As long as people keep looking to government for the answers, whether it is about energy, finances, the environment, or morality, people will keep getting the wrong answers.
Just look at the huge government-caused financial meltdown that all the professional parasites are up-in-arms about. Yes, the government caused it; more government will not fix it.
One half of the OBAMcCAIN beast was on the news declaring that "Time is short and doing nothing is not an option". Really? That is odd because in every other decision in life, "doing nothing" is always an option, and is very often the RIGHT option. What if "doing nothing" is the right choice in this government-created financial nightmare? Are you and your fellow "congressites" so determined to be seen "doing something" that you will shove us off a cliff instead of stopping to realize who and what is to blame? Yep. That is what you and your fellow parasites will do. Happily.
The bigger and more critical a problem is, the less likely it is that it can be solved by government. Only very trivial matters should be attempted by professional parasites in government. Let them worry about the color of their office stationery (or begin training to survive in the post-government economy). Let the free individuals who make up the market keep ourselves safe and our finances in working order. Get your pathetic, mentally diseased, carcasses out of the way and let the FREE MARKET do what it will inevitably do (as long as you stop meddling)! Collectivism is NEVER the solution. Only a traitor would even consider it.
--------------------------
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tyranny's "Black Hole"
The qualities of the cosmic anomaly called a "black hole" have some lessons to teach us about tyranny.
The more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational field. Add enough mass and there will come a point where the gravity will be so great that the escape velocity of the body will be greater than the speed of light. The object will become invisible, although its existence can still be observed by looking at its effects on nearby matter and light. (This skips over the whole description of the object collapsing upon itself until it becomes a "singularity" of infinite density condensed to a single point which is smaller than an electron. Although that, too, has certain similarities to government)
If you are falling into a black hole, there is a point of no return, called the "event horizon", where you will disappear from the view of the outside world (or, possibly, appear to be frozen in time right at the event horizon to an outside observer). Yet you would not notice anything different, other than the constantly increasing gravitation and acceleration. Once you pass the event horizon, there is no escape, you must go into, or possibly through, the singularity. You will either be squeezed into oblivion and add to the mass of the object, or hypothetically you might come out elsewhere in the universe. Probably not a pleasant prospect either way.
That is just a complicated introduction to get you to this:
This is similar to falling into tyranny.
From the outside, such as through the lens of history, it may be obvious, though to you there is no clear point of no return. However, it is real and you really don't want to go there. Turn around before it is too late, because you won't be able to see it coming, and you may not make it to the other side. The real problem is that your family and friends will also be dragged along.
Much easier to avoid than to survive.
-----------------------------------------------
The more mass an object has, the stronger its gravitational field. Add enough mass and there will come a point where the gravity will be so great that the escape velocity of the body will be greater than the speed of light. The object will become invisible, although its existence can still be observed by looking at its effects on nearby matter and light. (This skips over the whole description of the object collapsing upon itself until it becomes a "singularity" of infinite density condensed to a single point which is smaller than an electron. Although that, too, has certain similarities to government)
If you are falling into a black hole, there is a point of no return, called the "event horizon", where you will disappear from the view of the outside world (or, possibly, appear to be frozen in time right at the event horizon to an outside observer). Yet you would not notice anything different, other than the constantly increasing gravitation and acceleration. Once you pass the event horizon, there is no escape, you must go into, or possibly through, the singularity. You will either be squeezed into oblivion and add to the mass of the object, or hypothetically you might come out elsewhere in the universe. Probably not a pleasant prospect either way.
That is just a complicated introduction to get you to this:
This is similar to falling into tyranny.
From the outside, such as through the lens of history, it may be obvious, though to you there is no clear point of no return. However, it is real and you really don't want to go there. Turn around before it is too late, because you won't be able to see it coming, and you may not make it to the other side. The real problem is that your family and friends will also be dragged along.
Much easier to avoid than to survive.
-----------------------------------------------
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Obeying the State
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."- Robert A. Heinlein
There are times I do things that the state demands, that I would rather not do. Paying some taxes is one of those things, and hiding certain activities is another.
