Eric Sundwall Meet-Up

I just had the pleasure of meeting, live and in person, Eric Sundwall. He had told me a month or so back that he would be passing by here and wondered if I would like to meet. I jumped at the opportunity.

I suggested a park near here where we could meet. He got there early. I am not the most punctual of people, I suppose. To his credit, he didn't hold that against me. We talked about campaigns, libertarianism, and life. He gave me some things to think about for the future. He pulled out the ol' video camera for a while to save some of our meeting for posterity. Maybe I should have worn a nicer hat!

Our time ran short as he is on is way to an LP function in Pittsburgh. He seems like a genuinely nice person, and I am glad to have had the chance to meet him and talk for a while.

Thanks, Eric!

Quicksand

There are some issues where agreement is just not possible. Where even civil discussion is extremely unlikely. Abortion and evolution are a couple of these, but not the only ones. How can you discuss something with someone who thinks that you are completely, absolutely dead wrong for holding a different opinion than they do? I recently went through a discussion like this where the mere fact that you hold an opinion that the other person doesn't agree with is grounds for all kinds of accusations. Even when I admit I don't have all the answers, it is not good enough. I can explain that with my current understanding I have formed an opinion that diverges from the one they have formed with their current level of understanding. Unless you acquiesce to the other person's "genius", you are a hypocrite, or worse. I do not expect everyone on Earth to agree with me on every issue. I don't particularly like it when my agreement is demanded by others. With some questions, at our present level of scientific or sociological understanding, there are no answers. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. There are other subjects, that because of religious views or whatever, you will not reach agreement. Ever. You can scream and stomp and demand that everyone accept your view, but you just look desperate. In these areas, I ask those who disagree with me to look at the consequences of their beliefs instead of just at the beliefs themselves. How would it affect freedom if you were to impose your standards on society by way of "law"? Would it increase individual liberty, or would the implications of your position require new privacy invasions, bureaucracy, and punishment enforcements? That may not settle the question, but it usually silences the argument.

Question for Democrats, Republicans and other Authoritarians

Where do you draw the line? If you believe that people should be controlled, how much control is too much? With libertarianism I know where the line is (initiation of force), but with authoritarianism it seems to me that each person or even each new day can draw a new line. I think any government is too much, unless it comes from within (as in "self control"). Yet I see people debating how much government to allow. How do you keep any "OK amount" from ever expanding? What is an acceptable amount of cancer? I know that the human body can fight off many cells that have become cancerous without the person ever knowing it has happened. Perhaps the same could be true of government. Is it worth the risk? For what benefit?

I know that most, maybe all, of the readers of my blog are libertarians or libertarian-leaning. Still I think the question is a good one to keep in mind. Many people will try to trick you into agreeing to some amount of government in response to their hypothetical questions. Don't fall for it.

Help! Our Future is Shrinking!

Our future seems to be getting smaller by the day. Instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, we have iPhones and flatscreen TVs. Is it a good trade? I'm not sure. Maybe for some people it is. Not for me, though. This isn't the future I agreed to when I was a kid. Instead of laser guns, we have "security" cameras and metal detectors. Instead of a wide open frontier in space, we have encroaching tyanny that seems determined to keep us on Earth and subject to its out-of-control governmental power trips.
If humanity is to have any kind of a future that is worth living, we must move beyond this infantile authoritarianism that poisons our present and causes our future to be still-born or stunted. I want the big ideas of the future that was predicted; not these small teasers.

"You Can't Just Make Up Your Own Rules!"

