Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Two Wrongs Make a Policy?
Terrorism is always absolutely wrong, but "fighting" it by rejecting liberty and embracing tyranny is just as bad, or possibly worse. The reason it may be worse is that to do a great harm to a country's population while claiming it is for their own good is more dishonest than simply admitting that you hate them and will try to kill them. That kind of honesty coming out of DC would be refreshing for a change. The US government has become the terrorists they claim to be fighting. Do they think the terrorists will go away if they remove all difference between America and any other oppressive regime? Judging by the government's actions, they must. Is the government trying to remove the motivation for attacks? Remove all protections guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights like they have been doing and why would the terrorists attack again? Perhaps only because their tyrants are not the tyrants running the show.... yet. The actions of the US government are moving America rapidly in that direction. If not a Muslim theocracy; then a Police State. I don't buy into the lie that one is better than the other, and in fact the theocracy might be easier to convince the average apathetic American to take up arms against.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Something Awful
The folks over at the Something Awful forum have noticed me again. I have been called by a poster "UFO / evolution skeptic, libertarian, unemployed and violenty (sic) sociopathic Kent.". Wow. I'm not sure where he got that idea. OK, let me go down the list:
- I enjoy reading about UFOs, but I am very skeptical that they are being flown by extraterrestrial (or other-dimensional) visitors.
- I am not an "evolution skeptic". Evolution happens and has been scientifically demonstrated. What is there to be skeptical of?
- Libertarian? Yes.
- Unemployed? I am a stay-at-home dad. I guess that is "something awful".
- Violently sociopathic? Well, I have never hit or otherwise attacked anyone. I feel that most people are basically good. I rarely have any bad encounters with anyone. I trust people to do what is right unless government coercion is involved. I have lots of friends, and no enemies (that I know of). Or do they consider advocating univesal gun ownership to be "violently sociopathic"?
Make up your own mind, but if this is who you think I am, you really don't "get" me at all. That means I am not doing a very good job of communicating my ideas, and that is truly "something awful".
A Blueprint
From The Libertarian Enterprise comes this reprint of an idea to end the US Police State's victim disarmament schemes:
To end the kind of victim disarmament that annoys you most, you must end
all victim disarmament. To end all victim disarmament, you must end all
violations of the Bill of Rights, even those you may quietly approve of. To end
all violations of the Bill of Rights, you must end all forms of socialism.
Socialists got us where they want us by offering us "candy"—social security,
national health insurance, federal highways, national parks, public shooting
ranges. As painful as it may be, it's time for America to go on a diet. Read
more...
Sunday, September 09, 2007
ATV Laws "For the Children"
While watching Headline News in the middle of the night I saw a report on the growing (?) numbers of ATV injuries among young children. While I agree that it is a bad thing, I can't understand the knee-jerk reaction touted by everyone who spoke on-air that "there oughta be more laws!"
I am sure some kids are very capable of operating ATVs, while others have no business on one. One size does not fit all. Adults get killed and maimed in ATV accidents as well. Life is risky, remember? Teach your children how to handle a tool of any kind and they benefit. Forbid them from using it and their lives are cheapened. There is also the danger of them needing to use it in an emergency and being incapable.
Some people are stupid. When they reproduce, their children are under increased danger of being removed from the gene pool. That is a shame, but is no reason to punish the rest of society. Everyone does stupid things from time to time. Most of the time we "luck out" and don't suffer for it. Occasionally we get caught by the odds and pay heavily. If you pass laws that are supposedly to protect the children of irresponsible parents, they will find other ways to place their children in harm's way. You can not close every loophole. One unintended consequence of such "laws" is the "dumbing down" of the rest of society as well, making for more problems in the long run. Just like gun "laws" have done.
I am sure some kids are very capable of operating ATVs, while others have no business on one. One size does not fit all. Adults get killed and maimed in ATV accidents as well. Life is risky, remember? Teach your children how to handle a tool of any kind and they benefit. Forbid them from using it and their lives are cheapened. There is also the danger of them needing to use it in an emergency and being incapable.
