New Constitutional Amendment

By way of The Libertarian Enterprise:

— A PRIVACY AMENDMENT —
To the Constitution of the United States of America

It shall be unlawful for any official, elected or appointed, at any
level of government, or for any government employee, or for the employee of any
company working for the government, to take the likeness—photographic, or by any
other means—of any individual, without that individual's explicit, written
permission.
The yielding of such permission may not be made a condition of
exercising any right, or receiving any service otherwise due to that individual.
Any attempt to violate or evade this measure on the part of any official,
elected or appointed, at any level of government, or for any government
employee, or the employee of any company working for the government, shall be
punishable by no less than 25 years at hard labor, without possibility of
parole, in that prison which currently has the worst record for deadly criminal
violence.

We Are NOT "Losertarians"

Unless we allow ourselves to be. We are the ones with consistent principles. We are the ones with an internal morality that doesn't rely on what is "legal" or dictated. That makes libertarians the winners. Authoritarians such as Republicans, Democrats, and other fascio-socialists sometimes resort to calling libertarians "losertarians" because of our lack of representation in the realm of electoral politics. The fact that most voters vote for the wrong people doesn't contradict this. The only way they can continue to do so is if we continue to allow ourselves to be judged according to "their" rules; in "their" game. Authoritarians have no defense for their monstrous desire to rule over the lives of others, so they try to attack us on election results. They can't honestly attack libertarians on principle; they don't know where that is. They come to the battle of principles unarmed.

"The Gang" Trailer

Courtesy of Red's Trading Post.

Sidetracked By a Statist

The title above refers to the years I spent wandering in "conservativeland" because of a statist's assessment that since I hated government, I was a conservative. Keep in mind that the statist in question was in college and heading toward a life in law offices and politics. His world view had been shrivelled by his blinders.

This person sat behind me in my "World History" class in college and I had made an impression on him because of my buckskin jacket and coonskin cap. (As an aside: It is so much fun watching a state senator twitch and squirm because of the nut-case wearing buckskin, sitting front and center in the class he has agreed to speak to! This is probably "illegal" because of the PATRIOT act now.) When I began dating the classmate's sister (future wife numero uno) he felt it was his duty to assess where I stood politically. I told him I hated government. Some things don't change, you see. He informed me that that made me a "conservative". I said I doubted it, but he assured me that was what conservatives believed, so I simply accepted this without looking into it. I wasn't too concerned about labels even then.

So I spent years watching the conservative "leaders" and wondering why they always betrayed me and made me more angry with each passing year. Had I stopped to think for myself at that point, I would have seen that I was not a "conservative", but an anarchist, or at very least a libertarian. Obviously, I have seen the light in the intervening years (Thank you, L. Neil Smith!). At least I didn't do any damage to freedom as a fake conservative. I didn't contribute anything to the conservative cause since I was fighting it from within, and wasn't inspired to be active in any way.

I am glad that I finally became concerned enough to actually step back and look at what I believed, as opposed to what someone else had labelled me.

Supporting Ron Paul

Yes, I support the campaign of Ron Paul. Do I think he would be "the best President" for 2008? No, I think I would be. However, that is the wrong question. Do I think he would be better than any other Demopublican who is running? Absolutely, with no contest! I also like the fact that he is stirring up debate and making many silent libertarians speak up. I like the fact that he is causing havoc on the internet and is exposing the hypocrisy of the mainstream media. I like the fact that he is exposing the other Demopublicans as the tyrant wanna-bes they are. I like the way his campaign is forcing people to examine their views in ways that no other Presidential campaign has ever done. All of these things are good. Still doubt I will vote for him, as I will probably write in my own name.

