I'm back...

I am back after a couple of days without internet access, so, like it or not, I will be back to blogging as soon as I get some things done.

Highway Robbery

Yesterday while traveling, I witnessed many highway robberies. The criminals were driving cars of many descriptions, most were camouflaged as normal vehicles, but they all had flashing lights. One city that I passed through was particularly dangerous for the travelers; I witnessed a crime every half mile or so. Some people may think that these robbers are making the road safer for travelers, but I saw no difference in the behavior of the drivers in the places with lots of government shake-downs and the relatively freer areas. The drivers who are driving erratically are never the ones I see getting violated. It is usually the safe drivers whose only "offense" is driving faster than the government mandates. It is not about safety; it has never been about safety. It is about stealing the money needed to finance these and other state abuses. A free country would never, and should never, tolerate these highwaymen and their bosses harassing motorists.

Recommended Sites

If any of you are not familiar with The Libertarian Enterprise, you should be. A new issue comes out every Sunday. I highly recommend checking it out.

Another site you should go to is The Claire Files. This is a very good forum for liberty lovers. There is information on a great many subjects, depending on the depth of your interest in liberty.

Call Me an Anarchist

I have internet service here in my Springfield MO hotel room! So, like it or not, you get a blog tonight!

I have never hidden the fact that I am an anarchist libertarian. I am willing to work within a small, weak, and continually shrinking government to reach what I see as the goal of personal liberty, restricted only by the rights of others. If government gets in the way of the goal, then the plan would need to be revised. As long as someone lives by the ZAP (Zero Aggression Principle), then we can work together toward a free America, and eventually, a free world.

Remember that "anarchy" does not mean "chaos", but means "without rulers". Rule yourself and live by the ZAP.

On the Road Again....

For the next few (several?) days I will be traveling, so I am not certain if I will have internet access. If not, I will post as soon as I get to my destination. I will try to find motels with internet service. Take care, and tell all your friends about this blog. Help me spread the word. Thank you!

"Libertopian" America

I wish I had the foresight to be able to tell you exactly what to expect in a truly free America. I wish I could tell you all of the wonderful, exciting new things in store for us, as well as any pitfalls that we could avoid by planning now. I can't, though. Neither can anyone else. In all the history of the world, there has never been a truly free country. We have no real-world models to point to for examples. Some people dwell on the fact that no one quite knows how the road system would work itself out in a free country, so they timidly cling to the current government monopoly instead of realizing that taking chances can be exhilarating and liberating. I know there may be times that, at first, things may not be smooth in the transition. That is to be expected. As long as we refuse to settle for less than true liberty, we will find the way that works. I can think of several areas that some might be convinced that government control is the only way to protect our interests. Food and drug safety, doctor licensing, border guards, disaster recovery, and such are some areas that have been mentioned to me. I can see free-market solutions to most of these things that I think would actually work better that the current system. To act like frightened children and stubbornly cling to the familiar is a type of Stockholm Syndrome; identifying and sympathizing with your captors. Let's free ourselves and begin the exciting journey into the unknown world of Libertopian America.

the "War on Terror!!"

Regardless of who was ultimately responsible for the 9-11-2001 attack on the World Trade Center, I think we all agree that it was an act of terrorism. Immediately afterwards the government told us this happened because the terrorists hate our freedom. So what was the government's response? Was it to throw out all "laws" that prevent us from defending ourselves and others in defense of freedom? Nope. Not even close. The government's response was to make more freedoms go away. So wouldn't this mean that the government decided the terrorists were not thorough enough so government would finish their job for them? Seems that way to me. Ben Frankiln warned that those who give up essential freedom for temporary "safety" will have neither. What you will have is a more powerful government. The US government HATES freedom and seems determined to erradicate it in all its forms, except for mind-numbing entertainment. As long as they can watch movies, listen to music, or play video games, most people believe they are free.

Where were the terrorists that all of these freedom killing "laws" were supposed to catch? Make no mistake; if there had been any terrorist "cells" in America on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, we would have seen more attacks. Nothing happened other than the US government declared war on America.

