I may pay a bit of attention to it for a moment or two. I weigh its implications as it relates to my opinions and see if I need to alter my views in light of the new "information" (or, more likely, propaganda), and then I put it out of my mind.
What about new national "laws" that may affect me? I long ago made the decision that I will not obey any "laws" that are counterfeit unless it is convenient to do so, or unless I am staring down the barrel of a loaded Liberty Eradication Operative ("LEO"). Assume liberty.
I'm not saying this is the best attitude to have, nor would I ever put anyone down for having more interest in the news than I have. It's just that if you come here or visit my Examiner column to read my opinion on the latest proposed "law" or political scandal, you will usually be disappointed. If, however, you want to read what I think about the world in general, and liberty specifically, then I am your man. And you never know: occasionally some bit of "current events" may just sneak in.
*To a certain extent, the local news matters a little more. It is more likely to affect me directly today. I still go through periods where I just can't stomach it, either.
LEOs- Liberty Eradication Operatives
The current trendy name for cops is "LEOs". I guess it is supposed to sound royally feline. These critters claim their acronym stands for "Law Enforcement Officer". I know better.
Judging by their actions and behaviors it can be stated with assurance that "LEO" more accurately stands for "Liberty Eradication Operative". That's what they do, after all.
PS: Any "law" that needs a "special" enforcer is not a real law, but is instead a counterfeit "law"
Judging by their actions and behaviors it can be stated with assurance that "LEO" more accurately stands for "Liberty Eradication Operative". That's what they do, after all.
PS: Any "law" that needs a "special" enforcer is not a real law, but is instead a counterfeit "law"
The perversion of Independence Day
The perversion of Independence Day
My thoughts on this "Independence Day 2009" have been turning to the fact that the original intent of Independence Day has been completely turned upside down and inside out. From its origins as an anti-government celebration of freedom to today's perverted "worship the state and military" festival.
It is as if Christmas had been turned into a celebration of Satan, theft, death, and hatred. (I know some would claim the "true meaning" of Christmas has been lost, but the positive things are still given lip-service.)
For local tyrants to assume the authority to forbid individual celebration with fireworks, insisting instead that you go to a government-sponsored fireworks display, is the ultimate spit in the face of liberty. For people to actually obey them is almost unforgivable. The spirit of independence wanders the wilderness, rejected and dying.
The petty tyrants of every city council, county commission, state bureaucracy, and federal agency would be scared out of their tiny little minds if "the people" actually celebrated independence they way they should: with the fully-functional military arms of the real militia, and with the fully-functional minds of real free people.
My thoughts on this "Independence Day 2009" have been turning to the fact that the original intent of Independence Day has been completely turned upside down and inside out. From its origins as an anti-government celebration of freedom to today's perverted "worship the state and military" festival.
It is as if Christmas had been turned into a celebration of Satan, theft, death, and hatred. (I know some would claim the "true meaning" of Christmas has been lost, but the positive things are still given lip-service.)
For local tyrants to assume the authority to forbid individual celebration with fireworks, insisting instead that you go to a government-sponsored fireworks display, is the ultimate spit in the face of liberty. For people to actually obey them is almost unforgivable. The spirit of independence wanders the wilderness, rejected and dying.
The petty tyrants of every city council, county commission, state bureaucracy, and federal agency would be scared out of their tiny little minds if "the people" actually celebrated independence they way they should: with the fully-functional military arms of the real militia, and with the fully-functional minds of real free people.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Independence means secession- then and now
Independence means secession- then and now
Do these words seem familiar?
"All men". We would now say all human beings. Not just those who agree to be bound by the Constitution. Not only those who happen to have been born on land claimed by the US government. Not only those who haven't yet been declared "enemy combatants" by secret accusers. These "men" have rights which no government can ever have the authority to abrogate in any way. That is what was meant by "unalienable". It didn't mention matters of national security, or times of war, or any other excuse, because there is no excuse. None.
So, these governments have been unwisely instituted among men, like wolves in a flock of sheep, by consent of the sheep... I mean the "men"? I don't think so. I do not consent, so no government gets any "just powers" or authority from me, whether it counts me among the "governed" or not.
All governments quickly become destructive of the ends which are used to justify "government". Tragic experience has shown that the only kind of government that can secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is self government. Other forms of government don't even make an honest attempt. We now know, through long, hard experience, which type of government is most likely to "effect" our safety and happiness, as well as which type is most likely to affect it. It would be a grave mistake to depose one tyrant only to replace him with another. The mistake has been made innumerable times before. Has no lesson been learned?
No "revolution" was necessary as a follow-up to the Declaration of Independence. The British could have allowed a peaceful secession- a simple parting of the ways. Instead they chose the path of war. Just as Abraham Lincoln did a few generations later. Just as the US will undoubtedly do soon.
Humans will tolerate a lot of abuse from government, as the above excerpt points out. "Don't rock the boat" seems to be the general consensus. The chains become part of the normal pain of life; the fear of shedding those chains keeps people from exploring reasonable options. Better to stay with the evil you know than to face the unknown. For some people. I hope the numbers of people willing to toss the chains aside, or use them to strangle the slavemasters, will increase with each passing day, and with each new abomination committed by government at any level. What better day to begin than today: Independence Day? Let's make it mean something again!
For more info: I recommend reading the reasons for secession listed in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing those to the situation the formerly-free people of America now find themselves facing. You might even realize it is time for a more succinct declaration.
Do these words seem familiar?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security. --- Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, (emphasis mine).
"All men". We would now say all human beings. Not just those who agree to be bound by the Constitution. Not only those who happen to have been born on land claimed by the US government. Not only those who haven't yet been declared "enemy combatants" by secret accusers. These "men" have rights which no government can ever have the authority to abrogate in any way. That is what was meant by "unalienable". It didn't mention matters of national security, or times of war, or any other excuse, because there is no excuse. None.
So, these governments have been unwisely instituted among men, like wolves in a flock of sheep, by consent of the sheep... I mean the "men"? I don't think so. I do not consent, so no government gets any "just powers" or authority from me, whether it counts me among the "governed" or not.
All governments quickly become destructive of the ends which are used to justify "government". Tragic experience has shown that the only kind of government that can secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is self government. Other forms of government don't even make an honest attempt. We now know, through long, hard experience, which type of government is most likely to "effect" our safety and happiness, as well as which type is most likely to affect it. It would be a grave mistake to depose one tyrant only to replace him with another. The mistake has been made innumerable times before. Has no lesson been learned?
No "revolution" was necessary as a follow-up to the Declaration of Independence. The British could have allowed a peaceful secession- a simple parting of the ways. Instead they chose the path of war. Just as Abraham Lincoln did a few generations later. Just as the US will undoubtedly do soon.
Humans will tolerate a lot of abuse from government, as the above excerpt points out. "Don't rock the boat" seems to be the general consensus. The chains become part of the normal pain of life; the fear of shedding those chains keeps people from exploring reasonable options. Better to stay with the evil you know than to face the unknown. For some people. I hope the numbers of people willing to toss the chains aside, or use them to strangle the slavemasters, will increase with each passing day, and with each new abomination committed by government at any level. What better day to begin than today: Independence Day? Let's make it mean something again!
For more info: I recommend reading the reasons for secession listed in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing those to the situation the formerly-free people of America now find themselves facing. You might even realize it is time for a more succinct declaration.
Friday, July 03, 2009
The disease which pretends to be its own cure
The disease which pretends to be its own cure
In reading and debating liberty with other people, I notice that almost every argument against freedom, at some point, boils down to consequences that we currently encounter because of government interference.
To wit:
The reason national borders are "necessary" is that the state steals money in order to finance welfare, which is then either a nice carrot enticing people who want something for nothing or is a nice excuse for xenophobes to use against immigrants who want no handouts (most of the people in America who want something for nothing are not recent immigrants).
The reason gun control is "needed" is because government has made it safer to be an aggressive criminal than it would be if self-defense were not criminalized. It also causes people to be unfamiliar with the safe handling of guns resulting in more accidents than would otherwise occur. Both crime and accidents are then used as an excuse for more victim disarmament "laws" making a crazy feedback loop.
Driver's licenses and draconian state control of the roads are "necessary" because we have foolishly allowed the state to assume ownership over the roadways.
The reason the "War on (some) Drugs" is "necessary" is that prohibition causes an inflated profit margin and makes violence inevitable.
The reason "healthcare reform" is "needed" is because of the "War on (some) Drugs" making remedies expensive and (legally) dangerous to try, and because of government licensing and regulation of doctors artificially causing a shortage of healers.
The reason "gay marriage" is an issue is that government has been allowed to immorally declare it owns the institution of marriage, to be rationed out as it sees fit.
The list goes on and on. Government causes the problem and fools gullible "patriotic" folk into pointing to the problem as a reason they need government. I'm not the first to notice the pattern:
Well, I don't need government for ANYTHING. And neither do you.
**********************
In reading and debating liberty with other people, I notice that almost every argument against freedom, at some point, boils down to consequences that we currently encounter because of government interference.
To wit:
The reason national borders are "necessary" is that the state steals money in order to finance welfare, which is then either a nice carrot enticing people who want something for nothing or is a nice excuse for xenophobes to use against immigrants who want no handouts (most of the people in America who want something for nothing are not recent immigrants).
The reason gun control is "needed" is because government has made it safer to be an aggressive criminal than it would be if self-defense were not criminalized. It also causes people to be unfamiliar with the safe handling of guns resulting in more accidents than would otherwise occur. Both crime and accidents are then used as an excuse for more victim disarmament "laws" making a crazy feedback loop.
Driver's licenses and draconian state control of the roads are "necessary" because we have foolishly allowed the state to assume ownership over the roadways.
The reason the "War on (some) Drugs" is "necessary" is that prohibition causes an inflated profit margin and makes violence inevitable.
The reason "healthcare reform" is "needed" is because of the "War on (some) Drugs" making remedies expensive and (legally) dangerous to try, and because of government licensing and regulation of doctors artificially causing a shortage of healers.
The reason "gay marriage" is an issue is that government has been allowed to immorally declare it owns the institution of marriage, to be rationed out as it sees fit.
The list goes on and on. Government causes the problem and fools gullible "patriotic" folk into pointing to the problem as a reason they need government. I'm not the first to notice the pattern:
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre
Well, I don't need government for ANYTHING. And neither do you.
**********************
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Libertarians should dare to be different
Libertarians should dare to be different
I was recently called an "intellectual pygmy" and a "shock jock" on Ilana Mercer's "Barely a Blog". I was held up as an example of what is wrong with libertarianism. Her main complaint was over my controversial "cannibalism column".
Upon reading her entry, I sat here and tried to see it from her perspective. I tried to think if I am doing more harm than good to the cause of individual liberty. If so, I need to be aware of that and stop it. If I am wrong, I want to know. Freedom is a lot more important than I am.
After reflecting I came to the conclusion that I can't be anyone other than myself. In these columns I write what I really think, from the perspective of who I really am. So, as I often do in cases like this, I wrote her directly. I try to be polite in all my correspondence, and she was very polite in her response to me. She almost apologized for the ad hominem comments.
In her reply Ms. Mercer claimed that "my kind" of "shock jock opinions" are more "conventional and unthreatening" to most libertarians than are her opinions. From my perspective, and based upon years of hate-mail, I don't believe that is true. But, if it were true, why would that be?
Maybe because a difference that makes no difference is not a difference. If your "alternative" to the rampant statism that infects the earth today is indistinguishable from the status quo, why would anyone bother changing sides? If the difference is only a matter of degree, and not a fundamental rejection of statist coercion and control, is that really a difference? I am not assuming any opinions or motivations for Ms. Mercer in particular. I am not enlightened about her opinions on any issues, but I do know where so many "libertarians" balk when discussing liberty.
If you see nothing wrong with national borders enforced by government; if you see nothing wrong with taxation as a concept; if you don't recognize aggressive war (the business of the state) as murder on a massive scale; if you accept that government has the authority to do things that you or I can not do, then what is the difference from any Demopublican out there? If you don't accept that the philosophy of non-aggression applies to ALL individuals, including those employed by the state, what is your line-in-the-sand? I'm not aiming any of these remarks at Ms. Mercer, as I don't really know, but otherwise, why would her opinions not be as popular among those who hunger for real liberty as they might otherwise be? Those who believe in the legitimacy of the state are unlikely to embrace any real limits on their god and probably will not ever support liberty over the state in any substantive way. So, why cater to them?
I was recently called an "intellectual pygmy" and a "shock jock" on Ilana Mercer's "Barely a Blog". I was held up as an example of what is wrong with libertarianism. Her main complaint was over my controversial "cannibalism column".
