Finally- a distinction worth noticing

The impossible- no, the highly improbable- has happened.

Whereas I had previously thought there is no difference between the two Obamney puppets, the supporters of one have finally made a difference.

It's official: due to the actions of Romney's supporters, I now actually hate him worse than I hate Obama.  That is quite an achievement.  You should be proud of yourselves.

The candidates themselves couldn't have achieved that.  There is nothing substantive, and very little that is vanishingly trivial, to distinguish Obamney 1.0 from Obamney 2.0.  Being unwillingly subjected to their vacuous words and insane opinions wherever I turn couldn't even have accomplished this (but I have managed to avoid this fate).  Only rabid supporters could.

I know that if there were an actual "conservative", with an "R" after his name, on the ballot, you guys would despise Romney and would be doing everything possible to defeat him.  He is the anathema of everything you stand for- according to your apparently forgotten words.  But you are blinded by your hatred of Obama.  I'm not.  I can see that your guy is just as big a socialist- just as corrupt- just as deviant in his beliefs- as that which you now claim to hate in order to create a difference where none exists.

No, I don't like Obama one bit.  I simply hate Romney just a little bit more.

Congratulations, Romnoids.


.

Withholding relief = torture

I, and many others, refer to the "War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs" as stupid and evil.

If you have any doubts about those adjectives, you haven't been paying attention.

To keep self-destructive people from harming themselves (probably impossible), and to keep others from doing something they think is fun (also probably impossible), the drug thugs keep sick people from getting desperately-needed relief. That isn't just stupid, it's evil.

Now, whether marijuana / Cannabis is the magical miracle cure-all that some claim it is or not is irrelevant.  Aspirin doesn't cure the root cause of a headache or muscle soreness, but people take it anyway, just for temporary relief.  Why shouldn't they?

And, just maybe, there is something to all the clinical studies (the non-government ones) that show Cannabis to be a powerful cancer fighter.  Along with having other benefits.  But what if it doesn't cure anything?

If marijuana can make a chronically miserable person feel a little better for a while that is all the justification needed for using it- as if any justification were necessary.  Which it isn't.

I have a couple of dear friends who are in constant pain from health conditions.  Because they continue to be in constant pain I suspect that they avoid the simple relief they could have because it is "illegal".  That absolutely infuriates me!

You have no business telling someone else what they can introduce into their bloodstream.  None.  Pretending you do is just wrong.  There is no excuse for it.

And murdering people for possessing a plant or any other politically-incorrect drug is just plain evil.

If you support the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs you might as well  be honest about what you support.  Go out and start torturing children and murdering parents yourself instead of hiring thugs with badges to do your evil work while you stay out of harm's way.


.

The opposite of America

First off, I will say that no State is legitimate.  Not one.  To create one that is can't be done.  The very nature of being a State is filled with illegitimacy from the very foundation and throughout its entire structure.

But, I get really tired of those who mistake "The United States of America" for "America".

They are two entirely different things.

Back in the beginning of America, when those states that made it up were written about collectively, it was always called "the united States of America".  No capitalized "u".  America was what mattered.  The states taken together made up America.  One American state would have been "a state of America"; two would have been "two states of America", and if two governors declared war on each other, their states could have been referred to as "warring states of America".  There were states, they joined together in America, but their union was not the primary focus.

Suppose, using a personal example, I referred to my family as the "the joined individuals of the McManigal family".  It would be ridiculous for anyone to primarily think of us as "The Joined Individuals", rather than "McManigals.  It would be substituting the description for the actual thing.

To think of America as "The United States", or even "The United States of America", is just as ridiculous.  

The United States is just the group of evil individuals, the government or "The State", who happen to currently prevent America from experiencing the full flower of liberty that was all that America was supposed to be about.

The United States is the worst enemy America has ever faced.  America is only America as long as it protects the individual from the tyranny of The United States.  Apparently that's a battle America lost and The United States of "America" won.

Time to reboot.  Let's dispense with The State next time, and instead just stay out of the way as people freely associate in a truly voluntary manner.

.

You are responsible for your choices

You are responsible for your choices

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for September 14, 2012.)

In the end, I am only responsible for what I do.

I can make sure my kids are raised with my values and principles, but that doesn't guarantee they will follow when they're grown. I can let people know when they are doing the wrong thing, and refuse to go along, but if they have adopted a different value system they won't necessarily accept mine. I can try to lead by example and try to inform people so that they may realize things they had never before considered, but I can't force anyone to learn anything they don't wish to learn. I can do my best, yet it is not my responsibility when anyone else continues down the wrong path.

When it comes right down to it you can make only yourself do what you know to be right.

But, while I am only responsible for me, I am FULLY responsible for me. If I do the wrong thing I can't blame it on a bad "law" or on the expectations of other people. It isn't circumstances that cause one to attack the innocent or steal, or to accept property that others have stolen on your behalf. The requirements of a job don't excuse any unethical actions, nor does the support of "the majority". Making up different names for coercion or theft doesn't magically make wrong become right.

On one hand, it is a heavy burden to refuse to blame others for your actions, but on the other hand it is quite liberating to realize that it is pointless to accept the blame for other people. To further lighten your load, be mindful of all you do.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but it seems a lot of people "get it", even if they feel unable to express themselves openly around their peers. Almost every week I have at least one person approach me to thank me for saying what they are thinking. That this many are seeing through the smoke and mirrors of The State is inspiring. Maybe eventually enough people will realize that there is strength in being right, and that we are millions strong- one at a time, and the institutionalized theft and coercion will no longer be tolerated.

But if not, the more of us who refuse to do the wrong thing, even when acceptable, the better society will become. The tipping point is approaching. Help bring it on by accepting the responsibility for all you do.


.

Accepting welfare- wrong, right, or neither?

I may be on the verge of changing my mind and deciding I have been wrong.  For a long time.

At least on the subject of welfare.

The inconsistency of those who complain about people on welfare, while collecting their own types of welfare, has always annoyed me.  Plus, I would rather see idlers collecting welfare for doing nothing than see a reaver collecting his government paycheck- still welfare- for enforcing "laws" that cause actual harm.  So maybe I haven't been quite as opposed to welfare all along as some others have been.

I would probably qualify for a lot of welfare programs.  "Health care", food stamps, and whatever else that might be out there that doesn't require a history of government "service" to be eligible.  Funny, but I don't even know what welfare is offered.

Anyway...

