Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
A few months ago I had asked her if she'd had any difficulties getting her columns published in the paper she writes for. She said she hadn't. And her local paper isn't even an "editorially libertarian" publication like the Clovis News Journal is.
After forwarding the post to the appropriate channels, my problems with getting published disappeared. Even things I thought would get cut in editing survived. Is there a connection? I believe there is.
So here's a sincere THANK YOU!! to Debbie. Writing the column has been much more enjoyable these past several weeks. I'm hoping the trend continues, but either way I truly appreciate the opportunity to write without the constant stress of looming rejection.
Well, he is in need of financial help. (Sorry I wasn't clear what kind of help before, so I clarified.) He didn't ask me to mention this, but if anyone could help him out a little, I know it would mean a lot to him. And to me.
Contact him at cb [at] butterbach.net if you can help.
The purpose of a justice system is to provide justice- to return the victim of theft or aggression to a condition as close as possible to their condition before the violation occurred.
The justice system doesn't exist in order to teach anyone a lesson. Not that you'd know that anymore.
If a lesson is learned by the bad guys in the course of providing justice, that is just icing on the cake, but it isn't necessary. If restitution is required enough times, and if shunning follows an offense, and if an intended victim's self defensive violence is upheld as correct and justified regularly, then bad guys have a choice to make: learn a lesson or keep facing consequences, including the very real possibility of being killed by the next target.
When the perverts who populate legislatures, enforce "laws", and sit in judgement in courthouses try to use the justice system to teach people a lesson justice is thrown out the window. Those idiots in government try to pervert the justice system to teach drug abusers that they shouldn't use (not just abuse) "drugs". Those parasites in government try to wield the justice system as a club to teach people that they must comply with, and assist, The State in its theft of their property. The justice system has been stolen to be used as a way to impose the twisted desires of government psychopaths on you and me. Justice isn't even a goal any longer; punishment is. And the excuse used is that "we must teach these people a lesson". Balderdash.
Most people brought before the courts aren't even there for anything that concerns a real justice system at all. And those who are... well, there's a very good chance the only reason they have fallen into a life of theft and/or aggression is due to the criminal assembly line the "justice system" has become for those who dare to assert their self-ownership in ways The State forbids.
Justice isn't possible in a system that has been stolen by the bad guys, to be used by the bad guys, to teach the rest of us to do as they demand we do, or ELSE! Insist, and enforce, a separation of court and State.
The internet at this time is a lot like the newspapers of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Back then newspapers were full of stories about mermaids, monsters, and incredible things that we laugh at today. Not just for their absurdity but for the poor attempt to make the incredible believable. You had to want to believe to fall for most of the tales.
Now, of course, newspapers seem much more realistic with their State-approved lies. "Osama's recent demise" is a good illustration.
I just hope the internet never becomes a similar organ of State-approved lies. I'd rather sift through the nonsensical garbage than to know that everything was thought up, spun, and/or officially sanctioned before going on the internet.
I'm having real trouble seeing any real difference between having cops running around town extorting money from people and ordering them around, and having the same done by mafia enforcers.
Even when I mentioned this to someone else, the only objection she could think of was "The mafia will kill you". I mentioned that the cops will, too. So she said "But the mafia will kill you for no reason".
I doubt it. Where's the profit in that? As long as you pay your "protection money" ("taxes"), don't try to resist the shakedown, and don't undermine the organization, you'll probably be left alone. Why kill the cash cow? As long as you do things the way the mafia/cops demand, you'll probably be left alone to enjoy your "freedom".
The enforcers don't make the rules; their bosses do. You have as much say in the rules The State (or city council) imposes on you as you do in setting the mafia's agenda. You have been fooled if you believe otherwise.
The mafia will protect those within their sphere from attacks by other thugs, just as will cops. You can't be a successful parasite if your host dies, and if others drain off some of the money you had planned to steal there is less for you and your bosses.
I don't need cops or mafia goons. Take your "protection" and shove it. I am not impressed by your fancy uniforms or shiny cars (with the flashing lights) bought with stolen money. You are a disgusting parasite and you should be flushed out.
The recent discussion with Kerodin and the Arctic Patriot got me thinking again. About the coming unpleasantness.
Once the shooting starts, if we abandon our principles in order to win, have we won? Can you stop acting like government after the war? If not, the struggle was in vain since there is no gain in swapping out one gang of violent, unprincipled monsters for a new gang of violent, unprincipled monsters. Not even if they include you.
The only possible point in flipping the social pyramid upside down in this way would be in hoping that when the smoke clears you end up nearer the top. But that's not good enough for me. I don't want to flip the pyramid; I want a civilization based upon the Zero Aggression Principle and The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. I want there to be no pyramid, where some exist by coercively using others, at all. I don't think you can get there by acting like those in government act.
Small town police state. It's happening. Right here, right now. I thought they were just picking on me for being somewhat open with my opposition to their parasitism, but I have discovered they are out of control and on a thieving rampage.
Even a non-libertarian I spoke to yesterday admitted that this town has too many cops (3) trying to finance their unnecessary and pointless jobs through extortion. So he didn't say it in quite those words, but that was the gist. This town, until not that long ago, had no cops at all. Not one. There was no problem with that. If anything seemed, to the weak and scared, to call for LEO intervention, the sheriff was more than capable of handling the situation.
Of course, with millions of new "laws" being added to the books to be enforced every year, I'm sure the "job" became too large for such an efficient and non-intrusive system. That is not a sign "we" are getting worse, it is a sign law pollution is destroying civilization.
Now this town has 3 cops all trying to find ways to justify their jobs, and apparently now on notice that they had better pay their own way by shaking down the residents. They should all be fired, at the very least, since they can't control themselves.
Well, technically, acting like government is important is what is silly.
Government is like a role-playing game. Those who are involved act like the things they worry about and work on are real. Yet, in every case those things only exist within the matrix of the game. It is when those in-game scenarios are foolishly applied to real life and imposed on the rest of us that tragedy results. A "gamer" who gets off-kilter could start slaying people with a sword or trying to throw lightning bolts at people. A "stater" will start stealing real money and killing people over possession of plants.