Why not? Who says? The people who "just made up" the current mess of rules, that's who. The arbitrary rules that are imposed on us, as opposed to the real rules like "don't murder" and "don't steal", were made up by someone, somewhere. Making up rules isn't necessarily a bad thing; judge that by the results and unintended consequences of the made-up rule. The ZAP is a rule that has been made up, but instead of stifling human life, it liberates us to be free from coercion. It keeps the prohibitions against real crime, while showing why counterfeit "laws" have no moral basis. The danger to the autoriturds is that the ZAP punches holes in the mala prohibita "laws" that they depend upon for their monopoly on power. It shows the festering fraudulence that fills them and their institutions. For that reason, if for no other, all libertarians and true anarchists the world over should promote the ZAP far and wide, inserting it into every discussion of law and punishment, government, and morality.

Kent's Unfortunate Truths

In the course of my life I have come up with a list of "unfortunate truths" that tend to explain a lot of what I see happening around me. They are somewhat negative, hence the word "unfortunate". I don't exclude myself from being subject to these rules. Don't take personal offense at any of these, as I don't mean them in a mean-spirited way. I am sure you are the exception to the rule.

Unfortunate Truth Number One (UT1): People are idiots. (as I say, I definitely include myself here)

UT2: People rarely do what they assure you they will do. The more insistently they assure you, the less likely it is that it will occur.

UT3: Nothing is ever as important to the other person as it is to you.

UT4: Entropy and adversity forever increase.

UT5: People don't want to hear the truth; they want you to tell them what they want to hear, and then make it true.

UT6: Any solved problem creates new problems.

UT7: Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil.



While I would like to come up with a list of "Fortunate Truths" someday, the above list probably explains why I haven't.

Religion on Sunday

I don't really care what you believe as long as you don't try to force me to join you in your beliefs, and as long as you don't commit atrocities in your god's name. If you feel you must, you can "educate" me with your logic and reason, but don't get angry if I don't come to the same conclusions that you do. If you begin passing "laws" based on your ideas of what a deity wants, even if you have an ancient book to use as a reference, don't be surprised if I ignore your rules. Show me how your way is better, how the world is made better, through your actions based upon your beliefs.

When you begin to justify torture, theft, "wars" on medicines, slavery, victim disarmament, or other abominations in the name of your religion or your god you will have declared yourself to be the enemy of all that is good; and my personal enemy. Your "god" will have taken on the characteristics of what I was told was called "Satan". If you refuse to open your eyes and look at what is happening, you are guilty of helping to implement hell on Earth.

It is said you will know someone by the fruits they produce. What's in your farmer's market?

A Day at the Park

I went out today and exercised my freedom muscles just a bit. It is a very pleasant day, so I went to a park (ick! But it was close), sat under a tree and played with sticks. I nibbled some plants (what you might call "weeds"). I walked along a dry creek-bed and took note of the animal tracks in the drying mud. I watched people going about their lives. Living in America. Not thinking about wars or taxes or government. Just walking with their loved ones and their dogs (and their loved dogs). Coaxing along their oblivious children. I didn't see anyone shooting at anyone else, or beating anyone, or robbing anyone. I didn't witness a single violation of the ZAP. Nope, it was glorious anarchy in action, just as it should be. Nothing but consensual interactions wherever I looked. Cherish the times like these that we still have. They may, or may not, be running out. Amazingly enough, I did not see even one enforcer show his face while I was there, although I stayed away from the crowd, yet chaos did not break out in the absence of government control. Government needs us, we don't need them.

Jim Davidson Weighs In

A recent exchange on the Free State Wyoming forum produced a lovely piece of prose from Jim Davidson. The question was, basically, when does the fight against tyranny justify killing the oppressors, and how do you reconcile that with a moral prohibition against murder. With Jim's permission, I post his response here:

Excellent question. I believe that each individual has to answer this
for himself, to his own satisfaction. It is simply not possible to answer
for another.
I believe that God created us in His image. I believe that God has
free will. I believe that the substance of this Scripture is that people
have free will. Since we have free will, we are not only free to choose
what actions to take, each one of us is necessarily responsible for his own
actions.
I believe that the passage in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus tells
His disciples that, although they were previously told to go out and preach the
Good News without worldly possessions, now each one who had a cloak should sell
it to buy arms. Now that there is a flock to defend, the good shepherd
takes up arms to defend it.
I believe that each of us is free to use up to deadly force to defend life,
liberty, and property as in our own judgement we see fit. Yes, I spell it
judgement, to emphasize that you have to be the judge.
Is it time to just shoot the b@st@rds? Claire Wolfe said it was
justifiable to do so, and she said so back in 2004. So it is well past
"Claire." But, she's also pointed out that she gets lots of enthusiastic
readers who write in to say that they'll follow her anywhere, and all she has to
do is identify some pesky bureau-rat or politician, and they'll happily go slay
that one - to which Claire is rather gob-smacked, and to which she always
responds very carefully to the effect that she isn't going to do anything of the
sort.
But, look, using deadly force is not the only way to deter crime.
Presenting deadly force is often sufficient. For example, I was in Chicago
back in 1991, to speak at the World Science Fiction convention there. I
was walking down the street. A young man of athletic proportions was
tasking passersby for money. I found his language and attitude to be
threatening. So, when he was about fifty feet away, I looked him in the
eye, stopped in my tracks, reached into a pocket in my suit jacket, and took
hold of my pistol. I held it just between the lapels. He looked at
me and was coming up, when I glanced down and back up. He followed my
gaze, and stopped, turned, and left. It was completely clear that he saw
the gun and took seriously my willingness to use it. Indeed, he shouted at
several passersby, "That guy has a gun!" as if such a thing were too amazing to
ignore.
Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago that if people had
resisted when the thugs came around kicking in doors, if even ten percent of
those thugs never came home, then there would have been none left to do the
jobs. The others would have been too afraid to take up the work of
bullies. I think there's truth to that, and to the obvious consequence of
that point: if people in Wyoming have guns and show up wearing them all the
time, those who are determined to enslave and bully others are going to think
twice about it.
My point here is that there are lots of things one can do far short of
using deadly force. One might make bureau-rats and politicians look
foolish. One might selectively vandalize the property of the most
egregious. One might ostracize and refuse to do business with socialists
and thugs. One might use various technologies such as auto-dialers to
create mischief. One might buy a billboard or erect one in a prominent
place to provide true information of a damaging nature about some thug or
twit. One might interdict the delivery of tax payments in some really
creative way. Many of these things are criminal in nature, and some are
"mala in se" attacks on persons or property. And I'm not advocating any of
these actions - I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of things one can do
which don't involve killing anyone - justifiably or not.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Why is that? In my
view, God is the only authority. When a man sets himself up as a tyrant,
he is usurping God's place in the natural order of things. Bowing down
before a man is therefore a poor choice.
But, resistance to tyranny does not only consist of killing tyrants and
their minions and agents, but also includes doing other things. Educate
yourself and your neighbors. Teach your children. Recruit your
friends. Be an effective defense force for your home, family, property,
and neighborhood. Elect sensible people in your community to serve you
rather than to rule you. Do things to avoid paying any more tax than
absolutely necessary or required. Do things to make the jobs of those who
enforce idiotic "mala prohibitum" laws a bit harder. Shun those who write
tickets for a living. Be open about why you would do so. And
consider whether the times and the circumstances actually warrant other sorts of
mischief.
Remember those who do more. Commemorate the dead at Mt. Carmel from
April 1993. Commemorate the dead at Lexington and Concord from 1775.
Remember Carl Drega. Remember Vicky and Sammy Weaver. Watch for news
of Ed and Elaine Brown. Honor those who are willing to stand up for
liberty.
Yes, I believe a time is coming when the choice of freedom would mean
choosing to fight. I believe that those who mean to rule us and make us
serve them are going to make it impossible for decent men and women to shirk the
conflict. And, I think war is inevitable because those who refuse to work
very hard, who demand that others work and pay taxes so they can live easily,
are going to push and push until they have decent men and women forced against a
wall. Which, on the whole, is not that bad a thing as defensive postures
go.
And, I say, let it come. Let the war that is coming come, and
let it come in my time, that my children may know peace.
I believe that this war is coming here, to our homes, to our home
towns. I believe that it is about power and control, about a world
government, about the banking cartel, and about numbering the slaves. I
believe that the nature of this war is that it is going to be fought in homes,
on streets, in front of our children. It is not going to be on some
distant battlefield we can see on television and tut-tut about at the dinner
table. War is sinful, it is ugly, it is brutal, it is the flames of
perdition unleashed on Earth.
At some point, "war is the only way," as the Continental Army colonel says
in "The Patriot." That does not mean it is the only way for everyone,
though. Some won't be convinced without seeing atrocities before their own
eyes. And it does not mean that war is the only way now.
Indeed, I think we currently have a number of very interesting
technological and economic alternatives to war. Since war is, in my view,
another form of politics, I think it is unlikely to produce very beneficial
results. And, on those rare occasions when some war of liberation, such as
the American Revolutionary War, has produced benefits far outweighing the costs,
it has still imposed very high costs on those who fought and bled and
died.
Resist tyranny. Disobey authority. Teach your family, friends,
and neighbors. But be wise. Be as deadly as a snake, but appear as
gentle as a dove. Be as careful and as clever as you can be.
Remember that it is ignorance which puts people into slavery. It is
understanding the truth which makes us free.
Regards,
Jim

