Nominate Ron Paul- or else! (a bad idea?)

I don't believe in voting. Neither do I believe politics is an ethical way to get anything done. But, I wonder if or how a political threat might work. Yeah it probably violates the ZAP in that if voting is an initiation of force (which it seems it might be), then threatening to vote is advocating or delegating an initiation of force.

However, ignoring all that for a moment...

I wonder what would happen if liberty lovers, en masse, told Republicans in no uncertain terms that if they nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, we will all vote for Obama. Even if we have to register to vote to do it. Even if we otherwise would never even consider voting, period.

Think of it as putting a mortally injured, dying America out of its misery, if the offer of medicine* is refused.

Just a thought.

I may try this out on my "conservative" relatives. Or, I may post the "threat", without all this post's contemplation, and minus all the uncertainties, somewhere in this form:

Notice is hereby given to the Republican party and all Republican voters: You have a chance to do the right thing. You can nominate Ron Paul. If you nominate anyone other than Ron Paul, I will register to vote, and I will vote for Obama. I will encourage all of my liberty-loving friends, contacts, and acquaintances to do the same- even if they have not voted before or in many years. You will be throwing away your nomination by nominating anyone other than Ron Paul. Is that what you really want to do? It's your call.

Added: I just thought of a shorter way to phrase this threat: "Republicans- I will vote this time, for the first time in years. But, I will either vote for Ron Paul or I will vote for Obama. Your choice." And, no, I don't really intend to vote.

And now there's a petition, too!

(*Yeah, it could be debated whether this is medicine or a placebo. Or even a poison. I'd still enjoy seeing what Repubs would say or do if this idea went viral. I'm not perfect.)

.

Is minding your own business "dangerous"?

Once again, I'm not endorsing Ron Paul since voting lends an illusion of legitimacy to a completely illegitimate system. And because you can't vote yourself free.

However, I was talking to a "conservative" statist (a redundancy, I know) who said he thought Ron Paul was the best candidate, except that the mainstream will never accept him enough to elect him because of his foreign policy. He says, in less honest words, that it is just too dangerous to not meddle. If I used such language I would have responded "WTF?"

How has the meddling in other countries' business worked out so far? Has it kept radical individuals from killing innocent Americans? Has it spread liberty around the globe?

No to both.

Intervention is more honestly called trespassing. Intervention led to the act of aggression known as "9-11". Intervention led to all the deaths, American and otherwise, in all the unconstitutional wars (which are actually terrorism) since then. Intervention led to the death of liberty in America. Intervention grows new generations of individuals, in America and around the world, who hate the US government and who are willing to kill and die to try to hurt it. Intervention (among other Crimes of State) led to the growing worthlessness of the money in your bank account and in your wallet.

Intervention leads to more intervention in a feedback loop. It's like beating your dog because he is whining and limping. The more you beat him, the more he will whine and limp. Until he either dies or rips your throat out for being such a cruel jerk. If he dies, an interventionist will get a new dog to kick around since he needs that feeling of being a big, tough guy.

And, intervention abroad leads to the justification for intervention in your private life.

The State has no business intervening anywhere for any reason. It has no justification to exist. I got over it; I wish everyone would.

.

"Please repost this..."

Facebook. Repost this or that. Statuses expressing concern or support for cancer patients, deceased babies, victims of abuse, etc. Repost instead of actually doing anything to help.

I think facebook statuses have replaced, or at least joined, prayer as the silly "pretend to do something helpful while not really" activity.

One person doing is more helpful than a million people praying- or reposting.

.

Childish "Paternalism" and fear of Ron Paul

Most of the people I interact with in real life call themselves "conservatives". You and I both see the falsehood there. However, recently in The Libertarian Enterprise, L. Neil Smith spelled it out a little more clearly than I had ever seen done.

It inspired me to make the diagram which accompanies this post. (You can click on it to make it easier to read.)

The description of "Paternalism" fits the "conservatives" in my life to a "T".

And, it shows why they are scared of Ron Paul. He doesn't allow them to be bullies by proxy- using the military force of the US government to impose their own version of the "Paternalism" corner of the triangle on those who already have their own version of that same corner imposed on their own society. A Ron Paul presidency would get in the way of the chest thumping and swaggering.

