Competent Adults or Dependent Babies?

Do other people know enough to make their own decisions? Are they smart enough to use books, the internet, or other resources to find out what they need to know to make smart decisions? Are they smart enough to realize when they need more knowledgeable help? Could being "babied" by the nanny-state for generations have created a stupid population that now needs to be protected from itself? Should helplessness be encouraged, or should it be allowed to do its job and be eliminated from the gene pool?

Are YOU competent to make your own decisions? If you can read this, then yes, you are.

I recently had an annoying health issue (which I will not go into) that I self-diagnosed with the help of the internet and books, found a solution, and treated myself. I will admit, not enough time has passed for me to be able to tell you whether or not I have cured myself or not. So, if I soon die mysteriously, you will know why. The liberty to live as an adult is, to me, worth the risk.

In the interactions I have had with doctors, the diagnosis has been hit or miss. Just get an odd disease and see how long it takes for a doctor to figure out the problem. I once had "rat bite fever"; caused in my case by Streptobacillus moniliformis. It took over a week to be diagnosed, even though in my first doctor visit I had told the doc that I had recently been bitten by a rat and had had some symptoms show up within a couple days. After a battery of tests, over the course of a week, the doctor asked me if I had been bitten by a rat. I answered "yes", thinking "What did I tell you the first time I came here?" Doctors are useful, no doubt, but should not be over-valued.

Anyway, freedom includes the freedom to make your own mistakes and accept the consequences. The information is out there for all to see and use. You do not need a specialist for every health problem, and should have the liberty to choose the level of expertise you need for your particular situation. Private certification could more efficiently demonstrate the qualifications of the doctors you could choose between.

"Buyer beware" is always good advice, but is no reason to give up your own responsibility. Government oversight, paperwork, and licensing is not needed, and raises the price of medical care beyond the reach of many people.

Once again, government is obsolete.

Settling For a Libertarian Government

I don't know about you, but I would settle for a libertarian government. It wouldn't be the best solution, but it would be better than the current hive of authoritarians. In my heart I know I really want to eliminate government in all its forms, except for self government.

I don't want or like chaos; only anarchy. That is where my heart is. Anything that moves me in that general direction, I will support. Anything that moves toward bigger, more intrusive, more ubiquitous government, I will oppose. Any lateral shift I may ignore.

I don't care if there is "a good reason" for more government or not. Nothing government can do is worth trading an iota of liberty for.

I'm Not Perfect?!

As surprising as it may be, I just may not be perfect. I get emails to that effect pretty often. Maybe they are getting through to me.

I know how I think I should always behave, yet being human, I have not always done what I should. I'm not really sure why people feel the need to remind me of my shortcomings. I guess they are perfect. I really don't remember ever claiming to be perfect, but I must have at some point, otherwise why would anyone act like I made that claim? Another fault someone can point out, right?

I think the best I can do is to try everyday to not add to my pile of regrets. Don't violate my principles. This means don't harm anyone who isn't harming me. Don't support the state. Live and let live. But even this is a little unrealistic in some ways. After all, there are some principles I hold, that if I don't violate them, government enforcers will kill me. So, just like you, I do the best I can, with the reality I live in. Who can do more?

Quackery From a Different Duck

Medical quackery is almost universally condemned. Sometimes people don't agree on what constitutes "quackery"; some swearing by a particular treatment while others point out that the "cure" has more in common with magic or wishful thinking than with science.

There are other kinds of quackery, too. Such as the moral quackery called "laws".

Laws are bad. They claim to solve a problem while doing no such thing. Like all false solutions, they distract people from finding a real solution. Precious time is wasted. The only thing they provide for is a specified punishment if the "law" is violated, but they do nothing to stop aggression (theft and fraud are "economic aggression"). Most "laws" don't even pass the test of morality in the first place; criminalizing good behavior and encouraging destructive behavior.

The Libertarian Party Nominee

My life is in turmoil, so If I don't say this now, I may forget again, and I wanted to say it before the Libertarian Party convention.

After I chose to run a "write-in only" campaign, I have stayed out of the LP's business. I have had my preferences as to their nominee, of course, but unfortunately most of them were negative preferences.

That changed a while back. I'm not "endorsing" anyone, not that my opinion matters anyway, but I know who I want to get the LP nomination: Dr. Mary Ruwart. I was reminded of this after reading Chris Bennett's post on Last Free Voice where he endorsed her.