Some people I have been discussing this with have actually made me question my belief that it would always be wrong for me to accept any sort of welfare. I am mostly recalling this train of thought just from my own remembrance of the points brought up and if I misquote what anyone actually said, I apologize.  I hope I get the gist right, anyway.

It started off with someone suggesting that a good way to topple the State is to bleed it dry, signing up for every handout you can get.  Claire Wolfe calls this type of person, when they are doing it for the cause of liberty, a "Cockapoo".  I have always been highly suspicious of the Cockapoo, suspecting that they simply want to justify getting handouts.  But if they do, that is their business- I just want them to be honest about it.

Then it was pointed out that Jim Davies has written that he believes it is OK to take the handouts.  Hmm. I really respect his opinions.

Yet, Carl Watner, whom I also respect, says it is not OK.  Back to square one.

One thing I worry about, were I to go this route, is developing a dependency on the handouts.  Would the harm I do to myself be greater than any "benefit" I could gain?

One person suggested to me that a way to avoid this dependency is to use the handouts (or the money "saved" by accepting the handouts) for investing.  I would think buying gold and silver, guns and ammo, and stocking up on food and survival supplies would be a good investment.  A nicer TV, not so much.  Then, if/when the handouts stop coming, you haven't become dependent on them, but have actually given yourself a tangible safety net.  Maybe so, anyway.

But are there drawbacks beyond dependency?

Even if I didn't succumb to dependency, would I be setting a bad example? Is this act truly the same thing as "recovering stolen property"?  My stolen property is long gone.  Probably none of it actually went to any welfare recipients, regardless of what "conservatives" say.  The money that goes to welfare payments and government paychecks is "created" out of thin air by the Federal Reserve or banks.  Is the act of accepting welfare, then, still "receiving stolen property", stolen from others instead of from my earlier self, as I have always thought of it?  I really don't know.

Another problem I see is "What would people think?"

Maybe I don't care about this as much as some people do, but I still don't want to destroy any good influence I may have had over the years.  Maybe I give myself too much credit there, but it's an uplifting delusion.  Would my going on welfare say to people "Hey, I now depend on the government for my very survival, so see how great and necessary The State is- even for me!".  Would I look like a hypocrite to the average statist around me?

Sure, getting the money could be viewed as simply compensating for the money and opportunity being stolen by government- just trying to balance the equation.  If not for the interference of government I am quite sure I would be more successful than I am.  True or not, it's what I believe without having any way of knowing for certain.  Does The State owe me for this act of economic wrong perpetrated upon me?  Or am I just looking for justification?

I truly am not sure what to think about this yet.  At this point it is just a mental exercise.  I dislike admitting I was wrong as much as anyone, but I hate being wrong and remaining wrong even more.  It would be just as bad as being right and changing my mind and becoming wrong.

So, what do you think?  Weigh in on the matter and tell me what I have missed.


.

How Stupid?

Here's an amusing blog post that was brought to my attention:  How Stupid are Americans?


.

Backed into corners...

Recently I read that if you don't have a Facebook page, the feds consider this suspicious.  You might just be a terrorist.

On the other hand, the army's little exercise in paranoia says that if you do participate in "social networks", such as Facebook, that is a sign you might be a violent extremist.

Hmmm.

And, of course, anyone who likes the Constitution is a domestic enemy.  As is anyone, again according to the army, who expresses hatred for the Constitution.

Terrorist if you do; terrorist if you don't.

So if you ever had any doubt that you are a suspected, violent extremist and domestic terrorist, it should now be resolved.  The feds have spoken.  YOU are their enemy.

Might as well enjoy it.


.

Self defense, not "vigilantism"

America really is filled with idiots.

I was commenting on a story about school bullies, and someone responded to my comment, saying that "since vigilantism will never be legal, we need police to deal with juvenile assaults just as they would with adult assaults".  (Except all those committed by the reavers, themselves, I suppose.)

Slow down, Pokey.  Self defense is NOT vigilantism.  Not by a long shot.

I hate vigilantes.  What they do doesn't qualify as self defense, but as revenge or retribution.  They are no better than government goons.

Self defense is just the act of stopping yourself from being harmed by someone who is attacking you.  That is your responsibility- whether you choose to fulfill it or not.  If you fight back against someone who is attempting to steal from you this is defense of property, not of "self".  But it is still fine and dandy.  Fight back!  Don't let bad guys get away with it.

But, once they do "get away", following them to exact revenge is not the best way to deal with it.  It is too easy to target the wrong person at this point.  If you feel you must anyway, then you accept full responsibility for any mistakes you make and you will be held accountable.  As you should be.

.

Liberty Lines- October 11, 2012

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Farwell TX/Texico NM)

Last week Mike Pomper asked how optimistic he should be, so I'll tell him: Very.

Here's why.

The US government is NOT America.  America will survive- and probably thrive- after the US government completes its suicide.  Don't bother trying to stop them.  They wouldn't listen anyway.  Just don't let them take you down with them.

Nothing you can do will change the course the government is on.  It doesn't matter who you vote for, the course will not change.  You have a better chance of enjoying a bad meal more by flipping your sandwich over than of making a real difference by voting for either of the vetted candidates.  That gives you freedom- it is out of your hands.  You can stop concerning yourself with trivial matters.  Now you are free to focus on the things that actually matter, starting at home.

Furthermore, the "national debt" is not your debt and it is not my debt.  It is the debt of the politicians (or as I call them: "puppeticians") who incurred it.  They, and they alone, are the ones who borrowed the money they didn't have, counterfeited even more, and spent like there was no reckoning.  I can't borrow money, hand it out willy-nilly, and then claim the debt is yours and you are responsible for paying it back. Neither can congress or the president.  They dug the hole; let them suffer the consequences, personally.

The more frantically oppressive the government becomes, the more people will withdraw consent.  The more domestic spying that is done, the more "laws" that are passed, the tighter the grip becomes, and the more "money" that is created out of thin air, the more people who will see beyond the rhetoric.

When the house of cards falls the US government will not be able to afford to keep meddling around the world, and the supply of committed "terrorists" will dry up.  Americans will be safer, once again, like we were in the days before The Empire.  There might even be free trade again, boosting the economy beyond what most of us can remember.  The future looks bright unless you tie your fortunes to a sinking ship.

Government needs us; we certainly don't need it.  Wean yourself of any dependency now, while you still can.  Stop looking for answers from those who are incapable of even understanding the questions, and stop wasting your breath trying to reason with those without reason.

The experience might be bumpy, but getting untangled from Leviathan now will limit the danger posed by its death throes.  It's coming whether you are ready or not.