If government ever really wants to get rid of terrorism, they could. All it would take is:
Remove any "law" that makes self defense punishable by "law", on the ground or in the air!
Remove "laws" regulating ownership and carrying of weapons
Stop molesting and killing people in other lands.
Abide by the very clear language and intent of the Bill of Rights.

As long as they do not do these things, you can be sure that "The War on Terror" is a phantom menace orchestrated to keep Americans scared enough to put up with terroristic behavior from government.

The Jury: Our Last (peaceful) Hope

Do you know what a jury's true duty is? It is to judge the case according to the law, and to judge the law according to common sense (and each juror's conscience). That means if a law seems to you to be unfair, you have a right and a duty to refuse to convict, regardless of the judge's instructions to the contrary. This is known as "jury nullification". Up until a generation or so ago, judges would even remind the juries of this responsibility. In today's police-state mentality, that kind of independent thinking would spell the end of counterfeit "laws", or at least the end of jury trials. The drug warriors, vice squads, and gun-banners would watch helplessly as juries released innocents who had "violated" counterfeit "laws".

Knowing your responsibilities comes at a price, though. Jurors have been jailed in recent years for refusing to convict in direct defiance of a crooked judge's orders. For more information on jury nullification, I encourage you to check out The Fully Informed Jury Association. I think that jury nullification is the last chance for a peaceful end to the downhill slide we are on toward a full-blown police state.

Drug Prohibition

Remember the 1920's with the gangster shootings, bathtub liquor, moonshiners, and such? Yeah, me neither. What I do remember is the crime, destroyed lives, and militarized cops resulting from the newest chapter of Prohibition. The so-called "drug war". In case you are under the mistaken impression that the first Prohibition was repealed, I am sorry to inform you it wasn't. The government got jealous of the freelance gangs and decided to take over. A piece of the action wasn't good enough; they wanted the whole ball-of-wax. So instead of liquor being "illegal" everywhere for everyone, we got saddled with liquor licenses, minimum drinking ages, and lots of money flowing into government coffers. Is drinking alcohol wrong or is it right? If it is wrong, does paying government for the "privilege" make it right? Sorry, that doesn't hold water. I think, that like most things, alcohol is morally neutral. It can fuzz up your thought processes, but you are still responsible for your actions, drinking or not.

I also believe the same thing about other drugs. Some are obviously more dangerous than others. Caffeine is less dangerous than opium. Marijuana is less dangerous than heroine. Does making a drug "legal" or "illegal" change its properties one iota? No. Do I think it is smart to smoke crack? Of course not. Is it your right to do so if you wish? Absolutely.

Safety is not the issue. We all do a lot of things that other people see as dangerous. Because of a bicycle wreck when I was 12, two wheeled things like motorcycles scare me to death. It took me over twenty years to really ride a bike again. I also can't understand why anyone would ride in a car without a seatbelt. On the other hand, I have grabbed full-grown, angry raccoons by hand in an animal rescue situation. It may have been stupid, but I knew the risks and was willing to take them. It is not the government's place to forbid me the freedom to take the risks I am willing to take. What about innocent bystanders? Eliminate the profit motive and drug related crime would dry up and go away. It did with alcohol without the prohibition even being totally lifted. What about people driving under the influence of drugs? Drowsiness, illness such as flu, depression, or even a bad day can cause poor driving. That is a poor excuse to destroy lives, families, and America. You should always stay aware of other drivers no matter whether you believe they are sober or not. I know from personal experience that marijuana is less debilitating than alcohol. I have also never observed marijuana causing anyone to go around picking fights. If any drug should be ignored by "law enforcement" it is pot. No honest cop would ever arrest a person for using drugs; "just doing their job" or not.

The drug war has been used as an excuse to militarize the local police, to kick in the wrong doors in the middle of the night, to set up illegal traffic stops, to violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and generally go against everything America is supposed to be. It spawns such evil as the DARE program which teaches children that it is good to betray their family to the government. There is no justification for this evil behavior. None of this even reduces drug use anyway. Even the government's own "numbers" show this. The lives supposedly destroyed by drugs, are actually destroyed by the drug warriors. Notice how few of the ill effects are really caused by the chemistry of the drugs, and how many are caused by the politics and "law".