Most gamers know better than to be silly enough to think their game is of importance to anyone other than the other players. They don't threaten people who aren't involved in the game. In other words, whether you think their game is a waste of time or not, they don't expect you to bow to their game. They also know their game isn't the only game available. Live and let live.
People who are involved in role-playing games aren't hurting anyone as long as they keep their grasp of reality and don't initiate force or steal. For some reason, those staters playing the game of The State can't seem to keep their fantasy in perspective. Or maybe we only notice the truly sick individuals who take the fantasy into the real world and start hurting innocent people. I pity these people while reminding myself that I can pity the rabid dog while realizing that I must defend myself from its bite.
(As originally written, not as published. As usual. On another note, I've decided to see if I can remember to put my liberated CNJ columns up at the top once I post them in their entirety. This one was originally published on April 1.)
There is no way to force someone to be free. As a libertarian I see the absurdity of that impossible notion. So when I point out the wrong of liberty-destroying laws I am not demanding that those who feel they need them give them up. That would be trying to force them to be free. On the contrary, they can live under any handicaps they choose. How is that for irony? They are free to be enslaved if that is what they clamor for.
The problem arises when those counterfeit "laws" which attempt to regulate or control something other than an attack or theft are imposed on those of us who don't need them and don't consent to them. Those of us who are not afraid of other people living free within the full scope of their rights. Your right to be a slave ends at the other guy's right to liberty.
I see the words "liberty" and "freedom" as having distinct meanings; unlike some who use them as synonyms. There is some overlap, though. Freedom is doing what you want, whether right or wrong. Liberty is the freedom to act as you want, but only within the boundary of your rights. You might be free to rob a stranger at gunpoint, but since you have no right to do so, and would violate his property rights if you tried, you have no liberty to commit this act. In fact, he would be well within his rights to use deadly force to stop you, regardless of the legal opinion of The State.
Rather than forcing someone to be free, the best you can do for someone else is to remove obstacles to their liberty if it is your legitimate business to do so without violating anyone else's rights in any way. The most commonly ignored way to do this is to simply stop doing things yourself that violate their liberty.
This means you should stop using laws which force others to do things, or forbid them from doing things, for "their own good". This means withdrawing support for those who violate the liberty of those "under" them. This means you should accept that other people will have opinions that you may find reprehensible, just as your opinions may be extremely offensive to someone else. As long as no one is forced to participate- as long as there is no coercion or fraud- it is no one else's business. No matter how much you may be offended or frightened by their non-coercive actions. This also means that while no one has the authority to forbid you from living in liberty, you have no authority to try to force them to be free. Not here and not in Afghanistan.
A couple of posts on a couple of differentblogs, especially in the comments, inspired some thoughts that I will share with you. It concerns striking the other guy before he has a chance to strike you.
One detail that seems to trip up many people when the Zero Aggression Principle is discussed is when it's OK to act in self-defense before a serious, or even deadly, blow has been struck against you. I think the only time it is OK is when there is a "credible threat" of harm.
To me a credible threat is when, to the best of your knowledge, the threatener has the intention to follow through with the threat and the means to actually carry it out.
A braggart who just wants to look big in front of his friends, but who is too weak to actually do you any damage and who is unarmed (listen up, goverthugs in the Pentagon) is not a credible threat no matter what he says, and an armed person who has no intention of attacking you, even if they are justified, (listen up, LEOs) is also not a credible threat.
Of course, if you attack first anyway, he has no obligation to take it without fighting back, and once you attack, no matter who you are or what you think your "job" is, YOU are a bad guy. Even if you "win". If that is OK with you, then who am I to tell you to get a conscience? You do what you think you must and live with the consequences, all of them, like a self-responsible person.
One thing I know as surely as I know I have 10 fingers is that governments lie.
You can endlessly debate all kinds of details and definitions such as whether thumbs are fingers or whether I know how to count or what "government" is or what constitutes a "lie" or whether the lies are "necessary", etc... but that's just avoiding the truth that everyone knows unless they are too stupid to remember to breathe: governments lie.
If anyone is planning to buy anything from me soon- shirts, books, flags- or make a donation, now would be a good time since I'm still in dire need of funds.
It bewilders and sickens me how fast the "conservatives" are to accept the word of a known liar, whom they otherwise are smart enough to distrust, when he claims Osama is now dead, just because it serves their death-cult worship of the military.
Osama bin Laden is/was a despicable, evil man, but unlike Obama, he never threatened my liberty in any way. I know who the real terrorists are and I will not be distracted by silly charades. I'll await the next move.
Sorry, that's old news. The answer is "Osama death certificate". You lose- America loses.
Anyone else find it suspicious that when the news of the indisputable fakery involved in the released "Obama birth certificate" looked like it might actually no longer be avoidable to the news media, Osama's cryonically preserved, I mean "freshly dead" corpse appears? Convenient timing or something more sinister?
And, no, I don't give a rodent's orifice where Obama (or Bush or ???) was born since no one has the right or the authority to rule over any other person, no matter the results of any election or coup. But it does go to show how dishonest these parasites are.
I understand the sentiment of "voting in self defense". I have even done it in the past.
The thing is, I think a self-defensive voter needs to make very clear that the voting is only done to try to avoid difficulties later by either "legalizing" liberty, or by rejecting a "legalized" restriction on liberty, but that if the results of the election go against liberty the voter has no intention of going along with the result.
I am surrounded by pro-government extremists who constantly subject me to their silly and archaic opinions, but I am expected to remain silent and not express my opinion. My opinions are "not polite" or "socially acceptable", I suppose.
I am expected to not make any efforts to defend myself intellectually from the infectious memes of the government extremists, and certainly take no actions to defend myself.
Even the peaceful and humorous act of putting up a sign is seen as a shameful thing. I am apparently an embarrassment. Had I put up a sign supporting even a candidate they didn't like, it would have been OK, I guarantee. But because my sign exposes the illegitimacy of the whole rigged game, it is "wrong".
I don't make an issue of my disagreement with the one who gives lip-service to freedom while supporting the pro-life [sic] protesters and seeking quick "solutions" through Law and enforcement. It's that ridiculous mythical "harm to society", you know, that must be prevented.