.

Bullying can be solved

Bullying is getting a lot of attention these days.  Yet, it isn't any closer to being solved than it was back when I got bullied in school.

Government schools are, of course, the main breeding grounds for bullying.  Even the bullying that goes on elsewhere generally has its roots in those abusive institutions of indoctrination and submission.  In the government schools, the bullies and the victims learn their roles and hone them.  They each play a part that they can't seem to break out of.  Some people keep playing these roles their whole lives.  That's awful!

As I have pointed out in several online comments, you can't end bullying by punishing the victims when they finally strike back.  No, the victims need to be encouraged to fight back, and as long as their actions are truly in self-defense (and it isn't hard to determine, if you are honest about it), there must be no punishment whatsoever.  I'm not a fan of punishment, anyway, feeling that the "market approach" works better even here.

Instead, "solutions" are suggested that make the problem worse.  The main "solution" for bullying that is touted by the touchy-feelie crowd is to run tell an "authority".  In other words, an even bigger bully.  There is no responsibility here.  It comes down to "my bully is bigger than you are".  Nothing is solved; nothing is learned- other than helplessness and dependency.  Not a good choice.

And then people are surprised when this doesn't solve anything.

You are the only person who will always be present when you are attacked.  It doesn't matter if you have a big bully who can come to your aid- he will not always be there, and he may not always have your best interest at heart anyway.

You.  Whether you are bullied or not- whether you overcome the bullies or not, it is up to you.  It is a choice you will make.  To bully or not.  To let the bullies continue to bully you or not.

In high school I had one tormentor who could never just let me pass.  He hadn't actually touched me, although he did threaten to frequently.  I dreaded seeing him.  I was a peaceful person- a little odd, perhaps- but I had no desire to fight back.  I thought it was wrong.  I thought I could just keep ignoring him and maybe he'd grow tired and leave me alone.

Then one day circumstances were different.

I had had a bad day.  I can't remember particularly what had gone wrong, if anything.  I was leaving the school and the tormentor started his routine.  But this time, for some reason, I had no inhibitions about dealing with him.  I dropped my books on the ground, wheeled around, grabbed him by the collar, lifted his feet off the ground, and shook him like a rag doll.  I told him that if he ever said that to me again I would kill him.  And, at that moment, I was serious.

(Now, he hadn't initiated force.  I was probably wrong to touch him at this point.  I accept my failure.)

I set him down, turned around, picked up my books, and continued on my way.  Behind me I could hear him daring me to come back and fight him.  I felt no need.

He never said another nasty thing to me.  He never came back for revenge.  He was polite to me from that day forward.  Years later a mutual friend told me that this guy had told him how much he respected me for not turning around and fighting him.

I didn't ever have any more problems with any bullies after that.  Did word get around, or did I no longer behave like a victim?  I don't know.

(Years before this incident I had tried to fight back against a group of bullies who were initiating force and stealing from me, and the outcome was vastly different- I was punished,along with the bullies, because I fought back.  I wonder, did those "authorities" who punished me for that first scuffle cause me to put up with more years of torment?  Probably.  Punishing the victims of bullying for fighting back is evil.)

This may or may not be related, but...

It was around the time of my successful bully encounter- probably a year or so later- that I stopped having any nightmares, too.  I had a dream where a guy had broken into the house to kill me and my sisters, and I beat the intruder to death with a baseball bat.  Quite a mess.

For a few months after that a bad dream would start while I slept, but would stop being bad because I would kill the monster/attacker and turn the dream around.  Then the nightmares just faded away, and I haven't had any dreams like that in decades.

I don't know what changed inside me.  But I do know that standing up to the bully was the first change- and it was not a mainly internal change.  The internal change came after.

I do believe that standing up to bullies, whoever they may be, is the right way to solve bullying.  In the long run, it will probably help the bullies just as much as it will help the bullied.  It must be miserable being trapped in that role.


.

Paying attention to politics matter of self-defense

Paying attention to politics matter of self-defense

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 7, 2012)

There is so much more to life than politics. For that, I am glad.

Every day, in a variety of places, I write about libertarianism; the politics, or "anti-politics" as the case may be, of liberty. Everything I am is libertarian. That shouldn't scare you; it just means I will not steal from you and I won't use force against you unless it is in self defense, nor will I have other people do this dirty work on my behalf. If it is wrong for me to do it to you, then it is wrong for me to have other people do it to you, and those acts are still wrong even if I use euphemisms to hide the reality of what is being done. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Other than that, unless you ask, or say something outrageous, politics will never enter the conversation.

Yet, people do say outrageous things all the time, apparently without even thinking about what they are saying, expecting me to enthusiastically agree. They assume I will support using laws against people they assume I will fear or hate. They assume that just because government currently enforces a monopoly in providing certain "services" that this is the only way, or the best way, it can be done. They assume that when I oppose a particular government monopoly, I oppose that which the government is supposedly providing. In most cases, nothing could be further from the truth.

But it gets worse. Many people also twist their moral foundation until it is unrecognizable in order to excuse themselves from any responsibility for standing up for individual liberty. They avoid holding government employees accountable for their actions, which is necessary in order to make society better. It isn't my fault that people misread Romans 13 so that they can feel better about defending the indefensible, but it should embarrass them. As it will if they ever realize what they have done.

Do politics matter? In a perfect world no one would need to pay any attention to politics, since politics would be powerless to affect your life as long as you didn't steal or attack the innocent. The world is not perfect and never will be; not even if humans ever do finally create a free society. So, it remains important, for now, to understand and pay attention to politics for self defense, and refuse to support things that are wrong. The more you pay attention, the less you will consent and the more free you will be.

.

Wrong is Wrong

If the government passed a law tomorrow that declared that rape was now "legal" (besides for TSA agents, that is), how many of us would immediately go out to commit one? Zero libertarians would, because it is against our principle. The Zero Aggression Principle to be precise. 

Authoritarian types, though, seem only to care about what is "legal"; not what is right. Torture, secret trials, gun "laws", drug "laws", militarized police, "taxation", property codes; all these things may be "legal", but they are still evil and wrong. No amount of "law" or enforcement will ever make wrong "right". 

The IRS claims that the income tax is "legal" because they arrest and convict people for defying it.  And get away with it.  That is the silliest justification I have ever heard. 

If I pass a "law" that says I can enter your house and take what I want, and then use the fact that I will shoot anyone who objects as my justification, does that make my actions legal or right? Of course not.  It doesn't work when The State tries it either.