One final warning: If you DO get so hooked on some substance that you end up in a gutter somewhere, don't come looking for government handouts. You make your choices; you live the consequences. I choose to use my drug of choice, caffeine in the form of Dr Pepper, regardless of the damage that it may do to my health because I understand the risks and am willing to take them. Everyone has the same right.

ZAP: The Zero Aggression Principle

"No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

Formulated by L. Neil Smith, this is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. I DO think this is the basis of libertarianism. This has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Someone making a threat against you, if it is a credible threat, has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force. You have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smartest to simply walk away. This isn't always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.

There is also The Coventant of Unanimous Consent which takes the ZAP and uses it as a basis for a system of dealing peacefully with other humans.

Taxes

If some mugger comes up to you, shoves a gun in your face and demands money, that is wrong. If a government demands money from you, and you refuse to pay, what happens next? The government will raise the stakes. First will come threats. Then government will begin trying to take things from you by force of "law". If you keep resisting at each step of the process, there will come a time when government agents will come to your house with guns drawn to arrest you. Resist at this point, and they will kill you. How is this any different than the mugger? Morally, it is not any different. "Pay us or we will kill you" is the implied threat that keeps most Americans paying taxes of one form or another. Name one government program that is worth killing for. If you can, I would need to be convinced.

It really doesn't matter how many "laws" are passed to authorize this tax or that. Governments could pass laws allowing all people with red hair to be burned at the stake, but it would still be wrong. Theft is wrong; taxes are theft-by-government; taxes are wrong. So, how would government programs be paid for? First off, I will say I do not believe government should administer ANY programs, but for the sake of argument we will pretend. User fees would be a much more fair way to pay for the programs. If you refuse all dealings with government, you would not pay fees to support government. Remember: government programs are never really free. You pay for them, and pay much more than you would for the same "service" if it were provided by a private company or individual.

Follow your conscience where taxes are concerned, but if you don't pay up, do not be surprised when government throws everything it has into bringing you down. Judges know where their paychecks come from, so will rarely do what is right in these cases.

"Crazy for Liberty" Candidate Questionaire

Here is the "Crazy for Liberty" candidate questionaire. Presented for your amusement and enlightenment. I view these things the same way I view polls: entertainment. It is almost impossible to get a real feel for a candidate through a questionaire. I don't mind answering them, I am just not sure how useful they are. If you want to know how I feel on particular issues, either ask me here or email me privately at dullhawk@hotmail.com

Immigration

Guess what. I don't have the answer to "the immigration problem". All I have are some comments concerning what I think about the topic. So here goes.

Everyone has the right to prevent trespassing on their property. By anyone. So, if you do not wish to have aliens, or cops, or census takers, or me on your land, that is your absolute right. So if you owned all of America, you could keep anyone out that you didn't like, for any reason or no reason at all. No one owns all of America; certainly NOT the US government. So for the feds to pretend that they have any authority on the issue is a lie.

Why do people risk so much to come to America?
Part of the reason is the freedom that we are rumored to have here. The US government is working as hard as it can to remove this incentive for immigrants.
Another reason is welfare handouts. Since it is wrong to steal from people to finance any government program, the reasonable thing to do is to end welfare. No longer would anyone come here for government handouts. This would end the injustice of stealing from some people and giving it to others who did not earn it. At least for welfare. There are other taxes that still need to be dealt with, but that is another topic.
Jobs are another reason. The job culture is a screwed up mess, but if someone wants to work for another person, they have the right to do it. I do not believe that anyone is entitled to any particular job. You want a job, then earn it. If an immigrant is willing to do a job for less pay, or a job you do not wish to do, why should you whine? Either agree to work cheaper or look elsewhere. Or go the extra mile for your pay to make yourself worth more to the employer. Some immigrants go on to start a business of their own. This benefits us all. How does this threaten America in any way?
I hear people complain that immigrants do not adopt "American culture" as their own when they come here. Do these complainers live in a tipi or a wikiup? Do they speak the language of the nations who occupied this land before their cultures were overwhelmed by the immigrants who gave birth to most of us? Why not? If it is good enough to demand of immigrants now, why shouldn't it have always been the right thing to do?
All cultures have something to offer. Some more than others, but mixing with those who are different can be a very enriching experience. I do not wish to live in a land where a wall keeps out immigrants (and keeps us inside). I do not want to be required to carry proof of "citizenship" and produce it at the whim of enforcers. Closed borders seem to me to be the opposite of freedom and liberty. You are welcome to disagree, of course.

