National borders are imaginary lines on a map that people are willing to kill and die to keep imagining. I know a lot of people disagree with me on this issue. I am not looking to get into an argument over it; just explain how I think, and why. I have heard all the opposing points, at least I think I have, but they ring hollow to me.
I am not talking about natural physical boundaries like rivers and mountain ranges, or different zones like deserts or forests. These can make real differences in the needs of the people who live there. Those differences can be worked out through cooperation and compromise and trade. I am talking about lines on a map that cut through the natural zones and ignore natural boundaries. Lines that can force different cultures together or separate one culture. Lines that ignore realities of different needs and goals for the purpose of unifying under one authority people who might choose to form a culture of their own. This ignores the basic right of association.
I think national borders are harmful to liberty. Why do they exist?
Is it because our laws are better than the laws across the border? Since almost every single law in any country is absolute nonsense, that can't be the reason.
Is it because "our flag" is better than "theirs"? Its colors are more noble or its design divinely inspired? That is a silly reason to give up your liberty.
Is it because "those people" are genetically inferior to "us". Maybe their IQs are really low and they can barely breathe without help... or maybe they are too smart and would make us feel stupid if they came here.
Is it because their culture is despicable? "They behave like animals and eat their enemy's babies, after all". "They breed like rabbits and overrun the countryside, destroying everything in their paths, like locusts, ya know". "Our culture can't survive if it is exposed to theirs." If a culture can't survive exposure to another culture, it is probably not worth saving.
Is it because their god and his followers are evil? If that is the case, shouldn't your good god be able to defend you against them, with or without lines on a map? Followers of the same god never fight amongst themselves, do they? Is it excusable to be murdered if your attacker follows the same god you do?
Is it to keep terrorists from infiltrating our towns and killing us? Without the government helping terrorists by disarming the population, there would be no real danger.
Do the borders have value because "our" government is honorable and just while theirs is a genocidal tyranny? After Waco (killing people because of their religion), Ruby Ridge (killing people because a gun is 1/8 inch "too short"), Wayne Fincher (kidnapping a non-violent man for owning guns specifically protected by the Bill of Rights), Ed Brown (kidnapping a family for wanting to keep their own money and property), WWII internment camps for Americans of Japanese descent (kidnapping people because of their race), The War on Some Drugs (kidnapping and killing people over the chemicals they choose to ingest), and too many other examples to mention, I have my doubts about any moral high ground here.
No, my belief is that the only value of "national borders" is to be found in governmental control. Borders allow governments to control all the people who live inside the lines. It gives them an excuse to send people to their deaths against the people across the lines. Governments need a "them" to unite the people against in fear; borders empower that. Forcing people to get permission to cross those lines allows governments to keep prisoners and gather information on, and even physically search those who are allowed to cross. Borders are a great psychological tool for people control. I just don't buy into the propaganda.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Racism is Wrong
My recent shock at running into an openly (though self-deluded) racist blogger was an eye-opener. After getting involved in libertarianism and anarchism I had forgotten that such people existed. Everyone has a "right to be wrong"about how they think. That is not the issue. The issue is when you begin advocating actions and trying to spread your hatred based on those wrong ideas. Racism is wrong. Treating someone as a second-class person because of their race is wrong. Giving anyone "special perks" based on their race is wrong. Making an issue of race at all is ridiculous; just as it is to make an issue of sex or sexual orientation , or which side of an imaginary national border you were born on.
Based as it is on absolute self-ownership and non-aggression, libertarianism can not act in racist ways without violating its own core values. You can't be fighting for freedom if you are making an issue of someone's race. Authoritarianism, however, based as it is on a small group controlling the rest of society, thrives on racism. It helps to keep people angry, resentful, suspicious, and hateful if you want to be able to pass endless laws against the "them" of either side. Therefore they endlessly fan the flames of racism, seeing it everywhere except in their own behaviour. Don't empower authoritarians by falling for this trick. Judge people on their actions. That is what counts, not silly things like how much melanin is in the outer layers of their skin. If you want to hate me, hate me for the choices I make and the ideas I hold, not my genetic makeup.
Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they want for any reason. It is not within governmental authority to control this. Personal responsibility and Darwinian selection will be much more effective in the long run, anyway. Don't expect others to treat you fairly or rise to defend you if you are hateful to any particular genetic group. If there are people out there calling themselves "libertarians" while advocating racist views, they are doing harm to the cause of liberty. They can not really be libertarians. If this is you, please do us all a favor and admit you are an authoritarian. Liberty has no place for your sickness.
Based as it is on absolute self-ownership and non-aggression, libertarianism can not act in racist ways without violating its own core values. You can't be fighting for freedom if you are making an issue of someone's race. Authoritarianism, however, based as it is on a small group controlling the rest of society, thrives on racism. It helps to keep people angry, resentful, suspicious, and hateful if you want to be able to pass endless laws against the "them" of either side. Therefore they endlessly fan the flames of racism, seeing it everywhere except in their own behaviour. Don't empower authoritarians by falling for this trick. Judge people on their actions. That is what counts, not silly things like how much melanin is in the outer layers of their skin. If you want to hate me, hate me for the choices I make and the ideas I hold, not my genetic makeup.
Everyone has the right to associate with whoever they want for any reason. It is not within governmental authority to control this. Personal responsibility and Darwinian selection will be much more effective in the long run, anyway. Don't expect others to treat you fairly or rise to defend you if you are hateful to any particular genetic group. If there are people out there calling themselves "libertarians" while advocating racist views, they are doing harm to the cause of liberty. They can not really be libertarians. If this is you, please do us all a favor and admit you are an authoritarian. Liberty has no place for your sickness.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Racist "Libertarians"? No Way.
I ran across a blog where libertarians are being called "racists" and "white separatists". That is disgusting and dead wrong. The blogger is just an authoritarian (he calls himself an "independent left journalist") who is completely ignorant of libertarianism, but this type of nonsense could undermine the very message of libertarianism. A racist is someone, anyone, who makes an issue of race. Just like he did in his blog post. Authoritarianism, whether of the "left" or "right", is racist. It depends on the tactic of "divide and conquer". Libertarianism is an open door, open to all who do not attack or defraud others, regardless of anything else. Only a racist could infer racism from that.
He claims to be reading all these "racist libertarian blogs". Investigative journalism of the lazy kind, apparently. I have no doubt that there may be racists who try to claim they are libertarian, but that does not make it true. I can claim to be a rabbit, after all. In his last response, before "shutting down the conversation", he says that I am not a libertarian. He then says I am just an example of "more vulgar far right capitalist libertarianism". This socialist ("independent left") racist doesn't recognize libertarianism when he steps right into the middle of it since it doesn't fit his prejudiced notions of what he incorrectly, or dishonestly, wants to believe libertarianism to be.
He claims to be reading all these "racist libertarian blogs". Investigative journalism of the lazy kind, apparently. I have no doubt that there may be racists who try to claim they are libertarian, but that does not make it true. I can claim to be a rabbit, after all. In his last response, before "shutting down the conversation", he says that I am not a libertarian. He then says I am just an example of "more vulgar far right capitalist libertarianism". This socialist ("independent left") racist doesn't recognize libertarianism when he steps right into the middle of it since it doesn't fit his prejudiced notions of what he incorrectly, or dishonestly, wants to believe libertarianism to be.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Ron Paul CafePress Yard Signs
As a service to my favorite Demopublican"opponent", I have added some yard signs to my CafePress shop promoting Ron Paul. Check them out.
Why "Guns"?
Pierre, this is for you. You say you don't understand my "worship" of guns. There was a time long ago when even I didn't understand it. I wondered if I were wrong. Perhaps I should just go along with the winds of change. After all, it seemed that everywhere I turned, guns were demonized and blamed for everything from crime to suicide. I began to study the facts, and look at history. I finally came to some conclusions. You may not agree with my views, but I would like to explain myself to you. Other readers may wonder the same thing, so here is the question: Why is it that I obsess over guns?