Government can't be allowed to make up its own rules out of thin air, then judge whether its rules are OK, just as I can't.  An act that is wrong can not be made "not wrong" by edict.

One small step in fixing this perverted state of affairs is in completely re-thinking courts.

Judges, as long as courts are still operated by The State, should only be paid when they rule against the government- if the abuses of the past couple hundred years are to be reversed. You cannot have the "impartial judge" working for only one side as they are now.  This is a serious conflict of interest, and is generally understood to be completely wrong.

The only times the government's courts rule against the government and its wrong acts are when they are making a show of being "fair", not when they could actually make a difference. It's a case of "lose a small one that makes no real difference, so that we can later win the ones that matter".  They will never strike a crippling blow to the US police state. This must change if America is to survive and if right and wrong are to have any place in courts.

For justice to occur there needs to be a separation of court and State.  And then, The State needs to be eliminated.  It's the right thing to do.


(Updated from my archives- OCTOBER 20, 2006)


.

For anyone who doubts the bad intentions...

Over at War on Guns there is a post about the governuts' paranoia.

Apparently the military sees possibilities for "violent extremism" everywhere- which is funny, coming as it does from the most violently extreme radicals on the planet.  It doesn't matter which "nation" sends these murderers out into the world- what matters is the actions they take.  Killing people and destroying stuff to protect a government is insane.

But, back to the point... Me having this blog is a "warning sign", as is you reading it.

Here's the funny part of the "list".  Look over at the far right column to the most serious and dangerous warning signs- the "ACTION prior to violent activity" column.

Notice how many of those criteria are met by government employees/agents.

"Suddenly acquires weapons".  You have heard of the "sudden" gigantic ammo orders by seemingly "non-shooting" agencies, right?

"Organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology".  Isn't that what "community organizing" is all about, Obamney 1.0?  I'd even say the Republican and Democratic conventions qualify.

"Takes part in criminal activity or has trouble with law enforcement".  Wow, where to start?  Fast and Furious?  All the recent "terrorist plots" that had no terrorists other than the FBI (or whoever) agents who were the driving force behind them?  This one point could be filled out to be an entire book in itself.

"Advocates violence as a viable option for various situations". Like war?  Like invading and violently occupying countries that were not a threat?  Like the War on Politically-Incorrect Drugs?  Like reavers murdering innocent people while breaking in to "the wrong house"?  Like reavers murdering people in wheel chairs who are holding an ink pen because they feel threatened by it?  Once again, fodder for an entire book.

"Shows a sudden visual shift from radical to 'normal' behavior to conceal radical behavior".  Kinda like what puppeticians do in public when campaigning as opposed to what they do while they are actually carrying out their "jobs"?

"Takes suspicious or unreported travel (inside or outside of the continental United States)".  How many times does the president or one of his familiars unexpectedly show up in one of the occupied territories where the military is freeing the natives to death?  How many times is the president's itinerary hidden?  Suspicious?  Unreported?  Check.

"Stores or collects mass weapons or hazardous materials".  Ummm.  Hello- GOVERNMENT!  It's almost a definition.

"Verbally indicates hatred for the United States and/or the Constitution".  Which is worse, saying out loud that you hate something, or actively trying to kill it?  Yet, every time some puppetician proposes a new "law" that violates the Constitution (ObamaCare, Social Security, gun "control", airport "security", etc) or funds an agency that violates the Constitution (TSA, Department of Education, FBI, CIA, a "standing army"/the Pentagon, in other words, the entire federal government) he is putting words out there that express hatred for both the country and the Constitution.  If that isn't verbally indicating hatred, then I don't know what would qualify.

"Indicates new interest in public of government facilities".  What, like installing cameras to watch them and those around them all the time?  That sounds like an "interest" that has morphed into an obsession.

"Inquires about weapons of mass effects".  So, no destruction, just "effects".  That sounds nice.  Isn't this what all the weapons labs run by the feds are doing?  Scientific inquiry?  Looking for more ways to "affect" things on a mass scale?

So, yeah, the government meets all its own criteria for being radicalized into violent extremism.

Or, do they claim it can't apply to them, but only to those who are not them?


.

"Collective"- the definition

A collective is a coercive group of individuals, where the coercion is turned against the individuals who are members of the group.  Collectives do not rely on unanimous consent, but on "majority rule".

A voluntary group can still do things collectively as long as there is unanimous consent.

A voluntary, ad hoc group is not something I would consider a "collective", even if they employ coercion against individuals who are not members of their group.  A group can be purely voluntary and still be doing the wrong thing, but a coercive group is incapable of doing the right thing.


.

Some people will be bad...

Some people will be bad.  Some will steal.  Some will bully and attack.  Some will rape and some will murder.  It's just a fact.

So, how do you deal with this fact?

Do you allow some people extra power over everyone else in the hopes that they are not among those who will be bad, and in the hopes that by having power over everyone, they will be able to stop those who are bad?

Or do you try a better way?


.

The truth is not "nice"

I was pointing out that Obamney 2.0 is no different from Obamney 1.0 by saying:

"If you are not happy about the turd sandwich you have been eating, flip it over and see if it tastes better. That's a bigger difference than the difference between Obamney 1.0 and Obamney 2.0." (I wish I could remember where I first read that because I love it!)

And I was told that if I can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.  Apparently the truth is not "nice".  Too bad.

Then I was "educated" about how much Obamney 2.0 "truly loves America and wants it to be the great country it once was".  How he is "change" and will "put our country back on track".  (Where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah...)

The other person in the conversation and I were told "we have to do what we can to get Obama [sic] out of office".  Why?  Replacing a crooked thug with a crooked thug doesn't accomplish anything.

Then, the most absurd claim of all:  "...he believes in the Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the American people. With a foundation like that, I think he is heading in the right direction."

Ummmm... has the person not been paying attention to what Obamney 2.0 actually does? He might "believe in" those things, but only as a hyena "believes in" the baby gazelle he is eating.  Every action Obamney 2.0 took as governor violated the Constitution and the intent and spirit of the Delaration of Independence.  A tyrant who doesn't trust "the American people" with guns (and Obamney 2.0 is as venomously anti-gun as 1.0) doesn't "believe in" them.  If his direction is "right" then so is his opponent's.  But they are not heading in the right direction.  After all, they both imposed ObamneyCare on their victims.