When I do obey the state, it is not because I think the state is right, it is to avoid being killed by its enforcers. When you obey to avoid being killed, you also accept that you may need to act in self defense. Especially if you see an opening. Time after time it is demonstrated that working within the system only works to increase state control. If you don't think that "the game" is rigged, you are not paying attention.
Is that really the situation the government wanted to bring about? Does intent even matter at this point?
There are times I do things that the state demands, that I would rather not do. Paying some taxes is one of those things, and hiding certain activities is another.
When I do obey the state, it is not because I think the state is right, it is to avoid being killed by its enforcers. When you obey to avoid being killed, you also accept that you may need to act in self defense. Especially if you see an opening. Time after time it is demonstrated that working within the system only works to increase state control. If you don't think that "the game" is rigged, you are not paying attention.
Is that really the situation the government wanted to bring about? Does intent even matter at this point?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Getting Along
I get along very well with almost everyone I meet. There are a few people who decide they aren't going to like me based upon my appearance. Even most of those change their mind after they get to know me. I can fully expect to go through my life with no major problems between myself and other individuals. I do expect there will be problems, though. All caused by different organs of the state and my refusal to simply obey. The only difficulties that arise are because of the state at one level or another.
Even when I have a deep difference of opinion with someone, it doesn't usually get too personal. As long as they don't force me to act as though I think they are right, and then force me to act against my principles, there will probably be no problem, at least from my end.
Individuals who have allowed themselves to become pawns of the state may have problems with me. I know that their "authority" is illegitimate. I know that almost every one of the rules they enforce are counterfeit. Their entire lives and purposes are based upon lies. They really don't like to encounter people who recognize that fact.
Even when I have a deep difference of opinion with someone, it doesn't usually get too personal. As long as they don't force me to act as though I think they are right, and then force me to act against my principles, there will probably be no problem, at least from my end.
Individuals who have allowed themselves to become pawns of the state may have problems with me. I know that their "authority" is illegitimate. I know that almost every one of the rules they enforce are counterfeit. Their entire lives and purposes are based upon lies. They really don't like to encounter people who recognize that fact.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Preserving "Our Culture"
One of the main reasons expressed to oppose independent migrants is that they will supposedly overrun the country and destroy "our culture".
The culture changes all the time. Take a look at television shows, magazines, comedy routines, and popular music. Is it all the same as when you were young? Most of those who want to protect the culture are also quick to complain about the decline of that same culture.... which they then turn around and want to protect. Confused? Me too. Do you think immigrants are to blame for this "decline"? And that is just pop culture, not real life.
The predominant "culture" is just the "shared values" of the majority of society, or at least those members of society who are over a certain age. This predominant culture is already at odds with my values.
I value independence and innovation. The predominant culture values safety and conformity.
I value liberty. The majority seems to prefer "patriotism".
I value those who take responsibility; the culture would rather place blame.
I value your freedom to observe whichever religion (or none) that you have accepted, as long as you don't try to force me to pretend to agree with you. Society seems to enjoy the "we are righteously enlightened; they are monsters who eat babies" mentality when comparing religions.
I don't understand the obsession with sports and entertainment that seems to rule society.
I value justice; The culture I live among now claims torture is OK as long as it is "our side" doing it and as long as we call it something else.
Instead of becoming a short-sighted xenophobe who willingly sacrifices liberty on your altar to the "borders", try spreading a love of real liberty for ALL to your new neighbors. If they see a consistency in you, including a refusal to accept government handouts, they may be more receptive than you think. If nothing else, drown any authoritarian tendencies in lavish freedom. There are, and will always be, more good people than bad. They can't win without our help. Only by acting like the bad will we help them win.
You can't frighten me with your dire predictions of TEOTWAWKI from migrants. I already live surrounded by barbarians who think my refusal to bow to the state is a threat to them.
If "preserving our culture" is the best the statists can come up with as an excuse to "seal the borders" I'll risk it. After all, there is little left to value in this culture anyway.
...............................................................
The culture changes all the time. Take a look at television shows, magazines, comedy routines, and popular music. Is it all the same as when you were young? Most of those who want to protect the culture are also quick to complain about the decline of that same culture.... which they then turn around and want to protect. Confused? Me too. Do you think immigrants are to blame for this "decline"? And that is just pop culture, not real life.