Upon reading her entry, I sat here and tried to see it from her perspective. I tried to think if I am doing more harm than good to the cause of individual liberty. If so, I need to be aware of that and stop it. If I am wrong, I want to know. Freedom is a lot more important than I am.
After reflecting I came to the conclusion that I can't be anyone other than myself. In these columns I write what I really think, from the perspective of who I really am. So, as I often do in cases like this, I wrote her directly. I try to be polite in all my correspondence, and she was very polite in her response to me. She almost apologized for the ad hominem comments.
In her reply Ms. Mercer claimed that "my kind" of "shock jock opinions" are more "conventional and unthreatening" to most libertarians than are her opinions. From my perspective, and based upon years of hate-mail, I don't believe that is true. But, if it were true, why would that be?
Maybe because a difference that makes no difference is not a difference. If your "alternative" to the rampant statism that infects the earth today is indistinguishable from the status quo, why would anyone bother changing sides? If the difference is only a matter of degree, and not a fundamental rejection of statist coercion and control, is that really a difference? I am not assuming any opinions or motivations for Ms. Mercer in particular. I am not enlightened about her opinions on any issues, but I do know where so many "libertarians" balk when discussing liberty.
If you see nothing wrong with national borders enforced by government; if you see nothing wrong with taxation as a concept; if you don't recognize aggressive war (the business of the state) as murder on a massive scale; if you accept that government has the authority to do things that you or I can not do, then what is the difference from any Demopublican out there? If you don't accept that the philosophy of non-aggression applies to ALL individuals, including those employed by the state, what is your line-in-the-sand? I'm not aiming any of these remarks at Ms. Mercer, as I don't really know, but otherwise, why would her opinions not be as popular among those who hunger for real liberty as they might otherwise be? Those who believe in the legitimacy of the state are unlikely to embrace any real limits on their god and probably will not ever support liberty over the state in any substantive way. So, why cater to them?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Continuing to distill my thinking about 'rights'
Continuing to distill my thinking about 'rights'
I suppose I am still thinking about the nature of "rights". The subject tends to crop up in the comments from time to time. I normally keep distilling a concept down to simpler terms the longer I contemplate it. My most recent thought doesn't override my earlier thoughts, but clarifies them.
I think it really boils down to this: A "right" is something you can do without harming any innocent individual. This means there are some pretty trivial matters that are within your rights. There are some pretty incredibly important ones, as well. No one has the authority to prohibit you from exercising any of your rights- trivial or monumental. Only when you violate another person's rights does anyone have a right to step in and stop your actions.
It doesn't matter if the right is recognized specifically by any "authority". It doesn't matter if you sat down and analyzed a particular right. It doesn't even really depend upon your defense of your rights. You have them whether you defend or exercise them. I recommend exercising any right you want.
Does this qualify as "navel gazing"? If I don't gaze at my navel, who would notice if it has a problem? Perhaps this is all I am qualified to do.
**********************
I suppose I am still thinking about the nature of "rights". The subject tends to crop up in the comments from time to time. I normally keep distilling a concept down to simpler terms the longer I contemplate it. My most recent thought doesn't override my earlier thoughts, but clarifies them.
I think it really boils down to this: A "right" is something you can do without harming any innocent individual. This means there are some pretty trivial matters that are within your rights. There are some pretty incredibly important ones, as well. No one has the authority to prohibit you from exercising any of your rights- trivial or monumental. Only when you violate another person's rights does anyone have a right to step in and stop your actions.
It doesn't matter if the right is recognized specifically by any "authority". It doesn't matter if you sat down and analyzed a particular right. It doesn't even really depend upon your defense of your rights. You have them whether you defend or exercise them. I recommend exercising any right you want.
Does this qualify as "navel gazing"? If I don't gaze at my navel, who would notice if it has a problem? Perhaps this is all I am qualified to do.
**********************
Monday, June 29, 2009
Immigration, amnesty, and biometrics
Immigration, amnesty, and biometrics
Are you an advocate of freedom? Do you acknowledge that freedom includes the right to live where you want as long as you voluntarily buy or rent the property you move on to? Do you recognize the absolute right of any person to sell or rent property to whomever they wish, for any price that can be agreed upon? Do you think the state's wishes override these rights? Then you might be a "borderist".
There should be no question of "amnesty", as there should be no one who believes that governments own people. Governmental "laws" that do not directly address actual initiated force (physical attacks) or theft (stealing or defrauding) are counterfeit "laws" which have no moral or ethical foundation. Enforcing such "laws" harms people who do not deserve to be harmed right now, and is therefore an evil act. Advocating or supporting such acts is just as wrong. You can't sic the state on someone just because you don't like them- if you have principles.
Even among "borderline borderists" there is a lot of talk about the dangers of the state tracking, through the use of biometrics, those it believes it owns. The problem is that the really bad people will not comply, and will find a way around the tracking. Bad people always do. The only ones harmed in any scheme like this are the people who are inclined to obey "laws" anyway. And make no mistake: it is a scheme. Hatched to provide a way to track everything you do, from every job you apply for, to every dollar you earn or spend, to every gun you own.
Homeland / Fatherland / Motherland... the terms are slightly different, but the statism behind them all is the same. It is the authoritarian attitude that the State is of prime importance and must be protected from freedom at all costs. Individuals are only useful as a lubricant on the gears of the state. Stop being useful as lubricant, and you will be burned as fuel.
The only way to keep the state from trampling YOU as a consequence of a misguided and insane call to "secure the borders" is to pull the rug out from under all the "borderists"; private and governmental. National borders shouldn't matter to individuals; only to governments. You have your own personal property borders to worry about. The state thinks its borders outrank yours. They are dead wrong. Show them that you see through the smoke, mirrors, and tyranny. Don't fall for the lie.
Are you an advocate of freedom? Do you acknowledge that freedom includes the right to live where you want as long as you voluntarily buy or rent the property you move on to? Do you recognize the absolute right of any person to sell or rent property to whomever they wish, for any price that can be agreed upon? Do you think the state's wishes override these rights? Then you might be a "borderist".
There should be no question of "amnesty", as there should be no one who believes that governments own people. Governmental "laws" that do not directly address actual initiated force (physical attacks) or theft (stealing or defrauding) are counterfeit "laws" which have no moral or ethical foundation. Enforcing such "laws" harms people who do not deserve to be harmed right now, and is therefore an evil act. Advocating or supporting such acts is just as wrong. You can't sic the state on someone just because you don't like them- if you have principles.
Even among "borderline borderists" there is a lot of talk about the dangers of the state tracking, through the use of biometrics, those it believes it owns. The problem is that the really bad people will not comply, and will find a way around the tracking. Bad people always do. The only ones harmed in any scheme like this are the people who are inclined to obey "laws" anyway. And make no mistake: it is a scheme. Hatched to provide a way to track everything you do, from every job you apply for, to every dollar you earn or spend, to every gun you own.
Homeland / Fatherland / Motherland... the terms are slightly different, but the statism behind them all is the same. It is the authoritarian attitude that the State is of prime importance and must be protected from freedom at all costs. Individuals are only useful as a lubricant on the gears of the state. Stop being useful as lubricant, and you will be burned as fuel.
The only way to keep the state from trampling YOU as a consequence of a misguided and insane call to "secure the borders" is to pull the rug out from under all the "borderists"; private and governmental. National borders shouldn't matter to individuals; only to governments. You have your own personal property borders to worry about. The state thinks its borders outrank yours. They are dead wrong. Show them that you see through the smoke, mirrors, and tyranny. Don't fall for the lie.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Government is incompetent and should be fired
Government is incompetent and should be fired
The ONLY legitimate "job" of ANY government is to protect the rights of the people it claims to "govern". Period. Any other things it coercively does, like "coin money" (or counterfeit it, in the case of the Federal Reserve), or control "immigration", in actuality and practice violates the rights of the individuals who find themselves at the mercy of the state.
One thing that often gets muddled is when statists make some bizarre statement about government being there to protect "the people". Nonsense. It is the government's job to protect the RIGHTS of the individuals, not the individuals themselves, and certainly not some mythological collective called "the people". Protect the rights and people can protect themselves. Violate the rights, as all governments inevitably do, and the people find themselves needing to protect themselves from government first, before any freelance predator can be dealt with.
Since every government that has ever existed has proven to be completely incapable of doing that job, all governments are worse than useless. Electing different politicians won't solve the problem. Getting the "right laws" enacted won't solve the problem. Ignoring reality won't solve the problem. Tar and feathers might solve some of the problem, but the best solution is to refuse to hear or obey the government's evermore twisted edicts. Let the statists struggle among themselves in an increasingly irrelevant wrestling match. Don't even laugh at them. They think you approve when you pay attention.
The truth of the matter is: You are the only one who is capable of protecting your rights. You may not like the job, may not be good at it, and you may even refuse to do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is your responsibility and you can't pay someone else to do it for you; especially not with other people's money.
The ONLY legitimate "job" of ANY government is to protect the rights of the people it claims to "govern". Period. Any other things it coercively does, like "coin money" (or counterfeit it, in the case of the Federal Reserve), or control "immigration", in actuality and practice violates the rights of the individuals who find themselves at the mercy of the state.
One thing that often gets muddled is when statists make some bizarre statement about government being there to protect "the people". Nonsense. It is the government's job to protect the RIGHTS of the individuals, not the individuals themselves, and certainly not some mythological collective called "the people". Protect the rights and people can protect themselves. Violate the rights, as all governments inevitably do, and the people find themselves needing to protect themselves from government first, before any freelance predator can be dealt with.
Since every government that has ever existed has proven to be completely incapable of doing that job, all governments are worse than useless. Electing different politicians won't solve the problem. Getting the "right laws" enacted won't solve the problem. Ignoring reality won't solve the problem. Tar and feathers might solve some of the problem, but the best solution is to refuse to hear or obey the government's evermore twisted edicts. Let the statists struggle among themselves in an increasingly irrelevant wrestling match. Don't even laugh at them. They think you approve when you pay attention.
The truth of the matter is: You are the only one who is capable of protecting your rights. You may not like the job, may not be good at it, and you may even refuse to do it. It doesn't change the fact that it is your responsibility and you can't pay someone else to do it for you; especially not with other people's money.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The census- just say 'huh?'
The census- just say 'huh?'
Soon armies of civic-minded busybodies will flow across the land like locusts. They will be poking their noses into every aspect of your life, and getting GPS coordinates for every front door.
Yes, I realize the Constitution (RIP) authorizes, in a flimsy way, a periodic census of how many people live in the "nation" (and NOTHING else). Why is the information needed? Supposedly for knowing how to apportion the "representatives" and enable other functions of "voting" and governmental meddling. So what? When the Constitution is wrong, it is really wrong. Seems like a good reason to avoid these nosy meddlers to me.
An amusing "legal" fact is that it is "illegal" to refuse to answer the questions that it is "unconstitutional" for them to ask. What happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable object?
While you can't legally shoot these "trespassers with clipboards", you can treat them like door to door religion-pushers. Ignore, avoid, and/or confound them at every turn. You would do well to avoid answering any questions for the census-takers if you can manage it. Become an absolute simpleton; completely unable to comprehend the questions. Or suddenly convert to Jediism and remember the family of Jawas living with you and include them in your answers. And you did marry your cat last year, didn't you?
If you really believe it, it is "true enough" for the state, right? After all, that's how they get around the limits on their authority to enact "laws" they really, REALLY want.
Soon armies of civic-minded busybodies will flow across the land like locusts. They will be poking their noses into every aspect of your life, and getting GPS coordinates for every front door.
Yes, I realize the Constitution (RIP) authorizes, in a flimsy way, a periodic census of how many people live in the "nation" (and NOTHING else). Why is the information needed? Supposedly for knowing how to apportion the "representatives" and enable other functions of "voting" and governmental meddling. So what? When the Constitution is wrong, it is really wrong. Seems like a good reason to avoid these nosy meddlers to me.
An amusing "legal" fact is that it is "illegal" to refuse to answer the questions that it is "unconstitutional" for them to ask. What happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable object?
While you can't legally shoot these "trespassers with clipboards", you can treat them like door to door religion-pushers. Ignore, avoid, and/or confound them at every turn. You would do well to avoid answering any questions for the census-takers if you can manage it. Become an absolute simpleton; completely unable to comprehend the questions. Or suddenly convert to Jediism and remember the family of Jawas living with you and include them in your answers. And you did marry your cat last year, didn't you?