I don't need a president or a government. I have no use for discredited myths and delusions such as The State. I don't need Ron Paul to be president over a government I have long since withdrawn consent from. But I do wonder if these "conservatives" would actually prefer to have 4 more years of Obama over Ron Paul. They will never admit it, but I think- judging by their actions and reactions- they would. They are hypocrites and crybabies. I wish I would live to see them all grow up and get over it.

.

Modernity hatred- New Luddites?

"Modernity hatred". I'm not sure what else to call what I see so much of.

You'll never find a person who likes the "old ways" more than I do. Yet, the constant hand-wringing over "new stuff" bewilders me. Cell phones, computers, the internet, fast food, birth control, some social changes, etc. If it was invented after about 1950 many people seem to recoil in horror or rail against it.

And, that would be fine if they didn't meddle with the choices and preferences of others, especially through the application of "laws".

Things change. Get used to it.

Hold onto the old things that you like, but don't insist that everyone must follow your lead (or refuse to go anywhere, depending on how you look at it). I enjoy some of the "new" stuff, too, but not all of it. The way I look at it, we can pick and choose from the knowledge of many thousands of years of humans who have come before us. From our early stone age ancestors to Steve Jobs. Why limit yourself, and why try to remove the freedom of choice from others?

I can keep starting fires with a bow/drill, keep washing with lye soap, keep using kerosene lanterns, keep eating weeds and jerky, and wear brain-tanned buckskin, but there is nothing "better" about those choices- they are just things I like. I can also use a high-tech firesteel or eat a Big Mac, when the mood strikes me without being "guilty" of anything. I would never demand you live the way I do, and I especially would never consider forcing you to live according to my wishes through "laws".

.

Buy stuff?

I'm not going to beg for donations... however, I find myself needing money. Worse than usual. Again.

So, please consider buying some stuff from me. Either here or on eBay (both links are always under my picture over there on the left).

Thank you.

.

"Preps"

As I mentioned before, I am using this year to work on my "preps". Nothing too big, so far, but something, no matter how minor, every day. I've even allowed "thinking about a certain idea" to count. I'm not going to quibble over what counts. And, that "mere" thinking has paid off as I have already gone ahead and implemented some of the ideas I came up with while apparently doing nothing.

No matter how prepared you are, you could do more.

And, no matter how little you think you can do, you CAN do something. If nothing else, inventory and organize what you already have and come up with a strategy.

I, perhaps like you, have no money to spare on preparations. Yet, many things won't take money. You're on the internet; use it to learn and get ideas. And skills.

You won't regret getting ready or gaining skills unless you count on some particular disaster coming on schedule. Untie your mind from that silliness and just know that whatever happens, your life - and the lives that depend on you - will be better when you prepare for the unexpected. Really. It will increase your liberty no matter what else happens around you. I promise.

.

Advice for government employees

If a politician or bureaucrat wanted to stay legal and adhere to the Constitution, it would be better to not do something that the Constitution authorizes than to do something it does not. I wonder why that option never occurs to them?

.

I will stand up for your liberties

I will stand up for your liberties

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 9, 2011. Yes, it begins with the same H. L. Mencken quote that begins my current Liberty Lines column, but the columns are completely different, even if inspired by the same incident.)

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken

Rarely have I read a quote that contained more truth. It is the story of my life. In so many cases my energy is spent defending the rights of people I probably wouldn't like, who are doing things I don't necessarily approve of, simply because I am able to see how their rights are mine. And yours.

This often puts me in the position of defending scoundrels who are having their liberty violated by people with "good intentions", which puts me at odds with those who only see the good intentions and the scoundrels, but not the unintended consequences, or how those consequences could eventually harm us all.

Freedom means doing what you want to do, regardless of whether it is within your rights or not. Liberty is the freedom to do what you have a right to do. While it is sometimes proper to constrain freedom, it is never right to limit anyone's liberty.

As long as those scoundrels are within their rights- they are not attacking, stealing, or trespassing- it doesn't matter if I like them or approve of what they are doing. They still have a right to be doing it and no one has a right, or the authority, to interfere. No matter how noble the interference might seem or how much I might agree with the general objection to what is being done.

If you are willing to violate the scoundrel's rights then you shouldn't be surprised when you discover that you are someone else's scoundrel, facing the torch-bearing villagers who are anxious to storm your castle for the "common good". And, as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, I'll be right there beside you, whether I like you or approve of your actions or not.

