It's a Bird...It's a Pterodactyl....It's LibertyMan!

Faster than a speeding bureaucrat, more powerful than a government edict, and able to leap tall border fences in a single bound. Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird; it's a plane; it's .... LibertyMan!

In daily life, he assumes the identity of the mild mannered, and "unpapered", A. Narchist. He comes not from another planet, but from the bureaucratic wasteland that was once an experiment in freedom: America.

With his extraordinary vision, he can see through statist propaganda and excuses. He is strong enough to lift the expectations for liberty of all people everywhere. He is able to cut to the truth, even when others protest that "tax" doesn't mean "theft". No red tape can bind him. He absorbs strength from like-minded anarchists and libertarians around him. His enemies in the various branches of The State shrink before his powerful truth.

His only weakness is the common element "Apathyte", found in the hearts of government-sympathizers and welfare addicts living among the population. It can drain his strength and resolve. He must attempt to avoid these toxic people.

With the support and friendship of the committed liberty-lovers who struggle alongside him, LibertyMan will prevail against the forces of The State, sooner than they expect.

_________________________

The Battle Lines Have Been Drawn

In the battle between liberty and government, the battle lines have been drawn, but not by the liberty-lovers. No, the government and the government-sympathizers drew the lines. They drew a line between Randy Weaver and government-paid murderers. Between Wayne Fincher and BATFEces. Between Cory Maye and government-sponsored home invasions. Between freedom and fascism. Then they pretend to wonder why those who value liberty say "No more!"

There is only a certain amount of pressure that liberty can tolerate before pushing back. Liberty requires a certain amount of space, and when compressed beyond that, an unstable situation arises. There is no frontier to act as a relief valve anymore, so government is going to have to back off soon.

Our predecessors were perfectly willing to allow a certain amount of government to exist. That was their mistake; one we will not make again. Government grew out of control and kept pressing against the boundaries that were established for it. It was not content to keep within its sphere, but kept growing like a cancer, trying to crowd liberty from the face of the earth. In many cases, co-opting the very words of liberty for its own uses.

"Government" was/is a really bad idea. Why should anyone give control of their life over to people who are corrupt enough that they want it? From KentForLiberty.com:

I think government probably began as humans adopted a more settled,
agricultural, lifestyle. Roving bands of marauding thieves began offering
"protection" from other bands of marauding thieves (which may or may not have
actually existed) in exchange for goods and services. Eventually, the thieves
stopped roving and put down roots in the area that they were victimizing; still
demanding their cut of the riches. Unfortunately, the local population forgot
what these thieves really were and accepted them as a "ruling class". It has
been downhill since then.

And these thugs have made opposing them the worst of "crimes"; to be punished with bloodthirsty enthusiasm. Even suggesting that they should be opposed can be punished. Does this fact not ring any warning bells with most Americans? It does with me. Some of the recent new "laws" that legalize intimidation of bloggers (and others) who would suggest that government agents be held accountable are very alarming. As I say, the lines have been drawn by the thugs.

"A Vision of Liberty" by Jim Davies

For all of you interested in liberty, there is a new book "looking back" on the first three years of a truly free society from the year 2030. Jim Davies (of "The On Line Freedom Academy") has written A Vision of Liberty. It is a compact book; just over 100 pages long. Anyone can squeeze that into their schedule.

Which reminds me.... have you enrolled in TOLFA yet? Do it today, and help Jim's vision come to pass. Liberty is important enough to spend a little time on. Time today or bullets tomorrow. Choose wisely.

_______________________

"Our" Theft-Based Culture

If your society is based upon the ritual sacrifice of human beings, would you recognize that there is something deeply wrong with it? Possibly not, if you had grown up in that culture. You grew up surrounded by the sacrifice and immersed in the "reasons" for it. After all, it is necessary in order to keep your culture alive, isn't it?


What if you grow up in a society based upon theft? Would you recognize that there is something wrong with that? If you grew up in that culture, surrounded by the institutionalized theft, and learned to call it "taxation", or "business regulation", or "license fees" or "zoning" would you be able to see past the deception? All those things are simply ways to take ownership of money or property away from the legitimate owner and giving it to a special class of rulers. But it is necessary in order to keep that society functional, right?


Is there something wrong with a society based upon an immoral act? Yes, there is. Are you able to see that from the inside?


