Freedom basis of libertarianism

Freedom basis of libertarianism

(My weekly Clovis News Journal column for September 30, 2011.)

Libertarianism rests upon the answers to a few questions. Which is better: Freedom or slavery? Honest possession or theft? Truth or falsehood?

For any random individual the answer might be "it depends". For one thing, define "better".

Society prospers as individuals prosper. It is not right to make different rules for different people. This isn't to say "one size fits all", but that if something is true, it is true for all people for all times. If it is wrong for me to do something to you, then it is also wrong for you to do the same to me. It is universal.

One individual might be harmed by freedom. Either his own or someone else's. Should he be able to infringe on the freedoms of other people to prevent himself being harmed? Yes, but only if those others wish to express their freedom by attacking or stealing. Should other people be able to infringe on his freedom to prevent him from hurting himself? No. That individual has the choice to exercise his freedom, or not, even if his choice would harm himself. It's the same choice we all have.

If you claim slavery is better than freedom, that means you believe everyone should be a slave to someone else. Even the slave owners. That's socialism. Yet, there are always individuals, those who make the rules they are willing to enforce with violence, who aren't forced to follow those rules. Those who are most insistent on imposing this system on everyone else exempt themselves, either openly or in practice. Slavery is not best, even in the eyes of the would-be slave master.

A random individual might claim theft is better as long as he is the one receiving the stolen goods. If this were actually true, then as soon as the tables were turned, and everyone began taking advantage of the new morality and stealing his stuff, he would probably change his mind. Once again you can reverse roles to see through the propaganda.

Some people obviously prefer lies over truth. "Do these jeans make me look fat?" or "Do you think my sister is cuter than me?" Those are questions that are not always safe to answer truthfully. Not quite a "verbal grenade", but very close. But are lies "better"? No. All things, even the truth, come with consequences.

So, for most individuals, freedom, property rights, and truth- the foundations of libertarianism- are preferable to the alternatives. Libertarianism is still the most ethical way ever discovered for dealing with others.

The meaning of "The Pledge"

What "they" are really saying when they recite "the Pledge of Allegiance":

I give my promise of loyalty to the banner made of cloth that is a symbol of the criminal government that now rules the country of America,

And to the empire for which it now stands.

One nation, under (some nebulous interpretation of) God (that we only think we can force you to agree on), til death do us part (because if you try to leave, I will kill you),

With blah-blah-blah* and something-something* for all.

*Words that the reciters haven't got the faintest clue what they mean.

.

In "praise" of the donut munchers

As long as you are force to "pay" for a government employee's existence, you'd be better off to have one who does nothing.

A conscientious government employee is violating you twice. Not only are they robbing you, but they are also raping your rights with everything they accomplish. And someday they may actually kill you.

.

Listen to FREEDOM FEENS!

This is always an interesting podcast, and I highly recommend it.

FREEDOM FEENS Podcast - Michael W. Dean and Neema Vedadi’s fun 'n' feisty weekly chat about Constitutional, libertarian and voluntaryist issues, abuse of authority by police, the War on Drugs, self-defense, States' Rights, Natural Rights, Austrian Economics, DIY art, low-budget filmmaking, digital recording, activism, punk rock, hip-hop and more.

Great content, great production values, high-quality audio, and radio safe.

Now with streaming audio for mobile

.

Americanism is a real problem

Americanism. I guess that's what I'd call the mental problem infecting a large percentage of those around me.

You know the type:

Stuck in a fictional myth of the 1950s as The Golden Era. Borderism. Religionism. Militarism. Guns "from my cold, dead hands"... but only as long as we can keep them away from the "wrong people". Infected with just a tinge of "White supremacism". A deep fear of "brown people" or change of just about any sort. A love of punishment and revenge. An abiding belief that Democracy, along with The Constitution, is the Alpha and the Omega of freedom. Clinging to the demonstrably false belief that cops are the good guys. Symbols of the USA are worshiped, and no fault can ever be found in the global actions of the US government.

It is nostalgia elevated to religion. Kind of like the Amish.

.

The lazy man's way: authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is the lazy way out.

When I am tired or distracted it would be so much easier to just "lay down the law" with my daughter than to think things through, that it becomes a great temptation.

