Assume Liberty

In day-to-day situations we should be able to assume the default position of expecting liberty to be respected. This should be obvious. The problem is that under the US government and its local co-conspirators, liberty has become the aberration instead of the norm. Presumption of guilt has become the default setting. Instead of putting a gun in your pocket before going out of the house, you may worry about whether such a standard, common sense action is forbidden by the "authorities" in your area. Instead of simply doing some repairs to your home, you may feel the pressure to beg for a permit first. This is unconscionable. How was this allowed to happen? I don't know, but I do know it has got to change.

Not everything about the present day is bad, nor is everything about the past good. You have the power to recognize what to pick and choose from the glorious buffet of history. Toss out the tainted oysters of tyranny. Assume that liberty will be acknowledged and respected, and soon it will be again.


And don't forget: Starve the deviants of the ATF!

Tyrannofascism In America

Isn't it funny how the government twists the language to suit their agenda? They make up new nonsense words and phrases like "islamofascism" (which is self contradictory) and they redefine other words like "patriotism" and "insurgent" to mean the opposite of what they have always meant.
On the other hand, freedom fighters try to do the same thing, but without the help of the big media conglomerates who fall all over themselves to spread the newest government word. The word "hoplophobia" has been around for decades, but won't be heard on the nightly news or read in any big newspaper. It doesn't fit with their agenda.
We can have fun with this anyway. A few I have made up include "jabbut" (from the commonly used "JBT" or "jack booted thug"), "tyranny deniers" (those who refuse to see tyranny in the actions of government agencies, especially the IRS; as a counter to the phrase "tax deniers"), "counterfeit 'laws'" (any law which seeks to control something other than actual aggression), and "law pollution" (the state of having so many laws that they all become nothing more than clutter). The word "tyrannofascism" in the title seems very fitting to describe government. I am not sure if anyone has used it before; I couldn't find it in any online searches. It seems very self evident to me. I don't expect any of these to find their way into common speech, at least not with their original meaning.

Libertarian or...? So Many Labels!

After my screed on Left Libertarians and such I keep seeing debates about what labels we may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Labels divide us. I suppose I am a clumper. When asked, I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and probably more that I can't think of right now. I can find common ground among conspiracy theorists, minarchists, right-wing gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where any group member calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.

I usually simply stick with L. Neil Smith's definition of libertarianism: a libertarian is someone who lives by the ZAP (does not aggress upon others). Some people don't like this definition and have their own favorite. I know a fellow firefly (freedom outlaw) when I meet one. That is the important part.

"US Department of Theft" Loses Another One

Here is some good news in the fight against the US Department of Theft (also incorrectly known as the IRS): IRS Loses Challenge to Prove Tax Liability!

America's Problem: The US government

America has a drug problem. It is the DEA. By the same token, the only "gun problem" America has is the BATFE and the mindset that government has the authority to regulate guns in some way. I guess what it really comes down to is this: America has a government problem. Enabling the problem are those among us who believe government is necessary for civilization, instead of recognizing that civilization exists in spite of government. Even worse are those, like a certain Republican Presidential candidate (Rudy G.), who says "freedom means obeying the authorities". America is a great country, but it is being held back (and held down) by buffoons calling themselves the US government. America does not need the "USA". America needs to give freedom a chance. It is what we were promised; it is time we took it.

Starve the ATF! Part Two

Why target the BATFE (Barbaric Anti-Truth and -Freedom Extremists) when there are so many government agencies deserving of abolition? Because we have to start somewhere. They brought it on themselves by kidnapping Wayne Fincher and by trying to destroy Red's Trading Post. The malignant octopus that is government needs to be crippled by lopping off its tentacles, or by removing its head which controls them. The "head" being the sick notion of government legitimacy; it will take years for most people to awaken to this core problem. Government was a bad idea that has outlasted its time by several millennia. We don't have the luxury of time anymore. The ATF must be brought to its knees and then destroyed while it is down. This is an agency which by its very nature and every part of its "mission" is completely illegal in America (according to the highest law of the land: The Constitution). Shun everyone associated in any way with BATFE! (Here is a good start: Linda Young, the ATF agent who has been "investigating" Red's) There is no more deserving group of criminals than the ATF, except, perhaps the IRS. They're next.

Starve the ATF!

I almost never tell you what I think you should do. So you should listen closely this time as I make a plea for your action. Because of the systematic harassment of Ryan Horsley of Red's Trading Post, I suggest that everyone immediately cease doing any business at all with any ATF agent, clerk, secretary, or their family members. Don't sell them food, clothes, gasoline. Nothing. That's right. Let's starve the monsters to death! In the old days it was called "shunning" and was used when unrepentant people would not turn from their unacceptable ways. They became "dead" to the rest of the community; sometimes for lack of food and shelter, they died for real. It is time to bring that tradition back. If you know of anyone who works for ATF in any capacity you should refuse to have any dealings with them whatsoever. Unless their immediate family members publicly renounce their corrupt relatives and join in the shunning they too should be shunned.