Good luck, Mary. I will be pulling for you!


*********************************

Anarchy: It Just Might Work, Now

One of the most strange arguments against anarchy that I get hit with time and again is that "it has never succeeded anywhere before, so it will never work". I know that even that is a dubious claim, but pretend for a moment that it is true. Suppose it has never worked before; in all the history of humans on earth (since it absolutely does work for many other species, we will ignore that for our statist friends).

Is the playing field still the same as it was back in 1750 or 1950? If not, what has changed that might make anarchy feasible now, even if it wouldn't have worked in 1950s America? Technology has increased exponentially since then, that's what has changed.

The Rulers and enforcers are at this moment using technology as fast as they can to enslave us, but that is not the only way it can be used.

I think that many of the government "solutions" can be replaced by an internet based, decentralized system. Other problems would have already been solved by technology had government not had a vested interest in restricting liberty. Here are just a few ideas of how technology would enable an anarchist society. You probably have many more.

• Justice could easily be served by the capacity of the internet to provide good information on dishonest characters. In order to clear their record so that people would associate or do business with them again, they would need to pay their restitution.
• An online "invasion watch" set up similar to the SETI @ Home project could keep America safe from an increasingly unlikely sneak attack.
• Schools should obviously be internet based. It is just the natural progression.
• I think vehicle development could make roads as we know them obsolete, and with them, the government road-building-monopoly.
• Air-traffic control should not be overseen by humans anyway. Not since the days of a few hundred planes in the air has that been a safe system. It should be decentralized with components in each aircraft, along with internal collision-avoidance systems. Can you imagine how dangerous the roads would be if ground traffic were "controlled" like air traffic is?
• You could check on the certification or reputation of any doctor online, to see if you would want to trust your health to him. Businesses would be subject to the same feedback.
• Trials could be conducted online with jurors getting better information. I am not of the opinion that ignorance makes for a fair juror.

So, next time you are feeling down because some statist has told you "it can't work", just remember that it can, and it will.

Evil Is Additive

Did you ever have a friend that you got into trouble with? Bad things that neither of you would have ever dreamed of doing on your own seemed to "just happen" whenever the two of you were together? Or: How about a friend who, when you were with them, the two of you just did spontaneous good things that were far beyond anything you would have dreamed up on your own? Of the two scenarios, I am guessing the first one is much more likely.

The reason is that, unlike goodness, evil is additive. By "evil" I mean actions which hurt others.

Think about this for a minute. Groups of people do come together to do good things. With lots of planning. Normally the only people who join such groups are those who are already reaching out and doing nice things on their own. They seek out others of a like mind and together can do more good than they could do separately. It takes a lot of work and planning to fight off the entropy that keeps trying to tear such groups apart. Most such groups fail after a short time.

Yet, evil is spontaneously additive. People who have no driving need to harm others will gather into groups and, without planning for it or even meaning to do it, start harming others. Either they just go along with things that are already occurring, or they become convinced that their victims "deserve it" after a short indoctrination.

This is why government is an unworkable utopian delusion. There are too many people who are simply joining the collective, and without an extremely strong moral awareness, they gradually sink into doing evil things without thinking about it. They begin proposing or enforcing "laws" that should never be. They begin to believe it is OK to tell other how to live, even if their actions would harm no one other than themselves. They become obssessed busy-bodies. They begin to excuse murder, kidnapping, and theft as long as it is done under "color of law".

Few people have a morality strong enough to resist the additive evil that becoming part of government exposes them to. And of those, the ones already flawed enough to join government are so outnumbered that they can't stop the tide.

Am I Repeating Myself?

I wonder if I have begun to repeat myself too much on this blog. Am I saying anything new anymore? I can't usually remember if I have talked about a particular subject in just the same way previously. Not that it matters since I doubt many people search the old posts.
Anyway, it's just a question that is running through my mind.

Shifting the Blame

A recent event has illustrated for me that if someone tries to cheat you in a business deal, and they are thwarted in their plans, they will sometimes try to blame you, their intended victim, of being a "thief and a liar" instead of owning up to their own misdeeds. Is their denial so complete that they actually believe what they say? Or do they believe that by putting their lies into writing it will make it somehow true?


