Using government to your 'benefit'

Using government to your 'benefit'

Would it be possible to solve or prevent a problem using government? Of course. You would need to call theft "taxation" and kidnapping "arrest" in order to hide the reality of your action.

In some cases, it would require you to call rape a "blood test". It doesn't make it right, though. The end does not justify the means IF you have principles.

Look at this in a slightly different way. If a certain apartment building in town has a high population of freelance thugs, or peaceful people who do governmentally-unapproved things, you could trap everyone inside and burn it to the ground in order to reduce the local "crime rate". (That reminds me of the exact same action, with a different string of excuses, committed by unbelievably evil people.) You would need to call the arson and all your murders some other dishonest name in order to avoid the reality of what you have done. Or, say you want your neighbor's wife... you could kill him so she would be free to be with you. Still evil, but your problem is "solved", right?

Well, using government to get what you want is the same sort of unethical act. It is wrong. You can't ever do real good by using evil means. That includes reducing "drunk driving deaths", "drug" use, child pornography, "illegal immigration", or whatever the statist cause of the day happens to be.

That is why, no matter that others think it would "help" me, I won't use government. The cost is too high.

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

Crime- The Definition

Crime is generally considered to be the violation of someone else. Either their life, liberty, or property.

There is also "victimless crime", which can't actually be a crime. This is mainly what The State seeks to control and punish.

"Crime", in the government sense, is just anything the government doesn't approve of. It could be right or wrong, or even morally and ethically neutral. Many hideously evil acts are not "crimes" if they are committed by government agents, and many truly good things are "crimes" just because the government says so. 

The State commits actual crime, while pretending it doesn't, and punishes "crime" while pretending it is protecting "society".

.

States authorize violent penetration by LEOs

The war on unmolested travel has reached a new, dangerous, low. No longer must you only be concerned about the states' highwaymen simply robbing you as a part of their officially authorized job, but now they can "legally" penetrate your body with a foreign object. That is rape. It is also a stabbing.

Remember, rape is not about "sex", but about domination and humiliation. It doesn't matter whether or not the rapist gets sexual gratification from his act. The only thing that matters is that the victim is being harmed. This is a humiliating act of bodily penetration by someone who sees themselves as dominant. Such an act can never be right or good, and is never justifiable for any reason. Not "safety", and certainly not "the common good". I can't understand how anyone could consider this a reasonable act. Rapists need to be resisted, and decisively stopped no matter where they are encountered or who they are working for.

I say again: Forced blood theft by LEOs is rape. This matter is a definitive line-in-the-sand. No free person with an ounce of dignity would ever comply or submit to such an abuse as long as they were humanly able to resist, nor would any honorable person ever criticize anyone who fights back against such abuse. This needs to be stated loudly and clearly by every good person in America: "You attempt to rape me or anyone in my family at your own risk." Make no mistake: resistance will result in you being electrocuted or killed. At the very least, for refusing to submit, the state will forbid you to drive your own vehicle anymore. They are still wrong.

Courts have declared such rapes to be "legal". So what. "Legal" has nothing to do with it, since that term merely means "governmentally approved". Many things that are evil are "legal", and many that are good or neutral are "illegal". That a coercive collective which enforces a monopoly on force declares that it approves of an act shouldn't matter one tiny bit to you or me. Especially when it is approving an act that serves to advance its own power and control. If the "laws" permit this, the "laws" are wrong and need to be changed to reflect reality, or the "laws" need to be broken by those who are told to enforce them, and resisted by those subjected to them.

If you are a cop there comes a time where you can go along with department policy or you can choose to do the right thing and refuse to be a part of the growing cancer. This is that time. Will you don your brown shirt and go goose-stepping off the cliff of tyranny, or will you "grow a pair" and say "Not on my watch!"? Consider your answer carefully. One choice is right; the other is wrong.

If a person is obviously not able to control his vehicle for any reason and is a real threat to the innocent, I support the self-defensive act of helping get him off the road. If a person harms others with his vehicle, for any reason, hold him responsible. Anyone who causes any harm needs to accept the consequences of his actions, whether he is a drunk driver, a LEO, or both.

I am sorry that some innocent people have died due to drunk drivers. That is still no reason to set up road blocks nor to advocate the violent attacking of travelers because some LEO either suspects the person may have some alcohol in their blood, or because some LEO is a perverted predator who gets his jollies from hurting people. The "laws" are only making the problem worse and making the real drunk drivers more dangerous. And this will keep happening until we plainly and unequivocally say "Enough!"

Well, I have said it.


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

Silver Dubloon Update - Updated 9-13-2009

(click on picture to see it larger)

Read the updates at the bottom...

I have decided to try to go ahead and have the "Silver Dubloons" made. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this and this first.) -Please read the comments below for an explanation of "dubloon" vs "doubloon".

Now it is up to you. Above is the picture of what they will look like. Tell me how many you want (they are $25.00 - or an ounce of .999 fine silver- each). I need to have commitments for close to 500 of them before I can take the next step, which will be to ask those who have committed to coins to go ahead and pay for them. I will then send the payment in and have them minted. It will then take a few weeks for the coins to be minted, and for them to be shipped to me, and for me to send them on to you.

So, if you are interested, please email me at dullhawk@hotmail.com and tell me how many you want, along with your contact information.
__________________

Added 5-4: This is coming along nicely, but has slowed down in the past couple of days. If you know anyone else who might be interested, or if you belong to a forum where people might like this, please help me spread the word. The faster I can collect all the pre-orders, the sooner I can have them minted.

______________________________

Added 5-16-2009: You may notice I had to raise the price to $25. This is due to the current price of silver. If you previously pre-ordered at the lower price, your price is safe. New orders will be reserved at the new price unless silver prices come down, then you will get a lower price. The price you agree to may come down, but it will not go up. I am not in this to make money right at first, but I am also not in this to LOSE money. I hope everyone will understand.
-------------------------------------

Added 9-13-2009: Until and unless I can just afford to have these minted, and then sell them afterwards, I am guessing it won't happen. Pre-selling didn't work (although I sincerely thank those of you who did pre-order), plus I had bad timing since silver prices started up as soon as I started trying to promote this. I won't give up the idea. If anyone wants to invest a sizable sum to get these minted, let me know. It would take over $10,000 to do, depending on current silver prices.
.........

One of the good guys

One of the good guys

In the comments on yesterday's column, a reader asked who and where "the good guys" are. That's a fair question. Therefore I present one for you today.

I'm sure most of you have heard of Larken Rose. Those who deny that taxation is theft don't like him much. That wouldn't be me, however. Everything I have ever run across that he wrote or said, I find very inspiring. He dares to speak uncomfortable (for some) truths without apologizing. I admire him for a lot of things; not the least of which is that his mere existence exposes the "tyranny deniers" for what they really are by their opposition to his opinions.

