The united states of "America"

Here is a thought that was wandering around lost in my head. Take it for what it is worth:

North America (the continent) contains the countries of Canada, America, and Mexico. It also contains the countries of the Central America region as well as many island countries.

Saying "The united States of America" was originally just a way of saying something similar to"All the parts of my car". Only after the states were defeated by the federal government in Lincoln's War did the "name" of the country start being mistakenly thought of as "The United States of America". I realize that once again, the dictionary will disagree with me.

Thank you, and remember to be a fully-informed juror.



_________________

Too Much Government

Almost everyone (other than the ubiquitous government extremist) agrees that government meddles too much in their own lives. Where I part ways with most people is that I think that government meddles too much in other people's lives also. It is easy to say that government should leave me alone. Why does it seem so hard to say that government should also leave the other guy alone?

Is it because it is easier to see the harm government does in your own life? Is it because too many people enjoy the thought of punishing the other guy? I do see that attitude a lot. For similar "crimes" people say "I only did this, and got punished too harshly for it" and in the next breath say "He did that, and he deserved to be locked up for the rest of his life!" Where is the fairness? Where is the common sense? I would rather risk having too little government controlling the other guy, than risk having too much government controlling me.

Liberty entails keeping the other guy safe from government predations, too. Whether he has government paperwork or not. Whether he agrees with you or not. Even if you don't personally like what he is doing, as long as he harms no one else. Until we start acting on that knowledge, liberty for all will remain elusive.

"Anarchists" vs Government

I see that government is blaming "anarchists" for a bombing. Yawn. If government knew its place, and stayed there, "anarchists" wouldn't go to the trouble of bombing. As a strategy, bombings don't work well. Government sympathizers become more determined and stronger in their defense of the indefensible when their temples are bombed. Just as any religion does.

Plus, government uses bombings as an excuse to tighten the screws of tyranny even more. If the government extremists really wanted to end threats against their establishments, they could. Rein in the excessive government and the anti-excessive-government forces will wither away for lack of difference. It is a simple law of nature, like a pendulum. The further it swings in the tyranny direction, the further it will necessarily swing in the anti-tyranny direction. The more extreme the government faction becomes, the more extreme its opposition becomes. Anarchy is the middle ground where neither is needed or welcome.

In this case, though, I am suspicious. I suspect that this may just be another "Reichstag fire".

Thoughts on Tariffs and Trade Deficits

I was discussing tariffs a couple days ago when I remembered a thought I have had in the past, but never written down. It is kinda mainstream, so I find it embarrassing. But here goes:

Get rid of the patchwork of tariffs and embargoes and then.... Why couldn't America pass a single tariff-mirroring law? It would simply state that whatever tariff or embargo a country places against American goods is automatically placed upon that country's goods. No waiting; no delay; and no restrictions against countries that place none on us. Perhaps it would also help with trade deficits and outsourcing.

Trade deficits seem a little imaginary to me. Which is more valuable: printed paper with dollar signs or real goods that can be used to make a better life for the people who possess them? When the dollar collapses would you rather have a big bank account or a house full of useful items that you purchased from other countries (who now have your worthless paper).

Outsourcing is a form of "division of labor". If you are good at doing something, people will seek you out to purchase that product or service. As long as you charge a price people are willing to pay, that is. Minimum wage laws mess with that formula. Now, I am not sure what companies are thinking when they set up their customer service phone centers in places where the employees have such a strong accent that they can not be understood by the average person. Unless they really have no interest in "serving the customers".

Eh. Anyway, those are my random thoughts for the day.

_______________________

Bad Laws

It's the same old story. Reading a blog post about a bad law (yes, the "law" is a counterfeit one) that was also being applied to retired cops, I commented that I absolutely detest cops, but that the law was still wrong. Of course I was castigated for holding to principle. Show me one cop who has never enforced a bad law and I will give that cop a pass. "I don't make the laws" is not an excuse for enforcing gun laws, drug laws, prostitution laws, seatbelt laws, most traffic laws ...and the list goes on and on and on.