I say nothing about the ones who work for and support The State with their careers in some of the most cruel institutions of The State (public schools and prisons), and with their votes.
I say nothing to those who belong to the most popular Death Cult in America, which celebrates the modern Crusade (and Crusaders) in its worship [sic] services while ignoring the realities of the War on Terror/War on Liberty and is fine with torture as long as it happens to "them".
Because I don't buy into all of that nonsense, and because I have previously dared to let them know where I stand (even though I don't harp on it constantly), I am the bad one.
How about this: You stop making it necessary for me to defend my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property from your goverthugs and "laws" and I'll shut up. I don't want to think about The State or any other idiotic superstition, but I have no choice when you make it a constant threat. Keep your filthy government to yourself!
The town is cluttered with campaign signs for the upcoming mayoral race.
Yay.
So, I just placed this sign in my yard to add a little reason to the debate.
PS: I just wish that, for once, my every action was not met by the person who claims to be my partner with eye-rolling, sighs, disgust, and derision. And frequently anger. It gets old.
For this exercise I'll ignore for a moment that the US is a criminal government and that taxation is always and without exception wrong. I'll pretend for a moment that The State has a legitimate place in life. Now, how would I fix the US budget.
Easy. Just cut the total budget, which means every every single individual budget item, in the fe(de)ral government by the same 99.9%. If an agency previously had a budget of $10 million, under the new plan the budget is now $10,000. Can't do "the job" for that amount? Then shut down and give the assets back to those whose money paid for them.
That should get the government back fairly close to the limits the Constitution set upon its "authority" and would solve the budget crisis. Any "extra" money that is not spent on budget items would go toward paying down the debt, unless the government just defaults.
I'm going to step out on a limb again and say that someone who is supposedly smarter than little ol' me has got it wrong. Again.
In this TED video, sociologist Sam Richardsalmost gets it right, but then he gets sidetracked and caught in the quicksand of the "progressive" mindset. I'm mostly talking about his first exercise in empathy (in the first 3:30 of the video) where he uses the Chinese and Americans in a thought experiment. Watch at least that part then come back and read the rest here.
If, as in his example, "the Chinese" got fabulously wealthy by mining and exporting American coal back to China, then they are buying it from the property owners. Right? Well, in the absence of government, they would be. That's where he misses the point.
Now, he admits that the Chinese only got access to this coal through political deals with Rulers. Deals that enrich the Rulers at the expense of those who actually owned the coal. Why doesn't he think about who owns the coal, and why they are not able to exercise that ownership? Why doesn't he see where the problem originates? The State is the root of this problem; not the resource or those who acquire it.
Where I think he gets it wrong the worst is that he assumes that the Americans in this scenario would be stupid enough to blame the Chinese people and resent their prosperity when the culprits are the political deal-makers in America. They are the thieves. Politicians are always thieves. They are good at making unaware followers blame someone else, though.
Maybe some people are too stupid to see who is really to blame, but that "political elite" better not bet their lives on it.
Now, watch the rest of the video. The funny thing is that he makes the assumption that you and I haven't already put ourselves in the shoes of those who are defending themselves from violent invaders. Or, am I really that different from you?
You can't just make up any rules you want. At least that's what people have told me. But they never seem to apply that same principle to The State or other supposedly "voluntary collectives".
I think homeowner associations are awful. I can't imagine why anyone would consent to live under one, and yet I can see many ways someone might not have a choice. But, yes, they have a right to make rules forbidding the flags, I suppose, but those rules are still wrong. And the governor has no real authority to make another rule that violates the right of the association to make a wrong rule. Two wrongs don't make a right, even when the second one tries to correct a wrong. No new "laws" are needed; just get rid of the bad "law" that allows the wrong thing to happen in the first place.
Sometimes you are wrong to do what you have a right to do. For example, you would have the right to shoot a trespassing child but it would be wrong to do so.
You might have the right to ban visitors from carrying concealed guns but it's wrong to do so in all but the most unlikely and extreme theoretical cases. Maybe if you had a powerful magnet in your home that would attract the gun and cause it to rip through the flesh of the visitor and bounce toward the magnet, shredding everything in its path, you could make a claim that you really "need" to prohibit guns on your property, but any ferrous metal would be just as dangerous as a gun in that case.
And you might have a right to ban people from flying a particular flag at their home, but trying to actually do that with a rule is the wrong thing to do. And passing another "law", thereby adding to the law pollution we already suffer from, is not the right way to fix anything.
So, you can't just go around making up any rule you want- well, you can, but you might be wrong to do so.
You may have noticed that when I talk of things that are unequivocally wrong, I list aggression and theft/fraud. I will occasionally mention "and sometimes, trespassing". Why only sometimes?
It is because I see trespassing in a slightly different light. I'm a little uncomfortable placing it in the same category as aggression and theft.
First of all, as I implied in my definition of "trespasser", if you are there with the owner's permission I don't consider you a trespasser. Not even if you failed to abide by the rules that gave you access and if the permission was contingent on those rules being followed. It may not be nice of you, and you should immediately leave when asked to do so. Regardless of whether the rules are legitimate or not, you broke an agreement, but you are not trespassing.
This is the reason I think personal property rights trump real estate rights, a la "Bubble Theory".
The bigger point and the core truth is that you can trespass without causing any harm (offending someone is not "harm") and without having any ill intent.
A lost person stumbling around in the woods can easily become a trespasser but may not damage the violated property in any way and may not have intended to trespass to begin with.
I have also known of trespassers who knew they were entering private property but who had no ill intent or ulterior motive at all, and who even assumed they would be welcome.
I have been on both sides of the equation. I have dealt with trespassers of both types on many occasions and never felt the need to get tough with them. No harm, no ill intent- no real problem.
This is why, unless there is more to the story, I don't view trespassing as a wrong on the same level as aggression and theft. But... maybe I'm wrong to think that way. At least it's something to mull over.
I would imagine you have heard the controversy over the picture that some politician forwarded that portrayed Obama as a baby chimp, with his chimp parents. If you haven't, I'm sure a search engine could find it for you. The kneejerkers out there are decrying the joke as "racist". Give me a flying break.