This speech (transcript here), which he gave on July 4, 2009, is typical "Larken". Here is the first of the 3 parts (less than 30 minutes total- watch it all): link


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

9/11- Governments lie

9/11- Governments lie

This is one of those subjects that I expect to be criticized for even mentioning. Almost everyone seems to call anyone who doesn't completely agree with them on this topic all kinds of nasty names. Maybe no one will read this and I'll avoid the usual fate.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories concerning the events of September 11, 2001. Regardless of what those on both sides say, you and I will never know the absolute truth of exactly what happened on those planes or in the destroyed buildings- or anywhere else we weren't. Never. Not unless time travel becomes possible (don't hold your breath) and you can personally go watch the events for yourself with no interference. And even then, how could you ever be sure that people with their own time machine and an agenda haven't meddled before you got there? Enough with the fantasy scenario.

The fact that so many people doubt the government version of events shows that a lot of people recognize the simple fact that government employees will lie to protect the status quo, or to advance the cause of a more powerful government- every time they get the opportunity. Governments always lie to the boss. As an aside- That "boss" would be anyone in the country who is not a politician or a bureaucrat. The most pitiful and hopeless homeless guy sleeping off a drinking binge under the bridge outranks any congresscritter or president that has ever existed. Everyone who works for government should be reminded of that fact of life at every opportunity. Now, back to the point.....

At a bare minimum it is true that without the US government's meddling and bullying, the attacks of "9/11" would never have occurred. How much farther the guilt goes is forever lost to the past, and will forever be subject to speculation and fraud. But I hope people never stop digging.

Whether there is any truth to the "9/11 Truth" movement or not, it is absolutely essential to freedom to suspect government of complicity in everything that could possibly be its fault. You must know, if you are paying attention, that governments lie. If you have a known pathological liar in your life, it is healthier to distrust every word he utters, until verified by you, than it is to take his words at face value. He may be telling the truth occasionally, but you can't take the chance. So it is with government. Government is a lying axe-murderer with rabies in your bed. Trust it at your own peril.

On a different note: Speaking of "Angry freedom-lovers".... from the War on Guns blog comes news of this "libertarian punk/industrial band"- Right Arm of Wyoming. Not exactly my type of ear candy, but maybe yours. Of course, I don't know that they are really angry, but it sort of sounds like it. Support the good guys out there.

Angry freedom-lovers

Angry freedom-lovers

I was wrong. I have learned that more liberty advocates than I had suspected are indeed angry. I do not claim that the anger is not justified; obviously, in the current US police state, it most certainly is. I think anger, in my own life, is normally counterproductive, but perhaps that is an indication that I can't handle anger as well as some others can.

This isn't to say there are no situations where anger, if channeled, could be useful. Let's pretend for a moment that I am a freelance thug who has foolishly targeted MamaLiberty. If I am an imminent threat to her life or property, a burst of anger on her part, as she draws her gun, could shock me enough to make me back off and leave her alone. As long as her anger didn't trigger a reciprocal blind anger in me that could be the end of it. If I persist, I expect she would just shoot me. As well she should.

On the other hand, in an encounter with a state thug, I would not expect anger to be very helpful- unless your goal is to simply survive the encounter now, and deal later with the legions of state thugs that will be sent to punish you for your lack of grovelling "slave-itude".

If I become angered during online discussions and conversations I often delay responding until my anger has cooled. It isn't always easy, but it always results in a better response. It is rare for me to get really angry over online nonsense and name-calling, though. I am more likely to just stop paying attention to someone I feel has decided to try to make me mad instead of engaging me in debate. I figure they are acting this way because they know they have lost.

My personal observation is that when I encounter an angry person, online or in person, I never change my mind about my opinion (or theirs) due to their anger, and I tend to discount anything else they say. I am likely to see them as a lunatic who can't be reasoned with, and write them off. There are not enough of us working for freedom as it is. Let's not drive away potential allies if it can be avoided.

Will it make a difference if a city resolves to support the Constitution?

Will it make a difference if a city resolves to support the Constitution?

As most of you know, I am not actually local to Albuquerque. In fact, I live over 200 miles away. The closest city is Clovis, New Mexico; there I have been informed of an interesting event. A former mayor of Clovis, David Lansford, has given notice of a resolution he intends to introduce tonight.

This is one of those cases where I am willing to work with some who may have a slightly different view of "freedom" than do I. At least until we must part ways.

The press release says:

Dear American,

Thank you for taking the time to read this email!!!!

If you are like me, you know in your heart that something is very wrong in Our Land.
You probably sense that something needs to happen that will alleviate these
feelings and restore our optimism.

The Clovis City Commission will meet this Thursday night at 5:15 PM at the North Annex of the Clovis-Carver Library.

On the agenda for consideration is a resolution supporting the Constitution of
The United States of America. Mayor Pro-tem Randy Crowder has agreed to
introduce and support the Resolution.

It is anticipated that the meeting will not last very long (30 minutes), so please attend if you agree with the Resolution and want to make a difference.

A copy of the Resolution is attached to this email.

With Sincere Patriotism,
David Lansford

PS. Please forward this to all of your
friends

The resolution is as follows:

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

WHEREAS: American history is marked by countless acts of selfless human sacrifice and service to others in the fight for individual liberty and justice for all people and,

WHEREAS: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are the most treasured and revered documents of the United States of America and must be preserved and protected by all present and future generations of Freedom Loving Americans and,

WHEREAS: The leadership in Washington, DC must never consider or adopt any law or regulation which could change, adulterate or subordinate the fundamental precepts and principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America and,

WHEREAS: Currently under consideration by the United States Congress is
legislation that would through regulation, taxation or restriction alter the
fundamental rights found in the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States of America and,

WHEREAS: The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution are the tools given to the American people to use in order to protect themselves from an abusive and oppressive government and,

WHEREAS: It has now become necessary for Freedom Loving Americans along with their local and state leaders to passionately and patriotically request that our Federal Government cease and desist from any effort to reduce or regulate our rights
which are defended by the Constitution of the United States of America
and,

Now therefore be it resolved that the Clovis, New Mexico City Commission
wholeheartedly embraces the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights
and unequivocally supports The Constitution of the United States of America
and,

Be it further resolved: That the Clovis City Commission
emphatically and most specifically supports the First and Second Amendments, and
urge all federally elected officials to cease and desist from any effort to
reduce or regulate any rights expressed or written in the Constitution of the
United States.

That sounds reasonable, (ignoring some of the silly buzz-words). Would the city change policy and stop violating those rights, too; would they demand that the state of New Mexico follow suit, or do they only care if the US government is the violator? As I wrote to the person who sent me this, I would really like to see the Clovis police and their handlers prohibited from violating the First and Second Amendments. However, I'd like to see them respecting the rest of the Bill of Rights as well, such as ending all the DWI "saturation patrols".

The local LEOs seem to really have it out for the First Amendment, as well, with their witch-hunt-like "internet depredations" which seek to find "child pornography" under every rock.
As much as I like guns, and as much as I like exercising my freedom of speech, I don't think any one amendment is any more important than any other, and some of the rights not mentioned at all (other than in studiously ignored 9th and 10th Amendment implications) are critical for our freedom. Of course, rights do not come from government or its documents, but are inborn simply because you are human. Forgetting that fact is the genesis of all kinds of problems, from "drivers' licenses" to genocide.