If you really believe it, it is "true enough" for the state, right? After all, that's how they get around the limits on their authority to enact "laws" they really, REALLY want.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Harold Koh- Playing by the 'global rules'
Harold Koh- Playing by the 'global rules'
I got an email alert from Gun Owners of America (a much better gun rights organization than the quislings at the NRA, in my opinion) concerning the nomination of Harold Hongju Koh to the State Department. According to GOA, Mr. Koh:
Really? So if everyone else jumped off a cliff into molten lava Mr. Koh would do it too? Or would he just push you and me over the edge? What if "the global rules" are wrong (as sensible people suspect)? Does Mr. Koh only like the "global rules" if they conform to his socialist, genocide-enabling agenda? Like the widespread global epidemic of illegitimate governments which violate the right of all people to own and to carry guns?
There is only one "global rule": Do not attack or steal from the innocent. Let's bring all governments into conformity with that one before we worry about anything else. Of course, that would mean abolishing all government at every level until only self-government is left. So, let's get to it.
Diversity is supposed to be such a good thing. One size does not fit all, Mr. Koh. Let me be free to find my own way, and you can be free to jump into molten lava. OK?
I got an email alert from Gun Owners of America (a much better gun rights organization than the quislings at the NRA, in my opinion) concerning the nomination of Harold Hongju Koh to the State Department. According to GOA, Mr. Koh:
who served at the State Department under the Clinton administration, is a
self-described "trans-nationalist" who believes that our laws -- and our
Constitution -- should be brought into conformity with international agreements.
"If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the global
rules," Koh told a Cleveland audience.
Really? So if everyone else jumped off a cliff into molten lava Mr. Koh would do it too? Or would he just push you and me over the edge? What if "the global rules" are wrong (as sensible people suspect)? Does Mr. Koh only like the "global rules" if they conform to his socialist, genocide-enabling agenda? Like the widespread global epidemic of illegitimate governments which violate the right of all people to own and to carry guns?
There is only one "global rule": Do not attack or steal from the innocent. Let's bring all governments into conformity with that one before we worry about anything else. Of course, that would mean abolishing all government at every level until only self-government is left. So, let's get to it.
Diversity is supposed to be such a good thing. One size does not fit all, Mr. Koh. Let me be free to find my own way, and you can be free to jump into molten lava. OK?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Drug use is within your rights, but is it worth it?
Drug use is within your rights, but is it worth it?
Recently while talking to a person, they told me that they have a right to put any mind-altering chemical (called "drugs" by the state) into their body that they want. I quickly agreed, but made a point they seem to be missing. My advice would be the same to anyone in this position.
I also have an absolute human right to carry, openly or concealed, any gun I own everywhere I go, but it isn't always the wisest action because of counterfeit "laws" and overzealous LEOs (Liberty Eradication Operatives). So, while I agree that you have a fundamental human right to use any "drug" you wish, as long as you are not attacking people to get it or harming anyone while under its influence, I also want for you to understand that it may not be in your best interest to do so, even ignoring any health consequences.
There are unjust consequences you need to be aware of. It may prevent you from getting the job you want. While you would be wise to refuse to work for any company that perversely wants your urine, as long as government encourages such sexual molestation, it will probably continue. Employers have a right to refuse to hire anyone for any reason. Even stupid reasons. Also remember that LEOs will use the excuse of thinking you may have "drugs" in your possession to storm your house at 3AM, shoot your dogs, stomp your kittens, and electrically torture your spouse and children before kidnapping or murdering you. Avoiding "drugs" does not assure your safety from badged thugs, but it doesn't hurt either. However, it is your choice and I will not cast stones regardless of your decision.
I can't tell you what to do, nor should I. Nor should the state. "Right" doesn't always mean "smart". Weigh the costs, benefits, and possible consequences of anything you do. Then make an informed decision. Whether it is "illegal" or not.
Recently while talking to a person, they told me that they have a right to put any mind-altering chemical (called "drugs" by the state) into their body that they want. I quickly agreed, but made a point they seem to be missing. My advice would be the same to anyone in this position.
I also have an absolute human right to carry, openly or concealed, any gun I own everywhere I go, but it isn't always the wisest action because of counterfeit "laws" and overzealous LEOs (Liberty Eradication Operatives). So, while I agree that you have a fundamental human right to use any "drug" you wish, as long as you are not attacking people to get it or harming anyone while under its influence, I also want for you to understand that it may not be in your best interest to do so, even ignoring any health consequences.
There are unjust consequences you need to be aware of. It may prevent you from getting the job you want. While you would be wise to refuse to work for any company that perversely wants your urine, as long as government encourages such sexual molestation, it will probably continue. Employers have a right to refuse to hire anyone for any reason. Even stupid reasons. Also remember that LEOs will use the excuse of thinking you may have "drugs" in your possession to storm your house at 3AM, shoot your dogs, stomp your kittens, and electrically torture your spouse and children before kidnapping or murdering you. Avoiding "drugs" does not assure your safety from badged thugs, but it doesn't hurt either. However, it is your choice and I will not cast stones regardless of your decision.
I can't tell you what to do, nor should I. Nor should the state. "Right" doesn't always mean "smart". Weigh the costs, benefits, and possible consequences of anything you do. Then make an informed decision. Whether it is "illegal" or not.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Bulldoze the public schools and sow salt upon the ruins*
Bulldoze the public schools and sow salt upon the ruins*
As the inimitable Anne Cleveland has pointed out on several occasions, "public schools" are based upon socialism, so it is no wonder that Americans now fully embrace socialism without ever realizing what they are doing. They will complain about socialism in others while practicing it in their own lives. Public "free education", which is neither, has numbed them to reality and blinded them to the truth.
Even if it were necessary to hold children hostage in an authoritarian hell-hole to force them to learn, it would still be wrong. Children and teenagers (who are not "children", no matter how much the control-freaks wish they were) do not need to be trained to regulate their lives and bodily functions to a rigid, bell-enforced schedule. They do not need to be searched like inmates when they show up in the morning. They do not need to be subjected to the imbecilic "drug warriors" of the local LEO hive. They don't need to be punished, nor do their parents, if they decide it is not in their best interest to continue showing up in these mini concentration camps five miserable days a week, nine months a year for twelve (or more) long years.
The fact that it isn't necessary, and even gives the majority of kids a life-long aversion to anything they see as remotely educational, makes it completely evil. "Public schooling" has degraded to nothing less than compulsory statist brain-washing. It needs to end. Immediately! Education is much too important to leave to government. Our progeny and their minds are much too important to allow statist propaganda to damage.
*The headline is an admonition borrowed and paraphrased from L. Neil Smith
As the inimitable Anne Cleveland has pointed out on several occasions, "public schools" are based upon socialism, so it is no wonder that Americans now fully embrace socialism without ever realizing what they are doing. They will complain about socialism in others while practicing it in their own lives. Public "free education", which is neither, has numbed them to reality and blinded them to the truth.
Even if it were necessary to hold children hostage in an authoritarian hell-hole to force them to learn, it would still be wrong. Children and teenagers (who are not "children", no matter how much the control-freaks wish they were) do not need to be trained to regulate their lives and bodily functions to a rigid, bell-enforced schedule. They do not need to be searched like inmates when they show up in the morning. They do not need to be subjected to the imbecilic "drug warriors" of the local LEO hive. They don't need to be punished, nor do their parents, if they decide it is not in their best interest to continue showing up in these mini concentration camps five miserable days a week, nine months a year for twelve (or more) long years.
The fact that it isn't necessary, and even gives the majority of kids a life-long aversion to anything they see as remotely educational, makes it completely evil. "Public schooling" has degraded to nothing less than compulsory statist brain-washing. It needs to end. Immediately! Education is much too important to leave to government. Our progeny and their minds are much too important to allow statist propaganda to damage.
*The headline is an admonition borrowed and paraphrased from L. Neil Smith
Monday, June 22, 2009
Friendly chat about anarchy
Friendly chat about anarchy
I have lived in many different parts of the country, in big cities and in rural areas. Even a few years in the North-Eastern US. People are pretty much the same everywhere I have been, but maybe it is because of the way I deal with them. City people do seem a bit ruder at first, but will warm up quickly when you don't return the rudeness, at least in my case. They continue to stare at me, though.
Part of the reason people in cities are more aggressive is that we have made it safe for them to be that way. We have removed all the repercussions and given them free-rein. Once again, "laws" protect them from the consequences of their actions. People in small towns also give you the finger. Maybe not as often, but with just as much, or more, feeling when it happens.
The good thing about living by the Zero Aggression Principle is that it doesn't require the cooperation of the bad guys in order to work in the real world as it exists today. I know this from personal experience. I am not really an overly optimistic person or delusionally trusting, either.
Does living a voluntary life work better some places than others? Not in my experience. It isn't necessarily the case in small towns or rural areas that people are nicer or that reputation is more important. Just be unfortunate enough to be different or threaten the status quo and see how thin the "friendly veneer" really is. The reason reputation feedback of the sort I advocate isn't important today is because such a system isn't being used and depended on in our society yet. Yes, I realize that is a circular argument. If a system of "reputation feedback" is wanted, it will develop. If there is a market for it, someone will willingly provide it, and there will probably even be competing providers each trying to be the best- the most accurate and fair. Personal acquaintance isn't necessary. I have never personally known anyone I dealt with on eBay, but I can still check their feedback and see if I am willing to deal with them.
There would still be conflicts, since we are talking about interactions between real people who are prone to misunderstandings and disagreements. I could go into the whole idea of "dispute resolution organizations" and such, to explain how one such possible future might play out, but you can google more information from experts much smarter than me.
If you know of a person who talks about stealing things, even if you have no real proof, you should probably accept them at their word. You could make a note of their admission to your "insurance" provider, who could then provide the information to the report. If you lie, your company could penalize or drop you, and your reputation would get damaged. If the person disputes it, an investigation could be done by his "company" and yours. (Remember, these are all just possibilities that I can see right now, and not necessarily the only solutions the market will discover.) Some other people might brag about committing violence, or speak of violent fantasies. These people would figure out quite quickly that government was protecting them from retribution if they act upon their aggressive fantasies. Of course, without government regulations, businesses catering to fulfilling these fantasies voluntarily might fill their needs instead of them risking being killed in the act.
Just remember that in a free society, the risk of doing business with a person who has violated the rights of others would make it important to have a way of knowing whom to trust and who would be a risk. You would be free to do business with anyone you wanted, of course, but why risk your reputation and also take the chance that he will steal from, or attack, you (or your other customers) as he has done to others in the past?
If people are looking for handouts, let private charities give them one. No one is owed a handout like the state has brainwashed them into believing. All welfare should obviously be ended and replaced by private, voluntary, charity. Anything else is theft. Small town and rural people are just as likely to look for government handouts. They call them "farm subsidies", "Medicare", and "Social Security", but they are still welfare. These salt-of-the-earth people will attack you violently for pointing that uncomfortable fact out to them.
The good thing about "my system of government" is that it works even if people would like to be parasites. If that is their true desire, let them set up their own subsystem within the free society. Nothing would prevent or prohibit that. Let people subscribe to be taken care of if that is their choice. Just realize that those who choose to not participate will defend their right to stay out of the system. Those who do not subscribe would also not be able to avoid paying into the system and then, if everything goes wrong, decide they now want to be taken care of. Charity would be their option instead. They had better hope they maintained a good enough reputation that others will want to help them.
Some people claim that New Orleans, after Katrina, is an example of life without government. I don't see it that way at all. New Orleans is a perfect example of how government makes any situation worse by many orders of magnitude. Look what caused the flooding to be catastrophic instead of natural, and what prevented REAL help. It wasn't "anarchy"; it was "chaos-by-government".
I have lived in many different parts of the country, in big cities and in rural areas. Even a few years in the North-Eastern US. People are pretty much the same everywhere I have been, but maybe it is because of the way I deal with them. City people do seem a bit ruder at first, but will warm up quickly when you don't return the rudeness, at least in my case. They continue to stare at me, though.
Part of the reason people in cities are more aggressive is that we have made it safe for them to be that way. We have removed all the repercussions and given them free-rein. Once again, "laws" protect them from the consequences of their actions. People in small towns also give you the finger. Maybe not as often, but with just as much, or more, feeling when it happens.
The good thing about living by the Zero Aggression Principle is that it doesn't require the cooperation of the bad guys in order to work in the real world as it exists today. I know this from personal experience. I am not really an overly optimistic person or delusionally trusting, either.
Does living a voluntary life work better some places than others? Not in my experience. It isn't necessarily the case in small towns or rural areas that people are nicer or that reputation is more important. Just be unfortunate enough to be different or threaten the status quo and see how thin the "friendly veneer" really is. The reason reputation feedback of the sort I advocate isn't important today is because such a system isn't being used and depended on in our society yet. Yes, I realize that is a circular argument. If a system of "reputation feedback" is wanted, it will develop. If there is a market for it, someone will willingly provide it, and there will probably even be competing providers each trying to be the best- the most accurate and fair. Personal acquaintance isn't necessary. I have never personally known anyone I dealt with on eBay, but I can still check their feedback and see if I am willing to deal with them.
