A simple way to spread the message of liberty

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: A simple way to spread the message of liberty

I'm sure all my regular blog readers are familiar with this, but if you don't mind giving me a page view anyway, I would sure appreciate it.

Libertarians can be staid

Libertarians can be staid

Libertarians, in the eyes of a lot of people, are the "party crowd"; the "If it feels good, I will do it ... as long as no one else is hurt" people. While some undoubtedly are that way, it isn't necessarily the case. Libertarians are not usually "libertines", although we will defend the right to be one.

Libertarians can have very staid personal lives. It's not all "burn gunpowder at the backyard range, smoke a joint, and then head off to the orgy". Some have very deeply held moral beliefs which may seem very familiar and traditional, and while realizing that we have no right to tell others how to live, we know that some choices are not right for us.

The difference is that we should know enough to not interfere with the non-coercive behavior of others even if we personally find it disgusting, as long as they are harming no one else. We understand there is no such thing as "harming society" because apart from individuals, "society" is meaningless, and that if no individual is harmed, no one is harmed. Being offended is not the same as being harmed. We understand that our personal idea of "immoral" shouldn't equal "illegal" nor form an excuse for punishing people. Possibly most important of all, we understand the value of minding our own business as long as behaviors are voluntarily engaged in.

There is something to be said, however, for being a libertine on occasion.


______________________

Return to libertarianism and reject statism

Return to libertarianism and reject statism

Government has always been bad. From its earliest beginnings- in the minds of the thugs that preyed off of the labor of the tribe in exchange for not violently plundering them, while supposedly protecting this human herd from other thieves who were ethically exactly the same (whether those "others" actually existed or not)- to the 21st Century Super-Police-State, the type of person who seeks coercive control over others hasn't varied.


Fortunately, most humans have a sense of morality, though. Average, normal, non-governmental society has usually had a strongly libertarian component in healthy societies.

Where society has gone bad is where it has gotten away from libertarian principles that were normal in times past. Things like responsibility for ones actions. Individual self-reliance. Honesty, charity, love for your neighbors, and minding your own business (especially where it concerns the neighbors you may not love quite as much). The tragedy is compounded when some individuals cling to the prejudices and ignoble vengefulness that were also common in times past and use the state to wreak havoc on a historic scale.... or on a very personal one.


I hope that you will join me and make an effort to return to the libertarian principles that have fallen out of favor in our 21st century world.


Have a happy spring-rebirth holiday, whatever you wish to call it.

Voting is usually wrong

Voting is usually wrong

Voting has become a sacred ritual in our society. Anything can and will be excused as long as it wins the vote. This is disturbing.

Realize that almost nothing should ever be subject to a vote. Nothing that involves removing consensual personal choices of others. Nothing that involves coercive government approved theft (dishonestly redefined as "taxation"). The only legitimate votes should involve "would you like to be involved with this, and personally pay a part of the expense?" Anything else is not subject to majority wishes.

If every person on earth, except for one, voted to "tax" the one remaining holdout for ... say 10% of his earnings, it would still be just as wrong as if that one man decided unilaterally to "tax" every other person on the planet for 10% ( or 0.0000000....0001%) of their earnings. Mob rule doesn't make anything right.

The only legitimate type of vote is where a group wants to decide something innocuous, like the color they will paint a wall which they all pitched in to build. So, they vote. The most votes go to "white", so those who do not agree to the results do not have to participate in buying the paint or in painting it. If they wish, like if there was an understanding beforehand that the fence would be painted "brown" or left natural, they could even ask to be paid for the time and effort spent building the fence, since they lost the vote.

Voting to determine how much of someone's money will be taken, who will tell them how to live, how their rights will be violated, or what they may do in the privacy of their own homes is never right. In fact, it is one of the most common, and destructive, forms of evil there is.
________________________________

Here's another way of looking at the practice of voting: link


***********************

Are 'free riders' a real problem?