It is more time-consuming and requires more thought to pursue libertarian parenting. It is a lot of work to be logical, consistent, reasonable, and listen to (or consider) counter-arguments. It's easier to just say "because I said so", even in cases where you are operating from a flawed perspective or with insufficient data. Because I have seen the harm that comes from that style of "parenting" I try to avoid that trap.

But, like I say, it can be a lot of work. Most worthwhile things are.

On the other hand, a little effort now saves a lot of trouble in the future.

.

Politicians and their "values"

I see a lot of puppeticians who claim to have "values". And a lot of their sheeplike followers believe them.

"Dedicated to the values of idiocy" is not a virtue. Yet, it seems those who are dedicated to such are venerated and put upon a pedestal by their equally deluded followers. Sad.

.

Don't let government stop you

Don't let government stop you

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 22, 2011.)

What is it you most would like to do if you had no onerous regulations and laws holding you back? What would you do with liberty?

This is a question libertarian author and novelist L. Neil Smith has posed in the past. It is still one of the best ways to awaken to the potential that liberty has in store for you. Just think about it.

I seriously doubt that you would daydream of a career as a robber or attacker. Nor would I. Why imagine the worst of others? Even if someone else did have those types of ambitions, there would still be the equal and identical rights of others, backed up by an absence of restrictions on self defense and defense of property, to prevent him from becoming a real problem. It isn't as if laws, and the chance of being caught by the enforcers, stop bad people from being bad now.

Many of us would probably dream of starting a business or pursuing a hobby that is just too difficult with government looking over your shoulder; demanding you jump through certain hoops for permission, and then demanding a cut of your efforts if you make a profit. Or, even when you don't.

The trick is that you need to come to the realization that your wishes depend on you leaving the other guy alone to pursue his dreams as well. Do you want to follow your dreams enough to stop preventing him from following his? You only get as much liberty as you respect in the other guy.

Do you want to keep your guns bad enough that you will stay out of your neighbor's marriage? Do you enjoy your raw milk products enough that you will stop worrying about what the cancer patient across the street is smoking? Do you value your religious beliefs enough to stop trying to interfere with the other guy's religious practices? Do you want to keep your own property enough that you stop justifying the theft of someone else's property? Do you want to live your life as you see fit enough to fight for the right of your enemy to do the same?

If so, start now. If not, perhaps you need to get out more and develop some interests. What's stopping you? Life is waiting.

.

"...nor was I discussing political agendas."

Regardless of what some people seem to believe, right and wrong isn't a "political agenda". It just so happens, though, that libertarianism is intimately concerned with right and wrong in a consistent way that no other philosophy can be. And that translates into a logical way to organize our interactions, which means "politics" to a great many observers.

Yes, that disturbs people who have no ethical foundation for their politics, but that isn't my fault. They could look to improve themselves. We all have to start some time.

.

Thought of the moment

Libertarianism is not just misunderstood, it is un-understood. How much of that is willful, I'll leave to you to decide. I suspect it is a lot.

.

Dependency pushers

I saw a news article that quoted some puppetician who said the Social Security [sic] increase was a good thing.

What I don't get: "Drug dealers" are treated like criminals, even though their customers are consensual. Welfare advocates are treated as heroes, even though their customers and those who actually provide the product are coerced.

Both "drug dealers" and politicians are pushing dependency. Yet, only one of those "pushers" are using coercion to obtain the product and keep the customers.

Remove the negative effects of prohibition and I'll tell you which sort I'd rather have as a next-door neighbor. And it is NOT the tax parasite.

.

The killing of Gadhafi- self defense or revenge?

I can't join the majority in the celebration over the killing of Gadhafi.

Yes, he was a very, very bad guy. Almost everyone who seeks political power is. Any one of his victims would have been fully justified in killing him in self defense. But... the old monster was not a credible threat any more- he was no longer the ruler and was not engaged in an initiation of force at the time he was killed. He was killed in revenge, not in self defense. I also don't see any justice in it.

I think revenge is wrong. Understandable, but wrong. I'm not saying I would never again do anything in revenge, myself, but if I did I would be wrong. I have done a few things in revenge in the past. I was wrong.

When I smeared poison ivy all over the toilet seat, and my wife's vibrator, before I abandoned my house to her and her new boyfriend, I was wrong. If I had it to do over again I hope I would make the right decision this time. I have the benefit of years of libertarianism to guide my actions now.