The predominant "culture" is just the "shared values" of the majority of society, or at least those members of society who are over a certain age. This predominant culture is already at odds with my values.
I value independence and innovation. The predominant culture values safety and conformity.
I value liberty. The majority seems to prefer "patriotism".
I value those who take responsibility; the culture would rather place blame.
I value your freedom to observe whichever religion (or none) that you have accepted, as long as you don't try to force me to pretend to agree with you. Society seems to enjoy the "we are righteously enlightened; they are monsters who eat babies" mentality when comparing religions.
I don't understand the obsession with sports and entertainment that seems to rule society.
I value justice; The culture I live among now claims torture is OK as long as it is "our side" doing it and as long as we call it something else.
Instead of becoming a short-sighted xenophobe who willingly sacrifices liberty on your altar to the "borders", try spreading a love of real liberty for ALL to your new neighbors. If they see a consistency in you, including a refusal to accept government handouts, they may be more receptive than you think. If nothing else, drown any authoritarian tendencies in lavish freedom. There are, and will always be, more good people than bad. They can't win without our help. Only by acting like the bad will we help them win.
You can't frighten me with your dire predictions of TEOTWAWKI from migrants. I already live surrounded by barbarians who think my refusal to bow to the state is a threat to them.
If "preserving our culture" is the best the statists can come up with as an excuse to "seal the borders" I'll risk it. After all, there is little left to value in this culture anyway.
...............................................................
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope
This is an excerpt from a very good book dealing with a contentious subject. Read it please.
Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope
Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope
"Manifesto to an Obama Supporter" by Bill St.Clair
I recommend you read this: "Manifesto to an Obama Supporter" by Bill St.Clair
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Job 1: Cripple "The Gang"
I have been reminded that I need to reiterate my primary campaign promise: As a libertarian, if elected, I would do everything in my power to cripple the BATFE. I would make it pointless for them to continue their war on gun owners. I would turn the White house into a "pardon factory"; churning out pardons as fast as possible for every person harassed, arrested, or convicted under one of the US's illegal victim disarmament "laws". And don't think I will forget about the "A", "T", and "E" victims, either. No part of that criminal organization's agenda is allowable under the Constitution and I will never forget or forgive.
This does not mean I would pardon anyone who actually attacked or robbed an innocent person. That is a real crime not a counterfeit BATFE "crime".
Any person convicted of any self-defense related charge, owning an unapproved gun, owning "too many" guns, carrying a gun in "the wrong place" or in "the wrong way", or any person being prosecuted for self-defensive actions against LEOs or any other government representatives who were attempting to enforce any counterfeit "law" would also be on the fast-track to a pardon.
Some people may think this is too radical. When facing a metastasizing police-state, radical actions are needed.
-----------------------------------------
This does not mean I would pardon anyone who actually attacked or robbed an innocent person. That is a real crime not a counterfeit BATFE "crime".
Any person convicted of any self-defense related charge, owning an unapproved gun, owning "too many" guns, carrying a gun in "the wrong place" or in "the wrong way", or any person being prosecuted for self-defensive actions against LEOs or any other government representatives who were attempting to enforce any counterfeit "law" would also be on the fast-track to a pardon.
Some people may think this is too radical. When facing a metastasizing police-state, radical actions are needed.
-----------------------------------------
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Opening the "Borders"... Why?
In a comment on a post on War on Guns I have been challenged by David Codrea to comment on my vision of ridding the world of "borders", and why I think it is necessary.
OK. Here goes:
David writes: "I'm not ready to admit any Al Quaeda operative who wants to come on over and stroll freely about." Who's to decide who is an Al Quaeda operative and who isn't? The feds are certainly not very good at it. I would much rather be "allowed" to defend myself and my property than to trust my safety to those who only want control. Many people don't take responsibility for their own safety because of the legal repercussions of doing so. I don't care what someone is or is claimed to be, but only what they do. Initiate force or fraud and I don't care if you are Al Quaeda, a cop, or BATFE, you are my enemy. Come to think of it, who really constitutes the bigger threat to my liberty? I'll bet you know the answer to that one.