There would still be conflicts, since we are talking about interactions between real people who are prone to misunderstandings and disagreements. I could go into the whole idea of "dispute resolution organizations" and such, to explain how one such possible future might play out, but you can google more information from experts much smarter than me.
If you know of a person who talks about stealing things, even if you have no real proof, you should probably accept them at their word. You could make a note of their admission to your "insurance" provider, who could then provide the information to the report. If you lie, your company could penalize or drop you, and your reputation would get damaged. If the person disputes it, an investigation could be done by his "company" and yours. (Remember, these are all just possibilities that I can see right now, and not necessarily the only solutions the market will discover.) Some other people might brag about committing violence, or speak of violent fantasies. These people would figure out quite quickly that government was protecting them from retribution if they act upon their aggressive fantasies. Of course, without government regulations, businesses catering to fulfilling these fantasies voluntarily might fill their needs instead of them risking being killed in the act.
Just remember that in a free society, the risk of doing business with a person who has violated the rights of others would make it important to have a way of knowing whom to trust and who would be a risk. You would be free to do business with anyone you wanted, of course, but why risk your reputation and also take the chance that he will steal from, or attack, you (or your other customers) as he has done to others in the past?
If people are looking for handouts, let private charities give them one. No one is owed a handout like the state has brainwashed them into believing. All welfare should obviously be ended and replaced by private, voluntary, charity. Anything else is theft. Small town and rural people are just as likely to look for government handouts. They call them "farm subsidies", "Medicare", and "Social Security", but they are still welfare. These salt-of-the-earth people will attack you violently for pointing that uncomfortable fact out to them.
The good thing about "my system of government" is that it works even if people would like to be parasites. If that is their true desire, let them set up their own subsystem within the free society. Nothing would prevent or prohibit that. Let people subscribe to be taken care of if that is their choice. Just realize that those who choose to not participate will defend their right to stay out of the system. Those who do not subscribe would also not be able to avoid paying into the system and then, if everything goes wrong, decide they now want to be taken care of. Charity would be their option instead. They had better hope they maintained a good enough reputation that others will want to help them.
Some people claim that New Orleans, after Katrina, is an example of life without government. I don't see it that way at all. New Orleans is a perfect example of how government makes any situation worse by many orders of magnitude. Look what caused the flooding to be catastrophic instead of natural, and what prevented REAL help. It wasn't "anarchy"; it was "chaos-by-government".
Sunday, June 21, 2009
All economies are based upon barter
All economies are based upon barter
Let me begin with a joke I received in an email:
I'll tell you what is really scary. The above "joke" illustrates why people fall for government meddling in the free market: they haven't got the slightest clue about economics. All money is, is a place-holder for value, like the $100 bill in the joke. In a closed economy like the fictional one above, the money was unnecessary. The people had been bartering all along. There was no debt. They just didn't realize it, being brainwashed into depending upon "money". The $100 bill only made them happy about a situation that was already equitable. It was a placebo.
Money is not "bad", but it isn't the only system possible, and may not even be preferable in some instances. US dollars are fiat currency that has no real value except as a piece of paper; an IOU. All voluntary economies are barter systems. Even one based upon trading time for money that you then trade for goods and services. You can call the system anything you like as long as no theft or coercion is a part of the system. Once coercion becomes a part of your economy it has lost its legitimacy. Once theft is institutionalized (by calling it "taxation" or "eminent domain") or once a "war" on something (like "drugs" or guns) has been embraced, your "system" has become just another disgusting authoritarian regime. No legitimate society would ever allow Rulers to impose counterfeit "laws" that nullify or punish voluntary barter of anything as long as no innocent third party is harmed.
Let me begin with a joke I received in an email:
Economics 101
An insight on how the U. S. conducts business these days.
It is a slow day in the East Texas town of Madisonville.
It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. Times are tough,
everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from the East is driving through
town.
He enters the only hotel in the sleepy town and lays a hundred dollar bill
on the desk stating he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one
to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks up the stairs, the hotel proprietor takes the
hundred dollar bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to pay his debt to the
pig farmer. The pig farmer then takes the $100 and heads off to pay his debt to
the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to
the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has lately had to
offer her "services" on credit.
The hooker runs to the hotel and pays off her debt with the $100 to the
hotel proprietor, paying for the rooms that she had rented when she brought
clients to that establishment.
The hotel proprietor then lays the $100 bill back on the counter so the
rich traveler will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveler from the East walks back down the stairs, after
inspecting the rooms.
He picks up the $100 bill and states that the rooms are not
satisfactory...... Pockets the money and walks out the door and leaves
town.
No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt, and
looks to the future with a lot of optimism.
And that ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is
conducting business today.
If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, then I don't know what
will.
I'll tell you what is really scary. The above "joke" illustrates why people fall for government meddling in the free market: they haven't got the slightest clue about economics. All money is, is a place-holder for value, like the $100 bill in the joke. In a closed economy like the fictional one above, the money was unnecessary. The people had been bartering all along. There was no debt. They just didn't realize it, being brainwashed into depending upon "money". The $100 bill only made them happy about a situation that was already equitable. It was a placebo.
Money is not "bad", but it isn't the only system possible, and may not even be preferable in some instances. US dollars are fiat currency that has no real value except as a piece of paper; an IOU. All voluntary economies are barter systems. Even one based upon trading time for money that you then trade for goods and services. You can call the system anything you like as long as no theft or coercion is a part of the system. Once coercion becomes a part of your economy it has lost its legitimacy. Once theft is institutionalized (by calling it "taxation" or "eminent domain") or once a "war" on something (like "drugs" or guns) has been embraced, your "system" has become just another disgusting authoritarian regime. No legitimate society would ever allow Rulers to impose counterfeit "laws" that nullify or punish voluntary barter of anything as long as no innocent third party is harmed.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Predicting "Libertopia"
Predicting 'Libertopia'
I wish I had the foresight to be able to tell you exactly what to expect in a truly free society. I wish I could tell you all of the wonderful, exciting new things in store for us, as well as any pitfalls that we could avoid by planning now. I can't, though. Neither can anyone else. I can imagine, extrapolate, and calculate, but despite everything, there will always be surprises. In all the history of the world, there has never been a truly free society, although some have come close and made waves.
We have no good, real-world models to point to for examples. Technology has opened up possibilities that were not available a generation ago. What was "impossible" then is only stopped by inertia now.
Some people dwell on the fact that no one quite knows how the road system would work itself out in a free country, so they timidly cling to the current government monopoly instead of realizing that taking chances can be exhilarating and liberating. There will come a day when we will shake our heads in wonder that we ever settled for government roads.
I know there may be times that, at first, things may not be smooth in the transition. That is to be expected. As long as we refuse to settle for less than true liberty, we will find the way that works. I can think of several areas that some might be convinced that government control is the only way to protect our interests. Food and drug safety, doctor licensing, border guards, disaster recovery, and such are some areas that have been mentioned to me. I can see free-market solutions to all these things, where anything is needed, that is, that I think would actually work better that the current broken system.
To act like frightened children and stubbornly cling to the familiar is like Stockholm Syndrome; identifying and sympathizing with your captors. Let's free ourselves and begin the exciting journey into the unknown world of Libertopia. Just say "no" to government at all levels.
I wish I had the foresight to be able to tell you exactly what to expect in a truly free society. I wish I could tell you all of the wonderful, exciting new things in store for us, as well as any pitfalls that we could avoid by planning now. I can't, though. Neither can anyone else. I can imagine, extrapolate, and calculate, but despite everything, there will always be surprises. In all the history of the world, there has never been a truly free society, although some have come close and made waves.
We have no good, real-world models to point to for examples. Technology has opened up possibilities that were not available a generation ago. What was "impossible" then is only stopped by inertia now.
Some people dwell on the fact that no one quite knows how the road system would work itself out in a free country, so they timidly cling to the current government monopoly instead of realizing that taking chances can be exhilarating and liberating. There will come a day when we will shake our heads in wonder that we ever settled for government roads.
I know there may be times that, at first, things may not be smooth in the transition. That is to be expected. As long as we refuse to settle for less than true liberty, we will find the way that works. I can think of several areas that some might be convinced that government control is the only way to protect our interests. Food and drug safety, doctor licensing, border guards, disaster recovery, and such are some areas that have been mentioned to me. I can see free-market solutions to all these things, where anything is needed, that is, that I think would actually work better that the current broken system.
To act like frightened children and stubbornly cling to the familiar is like Stockholm Syndrome; identifying and sympathizing with your captors. Let's free ourselves and begin the exciting journey into the unknown world of Libertopia. Just say "no" to government at all levels.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Competing, voluntary governments could be better choice
Competing, voluntary governments could be better choice
In a comment a couple of days ago, MamaLiberty spoke of the Constitution establishing a non-voluntary government. That is true. People seem to accept, on the whole, that government is necessarily non-voluntary. At least if you get rid of the nonsense about voting making government "of the people". Government, as it now exists, is a coercive monopoly.
But why should government be non-voluntary? Why not let people choose among competing governments? If it is good enough for us where cell phone companies or insurance providers are concerned, why not governments too? Some people would scream about those who refuse to sign on with ANY government, if given a choice. Well, what about those people who refuse a government? If government is so wonderful, why would anyone refuse? If, as is so often claimed, governments benefit those who live under them, people would be clamoring to sign on with some government, right? Especially if you could choose the features you want. Or, if governments really give no benefits, or if the liabilities outweigh the benefits, maybe it is time for governments to change or go out of business.
If a government can arise that can compete, and prosper, others would adopt the good parts of that one while trying to improve upon the model. Want your government to provide welfare? Fine, but you will bear the cost, as your government can't "tax" anyone not on their client list. Want to keep all your money all your working life, but collect some equivalent of Social Security in your old age instead of planning ahead? Too late to switch when you retire, unless the welfare-doling government's clients will let you join and live off of them now.
I still prefer good old self-government. The only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.
********************
In a comment a couple of days ago, MamaLiberty spoke of the Constitution establishing a non-voluntary government. That is true. People seem to accept, on the whole, that government is necessarily non-voluntary. At least if you get rid of the nonsense about voting making government "of the people". Government, as it now exists, is a coercive monopoly.
But why should government be non-voluntary? Why not let people choose among competing governments? If it is good enough for us where cell phone companies or insurance providers are concerned, why not governments too? Some people would scream about those who refuse to sign on with ANY government, if given a choice. Well, what about those people who refuse a government? If government is so wonderful, why would anyone refuse? If, as is so often claimed, governments benefit those who live under them, people would be clamoring to sign on with some government, right? Especially if you could choose the features you want. Or, if governments really give no benefits, or if the liabilities outweigh the benefits, maybe it is time for governments to change or go out of business.
If a government can arise that can compete, and prosper, others would adopt the good parts of that one while trying to improve upon the model. Want your government to provide welfare? Fine, but you will bear the cost, as your government can't "tax" anyone not on their client list. Want to keep all your money all your working life, but collect some equivalent of Social Security in your old age instead of planning ahead? Too late to switch when you retire, unless the welfare-doling government's clients will let you join and live off of them now.
I still prefer good old self-government. The only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.
********************
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Anarchy Day comes around again
Anarchy Day comes around again
Tomorrow, June 18th, is my personal "Anarchy Day"; a day on which I choose to perform random acts of anarchy. Feel free to celebrate with me. I think it is time for anarchists to take back the term from the nihilists who have stolen it. Anarchists don't wish to destroy anything other than the coercive collective of government, and the slave mind-set that empowers it.
On our Anarchy Day, each of us sovereign individual anarchists could commit random acts of helpful, public anarchy. Each of us recognizes, of course, that we all, even the most enthusiastic statists, live our daily lives in a basic condition of anarchy. Do you ask permission to eat or fall in love? Of course not. You rule your own life. It is the only way that works unless you are in a coma. For one day, I would like to see us show the rest of the world why anarchism is the only philosophy that really works; without ordering others around and stealing from them.
Choose something that needs to be done, then wear something to indicate your anarchistic philosophy. Perhaps you could work under a Gadsden or Time's Up flag. For your Random Act of Anarchy, I would suggest such acts as picking up trash in a local park, without asking for permission. Or buying a meal for a needy family, without asking government's permission. Fill an elderly man's gas tank, without waiting for someone else to do it. Repair a piece of playground equipment, without waiting for permission from the bureaucrats. See a pattern? Helpful. Public. Self governing. Responsible.