The rebels, who are now falling all over themselves in the rush to set up another State to abuse them and violate their liberty, were wrong for killing Gadhafi. And they are wrong for allowing a new government to be established. Actions have consequences. Watch what happens next.

.

Gunwalker, or Fast and Furious(ly insane)

As is always the case when the psychopaths who work for government choose to violate their very clear operating instructions, the "Fast and Furious"/ Gunwalker scandal is not an announcement that there need to be more "laws". Only idiot congresscritters could see it that way. No, it is a clear call to repeal all "laws" (and agencies) that made the scandal possible.

Say you were born into a neighborhood where one guy has declared himself the head of a homeowners' association that you never agreed to join, but existed before you were born. Maybe 50% of your neighbors either agree, or at least are under the impression that somebody "needs to be in charge". Vastly fewer actually think he should be "the one" or that what he does is good. Anyway, the "head guy" insists that all houses remain unlocked so that he can check them at will for burglars. When you discover that HE is the main burglar in town do you let him then make more rules that don't address the problem, do you insist on replacing him with another power-mad maniac who wants the "job", or do you install locks and arm yourself against his next intrusion?

This is as clear an illustration as possible that government is not your friend and is not necessary. It is the problem, not the solution. It needs to be abolished, or ignored to death. However, as a compromise, I would suggest the following steps the government can take to show "good faith":

Repeal any "law" that seeks to violate the Second Amendment. And that is every "law" that applies to guns in any way. Yes, even the "pro-gun laws". The government is forbidden from addressing guns. Obey or die.

Abolish any agency or bureaucracy that deals with enforcing any of the forbidden "laws" that affect guns. And don't try to be cute by shifting the "job" to someone else. The "job" is illegal. Treat it as such, with enthusiastic fervor.

Repeal any "law" that makes it a "crime" to resist or kill any government employee who tries to violate any person's rights or property in any way.

Repeal, repeal, repeal. No, there shouldn't be a "law". Anything less shows that government is only sorry its tools got caught.

Follow this path and there would never be another scandal like Gunwalker. Follow a similar path every time government breaks its own rules, those which govern its existence, and before long we'd actually live in a free society.

.

Who would Jesus vote for?

I am not being facetious; I am completely serious.

Please ask this of your Christian friends who vote. Especially pose the question to ones who, like some of my family members, say they will vote for Perry, Cain, or Romney because they "have to vote for someone".

Who would Jesus vote for? Do you really think he would vote for the "lesser of two evils"? Isn't that like choosing to commit the lesser of two sins? Do you really think he would want you to vote for the lesser of two evils?

Christians who vote are not obeying his admonition to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" and are instead giving Caesar that which does not belong to Caesar: their attention, time, and respect.

Grow up. Withdraw consent.

.

A horrible thought

I just saw another news report of a kid who was taken from his family by government force because it was claimed he was abused. Now he has been taken from the foster family that he was placed with because it is being claimed they also abused him.

Do some kids attract abuse?

I'm not saying he "deserved it" or brought it upon himself in any way, but I have to wonder if some kids trigger a sort of "immune response" in ethically-weak adults around them that makes abuse more likely.

If I were in charge of placing homeless kids with families (in a free market sort of way), I'd first make sure the foster family members were all followers of the ZAP. Obviously the current "system" doesn't work.

.

Little learned in last 10 years

Little learned in last 10 years

(My Clovis News Journal column for Sept. 16, 2011. As written, not as published.)

Last weekend America observed the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Apparently few Americans have learned anything in the past ten years. At least, that is the lesson I take away from what I saw of the commemorations.

If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, they must love us now. The US government has cancelled freedom and only allows us to exercise certain privileges, at their discretion and within "sensible" limits, in place of freedom now.

The only part of the Bill of Rights that isn't obviously violated by the federal government on a daily basis across America is the Third Amendment. Yet, I believe even the spirit and intent of that one is violated by having a standing military and unendable wars. The rest of the Bill of Rights is a laughingstock to those who work in government.

In other words, the federal government did the terrorists' "work" for them. Why are Americans not gathering goose feathers and heating pots of tar? Or taking up pitchforks and torches? Can Americans really be so afraid of a phantom menace that they think trading priceless liberty for false security is a good trade?