They are, after all, only tools, right? Yes, and no. They are tools, but they are so much more. They are not "good" or "bad", though they can be used in good ways or bad ways. They can be used to hunt food in situations where the supply train has broken down. They can be used to defend oneself from criminals. They can be used for recreational purposes. The second use for guns, even more important than as simple tools, is as a psychological weapon. The main reason I obsess over them is that my enemies, the statists and authoritarians worldwide, also obsess over them. They obsess over keeping me from having and effectively using them. They obsess over demonizing them in the minds of the people who don't quite understand the importance of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) guns. Their obsession feeds my determination to never surrender my guns. Not if they threaten, beg, or continue to brainwash the rest of the world that "no one needs guns in the 21st century". Guns in the hands of the private population is a great psychological lever to use against tyrants. Voting, protesting, educating, and agitating will only go so far. When government gets out of control, there is only one solution. I intend to keep my options open. As long as governments exist, there will be a dire need for guns and people willing and able to effectively use them against tyrants.
They are, after all, only tools, right? Yes, and no. They are tools, but they are so much more. They are not "good" or "bad", though they can be used in good ways or bad ways. They can be used to hunt food in situations where the supply train has broken down. They can be used to defend oneself from criminals. They can be used for recreational purposes. The second use for guns, even more important than as simple tools, is as a psychological weapon. The main reason I obsess over them is that my enemies, the statists and authoritarians worldwide, also obsess over them. They obsess over keeping me from having and effectively using them. They obsess over demonizing them in the minds of the people who don't quite understand the importance of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) guns. Their obsession feeds my determination to never surrender my guns. Not if they threaten, beg, or continue to brainwash the rest of the world that "no one needs guns in the 21st century". Guns in the hands of the private population is a great psychological lever to use against tyrants. Voting, protesting, educating, and agitating will only go so far. When government gets out of control, there is only one solution. I intend to keep my options open. As long as governments exist, there will be a dire need for guns and people willing and able to effectively use them against tyrants.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Don't Waste Your Vote on Demopublicans
It is the season of political ads. I hear a lot of "Vote for me and I'll turn this city/county/country around" or "Tired of 'business as usual'? Then vote for me!" New & Improved "but-that's-not-all-you-also-get" Hogwash!
Do they really think there is a bit of difference between themselves and the other authoriturd-wanna-bes they are running against? Are they hucksters trying to sell you a load? The Demopublicans spend a lot of time and advertising money trying to convince voters that they are really different from their opponent. Don't buy it. Unless the person running for office is a libertarian, they are exactly the same as every other Demopublican who has held that office for the last several decades. Authoritarian control-freaks one and all.
Do they think it is OK for government to steal your money for "public projects" or government programs? Is the only difference betweencriminals, I mean "candidates", in how they want to use your stolen money? They are nothing but tax predators.
Do they respect the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, in any way they wish, openly or concealed, wherever they desire? If not, what are they afraid of? What is it that they wish to do to you that you would not submit to if you were able to defend yourself? Even giving the benefit of a doubt, the nicest conclusion is that they do not trust YOU and deserve no trust from you.
Do they support The War on (some) Drugs with all its abominable human rights violations? Then they think rights are negotiable and disposable. No one with this paleolithic attitude should ever have any authority over another human's life.
If you choose to vote on this coming election day, DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE by voting for more of the same authoriturds. Either vote for libertarians or do America a favor and sleep in on election day.
Do they really think there is a bit of difference between themselves and the other authoriturd-wanna-bes they are running against? Are they hucksters trying to sell you a load? The Demopublicans spend a lot of time and advertising money trying to convince voters that they are really different from their opponent. Don't buy it. Unless the person running for office is a libertarian, they are exactly the same as every other Demopublican who has held that office for the last several decades. Authoritarian control-freaks one and all.
Do they think it is OK for government to steal your money for "public projects" or government programs? Is the only difference between
Do they respect the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, in any way they wish, openly or concealed, wherever they desire? If not, what are they afraid of? What is it that they wish to do to you that you would not submit to if you were able to defend yourself? Even giving the benefit of a doubt, the nicest conclusion is that they do not trust YOU and deserve no trust from you.
Do they support The War on (some) Drugs with all its abominable human rights violations? Then they think rights are negotiable and disposable. No one with this paleolithic attitude should ever have any authority over another human's life.