Real Liberty - Fear of the Unknown

Some people undoubtedly fear the changes that will come with true liberty. As unnatural as that seems to me, I do try to anticipate these fears.
Evil government thugs and bureaucrats may fear the loss of being able to order others around; the loss of power, control, bribes, the protection racket, petty meddling, and just generally being "above the law". Recognize these miscreants and don't let their fears or fear mongering stop us. After all, criminals always fear strong individuals. They prefer prey, because prey doesn't shoot back.
Some weak or overly emotional people will be afraid of living without the false security of the "safety net" that government pretends to provide. Point out the failure of government to really help the weak and the sick, and educate them on the true costs of relying on an inefficient bureaucracy versus the charitable nature of people when they aren't being coerced. Also show them what they can do with 8 times more wealth in a free market.
Those who have been brainwashed into believing that they can't protect themselves may fear freelance criminals running amok after the state sponsored criminals are gone from the landscape. Take them out shooting. Teach them the importance of paying attention to their surroundings (this enriches life exponentially, anyway, while scaring away thugs).
Life is too rich and too short to put up with government. Don't let your fears, or the fear of others, hold you back.

Trying to Keep My Blog "Polite"

A lot of libertarian blogs are filled with language that offends some people. That is OK with me, of course. Use any words you want in my presence. I don't really believe that some words are "bad" and I am not offended by anyone's language usage. (Well, that may not be totally true as some people's disregard for others can offend me at times. That isn't what I am talking about, though.) I think the FCC's rules for broadcast "standards" are complete nonsense and should be flushed back to where they belong. Back to my blog: Out of respect for readers who might not wish to expose their families or prospective libertarians to those words, I choose to not use them. I don't delete them from the comments, however, so tread there at your own risk.

I would like for people to be able to direct anyone to my blog without fear that my language would turn them off before my ideas have had a chance to shock and offend them. If you have friends or family who you think might be interested in libertarian philosophy, but who don't want to see "the F word" in every post, send them the links to this blog and my website. Freedom needs all the supporters it can get. Maybe later they will come to realize that it is pointless to fear certain arrangements of letters. Then they will be ready to visit some of the more colorful blogs.

That being said, I still am way more crude than the rest of my family. Such is the role of a black sheep.

US Department of Laughs

I'm not sure if I have ever posted three blogs in one day before, but I just had to pass this along. Here are "warning signs" from the US Department of Laughs. They are real signs that are confusing at best. The helpful USDoL has written new interpretations for them. I may be twisted, but I laughed til I cried!

Two by "El Neil"

Here is an article by L. Neil Smith, published by JPFO: Living Off the Interest, and a link to another article by L. Neil in a similar vein: Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision. These are the kinds of things that make me certain that we MUST attain a free world. Read it for yourself and see why I feel this way.

"It Has Never Been Tried Before"

The most pathetic argument against a stateless society is the one that whines "It won't work because it has never been (successfully) tried before". So? Every new invention "has never been tried before" either. Would you insist on staying in the stone age because the alternatives "haven't been tried before"? What's the difference?

I think it is time to try liberty. And not in some half-hearted "limited government" kind of way, either. Supposedly that is what the Constitution was about. Nope, this time we should try all-out freedom. No government other than self-government. Glorious anarchy instead of government-induced chaos. No badges for the criminals to hide behind. No "laws" setting up mini (or not-so-mini) kleptocracies. No tiny-souled bureaucrats taking out their frustrations on productive people anymore. We wouldn't even need to punish those who would inevitably keep trying to establish a government of some sort. Keep them around to remind ourselves what has been tried and seen to fail time after time, for thousands of years. Study them like a smallpox virus. They are in reality much more deadly, but only if we choose to follow them.

"Supporting My Brothers"

I was reading an exchange between someone who is joining the military soon and some other people who were commenting on his decision. He was asked whether he supported the government or its war in Iraq (among other places). He replied that he did not. He said he was not joining the military in order to fight for the government or to "fight for freedom", but to "support (his) brothers" in the military. So, who are his "brothers" fighting for? If they are all just supporting one another then everyone is chasing their own tail. Someone somewhere is fighting for the government. After all, that is the organization which is signing the checks.