_____________________________

Crime in Libertopia

One thing that scares many people away from anarchism is crime. They fear that crime would be rampant without government to keep it in check. Let's think about that for a minute.

Ignore for a moment the vast numbers of crimes that are committed or enabled by government at some level. Does crime still exist in our current society "in spite of" government? Do you believe that there is less crime because of government? If so, why do you hold that belief? Are you certain it isn't just because you have been told that it is so your whole life? If there really is less crime under a government, why might that be? Is it the criminals' fear of being caught and punished? Is it fear of the enforcers; fear that the enforcers might shoot them while apprehending them?

What about "crimes" that only exist because government criminalizes normal (or even abnormal) human behaviors that have no victim? That adds greatly to the amount of "crime" that is perceived.

If the fear of being caught, punished, or shot decreases the incidence of crime, that raises more questions. Do you think that only government-hired enforcers can handle real criminals? Why? Training? Superior moral character? (cough) You do realize that stopping crime is your responsibility, don't you? Why do you shirk your responsibility and try to say someone else should do it in your place? You can hide behind the enforcers and the government, but that doesn't remove or fulfil your responsibility in any way. It only causes more problems by establishing an "enforcer class" that feels that it owns you because you are running from your responsibility.

A free society would be more than able to deal with crime, without the side effects that abdicating your personal responsibility gives birth to. Think about it.


___________________________

Anger

I admit, I do sometimes get really worked up over certain things. Things that I see destroying individual liberty. I really try to keep my temper, but as has been said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue". My friends will just have to "forgive" me if I seem a bit eccentric from time to time.

I also get anger directed at me sometimes. It seems that the things I get the most flak for are when I write about the military, cops, and guns. Some topics are just hot-buttons, I guess. When you care passionately about anything, it is easy to get worked up about it. Especially if your opinions are at odds with the opinions of others; if your views are mutually exclusive.

Is there a solution? Should there be one? Do we excuse or try to get along with those who are, in our opinion, undermining everything we are working for? Liberty, or the lack thereof, is worth getting angry over. Yet, will that anger advance the cause or set it back?

________________

Government "Schooling"

The "government indoctrination centers" we are told to call "public schools" may be more successful than I thought. Of course, they are pretty successful at manufacturing compliant cogs for certain industries and authorities to use as they see fit. Their successes go beyond even that.

If they are designed to protect the status quo, they are doing a good job. They have succeeded in destroying the imaginations of Americans who can no longer even imagine how a free society would work. Just debate a few statists and you will see what I mean. No problem is so insignificant that it won't be completely beyond them how it might be solved without government intervention.

At one time I would have supposed that this was an unintended consequence of dumbing down the education so that no one would fall behind (or get ahead). Now I am pretty sure that, overt or not, this is considered a "benefit" of public schooling. At least to the rulers.

______________________

Questions For Statists

I have begun to put together a list of questions to ask statists so I can better understand them. These are not "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, but are things I really want to understand.

• Do YOU want to be ruled, or do you just want OTHERS to be ruled?
• Do you believe in any form of "The Golden Rule"? Are government employees exempt from it?
• Should it be OK for government employees to do things you and I aren't allowed to do? If so, should I be allowed to do things you are not allowed to do?
• Then I would ask if they realize that statism is utopian: "Statism is the belief that a group of people, who possess all the guns and all the legitimacy, able to make all the rules for itself, will not want to exploit its subjects. Instead, they will act completely altruistically and help fulfill the values of their subjects."

I am sure there are more questions that need to be answered. Those questions would go a long ways toward getting me to understand something that is morally reprehensible to me. Perhaps those questions would get statists to really think about their beliefs. Nah.

"Poaching"

Reading this post on The War on Guns, I was surprised to see gun owners defending the idea that government owns the wildlife in the country. "Poaching" is the act of not recognizing government's claim over something it does not own: the wildlife that lives within the country's borders. Buying a license from the government to hunt is admitting that you think government owns the animals. I suppose it is not surprising that they think they own the deer, since they also think they own the humans, but it is a concept we should correct when we run into it.

Hunting is something that teaches people to provide for themselves. It short-circuits the welfare cycle that government depends upon for loyalty and dependence. Pretending to own the wildlife and then "selling" it to hunters simply gives them more unwarranted power over the people. It is another way to take money from productive people and give it to government. Plus, in order to hunt, people need to own effective weapons and have the skills to use them. That is more reason for government to require a license: to keep track of armed people.