Some people are stupid. When they reproduce, their children are under increased danger of being removed from the gene pool. That is a shame, but is no reason to punish the rest of society. Everyone does stupid things from time to time. Most of the time we "luck out" and don't suffer for it. Occasionally we get caught by the odds and pay heavily. If you pass laws that are supposedly to protect the children of irresponsible parents, they will find other ways to place their children in harm's way. You can not close every loophole. One unintended consequence of such "laws" is the "dumbing down" of the rest of society as well, making for more problems in the long run. Just like gun "laws" have done.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Protection From Government "Protection"
If you watch the television news you will begin to think that mortal danger lurks around every corner. Fear is the fashion of the moment. Of all the dangers in today's world, the one that seems to get completely ignored is the danger posed by the existence of government. Ignored by everyone except for cranks like me, that is.
When government gets me really angry is when it interferes with my ability to take care of myself and my family. Forcing me to leave behind my gun when I enter some place, which by the presence of metal detectors, has been admitted to be dangerous, is the most hostile manifestation of this. Government fans the flames of fear, yet imposes penalties on the normal person who takes steps to actually protect themselves and their families.
I understand that some people feel a need for a "big daddy government" or a "nanny state". I don't. The fact that government endangers me and my family by its very existence can make me a bit hostile. That gets back to the metal detectors and their "gun-free (in the hands of the right people, anyway) zones". You interfere with my ability to take care of the people I love, and you are my enemy. No excuses; no justifications. I am never afraid unless I am in an area surrounded by organs of the state who expect me to lay down my responsibilities and depend on their "good nature" and abilities. No one is able or motivated to protect me or my family as much as I am. The assumption that if I have a gun I am a "public menace" is absurd. It doesn't matter if I am in the courthouse, on a plane, or in a mall. I am not the problem. No cop or security guard will ever be as capable or willing to defend me and my family as I am. Period. Forcing me to be without my gun in these obviously dangerous places is an act of aggression against me. One that I will not forget or forgive.
When government gets me really angry is when it interferes with my ability to take care of myself and my family. Forcing me to leave behind my gun when I enter some place, which by the presence of metal detectors, has been admitted to be dangerous, is the most hostile manifestation of this. Government fans the flames of fear, yet imposes penalties on the normal person who takes steps to actually protect themselves and their families.
I understand that some people feel a need for a "big daddy government" or a "nanny state". I don't. The fact that government endangers me and my family by its very existence can make me a bit hostile. That gets back to the metal detectors and their "gun-free (in the hands of the right people, anyway) zones". You interfere with my ability to take care of the people I love, and you are my enemy. No excuses; no justifications. I am never afraid unless I am in an area surrounded by organs of the state who expect me to lay down my responsibilities and depend on their "good nature" and abilities. No one is able or motivated to protect me or my family as much as I am. The assumption that if I have a gun I am a "public menace" is absurd. It doesn't matter if I am in the courthouse, on a plane, or in a mall. I am not the problem. No cop or security guard will ever be as capable or willing to defend me and my family as I am. Period. Forcing me to be without my gun in these obviously dangerous places is an act of aggression against me. One that I will not forget or forgive.
Labels:
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
government,
guns,
liberty,
police state,
Property Rights,
responsibility,
Rights
Friday, September 07, 2007
Futility
Back to the forum discussion again, a person who claims to be a "former market anarchist" says that the reason he rejected his former position is that "market anarchism doesn't work". He claims that any system will always turn back into something indistinguishable from a government, and that "big projects" that need all of society working on them can't be accomplished with unanimous consent. Here is my response to him, and to anyone else who feels the same way:
I still don't agree with what I see as your very pessimistic view, but assuming you are correct, is there a way to form a society where someone like me can fit in, or should I find a cave where I can hide until I am rounded up and institutionalized as crazy?
Seriously, if your view is correct, what is the point of trying? Do you really think the growth of government will slow, stop, or reverse? Or will it keep getting bigger and more oppressive but "that's OK"? Government is getting more and more restrictive every year and, unless something stunningly unexpected occurs, will soon reach the point where it has pushed further than I can adapt. Everything I enjoy is becoming illegal or, because of regulations, too expensive or inconvenient for me to engage in. What kind of existence is that? Should I be ashamed of my "likes"? Should I get therapy to change the things I enjoy? Previous generations would not have thought I was doing anything wrong; only the current police state has a problem with me.
