Monument to idiocy

Thursday, when I first saw these 12 pairs of shoes hanging from the power line at the park where my daughter and I went to feed the ducks and vermin, I thought "Idiots!"

I thought that some parents were probably very unhappy, if they even knew that the shoes had been lost.

That made me think about how many parents "give" things to their kids, yet still feel a sense of ownership over things that are not their own. If the kids own the shoes, even if the parents gave the shoes to them, then the shoes are not the parents' property. Neither are the kids.

Then I wondered if the shoes' owners had tossed them up there, or whether people had done that to other people's shoes as a "joke" or just to be nasty. If you own something, it is yours to use or destroy. If someone "lost" the shoes for someone else, even as a "joke", that is theft and destruction of property.

Then I got to thinking a little more.

If the shoes were thrown there by their owners, then the only real issue is that the owner of the power line has been violated. People have made a mess on someone else's property that will have to be cleaned up. They are not taking responsibility for their actions.

My thoughts had gone full circle back to "Idiots!"

.

Liberty Lines 9-29-2011

(Originally published in the State Line Tribune, September 29,2011. No, I don't want a "government job", nor do I think having a county government is legitimate. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the situation in a way that the statists who might read the column would get.)

I see that Parmer County is being forced, by legislative fiat, to hire a new employee who is neither wanted nor needed. Governmental "wisdom" (cough-cough) handed down (or up) from Austin dictates that there must be a county auditor. Being the problem solving, libertarian individual I am, I have an obvious answer in the form of a two-step compromise (my first choice being the abolition of the county government).

Step 1- Appoint me Parmer County auditor, and then completely ignore me.

Step 2- Let the CPA firm who is currently doing the job continue to do so, and direct any and all official inquiries to them. Nothing would change.

I am willing to focus my energies on doing the best thing any government employee can ever do: absolutely nothing. At the only proper pay rate: zero. Being opposed to all taxation on principle, I would obviously refuse any pay or benefits. No salary, no office, no business cards or letterhead. Nothing. For once you would actually get your money's worth.

Perhaps in this way I would set an example for all government employees to follow. Who knows, it might even catch on while there is still a choice. Ignore my offer and you run the high risk of appointing someone with "a vision". Ambition to rule, thus to interfere in the lives of others, is one of the scariest traits any government employee can have. Isn't it time to try the alternative?

.

Getting back on track and being "prickly"

There will always be obstacles. You just gotta bulldoze your way through them. And don't let yourself be the biggest obstacle in your life. Knowing and doing are two different things, though.

I hate the fact that I allow emotions get me down, as has been the case recently.

In my head I think that if I had either money or love I'd be able to weather times of stress better. Maybe that is just wishful thinking. The other little voice in my head says I should have the strength to weather rough times inside myself. The truth may lie somewhere in between.

I was a little taken aback by Aretae's comment "...what with you being a bit more prickly than me". I'm not complaining at all about that comment, so if you are reading this, Aretae, don't think I am. It made me think. Am I "prickly"?

I guess that depends. My writings are not the place for compromise. That comes in my real-life interactions with the people I am around. So, yes, in my blog I probably am "prickly". In real life I am much harder on myself than I am on anyone else. These are my principles, after all. I may choose to shun the worst tools of State that I am aware of, but I make a lot of allowances for people who are just trying to get through life the best they can, even when their path makes them do the wrong thing according to my understanding of right and wrong. In fact, I find that I am more forgiving than the statists I am around. If asked my opinion, I give it; no holds barred. But I don't go around screaming "Repent!" at those who don't ask for it. I even go along with a lot of the religious practices of my family, and keep my opinions to myself when they start saying religious things; even though it causes me pain and stress. Just to "be nice".

But I admit there are some things I refuse to do because I know in my head, and in my "heart", that they are wrong. I don't want to set a bad example for my kids or for anyone else who may be watching. I don't want to be forced to avert my eyes and mumble excuses about being pragmatic or "just following orders/doing my job" when caught doing the wrong thing. In the short term life might be easier if I waffled; in the long term... I guess we'll see. At least my conscience has never nagged me after I did the "libertarian thing".

.

Don't read this

As I have mentioned before, I spent many years working in pet shops. Back when I got my first pet shop job I was pretty clueless about the governmental barriers to success that had been erected. I was already not a fan of government, but I just wasn't aware of how badly government had mangled the marketplace. That awareness came soon enough.

Over the years I saw more and more licenses "required" in order to keep the business open. I saw more and more things (and animals) criminalized. I saw more and more effective pet medications taken off the market due to governmental fears that they might be "abused". I saw more and more ridiculous hoops and rituals that were "required" in order to not be in violation of some "law" added every year.

There were "laws" regulating signs, fire extinguishers, parking, advertising, etc. That was above and beyond the "pet shop specific" stuff saying how you were required to house certain animals, what you could sell in the state and what you couldn't, and all that sort of thing. There were probably "laws" regarding keeping the animals fed and their quarters clean, but I never ran into any of that stuff. Although "health department" goons did come snooping a few times, but they never said anything.

And I knowingly and willingly violated many of those "laws" each and every day. I had to. To follow them all "to the letter" would have resulted in paralysis. Every working minute would have been wasted on some bureaucratic nonsense that had nothing to do with the welfare of the animals in my care or the customers who also depended upon me.

I lied on forms. I told customers that if they lied on the forms that were "required" when they bought certain animals (like those dangerous parakeets and iguanas!) that there would be no way for any enforcers to know. I even stared down bureaucrats who showed up to make sure I was following all their edicts and examine all the paperwork.

It got bad enough that I don't want to work in a pet store ever again. Not until The State dies.

Anytime I look into any other business venture I might enjoy, I run into more of the same. And that's the problem. There is nothing I can do to make money "legally" anymore that is worth the trouble. At least nothing I am comfortable/competent doing. I'm too tired to work to avoid the traps. I don't feel like being subjected to molestation in order to get a job. I don't feel like giving out some governmentally-mandated number (either my own or Elvis' orphaned number) in order to be hired. My family would not support my decision to do things "extra-legally" (even though I would not do anything dishonest or aggressive to get money).

The things I have done that I thought might make money have not worked out that well. Most ended up costing more than they brought in. I know that means I should keep trying and experimenting, but I am having a dry spell for ideas and a lack of any money to pursue anything anyway. I am also not getting any emotional support here at home, but instead am being drained of any positivity and ambition. The past performance of my attempts is used against me.

I hate to admit it, but right now I feel like giving up. I know you don't come here to read that. That's why posting has been sparse here and basically non-existent on Dispatches from Libertopia. I hope this passes soon.

.

Libertarianism starts with respect

Libertarianism starts with respect

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 25, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I sometimes hear people make the claim that libertarianism is "Utopian", just like communism, because "it sounds good on paper, but it will never work in the real world". Ridiculous! Communism requires the impossible- omniscient central planners- in order to "work". Libertarianism only needs YOU to not steal or attack; it places no obligation on others. Are you claiming that is beyond your ability?

Clovis is not perfect, but it is good, and can be better. There is no Utopia, but you can prevent a place from becoming a dystopia. Allow people to opt out of anything they don't want, never put your neighbor's inalienable rights or liberty to a vote, don't enforce laws that have no ethical foundation, embrace "live and let live", and respect the property and person of others.

As a corollary to that don't support, defend, nor turn a blind eye toward those who do steal and attack. No justification makes those things OK.