Why am I calling for such drastic steps? Because of the extreme actions of the ATF agents involved in trying to drive Red's Trading Post out of business. They have been actively harassing Ryan and his staff, and have recently resorted to accusing him of harassing and intimidating them - for simply shining the light of day on their criminal behavior! Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black"!! They are trying to forbid him from blogging information about their criminally punitive "inspections"; forbid him from allowing customers or supporters to photograph the monsters during these "inspections"; demanding a blackout of publicity of any kind regarding the "inspections. They are using tactics straight out of the old Soviet Union's playbook. Hide from public review while harassing and destroying their moral superiors.


These are the same festering hemorrhoidal hominids who have kidnapped Wayne Fincher for owning guns that scare them (when in the hands of the rightful bearers of arms, that is).

David Codrea at The War on Guns blog is keeping an eye on the developments. Ryan is still blogging about the case, at least until they "get" him. Where is the NRA? Don't let this criminal gang get away with it any more. Look, we vastly outnumber these whoresons. Isn't it time we let them know who is in charge? I'll answer the question for you: Yes, it is time!
___________________________________________________
Update: It has been pointed out to me that some family members would have nothing to do with the evil ATF employee's career choice and should not be punished, even if they do not denounce the bad guy. Also, that the ATF vermin may have friends and neighbors who help support them through any shunning and who would be spared in any such action. I realize that this solution is not perfect. So, do what you think is right.

Government Of, By, and For the Defectives

I am not into debating about, or comparing my views to, the libertarian thinkers and philosophers of the past. I don't try to decide which economic "school" I follow or which conspiracy is "the One" which will bring down the Ruling Parties behind the scenes. Strange as it may seem, I am not a very political person. Why do I do this then? Because I care deeply about individual people and their freedom. I want liberty for all! I want, as much as possible, a "politics-free" world. I want people to not need to worry about ridiculous regulations inconveniencing them (or worse). Perhaps I am a simpleton for operating this way.
I don't need any government. In fact, about the only way to become my enemy is to get government involved in my life. I can work out my differences with other people without calling in the enforcers. So can just about everyone else. The ones who can't are defective. To structure our entire society to accommodate the defectives among us is insane.
I don't like unnecessary complications. To my way of thinking, that is all government really is: unnecessary complications. Busy-work on a monumental scale. People know how to get along without nonsense "laws", and they normally do just fine. They also know, at an instinctive level, what "justice" is. Only when you stir in a little "government" does the whole thing get murky.

Watch Me On Video... If You Dare!

I have mentioned my meet-up and interview with Eric Sundwall previously. Well, here is the video that resulted: Kent For Liberty! Now I will sit down and watch it, too!



Enjoy your day!

It's a Conspiracy!

But I don't have tHe patience or attention span to really look into it. Any time two or more people plan to do something evil to advance their agenda, it qualifies as a conspiracy. I have bEen reading a lot of conspiracy theory information this past week. People have clearly done a lot of research to find this stuff. The thiNgs they have uncovered may be true. I don't know. What i do know is that there are "open conspiracies" (like victiM disarmament, the IRS), "secret conspiracies" (like, perhaps 9-11, JFK assassination, Roswell), and outright lies and bumbling incompetence (like everything else); all of which are pandemic throughout government at every level. Whether any particular event was carried out by government agents, allowed to happen to advance tyranny, or simply used to facilitate the US police state after the fact does not alter my perception of the authoriturds at all. Keep researching, though. Your labors may be what is needed to finally convince someone who can really make a difference.

Don't "Do Wrong"

If you think something is wrong to do, don't do it or don't compel others to do it. The problem occurs when you think something is wrong, and you try to force people who do not share your opinion to go along with you. You hate guns? Fine; don't own one. Think abortion is wrong? Great, don't have one or don't force your pregnant girlfriend to have one. Where I think most of the conflict arises is when you try to force your views on others. Your hatred of guns does not give you the right or the authority to impose your disarmament scheme on everyone around you. Does that irritate you? Too bad. If you are really afraid of being shot, take precautions like wearing body armor. Think that is extreme? It isn't as extreme as trying to force society to accommodate your mental issues.
To me this is the basic difference between the mindset of libertarians and that of authoritarians. Libertarians realize that we are fallible and do not have all the answers. In our awareness of our ignorance we are opposed to forcing everyone to go along with us. Authoritarians do not recognize their ignorance for what it is and blindly demand that do as they say, or else. You can't force people to be free, but you can force them into slavery. The US police state is evidence of that.

Safety Zombies

Craving safety above all else is a horrible depravity. Especially when you victimize others to feed your craving; when you force your ideas and standards of safety on others. I get really disgusted at people who spend their energy trying to keep everyone else "safe". Safety is an illusion. There are risks, both acceptable and unacceptable. To be human means you evaluate your own risks and decide which ones are acceptable for you. Government nannies have no place in an adult's life. Grow up. Make your own informed choices and deal with the consequences. Help your children recognize and evaluate the risks instead of looking for someone in government to "protect" them. Nothing worth doing will ever be accomplished if "safety" is your only concern. Forget the cry of "if it saves even one life". Where is the concern for the lives cheapened, the dreams crushed, by the brain-eating, soul-withering zombies who run around trying to force their "safety" on us all?

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.