Do I just allow myself to be numbered, "chipped", disarmed, and loaded into the cattle car? Or is liberty something worth fighting for? Is "a little liberty" OK, within the confines of what an overbearing government will permit? Is that liberty at all or just privileges? Do people like me need to be eliminated so everyone else can go about their business building a perfect, fuzzy-safe police state? Where does it stop?
I still don't agree with what I see as your very pessimistic view, but assuming you are correct, is there a way to form a society where someone like me can fit in, or should I find a cave where I can hide until I am rounded up and institutionalized as crazy?
Seriously, if your view is correct, what is the point of trying? Do you really think the growth of government will slow, stop, or reverse? Or will it keep getting bigger and more oppressive but "that's OK"? Government is getting more and more restrictive every year and, unless something stunningly unexpected occurs, will soon reach the point where it has pushed further than I can adapt. Everything I enjoy is becoming illegal or, because of regulations, too expensive or inconvenient for me to engage in. What kind of existence is that? Should I be ashamed of my "likes"? Should I get therapy to change the things I enjoy? Previous generations would not have thought I was doing anything wrong; only the current police state has a problem with me.
Do I just allow myself to be numbered, "chipped", disarmed, and loaded into the cattle car? Or is liberty something worth fighting for? Is "a little liberty" OK, within the confines of what an overbearing government will permit? Is that liberty at all or just privileges? Do people like me need to be eliminated so everyone else can go about their business building a perfect, fuzzy-safe police state? Where does it stop?
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Human Nature
In some discussions I have had on some forums, I have come to the conclusion that one reason I feel anarchism is a viable "system" is that I think people are generally pretty decent. I also see that the people who feel that "freedom won't work in practice" think that people are generally just barely holding back their urge to kill everyone around them.
How do you view humans? As basically bad or basically good? I think that most people do seek out their own self interest, but not if it obviously hurts other people. If they find out they inadvertently hurt someone, they usually change their behavior. Most people also understand that it is in their best interest to not defraud or take unfair advantage of others. At least in my experience. There are obviously some truly evil people out there. Many of them seek government positions where they can use force to destroy lives and fortunes with less risk of repercussions. The others become freelance criminals (or just jerks).
There was a time when I truly thought the worst of people. I was a hermit at heart and wanted nothing to do with the rest of my species. Now I see that any negative experiences I was having were a direct result of my attitude. If you act like you expect that people are bad, they will respond accordingly. Likewise, if you expect that people are good, they will probably strive to live up to your expectations. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but be willing to protect your interests. In other words: Be nice and carry a gun.
This is why I see a great future for anarchism.
How do you view humans? As basically bad or basically good? I think that most people do seek out their own self interest, but not if it obviously hurts other people. If they find out they inadvertently hurt someone, they usually change their behavior. Most people also understand that it is in their best interest to not defraud or take unfair advantage of others. At least in my experience. There are obviously some truly evil people out there. Many of them seek government positions where they can use force to destroy lives and fortunes with less risk of repercussions. The others become freelance criminals (or just jerks).
There was a time when I truly thought the worst of people. I was a hermit at heart and wanted nothing to do with the rest of my species. Now I see that any negative experiences I was having were a direct result of my attitude. If you act like you expect that people are bad, they will respond accordingly. Likewise, if you expect that people are good, they will probably strive to live up to your expectations. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but be willing to protect your interests. In other words: Be nice and carry a gun.
This is why I see a great future for anarchism.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Hiding Behind Magical Portals
Courthouse metal detectors are designed to keep out the good people who are armed. A bad guy would just crash the door and start shooting. The best way to defend against that would be to have as many armed people inside as possible; ideally everyone inside should be armed. Obviously the people who work in courthouses and such are more afraid of honest people with guns than they are their competitor criminals. There is probably a good reason for this.
Much of what goes on behind those magical portals is rotten to the core and should be stopped. Rulings are made on a daily basis that are completely opposite of "liberty and justice for all". Juries are lied to and instructed to convict the defendant no matter how bogus the "law" may be. "The Law" must be upheld even as its fetid fluids drip down the arm of Justice. Real justice is swept aside while activist judges work to cripple any chance of freedom against the police state. It's no wonder the amoral beasts inside the courthouses feel safer with the layer of protection between them and us.