There wouldn't be any more arguing over which faction is allowed to make decisions concerning how to take your money and spend it on things you don't want. No one would be allowed authority to violate your property rights any longer for any reason. The silly youth gangs would face the reality of straightening up or being weeded out of the population quickly. I'm willing to bet this change would even improve the local economy. Why wait for someone else to go first?

Even if everyone in this area suddenly adopted libertarian principles, no place will ever be perfect. The weather would still be the same; like it or not. The same will be true of the people. People will always be people. If you don't like your neighbors now, that would probably not change. Some people can't seem to stop meddling and I don't expect that personality flaw to go away. However, respecting the rights and liberty of others, regardless of whether you agree with them or not, takes away the meddlers' power to ruin other people's lives.

Clovis has potential. It isn't up to any new "laws" being passed, old "laws" being enforced, or anyone else taking the initiative. It is, as it always has been and always will be, up to you. I'm excited about the possibilities. Are you up to it?

.

Santorum: "Funny" isn't always nice

I think Rick Santorum is authoritarian scum. Yet, I don't think what has been done to his name is very nice. Yes, people have a right to make any word take on any meaning they want. You shouldn't always do everything you have a right to do, though. I'm sure there are some innocent Santorums ("Santori"?) out there who don't deserve this humiliation.

On the other hand, I think santorum is made up of a sloppy mix of rickperry and obama. And sometimes a naughty dog will dig a pelosi out of the trash can and chew it up! I'll let you interpret for yourself.

.

Consequences of The State... and being flawed

Here is my normal "around town" transportation.

My daughter and groceries ride in the trailer. I provide the power.

I certainly don't mind riding this, but I resent- with a growing hatred- the Acts of State that make this more and more necessary. Taxation and regulation that inflates prices along with fiat "money" that evaporates before your eyes. Plus the proliferation of "laws" that make it hard for a person to earn money without violating principles.

It's partly my fault that I can't afford gasoline, nor to do some rather pressing car maintenance. But, without the interference of The State I would have more opportunities to make money and things would most likely cost much less. Most days I simply don't have the ambition to do what is necessary under The State to improve my financial situation.

In a way, this is good. I avoid most taxation. In other ways, it makes me grumpy. Add this to the fact that I just haven't been feeling great recently- it puts me in a bad mood. Sorry.

.

Liberty or Security - Good news on the horizon?

Liberty or Security? Which have people been writing about more (in books)? Here's the link. Notice the trend, but especially there at the very end. Could this signify storm clouds on the way for The State? Maybe more people are realizing time's up.

.

The Fire Ant Parable

Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants.

While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be.

All the while, west of you, is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice).

If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it.

*

Unless things are perfect, there are always improvements that can be made. It doesn't diminish the good that you already have in any way. Don't "Love it or leave it", but "Love it and keep working to improve it".

(Originally posted here.)

Reality is Radical

Sometimes my family members are "treated" to people recognizing our odd last name and connecting them with me. This happened to a relative of mine today. Fortunately, most people who say something actually mostly agree with the things of mine they have read. Perhaps most people would rather avoid conflict.

Today, my relative told the person who commented that she thinks I am "pretty radical on some things".

Radical. Yes, I am, and for a good reason. The truth is radical. Sticking to the truth is radical. Accepting nothing less than the truth is radical. Reality is radical.

Don't believe me?

Look at gravity. Gravity is radical. It is "extremist" by nature. It makes no exceptions, no matter who you are, and no matter how you might beg or complain. It cares nothing about how good your reasons might be to make an exception "just this one time". It operates according to the same rules everywhere at all times (as far as science has been able to determine). Even when you think gravity is being defeated, it really isn't. Flight depends upon gravity, as does space travel and navigation, and even the "weightlessness" of orbit. You might as well learn to use gravity to your ends rather than fighting it.

So it is with liberty. To be consistent, you must be radical. Anything less is ... well, less.

.

Libertarians lead invisible life

Libertarians lead invisible life

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 18, 2011. As written, not as published.)

In day-to-day life, being a libertarian really doesn't attract any attention. We are pretty much invisible.

We are the neighbors who mind our own business. We probably don't have noisy parties but won't call the cops about yours. We are the people who pick up the dropped keys for the person struggling with grocery bags. We are the person who picks up, and returns without comment, the baggie of marijuana that inadvertently fell out of the pocket of the guy in front of us in the checkout line. We are the ones who will hold the door open for you, or give you a ride if you run out of gas. We are remarkable only in our unremarkable behavior.

In day-to-day life we aren't out there shouting our philosophy. Libertarians are not screaming in your face, demanding that you worship our symbols or historical figures. We are not threatening to cage you if your lifestyle differs from ours. We are simply going about our business without attacking or stealing. This illustrates how "libertarian" most people are in their daily lives. People behaving decently are indistinguishable from libertarians.

It is only when confronted with acts of aggression or theft that we find it difficult to remain silent. In the face of wrongdoing we speak up and rise to the challenge. And we will defend ourselves. We refuse to equivocate and make excuses, but will call a spade "a spade". This is when we are noticed. And, strangely, this is when we are vilified and ridiculed.

Those who oppose libertarians at this point seem to do so because they to wish to keep open the option to attack someone, somewhere, for some reason. They want to be able to do things "as a society" that they know to be wrong on a personal level. You can't give anyone, nor any group of people, a right that you don't individually possess. If it is wrong to steal, you can't authorize government to steal, under any euphemism, on your behalf. If it is wrong to kick in your neighbor's door, you can't authorize The State to kick in your neighbor's door for you.

This consistency distinguishes libertarians from those who are not. Fortunately, except in unusual circumstances, it doesn't show up much in daily life. Which is why libertarians are mostly invisible.

.

"Right" and "Left" = Despicable!

I despise both the "left" and the "right". Not necessarily the people who claim those perverted perspectives, but the "ideological" positions themselves.

The only people of the "right" or the "left" that I despise are those who use their ideology as an excuse to attack and steal. Either in person or by proxy.

Those things are not right, no matter what justification you attempt to use. Aggression and theft wouldn't even be right if you used liberty as an excuse, which is why I am not big on pragmatarianism or utilitarianism. The ends do not justify the means. Sure, you can work "for liberty" by violating the rights of others, but in the long run you do more harm than good.

The "right" and the "left" are both equally evil, differing only in the way that evil is put into motion. It all comes down to slavery vs. liberty, theft vs. honest possession, and truth vs. deception. Which do you support?

.

Does evil "cancel out" in big groups?

I think a big myth that underlies the flawed reasoning of statists, when trying to justify their desire for a State, is that stupidity, evil, and poor character cancel out in big groups. Kind of like multiplying two negative numbers gives a positive result.

I think that is not the case at all. This gem from Larken Rose illustrates that point quite well.

I think The State attracts the worst of the worst- but mostly those who are smart enough to do things "legally" instead of freelance. Plus, on the chance a decent person is attracted to become a part of The State, and succeeds, I think the inherent corruption he finds himself swimming in corrupts him sooner, rather than later. Even if a hypothetical "good politician" existed, he would be too outnumbered to have any real effect. (Still, if you are a good person who feels a need to be political, I think it is better to run for office than to vote.)

I think a "good group" with one bad person is more likely to do evil, and a "bad group" with one good person in it will not do less evil because of the one good person's influence. It's that old "compromise between food and poison" thing Ayn Rand mentioned.

The State is evil because of the types of people who are drawn to power, and the results of The State will always be evil. Even if decent people were the vast majority in government (just as they are in everyday life), mistakes and bad decisions compound problems until evil is the result.