David says: "That is not the world we are in, and not likely to be for the foreseeable future. .....Right now, like it or not, we have what we have. ....... In the structure that exists....." and I agree. He is pointing out, quite correctly, that the attitudes of the people and the governmental realities prevent a rational, reasonable, solution to bad guys moving to America and wreaking havoc. You don't cure cancer by removing one cancerous cell and then saying "See, you are still dying!" You must remove all the cancerous tumors and then make certain that any stragglers are destroyed before they can grow into a new tumor.
Tyranny is the same way. I don't think real freedom will ever be accomplished piecemeal. This is why I am a radical. That isn't a popular thing to say. People don't want to face the fact that they will have to relinquish their hold on their favorite bit of authoritarianism. And "immigration control" is a very popular piece of the tyranny machine.
The truth is, the freedom to travel, as long as you don't trespass on private property, is an indispensable part of individual liberty. If government owns all the land around us, or if it owns us and the immigrants as well, then government has the authority to declare independent migrants to be "illegal". Otherwise government is overstepping its authority even if it is a popular stance. Liberty may not always be "safe", but no one who knows liberty demands that it be.
Added: I realize that I left out one important fact, and that is that curing cancer (or tyranny) can be painful and some people choose to forgo the treatment and let nature take its course. That is their choice, but they do not have my permission to make that choice for me.
OK. Here goes:
David writes: "I'm not ready to admit any Al Quaeda operative who wants to come on over and stroll freely about." Who's to decide who is an Al Quaeda operative and who isn't? The feds are certainly not very good at it. I would much rather be "allowed" to defend myself and my property than to trust my safety to those who only want control. Many people don't take responsibility for their own safety because of the legal repercussions of doing so. I don't care what someone is or is claimed to be, but only what they do. Initiate force or fraud and I don't care if you are Al Quaeda, a cop, or BATFE, you are my enemy. Come to think of it, who really constitutes the bigger threat to my liberty? I'll bet you know the answer to that one.
David says: "That is not the world we are in, and not likely to be for the foreseeable future. .....Right now, like it or not, we have what we have. ....... In the structure that exists....." and I agree. He is pointing out, quite correctly, that the attitudes of the people and the governmental realities prevent a rational, reasonable, solution to bad guys moving to America and wreaking havoc. You don't cure cancer by removing one cancerous cell and then saying "See, you are still dying!" You must remove all the cancerous tumors and then make certain that any stragglers are destroyed before they can grow into a new tumor.
Tyranny is the same way. I don't think real freedom will ever be accomplished piecemeal. This is why I am a radical. That isn't a popular thing to say. People don't want to face the fact that they will have to relinquish their hold on their favorite bit of authoritarianism. And "immigration control" is a very popular piece of the tyranny machine.
The truth is, the freedom to travel, as long as you don't trespass on private property, is an indispensable part of individual liberty. If government owns all the land around us, or if it owns us and the immigrants as well, then government has the authority to declare independent migrants to be "illegal". Otherwise government is overstepping its authority even if it is a popular stance. Liberty may not always be "safe", but no one who knows liberty demands that it be.
Added: I realize that I left out one important fact, and that is that curing cancer (or tyranny) can be painful and some people choose to forgo the treatment and let nature take its course. That is their choice, but they do not have my permission to make that choice for me.
Libertarianism Frees You Twice
Libertarianism doesn't just free you, it frees you twice.
It frees you from holding onto false ideologies; allowing you to focus on what really matters.
It also frees you from the need to worry over other peoples' private lives; once again, allowing you to focus on more important things.
You may think this isn't a big deal, but think again. The more consistently libertarian I act, the easier my life gets. Try it for yourself and see if it doesn't hold true for you as well.
________________________________
It frees you from holding onto false ideologies; allowing you to focus on what really matters.
It also frees you from the need to worry over other peoples' private lives; once again, allowing you to focus on more important things.
You may think this isn't a big deal, but think again. The more consistently libertarian I act, the easier my life gets. Try it for yourself and see if it doesn't hold true for you as well.
________________________________
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
"Lawful Purposes"
When the Supreme Court unconstitutionally ruled on the Constitutionality of DC's victim disarmament "laws", "Justice" Antonin Scalia was quoted as saying "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home." (emphasis mine)
I, for one, have a lot of problems with that statement. Not the least of which is in defining "lawful purposes".