First of all, Obama's parents were not of the same "race", so the pic is implying that his "white" mom was a chimp, too; not just his "black" dad. And then Obama himself is a "racial" mixture and is also portrayed as a chimp. That seems pretty even-handed to me. Offense handed out all around. If being a chimp is somehow insulting, that is. Plus, I still see lots of pics of Bush as a chimp. No one claimed that was "racist". In fact, I think both instances would be insulting to chimps if they were aware of them.
Chimps are not a race of human, so how does comparing a person to a chimp qualify as "racist"? Would it be racist to show Obama as a snake or a bunny or a toadstool or a rock?
Finally, do chimps have "race"? If they do, humans (other than maybe Jane Goodall) can't tell by looking. Which means it must be pretty superficial. Could chimps discern that humans have "race"?
I think Obama is a very, very corrupt and bad person. As has been every other president I have ever learned much about. Being a chimp would be a vast improvement.
I recently had to deal with a judge. Yeah, I shudder at the remembrance too.
I've seen the man around town. He is old, extremely feeble, and deaf. In dealing with him I discovered that he couldn't hear me when I tried to tell him I had resolved the situation by complying with The State's demands. He reminded me of nothing so much as a zombie.
I mean, he seriously had no clue I was even speaking and I was maybe, at most, 3 feet from his ears.
In my case The State was "only" stealing my money (since I complied), but what about instances where the stakes are higher? A zombie who is more dead than alive has no business making decisions that affect the lives of others; not for The State and not even under private, consensual arbitration. Although, I suppose under arbitration you could get away with screaming "Listen to me while I try to tell you something relevant, you zombie!"
I know someone who was on a jury in this guy's municipal court a few months ago. She said the judge kept dozing off during the trial. Not the behavior of a responsible person at all!
He may have been a decent guy once, even though I disagree completely with the coercive nature of his employment, but it is way past time for him to do the responsible thing and retire. Some might say it isn't all his fault. I'm supposing he is an elected judge, after all- which goes to show how irresponsible voters are. As if you didn't already know.
I'm 264 miles from the "border", and yet today I saw a Border Patrol van stopping a car right here along the highway.
Go away! I want nothing to do with your sort of disgusting control-freaks. You have no business being anywhere, but certainly no legitimate business 264 miles from that which you pretend you have the authority to patrol.
I guess that "Constitution-Free Zone" just keeps growing, and growing, and growing. Yeah, I know. There is no longer anywhere that the Constitution is obeyed by the criminal US government, or its more local co-conspirators, in any instance. And things like this just go to illustrate that point.
How to respond when someone says "I read your column"?
It always catches me off-guard. I guess I don't expect people to actually read what I write; not people I could run into during the course of my day, anyway.
I think I've answered "you do?" on some occasions. Especially when someone says they have read my columns, but give no indication if they liked them, or whether they agreed with them, or if they think I should be locked away forever for my opinions.
Yesterday I was caught off-guard by someone who said he read my "stuff" and I just said "I'm sorry". I'm not sure if I was being humorous or not, since he gave no further feedback. I was thinking "...and...???" Anyway, I asked which "stuff". I guess he has read a bit of all of it. Still not sure what he thought of it, though.
Usually when people tell me they read my column they do so in a conspiratorial manner. They sidle up and say "Hey, I really enjoy your columns" and then slip away quietly before I can say much more than a quick "thank you". This is the most fun feedback.
I've also had people comment favorably and leave me wondering if they actually understood what they read- like when the one woman thanked me for "standing up for good moral values". Me? LOL!
Maybe I should write myself a few scripts for such occasions.
Once upon a time being a "patriot" wasn't so bad. Now... well, the worst devils wrap themselves in patriotism in order to get away with all sorts of horrid things.
"Patriots" join the military and "law enforcement" in order to crush individual liberty and impose the will of The State. Those in the military who go overseas even endanger their friends and family "back home" by their actions of building and supporting the US Empire. "Patriots" torture people for god and country. "Patriots" molest children at airports. "Patriots" support the actions of a criminal government and snitch on the good people who oppose The State.
If true patriotism were supporting the ideals that the country was supposedly founded upon- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property- well, then I could get behind that. That's no longer the case. In fact, those who are the biggest danger to those ideals are celebrated as the biggest patriots. That's just screwed up.
Supposedly someone here in town went to the police about me over something they didn't like. It was nothing wrong- no aggression; no theft or fraud; not even any trespassing. The report passed on to me may or may not have been true.
Yet, someone else, upon hearing of my experience, expressed the hope that the cops will go after all the other people in town who could be punished for the exact same thing.
Absolutely, positively NOT!!! If what I did deserves no punishment, and it doesn't, why would I want punishment applied to others for the same thing?
That's the difference that makes a libertarian better- more ethical- than "conservatives" or "progressives".
So, in the spirit of doing the right thing, here is my pledge to the people of Farwell:
I will never, NEVER, report you to the police for doing things that initiate no force or theft; even things I find personally distasteful. I will never cooperate in any way with any investigation of you by any government agent, "authority", or official for those things either.
I consider this to be a logical extension of living by the ZAP.
The coin has another side, though. If you do initiate force or commit theft against any innocent person, you had better hope that in doing so you don't make me mad enough to lose my mind, even temporarily, because if I do, and that condition is severe enough that it causes me to violate my principles, going to the police could be one of the things I might do in my distraught and irrational condition.
You know... it would be nice to see more people willing to make this pledge to the people around them.
Are humans the only animal to feel revulsion? Like I do when watching someone (usually a kid) eating boogers. Or when watching TSA goons molesting a child. Does any other critter get disgusted?
*
Eventually in a feud one side must grow up and be the one to stop. In the case of a feud that has been going on more than a few generations there is no innocent participant anymore. Someone has to be the one to grow up and back away; to be the one who goes home and refuses to do anything other than defending his own property from the other, no matter the taunts, insults, or whatever. To be the one who will not violate the property rights of his enemy any more. In the case of the US vs the Middle East, who will be the adult? Considering both sides are composed of governidiots, I have my suspicions.