There are better ways to support your brothers. How about trying to get them home alive? Signing up for a war that serves only government interests does not "protect freedom" in America or anywhere else. Staying in America and fighting against the implementation of the US police state does. Bring your "brothers" home and then all of you surround DC to contain the malignancy that is centered there.

Need Evidence That I Am Crazy?

Here is a little "human interest story" for all of you Kent-watchers out there.

Dimensional shift makes man feel like he's not alone
Jason Offutt
The Examiner

Time is not always as it seems. The human invention of chronicling time by
the movement of the planet fits well with our linear lives, but sometimes things
aren't so linear.

Kent McManigal lived in his pet store in Gunnison, Colo., the spring of
2004 when he experienced something he couldn't explain.

Now, I will say there are a couple of details the reporter got wrong: The catalogs in question were for different, unaffiliated companies. The web address from the missing knife catalog was in my generic "favorites" folder but I had not moved it to its specific "favorites" folder yet. That was also confirmation that it was the newest "favorite" I had added. I don't know what the reporter means by this making me feel I am "not alone". I never felt anyone did this to me. As I have said before, I have never seen a report that got everything right.

Now, did I imagine this? Am I lying about it? All I can say in my defense is that I do not believe in supernatural occurrences, but I got the strangest feeling as soon as the odd events started to unfold. I don't have any explanation for what happened, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a rational explanation. At least I would never base national policy on or start wars because of bizarre events.

TOLFA: The Next Step

I have finished my studies with TOLFA (The On Line Freedom Academy). I think it is a very good concept, plus I enjoyed it. I really think that this could be a major help in educating people about the ideas of liberty. The more of us who go through this, the faster government will lose its veil of legitimacy. For my part, I pledge to keep encouraging people to "enroll". Please consider trying it out. If you have wondered what you can "do" to promote liberty, well, this is one thing. Let me know if you decide to try it.

"Get Your Filthy Government Off Me!"

I don't wish to have any coercive government in my life. It is completely unwelcome. I am expected to feed it; house it; obey its whims; excuse its "messes" and the "accidents" it leaves everywhere. I'd rather have a spoiled 4 year-old with a gun in my home than the "nicest" government agent or employee within sight of my house.

I don't need or want government's "justice system", "law enforcement", "services", or whatever else it tries to convince me I can't survive without. I would rather take my chances with free-lance criminals I can shoot at in a free, "anarchist" world than have government forcibly inserted into my life. I am fully capable of taking care of myself and of controlling my behavior. I do not depend on government to dictate my morality. Neither do you. Admit it: you know right from wrong, and if government suddenly dropped dead (happy thought!) you would not go on a killing spree would you? What about the truly bad people? You know, the ones not included in the governmental "dropping dead" mentioned above. You and I would be able to end a criminal's career if he foolishly thought that without government there to protect him he could get away with aggression, wouldn't we?

So, when do "we" start driving government from our lives? When does the foreign, occupying force known as government get handed notice that it is no longer welcome? The sooner the better. Don't you think?

Don't forget: Starve the terrorists of the ATF!

Owning Private Property

In a recent exchange, someone told me that they have similar views to mine except that they do not believe in "private property". He referred to himself as a "left anarchist" (there are those seemingly mutually exclusive terms again!). I invited a discussion since this is such a bizarre concept to me. Sadly, I have yet to hear back. I wanted, and still want, clarifications. Does he mean any kind of private property or only real estate? Does that mean I can live in "his" house with him? Or at least set my tipi up in "his" yard if I want to live there? Can just anyone use "his" car if they wish to? What if I browse around "his" house and take what I think I need? Does he really mean that nothing can be owned? How can you consume food if you can't own it? Where does that leave the foundation of libertarianism: that we each own our own bodies and lives? Can we even say "my own body" if we hold this belief? What would make someone come to this rather odd conclusion?