The reality is that government decides that they can interpret the Bill of Rights however it suits them and almost any "limitation" is OK. That, more than anything else, makes the Constitution worthless as a constraint to out-of-control government. I wish I could see into the future to see what real difference a resolution like this would make, or if it is just for show. Still, it is moving in the right direction and for that reason I hope it passes.

I'd really just like to see governments everywhere forced to respect everyone's right to live as they want as long as they are harming no innocents. Wouldn't it be ironic to show up for the event, specifically held to espouse support for the First and Second Amendments, carrying a fully-functional AK-47 and "pornography"- where the age of the subjects couldn't be immediately determined- and get arrested? Don't worry; just a thought exercise. I have no plans to martyr myself any time soon.

If you live close enough, and are interested in attending, the meeting will be tonight, September 10, 2009, at 5:15 PM at the North Annex of the Clovis-Carver Library in Clovis, New Mexico.

Political anger

Political anger

I am not bitter, angry, or resentful, and even if I were it wouldn't be due to being a freedom advocate. I doubt many freedom advocates are really angry, regardless of how blunt their words may be. Yet that is how we are usually characterized by advocates of coercion. It is how they justify sending out legions of LEOs to kill us for "the common good" (they are not nearly that honest about their position, of course).

What the statists see as "anger" is simply self-assurance and confidence. There is no reason to be angry about society's continuing descent into malignant statism. Neither is there any reason to be wishy-washy when stating the plain truth. Some people are likely to see the clear expression of the truth as "anger", especially if it challenges their tightly held (but wrong) notions. Others believe if they can throw you off-balance, or delegitimize you in the eyes of others, by claiming you are "angry", they have won by default. Prove them wrong again. After all, it makes no sense to be angry at the rabid dog coming at you.

When you speak the truth it often frightens those who only have emotionalism on their side. Since many of them depend upon anger for getting their desires embraced by "the majority" (and then enforced as "law") they develop projection which makes them think everyone is as angry and hateful as they are. It is like when you speak with conviction to a person who is in the wrong, they often claim you are shouting when you are not. Being so wrong is painful; trying to avoid facing it makes one overly sensitive.

The disease called 'government'

The disease called 'government'

I view government as a disease. A very deadly disease which killed over 170 million* people in the 20th century alone. Even if a deadly disease like government has a couple of beneficial side effects it is still deadly and is not worth the pain and death it causes. Especially when the pain and death is inflicted on those who are forcibly infected against their will. People should be aware of the costs of government, and then be free to make their own choices. Like smoking and cliff diving.

Obviously government is a disease which many people still think is a wonderful thing. Some point to supposed "benefits" to those afflicted. That is dishonest. Sickle-cell disease is said to confer a bit of resistance to malaria. In certain, very specific, conditions that could be seen as a limited benefit, however, in general it is not a good enough reason and we shouldn't try to find ways to make sure everyone only gives birth to children with sickle-cell disease. Yet, this is what advocates of government are doing when they make dubious claims about the benefits of their favorite social disease, and insist that no one be allowed to opt out. Find cures for, or treat, diseases- don't search for reasons to spread them.

While I sympathize with minarchists, to a point, I don't agree with them in their conclusions. Government is malignant. You can't allow even a tiny bit to remain without the certainty of it spreading again. How much cancer is the best amount to give yourself? Government is also a poison. How much cyanide do you think is best to add to your food?

If people still wish to participate in government or other deadly endeavors, that is their business, but they should do it with a full realization of what it truly is they are supporting. They should not be allowed to force that aggression upon others any more than any other rapist would be. If they choose to try to force government on others anyway, they should do so with a complete awareness that those of us who know coercion is wrong will push back from now on.

*The number keeps being revised higher. I forget the latest estimate, but it is now over 200 million and still climbing. And this doesn't count government troops killed.

Government is good? Part 2

Today I continue yesterday's study of the claims contained in an article on the "Government is Good" website. Read "Part 1" first, if you have not yet read it.

Moving along to another paragraph just stuffed full of wackiness:

"....many of the most common activities of the modern state – building roads and
highways, putting out fires, fighting disease, treating our sewage, providing
college loans, funding basic scientific research, providing medical care for the
elderly, supplying clean water, feeding the poor, providing parks and
recreational facilities, subsidizing farmers, educating our children,
forecasting the weather, sending out Social Security checks, and so on – are not
inherently coercive or oppressive at all."

Where to begin.... The things referenced in that excerpt, do not need to be done by government. They could probably be done honestly, and better, by competitive businesses or by charities (in other words: the market). Charities help those in need and do not breed dependency and futility like welfare (by any name) does. Welfare is the cruelest slavery.

Roads and highways are built upon land that was taken from someone. They are financed with money that was taken from someone. They are infested with highwaymen who enforce coercive "laws" in order to steal more money for the state, and who will not hesitate to kill travelers who dare to resist.

Not all of those who fight fires work for the state. Those who do, do so unethically. They should become independent of the coercive monopoly they work for and stop accepting stolen money for their work. There are many ways in which this could be done much better than the current system.

Nor do the best doctors who fight disease work for the state. To imagine that these family doctors and private specialists, who are on the "front lines", are doing less than the CDC is ridiculous.

Just because government currently controls water standards doesn't mean this is the best way. After all, the government controlled system breaks down easily, leaving people vulnerable. Smart people have contingency plans.

The poor were fed by charitable organizations and individuals long before government took over the job financing it with coercively taken money. Farm subsidies have turned many farmers into "welfare queens". And where does the author think the money in those Social "Security" checks comes from? It doesn't come from an account in the recipient's name; it is coercively taken from currently employed people. If that isn't coercive and oppressive then nothing is.

"Public" schools are good at educating? Really? "Public" schools do not educate; they indoctrinate. They make people grow up accepting the socialistic status quo as "the way things have always been, and must continue to be". In around a century and a half, "public" schools have just about destroyed literacy in America.

I could go on with this for an entire series of columns since almost every sentence in every article on the whole site is full of this kind of "error", in fact it gets even worse the farther you read, but this column (even split) is already too long, and you get the idea.

I think it is very important to confront such dangerous and dishonest assertions wherever they may be found. I encourage you to read the entire article, dissect the pathetic attempt at justifying the unjustifiable, and expose the "sleight-of-hand" used. I have even left some of the biggest lies for you to tear apart. Notice that, even though the author claimed in the first quote I used in yesterday's column that there is no "inevitable trade-off" between freedom and government, he then spends most of the article describing those trade-offs and explaining why they are for the "common good". Notice, especially, how the author uses government-created situations to justify more rights violations by government. Yet, we are to believe he doesn't see this hypocrisy? I'm not buying it.

"The Common Good"

"Common" in this case means "collective", rather than "ordinary". Its meaning is closer to "communist" or "everyone" than to the more "common" meaning. "General welfare" is another way to say the exact same thing.

What is "good"? Good is something that actively helps or benefits someone who is not harming others. It isn't just an absence of "evil" since there are neutral acts that are neither "good" nor "evil", such as walking across the room. (It is never "good" to help harm innocent people. This is an excellent reason to refuse to help the police. Ever.)

So, "the common good" (or "general welfare") would be something that helps "everyone".

