Examining and debunking the 'social contract'

Once again, I have seen the statement that I should be satisfied that my stolen money ("taxation") is being used to uphold (enforce?) the "social contract".

Social contract? What is it? Where is it? When did I sign it? Let's look at Dictionary.com's entry:

social contract  –noun 1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which,
according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau,
organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure
mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members. 2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the
government or community as a whole.

Oh. OK. There is a social contract that I explicitly agreed to. It is called The Zero Archation Principle (ZAP). It works. I voluntarily agreed to it. I have "signed" it (as well as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent). It only "regulates relations" to the extent of telling those who agree to it that they would be wrong if they initiate force against anyone (not just against those who agreed to live according to the ZAP). That is great, and no theft is necessary to "uphold" it. In fact, theft of any sort violates it. This is a social contract that works and has none of the drawbacks of other, mythical, ones.

However, I would like to examine the dictionary explanation a little more.

"...voluntary agreement among individuals..."- How is an agreement voluntary if it was reached before I was born? Why am I bound by it simply because of where I was born? That is nonsense.

"...according to any of various theories..."- Why should I believe these self-serving theories? What makes these theories any more "true" than mine? Because they who advocated them are dead now?

"...organized society is brought into being and invested with the right ..." - Just because something is "organized" doesn't make it good. "Organized crime" and "government" are two examples that come to mind, although I am repeating myself there. And this "contract" invests this "organized society" with rights? That is quite a trick. Only individuals can have rights. "Society" can't. A society could claim to have "authority", but that's imaginary. Any semblance of "authority" would depend on functioning by unanimous consent and violating the rights of no individual. Otherwise it is just "the tyranny of the majority".

"Mutual protection" can not be a right since it obligates another person. Instead, a true social contract would remove any barriers to self-defense and not penalize mutual protection. That is the sign of a real civilization.

"Welfare" is best served by not punishing people for consensual acts between individuals. Anything else creates victims of government abuse and overreach.

"...regulate the relations among its members..." - No individual has the right to regulate the consensual relations among other people, and certainly not "society as a whole". To attempt to do so renders your "contract" null and void as it violates the basic human rights of those engaged in voluntary interactions.

All of these things demonstrate why the ZAP is a legitimate "social contract" while the "implied consent" we have thrown in our faces, based upon where we live and nothing else, is not.

Moving on to the second definition, I would point out that it is not possible for anything to benefit both an individual and a government (unless that individual is a state parasite, in which case his "welfare" is harming all free individuals and is wrong). Either the one is harmed, or the other is. Since only individuals have rights, it is their "welfare" that must be placed above the "authority" of any government. Where the two clash, the individual must be given priority. If this means the government withers and dies, then so be it. No loss. The "community as a whole" is only benefited if each individual is free to pursue his or her self-interest without harming any other individuals or violating their rights. The implied "social contract" falls flat here as well, while the ZAP once again shines.

-

Also: Check out this excellent examination of the social contract from Ayn R Key.

.

'Preventer of government' should be highest office

'Preventer of government' should be highest office

I was reading "Let Me Be King For Just One Year" by Russell D. Longcore in the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I liked a lot of his ideas, but disagreed with some. Regardless, as often happens, it got my mental wheels turning and grinding. It gave me a thought.

As some of you may know, I ran for president last election cycle. I still think I may have won since I count all the non-voters as a mandate for me to take the office (no more crazy than most of the "mandates" constantly claimed by holders of political office), but the present Usurper-in-Chief wanted the office really badly and I don't feel like fighting his armed minions or his worshipful followers. Plus it's kind of amusing to see him screwing things up so badly so quickly. It's almost like he's trying.

Anyway, back to my better idea; what I really wanted to be, rather than president, was "Preventer of Government". "The stubborn brown line" holding back government from enforcing its violations upon the non-aggressive people in society by confounding every government action at every opportunity. That was pretty much my plan once elected anyway, but I didn't have a title worked out for it.

I would have made it my duty to make sure no "government" was committed against anyone. If responsible people wanted to engage in a little consensual governing behind closed doors, it would be no one else's business, of course. They would just not be allowed to force anyone to join in or comply against their will- without risking the justified consequences of self-defense.

Any "illegal" (actually, just immoral since "laws" are for cowards) attempt to re-establish a coercive government would be dealt with swiftly by the armed free people of America convincing the evil-doers of the error of their ways. Parades would then be privately organized for the heroes. It was all very exciting in my day-dreams.

It was my declared intention to shut down every federal agency, department, and bureau, starting with all the ones which are blatantly unconstitutional (would any be left?), and then continuing with ending those which are Constitutional and immoral. Clearly, that means there would be no external, coercive government left. Just as it should be.

