Eating Our Own

Recent discussions with Joey of The Freedom Symposium have illustrated to me what I think trips up the liberty movement*. The debate has really made me think, and has been very educational and helpful to me. It has helped me understand even more clearly why I believe what I believe (even if am not able to articulate it completely). None of this should be construed as an attack on him or his website, because I certainly don't mean it that way.

If you are a libertarian, you are already free, or at least well on your way to being a free anarchist (don't let that shock you. Just give it time). No one can truly enslave you without your consent, and often-times, with your help. Your body can be caged, it is true, but that isn't the worst enslavement. As long as you refuse to submit, in your mind, you remain free. That is the deepest freedom there is, and forms the foundation of physical freedom.

Most of us want to do so much more, though. We want the rest of the world to experience the joy and wonder of liberty that we experience. There is a stumbling block in our path: libertarians and anarchists will never get far in our quest for freeing the rest of the world if we can't stop "eating our own". It turns off those who may be interested by giving the appearance of a hostile environment. If they want that kind of life they can join the mainstream statists.

So many times we fall into the trap of "the only way". We decide our carefully, logically, thought out approach is the only way that will work to free everyone else. We tend to forget (because liberty is so important to us) that many people are scared of liberty and don't think they want to be free. Those people can be ignored for now. We can only help to free those who want it. The others will come around later, or they will join the statists in trying to kill those of us who insist on "liberty for ALL".

Look at history. "The only way" in any area is almost always wrong. Even paths that have led nowhere in the past may work in the future since the landscape constantly evolves. Don't limit your options, and don't denigrate others who are honestly trying. As for the in-fighting....I don't think it leads anywhere except to more centuries of statist domination.


*Just a joke. But sometimes I feel we are about as relevant to the world-at-large.

"Independence" means.......

"Independence means we have an awesome military!" Huh?

That was an actual quote I heard on the radio during "Independence" day. No wonder so few people understand freedom, liberty, and independence; they are looking in the wrong places for the wrong things. It is very disheartening to hear such vacuous statements as the above quote. How can people work for liberty, or even value it, if they don't have the foggiest clue what it is? How can we educate them when they don't want to hear?

Unless and until the military surrounds DC and cordons it off to keep the tyranny contained, the military has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting "liberty".

"Independence" means you are not dependent. There is no such thing as complete independence since all living beings are dependent on the sun and/or chemicals of some sort, and other life (for us "higher" forms). We should not be dependent on unnecessary things, though. As humans we should never be dependent on theft and coercion, which is all government consists of. For humans "independence" means that we are not a burden on others and do not live as a parasite. It means that we only are part of voluntary associations and do not force ourselves and our preferences on others. Government worship is the polar opposite of "Independence". To support government is to spit on liberty and independence.


_____________________

Is There a Silver Bullet?

Ignoring the state is satisfying, but does it accomplish anything more than making me feel good? I doubt that enough people can be convinced to ignore government to make a real dent. I'd love for you to prove me wrong!

Can education reach enough people, and illustrate to them that government is never the right way to solve anything? To show them that coercion is wrong, and collective coercion is the wrongest of the wrongs? It can help. Spread the news every chance you get!

Resistance is futile. At least for your individual liberty. The state and its sympathizers love to make an example of resisters. Liberty already has enough martyrs. If you have the guts for it, though, go ahead and make a stand, but be sure it can't be swept under the rug or ignored by the general population. Otherwise you are just preaching to the choir.

Can politics be used to gain more liberty for me or for you? Since, as I have said, "politics is a method people use to get along with those they dislike", I have my doubts that it can be used for much, other than harming others in some way. Still, if you can make a scene and get your point across.... there are those who automatically reject more unconventional methods; you may convince a few of them.

Voting is something I am very wishy-washy on. Sometimes it is fun, otherwise I would NEVER do it. I don't feel obligated to "go along" with results of elections that I don't agree with, and you shouldn't either. My rights are not up for vote.

Any form of "working within the system" is crippled by the fact that the patients are running the asylum ... and making the rules. Just try to get on a jury when you know your true responsibility. Yet, if you are sneaky enough, you just might make it on a jury and be able to save some innocent person from being state-raped.

The thing is, I don't know what will eventually topple the state and neither do you. It may be one of the paths already being trod, or it may be something new and completely unforeseen. That is why you should keep trying whichever method you like the most. Pricking, stinging, buzzing, tickling, distracting, and otherwise annoying the state in whatever way you can. Eventually something, somewhere, will be the final straw that will make it crumble like a camel-dung tower. We can't afford to stop trying on even one front.