You only have the liberty you respect in others. I am willing to fight against the violation of the liberties of others because it is the right thing to do, and my expectation is that no one will call for my liberty to be violated in any way. I'll hold up my end even if others don't reciprocate.

.

Libertarian buts

I see a lot of people who claim to be a "libertarian, but". And some who claim to just be "libertarian" while they ignore their big "but" and pretend it is a feature of all "real libertarians".

The biggest "but" is support for the military. Militia, yes. State-controlled military, no. Tax-financed, government military is not "libertarian", no matter how you try to spin it. It doesn't matter if the Constitution says it is OK, or if your family has always been a "military family" and you want to honor their lives.

The second biggest "but", which is related to the first, is belief in national borders. Usually they pretend this "but" is about property rights. If you think national borders are about property rights, just see how much the State that enforces the borders respects your property rights. Nope. It's about violating your property rights. It doesn't matter if the trespasser is an independent migrant from Mexico or an employee of some government agency. Trespassing is trespassing and the backstory doesn't matter. And, if you choose to allow a person on your property, that is your right as a property owner and no one has any say in the matter.

A third "but" is pretending that the US Constitution is a libertarian document. It has some good things in it and it has some horrible things in it. But none of that matters since the US government ignores it all anyway, unless they find a particular part useful to the agenda at the moment. Go ahead and use the Constitution to show that the government is not legitimate since it has unilaterally violated the agreement that bound it, but don't get hung up on this too much. There are better ways to organize a "society" voluntarily.

The last "but" I notice the most is ignoring coercion unless it is committed by The State. Coercion is wrong. The State is wrong because it relies on coercion. Coercion isn't wrong just because it is used by The State.

I'm sure there are lots more "buts" out there. All those who claim to be "libertarian, but without the crazy stuff" have at least one.

As for myself, I try to make sure I have no "but". If my first inclination, when presented with an idea that pushes the envelope of individual liberty, is to pull a "but" out of my... well, you know... then I try to look very hard at why I felt the need to have a "but". What aspect of legitimized (or justified) coercion am I trying to hold on to? And why?

.

Dumb is as dumb believes

How can smart people be so dumb?

I was watching a TED talk and it struck me once again that "smart people" can be the dumbest of all.

Now, I'll admit I lost interest and stopped watching before the end of the video. I have a rule about exposing myself to stupidity: I only do it if I don't have better uses for my time. So, maybe he ended the talk by saying something surprising and truly smart or wise. But I'm not counting on it.

I gather, from the part I did watch, that this guy, Paddy Ashdown, is a raving statist who doesn't understand economics or government. At all. Yet, there is an apparent consensus that he is "smart". Perhaps he is even considered an "expert" in those areas. He isn't.

He believes that "global" markets are unregulated unless there is a State involved in regulating them. He believes that statutory "law" trumps Natural Law. That is sufficient evidence that he is dumb.

.

Arrogance of The State

I have been called "arrogant" a time or two. Or ten. Usually because I wouldn't buy into someone else's (obviously flawed) argument. Or, because someone tried to hurt me and I, instead of reacting as they had expected, was amused. Above it. That sometimes led to a "smirk" as well.

But that's amateurish arrogance compared to governments.

Governments all seem to think they can get away with anything. Forever. Sure, they all do for a time, but none ever have forever, and none ever will.

Governments ignore their own "permission to exist documents"- their "hall pass"- and will kidnap or even kill those who point out the violations.

Governments decide they own you and can tell you what to ingest, whether you can travel (and how, how fast, and what you are "consenting to" in order to travel at all), they rape you, they demand a ransom to "allow" you to keep some of your own property. They forbid self defense and the tools to carry it out effectively. They declare that unless they "educate" the desire to learn out of your children, you are abusing them. They punish you if you know a "law" is wrong and refuse to convict a person for violating it. They decide if you can leave the territory they have fenced off, and steal most of your property if you get permission to go for good. They tell you (and your government-licensed doctor) how your ailments will be allowed to be "treated". They turn local police into militarized occupation forces instead of "peace officers"- who in the best of circumstances were still a useless drain on humanity before they became an open threat to it. They prohibit and punish basic human activities like growing food, trading, sex, hunting, being left alone... and demand you get permission from them for the things you are allowed to do anyway. And, they demand to know every detail of your life so they will know when you aren't doing as you are told. The list of real, current offenses could go on endlessly.