If you choose to vote on this coming election day, DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE by voting for more of the same authoriturds. Either vote for libertarians or do America a favor and sleep in on election day.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Remember the Fifth of November
Regardless of the historical beginnings of the day's importance, it is clear that "the 5th of November" should become (and has become, to some degree) our new Independence Day. In light of that, Andrew G. Eggleston Sr. has adapted V's speech for this week's issue of The Libertarian Enterprise. I reprint it here:
"Hello freedom loving peoples everywhere.
Allow me first to apologize for intruding on your day. . .
I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine. . . the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition.
I enjoy them as much as any of us.
But in the spirit of commemoration. . . whereby important events of the past. . . usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful, bloody struggle are celebrated with a nice holiday.
I thought we could mark this November the 5th (Guy Fawkes Day). . . a day that is, sadly, no longer remembered by taking time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak.
In the near future, orders may be shouted into telephones and men with guns would soon be on their way.
Why? Because while the riot club, tear gas and water hoses may be used instead of conversation - words will always retain their power.
Words offer the means to meaning and, for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
And the truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression, and where once you had the freedom to object, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", to think, act and speak as you saw fit - you now have legislation restricting you and moneyed interests controlling the mass media and impromptu searches and surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting submission.
How did this happen? Who's to blame?
Certainly there are those who are more responsible than others.
And they will be held accountable.
But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid.
Who wouldn't be with; escalating crime rates, war, disease, 9-11, Oklahoma City, Waco, Columbine High School.
There were a myriad of problems, which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you, and in your panic, you turned to the United States Government, currently presided-over by George W. Bush.
They promised you order, they promised you protection, they promised you peace and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Now we should seek to end that consent, the USA Patriot Act is a complete infringement upon your rights as an American under the Bill of Rights. The Central Government has removed your rights, declaring how you will act, speak, and think. They will listen to your personal phone conversations between you and your family, friends, or lover. They will tap into your computer and hack into everything about you, they will listen to your intimate conversations that take place in the privacy of your own home. And when they have decided you are a significant enough threat, they will break down your door and point guns into your face until you do what they say.
More than 400 years ago, a great citizen wished to imbed the 5th of November forever in the memory of free people everywhere.
Guy Fawkes hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words.
They are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this Central Government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the 5th of November to pass unmarked.
But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, and remember that the 5th of November should never, ever be forgot."
"Hello freedom loving peoples everywhere.
Allow me first to apologize for intruding on your day. . .
I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of the everyday routine. . . the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition.
I enjoy them as much as any of us.
But in the spirit of commemoration. . . whereby important events of the past. . . usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful, bloody struggle are celebrated with a nice holiday.
I thought we could mark this November the 5th (Guy Fawkes Day). . . a day that is, sadly, no longer remembered by taking time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are, of course, those who do not want us to speak.
In the near future, orders may be shouted into telephones and men with guns would soon be on their way.
Why? Because while the riot club, tear gas and water hoses may be used instead of conversation - words will always retain their power.
Words offer the means to meaning and, for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
And the truth is there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression, and where once you had the freedom to object, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", to think, act and speak as you saw fit - you now have legislation restricting you and moneyed interests controlling the mass media and impromptu searches and surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting submission.
How did this happen? Who's to blame?
Certainly there are those who are more responsible than others.
And they will be held accountable.
But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it.
I know you were afraid.
Who wouldn't be with; escalating crime rates, war, disease, 9-11, Oklahoma City, Waco, Columbine High School.
There were a myriad of problems, which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.
Fear got the best of you, and in your panic, you turned to the United States Government, currently presided-over by George W. Bush.
They promised you order, they promised you protection, they promised you peace and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.
Now we should seek to end that consent, the USA Patriot Act is a complete infringement upon your rights as an American under the Bill of Rights. The Central Government has removed your rights, declaring how you will act, speak, and think. They will listen to your personal phone conversations between you and your family, friends, or lover. They will tap into your computer and hack into everything about you, they will listen to your intimate conversations that take place in the privacy of your own home. And when they have decided you are a significant enough threat, they will break down your door and point guns into your face until you do what they say.
More than 400 years ago, a great citizen wished to imbed the 5th of November forever in the memory of free people everywhere.