Governments cause terrorism just as surely as a virus causes smallpox- and the solution is the same. Most of the "9/11" commemorations seemed to celebrate the cause rather than notice the solution.

Want to defeat terrorism? Abolish gun control and stop making it hard for the first line of defense (that's you and me, folks) to do its job. Stop meddling in the affairs of other people around the globe. Not "isolationism", but non-interference. Close the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA. In fact, abolish any government agency, program, or law which diminishes liberty in any way. Take away the ability of the US government, and all its local co-conspirators, to infringe on any individual right from this moment on. Learn a lesson from history rather than seeming determined to repeat the worst mistakes.

You can also change the way you think. Refuse to be afraid. Don't fly flags (either the federal "Stars and Stripes" or a more authentic American flag) at half-mast in defeat, but from the top of the pole as a display of determination. Stand tall and unbowed when remembering that America survived the pathetic attempt to destroy it. Stop giving terrorists what they want!

.

A difference that makes no difference is not a difference

Ack! The idiots strike again.

I saw where someone was having a hissy fit because they read someone who was comparing communists and nazis and not making a big deal about the "differences" between the two.

The hissy-fitter was mainly upset that people who were commenting on the "Occupy" protestors don't know that communists are on the "extreme left" while nazis are on the "far right". As if that imaginary distinction makes a difference!

Does it really matter if the rabid animal chewing your throat is a cat or a dog?

Nazis and communists are identical in the only way that matters. They are both murderous monsters when given the power of The State. And they are not the only ones who should never be given that power. The same is true of every ideology. The only solution is to allow (and encourage) The State to evaporate.

.

The Statist's Burden

In a past century it was called "the white man's burden". Now it isn't the burden of the "white man", but of statists of every "race" who feel the "burden" to spread their particular brand of State- be it democracy or Islam- in order to rescue everyone else from their own "depravity" or chaos.

Well, Statist, is your burden too heavy? I can relieve you of your burden right now. Your "statist's burden" is all in your head. You are unwanted. Go away and take your misplaced "burden" with you. You don't need to "save" us wretched anarchists from freedom.

We don't need your police. We don't need your "laws". We don't need you to "protect" us from contaminated food, or from the improper use of our devices. We don't need you to try to direct traffic. We don't need you to imprison people for eating or smoking whatever they choose. We don't need you to provide for "the common good" or "public" anything. We don't need you to keep us safe from (other) terrorists or to secure the borders.

We don't need YOU. Seriously. We really don't need you. So just stop being a dick and get on with your life and don't force us to defend ourselves from your unwanted attention. It's the only way to avoid the approaching unpleasantness.

.

Perpetual motion and "taxation"

Recently I again ran into the erroneous belief that government employees pay "taxes". This is a myth that just keeps on walking around, undead and looking for brains to munch.

The fact of the matter: Government employees pay no taxes. Ever. Zero. Period.

The pretense that they do is the financial equivalent of a perpetual motion device that keeps the economically ignorant among us (more) content with the status quo.

All government employee pay comes from government-confiscated "taxes", and all the "taxes" they pay go "back" to government. (The money never actually left the government's bloody hands in the first place.) Plus some money is always lost in the shuffle between parties. The lost money is equivalent to the waste heat in a mechanical system.

Put another way: If I paid you $100 dollars, but then demanded you pay a "tax" of 20% back to me, did I just give you $100 or did I give you only $80? Contrast it with this scenario: If I paid you $100 but you immediately paid a third party $20, I have actually, in fact, paid you $100 even if you passed some of it along to someone else. There is a difference.

.

Results-oriented parenting or a control freak?

I overheard something disturbing recently.

A dad was speaking to some other parents and said "I will raise these girls way different because I have a different end result in mind."

On the surface I'm not sure why it disturbed me. We all "raise" our kids in the way we think will produce the best results. As if we could ever know which "results" would be "best", or what would produce those results.

But there was some type of arrogance to that statement that really got to me. To think you can have any "end" in mind for your kids- it just seemed creepy to me. Added to the fact that the guy was sporting a semi-military haircut, wearing a T-shirt with a military logo, and going on and on about different Republican presidential candidates without mentioning that they are all authoriturd puppeticians (with one sorta-exception whom he never mentioned) - it all added up to a control-freak authoritarian in my mind.