They act as though there will never be any consequences that will result from all this arrogance. Certainly none from the "Mundanes".

Yet, there is a limit. Not to what governments will try to get away with, but how much their targets will accept before they strike back.

There will always come a time when more threats bring less compliance rather than more. When harsher penalties bring more hatred and less obedience. When more surveillance results in too much meaningless data and smarter acts of defiance. When puppeticians and bureaucrats cease to be able to protect their worthless hides through "laws" and certain punishment. When enough people finally see The State, and its supporters, for the parasites they have always truly been, and say "Time's Up!"

I would hate to be on the side of the tyrants when that day dawns.

.

Self improvement

I want to be better than "just me"... But I don't know in what way.

How's that for a confusing situation?

.

Inflation

Added:

Michael Bloomberg needs to face the music

The recent kidnapping of a Tennessee woman by Mikey Bloomberg's own New York gangsters, when she rather foolishly tried to obey New York City's idiotic anti-gun "laws", makes me think turnabout is fair play.

Since we all, even Mikey Poopie Bloomers and his associates, commit an average of 3 federal felonies a day, I think next time Poopie Bloomers or any member of his family or any NYC employee sets foot in a less-tyrannical jurisdiction they should also be kidnapped by the local LEOs.

After all, they do something that is clearly illegal- they ban guns and harm gun owners. That's enough justification to tell them to either stay home and stop violating us, or face the consequences.

I'm sick of these ethics-free diseased vermin. We are expected to worship their made up "laws" while they thumb their noses at universally-binding Natural Law as if it doesn't matter. Well, Time's Up!

Now, do any sheriffs or cops out there have the gonads to do the right thing? Or will the anti-liberty thugs get off easy due to their power and influence? I think we all know the answer to that one.

.

Michael Shermer's latest column

MORE GOD, LESS CRIME OR MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?

A very good article. And, yes, it concerns John Lott's famous studies, as well as the assertions of a religious guy.

I can't bring myself to wade through all the comments, because I don't feel like reading the goofy opinions of the anti-gun extremists. If you can stomach it, I'm sure there are some good comments mixed in there, too. (I saw that Mr. Lott himself had posted a comment just above mine.)

.

Ron Paul and other "not quite Libertopias"

There are a lot of things that don't exactly pass muster with me, as far as true liberty goes, but which I still provisionally support anyway. For one reason or another.

The main reason is usually that I think they'd be "interesting" and upset a lot of statists. I think they'd each qualify as "monkeywrenching". I think there would even be fun involved.

1) In this list I would include a Ron Paul presidency. And, as a part of that, auditing and abolishing the Fed.

2) A rigidly enforced Constitution, where (back to the reality of the document) anything that is not specifically authorized by name or minute description for the government to do, is prohibited- and I'd whimsically add "under penalty of death", to be carried out immediately upon any government employee who advocates or endorses- or somehow attempts to enforce- the most measly unconstitutional idea. Including, particularly, Supreme Courtjesters who quibble over things that no sensible person has any doubt over the clear Constitutional meaning of. ("...shall not be infringed" being among them.) Remember that the Supreme Courtjesters are not the Constitutional "last word" on the Constitution; they usurped that power illegally.

2a) Full re-legalization of all "drugs". "Where, Mr. or Ms. Drug Warrior, does the Constitution spell out- exactly and specifically in clear unambiguous wording- that the government can prohibit people from harming themselves with self-administered chemical compounds? You can't find it? Up against the wall!" (OK, I admit, I am even against a death penalty in these cases, except as carried out by the intended victim at the time and place of the attack. But it's fun to imagine- especially after reading about so many horrible crimes against the innocent carried out by these psychotic prohibitionists!)

3) Secession of any of the formerly united States. Especially, by reason of residency, Texas. Yeah, there are a lot of things in this movement I dislike; things that are decidedly anti-liberty in nature. But I'd still prefer an end to the rapidly-growing cancer that the US government has become- we can deal with mopping up the smaller infections later.

No, none of these things is the Holy Grail. That remains Libertopia, in one form or another. But each of these things would be fun to watch in its own way.