The only way to help "everyone" is to help the individual. Yet, most of the time "the common good" is invoked as an excuse to harm the individual. When that individual is not deserving harm right now, then the act of harming him is evil. Violating the rights of an individual; taking away the freedom of an individual, except as an act of individual self-defense, is not serving "the common good" in any way. It only serves the state and other parasites. Instead of imagining you are helping the majority, you need to think about the minority you are harming. That is the true measure of the "good" of your acts. It is better to do nothing (and therefore not help some people) than to do something which harms some who do not deserve to be harmed right now.

Government is good? Part 1

I believe in fairness, especially if there is no danger in being fair. Since my offer to a supporter of government (a person who actually dared to say "I like government") to write a guest column on why government is so wonderful never materialized, I offer an dissenting voice today.

I found a website, named "Government is Good", and it is astonishing. I highly recommend you go read the entire article I am discussing today (as well as the other articles therein), and as you do, rationally and logically dissect the claims made. I think you will see that the entire premise is dependent upon an utter lack of understanding, or "creative defining", of "freedom" and "good". Since the author is a professor of politics at a university, I have to assume he is an intelligent person. Unfortunately, that also means I must assume he knows better. I think he is displaying an abominable level of intellectual dishonesty.

Let's look at his claims:

"Let’s start by seeing what is wrong with the assumption that there is an
inevitable trade-off between government and our individual rights and
liberties."

If something always, without fail, happens, is it not "inevitable"? Point to an actual extant or historical example of a government that hasn't violated individual rights in any way. Any "trade-off" must be considered. You must include violations on those points where you happen to think the violation was necessary or good- if you are being honest.

What is "government"? It is a system of control. What is "control"? It is a loss of freedom. Some "freedoms" may not be ethical and may not be a "right", but the only reasonable way to deal with this is to let people set boundaries and enforce their own rights without fear of being further violated by government enforcement of some nonsensical "law".

Then he goes on:

"So the size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing
about how free or oppressive a society is."

Perhaps, if you don't consider that everything the government does requires money, and that governments do not earn money; they take it. Under threat of force. The bigger the government is, the more expensive. The deeper the government reaches, the more expensive it is. Are you just as free if 70% of your money is taken by government as you are if "only" 10% is taken? I think not. Is not a slave oppressed simply because he lacks the final say in running his own life? He must ask permission for the majority of his actions. Just as government, even the most "non-intrusive" government, demands.

We can see the creative mind tricks the author is passing off as "scholarly observations". Do we fall for them?

Due to the length this column has already attained, and the importance of countering such absurd claims, I have split this article into two parts. Please join me tomorrow for Part 2.

Liberty- The Definition

Liberty is the freedom to exercise your rights.
Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility.

Therefore, there can be no such thing as "too much" liberty.

Thomas Jefferson said the same thing: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." 

He went on to say "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." 

.

Freedom- the Definition

"Freedom" means doing what you want to do.

Freedom is subjective; some people can be perfectly "free" in prison, while others couldn't be free in Utopia.

Evil statist monsters might even misdefine "freedom" as "the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Other people, consequences, responsibility, legislation, beliefs, reality, and many other things can limit your freedom. Freedom, liberty, and rights are not the same thing but are entangled.

Freedom is morally neutral; it can be good or it can be bad- depending upon what it is you want to do. You are still accountable for everything you do.


Once again, this is what I mean when I use the word "freedom" and it may vary somewhat from your meaning.

Rights- The Definition

A "right" is something you can do just because you exist. It is not dependent upon anyone's permission.

Every human alive, anywhere, has equal and identical rights.

Anything that you can do without violating the equal and identical rights of another individual is within your right to do, no matter how trivial or important.

Rights do not come from anyone, nor from government, nor from any document. A right can either be respected or it can be violated, but it can not be limited, regulated, licensed, rationed, or otherwise turned into a privilege. A privilege is the opposite of a right.

A right can not impose an obligation on another person to supply you with the means of exercising that right. (As pointed out in the comments.) I have a right to own and to carry weapons, but you have no obligation to give me a gun to carry, nor do I have a right to expect you to do so. My right is my responsibility.

All real rights can be expressed more accurately by saying "No one has a right to..." stop you from doing things which violate no one's life, liberty, or property. As in, "No one has a right to prohibit you from owning and carrying any sort of weapons." This is a better way of expressing the right to own and carry weapons.

Having a right doesn't mean there will be no consequences for exercising that right. There are always consequences and responsibilities for every action. Just because you have a right to do something does not mean it is the best thing to do right now. Think before you act, or even better, before you need to act.

In answer to those who claim there are no such things as rights-- that they are imaginary-- I say: That's fine. In that case no one can have a right to archate, so we are back to square one. Thanks!

See also: The nature of rights

What is "Kent McManigal"?

I'm not talking genus and species here, but politics.

If you read things I have written, you will notice I use different labels for myself at different times, and depending upon who I am writing for. My core beliefs and values do not change with the labels and don't normally change over time (unless it is toward even less recognition of coercion as a legitimate tool). I often feel labels are necessary, but I recognize the limits and the baggage they all have. A few of these labels even appear in the headline and introduction of this blog. I'll see if I can define myself in this post without using any labels at all. So, for informational purposes and future linkage, here is my explanation of my view (subject to revision, clarification, and addition as necessary):

Government is not necessary, and is evil. I am willing to work with those who still wish to "work within the system" using government (I will not join them in using government, though) as long as they are moving in my general direction of "greater individual freedom", even if just on one particular issue- any chair in a bar-fight, as they say- until we must part ways due to them reaching "enough freedom" (for themselves) and balking at going any further. Unless they try to stop me from continuing along my path, it can be an amicable parting.

I do not wish to control what others do as long as they harm no innocent person. If they wish to start a communist enclave, that is their business until they try to force someone to participate who does not wish to do so.

"Legal" is less than meaningless to me, as some of the worst acts are "legal" when committed by government employees, and some of the most innocuous are "illegal" when done against government wishes or without government permission.

I understand rights as existing equally in all people. Rights can either be respected or violated; nothing else. Government has no say in rights, but can wrongly restrict freedom and violate liberty. Liberty can be lost; rights can not.

There is never any legitimate reason to initiate force (attack the innocent). I will not second-guess someone who has been attacked regarding how much force they feel was necessary to defend themselves. I don't condone revenge, although I can sometimes understand the desire to pursue it. I feel a person must make choices and then accept the consequences.

I think people should not initiate deception. Keep your word. If you are being deceived, then self-defensive deception is analogous to self-defensive violence and can be the proper thing to do. You have no obligation to be honest with a liar or anyone who is attempting to harm you or other innocents. Government and its employees only function by harming others, so don't feel bad about deceiving them in order to keep what is yours or to protect people from government coercion.

I don't obsess over politics or government. In fact, other than writing about them, I don't think about either one too much unless they get in my way. Mostly, I just live my life minding my own business.
I don't care where you were born; what color your skin is; what language you speak; or what god(s), if any, you worship. All I care about is that you do not attack me or any other innocent person, and that you are not stealing or defrauding anyone.

Now, apply any label you think fits.