Guy Fawkes hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice and freedom are more than words.
They are perspectives.
So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this Central Government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest that you allow the 5th of November to pass unmarked.
But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me, and remember that the 5th of November should never, ever be forgot."
Predatory Candidates
Reading the website for a local candidate for sheriff, it is easy to get discouraged. Is this the best "we" can do? Obviously this clown is not remotely worthy/libertarian. Almost every single "pledge" this person makes is based on the enforcement of counterfeit "laws". He is almost giddy at the prospect of "cracking down" on drugs and alcohol. Even the promises he makes that do not involve such "law enforcement" are way outside the legitimate authority of anyone in government, such as "fighting for our youth" and "helping them". He even pledges to seek more stolen ("tax") money for the "benefit" of the county. Shouldn't a sheriff recognize that accepting these stolen funds from the federal and state tax-predators corrupts him? Completely sickening. Especially considering that the incumbent is just as bad. I am glad that I do not seek leadership from these people; I would be lost if I did.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Shunning Experiences
I have been on the receiving end of this ancient practice several times in my life. Even my recent experience with pseudo-patriot Roy and the rental house qualifies, although he should have reimbursed all the money spent for the last-minute aborted move.
A little over a year ago I was on a long road trip and a motel refused to rent to me. I am not sure if it was my appearance, the fact I was paying cash, or the fact that there was some confusion while getting the room which seemed to unnerve the desk clerk. Either way, while irritating, it was the right of the clerk to decide not to rent to us. She said "I think you should go somewhere else. I have a bad feeling about you." Now it is kind of funny to me. After a long hard day of driving, it really wasn't.
You and I have an absolute right to associate, or not, with anyone for any reason. We may be justified, or we may be wrong. No government agency or "law" can ever abrogate this right, no matter how severe the penalties.
I encourage the use of shunning against the thugs of the BATFE, and pretty much any other government employees who advocate or enforce counterfeit "laws". Even if it means that I will sometimes fall victim to the tactic. It is a small price to pay for self-determination.
A little over a year ago I was on a long road trip and a motel refused to rent to me. I am not sure if it was my appearance, the fact I was paying cash, or the fact that there was some confusion while getting the room which seemed to unnerve the desk clerk. Either way, while irritating, it was the right of the clerk to decide not to rent to us. She said "I think you should go somewhere else. I have a bad feeling about you." Now it is kind of funny to me. After a long hard day of driving, it really wasn't.
You and I have an absolute right to associate, or not, with anyone for any reason. We may be justified, or we may be wrong. No government agency or "law" can ever abrogate this right, no matter how severe the penalties.
I encourage the use of shunning against the thugs of the BATFE, and pretty much any other government employees who advocate or enforce counterfeit "laws". Even if it means that I will sometimes fall victim to the tactic. It is a small price to pay for self-determination.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Computers Get Sick, Too
My computer has picked up a nasty virus, so I am using someone else's right now. Posting may be spotty until/unless I can get things straightened out. Can I scream in frustration?
This has made me think.... What is the crime that computer virus "Typhoid Mary"s commit? I suppose it qualifies as fraud. It certainly isn't "victimless". Would I be justified in shooting the person who created this virus? I wouldn't take my chances if I were him.
I would like to see a computer "corbomite device" that would reflect and amplify any hacking or virus attempt, sending a pulse of destructive energy right back at the attacking computer, in this case some website with the domain name "safenavweb.com". That would be satisfying right now. Hey, let me dream. It alleviates the irritation a little.
This has made me think.... What is the crime that computer virus "Typhoid Mary"s commit? I suppose it qualifies as fraud. It certainly isn't "victimless". Would I be justified in shooting the person who created this virus? I wouldn't take my chances if I were him.