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

Patriotism and Independence Day

Time's Up for Tyranny.

Many people think "patriotism" is waving the US flag on "Independence Day", or reciting the socialists' "Pledge of Allegiance". Maybe it is. I prefer to not be called "patriotic" anyway.

I stand up for liberty for the individual; not loyalty to a government. Rights should always carry more weight than "authority". Instead of the US flag, I fly either the good old Gadsden flag (the real American flag) or the Time's Up flag. I think about what true "liberty" and "independence" are. I try to stay away from the war-lovers and the tyranny deniers. Those things are negative and negative people bring me down. Life is too short and precious to waste it on them.

If others honor and respect the same things, I am right there beside them; if not.... well, eventually time will show who is right.


PS: If you've always wanted a "Time's Up" flag, but been unable to afford one, here's a nice, free, virtual one you can use anywhere (online, anyway) you want. Enjoy it.

____________________________

The OverRulers

Government isn't just made up of Rulers, but of OverRulers.
They don't like the rules they are required to follow, so they overrule them.
They don't like the medicines or methods your doctor thinks would treat your condition, so they overrule him.
They don't like who you choose to love, so they overrule you.
They don't like the way you would prefer to live your life, so they overrule you.
And we let them do it!

Why?

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

"The Heller Misdirection" By William Norman Grigg

This is the best analysis I have seen of the Heller decision: The Heller Misdirection:

I especially enjoyed this paragraph:

We can't really expect a statist creature like Antonin Scalia to embrace the
view that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of citizens, acting
either individually or collectively, to kill agents of the state when such
action is necessary and morally justified. Any other view of the Second
Amendment is worse than useless; this is certainly true of the view that emerges
in Scalia's Heller opinion.

I guess Mr. Grigg is threatening to kill people, just like I get accused of doing.

I have been saying that the Heller decision is not a good thing for freedom in the long run. It seems more and more people are reaching the same conclusion. As long as you say something is an individual right, yet can be "limited", you are saying it is NOT a right at all, but a privilege that is granted by the state. That is disastrous for ALL our rights, not just the right to own and to carry weapons. As long as we assent to be subject to the whims of the state our rights are meaningless. Do not fall for it.

Your rights are absolute; not subject to limitations or restrictions. No court, not even a supreme one, has the authority to whittle even the smallest sliver off of your rights. So don't let them pretend that they do. Remember that, even according to a previous Supreme Court decision, you have no obligation to obey any "law" that violates the Constitution because, as they said, it is not really a "law". I guess it is a counterfeit "law".

Of course, in that same decision, the Supreme Court justices became criminals by illegally stealing power that was not theirs to have; leading to this whole "interpreting the Constitution" mess that we keep finding ourselves in. But that is just another example of why you and I should not get our sense of right and wrong from the Clowns of Coercion.

Thanks to The War on Guns

Libertarians

It is becoming more and more popular to call yourself a "libertarian". You see many scoundrels running for office or giving misleading opinions under that banner. It is much less popular to actually live up to the label.

I'll ignore what I consider to be the core principle of "libertarianism" for this post, since I can still illustrate my point without bringing it up. I will also not bring up the point that "anarchism" is simply "libertarianism" in full bloom; taken to its logical conclusion. (Ooops! Did I say that?)

Not everyone who calls themselves a libertarian or hangs out with libertarians is one. No matter what your own internal definition of "libertarian" happens to be, I am sure you would agree that many so-called "libertarians" hold mutually exclusive ideas and values. You can not embrace individual liberty while thinking the answer to "the problem" lies in more (or more powerful) government and more (or stricter enforcement of) "laws".

"Libertarian". The core of the word is "liberty". So anyone who is opposed to liberty or seeks to limit it in any way (except where it harms innocent people) must not, by definition, be a "libertarian". It is like saying you could be opposed to good health and be a doctor. Not impossible, but definitely irrational.

The "argument" often used by the timid so-called "libertarians" is: "you can't really want to get completely rid of cops or taxes or all gun laws or....? That would lead to chaos and death in the streets!" I doubt it would, but.... Sometimes individual liberty might be inconvenient. It might even be dangerous. No one who values the individual over the collective ever said life would be or should be safe. A safe life (totally imaginary, by the way) would not be worth much anyway. Liberty is unexpected and exciting. It has no guarantees or limits. Even so, the alternative is much worse. The worst among us get drawn toward a position inside the state's machinery where they can use coercion to control and harm others in ways a freelance attacker can only dream of.

