Surprising allies

A while back I had a somewhat pleasant surprise.  My daughter's kindergarten teacher (curses be upon government schools) had a lengthy letter to the editor published in the local weekly newspaper (reproduced below).  It was surprisingly anti-government.

I can't really say it was pro-liberty since she didn't do much besides point out the destructive nature of The State's edicts concerning education and the effects those edicts have on family time. But that's a start.

She came at it from the religious perspective rather than from a pro-liberty stance, but it led to the same place: these government rules are harmful to individuals.  That we can agree on.

I gave her a copy of one of my books; perhaps it will make an impact.

Now, to get her to talk about that repulsive ritual they engage in each day.

_

Sniper Chris Kyle: Live by the sword...

...Die by the sword.

A murderous parasitic puppet of The State, who enjoyed murdering people and profited from his offenses, has paid the piper.  Unfortunately, others were also also destroyed simply by associating with him too closely.  That is the tragedy.  The lesson is to shun murderers.

And I notice his death shines a light on the "liberty" movement that exposes a huge rift.

Those who love liberty, yet find it comforting to worship liberty's greatest enemy- the government's military- are upset that those who don't maintain that particular inconsistency are not mourning the death of Kyle.

What this supposed "man" did was wrong on every level.  He was an invader, murdering legitimate defenders in defense of his "brother" invaders.  He wasn't "fighting for freedom"- not for you and not for me.  He was only fighting to advance the goals of an illegitimate Empire on the other side of the planet.  He was an enemy of liberty and ALL that is decent.  He was not "brave".  He deserved no thanks or admiration. He was a compliant and enthusiastic hired murderer.

I'm sorry if you are a military worshiper who is uncomfortable with the truth, but the truth is if Kyle were fighting for freedom, he would have turned his skills against the real threats to America, almost all of whom operate out of Washington DC or other "capitols", and governmental buildings all across America.

Without its armed goons- military and police- to carry out its wishes and edicts, government would be as dangerous as a 2 year-old throwing a temper tantrum.  It is those willing to carry out the tantrum that cause the tyranny.

Good riddance, Chris Kyle.  One less monster in the world.

-

PS:  Someone was telling me there is something about this death that makes him very sad.

I responded:

Would I have shot Kyle at that moment? No. At that particular moment he wasn't doing anything that deserved being shot. That time was back when he was murdering defenders from himself and his fellow invaders.

However, he reaped the seeds he had sown. He was trying to help a fellow broken soldier, broken by the system he supported and was part of, who just happened to snap and result in his death. None of it would have ever happened had he stayed home and gotten an honest job. Sure, he might have died for some other reason by now, but this death is directly traceable to the life he had led up to that moment.

Several years ago a fellow libertarian cut off contact with me because I was glad Ted Kennedy was dying. I just thought of all the potential harm that was prevented by his death, and I couldn't feel bad.

I saw someone this morning saying that the "rule of civilized people" is that "you don't talk bad about the deceased". Really? I haven't noticed that rule being followed over the deaths of Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, or anyone else that the "majority" says it is OK to speak ill of.

PSS: It keeps bringing them out of the woodwork.  I'll have more to say about those who honor a "person" for following orders.
.

"A well-regulated militia..."

Wow, I get so tired of reading comments by anti-liberty bigots (and other idiots) who grasp at the words "A well-regulated militia" as their excuse to criminalize tools of self defense.

It has been explained- I'm guessing- thousands of times.  They don't understand because understanding doesn't fit their agenda.

But, I'll explain again so that there will be yet another place to read it.

"Well regulated" doesn't mean what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean.  It means "fine-tuned".  "Practiced".

And, of course, "militia" meant all males between the ages of... well, that doesn't matter since I hope America is past the ageism and sexism of the past.  Now, the militia is EVERYONE capable (not necessarily enthusiastic about) holding a gun and using it in defense.  It is NOT the "National Guard", or the Marines.  It is YOU and ME.