Maybe I am wrong.

I didn't know the guy and wasn't sitting that close to him. I forced myself to sit and not speak up or snort in derision. It was hard. I've grown as a person.

.

Silverblog

Check out Silver's blog. It is full of nutrition for your starving mind!

(Thanks to Claire for the heads-up.)

.

A "disgusting rant"

I am angry. Exposure to idiots has that effect on me. I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but it is difficult to ignore. I am only human. So, since my "rants are disgusting and very difficult to take seriously" I might as well give the statist perverts a real rant.

This time it is the really stupid comments from those who see nothing wrong with agents of the State entrapping people and charging them with sex crimes against "children" (15 years old is NOT a child) who did not exist. Even if the LEO predators never initiated contact, and never said anything to lead the alleged "pedophile" on and escalate the sexuality of the situation, what they do as a part of their "job" is still wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I would like to scream at the commenters "Look, Moron! Your stupid belief that you must either choose between The State or having your child molested is ridiculous and false." But statists are apparently too dumb to understand that obvious fact.

There is a better way to combat this problem. One that doesn't require you to become the bad guy or support the actions of bad guys.

There is only one person who will always be there when my daughter is in trouble. I want that person to be able to protect her. And that one person is she, herself. Sure, I would prefer to always be there to protect her, myself. That isn't possible and to act as though it is sets her up for tragedy. To train her to rely on agents of the State is child abuse. It is teaching her helplessness. I won't do that!

So, to any statist perverts out there: I do NOT support pedophiles who act upon their desires by actually attacking or deceiving children in order to take advantage of them. But that doesn't mean I support agents of the State who are paid with stolen money, lie, attack, kidnap, and murder- as well as often sexually attack the innocent. You can oppose both types of bad guys, and in fact, if you are consistent and ethical, you WILL.

So, how's THAT for a "disgusting rant"?

.

Sexual solicitation of children- or not.

Just as there is actual child pornography- which involves the abuse and exploitation of innocent children, as opposed to the majority of "child pornography" which does nothing of the sort- there is actual sexual solicitation of children, as opposed to the vast majority of acts which are called "sexual solicitation of children" which most absolutely are NOT.

This recent case stinks to "high heaven" of entrapment. Some ignoramuses will whine "but if it saves one child it's worth it to entrap a few innocent people". BS! Two wrongs don't make a right, no matter how desperately you wish that were the case.

Added to this absurdity is the fact that a 15 year old (like the completely imaginary human in the above case) is almost never still a "child"- except in the eyes of the ignorant State (which would prefer we all remain helpless children under its "laws"- to be "protected" and controlled to death).

Teach your children about reality. Teach them that there are bad people out there who will seek to exploit them if they can. Teach them how to stay alert. Earn and keep their trust! Teach them to defend themselves with the most effective tools ever invented for that purpose. And don't ever, ever rely on the predators of the State to "protect" them from freelance predators.

Sexually abusing or exploiting anyone is never right. Regardless of age. You are subject to self defensive actions by your victim or a rescuer. You could legitimately be killed and I wouldn't shed a tear. But there is no "one size fits all" formula that can be used as a broad brush to decide who to target for punishment- and NO VICTIM- NO "CRIME"!

And, then, when your children have grown up (whether you want to accept it or not) and take the responsibility to make decisions (sexual or otherwise) you don't like, show that you are also an adult and don't use The State as a way to punish the object of your anger.

(The picture is from an old post, but still very applicable.)

.

Most laws in U.S. unnecessary

Most laws in U.S. unnecessary

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 9, 2011. As written, not as published. Judging by facebook "shares", this one was very popular!)

The system is broken. Almost every law, particularly every new law passed in the past several decades, is not based upon right or wrong, but upon opinion or value judgments. The US imprisons, or traps in its "justice system", more people, percentage-wise, than did Stalin in the USSR, and more than China ever has.

You, yes YOU- even if you are a kindergarten teacher, a police officer, a pastor, or a quiet grandmother- commit an average of three federal felonies every day of your life. That average number will inevitably increase as more things are made illegal, and as already illegal things are made "more illegal".