Of course, then the false argument was made that I just detest any police officer who enforces laws I don't like. Do any of you really think I have any vested interest in whether or not it is legal for anyone to smoke crack or hire a prostitute? I'll do what I want whether it is "legal" or not, but those aren't very high on my "to do" list. There are probably laws on the books that would help me, personally, but are still bad laws. If I notice any of those, I will still insist that the law should never be enforced.


It is really extremely simple, and I have difficulty understanding why people can't see it. It has nothing to do with whether I like the laws or not. It has everything to do with whether the laws violate the individual liberty of people to live life as they see fit as long as they are harming no one else. That is the very basis of "human rights", which is the core of libertarianism.


Of course, that then brings us back to the diversionary procedure of working within the rigged system, playing by their rules, to beg for our rights from those who have no interest in the "common people" having any rights, but only government-granted privileges. Bad laws without complicit enforcers would have no teeth. I'm sorry, but the truth is if you enforce a bad law, you are a bad person. Remember post-Katrina New Orleans.



___________________

Harm

I have always maintained that each person should be free to live life as they see fit as long as their actions harm no one else. One problem that crops up from time to time is the definition of "harm". Take pornography for example. Few people would argue that if your neighbor simply looks at porn, you are harmed. However, if he looks at porn and then gets all worked up and breaks into your house to rape you, he has harmed you badly. Did the porn "make him do it"? Some people apparently think so.

Drugs are the same way. Some drug users burn out their minds and bodies and end up costing a lot of money to take care of. Of course, if welfare were ended that would not be an issue. I don't really buy the "it harms society" claim, since society is only made up of individuals. If you harm no individuals you have not harmed "society". This is not the same as claiming that society doesn't exist. Too many abuses have been excused by claiming "the common good" makes it necessary.

In terms of number of individuals harmed, nothing surpasses government.


______________________

"You Were Right..."

I am always hearing "You are wrong" from people. Usually without evidence to back up the assertion, but rather impassioned nonetheless. But yesterday, just hours after debating my opinions with a dear friend of many years (at his prodding), he had an experience that suddenly made it clear to him that I have been right about government all these years. He called back just to tell me that I have been right all along. He related the events of the past couple of hours to me. Things that did not shock or surprise me, but that had a profound effect on his outlook. Because I did not ask his permission to post details, I won't say any more. I wonder if the epiphany will be permanent or if it will fade as the memory of the event dims. Time will tell.

A few years ago I debated libertarian concepts with a guy at work on an almost daily basis. He was curious, but thought I was completely off-base. I moved away and did not see him for over a year. I then moved back and the first time I saw him he told me "You were right." He told me that he had begun to pay special attention to current events and had seen the very things I had told him to expect come to pass. We talked a little more over the next few weeks and discussed his new views. I am glad I was able to help him.

I am gladder, still, that these people (and a couple more) came to me and told me that they had finally seen what I had been trying to say. It makes it worthwhile.

Labels, Again

Anarchist .... libertarian .... anarcho-capitalist ....

What do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions to see what someone, somewhere, thought they meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you say the words. They seem too all fall short of the concepts. Yet, somehow we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I end up doing. A lot. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words.

Speculation on Alien Governments

If/when an extraterrestrial civilization ever decides to make itself generally known to humanity it will be a complete shock. If it is even possible to comprehend the aliens at all. I know I am making unwarranted assumptions here, but I have to start somewhere. So these are my assumptions:

Quite aside from the appearance of the ETs, they will challenge everything we think we know about religion, science, and government.

I wonder how any government they may have, or may not have, will affect our own. Being completely different from us, their methods of getting along may not even have any application to our situation. Personally, I would hope they have advanced beyond the need for any government other than self-government. That is my bias. What if they are socialists or an even worse kind of slave? Could our ideas of liberty influence them at all? Would it be like bacteria giving our philosophers ideas on how to organize civilization? What if they have no "self"? Or what if their idea of "self" is that each individual is basically at war with every other individual? I think that is very unlikely. I would think that in order to have technology that enables them to travel to earth, they would be rather cooperative. That is not a certainty.

Who Causes Problems?