I would like to see a computer "corbomite device" that would reflect and amplify any hacking or virus attempt, sending a pulse of destructive energy right back at the attacking computer, in this case some website with the domain name "safenavweb.com". That would be satisfying right now. Hey, let me dream. It alleviates the irritation a little.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
People of the Gun
I finally got my picture added to the People of the Gun webpage. If you are brave (or foolhardy) enough to have a picture of yourself with a gun posted online for all the anti-gun world to see, send them a pic. I think it is nice to see normal, non-violent people posing with their guns. It is a shame that it is necessary to pause to consider if such an action is wise. Don't forget: WE have nothing to be ashamed of. Gun owners are not the ones going around threatening to kill anyone who we disagree with. The victim disarmament perpetrators are the ones doing that.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Captivity is Unhealthy
I have had a lot of experience with wild animals. I was always warned that "wild animals do not make good pets". As I got more experience I came to realize that the reason for this is that too many people do not respect the animal's need for freedom. A raccoon in a cage becomes frustrated and angry. Boiling just below the surface is barely-suppressed rage, waiting for an opportunity to erupt. The captive lashes out at its jailer and both suffer. The wild animals I "kept" still lived life on their own terms; they retained their self-determination and came and went as they wished. They did not depend on me for food, as I didn't feed the adults. Large sexually mature raccoons who choose to stay around do not become resentful, seeking to attack or escape at the first opportunity.
This observation can be applied to people as well. Whether struggling under a tyrannical government or an oppressive relationship, if freedom is suppressed, resentment will fester just below the surface, waiting for a moment of weakness to erupt. People are not well evolved for a life of slavery. Wise people will recognize this fact.
This observation can be applied to people as well. Whether struggling under a tyrannical government or an oppressive relationship, if freedom is suppressed, resentment will fester just below the surface, waiting for a moment of weakness to erupt. People are not well evolved for a life of slavery. Wise people will recognize this fact.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Candidate: "Are You a Libertarian?"
Ads for (slimy) candidates for political office are flooding the airwaves. The first, and often the only, question that needs to be asked of each and every one of these pretenders is "Are you a libertarian? No? Next!"
If, on the rare occasion one of them answers affirmatively, your follow-up statement for the purpose of clarification should be: "So you trust the people of this city/state/country to run their own lives with no meddling from government whatsoever, right? No 'permits'; no 'licenses'; no victimless 'crimes'." If the candidate does not trust you, there is no reason to trust him. "NEXT!"
If the candidate is still on your side, the final test is the big one. Ask if they are willing to back up that position with the Kent McManigal pledge, the pledge that I took as a candidate for President where I state that if elected, I ever support the enforcement of a counterfeit "law", if I ever advocate violating the ZAP, I recognize it as the duty of every American to try to assassinate me if I do not "straighten up", with my successor under strict instructions to give executive clemency to the patriot. If the candidate is still standing by this position, by all means, vote for him or her! Otherwise, find someone better suited for office.
If, on the rare occasion one of them answers affirmatively, your follow-up statement for the purpose of clarification should be: "So you trust the people of this city/state/country to run their own lives with no meddling from government whatsoever, right? No 'permits'; no 'licenses'; no victimless 'crimes'." If the candidate does not trust you, there is no reason to trust him. "NEXT!"
If the candidate is still on your side, the final test is the big one. Ask if they are willing to back up that position with the Kent McManigal pledge, the pledge that I took as a candidate for President where I state that if elected, I ever support the enforcement of a counterfeit "law", if I ever advocate violating the ZAP, I recognize it as the duty of every American to try to assassinate me if I do not "straighten up", with my successor under strict instructions to give executive clemency to the patriot. If the candidate is still standing by this position, by all means, vote for him or her! Otherwise, find someone better suited for office.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Time to Blind Big Brother
New York City's head tyrant is planning to install hundreds more surveillance cameras to "protect" people on the streets. (No doubt he will soon be followed by his clones in other cities.) Add these to the hundreds already out there, and the thousands of private cameras which are aimed out of their property, and are therefore optically "trespassing", and you have a situation where there is no privacy. This is an intolerable situation. It is a situation that can be solved, though. Make it more expensive to maintain these eyes than they are worth, or make the cameras worthless for the enforcers or as a psychological control tool.
Blinding the cameras is justified, but how? I would never encourage anyone to commit a crime.... Shooting the cameras is tricky since it is often impossible to do without endangering people or property behind the target. Vaseline paintballs are too easily cleaned up. Spray paint doesn't have the necessary range. Lasers are mostly ineffective, especially for the cameras which filter out certain wavelengths of light. However, government does not feel the pinch when paying for new cameras every month. After all, the money doesn't come out of their pockets; it is stolen from you and me.