*
The real tragedy is that government, at best, exists as a mechanism for introducing coercion in order to impose a prevailing opinion on the minority. At worst; as a mechanism to impose the will of a dangerous minority onto the whole of society, one individual at a time. Be careful, because there is no guarantee you will not be the person forced to live by someone's edicts that you find unbearable; all because you supported the system as long as it seemed to benefit your goals. There is only one way to ensure things never get to that point. Liberty is always the solution.
*
Video piracy might be wrong but there is nothing legitimately "criminal" about it. For the FBI to actually threaten to enforce IP seems a severe over-reaction to me.
*
Governments everywhere want to have internet "kill switches". I have a better idea: a government kill switch. In a crisis let the internet become a kill switch that suspends all government, including paychecks to the employees, until the crisis is over. No one in government has any say on when the kill switch is used, or in allowing government back-up.
*
If you violate the rights of some people for the common good you are just gonna pay later. You go into debt by violating rights and the bill eventually comes due. Like the economy educating the Federal Reserve. Blowback.
*
It is worse to do something wrong than to do something illegal.
*
All government is evil but not everyone who fights the government is good. Some are just as evil.
*
Who's the world's greatest magician? Nigh Neil Evan. He changed everything, or so they say. How did he do it? The debate still rages. Smoke, mirrors, misdirection, lies, or simply taking advantage of an over-reaction? My guess is all of the above.
I need some money. Desperately. Donations have dried up and Time's Up things aren't selling fast enough to help at this moment. So, I am going to sell 5 ounces of silver. They will be like either this bar or the other design from the same mint... I don't remember exactly what I have, designwise.
If you want some of it before I put it on eBay, let me know.
Taxation is theft. It really is as simple as that. What else would you call it when someone takes your money (your possession) away from you by threat of force when you do not want to give it to them?
Do I have a right to my own life? What is "life" except the time you are alive? I have traded a significant portion of my life for money in order to trade the money for some other things I lack the knowledge, skill, or inclination to do personally. Does my life, expressed through my money, belong to me? If it doesn't, then taxation would be alright. However, if it does, then if someone takes it from me against my will, it doesn't matter to me whether it is a government agent or a mugger in a dark alley. Theft is theft.
Now, you may argue that the money is being spent on "good" things. OK. Maybe the mugger will use my money to feed his children, or will donate it all to a charity to feed widows and orphans. Perhaps he will even purchase a "gift" for me with part of the money; something I won't buy for myself. Does that excuse his actions? Of course not. Few people are stupid enough to argue that it does. Place the silly hat of government on the mugger's head, though, and many people fall for the lie.
What if I refuse to cooperate with the mugger? He will use greater force unless I am able to effectively fight him off. Just like government does. If you refuse to comply with government thieves, and keep refusing at each step of the "process", the government will reach a point where it will kill you for your money. Either when they try to confiscate your property, or when they come to forcibly arrest you, if you fight back, you will be killed. What government program is worth killing people over? Innocent people. People who only wish to keep that which belongs to them. Murder committed to support government is not right.
Taxation is based on a fundamental lie. Government doesn't even "need" your money to operate. They have access to the world's largest counterfeiting operation: The Federal Reserve Bank. Through this, and inflation, the government creates all the fiat "money" it could ever want, without stealing one cent from you through "taxation" (although the deception involved in fiat money is still theft). Taxation is simply a way to take money away from you in order to cause you financial harm, cause you to alter your behavior to more government-approved ways, and to keep tabs on you.
The things and programs that are financed with your stolen money, and that should be done, could be done cheaper and better by private companies or individuals competing in the market. "User fees" could be charged for some things. If government still wants to be involved, let them end their monopoly and compete with voluntary services. Private roads could be maintained through tolls or paid for by the businesses they serve. Poor families could be helped by charities that do not take away their dignity like government "welfare" programs do.
"National defense" would be better served by the Constitutional militia than by the military pawns that are sacrificed for bogus "causes" in distant lands now.
Many, if not most, things government currently wastes your money on would not need to be replaced by anything in a free society. Stupid things like the DMV, BATFE, the Pentagon's "black budget", and Congressional salaries. These things add insult to theft.
Remember and think of these simple truths next time you think about paying a "tax".
I'm sure you have seen the shiny new signs you paid to have placed around the schools. "The use of a wireless communication device is prohibited in the school zone." That makes me think of another quote which suggests that the ultimate answer to kings, or small town governments for that matter, is a belly laugh. Those in government, at every level, give me opportunities to laugh at their absurdity on a daily basis.
Obviously the sign doesn't really mean what it says. I assume what it is trying to wirelessly communicate to those who read it is that the use, by drivers, of cell phones and other things of that sort is prohibited while passing through the school zone. Maybe it is also intended to be interpreted as prohibiting the students from using cell phones in the school zone before, during, and after school, as well.
But that is not what the sign says.
If the sign were taken literally, it would mean books, blackboards (or their modern equivalent), and the human voice are now prohibited in the school zone, including in the classroom. That would effectively shut down the schools. While I agree with that course of action, I seriously doubt that was the intent.
If the sign were taken literally, it would mean that those of us who live in the school zone would be prohibited from using any wireless communication device in our homes. I think any attempt to enforce that one might be unpopular with more than just the rare libertarian.
(I self-censored this paragraph from the column, but in light of recent events I should have left it in to embarrass the parasites.) It would also mean the local law enforcement officers would be prohibited from texting or talking on the phone while cruising around the school- and that can't possibly be true since I have seen them do it regularly!
The sign is a humorous reminder of the reactionary nature of would-be rulers. It is an attempt to hold back the tsunami of technology with a sign backed up by a law. That hasn't ever worked in the past, and I doubt this will be the first time it will succeed. Responsibility, by drivers and pedestrians alike, is the only thing that will work, and that can't be legislated. Yes, the best reaction to any government is a good belly laugh.
(First published in The State Line Tribune. I waited to put it here for a while so it could be "exclusive" to them. They have no website.)
Recently I have heard a lot of people worrying about the economy. That's understandable. A lot of people are beginning to wake up to realities that only libertarians seemed concerned about just a few short years ago.