Whatever the case may be, it is disgusting.

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

_______________________

Enough "Gun Control", It's Time For "Goon Control"

The government protects its enforcers yet again. Sean Bell's murderers have gotten away with it. Murder-by-cop is OK, according to the "judge" who heard the case. The murderers didn't want to take their chances with a jury. What lessons can be learned from this?

Gun control, more honestly known as victim disarmament, increases crime. It doesn't make anyone safer (except for politicians and other amoral parasites). The armed goons of the state are a real and present danger, especially when they are armed. Instead of gun control, there should be some serious goon control.

Time to rein in the goons that hide in the dark alleys and in the well-lit offices of government. It is time to control those goons who hide behind their tiny shields. Free-lance and government goons are both a danger to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but of the two, the government goons are much more dangerous. They commit their crimes with the implicit assumption that they are "right". To try to prove otherwise is pretty much doomed.

There is only one way to really control both kinds of goons: be armed and ready to defend yourself and those innocents around you. Sad, but true. As I say, WE didn't choose this war.





_______________

Why "Government"?

I know that the following phrase is in the Declaration of Independence. It is still utter nonsense. Saying that government is instituted in order to "secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is like saying the KKK and the NAACP are instituted in order to promote racial harmony and mutual understanding. Ain't gonna ever happen, and if you think about it, it is obvious why. It goes against the very nature of the beast.


________________

Extra Work For Nothing

Why walk twice as far, to a less-than optimal destination? Inertia? To get exercise? Fear?

I watched as a woman at the grocery store, after putting her bags in the car, walked to the cart corral, which was twice as far from her car as the front of the store where more carts were lined up. I obviously couldn't read her mind, but I tried to figure out why she did that. Was it because she was already moving in that general direction, and without thinking she simply continued going that way. Was she oblivious and didn't notice the distances involved? Did she think she needed the free exercise "for her health"? Was there some person lurking in the shadows near the front of the store that she wished to avoid?

Why do people walk twice as far, and work twice as hard, to prop up government, as it would take to become free of those professional parasites. Possibly for the same reason that the woman I observed went out of her way to get to a second-best destination. But I have no clue what that reason might really be.



________________

"...As Long as You Harm No Innocent Person.."

Any law that attempts to regulate or prohibit anything other than actual aggression or theft is a counterfeit "law", and has no ethical foundation upon which to stand. As long as you do not cause harm to innocent people, you are free to live life however you see fit. Notwithstanding the edicts of whichever Rulers think they own you. It really isn't that hard to understand, is it?

The "arguments" against this concept seem to stall at the point of not understanding the "harming others" idea. Invariably the dissenter will say something like "You don't really think 'speed limits' should be ditched, do you?". Yes I do. "Speeding" harms no one by itself. If you exceed the speed at which you can safely operate your vehicle (which has nothing to do with the speed limit) and hurt someone, you are responsible and should be held accountable.

So then the whiner will claim that not everyone is smart enough to drive within their ability or that going fast makes it more likely to wreck and hurt people. So?

Obviously, you should not regulate everyone because of the idiots among us. Punish only the idiots when they cause harm or they will not learn a lesson. You also can't base "laws" upon what might happen. If that were a legitimate action, you should be prohibited from ever giving anyone food. After all, they might choke, or they might have an allergic reaction to some ingredient. Actual harm to someone who is no immediate threat to you is the only basis for a real law.

It makes me believe that the dispute that arises over "as long as you harm no one else" is just because some people cling desperately to the outdated and discredited notion of "government".


______________

Review of "A Vision of Liberty"

A little over a week ago I mentioned I was getting the book, A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies. I have now read it and thought you might like to know what I thought.

First the "bad". It was too short. I guess that is also a "plus" since it is quick and easy to read, but I will admit I wanted more. I'm not sure what else could have been covered, though, since it seemed pretty inclusive.

Mr. Davies needed a better proofreader, since I found quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors (but then, I probably like commas too much). It didn't detract from the book for me since I am accustomed to reading much less coherent things than this on a daily basis. As long as the meaning is conveyed... Seriously, it wasn't as bad as I made it sound, and I will admit, I am much too picky.