The metal detectors should be removed so that the authoritarians behind them would be more accountable for their actions. Of course, I feel that should be the case for every level of government. There is little danger of assassination if you do not spend your career destroying the lives and fortunes of the productive people in society. Since those who hide behind the magical anti-gun portals can't leave behind their life of parasitism and get an honest job, they fear us.
Much of what goes on behind those magical portals is rotten to the core and should be stopped. Rulings are made on a daily basis that are completely opposite of "liberty and justice for all". Juries are lied to and instructed to convict the defendant no matter how bogus the "law" may be. "The Law" must be upheld even as its fetid fluids drip down the arm of Justice. Real justice is swept aside while activist judges work to cripple any chance of freedom against the police state. It's no wonder the amoral beasts inside the courthouses feel safer with the layer of protection between them and us.
The metal detectors should be removed so that the authoritarians behind them would be more accountable for their actions. Of course, I feel that should be the case for every level of government. There is little danger of assassination if you do not spend your career destroying the lives and fortunes of the productive people in society. Since those who hide behind the magical anti-gun portals can't leave behind their life of parasitism and get an honest job, they fear us.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Demand a "Penalty Clause"
It is time for "The Penalty Clause". Recently I have read new writings from Bill St. Clair and L. Neil Smith calling again for a "penalty clause" in the Bill of Rights. The idea is that America needs a way to enforce the Bill of Rights against government predations. I have read of this idea several times and feel it is getting more critical all the time. I usually despise the very idea of any new "law". This is different. It would not affect anyone in any way unless that person chose to work in government "service". Don't want the law to apply to you; then stay out of government.
When some thug wanna-be gets a job with the government, or takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, they need to understand that they have an obligation to really obey that law. Not "interpret it" as they wish it to be, but to live and work within the very clear, plain language that sets down absolute boundaries limiting what they are allowed, under the law, to do. They need to realize that if caught violating the Bill of Rights there will be definite, personally painful, punishments. No hiding within the bureaucracy for them anymore. No hiding behind some corrupt judge's ruling that the Bill of Rights doesn't mean what it actually says.
The Constitution is by no means the "be all - end all" of liberty. I did not agree to submit in any way to the government it established. Still, it is a good way to illustrate that the monsters in DC have completely turned their backs on America and pledged allegiance the US Police State. The government hates liberty. They won't even stay within the bounds of the neutered liberty allowed by the Constitution, much less real freedom. Let's force them to show their true colors by demanding that the Penalty Clause be enacted.
Under this new system the BATFE would no longer be a dangerous threat to peaceful Americans, but would be running for their pathetic lives; knowing that their treason was no longer protected by counterfeit "laws" and collaborators in Congress.
So until we can jail the BATFE, let's starve those traitors.
When some thug wanna-be gets a job with the government, or takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, they need to understand that they have an obligation to really obey that law. Not "interpret it" as they wish it to be, but to live and work within the very clear, plain language that sets down absolute boundaries limiting what they are allowed, under the law, to do. They need to realize that if caught violating the Bill of Rights there will be definite, personally painful, punishments. No hiding within the bureaucracy for them anymore. No hiding behind some corrupt judge's ruling that the Bill of Rights doesn't mean what it actually says.
The Constitution is by no means the "be all - end all" of liberty. I did not agree to submit in any way to the government it established. Still, it is a good way to illustrate that the monsters in DC have completely turned their backs on America and pledged allegiance the US Police State. The government hates liberty. They won't even stay within the bounds of the neutered liberty allowed by the Constitution, much less real freedom. Let's force them to show their true colors by demanding that the Penalty Clause be enacted.
Under this new system the BATFE would no longer be a dangerous threat to peaceful Americans, but would be running for their pathetic lives; knowing that their treason was no longer protected by counterfeit "laws" and collaborators in Congress.
So until we can jail the BATFE, let's starve those traitors.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Blog Anniversary
Today is the one-year anniversary of my blog. In the beginning I was very hesitant to start blogging. I didn't think there was any way I could come up with much to write about. I guess that fear was unfounded.