To be honest, I have always considered this type of argument to be the whinings of someone who doesn't own everything they want, so they declare that they are against private property for everyone. It is what makes a communist a communist. I concede that I could be wrong. I would like to own a lot more than I do, especially real estate. I feel it would be phony of me to be against private property.

Shunning: Exercise Your Right of Association

In my call to Starve the ATF, all I am suggesting you do is to exercise your basic right of association. You have the right to associate with anyone you want. You also have the right to refuse to associate with anyone you do not want around you - for any reason. You own yourself and you can (and should) choose who to let into your life. Your reasons may be good, or they may be stupid or racist, but the right is still yours. Others also have the right to choose to not associate with you, so don't engage in foolish shunnings lightly. Government tries to violate your right to associate with whom you choose in every way possible, usually by forcing its minions upon you. Shunning does not violate the ZAP in any way. Even if you choose to shun the family members who may be enabling the jack-booted behavior of ATF terrorists.

Some have suggested to me that to capture the agents' actions on video to shine the light of day on their behavior is a better, nicer, method of dealing with these vermin. I think surveillance can play a part in bringing them down, but I don't feel it is enough. You do what you feel is right of course, but please, do something.

Assume Liberty

In day-to-day situations we should be able to assume the default position of expecting liberty to be respected. This should be obvious. The problem is that under the US government and its local co-conspirators, liberty has become the aberration instead of the norm. Presumption of guilt has become the default setting. Instead of putting a gun in your pocket before going out of the house, you may worry about whether such a standard, common sense action is forbidden by the "authorities" in your area. Instead of simply doing some repairs to your home, you may feel the pressure to beg for a permit first. This is unconscionable. How was this allowed to happen? I don't know, but I do know it has got to change.

Not everything about the present day is bad, nor is everything about the past good. You have the power to recognize what to pick and choose from the glorious buffet of history. Toss out the tainted oysters of tyranny. Assume that liberty will be acknowledged and respected, and soon it will be again.


And don't forget: Starve the deviants of the ATF!

Tyrannofascism In America

Isn't it funny how the government twists the language to suit their agenda? They make up new nonsense words and phrases like "islamofascism" (which is self contradictory) and they redefine other words like "patriotism" and "insurgent" to mean the opposite of what they have always meant.
On the other hand, freedom fighters try to do the same thing, but without the help of the big media conglomerates who fall all over themselves to spread the newest government word. The word "hoplophobia" has been around for decades, but won't be heard on the nightly news or read in any big newspaper. It doesn't fit with their agenda.
We can have fun with this anyway. A few I have made up include "jabbut" (from the commonly used "JBT" or "jack booted thug"), "tyranny deniers" (those who refuse to see tyranny in the actions of government agencies, especially the IRS; as a counter to the phrase "tax deniers"), "counterfeit 'laws'" (any law which seeks to control something other than actual aggression), and "law pollution" (the state of having so many laws that they all become nothing more than clutter). The word "tyrannofascism" in the title seems very fitting to describe government. I am not sure if anyone has used it before; I couldn't find it in any online searches. It seems very self evident to me. I don't expect any of these to find their way into common speech, at least not with their original meaning.

Libertarian or...? So Many Labels!

After my screed on Left Libertarians and such I keep seeing debates about what labels we may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Labels divide us. I suppose I am a clumper. When asked, I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and probably more that I can't think of right now. I can find common ground among conspiracy theorists, minarchists, right-wing gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where any group member calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.

I usually simply stick with L. Neil Smith's definition of libertarianism: a libertarian is someone who lives by the ZAP (does not aggress upon others). Some people don't like this definition and have their own favorite. I know a fellow firefly (freedom outlaw) when I meet one. That is the important part.

"US Department of Theft" Loses Another One

Here is some good news in the fight against the US Department of Theft (also incorrectly known as the IRS): IRS Loses Challenge to Prove Tax Liability!