There are many socialists of the "left" and the "right" who are trying to have a bit of the libertarian glow rub off on them by claiming the label. Yet they are not willing to leave their love of the state and their distrust of individual liberty behind where it belongs. If this applies to you, you may need to rethink your ideas of yourself. It embarrasses the rest of us who actually believe in real individual liberty and are not ashamed to stand up for it... even when it is inconvenient.



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

"SHHHHH! Don't Make a Scene!"

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I have seen the above quote attributed to several people, so I will let you sort it out. All I can say for sure is that it didn't originate with me. But I do agree with the quote, "extremely".

It seems that there are a lot of people, even self-proclaimed "libertarians", who disagree with that quote, though. Yes, I am an extremist when it comes to individual liberty. So? There can be no compromise; no equivocation; no "ifs, ands, or buts" because: "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” (Ayn Rand)

I will not ever call for the killing of innocent people, nor have I ever done such a thing. It violates the ZAP. However: "In self defense and in defense of the innocent, killing is not murder, hesitation is not moral, and cowardice is the only sin." (Dean Koontz). If you do not want to be subject to being killed in self-defense, it is an extremely simple thing to avoid. Don't attack the innocent. It isn't that hard, I promise. If your job makes it an impossible standard to live up to, then you should change jobs.

Don't mistake resolve for anger. I am not angry, and in fact, I am happy and relaxed. I simply will not be pushed. I will not compromise. I will be a soul-mirror: the attitude you approach me with will be reflected. Approach me with a full recognition that I am aware that my rights are an inborn trait, not subject to your wishes, and we will have no problems since I have the same understanding and awareness of your rights. I have no pathological desire to rule you or your children. I will consider any attempt to rule me or my children as an unjustified attack. Yet, I am not angry. Just resolved. Too many have been too polite to those whose behavior and attitude do not warrant politeness. Look where it has led.

If you take this as a threat, then obviously you are planning to attack an innocent person, or you support those who do. Either way you need to examine your beliefs and positions. You are on the side of the aggressors.


________________________

A Letter to the Editor

In the local paper, I read an editorial that got me stirred up. The editor makes anti-government sounds, but he is just anti-this government. He believes that there could be a good government out there somewhere.

I wrote this in response and it was published on June 19, 2008. You can get the gist of his editorial by my response, but it is not available online.
____________________________________________________________

Dear Editor,

In your Border Banter column of June 12, you seemed to be saying that politicians are not doing the "right things"; that with different scoundrels in office, the process would "work". It isn't the particular scoundrels that are wrong, it is the process.

Your hero, FDR, set many of the things in motion that have led to our current situation. Socialism by any other name still doesn't work. Gridlock in congress is the safest course of action. There are more than enough laws to interfere with our lives for centuries to come without any new ones being passed. The best way for government, at any level, to help the middle class is to get out of our way and let us do what we do best: build America one person at a time. The same for the health care crisis. Allow people to choose their medications or health care providers without state interference. Allow doctors to prescribe alternative treatments they feel might work better and cheaper for a particular patient. More government always brings a cost that is greater than the benefit. I have enough sense to make decisions for myself. Don't you?

Inflation is a phantom. The real problem is that our money has been stolen by government printing presses. When your money is not backed by anything of value, such as gold or silver, and more can be printed out of thin air, it will always lose value. Fiat currency creates the illusion of price increases as it sinks towards worthlessness. A gallon of gasoline still costs about the same as the silver content of a pre-1964 quarter. Think about that for a moment. Gas at a quarter per gallon, except that our "new" non-silver quarters are no longer worth a quarter, but only about a penny.

Redistribution of wealth is wrong. Controlling the lives of people who are harming no one but themselves is wrong. To allow a majority to vote to violate the rights of a minority is wrong. As long as you have a system that allows or even demands such things, our society will still be sick with all the bad things you griped about: inflation, silly regulations, clueless politicians, healthcare crises, and a middle class that bears the burden of the parasitic class of Rulers.

Sincerely, Kent McManigal

"The Rejection of Liberty"

Please take the time to read The Rejection of Liberty by Rick Flame. It gives a good review of the reasons people may use in choosing government over liberty.

Using "The Law" Against Its Creators

Most libertarians would recoil at the thought of using "The Law". It is impossible to do without getting the stink of it on your hands. Kinda like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.