Maybe I am in the minority, but I have very few problems that are caused by individuals that can be solved by state intervention. Of course, I am not one to throw the state at anyone, anyway. On the other hand, I have tons of problems caused by the state (and my refusal to submit to its whims). Maybe this means that I cause those problems for myself, in the eyes of the tyranny deniers, at least.










___________________

Anarchism or Nihilism?

I don't see anarchy as a destructive philosophy. That would be more like nihilism to me. Where anarchism means "no rulers", nihilism means "no rulers, no rules, no manners, steal, kill, bring on the chaos!" So nihilism is probably what most people are thinking of when they say "anarchy". Even the dictionary overlaps the two.

Just because I don't think rulers are legitimate doesn't mean I believe that evolved "laws" of behavior are wrong. That is the basis of the Zero Aggression Principle and the other moral principles that guide our lives. Even written law can be good as long as it stays within the bounds of naturally evolved laws such as "don't steal or attack the innocent". I only have a problem with written "laws" that violate individual rights or the natural laws that I think are carried inside each of us from birth.

I have been running across a lot of people who identify themselves as "anarchists" but who only want to destroy everything; the good and the bad. Simply because it is there. They are really socialistic revolutionaries who want to get rid of the current system so that they can commit wrongs with no fear of punishment. That is not me, nor is it any of the anarchists I know. This is the problem with language. I know what I mean when I say certain words, but others may mean something completely different when they use the exact same words. No wonder people are (or pretend to be) so confused about the meaning of the Second Amendment!

________________________

Illegality Does Not Equal "Wrong"

I was recently observing an online discussion on the subject of "illegal immigrants". I was disturbed and disgusted seeing all the mindless hatred expressed. Then one scholar dropped the bomb "the word 'illegal' says it all - they are criminals".
At that point I put in my two cents. I said that "illegal" doesn't mean "wrong", nor does "legal" mean "right". After all, slavery was once "legal", but it still wasn't right; helping the runaway slaves was "illegal", but wasn't "wrong. The other guy responded that my analogy was stupid, and I should think before I wrote. I told him I wasn't making an analogy; merely pointing out that legality is a poor way to judge right and wrong.
I notice this error in thinking a lot. Have "we" become so brainwashed about, or by, the state that we can no longer think for ourselves? I know I have written about this before. It still astounds me that people would really judge right and wrong based upon what a group of criminals decided. Criminals who are only concerned with keeping the power and privilege they possess and gaining as much new power and privilege as they can get away with.
I won't play that game.

__________________

The Conspiracy Against Conspiracy Theories

I am not a huge conspiracy theorist, yet it disturbs me that some (or most) people deny that conspiracies can exist within government. It has gotten so bad that to even suggest a conspiracy automatically disqualifies you from being taken seriously. If I were a collectivist who wanted to subjugate the population, I can't think of a more effective strategy than making it automatically "crazy" to suggest that conspiracies may exist. I know that there have been many conspiracy theories that are really "out there" and cast ridicule on all of them. That doesn't make them all, even the really "out there" theories, automatically wrong, regardless of the common opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; get out there and find it. I think that many things could be slipped under the fence and covered up with "You people are just crazy conspiracy nuts!" Just remember: when two people try to do something bad, secretly, it qualifies as a conspiracy. To deny that it happens in government offices is just plain nuts.

Happily Ever After!

This is one of the happiest tales I have read in a long time: The Tale That Might Be Told. Some people, those who either want to cling to the status quo, or those who erroneously believe they need the state, might not like it, or may say "it could never happen". Don't worry about "those people". Read this and let the contentment flow over you. I did, and I'm still smiling!



Thanks for the link, Christian Butterbach!



__________________

Why Does Liberty Matter To Me?