So, get out there and fine-tune your skills, because YOU are the one the Second Amendment is talking about being well-practiced in the skill of tyrant shooting.

And, it doesn't matter at all whether the Second Amendment gets repealed or legislated away (which happened way back in 1934)- the right to own and to carry defensive weaponry existed long before the first government was dreamed up by the first control-crazy pervert, and it can not be abolished by any State, ever.  Not now, and not in the distant future.  Suck it, anti-liberty bigots.

.

Libertarianarchist

Libertarianarchist.  That's me.  But it is also redundant since an anarchist is just a libertarian with all the inconsistencies stripped away.  A libertarian in full bloom.

The "libertarians" who dispute that always have a big "but".  They are libertarian, but... there is some "service" The State provides- through coercion and theft- that they just don't believe can be provided voluntarily.  Maybe "justice"/"courts", or "copyright", or roads, or "security" or "national defense".  But there's always something.

Get rid of that "something" by realizing that if it needs to be provided, there is always a better way than by allowing a government monopoly to provide it through theft and coercion.  And get over your fear of the word "anarchy".

You'll be happier in the long run.

.

This ain't your father's AK-47 (re-run)

(With all the recent hysteria over "assault weapons", I figured it was time to dust off this old post from August 10, 2009.)

My most recent crazy idea can be found in a letter to The Libertarian Enterprise. After reading the short description, browse around for a while. You will learn something.

Briefly, my idea is for a flintlock "AK-47". Would it be better to have a REAL, fully functional, AK-47? Of course it would. The psychological value alone is quite high, since few other guns upset the hoplophobes as much. There is no logic to their reaction, of course, but it can be fun to watch.

Still, if you live in one of those freedom-destroying cities and don't wish to break even counterfeit "laws", this could be a fun option for you. A way of flipping the authoriturds your "digitus impudicus". I'm sure that the localities which try to forbid toy guns would frown on a flintlock of any kind as well, as the recent incident in Bloomberg's own private prison demonstrates. Find your freedom where you can and, as long as you don't harm the innocent, have fun with it.

.

Striking at the Root or re-painting leaves?

Protest proposed anti-gun "laws"?

Get out and vote?

Write your congresscritter?

Sorry, I can't get too worked up for all that.  I don't buy into the idea that gun owners who don't speak out are "doing nothing".

Sometimes people just realize that political action is equivalent to trying to use a trash can lid to hold back a landslide.  I'll spend my energy doing things that might work.

It's always going to be something- you'll spend your life in a dither trying to put out each brushfire of tyranny if you keep seeking a political "solution".  The State- government- is illegitimate.  That is NO WAY to deal with other people.  Accept it and move on to more productive pursuits.

Unless you just happen to enjoy the frenzy of reactive political action- and some people do.  In that case, do whatever makes you happy, but don't pretend your path is the Only Way.


.

The Assumption of Aggression

It is very hard for most people to think of a way to consider methods of interacting with others that don't involve using The State in some way.

Think of "liberals" and you think of the "laws" they impose on the rest of us.

Think of "conservatives" and you think of the "laws" they impose of the rest of us.

Think of "libertarians" and most people think of the "laws" that the Libertarian Party members want to get rid of or change, through political activism.

Think of "anarchists" and most people think instead of communists who want to use The State to impose their desires on everyone else.

Few people think of people interacting as individuals on their own, without using The State.  So, for the people who have their preference but don't seek to use coercion or theft, the round holes of assumed "political action" are a non-fit from the beginning.

.

Euphemisms don’t change ethics

Euphemisms don’t change ethics 

(My Clovis News Journal column for December 28, 2012.)

Following libertarian principles is inseparable from being a decent human being.

Even kindergartners are taught the libertarian principles: don't start a fight by throwing the first punch and don't take other people's stuff. It really is that simple.