A recent comment (to this column) posed the objection that in a free society, where one would contract voluntarily with a private fire department, if your neighbor's house catches fire and your fire department fights it in order to save your house from damage, the neighbor has benefited from your contract without paying anything. True, as far as it goes.

I suppose you could have a stipulation that your fire department is not to fight fires consuming your neighbors' houses, if they have not also contracted for service, so as not to contribute to their "free-riderhood". The fire department could just sit at your house, hosing it down so the fire doesn't spread to your property. As long as the contract was agreeable to you and your fire department, I suppose you could have just about any conditions put in you like.

Alternately, if your house catches fire and your fire department puts it out, your neighbor has still benefited, since his house is less likely to be damaged now. Or would you prefer that in this case, your fire department set fire to the neighbor's house in order to allow nature to take its course? No, I don't really think anyone would want that.

I think the problem is greatly exaggerated. If people get together to build a bridge, and don't charge a toll for crossing it, does that mean an out-of-town visitor is a "free rider" if he crosses the bridge? He may be crossing the bridge to trade with a business owner who helped pay for the bridge; someone he wouldn't have been able to trade with had the bridge not been built. So is the business owner being cheated since he paid to help build the bridge and the visitor did not? What if this person who crosses the bridge decides to trade with a business owner who also didn't contribute to the construction of the bridge? Does this business owner never trade with the other businesses around him? How did he get the money that he spends in these other stores? Is there no value in keeping his store open for the other people in town?

If people see a benefit for something, they will probably be willing to foot the bill. In a free society, bridges and roads and fire departments would undoubtedly be cheaper and better, since no bureaucracy is eating up the funds and producing nothing but more bureaucracy. There is no reason to whip out coercion to deal with this. A true parasite will suffer the consequences of his decisions regardless whether there is a "government" of any sort to punish him or not.

Besides, everyone will be the "free rider" at times. There is no avoiding it. I think this is only a problem if you look at the situation selfishly or from a "but that's not fair" perspective. Just accept that the times someone else is getting a "free ride" on your dime are paybacks for the times you get the same benefit. It all comes out even in the end, so don't keep a ledger trying to nit-pick every offense. Even if someone seems to come out ahead, are you really willing to give up a little of your liberty to make sure everyone pays in every instance? I'm not.

PS: I just discovered this article which has another, much more detailed take on this: Small-Town Anarchy

The state disproportionately protects the bad people

The state disproportionately protects the bad people

The biggest problem I have with the state is that it protects bad people from the real consequences of their actions.

In a free society, "reputation" would probably be much more important than it is now. The reason for this is that you wouldn't be able to slide by, being protected from "freedom of association", by government "laws". Anyone would be free to associate, or not, with anyone for any reason.

That means if you act in anti-social ways, or have a job that makes you act like you have special privileges, you might just face retribution for your behavior or starve to death. That may seem harsh, but that is the way it should be.

Government short-circuits this societal-protection mechanism, to our great detriment.

Of course, the state also declares authority to regulate self defense against the predators, too, but that's another issue.

Concealed carry laws are nonsense

Concealed carry laws are nonsense

More guns in the hands of honest people makes society safer, and makes the career choice of the criminal more dangerous. That is obvious to everyone ...except for certain people who wish to do things to you which you would not allow if you were able to effectively resist. Carrying weapons concealed gives the good guy a tactical advantage over the bad guy. If the bad guys are unsure who may be carrying, they are less likely to act. They can't watch everyone all the time.

Yet "concealed carry permits" are hideous abuses of governmental authority. A free person does not need permission to exercise his or her rights. Otherwise they wouldn't be "rights" at all, but would be "privileges"; the opposite of rights. Concealed carry "laws" are also ridiculous on many rational levels.

In many places (such as New Mexico) it is "legal" to openly carry your gun on your hip, as it should be everywhere. Yet, in some of those places one simple act can turn you from a "law abiding person" into a "criminal", or even a "felon".