I have no qualms about blinding government cameras, but privately owned ones .... any type of private property.... should be sacred. The problem is that the owners of those private cameras are only too anxious to hand over their videos to the enforcers, becoming a partner to the oppression. They also aim their cameras across the street or at the crossroads nearby instead of on their own property. They should be given a chance to redirect or remove their cameras, unless they have a clear history or aiding tyranny.
Perhaps there is another way to make those cameras worthless, but I doubt it. Disguises would make you a "person of interest" everywhere you went, unless you were an expert makeup artist. The little dramas and plays acted out for the cameras in some cities have done nothing to make the public aware and enraged. Too many people falsely believe that being watched unceasingly makes them safe. It doesn't work in London; it won't work anywhere.
I think the real value of the cameras (for tyrants) is the psychological effect on people who know they are being watched constantly. Government is not truly concerned with preventing or solving crimes, but only in getting people to "sit down and shut up!" Cameras seem to be very effective at that. It's time to stand up and be LOUD.
Blinding the cameras is justified, but how? I would never encourage anyone to commit a crime.... Shooting the cameras is tricky since it is often impossible to do without endangering people or property behind the target. Vaseline paintballs are too easily cleaned up. Spray paint doesn't have the necessary range. Lasers are mostly ineffective, especially for the cameras which filter out certain wavelengths of light. However, government does not feel the pinch when paying for new cameras every month. After all, the money doesn't come out of their pockets; it is stolen from you and me.
I have no qualms about blinding government cameras, but privately owned ones .... any type of private property.... should be sacred. The problem is that the owners of those private cameras are only too anxious to hand over their videos to the enforcers, becoming a partner to the oppression. They also aim their cameras across the street or at the crossroads nearby instead of on their own property. They should be given a chance to redirect or remove their cameras, unless they have a clear history or aiding tyranny.
Perhaps there is another way to make those cameras worthless, but I doubt it. Disguises would make you a "person of interest" everywhere you went, unless you were an expert makeup artist. The little dramas and plays acted out for the cameras in some cities have done nothing to make the public aware and enraged. Too many people falsely believe that being watched unceasingly makes them safe. It doesn't work in London; it won't work anywhere.
I think the real value of the cameras (for tyrants) is the psychological effect on people who know they are being watched constantly. Government is not truly concerned with preventing or solving crimes, but only in getting people to "sit down and shut up!" Cameras seem to be very effective at that. It's time to stand up and be LOUD.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Certified Domestic Terrorist
With this bit of treason-by-government it seems my "Certified Domestic Terrorist" banner is becoming more and more true every day. I would suggest that eveyone with a blog, MySpace or Facebook page, or website add Homeland Stupidity's "CDT" banner to your pages. Only by shining the light of ridicule can we reflect the absurdity of the US government.
Thanks to War on Guns for calling this to my attention first.
......
Thanks to War on Guns for calling this to my attention first.
......
Friday, October 26, 2007
Pomp, Ceremony, and Goofy Haircuts
Too many people feel a inordinate respect for and are highly impressed by trappings of military pageantry. They crave silly rituals, ridiculous uniforms, and goofy haircuts. As the police become more and more militarized, notice how they adopt those same things. Especially the "goofy haircuts" part. (I guess they go along with the full-auto firearms that protect "them" from "us".)
Getting back to the topic: Could libertarians use this knowledge to our advantage, somehow? Not being one of those who are impressed (or intimidated) by such, I have a hard time coming up with a way to "use" the information. It would need to be solemn, at least to the participants. The rest of us can giggle to ourselves. It would also need to be completely voluntary. That way, those of us who have evolved beyond such needs could overlook it.
The problem is, people who engage in militaristic pomp and ceremony (and goofy haircuts)quickly begin to see themselves as better than those who do not. Would (or does) that hold true even in a libertarian society? I'm afraid it might.
On a side note, I just invented a new word by way of a typographical error: "libertarina". Perhaps that could be a new label for female libertarians. We need more libertarinas!