The Cruelest Slavery

The cruelest slavery, and the most difficult for me to escape, is that which originates from my own mind. It is comparatively easy to ignore the stupid edicts of the state. I am not emotionally bound to them or to the state from whence they ooze. The limitations imposed by my own mind, possibly based on scars from my past, are much harder to overcome. Some of this is probably due to upbringing. Some is definitely due to things that have happened since I became an "adult". Yet almost all of it is due to processes that go on in my head that feed the guilt monster. I am also an incredibly lazy person; at least if it is something I see no point in doing. I can work like a maniac on something I want to accomplish, something that I can see the point in doing, but give me busywork or a task where I see no chance of success and you'd think I was in a drug induced daze. I realize I have no one to blame other than myself, and that makes me angry... at me.

Resurgence of Prejudice

Is it just me or is it becoming more and more popular to be prejudiced, and to be loud about it? Just as long as you are prejudiced against "the right people", of course. If someone doesn't speak English, was born in another country, looks middle-eastern, or whatever the "target of the day" may be, it is OK to make jokes about them or to tell them to "go back where you came from". This sick behavior is just as bad as making people use separate restrooms or sit in the back of the bus, or as classifying them as "mentally ill" for being themselves.

Instead of hating people for things they cannot control and that hurt no one, try condemning people for things they can control; things that hurt everyone. Things like choosing to be a parasite on civilization, such as being a death trooper in the BATFE or DEA or the narcotics squad of the local thug hive. Things like agitating for racial strife and bigotry, while hiding behind the title "Reverend" or "Father", like the two anti-gun-owner bigots in Chicago have been doing recently. Disgusting things like trying to control the lives of others who are harming no one but themselves with their personal lives. People who actively engage in evil, harmful acts of government and control. Those are the things we should shun people for doing.

Smouldering Backlash Against NRA Sell-Outs

Here is a fine essay from L. Neil Smith by way of JPFO: The NRA Disgraces Itself -- Again. He is trying to think of a plan to get a message across to the NRA "leadership" that gun owners are fed up with being betrayed by our supposed friends. I will let you know when I find out the plan. Hold onto that NRA membership until then.