I am not advocating mindless slaughter of wildlife. I hate waste. If you shoot it, you had better be prepared to eat it. I also know that some of the money from licenses goes toward habitat and such, but the amount is a tiny percentage (that which is left over after all the bureaucracy is paid for) and could be done much better by the market. Mostly your license fees go to support those who want to exercise control over you and your guns. Wildlife management is often a joke. I have some insight into this, having taken wildlife management in college. I was horrified at their idea of "management".

Labelling Ourselves and Definitions

Invariably whenever I discuss my views with anyone, at some point there arises a disagreement over the meaning of the words I am trying to use. I say "anarchy" and they think "chaos" or "nihilism". They will point out that the dictionary definition of "anarchy" includes and encompasses "chaos" and "nihilism". If I then say I am not speaking of, and very much oppose, "nihilism" as the dictionary defines it, they counter by saying the dictionary definition of "nihilism" is not what they mean when they speak of "nihilism". It becomes a circular discussion over who means what.

When I look up the dictionary definitions of just about anything people are talking about, with regards to philosophies and such, I almost always discover that the dictionary definition is not how the word is being used. Whether it is "libertarian", "anarchy", or "socialism", the adherents always say "but that isn't what it really is!" Yet it seems that only I am expected to stick to the dictionary definition, and always mean the entire list of definitions. I'd hate to debate the definition of the word "ring" with some of these people!

I am not claiming that the dictionary is wrong, just that it is insufficient to really capture the meaning of the words we are actively using as we speak. That is why, from now on I will try to remember to preface my explanations with "when I speak of 'X', this is how I mean it". After all, all my life I have heard people do the same and thought it was an accepted practice.

Obliviousness

In the course of my life I have noticed that most people walk around in a daze. They don't notice things that are directly under their noses. When I am "hiking" around (what others see as wandering aimlessly) I don't like to encounter other people. I have discovered it is a simple thing to avoid. Usually I don't use trails. Other times, if I am on a trail, I just get off the trail a couple of feet and sit there. People walk by, staring at the ground, and never see me.

Even their dogs are usually just as oblivious. I once startled a dog by simply saying "hi, boy" as it trotted past; nose to the ground. The dog almost wet itself before running back to the safety of its people.

Another time I was sitting beside a well-used trail in a park; "Cooper Ranch" just outside Gunnison, Colorado. There was a stump inhabited by a mother chipmunk and her babies, so I sat down beside it to watch. The babies were ignoring their mother's protests and crawling on me.

Suddenly they all darted back into the stump as a person approached. As she walked past I said "Hi". The woman yelped and jumped in the air. She said "I thought you were a statue!" (Why there would be a full-color statue of a guy in buckskin clothes reclining against a tree alongside the trail, I don't know). I knew the truth. She was staring at the ground just beyond her toes and missing the world.

I suspect that most people are doing the same thing politically. They are oblivious to what is going on around them. Unless they personally become caught up in some government abuse of power, they don't know, or care, that it is happening. They don't wish to be made aware of it either. It disturbs their quiet, simple little world. Besides, if they noticed, they might feel guilty for not "doing something" about it, or for being a cog in the gears of tyranny. In moments of extreme frustration I have, in the past, referred to such people as "oblividiots". I am usually nicer now.

Partnership For a Drug-Free America" Admits They Are Evil!

I saw one of those horrible PSAs for the Partnership For a Drug-Free America that was hilarious in its irony. Irony that I am quite certain is lost on the neopuritans that support such things. The ad preached: "When you give up the ability to decide for yourself, you give up what makes you you".

Yes, Partnership For Drug-Free America, that is what we have been trying to tell you all along, you disgusting ninnies! You and your "drug warriors" have decided to take away the ability of all Americans to decide for themselves. So Americans who go along with you have given up the liberty that makes them free Americans. Do you get it now? Probably not.

"This is your brain on drug prohibition"

_______________

"Ask A Cop"

The title was "Ask a Cop", so I did.
I asked "Do you ever feel guilty that your job is based upon enforcing counterfeit 'laws' that should never be enforced? Do you worry that 'I was only doing my job' wasn't an acceptible excuse at Nurmeberg?"
The cop's answer: "Kent, let me do my job. I work hard to do it well. You go right ahead and question my job, but I work hard and I love what I do. "
That answered my questions better than I could have hoped.