Hope and change is still on the menu, but not at the Government Cafe

Hope and change is still on the menu, but not at the Government Cafe

I was reading an opinion in a newsletter to which I subscribe about the recent, and mostly forgotten, ex-governor Rod Blagojevich "dramedy". The author opined that the imposed “political death penalty", which bars the former governor from ever again holding a state office, might not go far enough for the offense of "so egregiously violating the public trust". The implication was that such an offense deserves a real death penalty. That seems rather radical, but is an enjoyable thought in the right direction.

Then this sentence took me by surprise by its fundamental wrongness:

"At a time like this, what could have a more corrosive effect on the social
fabric than a loss of faith in public officials?"

Is the author joking? "Social fabric" has but one enemy: coercion. Coercion has but one source: bad people. A large percentage of the worst (and most "effective") of the bad people are "public officials". The power associated with government attracts thugs like raw meat attracts yellow-jackets.

Answering the probably rhetorical question; allowing "public officials" to exist at all is the real corrosive threat to the "social fabric".

"At a time like this" a "loss of faith in public officials" is exactly what we need. Think of it as a return to reality; an end to a delusion. A healthy and positive change.

The forgotten amendment

The forgotten amendment

Amendment III- "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law."

Once again, just to forestall any misunderstandings, I will state that rights do not come from any government nor from its documents. The best use of the Bill of Rights is to illustrate that the US government is no longer a legitimate authority, if it ever was. It lost that privilege when it unilaterally gave itself the power to interpret and enforce (?) the contract that allowed it to exist in the first place. A contract that was dead wrong from the very beginning, of course, but one that is now completely irrelevant, except as a clear illustration of wrong-doing.

That being the case, it is still clear that the person who wrote the words of the Third Amendment knew it was wrong to do what he forbade government from doing, and that the people who voted to ratify this amendment understood the same thing. Trespassing, especially by government agents and employees, is wrong.

Now, perhaps the US government hasn't violated the letter of the law, but they sure violate its spirit on a daily basis in regions all over the globe.

Putting military bases in other "countries" is a violation of the Third Amendment. Remember, the Bill of Rights was never contingent upon the victim being a "US citizen"; only upon the perpetrator being an employee of the US federal government. Period. It only prohibited actions by government, and never applied in any way to those of us who do not work for that criminal organization. That means it is just as wrong for an employee of the US government to commit a forbidden act against anyone, regardless of where on the globe it happens or what pedigree the person has, as it is for an employee of the US government to commit the same act against you or me in our own homes. Wrong is wrong.

That is only the beginning. The foreign US bases are built upon land stolen by the local government, or by the US government, from its rightful owners. Military bases exist due to coercive agreements between governments and are maintained by theft and force. They are filled with trespassers and, by their very existence, cause you and I to be in more danger from angry "foreigners" than we would otherwise be. Remember: freedom is not free, but it can not be purchased with government.

Of course, this all serves the government agenda quite well. Cause a threat to exist and then pretend to be the solution. It's a lie, but a useful one when people don't see what you are really doing. Some of us see through the lies.

My heroes have always been.... well, not thugs

My heroes have always been.... well, not thugs

If authoritarians are your heroes, you have faulty priorities. Authoritarians, such as presidents, LEOs, or those in the military, may occasionally act in heroic ways, but it is always in spite of their career choices, not because of them.

The act of doing what they are paid to do (with stolen money) does not make them "heroes". Especially not in the cases where their acts would be considered a "crime" - aggression - if done by you or me. In fact, I would say that anything they do "on the job" is automatically disqualified from consideration as "heroic", even if the same act "off-duty" would be. It is simply their duty.

Heroes do not brutalize people who fail to obey counterfeit "laws". Heroes do not attack people. Heroes earn respect; never demand it. Heroes do not do the dirty work of the state. Heroes do not steal money from anyone. Heroes do not bomb wedding parties or hospitals. Heroes do not ever obey orders or "laws" that are wrong. And heroes do not excuse or enable those who do.

Instead, heroes stand up for what is right, even in the face of "the law". Heroes do what is right no matter what the public sentiment may be, or what the "legal" consequences are. Heroes don't shrink from calling evil "evil".

Humans are fallible. Select heroes at your own risk. Realize, however, that certain traits are never heroic. An authoritarian outlook being one of the most basic of those.


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

Secede and succeed

Secede and succeed

Some people fear the death of the state because of their own financial situation. They are afraid of becoming dependent on charity in a free market where no state exists. Without a state to steal money with which to run its agencies and programs, those who work for the state face the consequences of their choices. In many cases their fears are unfounded.

Not everyone who works for the state will automatically be out of work when the state dies. Some of those jobs would still be useful and even necessary. In fact, some may become even more popular in a free society.

Consider becoming an honest provider of your services sooner rather than later. Those who are doing a job that would have a place in a free society could just divorce themselves from the state now.

The only people who will be automatically out of work when the state dies are those who can't compete without a captive, coerced "customer base". Those who depend on the monopoly of the state and couldn't attract real customers in a free market will lose out. Those whose "services" are generally unwanted and forced upon society at gun-point will find themselves at a disadvantage. Those parasites have no place in a free world anyway and would be thugs either with or without the state backing them up. We may as well expose them for what they really are now.

Let's say you are a meat inspector. I'm sure you know how to do your job just fine whether you are associated with the feds or not, right? In fact, you probably have a great many ideas of how to do your job a lot better and more efficiently, but regulations get in the way. It is already the case that "meets government standards" is a warning rather than a reassurance, and that the good businesses go far beyond those "standards". You know you can do it better. Every industry has similar examples.

Divorce your master and strike out on your own and put those innovations into action.


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

Local government more a threat than federal

Local government more a threat than federal

The federal government is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. It is chasing its tail, stumbling, and crumbling due to being rotten to the core. That is the good news.

Now for the bad news. Freedom is still in grave danger.

The fact is that the federal government isn't the greatest external threat to your life, liberty, and property. That "honor" goes to the local thugs- bureaucrats, and politicians; to be carried out by their enforcers. How much danger is there really that the FBI will kick in your door tonight compared to the danger that you will be waylaid on your daily travels by a more local thug? What about the danger of being kidnapped and robbed by the ethically empty drones of the IRS? Is it greater than the danger of being attacked and killed by a local LEO hopped up on testosterone and "authority"; looking for an excuse to use his (or her) Taser?

Since it is now apparently a "crime" to be free, and committing such an infraction requires decisive action on the part of the LEOs- like demanding your "papers"; demanding to know where you are going and what business you have there- just the fact of your existence places you in danger if local tools of the state are near. Each and every encounter with a cop has become a life-and-death drama, where one hint that you are not a badge-licker can cause it to escalate out of control.

So, remember this the next time you hear someone complaining about the feds. It's all a matter of proportion and perspective.


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

Private property is the foundation

Private property is the foundation

I have been recently seeing that some anarchists are rejecting the concept of "private property". While I think this is more "communist" than "anarchist", I also know that in a free society a person can live as they want as long as they don't force their values on anyone else. I have absolutely no problem with people forming little communist enclaves if that is what they want. However, I do have a real problem with the rejection of the idea of private property, as I think it renders "freedom" meaningless.