In some instances, you may risk arrest for doing what is right without waiting for the ruling parasites to "allow" it. Think of the publicity you could generate if the local authorities do try to stop your Random Acts of Anarchy. Be sure to have a trusted co-conspirator who will contact the media and publicize your arrest online, perhaps using Twitter like a recent motorhome crew did. In the long run, that might even be the best outcome for demonstrating your moral superiority to the coercive state.
Each of you knows of a way you could help in your local neighborhood. There may be some government "process" that pretends to have jurisdiction or authority over that particular area. As long as you are respecting private property and upholding the principles of self ownership, the sky's the limit. Instead of behaving like a statist or a government sympathizer and whining "Why won't they DO something about it", just take charge and do it. And when you do, be sure to emphasize that you are an anarchist. YOU get the things done that should be done without waiting for Uncle Scam to do it. You don't go to the city council meetings to beg for stolen money to pay for "help", but take control of the situation and do what your morals tell you should be done. Anarchists do not step on the toes of people who are minding their own business and harming no one. We help while we live our lives. As free individuals. Without coercion. Without theft. And best of all, without government.
Tomorrow, June 18th, is my personal "Anarchy Day"; a day on which I choose to perform random acts of anarchy. Feel free to celebrate with me. I think it is time for anarchists to take back the term from the nihilists who have stolen it. Anarchists don't wish to destroy anything other than the coercive collective of government, and the slave mind-set that empowers it.
On our Anarchy Day, each of us sovereign individual anarchists could commit random acts of helpful, public anarchy. Each of us recognizes, of course, that we all, even the most enthusiastic statists, live our daily lives in a basic condition of anarchy. Do you ask permission to eat or fall in love? Of course not. You rule your own life. It is the only way that works unless you are in a coma. For one day, I would like to see us show the rest of the world why anarchism is the only philosophy that really works; without ordering others around and stealing from them.
Choose something that needs to be done, then wear something to indicate your anarchistic philosophy. Perhaps you could work under a Gadsden or Time's Up flag. For your Random Act of Anarchy, I would suggest such acts as picking up trash in a local park, without asking for permission. Or buying a meal for a needy family, without asking government's permission. Fill an elderly man's gas tank, without waiting for someone else to do it. Repair a piece of playground equipment, without waiting for permission from the bureaucrats. See a pattern? Helpful. Public. Self governing. Responsible.
In some instances, you may risk arrest for doing what is right without waiting for the ruling parasites to "allow" it. Think of the publicity you could generate if the local authorities do try to stop your Random Acts of Anarchy. Be sure to have a trusted co-conspirator who will contact the media and publicize your arrest online, perhaps using Twitter like a recent motorhome crew did. In the long run, that might even be the best outcome for demonstrating your moral superiority to the coercive state.
Each of you knows of a way you could help in your local neighborhood. There may be some government "process" that pretends to have jurisdiction or authority over that particular area. As long as you are respecting private property and upholding the principles of self ownership, the sky's the limit. Instead of behaving like a statist or a government sympathizer and whining "Why won't they DO something about it", just take charge and do it. And when you do, be sure to emphasize that you are an anarchist. YOU get the things done that should be done without waiting for Uncle Scam to do it. You don't go to the city council meetings to beg for stolen money to pay for "help", but take control of the situation and do what your morals tell you should be done. Anarchists do not step on the toes of people who are minding their own business and harming no one. We help while we live our lives. As free individuals. Without coercion. Without theft. And best of all, without government.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Pledging allegiance
Pledging allegiance
Um. No.
Even if you discount the socialistic parentage, and Nazi stepchildren, of the Pledge of Allegiance, really reading it should disturb anyone. Pledging allegiance to a flag; a banner made of cloth? "Allegiance" is loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, or devotion. To a flag? What is this flag demanding you do with this "obligation of loyalty"? Invade foreign lands and kill in its name, or in the name of its government? Torture people because you can't prove they are guilty? Violate the rights of the people who blindly worship this banner in order to protect the illegitimate power of the government that waves the banner to distract the people from its real actions? It's disgusting.
The hand-wringing drama over "God" being added to the pledge during the panicky 1950s is not the foundational problem. The Constitution, not the flag, was the basis of the "Republic", but that is a historical curiosity now, isn't it.
No "nation" has ever been, or ever will be, "indivisible" nor should they be. Circumstances change. People change. Divorce happens for a reason. Governments grow ever more corrupt, then they dissolve. As they should. "Forever stamps"? Ridiculous. No government has ever lasted forever, and none ever will. Good riddance to them all.
Liberty? Tell that to people forced to be corralled in "free speech zones" to avoid subjecting politicians to the truth. Justice for all? Try telling that to the millions of political prisoners in America who have harmed no one, but violated some counterfeit "law" against intoxicants, consensual sex, guns, or keeping their own property out of the hands of the federal thieves who "tax".
America was supposed to be united states of America, not this federal perversion of The United States of America. Constitutionally, if you care about such things, there should be no such entity in existence that this pledge is declaring your loyalty to.
At the risk of being hated I will say: I pledge NO allegiance, to any flag, not even of the former America. And of the republic for which it stood: now an empire under surveillance, launching attacks against liberty and justice for all.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all."
Um. No.
Even if you discount the socialistic parentage, and Nazi stepchildren, of the Pledge of Allegiance, really reading it should disturb anyone. Pledging allegiance to a flag; a banner made of cloth? "Allegiance" is loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, or devotion. To a flag? What is this flag demanding you do with this "obligation of loyalty"? Invade foreign lands and kill in its name, or in the name of its government? Torture people because you can't prove they are guilty? Violate the rights of the people who blindly worship this banner in order to protect the illegitimate power of the government that waves the banner to distract the people from its real actions? It's disgusting.
The hand-wringing drama over "God" being added to the pledge during the panicky 1950s is not the foundational problem. The Constitution, not the flag, was the basis of the "Republic", but that is a historical curiosity now, isn't it.
No "nation" has ever been, or ever will be, "indivisible" nor should they be. Circumstances change. People change. Divorce happens for a reason. Governments grow ever more corrupt, then they dissolve. As they should. "Forever stamps"? Ridiculous. No government has ever lasted forever, and none ever will. Good riddance to them all.
Liberty? Tell that to people forced to be corralled in "free speech zones" to avoid subjecting politicians to the truth. Justice for all? Try telling that to the millions of political prisoners in America who have harmed no one, but violated some counterfeit "law" against intoxicants, consensual sex, guns, or keeping their own property out of the hands of the federal thieves who "tax".
America was supposed to be united states of America, not this federal perversion of The United States of America. Constitutionally, if you care about such things, there should be no such entity in existence that this pledge is declaring your loyalty to.
At the risk of being hated I will say: I pledge NO allegiance, to any flag, not even of the former America. And of the republic for which it stood: now an empire under surveillance, launching attacks against liberty and justice for all.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The right path to liberty
The right path to liberty
There are many paths to liberty. I come to realize this when talking to different people who are pursuing liberty - living their own lives - their own way. Each of us has our own mind and conscience that we must live with. What you do, or what I do, may seem counterproductive to others, but that really isn't for anyone else to judge, is it?
That isn't to say some "paths to liberty" are not obviously going the wrong direction. Not all ideas are valid, after all.
I know what seems right to me. I go over these things in my own head all the time; every time I am presented with a choice. Not being psychic I can't possibly know all possible outcomes. Neither can anyone else. That is why freedom is so important. Many trials and many errors can be tried by each of us everyday, as long as we are free to try. In the long run, keeping liberty as our goal, we will get there. No one should stand in your way, especially not others who are trying to find their own path to liberty.
There are many paths to liberty. I come to realize this when talking to different people who are pursuing liberty - living their own lives - their own way. Each of us has our own mind and conscience that we must live with. What you do, or what I do, may seem counterproductive to others, but that really isn't for anyone else to judge, is it?
That isn't to say some "paths to liberty" are not obviously going the wrong direction. Not all ideas are valid, after all.
I know what seems right to me. I go over these things in my own head all the time; every time I am presented with a choice. Not being psychic I can't possibly know all possible outcomes. Neither can anyone else. That is why freedom is so important. Many trials and many errors can be tried by each of us everyday, as long as we are free to try. In the long run, keeping liberty as our goal, we will get there. No one should stand in your way, especially not others who are trying to find their own path to liberty.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Not a perfect world? Live as if it were
Not a perfect world? Live as if it were
I often hear people say that the problem with freedom is that we don't live in a perfect world, and we must therefore accommodate the liberty-crushing edicts and behaviors of the state. The consequences of the state's socialistic and draconian "laws" are ever-present when you try to live a free life. I can see their point, but how will we ever get there if we keep waiting for the goons of the state to "allow" us our freedom? It won't ever happen.
We don't have to wait for "a perfect world" to act as though it is already perfect. We have the principles; they have the "laws". Guess which one is more important. This goes hand-in-hand with my recommendation to "assume liberty" rather than to assume you need permissions or that someone else controls your life. The state will try to block you or punish you. Avoid and ignore them when you can. Sneak around when you need to. Do what you must to stay out of prison, unless you like the idea of martyrdom.
You owe the state nothing but your eternal contempt, but it is up to you to choose to even repay that debt. Government is not worth raising your blood-pressure over. After all, they are dead wrong in everything they do. Remember that.
I often hear people say that the problem with freedom is that we don't live in a perfect world, and we must therefore accommodate the liberty-crushing edicts and behaviors of the state. The consequences of the state's socialistic and draconian "laws" are ever-present when you try to live a free life. I can see their point, but how will we ever get there if we keep waiting for the goons of the state to "allow" us our freedom? It won't ever happen.
We don't have to wait for "a perfect world" to act as though it is already perfect. We have the principles; they have the "laws". Guess which one is more important. This goes hand-in-hand with my recommendation to "assume liberty" rather than to assume you need permissions or that someone else controls your life. The state will try to block you or punish you. Avoid and ignore them when you can. Sneak around when you need to. Do what you must to stay out of prison, unless you like the idea of martyrdom.
You owe the state nothing but your eternal contempt, but it is up to you to choose to even repay that debt. Government is not worth raising your blood-pressure over. After all, they are dead wrong in everything they do. Remember that.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Some folk just don't get it
Some folk just don't get it
Here's a little tale. A tale of denial or obliviousness; maybe both. It is, unfortunately, true.
A young couple, just starting out, is scrimping and saving on important things like food, while spending lavishly on things like $300 sunglasses. She won't let her house mate ride public transportation (not a bad thing, mind you, being financed coercively) to save money because it would be "embarrassing" to the family. None of anyone else's business under normal circumstances. Until...
In order to be able to make ends meet, they apply for food stamps.
Another person, not me, becomes incensed upon hearing the woman bragging about their "smart shopping" with the stolen money, and raises objections. He says "I am paying for your food. Money is taken out of my paycheck every payday to pay for your food stamps!"
Shocked upon hearing this, the woman says: "No, We are just trying to save money". Where did her family go wrong in raising this woman to be responsible for herself? Well, there is more relevant information. Her dad is another kind of tax parasite- a cop- so obviously she has no awareness that every dollar that comes from government must first be stolen from the productive people around her. One generation of tax parasite breeds another.
Here's a little tale. A tale of denial or obliviousness; maybe both. It is, unfortunately, true.
A young couple, just starting out, is scrimping and saving on important things like food, while spending lavishly on things like $300 sunglasses. She won't let her house mate ride public transportation (not a bad thing, mind you, being financed coercively) to save money because it would be "embarrassing" to the family. None of anyone else's business under normal circumstances. Until...
In order to be able to make ends meet, they apply for food stamps.
Another person, not me, becomes incensed upon hearing the woman bragging about their "smart shopping" with the stolen money, and raises objections. He says "I am paying for your food. Money is taken out of my paycheck every payday to pay for your food stamps!"
Shocked upon hearing this, the woman says: "No, We are just trying to save money". Where did her family go wrong in raising this woman to be responsible for herself? Well, there is more relevant information. Her dad is another kind of tax parasite- a cop- so obviously she has no awareness that every dollar that comes from government must first be stolen from the productive people around her. One generation of tax parasite breeds another.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The aftermath of the revolution (video)
The aftermath of the revolution (video)
Well, that was interesting.
I knew posting the "Four Stages of Revolution" video would be controversial, but wasn't prepared for how controversial. First of all, I didn't make the video, so don't blame me for the content if you didn't like it. Everyone has their own tastes and opinions. I liked it. Second, I don't advocate going out and attacking anyone, not even tyrants, under normal circumstances. However, if you say that violent resistance is off-limits no matter what, we part ways... amicably on my part, if you let me.