It doesn't mean you are bad; it means the laws are wrong. America is suffering from law pollution. Back in a somewhat more liberty-respecting era, the Supreme Court declared that a "law" which violates the Constitution is not really a law and can't be enforced. It doesn't even need to be repealed. Any law which violates Natural Law is even less legitimate; it is counterfeit, even if it is "Constitutional". Yet, look how many people now believe you must obey a counterfeit "law" until it is repealed.

This doesn't mean the situation is hopeless, unless we keep doing the same dumb things that led us to this point. When you find yourself standing in a hole, it's not time to use a different shovel, it's time to stop digging.

The solution is at hand and is demonstrated by how we each normally live our lives. Freedom of association. Respect for other people's property. Self defense. Mind your own business. Embrace voluntaryism (note to editor: spell check doesn't like the word "voluntaryism", but that is the correct spelling) and make decisions by unanimous consent. Pay for what you use, don't use what you are not willing to pay for, don't force anyone to pay for, or participate in, anything they'd rather not. Consider how a group orders a pizza- those who want it, and are willing to pay for it, decide which toppings to get, and those who can't compromise on toppings can't be forced to pay for a pizza they do not want.

If you are only paying for what you want, just like everyone else is, it won't even matter if those things cost more. You'll still come out ahead, since you will be paying for so many fewer things in total. And those things no one wants bad enough to pay for would go away. It's simple and it works.

.

Cops face a choice in California- and elsewhere

So, the feds are over-stepping their imaginary "authority" once again. This time threatening to shut down California medical marijuana dispensaries.

Some day, sooner or later, this kind of evil/stupidity will be the nail in their coffin (or the dirt on their mass grave). Maybe not this time, but it is inevitable. It will happen.

This is a fight they can not win. Not in the long run. Why do they insist on fighting it? Because they are dumb enough to believe in the permanence of a State. Something that has never been and never will be. A delusion. And they are betting their very lives on it.

Some day this sort of thuggish behavior will bring out the defensive nature of their targeted victims. It is right to defend yourself and your property. No "law" can ever change that fact. When the tipping point is reached it will be a sad day for the families of the enforcers.

But, there is time. Enforcers can either start serving and protecting their masters, rather than victimizing them on behalf of insane control freaks in DC (and locally)... or they can quit their tax-parasite "jobs" and go straight. They have a choice and no one knows for sure when the time to make that choice has expired. It might be tomorrow. It might be the day the thugs move to shut down the first dispensary. Or, it might have been yesterday.

Think, if that is not beyond your ability, Mr. Policeman. I'm only trying to save your hide.

.

Push the button, Frank

Imagine there is a button you could push to immediately make every law enforcement officer in the world instantly drop dead. Or maybe drop dead as soon as he or she wasn't doing something like driving a car, to avoid innocent deaths. I would not push that button.

On the other hand, imagine the button has been reprogrammed so that it will make any cop drop dead the instant he or she initiates force, theft/fraud, or commits that specific-to-enforcers-crime of enforcing a counterfeit "law". Would I push that button? You'd better believe it.

I believe the end result would be identical.

(In case you are bewildered about the headline, it's from MST3K.)

.

"Officer safety"

"Officer safety".

That's one term that gets me riled up.

If the vile, verminous tax parasites known as "law enforcement officers" can murder people on the pretext of "officer safety", then why shouldn't those who hold dangerous jobs be protecting themselves from the consequences of their career choice as well?

Shouldn't fishermen be allowed to drain the oceans using "fisherman safety" as justification?

Shouldn't farmers be refusing to plow, plant, and harvest (and probably salting the earth) in the name of "farmer safety"?

Loggers should start forest fires to get rid of all the trees with the excuse that this increases "logger safety".

Of course those with honest jobs- the fishermen, farmers, and loggers- aren't extorting money from the fish, fields, and forests. If they destroy the things they depend upon they know they have destroyed themselves. Cops aren't smart enough to figure that out.

If a cop is concerned with "officer safety" to the point he feels the need to murder those he depends upon for his career, then he needs a different job.

NO ONE "needs" a cop.

.

Hank Williams Jr's mouth

I'm seeing some "buzz" this morning about Hank Williams Jr. being "disassociated" with Monday Night Football by ESPN over a comment he made. A comment that wasn't a fawning love-fest for Obama.