I suspect that the desire to ignore or reject private property comes from not having "enough" of it. In that case, I should reject it, as well, but I don't. I see the position as a "sour grapes" stance summarized as: "Since I don't have all I want, and I don't think that is fair, then I don't recognize 'private property' anymore and I can take what I need to survive." I could be seriously wrong, of course.

The rejection of private property has some interesting implications. If there is no such thing as private property, then there is no such thing as theft. It would just be a transfer of material with no ethical implications at all If there is no such thing as theft, then taxation isn't wrong. How would you even know if it was "taxation" or freelance "transfer of material" anyway? In either case, it isn't "the state" that is taking the money from you, it is an individual who, in the case of "taxation" is supposedly taking it for the benefit of the state. If you don't own the money, then why would you complain as long as the money is not used to finance coercion?

We can pretend there is a state which uses no coercion, has no enforcers, wages no wars, and doesn't forbid consensual behavior, but only uses the "tax" money to finance welfare programs to make everyone happy, housed, well-fed, and healthy. Under such an imaginary non-aggressive state, even a 100% tax-rate would be fine, since you would have no claim to that money since there is no such thing as property. Under such a scenario, how could you really claim to be an anarchist?

I think to embrace anarchy, you must necessarily recognize that private property lies at the foundation. Even if it means being dissatisfied with how much, or how little, property you have right now.

The right to yell 'FIRE!' in a theater

In almost any rant calculated to justify a government violation of some natural human right (especially those mentioned in the Bill of Rights), usually specifically the right to own and to carry weapons, someone will invariably bring up the old lie that “you can’t yell ‘FIRE!’ in a theater”.

Well, yes, you can.

The tyranny-enabling statement gets it wrong on so many levels.

It is your absolute human right to do say whatever you want to say. It may not be wise, and in a free society you will be held accountable for any harm you cause by doing so, of course.

The actual statement asserts you have no right to FALSELY yell “FIRE!”, but almost everyone misses that distinction, either through ignorance or by design, and it is still wrong anyway.

Then there is the misunderstanding of where rights come from. I’ll give you a hint: they don’t come from government or any of its documents. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give us any rights at all. In fact, it doesn’t even apply to you or me at all unless we work for government. And for those to whom it does apply, its entire purpose is to stop them from violating the rights of others.

What the Bill of Rights DOES do is prohibit government from enacting “laws” that restrict (violate) certain rights (think of it as a “government shall not…” list). Since the First Amendment protects ALL speech from government regulation or control, it also protects the right to say things that can be destructive or stupid. That doesn’t mean doing so is right — it usually is not — but government can have no legitimate say in the matter. What government can do (if anything), or what a private arbitrator should do, after the fact, is hold the speaker accountable for any harm his act caused.

The best thing is that the Bill of Rights could be repealed tomorrow and it wouldn’t diminish anyone’s rights at all. It might make it slightly easier for government to get away with violating those rights by restricting liberty. Or not. We may get a chance to see.

.

How best to really free children?

How best to really free children?

Is it better to teach your children about freedom, and how to value it; knowing the world they will be growing up in (at least until the state fades away) is determined to punish and crush those who exercise* their freedom? Or is it better, for them, to just let them be raised to be compliant, mindless sheep, whose lives will be comfy as long as they "go along to get along"? At least until their deaths are necessary to the state.

I know the answer to that question in my own heart, although it troubles me some.

Yes, I allow my children to observe that the state is their enemy, and that all its enforcers and supporters are not to be trusted. I also try to teach them not to obsess over that fact. The first part is a lesson I wish my parents had taught me a little more clearly while I was growing up, although I learned it soon enough on my own. The second; a lesson I am continually teaching myself.
_____________________

*Freedom, to be real, must be exercised, not just talked about. Most people who say the word "freedom" have no more clue about what it means than if they were talking about a blue charm quark. These are the people who, like a well-known politician/parasite, claim that freedom is about doing what the government tells you to do or who think "freedom" begins and ends with the Constitution or voting.

Survivor: ZAP

Survivor: ZAP

I'm going off on a little tangent here, but there is an eventual point.

When I first heard of the show "Survivor", I thought it sounded fascinating. Until I watched the first episode. I was disgusted that it had very little to do with survival, and everything to do with drama and personality conflicts. Behavior that would seriously compromise survival was encouraged and even necessary to "win".

So, out of my disgust grew a better idea.

Let's set up the premise. Why not take a jet, filled with everything a typical passenger plane would carry, except for the passengers, and smash it into the side of a mountain? You could then truck in the "survivors" and let them deal with the situation. Is anything usable in the wreckage? Probably, since you'd have to "gently" crash it in order for survivors to be realistic. Put fully-clothed dead pigs in some seats for some pretend "cannibalism" fun. Could "injuries" be randomly assigned? Perhaps a computer program could follow any treatment the other survivors attempt and determine the progress of the recovery... or "death". Of course, you couldn't give the "survivors" real injuries. Could you recruit car wreck victims from an emergency room? I guess that would be too risky.

The possibilities for excitement are endless. Would predators show up to scavenge the porcine bodies? How could they be defended against? Unless there were an air marshal on board, there wouldn't be any guns available for driving off predators. Hmmm. Unless some were in the luggage; on their way to an Alaskan hunt, perhaps. Filming would need to be as unobtrusive as possible. Maybe cover the area with remote-control cameras to minimize the distractions. There would be no contrived "council meetings" with the show's host. No getting "voted off"... you are stuck until you bail out, in which case you "die" and another pig corpse is substituted for you. The winner would be obvious since he or she would be the last player standing.

Here is the libertarian angle: I propose a new twist to this "reality show" of mine. Let's take a group of people of all sorts- but who all agree to abide by the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), have gone through the TOLFA course, or who at least understand that ZAP will be the only "law"- put them in my plane crash scenario, or even on an island or in the middle of some other remote location, and see what happens. Let's see whether a group of people can really live by the ZAP under more extreme conditions than everyday existence. Let the fun begin! I volunteer enthusiastically.

Making life easier for cops

Making life easier for cops

I like to do my part and contribute to society in a meaningful way. That is the spirit in which I make this suggestion.

If the LEOs could bring themselves to just get over their authoritarian brainwashing, they would realize that they could ignore all the libertarians without endangering themselves or "the public" in any way.

It could make their lives and jobs so much simpler, plus by treating us as we should be treated, we would gladly take on some of their "responsibility" ourselves, since most of us know we alone are responsible for ourselves, and most of us also accept the responsibility to protect and defend the innocent around us.

Instead, most LEOs insist on waging war on those who otherwise would pose no threat to them at all. This is completely insane behavior on their part.

Bad things happen- don't make them worse

Bad things happen- don't make them worse

Bad things happen. That is just a harsh fact of life no matter what else is going on around you. That doesn't mean you have to make it worse. Throwing government on the situation is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It doesn't change the past. It doesn't restore a victim to his pre-attack condition. All it does is feed the blood-lust of those who have been absorbed into the cult of the punishment mentality.

In spite of the claims to the contrary, punishment doesn't serve as an effective warning to others. If that worked in real life, none of us would have to make our own mistakes since we would listen to the admonitions of our parents or learn from the experiences of our friends. It doesn't work that way, as everyone knows from personal experience.

