"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Three

"Here we see the progress of the medical arts under government. Surprisingly, medicine advanced much more under the yoke of government than did the last subjects we examined. There are many reasons for this, but they are side-issues which you may choose to research on your own time, since this facility is dedicated to studying the absurdity that was 'government'. Since the long awaited re-awakening of liberty, our only mission is to prevent a return of the parasite-class.

"The artifacts we see before us show the various ways in which medicine was held back during 'The Era of Government'. Using the tired and ragged excuse of 'the public interest' the state took control of medicine while promoting the illusion that it was only protecting its subjects from 'quacks' or dangerous chemicals.

"New medicines were withheld from dying people who had nothing to lose. Proven medicines, some with thousands of years of efficacious use, were prohibited on the premise that some people might enjoy the side effects. Doctors were required to be licensed by the state, which was not prone to try new treatments nor to embrace new ideas, but to cling to obsolete ones. This effectively weeded out the best and brightest potential doctors.

"All of these practices caused the cost of medical services to be artificially inflated. This meant that many people who could not afford the treatments they desired or needed turned to the state begging to be 'taken care of'. Health care became a political issue with many of the professional parasites promising different 'fixes' in exchange for votes or monetary contributions (bribes). Not one proposed the fix that eventually actually worked: getting totally rid of government.

"Can you imagine trying to get rational, affordable health care under those conditions? For many of the tragic victims of state-enforced medical rationing and squelching, neither could they.

"As we move to the next exhibit, resolve to remember the unnecessarily dead and maimed."


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

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit Two

"As we examine this exhibit on the government concept of 'crime' (the government's substitute for 'aggression') you will see that by the end of the 20th century, 'crime' had been solved. The only problem was that government fought back against the solution in order to prop up 'crime' for a few years more. They had to.

"If you will look at this chart, you will see that 'crime' is big business for the statists. That is why they made up the entire concept in the first place. 'Aggression', as everyone knows, was the real problem. The solution was to allow the good people, who outnumber the aggressive people by a huge margin, to properly defend themselves without fear of government retribution. The authoritarians hated self defense as it demonstrated how unnecessary they and their enforcers really were.

"So the government enablers created the concept of 'crime' which was 'any action that went against the demands of the state'; regardless of whether it harmed any innocent person or not. Often there was absolutely no aggression involved, yet the people fell for the scam! Really, I am serious. People actually fell for the scam.

"Huge numbers of non-aggressors were kidnapped and robbed of all their possessions by the tragi-comically named 'justice system'. The people actually allowed the government, the worst offender, to settle disputes; most of which only pitted a person against the fictitious entity of 'The State'. In the instances of actual aggression, restitution was rare, and often any judgements of monetary punishment only went to fund more government. 'Justice' was absent from society.

"I realize that these photographs and artifacts are difficult for more sensitive visitors to view, but it is important that we never forget. This is why we say 'Never again!'

"In the old 'United States', which occupied much of America, the government had a higher percentage of people imprisoned than in any other country during the 'Era of Government'. Many were imprisoned and enslaved simply because of ingesting chemicals. Yet most people did not speak out unless it happened to someone close to them. From our perspective we see the ridiculousness of the statist ideology; the concept of 'crime' and the denial of 'aggression', but to the majority who lived through it, it seemed 'normal'. Such was the world during that dark time.

"Now please turn around to view this next display......."


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

"The Museum of Government": Exhibit One

"Welcome to The Museum of Government. For those of you too young to remember the horrors of the state, this should be an enlightening experience. If you will come with me I will lead you through the exhibits and give you my thoughts on each one.

"Here we see the mess that government made of the simple act of educating children. Examine the high literacy rates before government took over the parental responsibility of education. Notice how it only took around a hundred and fifty years for government education to almost totally destroy literacy in America.

"See how the parents came to accept, without question, the government's assertion that without government education, the people of America would be drooling idiots, unable to do the most simple tasks. The parents, being products of the government indoctrination centers themselves, could not see the deception.

"Notice too, that the only real accomplishment of government education was to make the people unable to think for themselves. The end products made good cogs in the machinery of the branches of government and its corporate partners, but for the most part were unable to think critically or to recognize that actions and decisions have consequences.

"Fortunately it did not take long for education to make a comeback after the tragic 'era of government' ended. If you will now please step to this next exhibit......"

Note: This and all my "Museum of Government" posts are inspired by Jim Davies book "A Vision of Liberty". Also, I have added an introduction since I decided I may make this a recurring feature.

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

Well.... Here We Are.....

We pulled in to our destination yesterday evening. This is the first chance I have had to log on to let everyone know we made it. So... we made it... and I am now exhausted.

My Property Rights

A recent exchange on War on Guns has once again made me realize that my idea of my own property rights differs from the idea many other people seem to hold.