Overthrowing a tyrannical government is never "lawful", yet is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the right to own and to carry arms. Perhaps we could squeak through by emphasizing the word "traditional". The war for independence certainly set up a tradition that we should follow. But then there is also the tradition of keeping the exact same, or better, arms that are current military issue. Of course, the parasites in government "service" have decreed that we may not do that either.
Scalia's mentioning of "self defense within the home" is a cowardly way to try to limit the right. "Self defense" is the same no matter if you are in your home, on the job, in the White House, or on a plane. It is an absolute, unlimited, human right that can never be legitimately subjected to "reasonable restrictions". As with all rights, your right to self defense can be respected or it can be violated. Those who violate it in any way are evil and they are your enemy. Never forget who those predators are.
Do not strive to be "lawful" or "law abiding". Strive to be right.
------------------------------------
I, for one, have a lot of problems with that statement. Not the least of which is in defining "lawful purposes".
Overthrowing a tyrannical government is never "lawful", yet is one of the primary reasons for the existence of the right to own and to carry arms. Perhaps we could squeak through by emphasizing the word "traditional". The war for independence certainly set up a tradition that we should follow. But then there is also the tradition of keeping the exact same, or better, arms that are current military issue. Of course, the parasites in government "service" have decreed that we may not do that either.
Scalia's mentioning of "self defense within the home" is a cowardly way to try to limit the right. "Self defense" is the same no matter if you are in your home, on the job, in the White House, or on a plane. It is an absolute, unlimited, human right that can never be legitimately subjected to "reasonable restrictions". As with all rights, your right to self defense can be respected or it can be violated. Those who violate it in any way are evil and they are your enemy. Never forget who those predators are.
Do not strive to be "lawful" or "law abiding". Strive to be right.
------------------------------------
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier
If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you want privacy? This is why: "The Eternal Value of Privacy" by Bruce Schneier
Monday, September 15, 2008
Thoughts on Hurricane Ike
I don't know if I would have evacuated if I had been in the path of the hurricane. As it is, I am high and dry many hundreds of miles away, though still in Texas. But, had I been in the storm's path, what would I have done?
It would depend upon my assessment of the structural integrity of my house, and the elevation of my location. Each person should make decisions of that sort on their own without threats and panic-inducement from the authoriturds. That being said, I can't understand those clowns who choose to stay and then cry out for the government to rescue them when things don't go well. Grow up and take responsibility for your decisions. You are only giving the state an excuse to say "We told you so"
The really big danger of evacuating is that the "authorities" won't let you go home until they decide it is "safe". That might be the one factor that would cause me to ride it out even if I would have otherwise left. Let people make their own choices.
Given recent examples of government mishandling and exacerbation of natural disasters with incompetence and tyranny, I don't blame people for ignoring government's hand wringing and barked orders.
This is another reminder to stay prepared. Not all emergencies come with days of prior warning.
Then I hear people complaining about "price gouging" in the wake of the storm. Please. It's called "supply and demand" and is a feature of the free market that serves to distribute supplies to those who really need and want them. I am not surprised that the Socialist in Chief has a problem with the free market, but I am surprised that so few people correct his lies regarding this.
On a related note: I know how to stop a hurricane. A sufficiently large asteroid strike would make a hurricane go away in record time, though it wouldn't be any nicer for the people in the affected areas.
It would depend upon my assessment of the structural integrity of my house, and the elevation of my location. Each person should make decisions of that sort on their own without threats and panic-inducement from the authoriturds. That being said, I can't understand those clowns who choose to stay and then cry out for the government to rescue them when things don't go well. Grow up and take responsibility for your decisions. You are only giving the state an excuse to say "We told you so"
The really big danger of evacuating is that the "authorities" won't let you go home until they decide it is "safe". That might be the one factor that would cause me to ride it out even if I would have otherwise left. Let people make their own choices.
Given recent examples of government mishandling and exacerbation of natural disasters with incompetence and tyranny, I don't blame people for ignoring government's hand wringing and barked orders.
This is another reminder to stay prepared. Not all emergencies come with days of prior warning.