You can be going about your business, fully in compliance with the law (at least in free regions), wearing a gun on your hip. The simple act of putting on a jacket can then turn you into a "criminal" by concealing your gun. Sorry, but that doesn't show me that you are then a bad guy, but it certainly shows that the "law" is nonsense and those who enforce it are committing an evil act. Plus, if a gun is concealed, it means no one can see it. If they do see it, it isn't concealed. Notice the logical disconnect that is necessary in order to hassle someone over a "concealed" weapon?

Every person should be free of legal consequences for the simple human act of picking up a weapon and slipping it into a holster or a pocket before heading out for the day. Anything else only empowers the predators among us.
_________________________________________

To find out how free you really are, visit OpenCarry.org. How does your state stack up?



**************************

Libertarianism is not 'hypothetical'

Libertarianism is not 'hypothetical'

A "statist" is one who believes that "government" is a legitimate human endeavor. It is a subset of authoritarian who uses the state to impose their authority upon others. One way statists and other authoritarians try to end a debate with a libertarian is to throw up the old "I live in the REAL world, not your hypothetical one" argument. Balderdash.

I assume it is supposed to end the debate right there, and maybe it has worked for them in the past if the only people they have debated are libertarians who are unsure of themselves. It won't work with me. I don't live an a "hypothetical world". I know what works. I know what doesn't. Plus, I see what the authoritarians seem to be afraid of: the failure and subsequent crumbling of their philosophy.

I have never run into a real-world situation where the Zero Aggression Principle failed. I have run into some situations where my human nature would have preferred the short-term satisfaction of violating the ZAP, but to do so would have been wrong, and probably destructive in the long-run. I have never found a situation where a government "solution" is really better than a freedom-respecting solution. Sure, it might be easier to pay for expensive things by stealing the resources, but it is never right. Not if I do it on my own; not if I hire thugs ("elect politicians") to do it for me.

Statism is a failed system. It may not look like it, since it infests the entire globe right at this moment. At one time, you could have said the same about the dinosaurs. We are witnessing the violent convulsions of a terminally ill system. It will get worse before it gets better.

Real libertarianism for your everyday life

Real libertarianism for your everyday life

There are real-world consequences that occur when individuals (and society) reject principled libertarian positions. I know from experience that the philosophy of liberty is not "Utopian" as its detractors often claim. It works very well for me in my every day real life. Contrary to speculation, I do not live in a cave. I also see the tragedies that occur when people violate these principles in their personal lives and in "public policy".

As an example: When I am out driving and approach an intersection that I suspect to be dangerous, regardless of the state's official signage, I am extra careful. I may slow down or even stop in order to make certain it is OK to proceed. The lives of my loved ones are much more important to me than any schedule or any angry drivers behind me.

In another recently highlighted example, "gun control" laws are always followed by an increase in violence, mayhem, and death. Always. Yet, the victim disarmament crowd refuses to accept reality and back off. They act like campers who feed the bears in spite of the warnings, and then when the bears, conditioned to be unafraid of humans and associating them with food, maul a person, they decide the best course of action is to feed the bears more to try to keep them from being hungry. Absolute insanity! "Gun control", the tactic that should be more honestly called victim disarmament, KILLS. It does this in the real world, leaving a real pile of broken, bleeding people.

On another front, there are lots of things that people do that harm their own bodies. The list includes such things as: chemicals (both recreational and occupational), "extreme" sports, rich food, too much food, taking risks, sex, too little sex, working too hard, working too little, even suicide. Yet, other than showing concern for a friend, you should not meddle. Self-ownership must include even the right to destroy that with is owned. Even if that right offends you. If you go so far as to involve the state in any way, assuming the person has violated some "law", you have probably effectively destroyed the other person's life. What a person does to his or her own body is none of your business. Interfere too much and you will probably only make the problem, if there is a real problem, worse. Remember that the other person may not share your sense of morality. At the very least you will probably lose a friend and have messed up any chance to be a real help in the future. You also lose any chance of that person helping you if you make a wrong choice somewhere down the line. Know the risks; weigh the benefits; make your decisions. Live and let live.