The most obvious clue for most people is that the price of gasoline is taking a leap. This will soon translate into higher prices on everything. Of course, you should understand that these things are not actually becoming more valuable; the dollar is simply getting closer to the point of worthlessness due to run-away Federal Reserve counterfeiting.
I can't tell you for certain what will happen with the economy in the near future, but I won't lie to you like those in Washington DC, who are causing the problems, will.
There may or may not be a crisis coming, but there are things you can do that will benefit you regardless of whether America dodges yet another bullet or whether the piper gets paid this time. If no economic collapse occurs, you have done nothing that can harm you in any way; if it does, you will be ready. So, how can you protect yourself and your family in case of an economic crisis?
First of all, remember that US dollars are not real money, but merely a substitute. If they stop buying what you need, stop accepting them as payment for anything- paychecks included. Insist on either concrete things you need in order to survive (food, water, clothing, shelter, medicine, fuel, or ammunition), or things which will retain their value over time which you can then trade for the things you need for survival. Gold, silver, and copper come to mind, as do some durable necessities that you may not personally need, but know that others will. Dollars don't even make the list, since they are less valuable with each passing day, like blackening bananas.
Second, stock up on some things now before they are out of reach. Think of things that you wouldn't be able to do without if store shelves were suddenly empty for weeks at a time. Do you require prescription medicines? Do you have enough food stored, food you will actually eat, and that will last if the electricity goes out for several days? Do you have alternate ways of heating food, and even of opening cans? Do you have a supply of water and a way to make "iffy" water safe to drink? What about toilet paper? What does it hurt to be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best?
One of my strengths is that I am very adaptable. It isn't that I don't have preferences; just that I can make-do with less than I'd prefer, or in situations that are novel and strange.
Once upon a time, I would never dream of expressing my opinions if they differed from what I supposed were the opinions of those around me. I was afraid people might not like what I had to say. They might say mean things about me. Now, I still don't like it when they do say mean things, but that's not gonna keep me from speaking up.
Once upon a time I would have rather died than speak in front of people, much less sing! Then I got taken to karaoke and fell in love with singing to an audience (even though I don't get to do that anymore). People from my past who found out couldn't believe I would ever do that- it just wasn't me. But, it was.
There have been more adaptations. Some big and some small, some painful and some easy.
Each of these adaptations occurred because of some change in the conditions of my life. My old ways ran against a wall, and something had to change. I can only change me. When things I like get ripped away, my old life ends and I am forced to find a new life. It has happened many times in the past, and probably will happen again. I feel confident that I will adapt, without compromising.
You and I are ethically justified in using deadly force against agents of The State just about anytime we encounter them in their "official capacity". Cops, TSA, IRS, AFT, whatever.
When one of these "people" attempts to enforce some counterfeit "law"- any "law" that is an attempt to regulate or control anything other than aggression or theft- against anyone, they become the bad guy and it is your absolute human right to resist them however you see fit, including killing them if they don't cooperate. It is "illegal", and therefore suicidal, of course, but it is still your right. I will never condemn anyone for killing an agent of The State under such a circumstance. I can't even get too worked up over an actual thief/aggressor killing an enforcer. A bad guy killing another bad guy doesn't concern me too much, and it's one less enforcer you and I have to deal with.
Any "traffic stop"; any airport scan or pat-down; any demand to see your permit or license; any official interaction at all is a credible threat to initiate force against you. You're foolish if you don't recognize the danger. You twitch an eyelid at the wrong moment and the agent of The State will kill you in the name of "officer safety". That constitutes a credible threat to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?
Many people don't want to hear this truth. They would rather weasel-word their way around the foundational facts of the matter. They don't want to be seen as "extreme". Those who defend themselves against bad guys are not "extreme"; those who support the bad guys and pretend their actions are legitimate in any way are the ones who are extreme.
No, I am not going to resort to deadly force against an agent of The State unless I feel I have nothing to lose. And, yet, the parasitic vermin of The State seem to be working really hard to make sure that those who love and really understand liberty are backed into a corner, with nothing to lose, as soon as possible. You'd think they are just dying to start a war over liberty. Well... It's their funeral.
I'd rather keep fighting than give up. Not fighting against The State, exactly, but fighting to live life as I see fit and resisting those who would molest me for daring to ignore or ridicule their stupidity and meddlesomeness.
Even if it were proven to be impossible to defeat the notion of The State now, or forever, wouldn't it be wrong to just go along? Yes, it would. Because Statism is wrong. Nothing can ever make it right; not popularity, not utility, not preferences, fears, or opinions.
What form that resistance takes will vary between individuals, and even depending on the time that you look at each individual's life. But the resistance will go on.
Obama says the last-minute deal between congressional taterheads, to avert a government "shutdown", happened because "Americans of different beliefs came together."
Yeah, right! "Different beliefs"... like disagreeing over whether plutonium or cyanide are the preferred poison; not ever questioning whether they should be poisoning innocent people.
If a person thinks they have no choice but to agree to something that they know isn't right and that will harm them, is their agreement really consensual? Can a property owner make any demands they want and expect compliance? Can you really consent to being attacked or abdicating (or negotiating away) your rights?
Nobody likes a cheater. We prefer that other people live up to their agreements; usually even when we have already broken our end of the deal. But many people don't recognize that using government to get your way is cheating.
There are only two ways to get something done between two or more people. You can convince the other person to go along and cooperate for your mutual benefit. This is referred to as the "economic method". Or you can force them to go along against their will, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest. This is called the "political method". If others agree in going along with you, there is no excuse to govern them; if they do not, many people think it's OK to skip straight to the "forcing them" step rather than continuing the attempt to convince them.
"Forcing them" can be a legitimate action IF the other person is attacking the innocent or stealing. A libertarian recognizes this as a legitimate use of force since force was already initiated by the other person. If the other person is neither attacking nor stealing, then resorting to force makes you the one in the wrong. Even worse, if your actions consist of aggression or theft, while their actions are merely intended to resist your abuse, then you are doubly wrong.