It's only as kids get older that most adults start trying to make children accept exceptions to these rules. It is a glaring inconsistency that most children can see right through, while their parents try to wiggle around finding justifications that just aren't there.

Rules are often made up to try to short-circuit a child's understanding. They are told that they can't fight back to defend themselves when someone violates the rules and hits them first. Or, they are taught that they aren't really the one starting the fight if someone has offended them in some way. They are told that stealing is OK as long as it is done with majority approval, as part of your job, or if it is called "sharing" even though it isn't voluntary.

You can't raise ethical kids by condoning this kind of behavior and confusing the issues.

Yet you can even be non-libertarian in your personal beliefs and still behave in an outwardly decent manner by following libertarian principles.

Whether a person is conservative or liberal, as long as they don't steal or use coercion and attack the innocent, we can get along. For that matter, I even have no problem with people choosing to live in a communist enclave, as long as all participants are there by unanimous consent, no one is coerced into participating, and anyone can opt out any time they wish. The first time a person is coerced to give up their self-ownership without their consent, and without it being necessary to fulfill a voluntarily-acquired debt or to pay restitution, the consent is gone. Theft or coercion has then occurred.

The problem is that non-libertarians try to change the names of theft and coercion to hide the true nature of the acts. Theft becomes "taxation", "property codes", "asset forfeiture", or "eminent domain", while attacking the innocent becomes "sobriety checkpoints", "immigration control", "gun control", and "homeland security". The euphemisms change nothing about the ethics of the acts.

I hope that the new year brings you in contact with lots of people who relate to you as if they are libertarians. I hope, too, that you will try to return the favor. Happy New Year!

.

Do origins matter?

I really despise the "Pledge of Allegiance".  I know too much about its origin to respect it at all.

I know this puts me in a suspected minority.

But it makes me consider an idea.  How much does the origin of something matter?  Something that had a bad origin can turn out to be good and something that had a good origin can turn out to be bad.  Just look around you to see the truth of this.

In the case of the hated "Pledge", it can be judged by its fruits today: nationalism, war-mongering, blind devotion. and obedience.  All disgusting, rotten, poisonous fruits.

But, just because it was created by a nationalist/socialist doesn't automatically make it bad- judge it for yourself by how it is used today.  If you still think it is a good thing... well, give yourself to any ideology you want, but leave me out of it.

"Media and Politicians Firing Blanks"

Media and Politicians Firing Blanks

by Brian Wilson

Have you ever fired a gun? (NB: water, cap, BB, paintball and fingers
are not acceptable)

How many guns have you seen become violent? If your answer acknowledges
an individual is necessary to operate the weapon, why, then, are you
using the term "gun violence" and not "human violence"?

In 25 words or less: What is an "Assault Weapon"? Be specific

(Extra Credit: From Columbine to Newtown, how many involved "Assault
Weapons"?)

What is the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"? Use both in a
sentence.

Is a .223 cartridge more or less powerful than the predominant rifle
cartridge used by American fighting men in WWII?

(Extra Credit: What was the caliber of the predominant rifle
cartridge used in WWII?)

If you had to choose, would you prefer to shot with a .22? .223? 30-06?
00Buck?

("None of the Above" is an understandable but unacceptable answer)

Why is a black gun more dangerous than one made with differently colored
components?

If black guns are bad, isn’t that racist?

How does a bayonet lug make the "assault rifle" more lethal?

(Extra credit: How many drive-by bayonetings occurred in the US last
year?)

To the nearest 100,000, how many Assault Rifles are made of Nerf?

Within 10,000, how many times a day do law-abiding gun owners prevent a
crime without firing a shot?

Approximately how many gun laws (State and Federal) are in force in
America today?

With so many laws already in force, what are the compelling reasons to
believe criminals and mass murders will obey the new ones?

If faced with a home invasion, would you want to be holding your phone
or your firearm?

The above was forwarded to me by MamaLiberty

I have a couple of questions of my own to ask anti-liberty bigots:

Are you completely insane?