Immigration

I have seen people make the comment that the natives who lived on the land that is now America had no immigration policy, and "look what happened". I don't think this is a good analogy. I would agree that the natives owned the land that became America. The land was not "owned" individually as it is today, but was "owned" or occupied by the tribe. This is what the US government wants us to think the case is now: that "The United States owns America". It does not. I do not think the natives were under any obligation to "share" their land with the immigrants. The reasonable thing would have been for the immigrants to purchase or rent land from the original owners if an agreement could have been worked out (just as today's immigrants do). I don't know if that would have worked back then, because I doubt there would have been an agreement among the natives about who would receive the payment, since the territories were more fluid than today. There was also more of a tendency in those days to view anyone who was not of your culture as less than human. (That mental defect still appears in some of the loudest people today, unfortunately.) Even the natives did this among the different tribes or nations. Their name for their own tribe always meant "the people", and their names for the other tribes were usually not very complimentary or even insulting. The immigrants thought the natives were "backwards", "heathens", or "savages". Thinking in this way made it easier to justify killing the others. The resultant massacres were horrible. Both sides, the immigrants and the natives, committed terrible atrocities. The land was stolen and the less technologically advanced native people were subjugated and stripped of much of their culture and way of life.
The past cannot be repaired (which is a terrible tragedy). The best that can be done is to learn from past mistakes so you do not repeat them. Looking at how the USA is dealing with immigrants, especially those from Mexico, today, I don't think most people have learned from the past. Many people still try to think of these newcomers as "less than human" and don't see that they are paying rent and purchasing their land. They are not invading and stealing the homes and land. Yet, hearing the dabate, you would think they are. Once again I say, get rid of the welfare culture and you will remove incentives for people to move to America in order to be parasites. You will also pull the rug out from under the class of traditional, from-one-generation-to-the-next, parasites that has formed here since the welfare culture was created.

The Philosophy of Liberty

I was recently made aware of this good flash-animation presentation from The International Society for Individual Liberty that explains The Philosophy of Liberty. If you have the computer capability to watch it, I recommend that you do.

World Liberty-Aid

Why can't we have a world-wide concert event to highlight the looming, ever-growing disaster of government? If the environmentally conscious can have a world-wide extravaganza all about the environment, something that is mostly out of our control, then the politically conscious could surely have one about government, something that is totally under the control of people. Plus, since governments are the biggest enemy of the environment, it would fit right into the current theme. I suppose it is out of the question, since the loudest environmentalists are really, first and foremost, just socialists who use the environment as an excuse for more government controls of human activity. Or am I just being pessimistic?
The fascinating thing is that there are enough anti-government songs and films and books out there that you really could have a world-wide Liberty Woodstock (Libertystock?) of massive proportions. When people found out some of the side benefits of liberty they would flock to the events. It would only take a certain percentage of humans on earth to get riled up enough and we could rid ourselves of the scourge of government completely, at least for a while. I'd donate to that cause with my time and non-existent money.

Healthcare a "Basic Right"?

In my daily internet cruising, I ran across something somewhere (I can't find it now, of course) that asked why libertarians don't recognize "an obvious basic right to healthcare". Simple answer: because it doesn't exist. At least not in the way the "compassionate" socialists think of it. Most "healthcare rights" advocates think government (using stolen money) should provide the healthcare, or at least, force doctors to provide it. Nothing can be a basic right if it involves forcing someone else to do something against their will. A basic right can only be met by getting government out of the way. Allow people to self-medicate with whatever they see fit. Don't allow a government agency with a political agenda, and with favors to repay, to be the authority who decides which medications or procedures we are "allowed" to choose.

In a free world, healthcare would be a basic right. You would have the right to buy whatever healthcare you were able to afford, just as you do now. The difference would be that without government standing in the way, your choices would be greater, medications more plentiful and much more affordable, and you would not be forced to pay for the healthcare of anyone else. A similar example is that I have a right to own a fully automatic AR-15 even though the government interferes with this right through counterfeit "laws" which raise the price of the gun, and would punish me for owning one without their permission. Even if you disregard the "laws", no one has an obligation to provide me with the rifle. I can buy the gun I can afford, which may only be a yard sale BB gun. If someone decides to give me an AR-15, without being coerced into it, I would accept it. No one is forced to provide anything to anyone else, even if it is a basic right. It is only wrong to stand in the way of the free exercise of rights; not to refuse to subsidize someone else's rights.