Getting back to the topic: Could libertarians use this knowledge to our advantage, somehow? Not being one of those who are impressed (or intimidated) by such, I have a hard time coming up with a way to "use" the information. It would need to be solemn, at least to the participants. The rest of us can giggle to ourselves. It would also need to be completely voluntary. That way, those of us who have evolved beyond such needs could overlook it.
The problem is, people who engage in militaristic pomp and ceremony (and goofy haircuts)quickly begin to see themselves as better than those who do not. Would (or does) that hold true even in a libertarian society? I'm afraid it might.
On a side note, I just invented a new word by way of a typographical error: "libertarina". Perhaps that could be a new label for female libertarians. We need more libertarinas!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tell Me About Yourself
It's your turn, dear readers. You know all about me, now tell me something about yourselves. You don't need to give away deep, dark secrets; you can remain anonymous if you prefer. I am simply curious who is reading this blog, what region you live in, and what your opinions are. What is your background? Tell me why you read this; maybe what your primary interest is. What do you like or dislike about this blog? What subjects have I ignored or given too much focus? If you would prefer to not publish a comment, email me privately and I will not make the information public.
Thanks!
.......
Thanks!
.......
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Informative Articles and a Request
Here are a couple of articles I ran across while searching for something else. "Gangster cops" is about a tragic, but inevitable result of the War on (some) Drugs, and the other article is about domestic enemy and authoriturd extraordinaire, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
What I was originally looking for, but never found, was a flyer I had once run across online that warned of a new criminal gang, the "Blue Gang", and listed the typical behaviors and style of dress of cops and warned people to be alert and to regard this gang as extremely dangerous. If anyone can point me to it, I would be grateful and I will blog it here.
What I was originally looking for, but never found, was a flyer I had once run across online that warned of a new criminal gang, the "Blue Gang", and listed the typical behaviors and style of dress of cops and warned people to be alert and to regard this gang as extremely dangerous. If anyone can point me to it, I would be grateful and I will blog it here.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Wolves, Sheepdogs, and Sheep
The "wolves" in this common analogy are the criminals. The "sheep" are the average sleepwalking people-on-the-street; people who will never take responsibility for their own protection. Usually the "sheepdogs" referred to are the cops, which is mostly nonsense. The real "sheepdogs" are the alert, frequently armed, people who take seriously their responsibility to make the world within their sphere a better place. Sheepdogs are not out looking for trouble, or causing it. Some cops do fit this definition. Most no longer do.
When cops enforce counterfeit "laws", they are preying on the sheep around them. They have joined the wolf pack. It is up to the true sheepdogs to then come to the rescue of the sheep. The best, simplest solution would be for the sheepdog cops to keep the badged wolves in line, or to cull them from their ranks. They should never support policies of home-invasion "drug raids", and should certainly never take part in such crimes. They should never make a "gun arrest", but only arrest those who have committed a crime against another person.
A fully armed population is the best defense against criminals. Sheepdog cops know this and recognize their fellow sheepdogs; badges or permits are irrelevant. The wolves hate the sheepdogs. They either take advantage of, or enforce laws aimed at rendering the sheepdogs helpless. We need to turn the tide to make most cops once again join the ranks of sheepdogs, and turn from their wolfish ways. I'm not overly optimistic; the allure of predation is very strong.
When cops enforce counterfeit "laws", they are preying on the sheep around them. They have joined the wolf pack. It is up to the true sheepdogs to then come to the rescue of the sheep. The best, simplest solution would be for the sheepdog cops to keep the badged wolves in line, or to cull them from their ranks. They should never support policies of home-invasion "drug raids", and should certainly never take part in such crimes. They should never make a "gun arrest", but only arrest those who have committed a crime against another person.
A fully armed population is the best defense against criminals. Sheepdog cops know this and recognize their fellow sheepdogs; badges or permits are irrelevant. The wolves hate the sheepdogs. They either take advantage of, or enforce laws aimed at rendering the sheepdogs helpless. We need to turn the tide to make most cops once again join the ranks of sheepdogs, and turn from their wolfish ways. I'm not overly optimistic; the allure of predation is very strong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)