Who cares?

The comment he made was utterly insignificant. For anyone to get worked up over it they had to be as brittle as a freeze-dried rose petal. "Oh, but he said 'Hitler'!" Once again, if the analogy is true, it is true. If it is not, then it won't stand.

I have absolutely no use for football, or any other team sport. I can't boycott something I never cared about. But this whole thing is just so silly. The NFL's use of the TSA gate-rapists against their customers is a much bigger deal.

What I have seen here is two factions of the Authoritarians pointing fingers and calling names; trying to show the other faction is worse. Guess what: both are anti-liberty and that's all I care about.

Hank Jr. has an absolute right to say anything he wants to say (even to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater)- and accept any and all consequences.

ESPN (and any other business) has the right to fire, or stop using, any individual for any reason at all- or no reason. Freedom of association, and all that.

But to pretend that there is a penny's worth of difference between the statists of the "right" and the statists of the "left" is mind-bogglingly ignorant.

.

Most founders were libertarians

Most founders were libertarians
(At least, the fairly decent ones.)

(My Clovis News Journal column for September, 2, 2011. As written, not as published.)

Some of America's founders were scientists- and were very good ones to the best of their ability, considering the prevailing culture they lived in, and to the extent their understanding, available resources, and equipment would allow. They had some ideas that are very quaint, and wrong, as we can now see clearly because of advances made since then, looking back as we do from the early 21st century. Electromagnetism, DNA, and quantum physics were beyond them. However, no one could reasonably claim they didn't try.

Most of the founders of America were also libertarians, although the term hadn't yet been coined. They were libertarians to the best of their ability and to the extent that the world they were immersed in allowed them to understand liberty. Sure, they had some inconsistencies that are pretty obvious to us now. No one is immune to the culture they find themselves a part of. That doesn't mean we discount the huge philosophical leap they undertook, over and beyond their contemporaries, but it also doesn't mean we should be content to remain where they were and not put our better understanding into practice.

For the time in which they lived, those who founded America were probably even more radical about liberty, compared to their neighbors, than I am compared to the average person today. That is pretty incredible.

What bothers me is that too many people today claim to value liberty, but can't seem to move beyond a late-18th century conception of its principles. They still believe some people are exempt, or unqualified for self-ownership. "Liberty is OK for me, but I'm not so sure you can handle it" seems to be a prevailing notion. That may have been fine for most people back when America was founded, but it is antiquated today, plus it invariably leads to egregious violations of basic human rights.

The founders even understood that rights did not depend on where you lived. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights will you see any claim that the listed rights- actually "non-negotiable prohibitions on government actions" would be a more accurate description- depended upon the citizenship of the person. Rights were rights, and things that were prohibited to government were always prohibited no matter who the government might have been targeting.

That is one thing the founders got dead-on right. Even if those who have governed since then have managed to obscure the truth.

.

Some people just don't get liberty

Like this guy.

So, I tried to educate him (or, at least, anyone who might read the article). This is my response:

If you don't understand why anyone other than a cop needs a gun in a city council meeting (or anywhere else), then you really don't understand why anyone, including a cop, ever needs a gun anywhere. It isn't even about "need". Those "ill-mannered and volatile" golfers you golf with (why associate with that type of people?) would be better behaved if everyone around them were armed. I've seen it in real life, more than once. Bad people straighten up when their boorish behavior could have consequences. Mayors included. Bad people will also NOT obey prohibitions on guns, so a gun ban only gives them free rein. Good people outnumber bad people, so any attempt to create a "gun-free zone" just levels the playing field to the benefit of the bad guys. It gives the predators among us an advantage. Why do this?

I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the First Amendment issues surrounding speaking to the city council while wearing a hat- it has nothing to do with "the assumption you can’t talk with a bare head". Words are only a part of the right of freedom of speech. The hat is also part of the expression of opinion. The mayor feels he and the other government employees deserve "respect" that is demonstrated by the removal of the hat. Leaving the hat on is making a political statement (the exact kind the 1st Amendment was written to protect) that government employees are the lowly servants, not the exalted masters. That right existed before the 1st Amendment was written, and will continue to exist no matter what "laws" are passed or enforced. Rulers and tyrants (even petty ones) might not like it, but truth remains truth.

.

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.

.