...Governments Should be Afraid of Their People!

Guess what. They are! Do you think all of the draconian control-freak laws are imposed because the government wants to protect you? Hardly. They pass those laws to protect themselves; the parasites who attempt to rule over us. They are scared to death that Americans might get fed up and grow a backbone again. You and I are the ones that the authoritards want to protect themselves from. So they pass enabling acts "authorizing" huge illegal power grabs. They declare that free speech is treason and seek to insulate themselves from it. They "outlaw" any guns that might be highly effective in thinning the herds of jabbuts, while they demonize the rest. They try to convince you that voting is the only proper way to change America while ignoring that the anti-government rebellion in 1776 wasn't fought in the voting booth. Freedom is never won, and almost never increased, by voting. Government knows this and is outlawing true freedom as fast as it can get away with. Even a "good" ruler should never sleep well at night, but wake in terror at every sound. Watch them building their fortress of laws to protect themselves from the individuals in America. See their actions for what they truly are: panic that they may one day be held accountable.

Libertarian Friends

I love my friends. They do not understand me, though. I sometimes think it would be so nice to have some local libertarian friends to talk to and hang out with. I'm not even talking about having deep, philosophical discussions (though that might be nice, too) , but simply having friends who do not look at me oddly if I display one of the "quirks of libertarianism" in public. I have had aquaintances who called themselves "anarchists", but when you really looked at their beliefs, they were socialists in anarchist clothing; they hated the current regime, but only wanted to replace it with a new, socialist regime. I have had friends who loved guns, but who cheered the military slaughter of muslims, or advocated the beating of homosexuals. I have had friends who hated government sanctioned oppression and war-mongering, but stated that "there is no reason to have guns; they should all be destroyed". I have had some friends who have too much invested in the status quo, such as a dependency on welfare or family members in brutal government agencies, and so can't see the government for what it really is.

I have looked for MeetUp groups without success. It would be difficult to attend, since my statist girlfriend would insist on coming along. Sigh. What is a libertarian/anarchist to do?

Have a Happy, FREE, Independence Day

Enjoy the one blatantly anti-government holiday that is still officially recognized, although its message has been obscured and diluted. Don't wave the US Federal flag of stars and stripes on this day; instead proudly fly the American Gadsden "Dont Tread on Me" flag or the Time's Up flag. Declare your independence from the authoritarians and from the outdated notion that government is legitimate. It is not! No one is fit, morally or intellectually, to rule anyone other than themselves.

Spend the day exercising your rights. Don't limit yourself to the ones listed explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Explore those rights hinted at in Amendment IX. Now get off the computer and get out there! Have fun and survive for the coming new battle for independence.

Confession: I Don't Really Like Fireworks

I know. It is a sad confession to make. I don't like the noise. It makes me jumpy. I can live with it though, knowing as I do that it is a direct affront to the authoritarians. It is a reminder of freer days which control-crazy states are trying to restrict in every way possible. Ironic that the statists don't see their hypocrisy in trying to "outlaw" the symbol of independence on Independence Day. They encourage people to go to professional displays. That is not what "independence" is about. It is about taking the risk to do worthwhile things for yourself. If blowing up small explosive devices is worth the risk to you, don't allow any government thugs to deny you that pleasure.


I think a more appropriate way to declare your independence is by going out shooting. Noisy, but with a point. The thing about real liberty is that you do what is important to you, without asking anyone's permission, as long as you do not violate anyone's rights.


So, get out there and set off all the fireworks you can. Legal, "illegal", whatever.... and thumb your nose at the authoritarians. If you get a chance, go shooting. Imagine your "favorite" authoritard's face on the bullseye. Remind them what "Independence" really means!