And they lived happily ever after.


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

Child pornography: the automatic guilty verdict

Child pornography: the automatic guilty verdict

Believe it or not, there is a subject more personally dangerous to mention and more divisive, than "abortion". It is "child pornography".

Almost everyone wants to protect innocent children. It is in our nature. Some people, though, have broken natures and want to prey on the innocent. Many of these find jobs with government where they can cause harm with no fear of breaking the "law". Others (we will pretend the categories don't overlap) exploit innocent children sexually.

I often find myself taking the hated position of attempting to point out that just because the agents of the state kidnap someone on charges of possessing child pornography, it doesn't mean the person did anything wrong, or even actually had any of the forbidden materials in their presence. I suspect it is very easy to plant such images in a person's computer in order to be able to lock them up without anyone speaking out in their defense. It has become our "witchcraft" accusation; impossible to survive once made. Don't think the goons of the state don't recognize and take advantage of this fact.

Child pornography even includes what I consider the "Stephen King-ish victims". Should Stephen King be on death row for all the murders he has "committed" in his books? Of course not. Why should an equivalent creative act (no matter how revolting it is to most of us) be punished? Cartoon characters which could be interpreted to be imaginary children are not harmed no matter what anyone does to them. If certain studies are correct, then this type of "child pornography" could actually prevent real attacks on innocent children, rather than "inspire" it as the detractors claim. Regardless: no victim; no aggression.

When a child victim of pornographic exploitation grows to be a responsible self-owning person, he or she should have total control over what is done with the images of them as a child, including getting all copies away from the feds' "child porn database" (for "research"... riiiight...). Even if we don't like what they choose to do with their personal property. Otherwise you are telling them they do not own themselves, but the collective- "society"- does. That is wrong and harmful now, and two wrongs don't make a right.

It is also dangerous to point out that most teenagers are not "children" even if the state declares them so. Some may not be fully responsible for their actions and some undoubtedly are. Age has no bearing on this. To make a "one-size-punishes-all law" harms everyone in the long run. This is the absurdity of the "sexting crisis".

Since I know I will be misrepresented, it is probably pointless to state this, but I will anyway: I don't want to view any child pornography. I don't understand its attraction to some; I would violently defend any child who was being exploited in this way whether they were familiar to me or not. If I knew someone who had it, I would keep my children away from him and would warn everyone I knew to watch him near their kids. I would NOT tattle to the state, however. I would also try to remember that all is not as it seems when the state wants to get rid of someone. Governments lie. It is what they do best, except for stealing, kidnapping, and killing.

Government can be justified no longer

Government can be justified no longer

It is claimed that people never follow links. If that is true, I hope this one will be an exception.

Video: The Government

A regular reader sent me the link to this video and asked my opinion. It is an interesting, if tortured, attempt to justify a republican form of government. If you are not aware of the way the video warps the truth and manipulates your thinking, you might even agree with the conclusion it reaches. Fortunately you are smarter than that.

This video inadvertently destroys any idea that there can ever be a government based upon anything other than self-government that will work for the "regular people" (the individuals), as opposed to the Rulers (and we should always be opposed to the Rulers).

The narrator incorrectly defines "anarchy" as "without government" instead of "without Rulers". Anarchists self-govern; our government is internalized where it can actually work. The only way he can discount anarchism is by misrepresenting it by using nihilists as the example. His examples only want the current government gone so they can install their own Rulers in place of the ones they don't like. They want to invert the power structure, rather than dismantle it, in the hopes that they will wind up on top when things settle down. This is what the Molotov cocktail-tossing, business-looting false anarchists invariably want to do. In every case, he even points out that his "anarchist" examples lie between the forms of government he discusses, instead of on the free end of his graph that he studiously ignores and misrepresents. He contradicts himself constantly.

The author of the video seems to feel that there is some magical "optimal level" of coercive government, and never even thinks about the possibility that the optimal level is to be found only in self-government. Some people cling to denial so tightly. His main point illustrates this with crystal clarity.

The only two available examples of a republic, Rome and America, both failed completely- following the same pattern. Obviously, the American Republic absolutely failed in the lofty goals he ascribes to it. Utterly, completely failed. I wonder how he can manage to ignore that glaringly obvious fact. You can't allow any coercive external government to have the power to decide if it is obeying its "user's manual", or it will always find in favor of itself in the long run. Maybe not in every single conflict, but in the general trend. This leads only from republic, to mob rule ("democracy"), to chaos (what he incorrectly calls "anarchy"), to oligarchy. He drives the nails in his own coffin and doesn't see that he has done so. I would declare "case: closed".