Liberty matters to me because I hate when people are hurt. I hate when innocent children starve because "their" national government takes the resources of the region to enrich its supporters and collaborators. I know that freedom helps more people than the alternative. I do not excuse evil, especially when the evil-doers claim they are doing it "for your own good". Liberty matters to me because I know people have a right and a responsibility to defend themselves even if their attackers have a badge and a gun, or an office and a "law". Liberty matter to me because I think there is value in living your own life as you see fit, and in living with the consequences and lessons. I see the heartache, death, and destruction that government, even the most benevolent government, causes. Liberty matters to me because there is no government program important enough to kill over: no tax, no drug law, no foreign adventurism... nothing. Ever. There IS a better way. Liberty for ALL. No "elites" who have different rules or are excused from most of the rules that apply to "us". Don't think there are different rules? Try walking into Wal*Mart past their "NO GUNS" sign with a big gun on your belt openly like the cops do. I know... some will say "but that is necessary" or "that's different". That is your opinion which I do not share. Liberty is important to me because I see what happens when liberty is rationed, licensed, prohibited, or belittled. It is not a pretty sight ....unless you salivate over controlling the lives of those around you. In short, liberty matters to me because people matter to me.

Cultural Preservation?

Some local politician is running ads bragging that he is a "true conservative". One of the ideas he advocates on his televised panderfest is that of making English the Official Language.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that Americans were laughing at the French government for passing all sorts of silly "cultural preservation laws"? I guess bad ideas are contagious. Now American politicians have decided that "The American Culture" is so weak and pitiful that it needs legal protections to survive. Unfortunately they have a lot of ill-informed support.

Any "culture" that can not survive being exposed to another probably does not have much chance of long-term survival anyway. If it has merit, there will be people who make a point of passing on the culture's unique attributes. To people who really care; not to people who are forced to submit.

The Most Influential (on me) Books

The following is a list of the most influential books in my life. These are the books I read over and over. Read these and you will have a glipse into the depths of my mind. Any chills you get from that image are not my fault! So without further ado, or any real reason, and not in any particular order, I give you....


My favorite books:


Lever Action by L. Neil Smith


The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris


The Man in the Ice by Konrad Spindler


Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher


Owl at Home by Arnold Lobel


Tunnel Through Time by Lester Del Rey


The Mammoth Hunters by Jean Auel

Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith


Time and Again by Jack Finney


The Complete Sherlock Holmes by A. Conan Doyle


Pirate by Richard Platt


The Scars of Evolution by Elaine Morgan


The Stinky Cheese Man by Jon Scieszka



And the book I am currently reading and really enjoying is Pallas by L. Neil Smith. Of all the alternate worlds I have lived in through books, this one may just be my favorite.


_______________________

The Copycat Effect

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Loren Coleman and his blog "The Copycat Effect", which mainly deals with the school shooter phenomenon. He points out the patterns that seem to form around the shootings. Because the shooters are obviously "not right" in their software, I think it is a definite possibility that they see other shootings as a reason to carry out their own massacre. In any case, he is "predicting" another dangerous time soon. Be alert ("Cuz America needs more lerts").

Public Opinion

I read somewhere (The Dilbert Blog?) the suggestion that the "perfect" President would be one who has no thoughts or opinions of his own, but only works to implement the preferences of the American people. Do you really want the people who think American Idol is vitally important deciding how the country should be run?


In many polls I see that a majority of Americans believe in ghosts, doubt evolution, and that a substantial percentage believe that UFOs are abducting humans for "tests". Those things make me hesitant to want the country, as a whole, run based upon the opinions of average Americans. Run your own life according to whatever ideas may be rattling around in your skull, but don't think that others are required to hold the same notions. That's the beauty of anarchism: your ideas can not be forced upon others, and neither can mine.

Curing America

It is really hard to see America ever being cured when most Americans don't realize she is deathly ill. Or perhaps America is already dead and is simply writhing like a head-shot snake. In either case, I really like these suggestions from The Libertarian Enterprise:

The list of cures is endless: abolish sovereign immunity, disarm the feds;
demilitarize the cops; outlaw the secret ballot; send the politicians (including
the President and his Cabinet) into combat first; abolish limited liabilty,
outlaw fractional reserve banking, repeal every law passed since September 11,
2001, repeal every law passed since 1912. And no, I'm not kidding about any of
those or a half a hundred more I could have written down here. But the problem
remains the same as it was before: no real reform effort can get any traction
when the system is run by crooked politicians and the whorish media.

The only difference I would suggest is that instead of "outlawing" anything, simply get rid of the counterfeit "laws" that allow these bad ideas to be forced on us.



________________________