If you know that a condition, place, activity, or person is dangerous, be careful. Use your brain. Don't run whining to the state, asking it to put up more signs, pass new "laws", or increase "fines". Take responsibility for your own safety and stop playing right into the hands of the state. Never blame your deficiencies on "the children". Your descendants will thank you for it.

"Manchurian Shooters"?

Go vote in the poll in today's Libertarian Enterprise. It asks the question "Do you suspect, however reluctantly, that at least some of the mass-shootings over the past two or three decades were deliberately engineered to achieve a political goal?"

I hate to be suspicious and "paranoid", but ...... How many more "Manchurian Shooters" are waiting for their signal?

The libertarian alternative

The libertarian alternative

Most people, except for the worst among us, live rather "libertarian" personal lives. At least they do as long as they want to get along with the people they encounter. They fall back on primitive authoritarian behavior patterns when dealing with the people whom they dislike or feel "superior" to. Few people tolerate being meddled with by some busy-body. Why would anyone make exceptions for busy-bodies who claim the authority to kill you unless you comply?

Most people will probably choose the libertarian alternative - living by the Zero Aggression Principle, not stealing from or coercing others - if they are aware it exists. As long as people understand that it is not OK to harm others, nor to try to thwart their self-ownership with coercion even if you wear the silly hat of government, they will take more responsibility for their own lives and stop worrying so much about the private lives of others. The good thing is that the "uncooperative" aggressors in society don't have to go along to make it work in the real-world. The ZAP allows you to ignore them until they force you to make a decision regarding them. Their act; their choice.

It is very liberating to realize that you alone are responsible for your own life. Your only obligation to other people involves not harming them and not interfering with their lives as long as they mind their own business. That frees up a lot of energy that can be better spent improving your lot in life.

Government, through "schools" and its lap-dogs in the mass media, try to make certain people are not aware of the libertarian alternative. People are trained to accept that there is only the "right" or "left" alternative; which boot do you want on your neighbor's neck until the next election? Never mind that your neighbor is being asked the same question regarding your neck.

Will you continue to fall for the deception, or will you accept your responsibilities?

Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders

Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders

When a tragedy like yesterday's massacre in Binghamton NY occurs, libertarians need to be careful to not say "I told you so" to people who are hurting. It can be hard, because we do keep warning that these things are an inevitable consequence of "gun control". The fewer good people who are armed, the more bold the bad people become.

That doesn't mean we stop holding accountable the tyrants who enable these horrific acts with their counterfeit "laws" against effective armed self-defense. Remember that most people, for whatever reason, can't see the logical outcome of victim disarmament "laws". The politicians and enforcers, however, do know they help madmen kill unarmed innocents. Yet, they keep repeating "don't resist; don't arm yourself. Leave protection up to the professionals". It is almost as if they want you dead. Why would they do that?

Unlike some people, I doubt most of the victim disarmament pushers really want you dead. They want you disarmed for the same reason -the ONLY reason- anyone wants someone else disarmed: to do things to you that you would not permit if you were able to resist effectively. Whether it is to steal your money, your home, your right of transportation or your self-ownership, you might be more dangerous to fleece if you had "claws". They can't keep milking you for "taxes", labor, and votes if you are dead. They need for you to keep lending an air of legitimacy to the established kleptocracy with your vote (even if it is by voting for the lesser of two evils). They also want you to be afraid. They want you to crawl to them for your protection when an event frightens you. They need you to think you need them.

However, there are some who would prefer that you were dead. People who take responsibility for their own protection shine a harsh light of reality on the failure of the state. The minority who doesn't roll over for crazed attackers reminds us all that "give the criminal what he wants" only works if you know for certain he doesn't want your life.

There is no liberty, no self-responsibility, no civilization, without the people being willing and able to meet the challenge. "It can't happen here." Are you willing to bet your life, and the lives of your children, on that? Will you be cowering under a desk, or will you at least put up a fight? Don't look to the government; this is up to you. I am asking YOU.