You don't need The State. Grow up.

.

In spite of "law", or in absence of "law"

I think it is a mistake to compare what people do in spite of the "law" to what they do in the absence of "law".

Part of my reasoning is that "law" protects bad guys from real consequences. It is "more illegal" to kill someone who is breaking into your car than it is for him to do the breaking in. This makes bad guys bold.

He breaks into your car in spite of the law, when he might not dare do so in the absence of the law.

I suspect it might be the same in other areas as well.

How do people drive in spite of the law, and how might they drive in the absence of laws regarding driving? I know that I can either drive well, or I can obey the traffic laws. I can NOT do both. How many other problems will be solved once humanity gets over this addiction to statutory "laws"?

.

Truth scares away the statists

Two people flounced off of Claire Wolfe's blog over her pointing out that US government policies were part of the reason the 9/11 terrorists did what they did- in a caption for a picture.

I can't get over people who are so desperate to reject the truth that they become angry when the truth is mentioned.

This isn't in any way saying that the terrorists should be excused- they shouldn't. They are dead anyway so what does it matter?

This isn't blaming any of the innocent victims of the attacks. Their actions did not bring the attacks onto themselves in any way (except for some of those who worked at the Pentagon, obviously).

But to deny that government policies - imposed and followed for decades before the attacks - had nothing to do with the attacks.... it's just crazy.

If I constantly annoy my next-door neighbor- calling the cops on him for every little thing he does, playing loud music at all hours, peeing on his lawn when he isn't looking, picking his flowers, telling him what he is allowed to do in his own home- he might not be justified in coming into my house and trying to beat me to death, but it is still reasonable to mention that my behavior was a contributing factor. It is reasonable to scold me for acting like a jerk all that time.

And, it is also reasonable to suggest that if I don't stop acting like that, it will probably happen again, since I have other neighbors I am treating the same.

Statists apparently don't want to wake up to this simple truth and hate anyone who points it out to them. Sad.

.

U.S. credit downgrade long overdue

U.S. credit downgrade long overdue

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 11, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I heard it reported that Timothy Geithner, the treasury secretary of the US, said that Standard & Poor's made a terrible decision when it downgraded the US government's credit rating. He claimed this showed that S&P didn't understand the math that is used to figure the US government's budget.

Yeah, I don't understand the math that results in "2 + 2 = unicorns pooping rainbows" either, so S&P is in good company.

I also have trouble understanding the arrogance that leads this government official to claim that downgrading the credit rating of an institution, in as much debt as the US government is, qualifies as a "terrible decision". When did deciding to tell the truth about a risky situation become "terrible"? Would it have been "terrible" to warn women they shouldn't date Ted Bundy?

No, Mr. Geithner, S&P made a sensible decision based upon reality and upon an understanding of real math. You expose your agenda by your protests. Instead of complaining, do something constructive. For example, stop damaging the credit of the US government by your official actions.

I think the downgrade was long overdue. As soon as someone shows they have no intention of paying off their debts, and they keep racking up more like they can't stop, it's time to cut up the credit cards. It's also time to warn others that the spendthrift is a bad risk. Then, if creditors choose to keep giving that person credit, it is no one's fault but their own when they get left in the cold. No one else is responsible for bailing out those with poor judgment.

The government's debt isn't my debt, and it isn't your debt. It is the responsibility of those who made (and signed) the promises to pay. The debt and the credit rating have only been maintained for this long because other governments understand that the US government intends to keep milking you and your descendants, for as much as they can coercively take, into the foreseeable future and beyond. That's giving credit to an extortionist based upon your belief that he will continue to extort money successfully due to past performance. People like that deserve to lose their investment.

It's time to force responsibility on those who refuse to accept it of their own free will. It is time to withdraw consent and leave them to the vultures.

.

Do immigration "laws" only hurt "illegals"?

It bothers me deeply when people say that all the "laws" and policies enacted to crack down on "illegal immigrants" only affect the "illegal immigrants".

No they don't.

Let's say a "law" was passed that made glued-on fake beards illegal. You have a beard, but for some reason someone thinks it might look fake. How would it feel to be harassed constantly by enforcers trying to score by kidnapping you for having a fake beard? Even if they had to let you go after pulling at your whiskers- wouldn't you feel like a second-class human? What if you resisted? Or the lying cop claimed you resisted after he killed you for not bowing low enough, quickly enough?

Statists might claim you could just shave it off to avoid the hassle. Sure, but what if you had some terrible scarring you wished to cover up, and since you liked the beard anyway, it was a natural solution?

Statists will say, as they always do, that it isn't beards they have a problem with, but "illegal" beards. What's the difference if it results in your constantly being targeted by enforcers?

Do NOT enforce immigration "laws" on my behalf! I do NOT consent!

.

"Blowback Day" again... September 11th

Some statists try to call this day "Patriot Day", but Patriot's Day is April 19.

September 11th would more accurately be known as "Blowback Day" if the raging statists had any clue that actions and policies have consequences.

I doubt they'll ever get that.

Remember the victims and remember ALL who are guilty. And mourn those yet to be victimized since this train is being driven full-speed toward the ravine by the delusional pinheads who are holding the controls hostage.

And NEVER forget that government causes terrorism just as surely as a virus causes rabies.

.

Liberty Lines 9-8-2011

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Farwell Texas)

I notice some people were annoyed by "Concerned Citizen" getting involved and upsetting the status quo regarding the landfill. I admit I felt the same annoyance when I read of the situation. I suppose, being a libertarian, I am not surprised by this sort of behavior anymore. In fact, I see it happen everywhere, constantly. It's just that most people don't notice such things as long as they approve of the outcome, or at least dislike the target.

Anytime some "Concerned Citizen" runs to government because of a bee in their bonnet, it hurts us all. I even oppose using one government against other governments, as happened with the landfill, except in cases where individual rights are in jeopardy and the offending government could be thwarted by involving another government to muddle the processes. Even then it is probably not the best solution. The danger of unintended consequences is just too great.

The "Concerned Citizen" effect is what burdens us with excess government such as these counterproductive environmental regulations, police departments, gun "laws", code enforcement, and all the other nanny-state nonsense that nibbles away at liberty. It is a large part of the reason that America now has a federal government (not to mention all the innumerable and entangled local manifestations of The State) which directly violates its Constitution with at least 99% of its actions and programs.

Whatever happened to people minding their own business and leaving others alone unless approached? What ever happened to people who would work out problems between themselves without being tattle-tales? That species of human will never be extinct as long as I draw breath. How about you?

.

Taxation enslaves in both directions

Just because I want to remove tax funding from certain things doesn't mean I necessarily want those things to go away.

Sometimes it means I appreciate them enough to want to remove their chains.

I love zoos, libraries, space travel, and many other things that need to be freed from the restraints of The State. Getting off the dole would be a good first step.

Of course I do want some completely reprehensible things to die a fast and painful death. Police departments and government schools, being a couple of good examples of things that are too harmful to be allowed to exist.

.

No hypocrisy in using public utilities

No hypocrisy in using public utilities

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 4, 2011. As originally written, not as published!)

I've noticed non-libertarians will frequently make the claim that liberty-lovers are hypocritical if they use things that are paid for with taxation. What an odd notion.

As long as The State exists, and continues to fund things through coercive taxation, you and I will be paying for a lot of things we didn't have any choice about funding. We are forced to pay for public schools, libraries, museums, and "public" roads whether we use them or not. In some instances, such as roads, it is impossible to avoid them, so there is no hypocrisy in using what you pay for. If you are paying for something you may as well use it- if you want to. How could anyone have an objection to people using what they are paying for?