Bringing this down to the local level, what is the solution to this area's water issues? Does it involve working together in a consensual manner to work out a solution? Or does it involve using confiscated money (and other property) and imposed laws, with their inevitable enforcement, to force everyone into a "one size fits all and everyone pays, regardless" box? If no one is allowed to opt out, it is not consensual. Stirring up another hornet's nest, what about "blight"? Do you try to convince or do you simply violate the other person's property rights because you don't like the way they choose to use their own property? If you think you must resort to the government solution in either case, you are cheating.
Not every problem has a solution. That is just reality. Of those problems which can be solved, some have a solution that isn't implemented because of the eager willingness to resort to the political method instead of doing the hard work of thinking and finding a consensual solution. After all, if you believe you can simply grab the magic wand of "the law" at the first sign of an impasse, you are less likely to keep thinking and working toward a real solution. Sure you can "get things done" by cheating, but at what cost?
*****
(This was to have been my Clovis News Journal column for this week, but was rejected by the publisher because he says not all politics is cheating. In saying this, he gave me the idea for my headline.
This difficulty I keep having prompted me to ask the editor for some clarification. I asked if my columns are supposed to represent my opinion, or the editorial opinion of the Clovis News Journal. If my column is representing the editorial opinion of the paper, then I can totally understand why I have so many problems getting published (and I probably should be paid more), but if it is supposed to represent my personal opinion, then I don't get it. Surely the other columns that get published express opinions that are not in line with the paper's editorial positions- at least it seems that is the case to me when I read them. In any case, the editor answered that the columns are supposed to represent my opinion only. So how do they justify rejecting my columns on that basis?
Since this means I am out my pay for this week, please donate to help me make up the shortfall, or buy some stuff from me.)
Some days I am ready to chuck all the electronic technology and writing efforts and just go back to being a simple mountainman.
I am a libertarian and an anarchist because it is the right thing to do. I have never chosen a path because it is popular. I'll continue to be who I am. But I swear, some days...
Why not put your face out there as supporting the basic individual right to own and to carry whatever weapon you want, in any way you see fit, openly or concealed, without asking permission of anyone, ever?
Join the People of the Gun. You might as well. You're already on "The List".
Thanks to Thomas Knapp and his objections to this theory, I continue to be challenged to hone the way I attempt to explain it. That is a good thing. I am not being sarcastic here. Kn@ppster has always been a decent guy and a thoughtful ally on the road to liberty. He is just keeping me on my toes. Some day he may convince me yet.
For background and an explanation of what I am talking about when I mention "the bubble theory of personal property rights", see here and here and here and here and (most recently) here.
Because I believe this is a self-evident truth, yet I recognize that many people don't agree, I have to act in the only way I think is right as I try to spread the idea.
This means that I will always try to respect the wishes of property owners who do not agree with me. This means I will consider an "invitation" that puts conditions on what is inside my pockets as a non-invitation. (I will, however, assume liberty unless informed otherwise beforehand.)
But mainly, it means that I will continue to act as I always have and not try to make it my business to fret about what is inside your pockets. It has never occurred to me to think about it in the past, even before I "took the red pill", and I see no reason to begin worrying about it now or in the future. The change, if one is to occur, has to start somewhere, and I have started with myself. Why not join me?
The company that is producing the flags for me is also making some "Time's Up" T-shirts with the Tea Party motto "Take Back Your Republic" added across the top. I don't really care for that motto very much, but I had an idea.
I will sell those shirts with one "minor" alteration. I will use red fabric paint to cross out "republic" and add "Liberty!"
Since it will be done by hand the final look will vary somewhat from shirt to shirt.
They will cost $20 each, with $3.00 shipping and handling. Or one half ounce of silver for the shirt and shipping.
Let me know if you want one of these shirts, and what size you need, and I will place an order. Obviously, it will take a little longer to get the shirts to you since I will need to order and paint them.
Update: I've added a couple pics of the results of my modification of a couple shirts. Hand scrawled, so no two will be exactly alike. I like the graffiti effect anyway.
Since I stopped writing for Examiner I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the ABQ news, even though I am still subscribed to the sites. But this story just jumped out at me and begged for a comment.
According to the story- “This is a ‘this can happen to me’ story for anybody who’s ever decided, I’m going to have a designated driver who’s not quite as drunk as I am,” said district attorney spokesman Pat Davis.
OK, so the woman was drunk too. And she is expected to have the ability to judge whether the other guy was drunk and whether it was a good idea to let him drive?
The ratchet keeps going in the only direction it can move. And it will continue until the ratchet is destroyed completely in an act of self defense.
I have noticed that a lot of things go through 4 stages.
1- First they are (or are believed to be) necessary.
2- Then some do-gooder decides since they are necessary, they must be made mandatory.
3- Then after a time they become unnecessary due to changes.
4- After being unnecessary for a time, they become actually detrimental.
In other words, progress or society gets damaged all because someone decided to add an extra stage to the natural procession. This could be avoided by skipping the mandate; by doing this you'll probably avoid the "detrimental" stage altogether.
When people make the bizarre claim that my use of government-monopolized roads or other "services" means I consent to the taxation being taken to pay for them, it makes no sense to me. Obviously. In many cases, what choice do I have? To pay and then choose to not use that which my money paid for? Or to refuse to pay and be murdered by goons of The State?
But, here's a proposal: I will stop using any government-provided service that I am not willing to pay for. In fact, I will show my seriousness by not using the "service" for a year FIRST. I will pay for that which I use, whether provided by the market or by The State. (Of course, I'd like to see the government monopoly broken and replaced by the market so I have a choice of whom I give my business to. But I'll not demand that happen before I act.) After that I want to hear no more prattling from the statists about it. Is it a deal?
Is this statue "child pornography", and if it isn't, why not? Because it is old? Or famous? Or because it is "only nudity" but not "sexual"? Or...??
Could you use current artistic methods to produce a similar image today without running afoul of "the Law" and it's rabid supporters?
What about those "artistic" creations that depict no actual children (cartoons) yet end up with the "artist" being arrested? Yes, it happens.
I think that coercively exploiting children, in any way- not just sexually- is disgusting and evil. Yet I also am able to recognize that "the Law" has gotten completely perverted over the witch-hunt (no offense to actual witches) to catch child pornographers.
It's a puzzle to me.
(No actual children, or humans of any age, were harmed or exploited in the creation of this post.)