There is also little hard evidence (in spite of wishful thinking by authoritarians) that currently popular forms of punishment really teach anyone "a lesson". Imprisonment does, however, immerse the prisoner into a new, anti-social, culture which reinforces the "us vs. them" dichotomy which teaches them to think it is OK to hurt the "other side". It also forces the prisoner to learn new skills from more experienced or creative fellow convicts. The really tragic part of this is that only a very small percentage of prisoners are there because of real aggression; most are there for victimless "crimes" against the state's insane edicts. All punishment does is strengthen the state.

The only ethical thing to do is to insist upon dispute resolution and restitution, and when that doesn't work, to exercise the right of self defense consistently. Apart from any government enforcement or control. It requires a separation of justice and state- on our way to the real pot of gold: the separation of life and state.

Going postal over freedom

Going postal over freedom

I post my older columns on a local newspaper's website. I also frequently comment on the news items therein. This general vicinity is not very libertarian at all, even though the newspaper is owned by the libertarian Freedom Communications. I am often the only voice for freedom when I comment on a story; the rest of the comments are made by people fully entrenched into, or absorbed by, the punishment mentality- the cult that results in bombed weddings in Iraq, DEA no-knock raids, Guantanamo torture, and automatic guilty verdicts (regardless of the facts) when the magic words "child molestation" or "child pornography" are uttered by the authoriturds.

The rationality of "my opposition" can be seen in this comment left by a reader on my newspaper blog:

"Shut up!~!! Your blogs are not interesting, have no meaning to the
well-informed citizens, and sometimes are just scary to read. Keep your opinions
to yourself and go out to your backyard and fire your gun to keep your sanity!!!
You need to find a support group, or make a friend who shares your interests in
order to keep you from going "postal". Please spare us from having to read your
annoying comments, and give us space to comment to people who care!!!"

Now, I have been told, on more than one occasion, that I am the most laid-back person you could meet. I've never been in a serious fight and I don't think I have ever been in danger of "going postal", as I much prefer to avoid a fight rather than feeling the need to start one if I have been "disrespected". And, of course, I will not initiate force.

I have to assume that freedom so frightens this person that she is striking out at me in terror without engaging her mind first. Is freedom really this frightening to the general population? I would hope not, but perhaps- to people without self-control, or without the ethical principles to guide them- it is. Especially if they assume everyone else is just like them.

Governments should fear the people....

Governments should fear the people....

There are risks that go along with seeking power over the lives of others. It is only right that there should be. If you want that power, but are unwilling to face the risks, you should consider getting an honest job instead. Whether you are a judge who wants more "security" for the courthouse, or a congresscritter who doesn't like facing angry voters "back home", or a president who is worried about armed protesters in your vicinity, if you can't stand the heat, stop feeding bodies into the furnace. Heat, and risk, goes with the territory.

Carrying a gun is not "a threat" unless you are intending to attack the gun owner. Having a gun with you is not "using force". It may offend you, but you have no right to not be offended. None. I have not heard of any real threats made or attempted. So why do these politicians feel threatened by normal people doing normal things? Do you really think that if you are a threat to people- their lives, their liberty, and their property, that there will be no risks? Do you count on the celebrity status and starry-eyed worshipers to keep you safe? Or is this just why no politician I have ever seen can pass "The X-Ray Question"?

If Obama is doing nothing wrong, why would he worry about peaceful armed people in his presence? Politicians should be harmless enough that no one would want to kill them or do them harm. If they are not, it is an indication that they have overstepped their authority and have become a threat to the people who are forced to live with the results of their "laws". It should be a wake-up call to back off and straighten up. Instead it will be seen as an excuse to further illegally expand the power and authority of the state.

Obama, to his credit, doesn't seem to have publicly fretted over the proximity of gun-owners. Why should he, since his security has fully-automatic assault weapons in their hands? Weapons which are unethically prohibited to the rest of us. His reaction in private is a subject for speculation. His supporters have certainly raised the roof with their paranoia and conspiracy theories, though.

When I ran for president I publicly stated that it would be the duty of the people of America (at least the ones who had voted for me), and of my vice-president, to assassinate me if I violated my oath of office, or if I broke any campaign promise, and that I would sign an order upon my inauguration specifying that no charges could be pressed against the assassin. No honest politician can do any less.

"The X-Ray Question"

I got this from L. Neil Smith, although I think I probably paraphrased it somewhat. This is the only question you ever need to ask any politician to find out if they will work for your benefit, or for their own:

"Do you support the absolute human right of every person to own
and to carry, everywhere they go, in any way they see fit, whatever type of
firearm they wish without asking permission of anyone, ever?"

The answer will tell you all you need to know.

'Health care reform' opponents are missing the point

'Health care reform' opponents are missing the point

The whole notion of "health care reform" is on just about everyone's mind these days. Obama and his meat-puppets trying to sell their socialistic notions; the Republican marionettes trying to sell their equally misguided socialistic counter-notions. Most of the opposition is completely missing the important part. What everyone needs to remember is that it is illegal for government to have any control over the medical business no matter how much politicians would love to get their hands on the remainder of that pie. Even more important, it is simply wrong for government to attempt the takeover.

Yes, I realize government already controls a lot of the medical services in America. That is what has made medical care expensive in the first place. You don't solve the disease of socialism by increasing the dosage of socialism. Unless your goal is to kill the patient, a possibility which shouldn't be discounted entirely.

L. Neil Smith has promoted a great idea of advocating a Constitutional Amendment mandating a separation of medicine and state. As long as we have to contend with the dying system, you might as well use it against itself if that is your cup of tea.

He and others have laid out the steps to real health care reform, for all who want to see what would really work. Bill St. Clair wrote it out in this way:

1) The end of medicare and medicaid

2) The end of the FDA and the DEA

3) The end of medical licensing

4) The end of prescription drugs and controlled substances. Marijuana in the bulk aisle in the health food store. Morphine over the counter in the drug store.

5) No more insurance tax breaks for anybody (lower all taxes instead, preferably to zero).

6) Tort reform: loser pays.

This will engender a true free market in health care. A doctor visit or
a hospital stay for a broken bone will once again be affordable out of pocket
for most Americans. Catastrophic health insurance will be easily obtainable to
cover the rest. The poor will be very well taken care of with voluntary
charity.

Anything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The icy water is knee-deep and the deck chairs are floating away. It's time for bold action and substantive change, not more "politics".

The insight of Robert A. Heinlein

The insight of Robert A. Heinlein

On the heels of my post on "Intellectual Property", I find myself wanting to spread the "IP" of another. This is one of the clearest explanations of my world view I have ever read.

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and
'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of
self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame,
share blame, distribute blame ... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters
taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he
knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live
perfectly in an imperfect world ... aware that his effort will be less than
perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure." - Robert A. Heinlein
(The Moon is a Harsh Mistress)

I guess this means I will continue to refer to myself as an "anarchist" for the foreseeable future. Believe it or not, I am reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the first time right now. Why did I wait so long? "Finite time" is my only excuse. This isn't my first taste of the wisdom in this book, though. There is another Heinlein quote on the next page that is also a favorite of mine. I discovered it through another liberty-lover long before I even knew where it originated.