Remember that "The Law" is a weapon. When a weapon is used against you in an attack, there are 3 possible outcomes: You will be defeated (killed or surrender, no real difference); You will escape; Or you will seize the weapon from the attacker and use it against him, leading to another set of those 3 possible outcomes.

"The Law" is the primary weapon the state uses against free people. Its guns only come into play when "The Law" has not gotten the result the state demands. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable, when attacked with "The Law", to seize it and use it against the aggressor. It is less acceptable to use "The Law" against non-state aggressors. There are more ethical ways of defending yourself against them.

As a possible example of using "The Law" against the state: If your state forbids concealed carry, or "requires" a permit, but "allows" open carry, use "The Law" to rub their noses in it. Carry your gun openly wherever you go. Depending on where you live, you will probably be harassed, so only do this if you are willing to be treated like a leper.

There are plenty of other examples I am sure you can think of. Just remember: don't judge those who use "The Law" against the state, nor those who refuse to do so. Both options may be right for different people.


-------------------------------

Parental Responsibility

How long is a parent responsible for the actions of their child? Obviously a parent is not responsible for the actions of their 30 year old offspring, but what about a 16 year old? Or a 10 year old? I am not sure, since I don't hold anyone responsible for the actions of another.

You can try to instill responsibility and self-governance in your kids, but that doesn't mean it will "take". Even a toddler has the ability to do things that the parents disapprove of. Sometimes without the knowledge of even the most vigilant parent. The tots don't yet have the ability to accept the consequences of their actions, but does that mean their parents automatically are responsible? Even if the parents did nothing wrong and did the absolute best they could? To punish a person for the actions of another is a collectivist idea; one that disturbs me on a deep level, even if the person is assumed to be the "owner" of the other person (which seems to be the assertion when parents are punished for the actions of their kids).

I think about this because my family gets very disturbed by my activism. I am way beyond the age where my parents would reasonably be held accountable for the things I say and write, yet they still feel that what I say, in these blogs and in letters-to-editors, sometimes reflects badly on them.


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

The Supremes on The Second Amendment

I was right. "What I don't expect is that anything substantive will change."

So, they ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that whatever limits they wish to place upon that right, such as permits, licenses, fees, and prohibitions on effective weapons of military design (the exact weapons specifically protected by the Second Amendment) are OK. Just as long as they pretend it is not an outright ban on guns.

Wrong again, psychos. Rights can not be limited, restricted, licensed, or abolished; but only respected or violated. Guess which side of the fence you have come down on once again.


____________________________________

Drug Use and Religion

I rarely write a blog for such a specific group, but this is one of those times. I am only talking to those Christians (or other religious people) who support drug prohibition. Please read the entire thing before getting angry.

Religion has a lot in common with drug use. Either one can be used in moderation or can be abused. Both can change your perception of reality. Both can make you happy while the effects last. Both have, at various times, been mandated or forbidden. Neither one harms anyone but the "self" as long as it is not coercively pushed on anyone else, and as long as it leads to no aggression. There are those who can point to a lot of aggression that both have caused when abused. Those who participate in both try to get more people to join them, saying that you just need to "try it to understand it".

To support the "War on (some) Drugs" is to make it more likely that the same excuses will be used to declare a "War on (some) Religions" as well. Remember that you do not own your neighbor's life; he does. Or, if you are of the religious persuasion: God does. In neither case do you have any say in what he does as long as he is harming no innocent person. None. To behave otherwise is to initiate force against him "for his own good", which is never really for his own "good".





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

Eleven Seconds of Anarchistic Peace and Tranquility

Relax.

No one is ruling you right now.

You are the owner of your own life.

This is reality; not the nonsense spewing from those wanna-be dictators who issue draconian edicts in an infantile attempt to control you from afar.

This is the sound of anarchy.

Enjoy.

-----------------------------------------------

State Propaganda

Do those horrible statist ad campaigns like "Click it or Ticket" or the local New Mexican abomination "100 Days and Nights of Summer" make you think of historical statist propaganda? They certainly do remind me of such things. Tyranny in catchy blurbs.

What would it have been like in 1930s Germany if their government had used similar campaigns? For Jews, the "Stars or Bars" campaign would have reminded them to wear their Star of David patch. "1 Night of Sparkling Shards" could have gotten more government sympathizers to join in for Krystalnacht. Make up a catchy slogan and anything can be made to seem reasonable to some people, I suppose.

You may accuse me of overblowing the situation with the comparison. Maybe, but if so if is only a matter of scale, not of substance. Once people begin to accept the unacceptable, anything is possible.