I believe that property rights are almost sacred, but they do have a limit: They end where the property ends. That is not really a limit, it is just a recognition that there can be no overlap.

Once again for the sake of clarity I will state that this is just my own idea of property rights. This is how you will be treated if you come onto my property.

I have an absolute right to forbid access to my property. Once I decide to allow people to come onto my property, there are limits to what I can do to my visitors. They do not become my property once they step across my "border".

If I own a business where I invite the general public (in other words "all individuals who are not currently engaged in aggression"), or if I invite a person into my home, I recognize that I have no right to demand to control what objects are inside their clothing or what thoughts are inside their minds. They do not become part of my property when they accept my invitation to come onto my property. My property rights extend to the surface of their clothing or their exposed skin and no farther.

I am "adult enough" to know where my property ends and theirs begins. I can not demand that they carry a gun for self-defense even though it would increase the level of safety on my property if they did. I can't search them for "drugs". I can not demand that they believe the same way I do about state aggression and liberty. As long as it isn't leaking beyond the confines of their "envelope of personal property" I can't demand that they not carry plutonium or anthrax. If they begin leaking radiation, spores, racial epithets, aggression, or bullets I can take whatever steps I deem necessary, since those things, having left the visitor's personal property, are now a part of my property.

It would be a much more polite world if others would recognize their limits. Slavery is such a messy business.


_________________________

My Meanest Trick

I recently mentioned my bout with Rat-Bite Fever. I caught it when I was bitten by a sick rat at the pet store where I worked. There was a customer who was apparently jealous of my discomfort and decided he had it as well. J.H. had always been a bit of a hypochondriac; always needing to "one-up" any disease anyone else had contracted. He wouldn't go to a doctor to get checked for Rat-Bite Fever, but came to the pet store several times a day to grill me about symptoms he should be experiencing. When I finally got tired of it, the "fun" began.

After about a week of these constant visits and phone calls, I said "The symptoms you have sound more like 'mitochondrial degeneration' to me. But don't worry, you won't catch that unless you were exposed to blood from your rats; either directly or in the air." I said this knowing that his rat had given birth a few days before and he had kept his nose poked in the cage during the births; "helping" the mother rat. He said "I was exposed to rat blood when mine had babies!" I acted concerned and mumbled something about the chances being small "...but....." He began to panic. He wanted to talk to the vet, who "conveniently" was out of town for a week.

He began researching mitochondria, and discovered that they are the powerhouses of the cell. He decided that was why he had felt tired and run down.

I played it up for a day or two and then admitted my deception. I felt bad because he was actually considering killing his rats. I didn't want to cause that. So I apologized, feeling really guilty now. When I told him that I had made the whole thing up, he was furious and threatened to beat me up (he got his energy back rather quickly, didn't he?) Later he forgave me and decided that the whole episode was funny.

He stopped being a hypochondriac (at least around me) from that day forward. I even went out shooting with him once. Only once. I don't like being around armed people who wave their gun around while keeping their finger inside the trigger guard. He didn't want to listen to me about "safe gun handling" either. He joined the army a few months later.

I know it was wrong of me to lie to him. Even if I thought he needed to be taught a lesson. I wouldn't do that kind of thing anymore. I guess that means I have grown.

Government is Obsolete

I really like this idea, and I do believe it is true. Technology has made government obsolete now, even if it weren't in the past. Everything that government does either should not be done, or could be done better (and without coercion) with technology wielded by the free market. So why do we still have governments?

Humans cling to obsolete ideas and things long past their usefulness either out of fear of change, nostalgia, ignorance, or expense.

We can decrease the people's fear by showing them that they will not be cast aside when the change happens. They will not lose their place in the world; their status. Those in government work can find honest work easily. Yes, they will then be held to a higher standard and will no longer be allowed to rule over their equals (actually, their former bosses). If they choose to reject becoming honest, they can keep on being aggressors ("freelance" from that time forward) and take their chances of being brought to real justice; something that is denied under government. Or they can move somewhere that the illusion of government has not yet had the light of day shined upon it. After all, that is the suggestion the statists constantly taunt liberty-lovers with: accept it or leave.

Those who cling to statism because of nostalgia may be harder to convince, after all, they are probably seeing government through rose-colored glasses to begin with. They are dreaming the "1950s myths" of the helpful policeman, the noble CIA protecting America from communists, and government knowing "what's best" (even if it means treating some people as second-class humans). These people don't want to see reality. Wake them up and they will fight to regain the dream. We may need to let them sleep as long as possible so as not to frighten them. Maybe a gentle wake-up would work.

Those who cling to statism out of ignorance can be taught. TOLFA is a good place to start, when they are receptive. Another way is to simply live your life with peaceful self-ownership and lead by example into a freer future. Once shown the truth, the previously ignorant can either accept it, or can choose to become nostalgic, or fearful of the coming change. In that case the process begins again.