Now, the "good": I really liked the book. It wasn't a book of esoteric philosophy or in-your-face preaching, but a pleasant vision of what a truly free society might be like to live in. Bring it on! Reading this made me feel hopeful and optimistic. I am not normally that way. I mentioned that the book was too short. My solution is that I am reading it again immediately. I think the book is an excellent complement to his TOLFA website. They could work together to instill a desire for the end of government in the fence sitters who need to be convinced in order for this to come to pass. Mr. Davies admits that his book is speculative and that events might work out differently. I think that if the liberty-meme can be spread as he proposes, his vision could be very possible.

I think Mr Davies has a very optimistic view of the future, which is good, and I hope he is justified. Some of his personal preferences were evident in his vision, which is understandable. I might not reach the same conclusions, for example, about what music will be popular in this liberated future, but I also realize it wouldn't matter to me if he is right or wrong about that minor detail.

I recommend that you pick up a copy of his book if you have a few FRNs to spare. Read it and then pass it along to someone who could use the help to envision how freedom would feel and how it might work.


***********************************

Needy Voters

I just saw a Hitlery Klinton commercial. The pathetic voter portrayed on the screen said "I need a president who will help me". Sad. I just want presidents (and lesser governmental parasites) to stop trying to HARM me. That would be a monumental improvement, don't you agree?

Are You "Legal"?

I was just pondering (a dangerous pastime, I admit) the concept of people being "legal" in one way or another. Whether you are talking about "legal immigrants", legal drivers, legal age of consent, a host of licenses "allowing" you to go about your business, or a plethora of other issues, some people place way too much emphasis on whether they (or you) have the official government-stamp-of-approval or not. In order to display your "legal" status for everything the government incorrectly believes it has a say in, you would need to carry around a binder filled with all your "proofs".

Who has time for all that nonsense? The government doesn't own you. Why act like it does?

___________________

Counting On Socialist InSecurity?

A couple whom I know just reached "retirement age". Despite my warnings (years ago), they were banking on Social Security to help them have a comfortable retirement. Now the reality strikes: due in part to an error that Social Security made, and in part on not being informed of some bureaucratic rules, they will get substantially less than they had planned on, and will only barely scrape by. That's assuming that the entire ponzi scheme doesn't collapse in the next few years.

When they told me of this development, I refrained from saying "I told you so" (even if I thought it loudly). It is very sad that some people have fallen for the lies of a socialist system instead of planning for an independent retirement strategy. Of course, the money they could have invested was reduced by a very large amount; stolen by the state during their entire careers to pay off the previous retirees.

The Social "Security" scheme can't keep going. No politicians are willing to admit that to those of you who are counting on that money, after being told your entire life that the money was being taken "for your retirement". It wasn't. That was a bald-faced lie calculated to buy your vote. There is no bank account in your name that the money is going into. You are basing your retirement plans on having enough young, working people for the government to steal from to keep paying you. That is a faulty supposition.

Listen: If you must have a job that enables the theft of your money to pay into "the system", please have the foresight to count that money as lost. Make other, realistic plans to finance your sunset years if you don't want to be working at a minimum wage job when you are eighty.

Four-Twenty

Feel free to participate in any "420-appropriate" activities today. Whatever those may be. I wouldn't know.

Balking at Liberty

Admit it. We all make excuses for avoiding the things we don't really want to do. Whether it is taking a personal risk or helping to promote liberty, unless we are really committed we will find some "reason" to shy away.

I have done this with jobs before. I used to "joke" with friends that I hated applying for jobs because I was afraid I might get hired. If you know me, you know I chafe severely under a "boss", and make both of us miserable very quickly, although they tend to try to keep me around for some bizarre reason.

I see the same balking behavior from people who claim to want liberty, but struggle against every notion or idea that comes along. No idea is perfect, but almost all of them can be used or adapted to advance the cause of individual liberty. On the other hand, government is not conducive to liberty at all. You can't make excuses for the state and cling to some of its tentacles while claiming you believe in "freedom". It just isn't rational. Skepticism is a very smart safety tactic; making excuses for clinging to the Rulers isn't.

Happy Patriots' Day - "4-19!"

Today is Patriots' Day. Celebrate it by doing something truly patriotic, like honoring America by ignoring the US government which is occupying this fine land. Remember that most patriotic activities are heavily regulated or criminalized. Activities like getting your militia weaponry out and having some practice.