Does taxation improve civilization?

Does taxation improve civilization?

Does the act of theft known as "taxation" make civilization better, or does it damage it? There have been claims made in the past, as well as claims made now, that civilization "needs taxation" in order to be "helped" by government to become better than it otherwise would be. Some people probably even confuse "government" with "civilization", but I'll let that pass for now. Historically, coming from the pinhead who claimed there was no right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, comes the "gem": "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Hardly. Civilization is what we manage to create in spite of taxes.

Yet, this is just an example of the statist thought process. The process that excuses wrongs and tries to justify them with things that most people want. Things like civilization. Civilization doesn't need "taxation"; governments do. "Taxation" is like a giant leech that attaches itself to a civilization as soon as it gets the chance. Unless it is ripped off it will continue to drain the life-blood of that society and grow bigger and more harmful. Our "leech" now weighs more than the host.

Is robbery OK if the mugger promises to give your money to orphans and widows? Of course not. If a cause is good, people will not need to be robbed to pay for it. If it is financed by taking property from those who would prefer to keep their property, under threat of jail (and ultimately, death), then it shouldn't be done no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the thieves or some of their victims feel. There is no government program or "entitlement" so important that is is worth kidnapping or killing people to finance. Not one.

The truth is that there is no free lunch. No "free education". No "free justice". No "free health care" under Obama's socialistic scheme. These things, when provided at all by the state, are funded by coercion (which has a high cost independent of the dollar amount) and cost much more than they need to. They are pale, pathetic shadows of what a free market could provide.

Don't point to the cost of health care in our current society as a refutation of this claim. Our society is far from free, and hasn't been free for a very long time (despite what you have been told to believe). How much does government add to the cost of going to the doctor, buying medications, and having "tests"? Probably, like everything else, the cost is at least doubled, while your wealth is at least halved.

Instead of continuing to dig ourselves deeper into the pit of socialism, why not give freedom a try? It can't hurt. The first step is to admit that taxation is the biggest theft scheme in history, instituted by the most amoral mafia the world has ever known, and put an end to it.

Biting the hand that feeds you, or feeding the hand that bites you

Biting the hand that feeds you, or feeding the hand that bites you

A fairly popular news website recently changed their payment plan for their writers. They did this without informing anyone, and it took days of speculation and many attempts to get an answer from the owners before it was confirmed. This lack of communication has made a lot of the writers bitter.

The algorithms that determined pay were not revealed to begin with, foiling attempts to understand. When earnings seemed short, the owners fell back on the explanation that the way earnings were calculated was complicated. Now, with the changes, it seems even more complicated, based in part on how many other pages the readers view per session. This is something the writers can neither see nor control. And although it is claimed that the potential is there for pay to increase, this does not seem to have happened in even one case.

So where would a libertarian stand on such a situation? The website is a business. It is private property. The owners can do whatever they wish with it, even destroy it if they so choose. They can choose to pay their writers less, or nothing at all. It might not be in their best interest to do so. But perhaps they have other ideas. After all, in every other business, employers pay just enough to keep the employees from quitting, and employees work just hard enough to keep from being fired. Or so I have been told.

It is dishonest to change the way you calculate pay without informing those you are paying. Perhaps it was an oversight. Certain conditions were agreed upon beforehand, after all.

I would bet that most of the website's writers are still making more money from their writings than they otherwise would be, and probably getting more people to read their writings, too. The writers must weigh the costs and benefits. Then they can make their own decisions. No one is forcing them to write for the site.

'Honest' taxation is preferable to 'fair tax'

'Honest' taxation is preferable to 'fair tax'

I know it seems counterintuitive, but there is a way to have "honest taxation". At least in the same way as other acts of theft can at least be "honest" enough to not claim they are robbing you for your own good.

While I am not a fan of thieves of any type, I will admit a preference to the type who will shove a gun in your face and say "Hand over your wallet if you wanna live!" over the gangsters who make insincere noises about your "safety" as they hint that "something" might happen if they weren't there to "protect" you. Hogwash. Everyone knows who would make the "something" occur if you were bold enough to refuse to pay.

"Honest taxation" would consist of a government agent holding a gun to your head as he steals your money. Or, increasingly, a government agent holding a gun to the head of the sales clerk (or other businessperson) as he steals from you under orders from the state thug. Such a dose of reality might also shock a few more people awake to the fact that taxation is theft, plain and simple. There is no excuse for it.

Government should be watched, but not obsessed over

Government should be watched, but not obsessed over

I see a lot of people who focus their lives on watching what government does. I can understand that in a way, but it seems like a life poorly spent.