Massacre in Binghamton NY

Massacre in Binghamton NY

People who are not too concerned with the reality of the way the world works, and don't understand that murder is already illegal (so more "laws" will not stop killers), might think I am psychic due to this: "Gun Control keeps on killing and killing and killing..." They would be wrong. I am not psychic. It is a simple matter of seeing behind the curtain. Next prediction: Watch the blood-dancers start clamoring for more unarmed victims for other evil people to target.

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA

I realize all my long-time blog readers have already seen this. It just seemed appropriate somehow.

Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?

Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?

I am a radical libertarian; an anarchist. I recognize that any government is too much and can never really be controlled or contained. It is a cancer. The US Constitution was a good try, but its failure to rein in government should be a lesson to all the minarchists out there. Statism of even the mildest sort is hopelessly Utopian.

Those who are bold get scolded that they "make us all look bad". How can that be? The pragmatists always lose their consistency somewhere along the line. That is where they part ways with the bold libertarians. Somewhere they betray liberty in order to look more like an authoritarian of the "right" or "left". Have they then betrayed their own principles in order to be accepted by some authoritarians? I can't say since I don't know what makes up any other person's principles, but it does appear that way to me.

Is there a place for "pragmatic" minarchist libertarians? Yes. They can follow the bold libertarians who are not afraid of the scorn and ridicule that comes with telling the plain unvarnished truth. As I often say, as long as we are going the same direction -toward more liberty and away from a powerful government- I consider us on the same side.

This struggle is like a tug-of-war, with some pulling harder than others, and all pulling on a very slightly different tangent, but those on the same end of the rope are all contributing in some way. If, sometime in the future, society becomes as free as you are comfortable with, you can rest while others of us keep pulling.

Whether it is "you don't really think there should be NO laws against drugs?" or "but you don't think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, do you?" the answer is always, consistently, that freedom of any sort is less dangerous than authoritarian control- but even if it weren't, liberty is still the birthright of every human. Someone needs to stand up for that.

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

Not Only does "gun control" kill. The mere mention of possible new "gun laws" triggers killing sprees. Don't believe me? Pay attention when new "gun control" laws are first mentioned. It won't be long before a new mass murder occurs. Or several. It is happening now. It happens every time. So, it must be that there are people out there with fragile mental states who crack up when politicians, or their lapdogs in the media, start suggesting new victim disarmament "laws".

Either that or someone has gone to a lot of trouble to "prepare" people, chemically or hypnotically, to go on murderous rampages just when it is "needed" to promote support for a new round of immoral and illegal laws against guns. And that would be tinfoil-beanie paranoid, right?

Just to be clear, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" anyone the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). That right has existed since before the first human picked up a rock, regardless of any law or government. What the Second Amendment does do is prohibit anyone from passing or enforcing ANY laws regulating weapons in any way. That's right: it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any "gun control" laws, and those, like the mass-murder cheerleaders of the Brady Campaign, who advocate for new "laws" are guilty of encouraging others to become criminals.

No "laws" meant to disarm the violent bad guys will fail to make it more difficult for the good guys to remain armed. After all, it is only the good guys who concern themselves with obeying "laws" in the first place. It is evil to try to disarm people. There is just no excuse for it.

Just in case the "dated language" of the Second Amendment is too difficult to understand, I offer my "illuminated" version:

"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

Principles must be universal or they are meaningless

Principles must be universal or they are meaningless

If one has real principles, one must be consistent. All people have the exact same rights as all other people, regardless of the demands of the local Rulers and enforcers. Regardless of constitutions or bills of rights. Regardless of "laws".

If something is wrong for me to do, then it is still wrong for me or anyone else to do even if we put on "the silly hat of government". Each person is free to do as he or she wishes as long as they harm no innocent person. Are you prepared for that?

By your actions you may set in motion a series of consequences you may not like, but no one has any obligation to save you from yourself; from the consequences of your own actions. In fact, attempting to do so without being asked is meddling, and asking for help when you caused the situation to begin with could be seen as becoming a parasite.