This is not the same situation as welfare, which involves people using things not they, but others, were forced to pay for.

With government programs you are forced to pay even when you are allowed to use a private alternative. In this case you end up paying twice- once for the government service you are opting out of, and once for the private alternative you are choosing. Yet, people still make the choice to pay twice, on a daily basis, in order to get what they really want and need.

There is nothing carved in stone saying that using public schools, for example, is against any purported Libertarian Commandment. I do not think public schools are the best choice for educating your children, and in many (or most) cases I think they are actually harmful. However, as long as you are being forced, ultimately at gunpoint, to pay for these schools, you may use them with a clear conscience. If you feel any guilt, it is between you and your children for handing them over to The State for the majority of their formative years.

The same goes for any other service provided by The State. Everyone should have the choice of what to fund and what to use. No one should have to fund the things I choose to use unless they want to.

The hypocrisy is in pretending that it is OK to have a government monopoly, or to force people to pay for something twice if they wish to use an available private option. Opting out of the government "option", including not paying for it if you choose to not use it, must always be allowed.

.

Labor (Unions) Day

On a gut level, I don't like labor unions. They seem to me to be socialistic and coercive.

On the other hand, I have never been in one, and I can see how they could be useful in cases of a business that takes advantage of its employees. What I don't get is why people would form/join a union rather than finding a different way to make money if they are being abused.

My distaste for unions isn't based upon insider knowledge like it is in cases of things I have seen and been a part of from all angles- inside and out. I am looking at unions strictly from the perspective of an outsider looking in. I have never even been around anyone who was in a union, as far as I know.

I have read all the justifications for labor unions, and how the benefits they extracted from employers now grace us all, union or not. But would none of those things have come about anyway, given time and innovation? And what good things will never come about (and never be missed) due to the actions of labor unions? It's like those who claim that since "the government invented the internet" (no, it didn't, but that's another issue), anyone who uses the internet to criticize government is a hypocrite. Diseases can have beneficial side-effects, that doesn't mean you try to get infected.

So, I guess my feelings on Labor Day are pretty typical. Relax and ignore the original excuse to close some government offices.

Enjoy.

.

"I won't"

I just finished reading the story "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. Nice story!

In this story a military ship is thwarted, and loses many of its men, because people simply say "I won't". The commanders of the ship are powerless to do anything about it because their rule book forbids them to use force against people who are not attacking them- which the inhabitants of the planet are not doing.

Unfortunately for us, today, the Rulers who claim to rule us do not obey the rules which apply to their actions anymore. They don't bother even looking at the rule book to see if their actions are allowed, but make it up as they go along.

Politicians, bureaucrats, and especially those disgusting vermin the cops, routinely murder people for simply saying "no". Sure, copsuckers will claim that no one is murdered by an enforcer for simply saying "no", but that is a lie. It happens frequently- probably every day now. The enemy has no ethics. That means saying "no" will not be enough. You and I will also need to back that refusal with self-defensive force.

.

Natural Law and Bubble Theory

Once again, the book The Law of the Somalis (by Michael van Notten) has spoken to me about the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. (Here is the previous observation.)

Now, on page 212 I find:

"[Natural law] permits all activities that do not infringe upon the person or property of another. It takes priority over all other principles and rules that shape human society, including rules legislated by parliaments or established by contract."

Forbidding a person from simply possessing anything on his person (such as, perhaps a gun) on your property as a condition of him entering your property infringes on his person and violates Natural Law. His personal property, as long as it remains out of sight and is unused (makes no appearance outside his "bubble of personal property", does not infringe on your person or real estate in any tangible way. It may "offend" your sensibilities, but you have no right to not be offended. And any contract that attempts to negate Natural Law to suit the real estate owner's wishes is null and void since it violates Natural Law. It is exactly like the fact that slavery is not "OK, as long as you only do it on your own property".

At least, it seems clear enough to me.

.

Terms of use?

This always makes me laugh:

"Use of the ___ service and this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."

Nobody but your lawyer believes that. Nobody. Sorry.

.

"Fascist!" "Libertine!"

There's a psychological glitch I have noticed that it seems all humans are subject to. Just as every driver who is going faster or slower than you are is an "idiot", every person who wants more or less liberty than you do is either a "fascist" or a "libertine"*.

I suppose I am probably guilty of that as well- although you probably won't find anyone who wants more liberty- for myself and for YOU- than me. So, to me, almost everyone seems to reside on the "fascist" end of the spectrum.

The thing is, I don't care how much or how little liberty you want for yourself as long as you don't try to impose your wishes on any other person. That is where the "fascists" expose themselves as the bad guys- most of them can't be content controlling themselves, but feel the urge to control you as well.

________

*This isn't to say there is anything at all wrong with being a libertine, as long as you don't aggress or steal- it's just what most people think of anyone who is more liberty-oriented than themselves. I'd probably be considered a libertine by the majority of the people, even though in reality I'm pretty boring- unless opportunities arise.

Libertarians embrace all values

Libertarians embrace all values

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 29, 2011. As originally written, not as published.)

Liberty is primary a libertarian concept, in fact, you could say it is THE libertarian concept, but a it is concept that is often borrowed and used by others.

Just as you are not a chess player if you make up your own rules for playing the game, regardless of whether or not you use the proper board and pieces, you are not a libertarian unless you advocate maximum liberty and minimum government. For the vast majority of libertarians that means living by the Zero Aggression Principle as well as you can, and accepting that you have violated your principles if you fail on occasion.

Yet, there will aways be quibbles about the meaning of "maximum liberty and minimum government". It is generally a matter of degree, but there are limits to how far you can stretch the concept without it tearing.

Personally I see maximum liberty to be the freedom to do anything that does not cause physical harm to anyone else or their private property, and does not use deception, theft, or coercion to separate others from their property. I see minimum government to be self government, also called self control. I see the existence of a statutory institution (a "State") as far above and beyond the preferable minimum government.

If someone or some group claims to be libertarian, but is advocating less than maximum liberty, or is excluding some people from those it considers worthy of maximum liberty, then that individual or group is not living up to its libertarian principles.

If an individual or group self-identifies as libertarian, but is advocating some amount of government in excess of the minimum, whatever that may be, then they are also falling short of their libertarian principles.

If some "libertarian" is excusing theft, coercion, or the rationing of inalienable human rights, for any reason, by rogue individuals or by duly-elected governments, then they are betraying their true nature and giving the lie to their professed principles.

Not everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is, nor do all those who give lip-service to "liberty" or "freedom" understand the concepts, or practice what they preach. In fact, some of those who cry "Freedom!" the loudest are its worst enemies.

.

Stealing isn't sharing

Sharing is nice. "Sharing" other people's property is theft.

This is a difference I am trying to teach my daughter. It makes me unpopular sometimes when people think I need to make her "share". If I make her do it, it is not sharing.

I don't want her to grow up as one of those idiots (such as the president, congress, and other various puppeticians and bureaucraps) who think it is nice to give welfare to poor people. Charity, with your own money- great. "Giving" money that was never yours to give, which you supported being stolen under threat of death- not such a "good thing".

I do encourage my daughter to share, and ask her to put herself in the place of the other kid. But if she chooses not to share I will not force her to hand over her toy.

And, I never let her get away with forcing other kids to share with her, either. If the other kid's parent tries to force their kid to share I ask that they not do so.