If you have been reading from the beginning, or have gone back through the archives, you have gotten to know me better than you may have wanted. I tried to keep my personal life completely out of the blog while I was actively campaigning. Recently, I have let that self-imposed prohibition slide.
I hope you have enjoyed reading my thoughts, whether you agreed with them or not. I also hope that in some small way, the words I have written have made someone, somewhere decide to embrace liberty in a way they would have never considered before.
Thanks for reading!
If you have been reading from the beginning, or have gone back through the archives, you have gotten to know me better than you may have wanted. I tried to keep my personal life completely out of the blog while I was actively campaigning. Recently, I have let that self-imposed prohibition slide.
I hope you have enjoyed reading my thoughts, whether you agreed with them or not. I also hope that in some small way, the words I have written have made someone, somewhere decide to embrace liberty in a way they would have never considered before.
Thanks for reading!
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Keep Your Filthy Government Off My Child!
This past week was an eventful week, to say the least. It has been educational as well. I feel that the hospital employees and doctors did a fine job of caring for my girfriend and our new baby. There was only one think I take issue with, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of care they received. With the new baby, I see that the hospital staff makes the assumption that every child will be numbered and signed up for Uncle Sugar's handouts. Refusing completely bewilders them. They just keep pushing and pushing and then saying "Do you mind if I ask why?" Yes, actually I do mind. Why must I sign my child over to the state? When did the assumption that your baby belonged to you and you were going to take care of her by yourself die out in America?
Saturday, September 01, 2007
The USA's Political Prisoners
It used to be that people in prison were there for actually doing something bad. Whether they were guilty or not is a different issue, but they had been convicted of committing some act of force or fraud against an innocent, individual, victim. Not so anymore. Now while there are still bad people in prison, the average prisoner is strictly a political prisoner, convicted of violating some nonsense "law" and "victimizing" the government which falsely poses as "society".
Things that should be treated as a medical or emotional problems, like severe addictions, are punished in harsh ways, causing innocent lives to be destroyed. Not submitting to the government's theft schemes is a big no-no today. Caesar must be given tribute. Things like peaceful gun ownership are punished with draconian penalties that would have been ridiculously unthinkable a generation ago, even though the "law enforcement culture" was not that good even then.
There is also the problem of the average juror not knowing their responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. In this way, many people who deserve no punishment are railroaded into prison by corrupt judges who work for the government; the very government which is the problem. What do they say about letting the fox guard the henhouse?
We all need to stop automatically thinking of people in prison as criminals. Now that the criminals run the "justice system", the distinction is rather dicey.
Things that should be treated as a medical or emotional problems, like severe addictions, are punished in harsh ways, causing innocent lives to be destroyed. Not submitting to the government's theft schemes is a big no-no today. Caesar must be given tribute. Things like peaceful gun ownership are punished with draconian penalties that would have been ridiculously unthinkable a generation ago, even though the "law enforcement culture" was not that good even then.
There is also the problem of the average juror not knowing their responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. In this way, many people who deserve no punishment are railroaded into prison by corrupt judges who work for the government; the very government which is the problem. What do they say about letting the fox guard the henhouse?
We all need to stop automatically thinking of people in prison as criminals. Now that the criminals run the "justice system", the distinction is rather dicey.
Labels:
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
drugs,
government,
guns,
jury nullification,
Law Pollution,
liberty,
police state,
society
Friday, August 31, 2007
Best Laid Plans....
I am really sorry I missed oput on the Ammo Day/Exercise-Your-Gun-Rights-Day celebration. My new daughter chose that day to be born. It was a pretty nice trade off. Maybe it is a sign of her future hobby. I hope someone bought some extra rounds on my account!
I am so far behind on all the news that I may not catch up. Have patience with me, please.
I am so far behind on all the news that I may not catch up. Have patience with me, please.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Tomorrow is "The Day" - Buy Ammo
Don't forget: Tomorrow, August 28th is the day to buy ammo. Let's clean the store shelves to send the Brady Mass-Murderers Fan Club a clear message.