She says "If I'm wrong about Romney [sic]..shoot me".  No.  I know for a fact that she would oppose Obamney 2.0 with everything she has if there were a "conservative" candidate running; the only reason she supports this parasite is because she believes it's either him or the current clown.  And she is so blinded by hatred for Obamney 1.0 that she'd be voting for a rotting groundhog (an improvement over the current candidates) if it were running as a Republican.

So, I will not shoot desperate Obamney 2.0 (or 1.0) supporters.  And I won't try to educate them directly.  But if they come to me, I will not be "nice" by lying to make them feel better about their delusions.

.

Protectors of "laws"- enemies of liberty

Cops- reavers- don't protect you from bad guys.  Their true purpose is to protect the "law" from you and me.  To keep the "law" from being broken.  Liberty breaks "laws".

No one obeys most "laws" anymore because the "law" is right; they obey (when they do) to keep from being killed.  The ones primarily doing the killing are those enforcing the "law": the reavers.

That makes them my enemy.

You are in no real danger from most "lawbreakers"- you are one yourself whether you accept it or not.  The danger is from the "law" and those enforcing it.

The guy smoking pot is no threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing the anti-marijuana "laws" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I have never smoked pot in my life.

The guy who crossed some imaginary line on a map is not a threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing "border control" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I was born in America and have never crossed a border.

The guy building machine guns in his garage is no threat to me and is not my enemy.  The armed thugs enforcing the anti-gun "laws" are a threat and are my enemy, even if I have never touched a gun in my life.

Those who work to protect "laws" from the liberty of my fellow human beings are the threat and are the enemy, and I will NEVER forget it.


.

In Defense of Violence

The Zero Aggression Principle states: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation". 

"Initiate", as in "start it". That's what "aggression" is.  Even very young children recognize the clear difference. "He started it" is often the cry for justice from their lips. 

Violence when used in self defense is not the same as violence used to harm an innocent person. Initiated force (offensive violence / aggression) is wrong; reactive force (defensive violence) is just and good. A moral individual will recognize the difference even while governments refuse to. This is one reason (out of many) the D.A.R.E. program is so evil; in its blanket condemnation of all violence, it does not differentiate initiated force from self defensive violence. That is because the authoriturds believe that only they can properly use violence- against the rest of us.

The blind rejection of self defensive violence has left our society crippled with crime and government. Evil individuals and governments will never learn to behave themselves if there are no painful or fatal consequences for their offenses. The predators among us need to be reintroduced to fear. Violence in the form of self defense must be encouraged and rewarded, and people whom governments demonize for using self defense must be supported by all lovers of liberty.


(From my archives.  Originally published April 12, 2007.  Updated.)
.

Laws create excuse for meddling

Laws create excuse for meddling

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 31, 2012. Hmmm... Haven't they used this headline before?)

Even if you could make murder rare by banning or regulating guns and knives, it would still not be right to violate the fundamental right of every human to own and to carry whatever type of weapon we desire, wherever we may go, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission from anyone.

Even if ending prohibition would result in a massive increase in the use of politically-incorrect drugs and result in more deaths, it is still the right thing to do because no one has the right or the legitimate authority to tell other people what they can or can not put into their own body.

Even if targeted taxation and regulation forces people to eat healthier diets and lose weight, that kind of social engineering will always be wrong to impose, for the same reason prohibition is always wrong.

Even if repealing every unconstitutional immigration-control measure resulted in hordes of immigrants moving into the area, it would still be the right thing to do since no government should attempt to dictate to property owners whom they are allowed to admit onto their own property, or tell people whom they are allowed to do business with.

Even if utterly ending welfare caused some children to go to bed hungry, it is still wrong- downright evil- to pretend to be "generous" with other people's money or property.

Even if getting rid of speed limits, seat belt "laws", traffic signals, and drunk driving [sic] "laws" caused more people to be killed or injured on the road, it would still be more ethical than sending out an army of enforcers to patrol the roads and interfere with the right to travel unmolested.

None of these liberty-killing measures has ever been necessary, and none of them actually achieve the desired result; instead, each exacerbates the fundamental problem it was supposed to address. The worst thing each of the above does is increase dependency and create excuses for more meddling when it inevitably fails to fix the problem it was supposed to address. If these tyrannical tactics were abandoned the worst-case scenario which is presented, and that the fear-mongers seem to hope for, would never come to pass. And nothing eliminates your responsibility if, in doing what you have a right to do, you harm some innocent person.

Even if liberty scares you or raises some risks it is still always the right thing to support. It is time to put on your grown-up pants, be responsible for yourself. and stop trying to run other people's lives.

Five Dollars to change the world

... Not change it a lot, you know.

If anyone would just like to send me $5 by Paypal so that I can avoid a $30 overdraft fee, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Update- It has been taken care of.  Thanks!


.

It ain't what it used to be...

It always amuses me when my mom says something like "democracy is the worst form of government, not counting all the others". She is deeply "patriotic" and believes she has an obligation to support the USA no matter what- while still protesting the things she sees as "non-Christian" that it does.  This shows me that she doesn't get it.

I also get amused at those who say "America is a republic, not a democracy". That may have been true in the beginning, but no more.

It stopped being a republic the first time the Constitution didn't stop a gun "law" from being passed and enforced- whether that was Wyatt Earp's doing or whoever. If not before.

It is now a democracy where the "majority" (even when they are a minority) can get anything imposed on the rest regardless of the laws that were supposed to protect the minority from the majority.

The only authentic laws are those which protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (including property) of the individual.  And they weren't even necessary.  All other "laws" are counterfeit.

No, there is nothing "good" about a democracy.  And, while the notion of a republic might have been well-intentioned, the reality sucks.

"Laws" can change.  It doesn't even take a majority to change them.  It only takes one congresscritter who can bribe other congresscritters.  It only takes one corrupt judge.  It only takes one power-mad president.  Sometimes, it only takes a small, loud group of whiny activists who have connections.  As long as "laws" that violate the liberty of someone else can be passed and enforced just because they are popular, you have a democracy.  You have tyranny.


.

Flip-flopping

Unlike a lot of people who think puppeticians are necessary and The State is a good way to employ them, I have no problem with those who "flip-flop".

To honestly change your mind just means you got more, better, or new information.  Sometimes that means your opinion on a matter will go through several stages before you finally end up simply fine-tuning it.

Concerning voting and the Constitution I have flip-flopped several times, and I may do it some more.  More information and new ideas come my way a lot.  I seem to have settled into a view that only gets minor adjustments now, rather than big flip-flops, but you get the idea.