War

A recent misunderstanding demonstrates to me how wars can get started if the parties involved are not as calm and deliberate as people with "power" should be. I had found some mention of myself on a webpage where the comments seemed to be ridiculing me for the way I dress. I thought that they really didn't like me. I posted a comment simply pointing out that I had seen the posts. The person who had first mentioned me thought I was angry about the comments. After a few messages back and forth, we both cleared up the misunderstanding and I have great respect for that person as a result.
Why can't our "leaders" do the same? Why do we allow our country to be used as a weapon of retaliation by the government? I am a firm believer in true militias. Every person is a member of their local militia whether they accept the responsibility or not. The founders of America did not trust armies under the control of government. They had just endured a war with the most powerful government army on Earth, and did not wish to see that happen again. Army under government control is subject to be used for evil purposes which have nothing to do with defense. Personal vendettas become excuses for traveling to distant lands which were no threat to us, and killing innocents. In the process creating a new generation of people who hate the invaders and who will find ways to strike back. No one in the world "hates us for our freedom". They hate our government and mistake it for America. They hate it for meddling; for killing their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and neighbors. For telling them how they must live.
Militias do not travel to foreign lands. Militias simply defend their homes and neighborhoods. Militias are not under the control of a megalomaniac. Or if one arises, he gets ditched and a sane leader is chosen. Militias can come to the local defense against governments gone bad as well. This is why governments try to distort the image of the militia. Make them out to be terrorists. Government needs to look in the mirror, but like Dracula, it has no reflection. Terrorists strike civilian targets to cause fear. Strikes against government drones and facilities are not terrorist acts. When government uses human shields to protect against strikes, it becomes the terrorist. I do not condone killing except in self defense, but we need to be clear on what terrorism is and what it isn't. In its current course of action, the US federal government has become the world's largest and most dangerous terrorist group, at home and abroad. Period.

Occupied America

I have said before that the United States is the greatest threat that America faces, but I think it bears repeating. In my view America is the country that we live in. It is a country defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It guarantees "liberty and justice for all" and says that the government's purpose is to secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The United States is the government that currently rules the country of America. It is a government defined by the beaurocracies and the "laws" it tries to force upon us, almost all of which are in direct violation of the aforementioned Constitution and Bill of Rights. It actively denies us our lives, liberties, and forbids the pursuit of happiness if ours pleasures are unpopular, politically incorrect, or "bad for us". When politicians are "sworn in" they pledge to uphold the Constitution, and then immediately break that oath. Their true loyalty is not to America, but to the US. Any politician who breaks that oath (and not necessarily as defined by the rogue "Supreme Court") must be immediately removed from office and never allowed to hold office ever again. Anywhere. Treason is serious.

Clarifications

I have read a few sites which refer to me as a "newcomer" to this race. For the record, I announced my candidacy on November 3, 2004. I chose to begin slowly and build on that foundation.

On another subject; I have noticed that some people are criticizing my style of clothing. If you cannot support me because of the way I dress, I understand. We can go our separate ways with no hard feelings. If, however, you understand that there are real issues, join me and wear whatever you want, for I will do the same. I am different than anyone who has ever run for president. I assure you, this is a good thing. We all need to laugh at ourselves sometimes, and if I can amuse some folks, then my life has not been a waste.