Violent Anti-Gunners

Almost every time (or, possibly, every time) I have been in a debate with an anti-gunner, if the debate goes on for long enough, the person eventually gets around to saying something along the lines of "So if I can carry a gun anywhere, I will just kill the next person who makes me mad!" That is enough to make me think that the victim-disarmers are right: they should not have guns.

The rest of us, since we don't struggle with the burden of a barely suppressed desire to kill people, should not be similarly tyranized.

"Expect Delays" by Darian Worden

I liked this article for several reasons. The problems of government roads, "drivers licenses", artificially extending childhood, and possibly other related nonsense are all touched upon.

Restore the Constitution

Petition to Restore the Constitution. Read it. If you agree, sign it and pass it on.

What is "Right"?

Is theft right? What if you call it "taxation" and promise to only use the money to benefit the victims? What if you call it "asset forfeiture" and hint that the victims deserved it? How about home invasion? Is it right if there might be dried leaves of a forbidden species in the house? What if it results in the murder of the people who live there? As we have seen, it is not called "murder" if it is perpetrated by agents of the state.

I can't support any system or group that uses these tactics to carry out its objectives. Some people call me "idealistic" or "unpatriotic" for being this way. Say what you want, but I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I supported such career criminals. Because to me, criminals who use badges or agencies to commit crimes are worse than free-lance criminals who hold no self-serving delusions about their actions.

My morals not not shimmer and shift depending on who I am talking about. If it would be wrong for me to do it, then it is wrong for a cop to do it. If it would be a crime for my friends and I to go out and do it, it is wrong for government agencies to do it. On the other hand, if it is OK for government agents to own, such as machine guns, then it is OK for you and I to own. After all, which of us is more likely to kill people? It isn't me. I expect to go through my entire life without ever killing anyone. Right and wrong; It really isn't that hard to figure out. Is it?

Inevitable Outcome of Democracy

After reading this article, I got to thinking. Fred seems worried that Mexican immigrants will soon be able to out-vote the government-approved hereditary American voters. But, isn't that the whole point of "democracy"? That the will of the majority, even if you are not IN the majority, will become government policy? Or, is it only a "good thing" as long as the "right people" make up the majority of voters?

Those who worship voting think that the majority can vote to violate the rights of the minority, as long as it doesn't violate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Even if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster, the majority can change that Constitution to get rid of the pesky limitations. That is a mighty crumbly ledge to be clinging to. Isn't it better to acknowledge that there are rights that are held by all people that no one, and especially no group of people (be they "voters" or "government") can violate under any circumstances.

"Engraved Invitation - To Steal" by L. Neil Smith

I suppose you have heard about the BATFE's request for Leatherman tools engraved with the reminder to its agent to steal all they can get their paws on. I have been thinking about this news item for a couple of days. I even have a protoblog written about "right and wrong" inspired by the disgraceful arrogance and complete lack of morals in statists like these. L. Neil has written a good article about it. Go read it, please.

Again For the "Anarchy-Phobes"

Another "argument" against anarchy that I run into frequently is that "humans need organization and leaders", so they will never accept anarchy.

I see no problem with organizations or hierarchies for those that need them. However, unlike today's society, these organizations would be strictly voluntary. You could organize yourself into any groups you desired, even communistic ones if that is your dream, but you would not be able to force your group onto anyone else. This is a great disappointment to people who get their jollies from coercion. It would be hard to convince people to join your happy little dictatorship if they have a choice in the matter.

As I have said before, there is a great difference between "leaders" and "rulers". Leaders would have a place of honor in anarchist society; rulers would be exposed as the parasites they are. Leaders lead by example; like a trailblazer through the wilderness showing others how to safely traverse the territory. Rulers avoid personal danger; sending others to take the risks, often at gun point or through deception, while reaping the rewards for themselves and their co-conspirators. Rulers also have a pathological need to meddle in affairs that are not their concern, usually using "it's for your own good" or "for the children" as the ready-made justification.

The superiority of a society organized on anarchy is clear. Unless you don't wish to accept responsibility for your own actions or have the need to see others ruled. Or if you are a thief who wants the illusion of legitimacy backing you up. In which case you might be uncomfortable or scared. Poor baby.