Now, to change what you claim is your opinion, depending on who your audience is, is not "flip-flopping"; it is lying.  This is what most puppeticians do, rather than "flip-flopping".


.

Don't "legalize" anything

The whole concept of "legalization" is looking at things backwards.  It seems to me it is taking things that are "illegal" and then having the government say "we could have killed you for doing this yesterday, but today we'll let you live- as long as you pay all the applicable extortion... um, 'taxes'."

Instead of "legalizing" anything- marijuana, gay marriage, concealed carry, raw milk, whatever- The State needs to keep its perverted hands OFF.  The State has no real authority to "legalize" or "criminalize" anything.

No, murder shouldn't even be "illegal", since it has nothing to do with The State.  Yes, murder is wrong; the "laws" against it have nothing to do with its wrongness.  And even when "legalized"- such as "war" or murder by cop, it is STILL wrong.

Government has stolen more than your money and other property.  It has stolen your sovereignty and, in most cases, your ability to act on it without risk of being kidnapped, robbed, and/or murdered.  Take it back and stop asking permission.

"Mommycrats" and "Daddylicans"

I think that, at least when I consider each half of the National Socialist Part separately, instead of thinking of them as "Democrats" and "Republicans", I will think of them as the "Mommycrats" and the "Daddylicans".  (I'm sure someone else has come up with those names before; they are too self-evident.)

Yeah, that last one sounds a little naughty, but compared to the actions of those in the party... well, I don't think there's any way to make them sound worse than they are.

Anyway, the new names reflect their approach to controlling you.

Mommycrats go about it like an insane mother.

"You are a baby, no matter your age, and you need constant care so you don't get a booboo.  And so you don't hurt your sister.  Of course, you shouldn't pick up pointy things, or touch anything that involves fire.  Eat your veggies and ... say, aren't you getting a little fat?  No more soft drinks for you!  And, if you misbehave, just wait til your father gets home!"  (Because Mommycrats are pretty happy to let Daddylicans punish you, as long as the punishment doesn't go too far.)

Daddylicans embrace the way of the sick father.

"You are an idiot child.  You are lazy and evil, and it is up to me to beat some sense into your empty skull.  You WILL respect me.  You WILL sit there in church and keep your disgusting mouth shut no matter how irrational the message is- and don't even consider any other message!  You will respect the family traditions and not question whether what I tell you is true.  It is truer than true because I say so.  Everyone out there is out to get you, and only I can stop them.  Buck up.  It's not your lot to be happy- it is your responsibility to do as I say."

Of course, they often join forces to control those of us who grew up to see that we don't need a life-long control-freak "parent".

Bernanke's imaginary water hose

And it isn't just Bernanke.  The Federal Reserve, Social Security, the entire State seems to believe this as well.  The State operates as if this were reality.

Just remember that it isn't and stay out of the way.


.

Strike at the Root of Evil

Do you think corporations are destroying the economy and enslaving people?
Strike at the root and disable The State so that corporations can't use it to their advantage.

Do you think GMO crops and Monsanto are poisoning the food supply?
Strike at the root and remove the government's favoritism and the maintenance of the corrupt monopoly.

Do you think "chemtrails" are real and a threat?
Strike at the root and take away The State's ability to do anything to anyone.

Do you worry about FEMA camps?
Strike at the root and withdraw consent so that The State loses its ability to force anyone (or pay them) to carry out any plans.

Do you suspect "9/11" was in inside job?
Strike at the root and take away government's ability to get away with anything or to keep secrets.

Do you believe the government either carries out "false flag" operations as an excuse to pass anti-gun laws or takes advantage of random events for that purpose?  Do you think government may try gun confiscation?
Strike at the root and stop allowing anyone to violate your human right to self defense under any pretext.

Do you see that elections are rigged?
Strike at the root by refusing to play a rigged game.

Do you worry about the Federal Reserve's hundred-year counterfeiting scheme?
Strike at the root and use free market money when possible.

Even if the "conspiracy theory" is wrong, removing the State is a good thing.  And if they are right, your life might just depend on dismantling the Empire.  Liberty is always the right path.


.

Fear not, take control of your life

Fear not, take control of your life

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 24, 2012.)

I was talking to a really nice guy recently who said he doesn't agree with a lot of what I write. That's understandable. It happens all the time. But what bothered me, and frankly left me without a response at the time, is that he referred to the world as "terrifying".

Is the world "terrifying"? It seems a lot of people find it so. Why?

Some people are terrified by freelance criminals. Others are scared by the prospect of having people they don't agree with controlling the coercive force of The State; whether domestically passing oppressive "laws", or around the world creating anti-American sentiment that fosters blow-back. Many are undoubtedly afraid of things that fear-mongers with an agenda have placed into their minds- things that seem plausible and are easily imagined, but may never come to pass. I don't know what form this man's fear takes, but I think all fear comes from the same place.

I think fear is a result of feeling that you have no control over events that will affect your life and the lives of your loved-ones. Some events you truly can't control, but you have more control over most events than you might believe, if you take the initiative and grab it. Your life is in your hands. Don't rely on others to do things that are your responsibility. 

Your safety, which is a big issue, can't be delegated to anyone else even if they insist that you must. All your actions have consequences that you will have to deal with even if you would rather not. If you try to hand your consequences or responsibilities to someone else, that very act will create the consequences you will now be dealing with, which may well be worse than those you were avoiding.

I am not terrified by the world. I am certainly not afraid of other people's liberty, nor of my own. Reality is what it is. Bad things will always happen, no matter whether you live in a "safe, controlled" police state or in a "chaotic" free society. Volcanoes will erupt in Libertopia just as they will in Controlistan- but more freedom gives more leeway and more resiliency in dealing with the unexpected events. "Top-down" control is just too rigid to deal with unknowns. Why add to the unpreventable events by enabling those which could be avoided by simply taking back your responsibility? No one knows how to run your life better than you do. So, fear or not, step up and do what you need to do. You will be fine.

.

Kickstarter

No, I haven't started my own Kickstarter project (although I have been tempted and given it some thought).

I was just thinking how much fun it would be to be rich and look around Kickstarter for projects to fully fund.  It would probably be smart to do it anonymously so that I wouldn't be hassled by every person with an idea, but just imagine how it would feel to be able to give someone the chance they need.


.

Consultant on libertarianism

I'm always looking for interesting ways to make money- ways that don't make me want to hang myself. Being hit by another surprise financial disaster makes me brainstorm some more, and I came upon an idea.

I think the entertainment industry needs me as a "libertarianism consultant".