Political Prisoners

Speaking of counterfeit "laws".... How many of us know someone who is in jail or prison for violating some counterfeit law? I would guess most of us do. How many of us have been fined for some imagined infraction? For crimes of force, jailing the violators is usually necessary. For crimes of fraud, restitution would be much more sensible. Everyone else in prison is a political prisoner. They are guilty of nothing other than living independently of the edicts of government stooges. For violators of counterfeit "laws" immediate release is the first step in finding justice. The next step is punishing those who kidnapped the victim of government. Using the real laws against force and fraud, anyone who arrests, fines, jails, harrasses or kills anyone who violates a mala prohibita law becomes the aggressor and therefore is subject to the consequenses. The third step is restitution where possible from the government criminals. From their OWN pockets, not from mythical "public funds". Anyone who assumes "authority" over another must be held to a higher standard, and must be extremely careful to avoid any violation of rights. If they are not willing to pay the price of their transgressions, they need to get a legitimate job.

Counterfeit "laws" include, but are not limited to, laws regarding: guns, consentual sex, drugs, licenses and permits, private property uses, consentual commerce, taxes, broadcasting, unpopular speech, marriage, free travel, etc.

Property taxes

When I was around 10 years old I had already developed a sense that I wanted a cabin in the mountains where I would hunt and gather my own food, make my own buckskin clothes, and just be left alone when I wanted (much to the eternal distress of my conventional parents). I had it all figured out ... until my parents informed me that if I didn't pay property tax on the land, the government would take it away from me. Even at that age, I knew that was ridiculous. If you own something, you OWN it. You don't have to pay a yearly ransom to keep it!

I think property tax is fundamentally more evil than other taxes. ALL taxes are theft-by-government at gunpoint and not justifiable. Consider this: If you do not want to pay sales tax you could theoretically barter and trade for all the good that you couldn't produce for yourself. Hate the income tax? Do what I did and reduce your income to zero. But how to have a HOME and not have property tax? You could be a squatter. You could rent. You could be a permanent tourist. These strategies work for many people. Unfortunately the desire to have a homestead is one of the strongest urges for humans. We are very territorial creatures. How many wars are being fought today because of someone violating someone else's territory?

Counterfeit "laws"

How many people do you know who claim that murder is OK? How many would argue that rape is a good thing? Or that "armed robber" is a good career choice? What about someone who scams elderly people out of their life savings? Just about every person would agree that these things are wrong. It does not matter whether a "law" is passed to say it is OK or if the death penalty is applied if you do one of these things. Wrong is wrong. This is called "mala in se".

Then there are other actions that people are divided in their opinion of. Is it wrong to smoke marijuana? Do you deserve to go to jail for hiring a prostitute? What if you don't choose to wear a seat belt? Is is good to have laws to punish you for these things? Once again, it does not matter if the "law" says these things are OK or not. These are things that are only "wrong" because the law says they are bad. This is called "mala prohibita".

I think there is even a simpler way to describe mala prohibita laws: they are counterfeit. A law is counterfeit when it prohibits, regulates, or controls something other than actual force or fraud. No one has any moral obligation to obey counterfeit "laws". I choose to wear a seat belt. I feel more secure that way. Other people feel trapped by them. That is OK. That is personal choice using YOUR best information. No "law enforcement officer" is justified in punishing anyone for violating any counterfeit "law". Once they do, THEY become the criminal. Real laws do not need enforcers. Would you intervene to stop a rape? Me too. Would you hold a person at gun-point while calling for back-up if you see him sitting in traffic without his seat belt on? Of course not. Only a mindless drone of the state would do something that evil.

A very good Gun Rights group

I recommend The Gun Rights group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership very highly. You do not need to be Jewish to join. They are working on a campaign to expose the BATFE's criminally abusive behavior against gun owners. JPFO also has many very good publications such as their "Gran'pa Jack" series of booklets, and the book Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith. Hope is almost a blueprint of what a good libertarian president would do. They also have documentaries such as Innocents Betrayed (which I appear in), and BATFE Fails the Test.

There are still others that also offer better choices than the NRA (which always seeks to compromise away our guns). Gun Owners of America and the Pink Pistols are two that come to mind.