Voluntaryism makes all the difference.

.

The State as Church

I was just talking to someone about my contention that The State is today's most popular god. He disagreed that The State is analogous to a god, saying it is more like the church.

Fair enough. In fact, thinking more on it, I agree.

So the idea that it is OK for some people to rule over other people is the god, government is the religion that the god spawns, and The State is the church (the people, not the buildings) that results from that religion being put into practice.

It is still based upon a harmful delusion.

.

Dishonesty?

The only people who have known me in person and claimed I was dishonest are those I caught trying to defraud me, and I stopped them from completing their plan.

When caught, they turned the blame on me. It hasn't happened too many times, but enough that I have noticed the pattern.

I can live with that.

.

Bad words

I really don't believe there are any such things as "bad words".

However, I'd prefer my daughter not be taught to use certain words. At least not yet.

A lot of words have social consequences. I use words that have social consequences all the time- words like "libertarian", "anarchy", "liberty", and "guns"- but I am prepared for the way the words may be received by others.

The words that some other people use might have different consequences, but the consequences are still there and should be recognized. Even if they are silly.

I have never punished my kids for saying any word, even if my personal preference would be that they not use it. I'm not going to start now.

.

"Stone Soup"

My daughter has a book based on the little tale of "stone soup". It's a cute enough book, but it illustrates that most people don't understand the market.

In the book two travelers (who happen to be pigs) come to a village ("peopled" by various, occasionally cannibalistic, animals) where the residents don't want to share their food and lodging. Nowhere does the story mention that trading value for value works better than expecting a handout. The shop owners hide their wares and the banker hides all the money. No one even seems to expect that the travelers will offer to pay. I mention this glaring oversight to my daughter every time I read her this book.

In the end, the pigs do find a way to trade something for food- I suppose you could say they trade party planning skills and a bit of entertainment for food and lodging. As long as everyone is happy, it all works out.

.

Do the bad guys know they are the bad guys?

To me it is obvious that everyone who works for the government knows, if only subconsciously, that they are the bad guys.

That's why they attempt to insulate themselves from righteous retribution at the hands of their victims with the "officer safety" mantra, weapon bans, and other "laws".

If they truly believed they were doing the right thing, they wouldn't believe they need to protect themselves by violating the rights of everyone around them. Their paranoia is very informative. And it may be useful.

.

Libertarians can bridge parties

Libertarians can bridge parties

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 21, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I place a high value on liberty. My own, obviously, but also on yours. After all I only get as much liberty as I respect for all others. My own liberty, and yours, would be enhanced by living in a free society made up of free individuals.

If we are to ever have that free society, rather than going it alone and living your liberty independently while those around you suffer the ills of hidden slavery, there is a realization that needs to occur: It takes all kinds. Or at least, almost all kinds. As long as we are heading the same direction on the one issue of increasing liberty for all, I am willing to work with just about anyone.

Back when I thought I was conservative I only noticed the liberal parts of libertarianism and didn't even see the conservative parts. Those were invisible to me because they were unremarkable. I see the same thing happen in others now. Liberals only see the conservative in libertarianism and conservatives only see the liberal. Unless they are exposed to the parts they agree with first. Then they mistake the libertarian for one of their own and are shocked when confronted by the opposite position in the libertarian.

Conservatives are great advocates for some forms of liberty. They are generally pretty good about advocating for more liberty to use your property, and earn your money, as you wish. As long as it doesn't grate against their notions of morality. They are also fairly good about respecting the right of self defense and the tools to make it possible. Conservatives are generally the ones pointing out that tax rates everywhere are too high.

Liberals are also great advocates for some forms of liberty. Generally telling government to stay out of your bedroom and body. Until they decide you must be forced to make "better choices" for your own good, or unless you violate their notions of "fairness". They have been pretty good, until recently, about questioning the excuse of "national security" for endless war and domestic spying. Usually liberals recognize that a person's personal life has no bearings on the liberties that person is owed.

Libertarians can be the bridge between the two. Grasping on to the liberty advocated by others (and letting them think it is their idea) and helping make it real. This means ignoring, when possible, the authoritarian tendencies exhibited by others so that you can work together for a common goal. It means ignoring the inconsistencies if possible, while being an example of liberty for all. More often than you might imagine, others are influenced to be a little more accepting of liberty they hadn't previously considered important. That helps us all.

.

Decorating lampposts or giving one final chance?

A lot of times when people discuss the immediate aftermath of the end of The State, you hear quite a bit of talk about decorating the lampposts with the corpses of all who have worked for The State as "law" imposers, enforcers, and tyranny-enablers. But is this the best course?

Sure, after decades of abuse from these monsters, thinking of this does feel good. But, once The State collapses would none of its organs learn a lesson? Do you not think that in their fear they might try extra hard to become decent people for once?

Which increases the total amount of good in the world- killing those who have done wrong or giving them a chance to try to make up for it? Probably all but a select few deserve the chance to finally become productive and good. One last chance.

Since all "laws" against self defense will be history, and there will no longer be any exceptions for theft, murder, kidnapping, and rape by (former) agents of The State. They will have to fly right from that moment on- or else. At the first return to their old ways they can suffer the consequences.

Just don't use nice hemp rope; use the splintery crap their stupid "laws" have saddled us with.

.

Playing with idiots

Over at this blog post, I commented

Yes, there are fully automatic handguns. I'd love to shoot one someday, but I wouldn't be able to afford enough ammo to shoot for long.

Which caused "Anonymous", who seems to be obsessed with trying to insult me, guns, or libertarianism every time I post a comment over there (which is why I have renamed him "Anonymous FanBoy"), to spout

Kent, if you had a bigger dick would you still be so into guns?

To which I replied

Anonymous FanBoy- If you had a smarter mind would you still be so obsessed with me?

It's one of my most enjoyable moments in all my years of making comments to idiots!

.

Hail to The Greatest Generation!

Sometimes, when exposed to a ubiquitous myth, I want to gag.

Like when I hear the "WWII generation" called the "Greatest Generation". Really? Those who were around when the creeping socialism became a tsunami and instead of stopping it, wondered what they were entitled to, are "great"? Those who "fought it over there" and then ignored it over here, or even embraced it, are the "greatest"? I don't think so.

Sure, this is all generalization. There are no great generations; only great individuals. However, there are trends. And I just don't see enough people of that generation bucking the trend.

I'm not picking on anyone here- "my" generation has done no better, and often even worse.

No, the real Greatest Generation hasn't happened yet. The Greatest Generation will be the generation which finally stomps out collectivism and exalts liberty for ALL. Perhaps even rejects the religion of The State altogether. Not a generation that wants to collect all it feels entitled to- which was stolen from its descendants.

Is it your young children, or a generation yet to come, who will become the Greatest Generation? Help them reach that potential by giving them the love of liberty, and the understanding, to make it happen!

.

Scammed? Suck it up and move on.

When I read opinions about Social Security [sic], Medicare, and various other "welfare programs", one of the things I hear repeatedly trotted out as a reason "we can't just end it now" is that "we must keep the promises we made". Huh? Are you insane?

Let me let you in on a little secret. One particular person promised me $2 million if I would just give her one month of my life, after I had told her I didn't like her at all. Of course, then it morphed into two months, and then the dollar amount kept rising, and ... Anyway... That was years ago. I eventually found out she didn't have even $200 to her name, much less millions. I could sulk and whine about the money I am owed, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there. I was scammed and lied to. Truth sometimes hurts and none of us enjoy admitting we fell for a scam. I doubt any of us enjoy admitting we can fall prey to greed, either.