I was thinking about the TV show "Parks & Recreation". One of the main characters is supposedly a libertarian. But how much more entertaining could the show, and that character, be if the character actually was libertarian. I see many opportunities for humorous story lines there.

I'm radical enough that I could advise them well- they could soften it for TV if they needed to while still being libertarian enough to be different, and giving a more accurate picture of what it means- and I can see the humor in libertarianism. Without being condescending towards it. Just imagine the humor of living in a society that is so self-contradictory about violence and theft, while being one of the few who sees the double standards. (Actually, if you are one of my regular readers I'm sure I don't have to tell you about that.)

I could rent my services to movies, too.

Many people would probably say that entertainment insiders have no interest in being accurate about anything, but I know that isn't exactly true. They want to entertain and make money, and I wouldn't mind helping them when possible.

I'm sure the thought of me having any influence beyond this tiny little blog is scary to many people, though.

.

Political Prisoners

How many of us know someone who is in jail or prison for violating some counterfeit "law"? I would guess most of us do. How many of us have been fined for some imaginary infraction?

There are really only two categories of "mala in se" acts. For those guilty of aggression, jailing the violators who survive the encounter with their armed targets is even seen by some libertarians as necessary (although I now think there's a better way). For those guilty of theft, restitution would be much more sensible.

Everyone else in prison is a political prisoner.

They are guilty of nothing other than living independently of the edicts of government stooges (mala prohibita "offenses").

For violators of counterfeit "laws" immediate release is the first step in serving justice.

The next step is getting restitution from those who kidnapped the victim of government. Using the real laws against force and fraud, anyone who fines, arrests, jails, harasses, or kills anyone who violates a mala prohibita "law" becomes the aggressor and therefore is subject to the consequences. And any monetary restitution must come from their OWN pockets, not from mythical "public funds". Anyone who assumes "authority" over another must be held to a higher standard, and must be extremely careful to avoid any violation of rights. If they are not willing to pay the price of their transgressions, they need to get a legitimate job.

Counterfeit "laws" include, but are not limited to, laws regarding: guns, consensual sex, drugs, licenses and permits, private property uses, consensual commerce, taxes, broadcasting, unpopular speech, marriage, free travel, etc.

(From my archives. Originally posted September 7, 2006. Updated.)

.

Property taxes

By the time I was around 10 years old I had already developed a sense that I wanted a cabin in the mountains where I would hunt and gather my own food, make my own buckskin clothes, and just be left alone to live as I wanted (much to the eternal distress of my conventional parents).

I had it all figured out ... until my parents informed me that if I didn't pay "property tax" on the land the government would take it away from me.

Even at that age, I knew that this was ridiculous and wrong. If you own something, you OWN it. You don't have to pay a yearly ransom to keep it!

I think "property tax" is fundamentally more evil than other "taxes". ALL "taxes" are theft-by-government at gunpoint and not justifiable, but "property tax" raises the bar for evil. And those stolen dollars are used to fund the despicable government indoctrination system.

Consider this: If you do not want to pay "sales tax" you could theoretically barter and trade for all the goods that you couldn't produce for yourself.

Hate the "income tax"? Do what I did and reduce your income to zero (or barely above that).

But how to have a HOME and not have "property tax"? Some people claim you can avoid "property taxes" by renting. I think they are wrong. You could rent, but even then the landlord has to include the cost of the "property tax" into the rent, or he loses money- and will probably ultimately lose the house and you'll still be out of a home. To really avoid "property taxes" you could be a squatter, or you could be a "permanent tourist". These strategies work for some people but have their own risks and problems.

Unfortunately the desire to have a homestead is one of the strongest urges for humans. We are very territorial creatures. Governments exploit this basic human desire because they are allowed to.

(From my archives. Originally posted September 07, 2006. Updated.)

.

...to Own and to Carry any Weapon...

Those of us who are interested in owning firearms and other defensive weapons put up with a lot of abuse at the hand of The State.

Do you realize that the Second Amendment does not give you the right to "keep and bear arms"? It recognizes a right that is yours simply because you were born a Human Being.

No part of the Bill of Rights even applies to you unless you work for government; then it tells you exactly what things you are absolutely prohibited from doing. The rights existed before government; they will exist long after government is in the compost pile of history.

Any politician, enforcer, or bureaucrat who violates any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which supersedes the Constitution) has broken the highest governmental law and has illustrated that government is the worst criminal organization, and is subject to justified self-defensive violence.

Yet, even if the Constitution permitted gun "laws" they would still be wrong. All gun "laws" are counterfeit "laws". In fact, almost all US laws are counterfeit. Real laws (those in line with Natural Law) do not need to be enforced. Counterfeit "laws" must NOT be enforced. Only an evil person will advocate, pass, or attempt to enforce a counterfeit "law".

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

Blaming the Victim

I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that frequently when we hear of a murder, rape, or other crime of violence, people say "if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town..." (whatever that means), or "if only she hadn't been dressed like that", or "you shouldn't flash money around that way", or some other drivel.

This is just blaming the victim.

It is a psychological defense mechanism that allows us to delude ourselves that if only we behave a certain way, bad things will never happen to us, personally.

I see a similar phenomenon in libertarian thought on occasion. Instead of blaming the heartless cop who is "only enforcing the law", or the soulless reavers of the IRS who steal the livelihood from our friends and neighbors, or the mindless bureaucrats who take up valuable space, some will blame their victims.

They insist that others fight back as "they" believe they ought to, instead of seeing that they may have too much at stake to make a scene at this time. Or they may simply have other priorities.

If you refuse to submit to a "driver's license", or ignore income taxes, or reject a "Social Security Number"; if you build without a permit, or carry a gun without government permission, or any of the other nice ways we can fight back, then that is wonderful. I support your defiance 100%. Just do not despise your neighbor whose family would not survive if she went to jail or got murdered for refusing to cooperate with the government thugs. She is not the problem; she is the victim. Blaming the victim is a mental problem that hides reality from your conscious mind.

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

No one represents you in election

No one represents you in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 17, 2012)

Obama or Romney. Or, should that be "Obamney"?

It is amusing to watch the election promoters trying to make the anointed presidential candidates look different from one another. Especially when it means they are now promoting a candidate they had vigorously opposed mere months ago. Every time election season oozes across the landscape I feel sorry for voters; especially in a case where there is no substantive difference between the candidates they will be allowed to choose from. I empathize with their desperation.

Most voters will try to justify their new-found support for Candidate X. The honest voters will say "Sure it's a bad choice, but what else can I do? Just give up?"