I do agree with most of what was shown in the video. Yes, some of the revolutionaries shown were despicable people, however that was addressed in Part 2. Watch Part 2 again if you need to. "Collateral damage", when referring to innocent people, is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. If one innocent is harmed, you are no better than the tyrants you fight. One. That is the difference between "us" and the state; let's keep it that way. Government buildings and infrastructure are a different matter. In the case of revolution becoming necessary, many of these things will be commandeered by the agents of the state and off-limits to us mere mortals anyway, at least the non-collaborator mere mortals, so any objections will be moot.
I thought it was explained quite well in the video that it is necessary to let the tyrants know that if we choose to fight back violently, it will be because it is morally right to do so when left no choice. It may not be morally imperative. You always have the option of lying down and dying quietly, if that is your preference. There are many things that are your right to do, but are not smart to do. In most cases, violent revolution is in this category. Sometimes there is really no option, smart or not. If the tyrants know they can push us into that corner, and do so with no repercussions, why would they hesitate? What would you have done if you were one of those in the Warsaw Ghetto? Submit? Complain that you wouldn't want to turn any possible "allies" against you by killing the enemies? They were acting "legally" after all. We are not there yet, but unless you accept that you may be called upon to actively and violently resist, we will be there someday.
What is the difference in violently responding to an attack by a free-lance gang and violently responding to an attack by an officially sanctioned gang? Self defense is self defense. Your chances of coming out alive are probably better when going against the free-lancers, simply by virtue of the math. Millions more will back up the official thugs. Yet, at the moment of the attack, it is better to fight for your life in that battle and let future battles take their turn.
I have always believed it is better to ignore the state and its goons if possible. Ignore its "laws" when you can. Minimize contact with its operatives and supporters. Shun its murderers (FBI, BATFE). But I also believe that when cornered it is time to fight like a rabid wildcat.
Well, that was interesting.
I knew posting the "Four Stages of Revolution" video would be controversial, but wasn't prepared for how controversial. First of all, I didn't make the video, so don't blame me for the content if you didn't like it. Everyone has their own tastes and opinions. I liked it. Second, I don't advocate going out and attacking anyone, not even tyrants, under normal circumstances. However, if you say that violent resistance is off-limits no matter what, we part ways... amicably on my part, if you let me.
I do agree with most of what was shown in the video. Yes, some of the revolutionaries shown were despicable people, however that was addressed in Part 2. Watch Part 2 again if you need to. "Collateral damage", when referring to innocent people, is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. If one innocent is harmed, you are no better than the tyrants you fight. One. That is the difference between "us" and the state; let's keep it that way. Government buildings and infrastructure are a different matter. In the case of revolution becoming necessary, many of these things will be commandeered by the agents of the state and off-limits to us mere mortals anyway, at least the non-collaborator mere mortals, so any objections will be moot.
I thought it was explained quite well in the video that it is necessary to let the tyrants know that if we choose to fight back violently, it will be because it is morally right to do so when left no choice. It may not be morally imperative. You always have the option of lying down and dying quietly, if that is your preference. There are many things that are your right to do, but are not smart to do. In most cases, violent revolution is in this category. Sometimes there is really no option, smart or not. If the tyrants know they can push us into that corner, and do so with no repercussions, why would they hesitate? What would you have done if you were one of those in the Warsaw Ghetto? Submit? Complain that you wouldn't want to turn any possible "allies" against you by killing the enemies? They were acting "legally" after all. We are not there yet, but unless you accept that you may be called upon to actively and violently resist, we will be there someday.
What is the difference in violently responding to an attack by a free-lance gang and violently responding to an attack by an officially sanctioned gang? Self defense is self defense. Your chances of coming out alive are probably better when going against the free-lancers, simply by virtue of the math. Millions more will back up the official thugs. Yet, at the moment of the attack, it is better to fight for your life in that battle and let future battles take their turn.
I have always believed it is better to ignore the state and its goons if possible. Ignore its "laws" when you can. Minimize contact with its operatives and supporters. Shun its murderers (FBI, BATFE). But I also believe that when cornered it is time to fight like a rabid wildcat.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
How far can you go in resisting tyranny?
How far can you go in resisting tyranny?
I received a link to a very interesting video a few days ago. It took me a little time to get around to watching it due to summer activities, but when I finally did, I was very glad I took the time.
The video lays out the justification for revolution using scenes from a big variety of movies, and using a big variety of music, interspersed with some historical photos and footage. It is called "The Four Stages of Revolution" and comes in two parts; the first part, at just over 35 minutes long, is the main body, while the second part runs just under 15 minutes and is almost like footnotes for the first part.
This video is not for everyone. It pulls no punches, and I briefly worried it would get me fired from Examiner if I promoted it here. Still, I think it makes good points and, for those who are really committed to being free in spite of the wishes of the state, it is very inspiring. Self defense from tyrants and their henchmen is "ZAP-compliant", although each act must be weighed independently.
If you have the time, I think you should watch it. And spread it around, either by sending people this link or direct links to the videos. Do it now before it gets banned.
The Four Stages of Revolution- Part 1
The Four Stages of Revolution- Part 2
***************************
I received a link to a very interesting video a few days ago. It took me a little time to get around to watching it due to summer activities, but when I finally did, I was very glad I took the time.
The video lays out the justification for revolution using scenes from a big variety of movies, and using a big variety of music, interspersed with some historical photos and footage. It is called "The Four Stages of Revolution" and comes in two parts; the first part, at just over 35 minutes long, is the main body, while the second part runs just under 15 minutes and is almost like footnotes for the first part.
This video is not for everyone. It pulls no punches, and I briefly worried it would get me fired from Examiner if I promoted it here. Still, I think it makes good points and, for those who are really committed to being free in spite of the wishes of the state, it is very inspiring. Self defense from tyrants and their henchmen is "ZAP-compliant", although each act must be weighed independently.
If you have the time, I think you should watch it. And spread it around, either by sending people this link or direct links to the videos. Do it now before it gets banned.
The Four Stages of Revolution- Part 1
The Four Stages of Revolution- Part 2
***************************
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The distant future of liberty
The distant future of liberty
There will come a time when no one in the entire Universe will even remember the planet Earth ever existed, much less that there was once a species of bipedal ape, native to Earth, who debated and fought over the relative merits of slavery versus liberty (but called it "government versus anarchy").
However, this time, this species, and this Earth are very important to me now. They are mine, and they affect my present and the future of my children.
I know without a doubt which system I would prefer to live in and see my children inherit.
There will come a time when no one in the entire Universe will even remember the planet Earth ever existed, much less that there was once a species of bipedal ape, native to Earth, who debated and fought over the relative merits of slavery versus liberty (but called it "government versus anarchy").
However, this time, this species, and this Earth are very important to me now. They are mine, and they affect my present and the future of my children.
I know without a doubt which system I would prefer to live in and see my children inherit.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: TOLFA: The On Line Freedom Academy
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: TOLFA: The On Line Freedom Academy
For those of you who are interested in exploring the concepts of liberty more in-depth, I recommend TOLFA (The On Line Freedom Academy). I think it is a very good project, plus I enjoyed it immensely when I went through it. And it is free.
I really think that this could be a major help in educating people about the ideas of liberty. The more of us who go through this, the faster government will lose its veil of legitimacy. The lessons will take you on a step-by-step journey to free you of any latent statism that might have escaped your notice. There is also included a good selection of "further readings" that will increase your hunger for freedom as well as your knowledge of what it is you are working toward.
For my part, I pledge to keep encouraging people to "enroll". Please consider trying it out. If you have ever wondered what you can do to promote liberty, well, this is one very good thing.
Jim Davies, the originator of TOLFA, has written an entertaining companion book: A Vision of Liberty. It is a "future history" looking back on the first three years of a truly free society from the year 2030. It is a compact little book; just over 100 pages long. Anyone can squeeze that into their schedule, and you really should. It can get you very excited about the possibilities of a free tomorrow.
Liberty is important enough to spend a little time on, isn't it?. Time today or bullets tomorrow. Choose wisely.
For those of you who are interested in exploring the concepts of liberty more in-depth, I recommend TOLFA (The On Line Freedom Academy). I think it is a very good project, plus I enjoyed it immensely when I went through it. And it is free.
I really think that this could be a major help in educating people about the ideas of liberty. The more of us who go through this, the faster government will lose its veil of legitimacy. The lessons will take you on a step-by-step journey to free you of any latent statism that might have escaped your notice. There is also included a good selection of "further readings" that will increase your hunger for freedom as well as your knowledge of what it is you are working toward.
For my part, I pledge to keep encouraging people to "enroll". Please consider trying it out. If you have ever wondered what you can do to promote liberty, well, this is one very good thing.
Jim Davies, the originator of TOLFA, has written an entertaining companion book: A Vision of Liberty. It is a "future history" looking back on the first three years of a truly free society from the year 2030. It is a compact little book; just over 100 pages long. Anyone can squeeze that into their schedule, and you really should. It can get you very excited about the possibilities of a free tomorrow.
Liberty is important enough to spend a little time on, isn't it?. Time today or bullets tomorrow. Choose wisely.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Libertarian border disputes
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Libertarian border disputes
I'm not talking about "national boundaries" in this case, but the edges of your rights. All libertarians pretty much agree on the basics. Where the differences tend to occur is on the fuzzy edges; the "borders". For example: Abortion- where does the mother's border with the baby lie? Libertarians disagree and can make very good arguments for vastly different positions. Concealed carry- where does your personal property give way to someone else's property lines? This has been debated right here in my column, with me holding the unpopular view. Proportional responses- When is fighting back against an attack "too much", and how far can you go before violating the rights of your attacker? I am currently engaged in such a debate on Opposing Views (although it has recently morphed somewhat).
Perhaps my eyesight gives me the illusion of clear boundaries in some places where no such thing exists. That could be the source of the disagreement. If you and I, or any other two libertarians, don't agree on a boundary, keep discussing it as long as it is instructive. We can all learn from one another, even if we don't reach accord, but don't let it make you lose sight of the real goal: freedom.
The borders are fine to discuss. I think discussion can help resolve some of these issues in our minds. I don't think it is a reasonable or constructive place to spend all your time, though. So much else is so clear, and we have a long road ahead of us before the borders become critical. I would say almost all liberty-lovers agree that the state is wrong when it kidnaps or murders people who are harming no one but themselves, so don't only focus on the instances where not all agree on whether anyone else is being harmed or not. It is a distraction that only serves the interests of the state.
I'm not talking about "national boundaries" in this case, but the edges of your rights. All libertarians pretty much agree on the basics. Where the differences tend to occur is on the fuzzy edges; the "borders". For example: Abortion- where does the mother's border with the baby lie? Libertarians disagree and can make very good arguments for vastly different positions. Concealed carry- where does your personal property give way to someone else's property lines? This has been debated right here in my column, with me holding the unpopular view. Proportional responses- When is fighting back against an attack "too much", and how far can you go before violating the rights of your attacker? I am currently engaged in such a debate on Opposing Views (although it has recently morphed somewhat).
Perhaps my eyesight gives me the illusion of clear boundaries in some places where no such thing exists. That could be the source of the disagreement. If you and I, or any other two libertarians, don't agree on a boundary, keep discussing it as long as it is instructive. We can all learn from one another, even if we don't reach accord, but don't let it make you lose sight of the real goal: freedom.
The borders are fine to discuss. I think discussion can help resolve some of these issues in our minds. I don't think it is a reasonable or constructive place to spend all your time, though. So much else is so clear, and we have a long road ahead of us before the borders become critical. I would say almost all liberty-lovers agree that the state is wrong when it kidnaps or murders people who are harming no one but themselves, so don't only focus on the instances where not all agree on whether anyone else is being harmed or not. It is a distraction that only serves the interests of the state.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Supporting the state because of ignorance, denial, or lack of ethics
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Supporting the state because of ignorance, denial, or lack of ethics
Believe it or not, I am very patient with those who support the state out of ignorance. They are just trying to deal with their own lives and just haven't the time to think about what they are really supporting. Most of them have only a fleeting awareness of the events of the world; their own lives are too demanding of their time and attention. That is perfectly understandable. I would love to see a world where it was safe to ignore politics completely. I know this isn't such a world yet.
I am somewhat less patient with those who know better, but are deep in denial. The truth is painful to these people and they really want to think the best of "their" government. They keep being shocked when government does what governments are born and bred to do. They keep thinking that "the right people", if elected, can turn things around. What do they think voters have been trying to do, without success, since 1776? Do they think the rest of the voters want to turn America into a giant slave-labor camp to serve the masters in Washington, District of Corruption?