Are you totally ignorant of human nature, history, ethics, physics, and the difference between right and wrong?

.

The silliness of "borders"

Borders.  Imaginary lines.  I can understand them to a certain extent.  Private property lines are the borders that trump all others.  And I can even understand a "border" that gives an area an identity.  Maybe based upon geography or customs or other things like that which give a shared identity that the locals rally around.  As long as they are not imposed or maintained by "law".

What I don't understand are "legal borders".  I mean the kind that derive from governments saying  "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there.  Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money."  And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to.  "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.

To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil.  For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil.  So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".

And the short answer to that is: neither one.

Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad.  To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.

It's not about "open borders".  It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.


.

I need more exciting dreams

Sometimes I have odd dreams.

Recently I dreamed I was watching an in-depth video presenting the best arguments for conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, and pure anarchism.

Each position was laid out by the best proponent of each philosophy.  No, I didn't dream who each of those people might be.

The video ended with sci-fi movies showcasing libertarianism/anarchism.  I guess in my dream, the conclusion was a foregone conclusion as to which philosophy was going to be discovered to be the best.


.

Imaginary lines

A family member was complaining about an arbitrary rule that resulted in an inconvenience because we happen to live on the losing side of a state line- everything we need generally lies on the other side, and because that is a different state, some things are off-limits to us and we have to go miles out of our way to something "in state".  In this case it was a dog rescue group that wouldn't take in a starving dog that was rescued because "we don't take them from out of state".

My family member was griping that it was all "because of that imaginary line".

I agree.  The thing is, she's perfectly fine with other imaginary lines.  Why does the imaginary line between "Texas" and "New Mexico" on a map bother her, while the imaginary lines between "The USA" and "Mexico" or "Canada" are fine with her?  (I'm kidding- I doubt she cares about the imaginary line that says where Canada begins.)

.

Strikers

Would the person who emailed me about hand-forged strikers please email again.  It went to my "junk" box and I saw it just as I emptied the box- and it was too late and I can't get it back.

Sorry about that, and I hope you get this message.

.

"Traffic stops" are the key

It's all well and good to have a plan and know how to defeat Stormtroopers and reavers who show up in masks and body armor at your house at 3AM, to kidnap or murder you and your family- after shooting Rex and stomping Fluffy for the sacred cause of Officer Safety, of course.

However, the reality is that most of the kidnappings will be done as the result of a "traffic stop".  This is where they have gotten more people accustomed to forced encounters with agents of The State.  And most people are trained and frightened into being compliant and cooperative.  That is going to have to end if liberty is to ever return to the former America.

I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, if you haven't already realized it on your own.  But it has come to this.

So, think about it and plan accordingly.


.

Go back in time- Kill Hitler

I love time travel stories, particularly tales of travel into the past and thoughts of "What would I do if I could go back in time?  What would I try to change?"

There are lots of events in my own past I'd be tempted to change.

Beyond the personal, there are so many events I would like to witness first-hand to see for myself how badly misinformed I am due to errors of history or willful disinformation.

But one almost universal thought I hear connected to the idea of time travel is the assertion that "If I went back in time I'd kill Hitler."

Regardless of whether they'd smother newborn Hitler or shoot him just before he began to kill the innocents, they seem to be saying that they would, with the wisdom of information about the future, be bold enough to do something that would be seen by most contemporary observers to be an act of evil.  In order to prevent an actual evil that would then (probably) never come to pass.  They might even go down in history as an evil assassin.  Or a baby murderer.

Sadly, by the time that killing Hitler was obviously the right thing to do, his security apparatus made chances of success almost nil.

I wonder what would happen if I could somehow send a message back in time to the 1930s, to people who might encounter Hitler before it was too late.  Back before the tides of history became obvious.  Back when an assassin would have been seen as evil.