So, back to the government's scams. Now, I didn't make any promises to "seniors" or anyone else who consented to take part in any government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. Not only that, but the thieves who did make the promises are dead, and have been for a long time. Recent puppeticians are still feeding on the false promises of dead thieves, and feeding the greed of current victims of the scam. Isn't it time to let it go and stop pretending there can still be a pay out?

Yes, it is.

.

Superstitions and the Believers

Superstitions bewilder me. Well, maybe not the superstitions themselves as much as those who fall for them.

Superstitions such as "don't let a black cat cross your path", "don't walk under a ladder", "support Israel", and "unlucky thirteen". How can people believe such nonsense?

.

Escaping captivity.

If you are being held prisoner and you kill or otherwise use violence against your captor in order to escape, have you "initiated force"?

I don't believe you have.

Even if your captor is not the one who originally captured you and is being "nice" and bringing you food and water I think you are justified in using any level of force required to escape. Some people may be squeamish about this. They may have friends and family who are helping imprison people, and may not enjoy thinking of these people as bad guys. Then, there are lots of prisoners who are not behind any bars but who are no less captives.

Think about it.

.

Natural law vs Contract law

The book I am currently reading, The Law of the Somalis, had a bit in it that really struck me. The last paragraph on page 162, speaking of the complementary and contrasting nature of natural law and contractual law, said:

Whereas contract law is whatever the contracting parties may agree to so long as it is not inconsistent with natural law (emphasis mine), natural law principles and rules and the procedures for protecting and enforcing them are not as easily identified.

Which speaks to me of the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. In fact, this is the same argument, probably worded better, that I have made in the past. A contract which violates natural law is null and void on those points before it even has a chance to be enforced. Self defense and your personal property, which surrounds and infuses your physical body wherever you may be, are natural laws that can't be nullified by contract.

Or, at least that is how I see it.

.

Politicians feel pressure to act

Politicians feel pressure to act

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 15, 2011. As written, not as published.)

Politically-minded people are starting to anticipate election season. This means many of them will be asking the wrong questions of the candidates; who will be all-too willing to answer them.

We are already hearing politicians detailing what they would do about things that no government, nor any politician, has any authority to be involved in. Things like the economy and job creation, to pick a couple of prime examples.

Sure those things are important, and the natural desire of many seems to be to find or place someone "in authority" to do something beneficial for both. This path to a solution leads nowhere but over the cliff.

It's like asking me what I would do to stop dogs from scratching themselves in public. Or what I would do to stop my neighbors from watching the "wrong" television programs, or from eating unhealthy food. It is not, and could never be, within my authority no matter my job title, and even if it were, anything I might propose to do would be useless if not outright counterproductive due to unintended consequences.

Government can't create jobs other than government jobs, but government jobs don't help the economy; they diminish it. Government can also destroy jobs and prevent the market from creating jobs through regulation and taxation. The best thing government can do for job creation is to get out of the way. And the best thing government could do for the economy, along with getting out of the way of job creation, would be to shut down the counterfeiting operation at the Federal Reserve.

Yet those solutions are seen by most voters as "doing nothing", so are avoided at all costs. Politicians want to be remembered for action, even if it is the wrong one, rather than what is seen as inaction.

The best answers a candidate can give to those sorts of questions would make him unelectable, which is why America ends up with a growing economic mess and devastating law pollution, no matter which of the increasingly indistinguishable major parties takes the reins.

.

Freedom comes with limitations

Freedom comes with limitations

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 7, 2011. As written, not as published.)

The past week leading up to Independence Day made it glaringly obvious to me that few people today really know what "freedom" means. Sure, they know and use the word, but it is something like the word "Relativity" to them: something they have heard of and that they might think they understand because of how others have explained it to them. Often that explanation is in error.

Few are so completely clueless that they believe, as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is quoted as saying in a speech back in March of 1994, that "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."    He would want his subjects to believe that, of course, but he was completely wrong.

Freedom means doing what you want to do. Nothing more and nothing less. That can be good or it can be bad, depending on what it is you want to do. There is a responsibility that goes along with freedom.

You have a right to exercise your freedom but only within certain limits: You have no right to harm people who are not harming you and no right to violate their property rights. If, by exercising your freedom or by doing your job, you step outside these bounds, your freedom- your action- is in the wrong. As long as you operate within this constraint, your actions are not subject to another's wishes, opinions, edicts, or whims. No matter what they may tell you in an attempt to justify violating your liberty.

The question is, are you free to do anything you want that doesn't cause physical harm to someone else and doesn't steal from others or damage their privately-owned property? If not, why not?

If someone or something interferes with your ability to do what you want, limited only by the condition that you not harm others, no matter the justification used, they are not advancing freedom, but are an enemy of freedom. Those enemies of freedom are what we should be commemorating our independence from, on July 4th and throughout the year.

.

President Ron Paul

I admit it. I want Ron Paul to win.

As an anarchist I have two reasons for this.

First, I feel it would be less likely that the Zombie Apocalypse (otherwise known as "business as Washington DC usual") would result in the deaths of people I care about under a Ron Paul presidency. I could be wrong about that.

Second, this needs to happen in order to get energetic, involved, people to realize that politics is NOT the answer. I wish people would stop wasting their time and energy on politics and just start living free! Once Ron Paul tried and failed to get the fe(de)ral government under control (on the things it does that he wants to get under control) then maybe people would see what a waste politics really is if you value (and understand) liberty.

I'm still waiting for him to call me up to ask me to be his running-mate. My pledge would remain the same.

.

"Puppetician"

"Puppetician": Any politician who is controlled by anyone or anything other than Principle. (That covers just about all of them, doesn't it.)

.

KentForLiberty site to expire soon. UPDATED

UPDATE: Crisis averted due to some very generous people. Thanks!

Back to the original post:

Just for your information...

If you want to save anything from my KentForLiberty.com or Dullhawk.com websites, copy it now. The bill is due and I don't have the money to renew right now. So, if there was anything there that you like to reference, grab it quick. Sorry for the inconvenience. If I can, I'll get them back up.

.

Justifying your preferences

As a libertarian, you can be religious or atheist or environmentalist or vegetarian or whatever- and that's fine... but don't use libertarianism as justification. Because libertarianism has nothing to do with any of those things.

Don't initiate force against another human being. Respect the rights and the property of other people. Minimum government; maximum liberty. And within those bounds, the sky's the limit.

.

Government empowers Big Evil

The vast majority of people recognize evil acts when they see them. Unfortunately for civilization, the majority of people tend to also have faith that The State exists to prevent evil acts from getting out of control and overrunning the planet.

What those people don't seem to understand is that the greatest evils can only be maintained by government, or through the belief in government and the acceptance of the ways and methods of government.

By believing that government, The State, is the solution to great evil, they empower those individuals most likely to cause great evil. It needs to stop.

.

"No Man an Island" by Kent McManigal

No Man an Island (Original link and comments)

They say “no man is an island”, and that we all need other people for support. Especially when things go wrong. Sometimes it helps to have the right kind of support.

Several years ago I woke up in a really bad situation. Through bad choices, and bad people seeking to harm me, I one day found myself in the position that my wife was telling me to get out of my house within 24 hours. She was moving her boyfriend in, and he intended to beat me up if I was still at the house when he arrived.