Statism isn't "nicer" today just because it uses actors portraying LEOs (Liberty Eradication Officers) in TV ads to indoctrinate or frighten us into accepting oppression. Hitler's disadvantage was that he didn't have the US government's ad men working for him. Oh, and he was probably even more evil (but give them time).

Kelo Day

This isn't as much fun as Anarchy Day, but is a good reason to celebrate anarchy. Kelo Day marks the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo Decision that allows government more leeway for stealing..... I mean "eminent domain" (cough).

I have written before that eminent domain is a disgusting act of theft-by-government. This is an important issue to keep in mind, and refuse to excuse. I wrote this when I began blogging:

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government. I realize this is a
long-established practice, but it is still wrong. If you or I desperately want a
certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find
another piece of land. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality. Government
should not own land, much less steal it. There is no such thing as "the common
good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

Here is some information I received about Kelo Day:

You may have read about one of the Institute for Justice's (IJ)
historic Supreme Court cases called Kelo v. New London, in which a
homeowner, Susette Kelo, held out against a private developer seeking to turn
her home into debris by way of eminent domain. The court ruled in favor of
New London, and paved the way for property rights of individuals to be
substantially and absurdly quashed in the twenty-first
century.

This Monday is the third anniversary for the Supreme
Court's infamous decision. For the anniversary, Susette Kelo is hoping
that those who strongly oppose eminent domain support the IJ in its effort to
end eminent domain abuse. You can help support this powerful
message by donating to the Institute for Justice, and help curtail the
incidence of eminent domain abuse, which in the past five years
alone included over 10,000 cases.

To donate or to view more
information, check out www.ij.org/keloday

And then also:

The lawyer in the Kelo case argued the wrong argument and that is why Mrs. Kelo
lost her case and walked away with a pittance. If the case had been centered
upon just compensation per the Monongahela Navigation Company case, she would
have greatly benefitted financially from the transaction.

Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312
(1893)
“What amount of compensation for each separate use of any particular
property may be charged is sometimes fixed by the statute which gives authority
for the creation of the property, sometimes determined by what it is reasonably
worth and sometimes, if it is purely private property, devoted only to private
uses, the matter rests arbitrarily with the will of the
owner.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/148/312/case.html

The "Punishment Mentality"

It disturbs me a bit to realize that some people live their lives just to see someone else get punished. "Give 'em what they've got coming!" gives them a thrill. I admit, there are some people I can't dredge up much sympathy for (does "initiating force, or threatening or delegating its initiation" ring a bell?).

Maybe it is like a reality show for them. After all, garbage like "COPS" has been polluting minds for many years now. So the "good citizen" hears about Person X and the accusations against him; sees Person X go to trial and then to jail; then gets giddy at the prospect of Person X suffering extra-judicial punishment at the hands of the other prisoners. I just don't get it. I realize that we are all just one set-up away from being locked up on some bogus charge. Yes, even the most "patriotic" among us. The crimes that elicit this response the most often are also the easiest for the enforcers to fake.

On the other hand, when some attacker gets culled from the gene pool by an armed, free Human, I don't shed a tear. It is simply that I don't, and never will, trust the state and its methods or goals.


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

Control-Freaks

I just don't understand why some people have the strong desire to control others. Isn't it enough to control themselves? Yet, so many of those control-freaks don't control themselves. They seem to want to control others instead.

Some of them gravitate towards jobs, such as in government, where they can use coercion to control others, while some simply exercise their coercion and control in their private lives. Either way, they seek to become the tyrant of their own mini-kingdom.

My desire to control others ends at the borders of my own existence: Try to force me to do your bidding, and I will try to control, limit, or end your ability to coerce me, or if that fails, I will simply resist. I think this puts me in a definite minority (again). Ah well. I am used to it.

Financing Government

I hear people calling for tax penalties against oil companies. I say it is a bad idea. I also hate it when some person, even an aggressor, is ordered to pay a "fine". Why?

Because the money goes to finance more government. That is the last thing any of us needs. If a person initiates force against another, restitution should be paid to the victim, not to the state! How does paying the state make sense to anyone? I know that many court cases are "Person v The State of Coercion" or whatever, but unless there is at least one real, individual victim, there was no "aggression" committed.

Tax penalties and fines only make sense to those who see nothing wrong with more money financing more government to pass more "laws" to collect more fines to... and so on, in order to clamp down on individual liberty even harder.