Societal Fairness vs. Authoritarianism
Whatever you wish to call my philosophy, libertarianism, anarchism, impractical simpleton-ism, it is the only one I have found that is completely consistent. I never take any rights or liberties that I do not also assume for everyone else. To me this shows that it is the best. There are no rivals.
I try to answer any and all objections to my views. I listen to the arguments against them, but I have never run across any argument that does not include some type of justification or exception where priviliged groups or classes of people are allowed to do things that are prohibited to other, less elite, people in the society. If the "lesser" people have been conditioned to expect this foul treatment, they may not notice it. Even if they do notice they may not complain because "this is the way it has always been done".
This strikes me as "unfair". How do you like that word? I know that life is not fair. Good people sometimes die young of terrible diseases, while a child molester may live into old age. A car wreck can kill the sober mother of three, while the drunk politician walks away unhurt. That is life in the universe. Where I expect fairness is where people make a conscious choice in some matter. The universe does not care, but people should.
When designing a political system to base a society upon, it should be set up in a fair way. A choice is being made. There should not be certain people who are officially allowed to steal while it is forbidden of others. There should not be a special class of people who can walk around with guns for the safety of themselves and others while everyone else is expected to be a potential victim, waiting to be rescued. The same rule or rules must apply to everyone in that society, from the exalted Decider to the "lowliest" gum scraper. Otherwise, keep looking for a better system.
I try to answer any and all objections to my views. I listen to the arguments against them, but I have never run across any argument that does not include some type of justification or exception where priviliged groups or classes of people are allowed to do things that are prohibited to other, less elite, people in the society. If the "lesser" people have been conditioned to expect this foul treatment, they may not notice it. Even if they do notice they may not complain because "this is the way it has always been done".
This strikes me as "unfair". How do you like that word? I know that life is not fair. Good people sometimes die young of terrible diseases, while a child molester may live into old age. A car wreck can kill the sober mother of three, while the drunk politician walks away unhurt. That is life in the universe. Where I expect fairness is where people make a conscious choice in some matter. The universe does not care, but people should.
When designing a political system to base a society upon, it should be set up in a fair way. A choice is being made. There should not be certain people who are officially allowed to steal while it is forbidden of others. There should not be a special class of people who can walk around with guns for the safety of themselves and others while everyone else is expected to be a potential victim, waiting to be rescued. The same rule or rules must apply to everyone in that society, from the exalted Decider to the "lowliest" gum scraper. Otherwise, keep looking for a better system.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Peace Officers or Law Enforcement Officers?
Back when there existed the "peace officers" there was no widespread hatred of cops. Now that there are "Law Enforcement Officers" instead, there is. Why is that? The cops would probably say it is because our society has degenerated into one where no one in "authority" is respected. Or that "drugs" have made society more dangerous. Is it possible that the cops themselves, with their grossly inflated attitudes of authority, could be to blame? If you walk into an area with a swagger, hand on the butt of your gun (wearing those leather biker gloves, of course) acting like you are looking for trouble... well... why should you be surprised when trouble finds you? People generally don't like trouble-makers. On an instinctive level most people are coming to view cops primarily as trouble-makers. Trouble makers of the worst kind because they have a near immunity from the consequences of their actions. Shoot an innocent person: it looked like he was going for a gun. Kick in the wrong door: they acted on good faith that the information was correct. Examples abound. Only the most blatant examples of "bad cops" get punished in any meaningful way. And then, if there is a way to "justify" the criminal actions, it will be found. The cops who disarmed the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina should have been dealt with like any other violent home-invading thief. Yet they still live (for the most part) and go about their "jobs" as if they committed no crimes. Many people are also beginning to recognize the absurdity of the majority of "laws". If a law must be enforced it is probably not a good law to begin with. Those enforcing the bad laws are themselves a huge part of the problem. "Just doing my job" didn't cut it in the past and will not cut it in the future. Think about that, Officer.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Campfire Lessons

There are many hours I have spent around a campfire. With friends, my kids, and alone. From time to time I took a good book with me. I suppose some people might think I am wasting my time sitting there.... talking, daydreaming, even napping. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the way that sleep, with dreaming during REM sleep, clears the cobwebs out of your mind, these campfire times clear the garbage from my soul.