I was living 1500 miles from the nearest family member, having moved across the country at the urging of my wife. I did have some local friends, but most of them were not in a position to do too much to help, and I hesitated getting them involved since I felt it would show them what an idiot I had been. They had rescued me from my wife once before on short notice (that time she had actually called someone and told them to come get me or she would kill me) and I was embarrassed that I was in trouble again and that the situation was even worse this time.

At the time I was just trying to avoid having to shoot anyone. Seriously, I didn't want to be forced into killing anyone in self-defense- especially when I knew the confrontation was coming. It has always been my intention to get out of the way of violence when I can. However, I had no intention of walking away from all my possessions and letting my wife and her new boyfriend have them. She had already pretty much cleaned me out by buying the house with my money and then refusing to put my name on it. I had asked her for some time- a week or so- to find a place and get out. She laughed and said I had better be gone by the next night. Then she left to drive a few hundred miles to pick up this guy she had met online.

So, I scrambled and put a key lock on my bedroom door, hid any valuables that I could, and did something really stupid: I got a "protection from abuse" order from the local court. I should have known better (actually, I did know better, but I panicked) and it didn't turn out well. Even the local cop I knew told me it was a stupid thing to do- as soon as he found out I had done it. I was also warned, by the sheriff, that "every woman" who had a "protection order" filed against her will turn around and "cross file" in retaliation- and she did. This resulted in the sheriff showing up at the house demanding all my weapons- right at the time I needed them most. I even pointed this ironic fact out to him, but he said "it is The Law". Use you imagination to decide whether he got them all or not. All in all, the protection order did keep my wife and her boyfriend away from me while I found a place to live, but things could have been handled better, and with fewer entanglements and ongoing problems, had other options been readily available on short notice. Plus, the boyfriend turned out to be so afraid of me I doubt he would have done anything.

Fast forward a few years.

I was living with someone I had discovered to be a liar who was out to hurt me and anyone I cared about. I fled with nowhere to flee to and with almost no money. I slept in my car and in the woods. I showered at friends' houses when I could, and ate what I could find. The person I fled from harassed my friends and my family, relentlessly trying to track me down and get everyone to pressure me to go back to her. Finally, under pressure and with no good options, I gave up and went back. Defeated and broken, with my family thinking the worst of me due to some very detailed and graphic lies (along with forged documentation).

I'm still dealing with the consequences of both of these messes.

Unfortunate Truth #1 is "People are idiots" and no one exemplifies this truth better than me. However, no one who is being abused should have to face that alone, idiot or not.

How would things have turned out in those situations had there been a way I could have called for backup? Would I have even gotten into the second situation had the first turned out better? What if there had been people I could call for legal advice and help as well as physical assistance when I so desperately needed it?

I'll never know what would have happened back then, but there is a way to make sure you have access to that kind of back up from now on.

Personal stupidity isn't the only bad thing that can happen in today's messed up world. Simply standing up for what is right- for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness- can put you in the position of needing specialized help ASAP.

Think about it: How much more bold would you be in "living your liberty" if you knew someone had your back in case of a run-in with The State? Would you say "No" to agents of The State more readily? Would you be more willing to stand up for what is right?

When activists like Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman strike out on one of their road trips to spread the word about liberty they seem to always run into enforcers or other pro-State extremists who are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of making an example of them for not "properly" kow-towing to the "authority" of the badge or the robe. Fortunately each time this happens people know about it immediately and are able to at least keep an eye on the situation to make sure no abuses can go unnoticed.

But what happens if some power-drunk enforcer corners YOU late one night far from family and friends?

Few of us are well-known liberty activists who have networks of people ready to lend a hand if needed. In all probability if you or I had a run-in with what passes for "The Law" in these Police States of America, no one but our family would know about it until the crisis had passed and we were able to tweet our adventure to the world. What if you had a way around that? Well, you do.

Individual Sovereign University has created the Sovereign Mutual Aid Rescue Team project: SMART (or the "University Association" as it is officially known). It is a subscription service that can help with raising bail and various other unpleasant but necessary defensive measures. And that isn't all they offer if you join the association. Visit their site and also read this list of planned services.

By way of disclosure, It is possible I may get paid for writing about this, but I refuse to buy into the common statist delusion that there is something dirty about making money. Paid or not, I'd write this anyway. As painful as the personal disclosure has been, I want you to avoid the mistakes I have made and I want you to have a plan, and be SMART, when things do go wrong.

.

Enemy of The State

The State is not MY enemy, I am The State's enemy. The State is the enemy of Liberty and all those who understand it. I did not go looking for a fight; The State brought the fight to me when it declared me and all the things that I value to be its enemy. The State started the fight and declares that any who defend themselves from its attacks are "terrorists".

The State seeks to shift the blame. It is digging itself into a hole it will not be able to climb out of. The State and all those who support or worship it are fools.

Unfortunately for them, The State is not real. Not in the way you and I are real. It is just a name given to a bunch of cowardly, thuggish, parasites who band together so that they can steal, rape, kidnap, murder, and otherwise do things that would get them killed if they didn't have a gang backing them up. The time is coming when that gang will not be enough. People would be wise to abandon The State before it is too late. If it isn't already.

.

Libertarianism and Violence?

"Love it or leave it" is the cry of the genocide enabler. This is the point I made that caused someone tell me to "piss off", because he had just tossed that "pearl" at me.

I was commenting on a blog entry that was trying to confuse the issue of violence and aggression and insult libertarians by association with that confusion. People don't understand what they don't want to understand.

I pointed out that I don't mind paying for what I use, I just don't want to pay for "services" I don't want (and I don't want anyone else to unwillingly pay for anything on my behalf, either). A government monopoly is wrong. (Unless he deletes my earlier comments, you can read the exchange up to the point where he flaked).

Anyway, the blogger said "You don't want to pay for US government services? Leave the US." I pointed out that this was the mantra of the genocide enabler (he deleted that comment), and told him I wasn't obligated to leave all I had worked for, or my friends and family, by walking away and handing everything over to the bad guys.

So, he wrote this: "Ok, Kent, piss off. Allowing you to air your quirky views here is one thing, but when you start throwing around insane insults implying that anyone who thinks taxes are legitimate is into genocide, you are done."

It isn't me who is "insane", Gene. After all, you can justify anything, not just counterfeit "laws" and "taxation", by saying "if you don't like it, leave". If you don't like the fact that the local government is killing your friends and family "get out!". Don't defend yourself from the bad guys; don't point out that what they are doing is wrong. Just leave. Just leave so that they can continue doing evil. What kind of "philosophy" is that?

People who delete comments show their fear. They show their weakness and their understanding of the weakness of their argument. I have never deleted one comment that wasn't obvious spam, other than a few comments made by a rather tweaked individual who insisted that his comments be deleted.

The truth hurts, Gene. Suck it up.

.

A "libertarian society"?

When someone asks for an example of a libertarian society, and is told of one, he usually rejects the example because what he is really wanting is an example of a "libertarian state". I deal with that bizarre notion elsewhere.

Dictionary.com defines "society" in this way:

1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.

3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.

4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

5. such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.

So, by definitions 1, 2, and 5 I do live in a libertarian society. I even live in a libertarian society according to definition 4, if you don't emphasize the "highly structured" part too much. Structured, yes. Highly structured, probably not. And that isn't a weakness, but a strength.