The ones I have almost no patience with, and really have all but given up on, are those who see what is going on, and LIKE it. These are the people who claim there are still "good cops" out there in spite of clear evidence to the contrary*; claim that all the wars (and "wars") of the 20th century (and beyond) are justified; say really ignorant things about America being "a nation of laws"; generally support anything the government does as long as it does as long as it is done to someone else. These are the politically aware people who still support the state anyway. There just is no way to excuse that. Some of these people are the ones who will gladly hand you over to the state if they know you have violated a counterfeit "law". These are the ones who always ask "what did they do to deserve it?" when cops abuse or murder someone "in the line of duty". These are the people who get touchy if you make a completely justified comparison of the current American police state to famous 20th century police-states of the fascist or socialist variety, often by incorrectly invoking "Godwin's Law". This is the only way they think they can win, since the truth is not on their side. What more can you say to such people?
____________________________
*If there are still "good cops", why do they not deal with the "bad apples" like the rabid dogs they are? Do they not realize that these "bad apples" spoil the whole barrel and endanger all their lives? When Cory Maye was arrested, where were the "good cops" to point out that a thug is a thug is a thug, and if you kick in someone's door you deserve to be shot as you enter? When Oscar Grant was murdered by a cop, why didn't the other "good cops" in his presence immediately arrest or shoot his badged murderer? Where were the "good cops" when Kathryn Johnston or Sean Bell needed them? In case after case, these "few bad apples" commit mayhem and murder in the presence of other officers and survive to do it again. (And this doesn't even count the cases where the victim survives.) Why, IF there are "good cops", do these "bad apples" not get taken down by their "brother officers"? If it is because of "the system", how could a "good person" become a part of such a corrupt system?.
Believe it or not, I am very patient with those who support the state out of ignorance. They are just trying to deal with their own lives and just haven't the time to think about what they are really supporting. Most of them have only a fleeting awareness of the events of the world; their own lives are too demanding of their time and attention. That is perfectly understandable. I would love to see a world where it was safe to ignore politics completely. I know this isn't such a world yet.
I am somewhat less patient with those who know better, but are deep in denial. The truth is painful to these people and they really want to think the best of "their" government. They keep being shocked when government does what governments are born and bred to do. They keep thinking that "the right people", if elected, can turn things around. What do they think voters have been trying to do, without success, since 1776? Do they think the rest of the voters want to turn America into a giant slave-labor camp to serve the masters in Washington, District of Corruption?
The ones I have almost no patience with, and really have all but given up on, are those who see what is going on, and LIKE it. These are the people who claim there are still "good cops" out there in spite of clear evidence to the contrary*; claim that all the wars (and "wars") of the 20th century (and beyond) are justified; say really ignorant things about America being "a nation of laws"; generally support anything the government does as long as it does as long as it is done to someone else. These are the politically aware people who still support the state anyway. There just is no way to excuse that. Some of these people are the ones who will gladly hand you over to the state if they know you have violated a counterfeit "law". These are the ones who always ask "what did they do to deserve it?" when cops abuse or murder someone "in the line of duty". These are the people who get touchy if you make a completely justified comparison of the current American police state to famous 20th century police-states of the fascist or socialist variety, often by incorrectly invoking "Godwin's Law". This is the only way they think they can win, since the truth is not on their side. What more can you say to such people?
____________________________
*If there are still "good cops", why do they not deal with the "bad apples" like the rabid dogs they are? Do they not realize that these "bad apples" spoil the whole barrel and endanger all their lives? When Cory Maye was arrested, where were the "good cops" to point out that a thug is a thug is a thug, and if you kick in someone's door you deserve to be shot as you enter? When Oscar Grant was murdered by a cop, why didn't the other "good cops" in his presence immediately arrest or shoot his badged murderer? Where were the "good cops" when Kathryn Johnston or Sean Bell needed them? In case after case, these "few bad apples" commit mayhem and murder in the presence of other officers and survive to do it again. (And this doesn't even count the cases where the victim survives.) Why, IF there are "good cops", do these "bad apples" not get taken down by their "brother officers"? If it is because of "the system", how could a "good person" become a part of such a corrupt system?.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Freedom is a finely tuned instrument
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Freedom is a finely tuned instrument
Freedom is like a finely-tuned watch. All the parts work together to make a functional unit. It is fundamentally indivisible, although at first glance it may seem to be made of unrelated bits and pieces, at least to the uninitiated observer.
The case is made of "property rights". Inside, the springs and gears are things like "self-ownership", freedom of travel, freedom of association, and self-defense. Remove even one gear, such as the right to destroy your own life by abusing substances, or the right to immigrate wherever you wish, and the watch may still run, but it is damaged, and will not hold up well. It may lose time. The slightest bump may cause the whole thing to stop dead. Try to substitute a plastic gear for a metal one, like substituting a "privilege" for a "right" and the integrity of the whole is compromised; it won't last long before it breaks.
That is why it is so vitally important to stand up for even the rights that you may despise. If you are concerned with gun rights, you shoot yourself in the foot if you don't stand up for the right of homosexuals to live as they see fit as long as they harm no one else. If you are involved in the right of free speech, you are giving up your voice if you do not speak up for the right of everyone to keep the money they have earned. All rights are intertwined and depend upon one another. I will not support attacks on any rights, since I know it is suicide to be so short-sighted.
Freedom is like a finely-tuned watch. All the parts work together to make a functional unit. It is fundamentally indivisible, although at first glance it may seem to be made of unrelated bits and pieces, at least to the uninitiated observer.
The case is made of "property rights". Inside, the springs and gears are things like "self-ownership", freedom of travel, freedom of association, and self-defense. Remove even one gear, such as the right to destroy your own life by abusing substances, or the right to immigrate wherever you wish, and the watch may still run, but it is damaged, and will not hold up well. It may lose time. The slightest bump may cause the whole thing to stop dead. Try to substitute a plastic gear for a metal one, like substituting a "privilege" for a "right" and the integrity of the whole is compromised; it won't last long before it breaks.
That is why it is so vitally important to stand up for even the rights that you may despise. If you are concerned with gun rights, you shoot yourself in the foot if you don't stand up for the right of homosexuals to live as they see fit as long as they harm no one else. If you are involved in the right of free speech, you are giving up your voice if you do not speak up for the right of everyone to keep the money they have earned. All rights are intertwined and depend upon one another. I will not support attacks on any rights, since I know it is suicide to be so short-sighted.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Killing of Dr. Tiller; murder or not?
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Killing of Dr. Tiller; murder or not?
In the case of the killing of Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor, the right-to-life folks have been falling all over themselves to condemn the killing. Why?
Either abortion is murder, in which case the killing of the murderer in defense of the helpless innocent future victims (which in this unique case, there is no doubt that there would be) is justified, or it is not murder, in which case the killing of an innocent person is not justified. You can't straddle the electric fence here.
Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said that they had worked for years through "peaceful, legal means" to bring Tiller to justice. What a load of adult male Bos taurus fecal matter. "Legal means" are a ridiculous tactic to waste time on if you are trying to stop a murderer. On the other hand, if you are not quite positive you are right, you might want to use the legal system to impose your sense of values on someone else. It requires fewer principles.
In the way of disclosure, I don't like abortion, but I don't think science has enough information to rationally state exactly when a person's life begins. Almost no one REALLY believes a fertilized egg is a person, but almost no one would deny that a full-term baby is. The reality of becoming a person lies somewhere in between. In the case of abortion, where there is doubt, I prefer to err on the side of the woman's rights. When there are no doubts left, I err on the side of the baby. The state is the LAST entity who should be telling people what is "moral" or not.
In the case of the killing of Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor, the right-to-life folks have been falling all over themselves to condemn the killing. Why?
Either abortion is murder, in which case the killing of the murderer in defense of the helpless innocent future victims (which in this unique case, there is no doubt that there would be) is justified, or it is not murder, in which case the killing of an innocent person is not justified. You can't straddle the electric fence here.
Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said that they had worked for years through "peaceful, legal means" to bring Tiller to justice. What a load of adult male Bos taurus fecal matter. "Legal means" are a ridiculous tactic to waste time on if you are trying to stop a murderer. On the other hand, if you are not quite positive you are right, you might want to use the legal system to impose your sense of values on someone else. It requires fewer principles.
In the way of disclosure, I don't like abortion, but I don't think science has enough information to rationally state exactly when a person's life begins. Almost no one REALLY believes a fertilized egg is a person, but almost no one would deny that a full-term baby is. The reality of becoming a person lies somewhere in between. In the case of abortion, where there is doubt, I prefer to err on the side of the woman's rights. When there are no doubts left, I err on the side of the baby. The state is the LAST entity who should be telling people what is "moral" or not.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Are 'illegal immigrants' really your enemy?
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Are 'illegal immigrants' really your enemy?
Leaving aside the obvious point of how corrupt and dangerous to liberty the LEOs (Liberty Eradication Operatives) of America have become, and pretending for a moment that they are a legitimate use of stolen money, I pose a question. What is more important; using enforcers to chase, catch, and deport "illegal immigrants", or using enforcers to chase, catch, and stop aggressive criminals regardless of their status? We know which is safer for the enforcers.
A
m I alone in this, or are there others out there who don't care where the guy standing beside them at the grocery store was born, or what paperwork he filled out for the gang of government thugs, as long as he is not attacking or stealing from anyone?
In order to get jobs, many of these independent migrants use random Social Security numbers. That means they have part of their wages stolen without any hope of ever getting in on the loot later. They are helping support some of the same Americans who are complaining about their presence.
Personally, I believe it is wrong to accept any handouts from government. This includes Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, food stamps, WIC, or whatever else there may be. These "programs" are all financed with stolen money. Money that was taken from the rightful owners by threat of force. Force that if resisted, will be enforced by murder-by-government at some point along the way.
Don't give me the line about paying into the system for all these years and just getting back what is owed to you. Your money was spent the moment it was confiscated. The money you would get is being stolen from new victims today. It isn't right to cooperate with your mugger today if he promises to cut you in for a percentage of the muggings he commits tomorrow, is it? This is why it is so important to stop the thieves as soon as possible. Allowing the theft to continue gives it an appearance of legitimacy that is undeserved.
Your money is best left in your hands. You wouldn't waste your money on $900 toilet seats, or on supporting people who produce nothing but new generations of welfare recipients, would you? Well, the state does. Happily. That is how you can tell it isn't their money in the first place. So... who is your real enemy?
Leaving aside the obvious point of how corrupt and dangerous to liberty the LEOs (Liberty Eradication Operatives) of America have become, and pretending for a moment that they are a legitimate use of stolen money, I pose a question. What is more important; using enforcers to chase, catch, and deport "illegal immigrants", or using enforcers to chase, catch, and stop aggressive criminals regardless of their status? We know which is safer for the enforcers.
A
m I alone in this, or are there others out there who don't care where the guy standing beside them at the grocery store was born, or what paperwork he filled out for the gang of government thugs, as long as he is not attacking or stealing from anyone?
In order to get jobs, many of these independent migrants use random Social Security numbers. That means they have part of their wages stolen without any hope of ever getting in on the loot later. They are helping support some of the same Americans who are complaining about their presence.
Personally, I believe it is wrong to accept any handouts from government. This includes Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, food stamps, WIC, or whatever else there may be. These "programs" are all financed with stolen money. Money that was taken from the rightful owners by threat of force. Force that if resisted, will be enforced by murder-by-government at some point along the way.
Don't give me the line about paying into the system for all these years and just getting back what is owed to you. Your money was spent the moment it was confiscated. The money you would get is being stolen from new victims today. It isn't right to cooperate with your mugger today if he promises to cut you in for a percentage of the muggings he commits tomorrow, is it? This is why it is so important to stop the thieves as soon as possible. Allowing the theft to continue gives it an appearance of legitimacy that is undeserved.
Your money is best left in your hands. You wouldn't waste your money on $900 toilet seats, or on supporting people who produce nothing but new generations of welfare recipients, would you? Well, the state does. Happily. That is how you can tell it isn't their money in the first place. So... who is your real enemy?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Living in 'post-constitutional America'
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Living in 'post-constitutional America'
For those freedom-lovers who still revere the Constitution, a new reality is on the horizon. The next Supreme Court jester... "justice", will be adamantly anti-constitution. In such a case, "Constitutionality" becomes even more irrelevant than it has been for the past several decades.
A lot of focus has been on Sotomayor's anti-gun bigotry. It won't matter. The Second Amendment was mortally wounded back in 1934 by the illegal "National Firearms Act". It has been slowly bleeding-out since that day. Gun owners and Constitutionalists could have saved the Second Amendment if decisive action had been taken as soon as "NFA" was proposed. Unfortunately, they caved. "No one really thinks regular people should have MACHINE GUNS, do they?" Yes, I do. Giving in on that issue changed the way government thought about guns from that day forward. We are still living with the dire consequences of that treasonous "law", and it will only get worse until we stop agreeing to our own enslavement.