Maybe we have dodged that bullet before.  What would people say to the purely hypothetical claim that JFK was just days away from becoming a mass-murdering despot when he was shot?  It seems highly unlikely, but since he was killed and we can't know what he would have done the next day, there could never be any real proof.  A time-traveling assassin could do a lot of good while being judged to be a monster.

What would a time traveler from 50 years in our future do if he showed up tomorrow?  Or, if he couldn't physically return to this point in time, but could send you a message, what might he tell you?  What would you do about it?

Funny thing about today- it will be history soon enough.  You are living in someone's "history" today.  How will our grandchildren and their grandchildren view us?  How do we view the Germans of the 1930s?  I wonder what their ghosts might say to us if they could communicate.


.

Self defense prevents massacres

Self defense prevents massacres

(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)

Mass murders.

Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?

These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.

Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.

How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.

While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.

People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.

No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.

There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.

So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.

Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.

.

Property theft on grand scales

I saw this top map on Facebook.  I can't verify its accuracy.  I also won't debate whether a particular State is "better" than some other State.  Are they based on "taxation" and coercion?  That's all I need to know.

What that map does make me think of is another map, concerning someone else who was in a place first (and, no, no one was in either of these places in "the beginning", but migrated there at some point) and lost their land/property and freedom to someone else who decided that god had given the land to them, because of their obvious superiority and because they won god's favor.  Or something.

It just doesn't smell right to me, in either case.

Of course, it wouldn't be an issue at all without governments behind it.  People should be free to keep their property, or sell or trade it, to anyone for any reason.  People should also be free to use any means at their disposal to defend their property from those who want to steal it.  Neither of the illustrations show consensual property redistribution, but theft and aggression.  And no one should ever be subject to some government or its "laws" simply because of where they live or because of who outnumbers them.

.

Sheriffs discover nullification

While I suppose I am glad that there are some sheriffs making nullification-type noises concerning proposed anti-gun edicts, I would be more impressed if they realized that the next anti-liberty "laws" are just a continuation of the evil anti-liberty "laws" they enforce every day.  And have been enforcing since they took office.

Mr. Shire Reeve:

If you accept any "federal money", equipment, supplies, or oversight, you are already an oathbreaker.

If you enforce any anti-drug "laws", you are already an oathbreaker.

If you have ever arrested anyone on any "weapons charges", you are already an oathbreaker.

If you allow federal "law enforcement" to operate in your employers' territory in order to commit any of those acts, you are already an oathbreaker.

What's one more violation to you?  Why make a fuss now, when you have been happy to betray your neighbors thus far?  Is it to fool people into believing you have principles?  Is it to cover your... "self"... when your neighbors start picking up pitchforks and lighting torches?  Are you trying to give yourself plausible deniability?

I won't be fooled.  Some of your neighbors probably won't be fooled, either.

You have already chosen your side.  Unless you switch sides, unequivocally, now- and immediately cease and desist your unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical actions this instant.

Past violations can be forgiven.  Future actions will be tallied.

Where will you be standing when the account comes due?

(The other side of the coin: Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals)

.

Unveiling: Money

If the US government can do it, so can I.  After all, no State has rights not held by the individuals who make it up, and no individual has more rights than any other.  And if rights are imaginary, then no one has a right to rule me or coerce me, so...

Here is the one and only 1 Million Money Note in existence.  So far, anyway.

I authorize myself- through my own Constitution- to issue Money in whatever form I see fit (it says so right on the back of the note).

The current exchange rate for a "Money" is 1 Money to $0.75 (in Federal Reserve Notes).  Silver and gold are given preference in exchange, and get better rates, though.

Acceptance is not mandatory, but is purely voluntary.  Laziness on my part, and my inability to issue Money electronically, ensures that Money will never hyperinflate itself in the way US Dollars are guaranteed to do.

But, just like Federal Reserve Notes or US coins, it is only really worth the material, the paper or metal, that makes it up.  Only the belief it is worth more makes it worth more.

.