I'm still not sure about definition 3. I doubt there is any such thing as "human society" since beyond the biological and psychological basics there is no singular "society" that is common to all humans. Yet, in day-to-day interactions, humans do generally behave in a libertarian (and even anarchist) manner. Otherwise no one would be able to get along at all; everyone would just be stealing, attacking, and shoving each other around every time they encountered another person. Civilization, not to mention "society", would come crashing down.

So, yes, I do live in a libertarian society. Of my making and of my choosing. Those who don't attack me will not be attacked by me. My libertarian society is surrounded by a parallel (and inferior) society that is based upon coercion, but that is not my society. I am not a part of it, even as I must deal with it. The disease is not me.

.

A "libertarian country"?

Asking for an example of a libertarian state is like asking to be shown a feline ostrich.

It just shows you don't get it.

(Now, if you wanna talk about a "libertarian society"...)
.

So full of FAIL...

Sometimes I read a blog that is just so full of fail I don't have the energy to keep pursuing it. I'm not sure yet if this is one of those times or not...

I've learned so much recently about the Somali customary law that things like this really grate on me. (Thanks, MS. ;) )

Then when they talk about other things they don't understand on top of that, well, the task becomes gargantuan. Plus, if all they pride themselves on is "snark", then I understand they aren't serious to begin with and further commentary is pointless.

.

Invite others to Libertopia

If you like my positive take on a libertarian future in Dispatches from Libertopia, please help me spread it around. It is getting pathetically few views, and I hate to think negativity is more popular than showing how a free society could work.

.

Don't shoot your monitor

Almost every single time I get angry enough at the computer (for some malfunction, not for internet content) that I want to start cussing and smashing things, the first instinct is to smash the monitor or keyboard, yet those are not usually the parts of the computer causing the problem. They are just the parts I am interacting with.

I think The State is the same way. Most of us want to smash the parts of The State we see interfering with our life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, when the real problem is the bad guy behind the scenes operating in safety.

Yes, cops and bureaucrats have worked long and hard to earn our well-deserved contempt, but the hidden parasites behind the scenes need to face consequences, too.

.

Conservative is NOT libertarian

I have noticed that many "liberals" try to attack libertarianism by laying out a "conservative" position, calling it the libertarian position, and then attacking it.

Sometimes there is some superficial resemblance (if you only have the intelligence of a liberal, that is), but often there is no resemblance at all. It just makes the "liberal" look silly. And then they start making faces and calling you names when this is pointed out to them.

.

Too much time spent on problems

Too much time spent on problems

(My CNJ column of July 1, 2011. As submitted, not as published.)

I enjoy solving problems. Not abstract puzzles as much as real-life situations, although the occasional puzzle can sometimes be fun, too. This does not mean I like having problems arise that need to be solved, or that I enjoy people who intentionally cause problems for me. Enough little things crop up spontaneously to provide ample entertainment without any help.

I recognized this personal quirk back in high school. I was at a friend's house when her mom put a package of hot dog buns in the microwave to warm. The metal twist-tie was still on the package and it burst into flame. OK, so the "flame" was like a tiny birthday candle flame, but from her reaction you would never have guessed that. While she ran in circles, wringing her hands and yelling about the fire, I simply opened the microwave and blew out the flame. Problem solved. It felt good.

This part of my nature fits well with my libertarianism. It is fun to see the liberty-respecting solution, which violates no one's rights, that others studiously ignore. It is also amusing the see the contortions that people go through trying to put objection after objection in the way of solving a problem.

Some people are very invested in, almost married to, their problems. They would prefer to complain, or at best, find a partial "solution" that creates more problems downstream than to strike at the root of the matter. They also refuse to admit that most real solutions are very simple compared to the alternatives of letting the problem grow larger, or of building a Rube Goldberg contraption, based upon more coercion and State control, that "solves" the problem in gloriously complicated and prone-to-fail ways. Different strokes for difficult folks. (note to editor: not a typo- I intended to write "difficult folks" there)

It isn't critical to me that people accept the solutions that I find either. Their problem; their life. I still get the benefit of the mental exercise that solving the problem provides. Only when the problem directly impacts me in a way I can't avoid does the solution become personal. Most of the time it is enough that I can see a way out that others haven't noticed.

.

Liberty Book Bomb

If you are so inclined to still believe that you can "work within the system" to increase Liberty, then here is a suggestion: send your favorite candidate or squatting politician (or is that "sitting politician"?) a copy of one of my books.

I would primarily suggest Problem? Solved!, but judging from experience I suspect their intellectual development might be more equipped to handle Indy Pindy, The Liberty Mouse. On the other hand, Kent's Liberty Primer might be good for a Ruler or prospective Ruler with a more mature mind, but a relatively short attention span. Tao Liberty Ching would probably be good for those who have no attention span at all and can only think in sound-bite sized servings. Or those with a more philosophical bent. If all else fails and you still want to inflict me on some politician, or if you have no complaints with the direction he/she seems to be leaning, you could send them Sandy's Legacy.

This way you could help yourself by spreading the liberty meme while also helping me. You might even help that politician become a productive individual rather than a parasite.

.

Trolleys, switches, and choices

I'm sure you have all heard of the "trolley scenarios", where you choose whether to do nothing and watch a runaway trolley kill five innocent people, or throw a switch to divert the trolley onto some tracks where it will kill "only" one innocent person, or alternatively, you could toss a sufficiently massive innocent bystander onto the tracks to stop the trolley, thus killing him to save the five.

Now, the versions I had previously been exposed to supposed that all the people were standing where they stood of their own free will. The link above suggests they have all been tied to the tracks by another person.

I'll look at those circumstances separately.

In the case of no one being tied to the tracks, the 5 people made the choice to stand where they stand, as did the one on the other tracks. Perhaps the one was smarter in his choice. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to sacrifice him because others made a bad choice and he did not. Not that standing on any tracks at any time seems particularly wise to me.

I do believe you have a responsibility to be aware of your surroundings. Failure to do so, staying in "condition white", as they say, has consequences.

I would do my best to alert everyone, and send the trolley down the tracks least likely to have anyone standing on them by the time the trolley got there.

I do not believe it would be right to toss an innocent bystander onto the tracks to save "the five", because, once again he was not among those unwisely standing on tracks. Let natural selection weed out people who stand around on trolley tracks in "condition white". OK, maybe that's a little harsh, but if you weren't present to intervene, nature would take its course anyway.

Since I don't believe rights are additive, I don't think 5 people have more rights than one. Pick any individual among the 5 and he is equal to the one. It's like saying it is "more wrong" to kill one individual five times than to kill him once. Each person only dies once and that applies to each of the six individuals in this scenario. I also don't believe in the notions of "greatest good", "general welfare", or "common good"- especially as applied to scenarios like this.

What if all the innocent people are tied to the tracks? I wouldn't waste time flipping switches or pushing people onto the tracks, I would be working to defeat the Kobayashi Maru scenario without violating the ZAP. If nothing else, self sacrifice by jumping on the tracks would be right, while pushing someone else onto the tracks would not. If the victims are tied to the tracks, is there anyone who can cut the ropes? Who are they nearer; the 5 or the one? If halfway between they could probably free one person faster than 5 so sending the trolley toward the one has a higher chance of saving everyone.

In reality there are always 3rd options. And often 4th and 5th. Why not send the trolley toward the one or ones who are most likely to be able to jump clear or be rescued by a bystander? Why not shout a warning? It is an artificial constraint to claim you can only do A or B. I think that pretty much invalidates any "answers" arrived at.

These sorts of philosophical questions are contrived to make you feel bad.

Just follow the ZAP and you'll do OK.

.