We are living in "Post-Constitutional America". It is time to recognize that rights do not come from government, and are not ever really protected by any government. It is time to grow up and exercise and DEFEND your own rights instead of depending upon a criminal collective to do your job for you. It has always been your responsibility; handing it over to government was a near-fatal mistake which is now coming home to roost. This should be your wake-up call. What will you do next?
For those freedom-lovers who still revere the Constitution, a new reality is on the horizon. The next Supreme Court jester... "justice", will be adamantly anti-constitution. In such a case, "Constitutionality" becomes even more irrelevant than it has been for the past several decades.
A lot of focus has been on Sotomayor's anti-gun bigotry. It won't matter. The Second Amendment was mortally wounded back in 1934 by the illegal "National Firearms Act". It has been slowly bleeding-out since that day. Gun owners and Constitutionalists could have saved the Second Amendment if decisive action had been taken as soon as "NFA" was proposed. Unfortunately, they caved. "No one really thinks regular people should have MACHINE GUNS, do they?" Yes, I do. Giving in on that issue changed the way government thought about guns from that day forward. We are still living with the dire consequences of that treasonous "law", and it will only get worse until we stop agreeing to our own enslavement.
We are living in "Post-Constitutional America". It is time to recognize that rights do not come from government, and are not ever really protected by any government. It is time to grow up and exercise and DEFEND your own rights instead of depending upon a criminal collective to do your job for you. It has always been your responsibility; handing it over to government was a near-fatal mistake which is now coming home to roost. This should be your wake-up call. What will you do next?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Reasons for libertarian writing
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Reasons for libertarian writing
I have been writing this column, and my blog before it, for quite a while now. So, why are we not living in "Libertopia" already? Hasn't my writing caused everyone to see the superiority of liberty over slavery (by whatever name)? Are my words too ineloquent and not up to the task of sharing the joy to be found in living by the ZAP and freeing oneself right here in this world where we all live, at this time in history, regardless of the actions of the state and its supporters? I'm joking, of course.
Fortunately, I don't write this column in order to change the world, or really even to change one mind. I don't write this column in order to convince anyone of anything. If it happens it is a good thing, but if it doesn't I don't consider this project a failure. What I am trying to do is show how I think through these issues in my own mind. Have I accomplished that in a small way, even if you don't agree with me?
I hope my experiences will demonstrate that it is possible to solve problems without sacrificing liberty by turning to the state. Your own decisions are your choice. If you choose to call me "an idiot" for expressing my opinions, be prepared to give me reasons why, rather than doing a cowardly hit and run (like the earliest comment on yesterday's column, at 11:54 AM). I welcome debate.
I wouldn't write this column if I didn't enjoy doing so. I am not going to change the world or bring about "Libertopia" through these columns. I give up a bit of my own freedom, willingly, in order to write this. My hope is that my writings at least entertain you, and maybe even make you think.
I have been writing this column, and my blog before it, for quite a while now. So, why are we not living in "Libertopia" already? Hasn't my writing caused everyone to see the superiority of liberty over slavery (by whatever name)? Are my words too ineloquent and not up to the task of sharing the joy to be found in living by the ZAP and freeing oneself right here in this world where we all live, at this time in history, regardless of the actions of the state and its supporters? I'm joking, of course.
Fortunately, I don't write this column in order to change the world, or really even to change one mind. I don't write this column in order to convince anyone of anything. If it happens it is a good thing, but if it doesn't I don't consider this project a failure. What I am trying to do is show how I think through these issues in my own mind. Have I accomplished that in a small way, even if you don't agree with me?
I hope my experiences will demonstrate that it is possible to solve problems without sacrificing liberty by turning to the state. Your own decisions are your choice. If you choose to call me "an idiot" for expressing my opinions, be prepared to give me reasons why, rather than doing a cowardly hit and run (like the earliest comment on yesterday's column, at 11:54 AM). I welcome debate.
I wouldn't write this column if I didn't enjoy doing so. I am not going to change the world or bring about "Libertopia" through these columns. I give up a bit of my own freedom, willingly, in order to write this. My hope is that my writings at least entertain you, and maybe even make you think.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The libertarian solution is always best
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: The libertarian solution is always best
Not every problem has a solution, but those that can be solved are best solved by respecting liberty. The libertarian solution is always the best solution possible.
For example:
Immigration: Remove any and all barriers to people moving freely. End ALL welfare of every type for everyone. Replace it with voluntary charity. If you don't want your money to help certain people, don't donate. Remove all "anti-discrimination laws". Let people freely associate, or not, with anyone for any reason. Some people will be jerks, but everyone has someone they would rather not deal with, even if it isn't based upon race. I would rather not do business with anyone who works for government in any capacity. Some people would probably rather not deal with peaceful anarchists like me. It is wrong to force people to give up their freedom of association.
Crime: Remove all "laws" that punish self-defense. Void any "laws" that regulate owning and carrying of weaponry. I don't ever carry "weapons"; I carry tools. They only become weapons if I am attacked, which I have never been. Remove "laws" that encourage aggression, such as drug prohibition. Let the private security forces (which will replace the corrupt and abusive "police") deal with real aggression and theft, rather than wasting time on consensual behavior that the majority disapproves of. Treat "terrorism" as you would treat any act of aggression. The solution is the same.
Economy: An economy can never really be centrally planned. Money can not just be printed out of thin air if it is to hold its value. Let the market self-organize from the bottom up, rather than trying to impose and control it from the top down. Let people choose the currency they trust and want to use. If they want printed IOUs, that is their choice. If they prefer using real money like silver or gold, that should also be their choice.
Environment: No one will, or even can, take care of property they have no stake in as well as they will take care of their own property. Trusting the world's worst despoiler of the natural world, the government, to tell everyone else how to best care for the environment is ridiculous. Let people use their own property however they see fit. Some will destroy what they own. That is the very foundation of ownership. On the whole, people will learn that if they destroy the value of their property, their poor decision will haunt them in loss of value. If they don't care, that is their right. If someone's carelessness harms the property of a neighbor, then restitution will be paid or reputations will be destroyed. In a free world, that will probably be a particularly dire consequence.
There are more examples, of course. And these are not the only possible solutions to be worked out in a free society. Give liberty a chance. Statist control has failed every time it has been tried. Let's stop looking to a failure for our solutions.
Not every problem has a solution, but those that can be solved are best solved by respecting liberty. The libertarian solution is always the best solution possible.
For example:
Immigration: Remove any and all barriers to people moving freely. End ALL welfare of every type for everyone. Replace it with voluntary charity. If you don't want your money to help certain people, don't donate. Remove all "anti-discrimination laws". Let people freely associate, or not, with anyone for any reason. Some people will be jerks, but everyone has someone they would rather not deal with, even if it isn't based upon race. I would rather not do business with anyone who works for government in any capacity. Some people would probably rather not deal with peaceful anarchists like me. It is wrong to force people to give up their freedom of association.
Crime: Remove all "laws" that punish self-defense. Void any "laws" that regulate owning and carrying of weaponry. I don't ever carry "weapons"; I carry tools. They only become weapons if I am attacked, which I have never been. Remove "laws" that encourage aggression, such as drug prohibition. Let the private security forces (which will replace the corrupt and abusive "police") deal with real aggression and theft, rather than wasting time on consensual behavior that the majority disapproves of. Treat "terrorism" as you would treat any act of aggression. The solution is the same.
Economy: An economy can never really be centrally planned. Money can not just be printed out of thin air if it is to hold its value. Let the market self-organize from the bottom up, rather than trying to impose and control it from the top down. Let people choose the currency they trust and want to use. If they want printed IOUs, that is their choice. If they prefer using real money like silver or gold, that should also be their choice.
Environment: No one will, or even can, take care of property they have no stake in as well as they will take care of their own property. Trusting the world's worst despoiler of the natural world, the government, to tell everyone else how to best care for the environment is ridiculous. Let people use their own property however they see fit. Some will destroy what they own. That is the very foundation of ownership. On the whole, people will learn that if they destroy the value of their property, their poor decision will haunt them in loss of value. If they don't care, that is their right. If someone's carelessness harms the property of a neighbor, then restitution will be paid or reputations will be destroyed. In a free world, that will probably be a particularly dire consequence.
There are more examples, of course. And these are not the only possible solutions to be worked out in a free society. Give liberty a chance. Statist control has failed every time it has been tried. Let's stop looking to a failure for our solutions.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
We are all terrorists now
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: We are all terrorists now
You have a vastly greater chance of being kidnapped or murdered by the government than by "terrorists". So why is terrorism such a big deal to the government? I suspect it is so that you won't notice the truth or be able to assess the real enemy.
Unless you are a starry-eyed supporter of everything the government does, from all its wars of aggression across the globe, to its confiscatory "taxation", and its nanny-state meddling in your own home, you are a "domestic terrorist suspect" whether you realize it or not. This issue didn't start with the pinheads who recently produced the document in Missouri calling "right wing extremists" potential terrorists. It has been going on for years and years, through many administrations of either side of the monolithic political party.
I didn't start out intending to be a "Domestic Terrorist" suspect. I am not "right wing", even if "leftists" call me that when they are wrong on an issue. Neither am I "liberal" even though those on "the right" accuse me of being so when they are wrong on an issue. Being a libertarian, and more precisely, an anarchist, gives me a unique perspective and a chance to be demonized by statists of all types.
Those flag-waving "conservatives" who have never seen a war they didn't enthusiastically cheer, but say the government needs to "secure the borders", and those "progressives" who think every new gun "law" is just wonderful, but who protest those same wars the "conservatives" love, are all on the list now.
I have a relative who, a few years ago, broke his word and caused me a lot of trouble. His reasons kept changing from day to day, but one that he seemed to settle on was that he didn't like that I accept the label of "domestic terrorist". In order to cover for his dishonesty, he told everyone I was not "patriotic" and he wanted nothing to do with me, costing me a lot of money and causing a lot of trouble for me in the process. Yet this "man" would undoubtedly be a "domestic terrorist" to his precious government as well, due to his religious views and his "patriotism". He just doesn't know it yet. Or maybe by now he does.
Don't fret over the label. When government gets bad enough, as the US government has done, everyone who isn't just as bad as they are becomes a "terrorist" and an enemy. It is no reflection on you; it only reflects on the government. After all, if someone claims that "everyone hates me and is out to get me" there is usually a reason, and it usually has nothing to do with "everyone else". Just look at tyrannical regimes of the past and those whom they labeled as terrorists or extremists. It is usually an honorable group with which to be associated. Much more honorable than supporting or working for the state in ANY capacity.
You have a vastly greater chance of being kidnapped or murdered by the government than by "terrorists". So why is terrorism such a big deal to the government? I suspect it is so that you won't notice the truth or be able to assess the real enemy.
Unless you are a starry-eyed supporter of everything the government does, from all its wars of aggression across the globe, to its confiscatory "taxation", and its nanny-state meddling in your own home, you are a "domestic terrorist suspect" whether you realize it or not. This issue didn't start with the pinheads who recently produced the document in Missouri calling "right wing extremists" potential terrorists. It has been going on for years and years, through many administrations of either side of the monolithic political party.
I didn't start out intending to be a "Domestic Terrorist" suspect. I am not "right wing", even if "leftists" call me that when they are wrong on an issue. Neither am I "liberal" even though those on "the right" accuse me of being so when they are wrong on an issue. Being a libertarian, and more precisely, an anarchist, gives me a unique perspective and a chance to be demonized by statists of all types.
Those flag-waving "conservatives" who have never seen a war they didn't enthusiastically cheer, but say the government needs to "secure the borders", and those "progressives" who think every new gun "law" is just wonderful, but who protest those same wars the "conservatives" love, are all on the list now.
I have a relative who, a few years ago, broke his word and caused me a lot of trouble. His reasons kept changing from day to day, but one that he seemed to settle on was that he didn't like that I accept the label of "domestic terrorist". In order to cover for his dishonesty, he told everyone I was not "patriotic" and he wanted nothing to do with me, costing me a lot of money and causing a lot of trouble for me in the process. Yet this "man" would undoubtedly be a "domestic terrorist" to his precious government as well, due to his religious views and his "patriotism". He just doesn't know it yet. Or maybe by now he does.
Don't fret over the label. When government gets bad enough, as the US government has done, everyone who isn't just as bad as they are becomes a "terrorist" and an enemy. It is no reflection on you; it only reflects on the government. After all, if someone claims that "everyone hates me and is out to get me" there is usually a reason, and it usually has nothing to do with "everyone else". Just look at tyrannical regimes of the past and those whom they labeled as terrorists or extremists. It is usually an honorable group with which to be associated. Much more honorable than supporting or working for the state in ANY capacity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)