If you feel it is necessary to do the wrong thing at least be honest about it. Admit you are doing wrong and don't pretend it is right. And accept the consequences.
What makes me mad is the dishonesty of people pretending that wrong acts are good just because they believe they are necessary. They are not. Wrong acts are still wrong even if your survival depends on committing them. Even if they are "legalized".
If you believe you need to strike first- initiate force- because you wouldn't survive taking the ethical high-road and only striking after the other guy has initiated force, then do what you believe you must but don't claim you did the right thing. You did not, even if your action is understandable to others who might like to justify their own wrong acts by validating yours. This applies to States and to individuals. Pretending that your aggression is right makes you an attacker and a liar (or a delusional psycho).
If you think innocent people will die without taking the property of others through "taxation", admit you are stealing (or advocating theft). Be honest that the "taxation" is still wrong. Nothing can make it right. Maybe you are under the belief that it is necessary (it never is), but don't claim what you are doing is right. That claim makes you a thief and a liar (or a delusional psycho).
Just drop the BS and be honest about what you are doing, and don't be shocked when the piper must be paid. Doing the wrong thing may seem "necessary" now, but it always comes at a high price that WILL be collected sooner or later. That's just reality.
"Mind your own business" used to be the American way. Or at least, the openly-proclaimed preferred way to live. Sure, there have always been gossips and nosey folk; the meddlesome neighbors and busybodies who can't seem to mind their own business, who therefore feel the need to direct your life "for your own good" (the ego boost is icing on the cake).
These people spend a lot of time concerning themselves with what others are doing, and sneaking a peek into everyone else's windows in order to make sure no one is doing things they think they should not- or as H. L. Mencken said of "puritans": suffering from "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.". When their sickness becomes the basis of "law" and punishment their harm spreads beyond their physical reach.
It used to be that these damaged people were on their own, and generally had to hide their most objectionable activities from public view. There have been exceptions, of course, such as their favorite program from an earlier generation: Prohibition- Act 1, which failed to fool people and was repealed. They regrouped and attacked again. Now they are the ones making and enforcing the "laws"; wrecking lives and destroying the economy in the process. And too few people hold them accountable for the harm they do, thinking that their actions are necessary for "the common good".
Nowadays too few people seem to be able to even recognize when something is their business and when it is not. Even libertarians can have difficulty there, although we generally think it is better to err on the side of staying out of other people's lives rather than to err on the side of sticking your nose where it may not belong.
To those who can't stay out of the lives of others, I want to ask: Isn't your own life enough for you to stay busy with? Don't you have enough to do without worrying about who others are marrying, what they are smoking, what they believe, or how they live? Do you not respect private property rights?
All of these things are just Peeping Tom telling the rest of us his perversion is not only OK, but good for his victims. His victims must be punished for objecting to his molestations and for desiring to be left alone. Sure, you can justify almost any meddling if you stretch far enough, but that doesn't make it right.
I found this test over at Keeps Dropping Keys and decided I hadn't wasted enough time today, so...
Yeah, I have never thought of myself as "cool" in any way, shape, or form. But I'm glad to see I'm not too extreme on any of the categories. I guess. Does that mean I'm balanced or boring?
You are NOT "helping" if your "help" is not wanted.
This applies to individuals as well as governments.
My daughter was playing today and wanted to "help" a smaller child. The kid did not appreciate her "help" and fussed. She told me she just wanted to help him, but I suggested she ought to see if he wanted her help first. She may learn, at 3 1/2 years old, what no president, congresscritter, mayor, or cop has ever apparently managed to learn.
That lesson, again, is that it is not "help" if the person doesn't want it, no matter how "noble" your intentions, and no matter whether the person is in actual danger.
I am offering a special deal on my books from now through April 19 (Patriots' Day), 2011.
One complete set- all 5 books- for one ounce of .999 silver. That is a regular $48 dollar price tag, discounted for real money.
I'm also offering a similar deal for "junk silver" coins (pre-1965 US dimes and quarters)- the full set of books for $2 face value 90% silver coins.
After the books I have on hand are gone I'll order more if necessary, but that shouldn't slow things down too much. If you want them signed or anything, be sure and specify, since that doesn't usually occur to me.
Contact me at dullhawk@hotmail.com and we'll work out the details.
Local government pinheads have come up with a new idea: prohibiting "wireless communication devices" in the school zone.
I guess this means books are "illegal" in school now. Along with voices and minds. And even the silly sign which announces the prohibition. Anything that communicates without using a wired connection to that with which it is communicating. Right?
Of course I realize the governmentally-damaged morons intend it to mean cell phones and that sort of thing. Just like the ones I see the local cops talking and texting on (daily!), and even worse- with his nose in his cop computer, while driving through this school zone. (I really need to make a video of these cops doing so, and post it one of these days.)
I happen to live in this particular school zone. Does this mean any "wireless communication device" in my house is also now "illegal"? Good luck enforcing that against me.
I sincerely regret to inform you that I was found guilty on all four counts regarding the Liberty Dollar in less than an hour on Friday, March 18. The only explanation is that a strong, anti-liberty person took control of a weak-willed jury and pushed the verdict through in record time in spite of well worded Jury Instructions. A government forfeiture hearing immediately followed the conviction. PLEASE NOTE: Your property is at risk so please continue to read these emails and take action so the government does not steal your property. An appeal is planned but that will take years. More news to follow. An unofficial, but most interesting account of the trial is available via Heather's blog at: http://www.liberty4free.com/Liberty%20Dollar%20Trial.htm God help you and our country as American descends into a hellish hyperinflationary future without the benefits of the Liberty Dollar.
I am very sorry our efforts to return America to value failed.
Thank you so much for your support.
Bernard von NotHaus Monetary Architect
Bernard, YOU are not the one to be sorry. There is no guilt on your part and you should feel no shame.
Like I said before, this injustice is just plain wrong. A man who didn't just do nothing wrong; he did the right thing, and is being punished by those who are actively doing the wrong thing every day with every breath they take. That prosecutor, judge, and every scumbag on that jury are not worthy to lick the toilet clean after Bernard uses it.
I'd still like to see them forced to do so, however.