.

Seeking local discussion on liberty

Seeking local discussion on liberty

(My Clovis News Journal Column for December 2, 2011)

While liberty is a full-time passion of mine, writing about it is merely a part-time urge. A pretty strong urge that will not be ignored, but one which can be delayed when necessary. Life is usually pretty full of other things which tend to get in the way of things I plan to write about; especially those topics which require more time than simply sorting through the files in my head.

For one thing, I keep intending to talk to some of the other local libertarians I know of, just to see if their experiences "living liberty" relate in any way to mine, but it seems that busy-ness keeps getting in the way. I'm planning to remedy that soon.

And, in pursuit of that goal I would like a chance to get to know more local libertarians, and libertarian-inclined people. Or the "liberty curious", as an imaginary libertarian personal ad might say.

I know more are out there than I have noticed, since as I have mentioned before, libertarians don't usually attract much attention because we are so unremarkable. Maybe you are one.

Perhaps this column has piqued your interest in the past year and you'd like to discuss liberty with other interested people in an informal setting. Maybe you are even suspicious of liberty, but won't be offended if your best arguments don't change my mind. In that case I'd be glad to let you take your best shot. I have been told I am contagious in my libertarianism, however, so you might be taking a risk.

I'm not interested in getting together to fight or argue, but friendly debate is always welcome. One thing I'm probably not very interested in discussing is politics. Well, make that two things, because I'm not interested in talking about sports either. Besides, there are plenty of places to talk about those more mundane topics. Just about anything else, taboo, deep, or just plain odd, is on the table.

So, as long as you are willing, I'd be glad to get together somewhere to get to know you and hear your thoughts on freedom and liberty, and what they mean in your own day-to-day life.

If enough people are interested we could even schedule regular chats at some local venue after the holidays are over.

Don't be shy. I am not scary... to most people. And neither is liberty. My contact information is below.

.

Run for the hills! It's 2012!

Yeah, I know... Nothing extraordinary will happen. Not the Mayan "End of the Calendar/World". Not the Zombie Apocalypse. Not anything else (in spite of the best efforts of puppeticians and bureaucrats). Chances are exactly the same for civilization-ending disaster in the coming 12 months as any other random 12 months. Some bad things will happen, but none will be "It".

Still, I plan to use this time to work on my preparations. Just like I did in 1999. Every dozen years or so it's probably good to pretend that TEOTWAWKI is here, just to keep your prep muscles in shape. And, it's fun.

Do you have adequate weaponry and "food" for that weaponry? Is your training with your weaponry "good enough"? Do you have a good knife? Or two?

Do you have alternate forms of money? FRNs are going to eventually stabilize at their intrinsic worthlessness. Are you ready?

Do you have food, medicines, and other "necessary" supplies stored up? Or are you actively building your supplies right now?

Do you have the skills you need in case Murphy's Law makes all your "hoard" useless? Can you build a fire? Can you locate or collect water and make it safe to drink? Can you find or make shelter? Can you do those things if you have nothing but the clothes on your back- or less? Do you have the attitude that will make such a scenario into an adventure instead of a disaster?

Do you have a network of people you can count on? Do you know where the probable "good guys" are, and where the potential zombies live? Are you remembering to keep your yap-hole shut about your preps?

I don't believe for one instant that anything unusually disastrous will occur this year. But I'm going to have fun preparing for it anyway. And my "preps" have, over and over again, made slight, very localized "situations" much more bearable for me and my family in the past. You never know what may happen tomorrow. Be ready for it. Think of it as the ultimate role playing game.

.

Free speech and threats

Am I the only person who thinks freedom of speech includes threats and falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

Over and over again I hear and/or read people talking about freedom of speech, but then they go and turn it into a privilege rather than a right by putting silly limits on it.

Recently, on Facebook, someone posted a comment to a link to one of my blogs and said something that could have been construed as a threat of violence. It was just confusing enough that I'm really not sure if that's the way it was meant or not.

Then, almost immediately after I saw that comment I watched a video about how Firefly fans "saved" freedom of speech at a university campus, but even the defenders of free speech fell for the myth that threats are not covered.

I don't buy it.

Now, if you act on a threat, or it seems credible that you might, your target is justified in acting to stop you. If you don't like that consequence maybe you should keep your threats to yourself.

.