There is something about a campfire that reaches a primal part of your being that nothing else can. I take it a step further by usually wearing buckskin clothes, only using primitive methods to start the fire, and surrounding myself with things that I enjoy. I had built a wikiup beside the river, behind my house. In front of its door I had a small firepit and some driftwood logs arranged around the fire to sit on. There was a tripod I set up to hang my rifle and whatever else I had with me upon. Truly a sanctuary from the dreary aspects of modern life.
I remember the day 10 years ago when I was sitting at my fire when a friend of mine came up and told me that John Denver had died in a plane crash. I had just been riding along in a car the day before singing his song "Grandma's Feather Bed" with my sister.
I watched the year 2000 come in while dressed in buckskins beside my fire. I wouldn't have known when midnight arrived except that I began to hear gunshots and fireworks. That was the best way I could think of to bring in the year 2000.
I had heart-to-heart talks with both of my kids there. Times that are precious to me for the simple fact that they were forced to stop so suddenly. I used to make up silly stories for my daughter that she still mentions occasionally.
There were a few times that sudden rain made me retreat into my wikiup, where I usually fell asleep. Snowstorms - I either sat in the wikiup or just let myself get covered. The voles who also enjoyed my wikiup were like slightly annoying friends when I was napping.
I had some fun times with girls beside the campfire (and in the wikiup), too. I'll spare you the details. ;)
My friends knew that when they came to my house, they should check out by the wikiup first before going to the door. They knew where I was more likely to be.
I have worked out some of my life's deep questions, and honed my philosophy of life and liberty, around those fires. I've daydreamed myself into trouble there, too. My current situation prevents me from indulging in this activity right now.... and I feel it.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Hung Up On the Details
I know, I do this too. I see a lot of people getting all excited over the one detail that is their particular "specialty". Whether it is precise language usage, knowing exactly how "X" will work in a free society, or "but what about the children/handicapped/sick?", it seems something always detours freedom fighters from the road to Libertopia. These things may be really important. The problem occurs when or if they distract us from our true goal: unfettered liberty. Am I just imagining that this is the goal? Am I speaking out of turn? If this is not your goal, I apologize for presuming to speak for you.
Why do these detours happen? Part of the reason is that, in general, freedom oriented folks are more intelligent than the average person who is content to be told what to eat, how to dress, and when to pee. They have to be in order to survive in the midst of authoritarian society. Yes, there are some dimwits among the fireflies, but they are more rare in this movement than they are in the general population. That intelligence means fireflies can get caught up in details more easily.
I get bogged down in absolutely refusing to accept any limits on my right to own and to carry any weapon I wish. Then there are those who run up against this insistence and get bogged down in worry that I will stick a nuke in my hip pocket and stroll through the mall. (How about I make the promise right now that I will never attempt to own a nuclear weapon? Now, stay out of my gun cabinet, OK?) I also get tangled in my firm insistence that all taxation is theft and is never right under any circumstance. I am sure there are more examples.
I can overlook or forgive a lot as long as you are moving in my direction. I hope you would give me the same courtesy. If you wish to stop before I have reached my destination, I will not hold it against you as long as you don't try to force me to stop when you do. You might just discover you want to come along anyway.
Why do these detours happen? Part of the reason is that, in general, freedom oriented folks are more intelligent than the average person who is content to be told what to eat, how to dress, and when to pee. They have to be in order to survive in the midst of authoritarian society. Yes, there are some dimwits among the fireflies, but they are more rare in this movement than they are in the general population. That intelligence means fireflies can get caught up in details more easily.
I get bogged down in absolutely refusing to accept any limits on my right to own and to carry any weapon I wish. Then there are those who run up against this insistence and get bogged down in worry that I will stick a nuke in my hip pocket and stroll through the mall. (How about I make the promise right now that I will never attempt to own a nuclear weapon? Now, stay out of my gun cabinet, OK?) I also get tangled in my firm insistence that all taxation is theft and is never right under any circumstance. I am sure there are more examples.
I can overlook or forgive a lot as long as you are moving in my direction. I hope you would give me the same courtesy. If you wish to stop before I have reached my destination, I will not hold it against you as long as you don't try to force me to stop when you do. You might just discover you want to come along anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