Well, sure, you could do that, but it's not necessary.

In my opinion as a libertarian, a vote for a Democrat or Republican is always a wasted vote. For that matter, any vote is probably always a wasted vote, since no one can ever truly "represent" another person, other than on a one-to-one basis. Even then it's iffy and you can easily be betrayed. Almost no aspect of life should be subject to majority opinion or control, anyway. Society can't be "run".

However, if you still feel the need to vote, only vote for a third party candidate. You are still legitimizing an illegitimate and completely broken "system", but at least your vote won't go toward the person/party that the mainstream media and the government want you to believe to be your only option.

Another choice you always have is to refuse to play a rigged game. Withdraw consent and walk away. That's not "giving up". If you are playing cards against someone who has mirrors arranged so that he can see the cards you hold, who has a stash of aces (or whatever he might need) in his lap, and who gets to have final say in any dispute you might have concerning the outcome of the game, why would you keep sitting there and placing bets? The situation in politics is even less honest.

This realization can free you to spend your time and energy elsewhere. Instead of waiting for some politician to do things you feel are important, start the ball rolling yourself. Instead of waiting for tax money to be allocated to your cause, publicize your cause and get voluntary donations. Instead of advocating a "law" to force people to act as though they agree with your or your cause, convince them. And if all that fails go on without their help- leaving them free to go their own way. It's how decent people operate. Let's bring decency back to life.

.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need ... roads!

Building onto the "eminent domain" theme has me thinking about roads.

I am frequently asked how we will have roads if there is no government road program or fuel taxes.

Note that this isn't "the only way" roads might work in a free society, but only a possible solution. The reality would probably be different than I can even imagine.

I think that all roads should be private property. Everyone would own the road that runs through their property. Or if it runs along a boundary, they would own the half of the road that is on their side of the property line.

Now, If I owned half of the road in front of my property, would I want the bother of maintaining it, and the liability if someone were driving on it and was in an accident? No, I wouldn't. Would I close off the road to travelers? I wouldn't, but I am sure some folks would. That would be their choice. Would there be any profit in keeping the road open? Yes. (Plus, businesses have a vested interest in keeping roads open so that customers can get to them.)

No one, including me, wants a stupid toll-booth every hundred feet or so. So what would happen?

I think that the market would soon find a workable solution. My hunch is that companies would form which would buy or lease roads from land-owners, taking on all costs and liabilities, but also most of the profits. These companies (not "corporations", which are a government creation) would probably sell a form of travel insurance or something of the sort that would permit travel upon their roadways and also guarantee against road hazards, and maybe even mechanical problems.

They could also sell or lease out business locations along the shoulders.

There would probably not be enforcers and roadblocks along the road. If a road's owner allowed this to happen, competitors could profit by offering an alternative. Bad traffic problems would be a cause to find a real solution, and "one size fits all" wouldn't be the name of the game. Traffic signals could be dispensed with by those who are aware of the problems they cause.

If you think this sounds unreasonable, go back to the title of this post. If this solution didn't make everyone happy, what would happen? What would stop inventors from creating vehicles that don't use roads? It has already been done. The biggest stumbling block along this line has been (for over 50 years) the government regulations which cripple innovation with red tape and inertia. Does the FAA sound familiar?

So you will have a choice: use the roads and pay a fee (or have the fee absorbed into the cost of doing business) which would undoubtedly be less than the fuel taxes you pay now, or leave the surface entirely.

The sky is no limit when you have liberty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 5, 2006. Updated.)

.

"Eminent Domain"

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government.

I realize this is a long-established practice, but it is still wrong. Making something "legal" can't make it right- not even when the Supreme Courtjesters uphold it.

If you or I desperately want a certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find another piece of land. We can't force the owner to accept a bad deal. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality.

Government should not own land, much less steal it. (And, in fact "owns" nothing it didn't steal or "buy" with stolen money.) There is no such thing as "the common good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 05, 2006- slightly updated)

.

The Constitution was poison from the first

Need proof that the Constitution is a poisonous dose of tyranny, rather than the beacon of liberty some patriots believe it is? The so-called "fifth page of the Constitution" was recently unveiled to the public, and the article mentions that the "sixth page" is apparently lost, but there are transcripts. On this sixth page is proof that the Constitution was a compromise with evil from the very beginning. Boston T. Party has been proved right.

George Washington admitted this in a note (the "sixth page") to Arthur St. Clair, the president of the Congress when the Constitution was adopted. Washington explained the justification behind the new, stronger central government. He exposed himself as no better than Obamney or Bloomie or any other parasitical puppetician or tyrant in recent history.

He said:

“Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.”

Is it clear to you yet?

.

Division of labor

It's a little frustrating when someone claims that by not voting nor being "politically involved" I am doing nothing to promote liberty. The truth is, liberty is not popular enough to win votes on a large enough scale to "win"- even if it were possible to vote yourself free.

So, you can agitate and advocate and campaign for a candidate (or cause) that you believe is pro-liberty, but even if he really is... no, especially if he really is, he will not win. (This is assuming against all evidence that the system isn't rigged to make certain he doesn't win.) The voters are not ready yet. They still care more about what some collectivist puppetician is promising to steal from someone else and give to them. Or who some parasitical politician is promising to "protect" them from. And chances are if he really does win after all your support, he'll betray you and reject liberty once he gets into office.

But, maybe your political activism will get some people to consider the idea of real liberty. Stranger things have happened. But then you have divided your time and effort. I simply choose to put almost all my efforts at this time into making the ground fertile for liberty to take root. I am trying to pave the way by making people ready for liberty so that if political action is helpful to the cause of liberty you'll someday have a receptive audience. And if it isn't helpful, we haven't put all our eggs in one basket.

You do what you think will help and I'll do the same.

.

My encounter with a hardened criminal

Her- out of the blue: "I'm breaking the law."

Me: "So? I promise not to tell on you."

Her: "I've already been warned."

Me: "We're all breaking the law, so don't worry about it. If we worried about all the laws we break everyday we'd just worry all the time."

The above conversation was between me and a sweet little old lady* who had committed the heinous crime of walking her happy Pomeranian to the post office, and taking him inside.

She seemed, at first, truly upset that she was a lawbreaker. I don't know her history. Maybe she spend a lifetime agitating for the police state we now live in. But, in that moment, I believe she "got it".

We are all outlaws, and it's OK. Really.

(*There was also an elderly man going through his mail at the same time, agreeing with everything I was saying.)

.