Accepting your responsibilities willingly

Accepting your responsibilities willingly

Some things are your responsibility whether you wish to accept it or not. Just because there is a government "professional" who claims that he is now responsible for your "welfare" doesn't mean you can stop thinking and start grazing on your meadows of clover.

It is your responsibility to provide for your own personal safety and protection. You can attempt to shirk this responsibility and rely on police, but they never have your best interests at heart. After all, they are normally more concerned that you obey all their nonsensical rules than whether you are in danger. (A recent event in Dallas should illustrate this quite clearly) No one can be paid well enough to care as much about your own safety as you already do.

It is your responsibility to educate your children. How you choose to do that can make a huge difference in their lives. No government employee cares one fiftieth as much as you do how your children are prepared for life. No one at the school is as concerned for the safety of your children as you are. There is no way to pay them enough that they will care as deeply as you do.

Your financial future is your responsibility. No government program is sufficient for all your needs and wants. The fact that the program has been stealing your money for decades doesn't mean it will be there when you need it. You need to either hide any future money from the muggers, or plan for a future without that source of income.

Your health is your responsibility. Socialized "free" health care isn't the answer (unless the question is "what is the least likely way to get quality health care?"). No profession survives being taken over by the mafia without becoming beholden to the thugs who call the shots and hand out the money. Your health takes a backseat to other concerns.

It is your responsibility to make your own choices and then deal with the consequences. You may try to shift the blame when things go wrong, but the responsibility is yours alone. Will you accept it or try to ignore the truth?

Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?

Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?

The coming collapse of the US dollar has caused some people to question whether it is time for a "one-world currency".

Should there be one? Yes and no. There should not be a government-mandated "one-world currency", especially not of the "fiat" variety, but there should still be "one currency" anyway: freedom of choice. Ditch the government monopoly on money, which orders you to use worthless printed paper, and let people across the entire world choose what to use as a placeholder of trade value. Everyone will choose their own personal favorites.

Gold and silver are obvious choices for money, but if you would rather work for (literally) peanuts... or ammunition, or sexual favors, or bottle caps, or whatever .... that should be your choice. And truthfully, it always will be.

No government can coerce you into using its worthless fiat money in all your dealings, no matter how hard it tries. It's time to start trying out your freedom wings. Exercise now will make it a lot easier to fly on that day when you are pushed off the cliff.

Are libertarians weak on national defense?

Are libertarians weak on national defense?

"Isolationist"? "Anti-war"? I hear some people use those reasons as an excuse for why they can't support libertarian philosophy (and Libertarian candidates).

It is dead wrong and absolutely absurd.

I am not "isolationist" in the slightest. That would be barring the door and ignoring the rest of the world. No, I agree more with the founders of America who warned that we should pursue "Trade with ALL nations; entangling alliances with none". That is reasonable and logical behavior. It avoids the mistakes that have marched deluded folks off to foreign battlefields and made otherwise sensible people into murderers in foreign lands. Yet, the false "conservatives" use this excuse a lot to avoid facing their own lack of consistency.

I am "anti-war" in as much as I know it is wrong to invade another country with government troops on false pretext. Starting a war of aggression makes you the bad guy. "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the excuse of a bully. If you really want to believe libertarians are "anti-war" see what happens if you send troops to our neighborhoods. I have no qualms about "fighting them" here. At least there is no mistaking who the guilty party is in that case.

How does it promote "national defense" to create enemies through meddling, destroying, and killing in other countries? Might the reality possibly be that such acts raise up new generations of individuals who (mistakenly) blame the people of America for the actions of the rogue US government? Doesn't that undermine "national security"? Doesn't that put us all in danger?

If the alternatives to the supposed "isolationist" and "anti-war" views of libertarians are the policy of meddling in everyone's business and the "invade and kill them all before they do something to America" dogma that is chanted in place of intelligent debate, then no thank you. I'll laugh while you call me names.