A person should pay attention to government in the same way you should pay attention to a rabid skunk that has wandered into your kitchen: pay attention as much as you need to in order to get rid of it, without being bitten or sprayed. Don't focus your life on trying to make the rabid skunk like you; it will never be your friend. Don't expect the skunk to act rationally; it has a disease that is rotting its brain away. Don't try to get the skunk to bring you gifts in exchange for the damage it has done or the food it has gotten in to; that which it has eaten or spoiled is gone forever. Just stop the spoilage now and write off the losses.

Of course, the real problem is that government, even at its best, is much more dangerous than a rabid skunk. It is backed up by hordes of co-conspirators and supporters who will make sure you are harmed if you dare to stand up to it. It is backed up by cheerleaders in the media who will endlessly proclaim that YOU are the one with the brain-rot. Lastly, statism, the disease that causes government, is much more contagious than rabies. And it is just as fatal.

The Empire strikes ... in desperation

The Empire strikes ... in desperation

Signs seem to indicate the police state that was America will grow much more draconian before it collapses. And of course, it will collapse. They all do. If the authoriturds "in charge" were smart, they would realize they are dooming themselves by their actions and with their "laws", but perhaps they believe they can avoid the inevitable until it doesn't matter to them personally anymore. Or, maybe, they are delusional enough to believe that "this time" they will be able to avoid the fate of tyrants.

In the meantime, more and more of our rights will be claimed to be a threat to our neighbors, although the only real threat is to the false authority of the Empire. More of our actions will be tracked and watched, or simply forbidden. More and more of our lives and money will be stolen to support the state. More of our choices will be regulated or eliminated. More of our opinions will be cause for suspicion. More of our movements will be subject to the whims of the state and routed through its checkpoints. More of our family members and neighbors will be recruited against us. There will even be control and rationing of things we can't yet imagine. Interesting times are ahead.

The near future brings up some questions in regard to people like most of you who are reading these words.

What does society intend to do to those of us who won't (or can't) tolerate living under the surveillance and control of a police-state? Do the rulers expect that we will simply comply after some threats and punishment? Do they feel that our deaths are an acceptable price in order to implement their plans? Do they even consider our deaths worthy of notice at all? What if we don't agree? What if others who are on the fence begin to side with us? Will this be the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings down the Empire? The more the Empire tightens its grip, the more people will slip through its fingers.

Dislike of cops does not equal love of thugs

Dislike of cops does not equal love of thugs

The world is filled with misunderstandings. Those of us who love liberty often find ourselves at the focus of one when we point out the similarity between LEOs and the freelance thugs with whom they have a symbiotic relationship. Every time I show distaste for a cop acting like a gangster when faced with a member of the public, certain people make the faulty assumption that I sympathize with the aggressive elements of society and wish to see them running amok, preying on whoever they wish. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Since when does intense dislike of cops equal love of "criminals"? I dislike cops precisely because I dislike those who prey upon the innocent. There is no longer any meaningful distinction between the cops and the freelance thugs cops use to justify their unjustifiable existence. Both live upon theft; either freelance or "tax". Both thrive on coercion. Both have a perverted "us vs everyone else" attitude. But of the two, the LEOs are far more dangerous because they do what they do with a false sense of moral superiority, wielding a monopoly on force, and backed by the coercive "authority" of government.

Cops tend to vastly overestimate their own importance, and grossly underestimate the capacity of most of us to take care of ourselves without their "help". Perhaps it is projection on their part. I have never been in any situation where I called the cops, or was even tempted to. The thought never crossed my mind. I am aware that there is no situation so dire that it won't be made orders of magnitude worse by adding a cop to the mix.

And speaking of cops acting like the thugs they are brings up another subject. Giving cops the means to electrically torture people with whom they have a dispute was probably one of the worst powers ever handed them. Cops use Tasers much too readily. A Taser should never be used if a gun would be "too much". If you are not stopping an attack or a theft in progress when you draw your weapon, firearm or electric, then you are the attacker. A person not showing the respect you mistakenly think is due you is not a dangerous threat. A child running away from you is not reason to torture that child, unless you are a coward and a bully. If you are a cop and can't handle a 6 year-old child, you should go get a real job. Tasers are not "non-lethal", but "less-lethal". Cops think Tasers are a license to torture. Well, combined with a badge, I suppose they are right.

More on border worship

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

Independence means secession- then and now

Independence means secession- then and now

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.

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:

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." - Robert LeFevre

Well, I don't need government for ANYTHING. And neither do you.



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

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?

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.


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

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.

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 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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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".

All economies are based upon barter

All economies are based upon barter

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.

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.

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.



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

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.

Pledging allegiance

Pledging allegiance

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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

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.