Those who refuse to let go of the state because of the expense are potentially already on our side. We need to show them that for a nominal investment, the return will be immeasurable. Those who are heavily invested in government schemes, getting rich from the coercion of the state, will not let go of that golden goose easily. They must be viewed as any other thieves are viewed. Getting rid of the vampires of the state, who suck the wealth right out of our nation, will be the best investment in the history of civilization. We will be investing in liberty. In terms of actual monetary return, you are looking at getting rid of an organization that takes money from the productive people, spends it wastefully with huge administrative costs and on things no one wants; an organization that then finds a way to dip into the production at every step along the way; stealing value every time it does. Government's counterfeiting scheme, basing "dollars" on nothing but empty promises of value, has driven the average people to their knees as they work more hours for less purchasing power. Free market solutions will work better, be cheaper, and finally be ethical. Theft is a poor long-term strategy. The return, in terms of non-monetary rewards, will be even greater. Self-ownership, responsibility, and self determination have no price tag.


______________________

Thoughts From the Road

These are just random thoughts that have cropped up in my road-numbed brain as I have been driving. I may expand on some at a later time. I apologize if they are weird:

Cop cars= "Mobile (State) Aggression Units"

I may start posting entries for my future "Museum of Government". First exhibit: "Education".

We passed Virginia Tech today and I was reminded of the victims of the "Hinckler/Cho Massacre". Yet, nothing has changed policywise. Sad.

I had a really good idea (I think) for a cell phone company. Cut me in for a percentage and it is yours.

I now return you to your pre-posted entries....


_____________________________

Texas or Bust

If I post sparsely for a while, it is because of a major change for us. If things have gone as planned, I left the NorthEast this morning to move back to my ancestral stomping-grounds (where I haven't really dwelt much since I was just a small kid). I am hopeful that it goes better than last October's disastrously derailed move.

Since my internet connection is scheduled to be shut off this morning, this is a pre-written post. Can you tell the difference?

A girlfriend, a baby, and a cat may keep me busy even if there is internet access at the motels. If I have other blog ideas before I leave, I will try the "future post" option for them, too. Considering that I am just about to my limit of stress over this move, I may be too distracted to think for a while.

If you see me on the road, wave at me! Or buy me a gallon of gas!


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

UPDATE: We left a day early, so we are miles farther down the road than we had planned. That is good because the baby is tired of this situation already, so we are not making as many miles per day as I had hoped. I'm getting more blog ideas during the mindless miles.

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

A Rhetorical Question?

In promos for his show, Lou Dobbs of CNN is shown asking: "Doesn't anyone deserve a government that works?" Interesting question.

Does anyone "deserve" a government at all? Maybe some individual who has shown that he completely lacks moral character does. Should I have to put up with a government because of that diseased individual? Absolutely not. A government won't make him into a nice person. The only thing that will is surrounding him with a fully armed population. He will either straighten up, or will be darwinized. Either way, he becomes "good" and the good folk win without burdening us all with government. I have done nothing to deserve a government.

I would also say that government already "works" too much. Its objectives are directly opposite what is good for the individuals who live under it, but that is what the Rulers are working so hard at. They are working to increase their power and control over us, while taking away our money (which would allow us to resist them more effectively). Government works to convince us that we are too stupid or evil to live our own lives without them telling us what to do with each moment of our lives. I have no desire for a government that works. This is why I celebrate "gridlock". Gridlock is like a blessed dam that holds back the flood of tyranny.

Blank Slates Again

When I have expressed my opinion that humans are born as "blank slates"; that such things as "gods and governments" are then scribbled onto their minds, I usually get one of two responses. Those who agree with me, or who disagree with me, on both counts don't usually say anything.

Those who cling to statism will often say they agree that atheism is probably the default setting for religion, but that humans "obviously need government, otherwise why do they always set one up?".

Those who cling to magical thinking will often agree that statism must be indoctrinated into children, but that "people need God, otherwise they wouldn't have such a driving need to learn about Him."

These responses make me believe I am on the right track. Those who are heavily invested in a particular notion look for any reason to defend it, but others, who are more able to look at the situation rationally, see the truth.

Blind Spots and Tender Areas

I read a few libertarian blogs every day. As I am sure most of you do, too, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this. Right? (How's that for reasoning ability?)

In my readings I get amused, confused, or bewildered by some of the bloggers. Especially those who are mostly libertarian, but with a specific statist blindspot. They can be right on the money for weeks on end, but when someone jabs at their statist "tender area", they freak out without seeing the complete irrationality of their reaction.

Coercion is wrong, and coercion by a big, powerful group is especially bad. "Pick on someone your own size" is the phrase that comes to mind. You can't claim to want liberty while "enjoying" certain areas of government coercion that benefit you personally, or that you have invested large parts of your life in. Wrong is still wrong.

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.