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I
know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

Taken together these quotes give a pretty good description of how I attempt to live.

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

'Intellectual property'

'Intellectual property'

Intellectual property ("IP"), the idea that a person's creative works belong to them even after copies have been sold, is a fairly new thing. Throughout most of human history when a person invented something, or made up a poem or song, once anyone else was introduced to that new creation they could copy the original and no one thought anything of it. Before industrialization it was how progress was spread. I doubt anyone panicked about someone else stealing their design for the wheel or idea for "agriculture"; two examples of things that are much more important than the newest incarnation of the "legally-protected" "Twilight" franchise.

Then some lawyer had an idea. They would get "laws" enacted to give a person control over their creation so that they alone would profit from it (after paying the lawyer and government a hefty fee, of course)- at least for a while. I can understand someone wanting to profit from their creations. I know it would be a nice situation to be in, but is it right to use government to do so?

I have witnessed many heated discussions among libertarians about "IP", and have read good points from either side of the fence. The two sides come down to this: "Once you buy that CD you should be able to do anything with it, including copying it. What right does anyone have to tell you what you can do with your own property?" vs. "The artist put a lot of work into creating the content of that CD, and the recording company invested a lot of money to produce it. They should profit from their effort and investment, and that profit should be protected for a while." It doesn't take government to protect "IP", of course, but is "protection" justified by property rights, or would that violate the property rights of the person who bought the CD or book? Does the elimination of "IP" protection destroy the incentive to create?

I know that some of my creations have been used here and there, most with attribution; some without. It doesn't really bother me too much. Of course, there isn't any real money at stake either. Would I feel differently if I stood to gain or lose a lot of money? Probably, because I am human. Does that settle the matter? Absolutely not. My personal feelings or wishes have no bearing on the issue.

My opinion is that "Intellectual Property" is a nice idea for the creative person, but is probably unrealistic as we head into the post-government era of easily copied "content". I don't worry too much about protecting my own "IP", but, as a courtesy, I try very hard to not dishonestly benefit from the "IP" of others.

What do you think?

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

Punishing accidents for fun and profit

Punishing accidents for fun and profit


In almost any vehicle accident, the state imposes a "fine" which is just another way to say that the state uses the accident as an excuse to steal more money. In an accident where damage was done to the property of another I can see a need for restitution, I can even see a point in paying for (illegitimately) state-owned infrastructure that was damaged in an accident, but often the only property damage is to the property of the person in the accident. The state works tirelessly to come up with some "offense", such as "distracted driving" or non-use of seat belts, that can be exploited for money. Even in the case of a private individual's property being damaged, the "fine" doesn't go to him to pay for his damages, but to the state's treasury. If any restitution is paid, it is paid by insurance. The "fine" has nothing to do with it. No matter, "fines" must be imposed to teach a lesson.

I'm sure the state justifies this theft by claiming the money will help pay for enforcers and judges, and for running the criminal universities (absurdly called "correctional facilities"). The truth is none of these things make society any "safer", freer, or better, but only strengthen the state. These things are all a part of the problem, not part of the solution.

This is also the case in many accidents, involving a vehicle or not, where an innocent person is killed or injured. Justice for the victim is measured, by the state, by whether someone can be punished for it. In the instance of a family member of the "guilty" party being the victim, isn't that punishment enough? How does the added punishment by the corrupt state make things any better? To demand state-imposed punishment for every unfortunate accident is perverted and wrong. Those who hunger for blood in these cases deserve to have the tables turned.

There is no clearer illustration that government is not there to "help" anyone but themselves.

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

Freedom scales up quite well

Freedom scales up quite well

Most people acknowledge that anarchy is fine for daily life. Once they think about it, they realize that they live almost their entire lives in a condition of anarchy- where they do not seek government approval for the hundreds of decisions they make each day, nor do they look to government to choreograph their interactions with all the people they come in contact with. Most of their lives are lived on a "is this good for me, and will it have any bad consequences?" basis. This is natural and peaceful. Normally the only non-free moments are when they are forced to jump through some governmental hoops to avoid being kidnapped or killed for not dotting an "i" or crossing a "t" as the state's thugs demand.

That being said, a lot of those people don't think freedom can truly "scale up" to fit the world. One recent comment I got can be paraphrased as "anarchy is fine between individuals, but not when you have to deal with a whole nation". Might that be true? Does it matter?

I don't know about you, but I have never had to deal with an entire "nation" at one time. Only individuals, and not usually more than I could count on my fingers. Normally, no matter how many people may be near, I am only truly interacting with one or two at a time. Almost everyone I meet, even the most blustery, loud-mouthed statists, still behave themselves as though they wish to get along right now. This shows that anarchy is a powerful force for peace and cooperation in the real world.

This fact only breaks down when you add government to the mix. Those in government insanely try to deal with everyone as a collective. They invariably try to brainwash people into thinking and dealing with "society" in the same way. Even under the most extreme circumstances, such as when a government tries to make "one size fits all" rules, there are still only many individuals simultaneously being harmed. When presidents and prime ministers meet, they have only their individual interests at heart, regardless of their lies to the contrary. When wars are declared (or simply engaged in) it is individual politicians trying to advance their agendas by using individual pawns against the agenda of the opposing individual politicians and their individual pawns. Somehow it seems the only individuals to not pay dearly are those who start the war. Let governments and their willing complicit statists fight it out and leave the rest of us, the sane people, out of it.

I can get along just fine, individual to individual.


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

Test the waters of the real free-market

Test the waters of the real free-market

Is there a danger in agorism- the so-called "black- and gray-markets"- that is not present when dealing with "governmentally licensed" businesses?

Would a loan-shark be more likely to arbitrarily change the terms of your deal than an "FDIC-insured" bank? Or a credit card company? Are you sure? Have you read those notices they send you on a regular basis?

Is gray-market aspirin more likely to be a worthless placebo or to come from a dangerous batch than that which has been governmentally inspected or approved?

Even if this is the case, how much of the danger comes directly from the consequences of government meddling in what should be a free market, and keeping good people out of such endeavors? A lot of otherwise good people still have a morbid desire to be "law-abiding".

If you have chosen to deal with those who, by the very nature of avoiding "imperial entanglements", must remain "outlaws" you can't go running to tattle to the state if they harm you. This leaves private arbitration. Since private arbitration hasn't really taken off yet, you might have a hard time finding someone to act as a go-between.

I don't see this as a flaw in the free markets themselves, but as a temporary danger due to government getting in the way of free trade and interfering with the natural tendency of bad-actors to suffer the consequences of their dishonesty. No one is forcing you to deal with any particular un-sanctioned business. Only government (or other mafia) forces people to do business with its agents and offices. Find out who is trustworthy and who is not. Buyer beware, always.

I think the risk is worth it. Nothing is 100% safe, after all. Free trade, without government "permission", is probably the most powerful place to start, after your recognition of your self-ownership. "Trade" is moving beyond the self into the wider world. If you really want freedom, it is necessary. You have to start sometime and somewhere.

And, who knows, maybe you are just the right person to start a counter-economic career arbitrating, under the radar, for the real free market.


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