Then I hear people complaining about "price gouging" in the wake of the storm. Please. It's called "supply and demand" and is a feature of the free market that serves to distribute supplies to those who really need and want them. I am not surprised that the Socialist in Chief has a problem with the free market, but I am surprised that so few people correct his lies regarding this.
On a related note: I know how to stop a hurricane. A sufficiently large asteroid strike would make a hurricane go away in record time, though it wouldn't be any nicer for the people in the affected areas.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
SiteMeter's Change- I'm Posting Blind Now
With the new format for SiteMeter, I can't access the data I had come to count on. I will no longer know if anyone is reading this. At least not easily enough that I will actually bother to check.
I'll probably uninstall the whole mess soon if they don't make it easier to use.
While frustrating, it might also be liberating.
Added: I guess I wasn't the only one having problems. They have gone back to the old style for now. I don't mind the new style as long as they have the same data as the old style, easily accessible. They didn't. I hope when they fix it, it has the features I want.
................................................
I'll probably uninstall the whole mess soon if they don't make it easier to use.
While frustrating, it might also be liberating.
Added: I guess I wasn't the only one having problems. They have gone back to the old style for now. I don't mind the new style as long as they have the same data as the old style, easily accessible. They didn't. I hope when they fix it, it has the features I want.
................................................
Diffuse Efforts to Undermine Tyranny
I thought I would put together a list of some of the freedom efforts being pursued. Some are more serious than others, some will irritate anarchists while some will irritate minarchists. Look into these, or others you may know of, and if you find one or more that you are interested in, join them and help the effort. Doing something is better than doing nothing.
Advocates For Self-Government
Alliance for the Separation of School and State
American Liberty Dollar
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Boston Tea Party
Cato Institute
Checkpoint USA
Constitution Preservation
Copper Cards
Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Flex Your Rights
Free America
Free State Project
Free State Wyoming
Fully Informed Jury Association
Give Me Liberty
International Society for Individual Liberty
Libertarian Majority
Libertarianism.com
Loving County
Republic of Lakotah
Seize Liberty Network
Simply Anarchy
Sovereigns of the High Frontier
Take Your Money Back
The On Line Freedom Academy
United States House of Repeals
Advocates For Self-Government
Alliance for the Separation of School and State
American Liberty Dollar
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Boston Tea Party
Cato Institute
Checkpoint USA
Constitution Preservation
Copper Cards
Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Flex Your Rights
Free America
Free State Project
Free State Wyoming
Fully Informed Jury Association
Give Me Liberty
International Society for Individual Liberty
Libertarian Majority
Libertarianism.com
Loving County
Republic of Lakotah
Seize Liberty Network
Simply Anarchy
Sovereigns of the High Frontier
Take Your Money Back
The On Line Freedom Academy
United States House of Repeals
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Building Liberty's Gallows
Are you supplying rope, nails, assistance, or knowledge to those who are building the gallows they plan to hang you on?
If you support ANY government agency, program, branch, or function, you are.
The only justification for being part of the construction crew would be if you were making certain that faulty materials were being used so that the structure would collapse if it were used. Or if you had altered the blueprints so that those following them would end up with a useless product.
In that case you are making a sacrifice for liberty. Don't be surprised if you are not recognized as being on the side of liberty by a casual observer, and be prepared for whatever may come when those ducks come home to roost. It won't be a good time to be mistaken for an enabler.
If you support ANY government agency, program, branch, or function, you are.
The only justification for being part of the construction crew would be if you were making certain that faulty materials were being used so that the structure would collapse if it were used. Or if you had altered the blueprints so that those following them would end up with a useless product.
In that case you are making a sacrifice for liberty. Don't be surprised if you are not recognized as being on the side of liberty by a casual observer, and be prepared for whatever may come when those ducks come home to roost. It won't be a good time to be mistaken for an enabler.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Upcoming Election Dilemma- Solved
You want "change"? I've got your "change" right here!
I have not been pushing my write-in campaign in order to avoid irritating you. It is time to speak up again. I am still serious in my promises to you.
Voting for the "OBAMcCAIN" creature is wasting your vote. There is no justification for it. Voting for the lesser of 2 (or 3 or..?) evils is wasting your vote. It is quite possible that voting at all is wasting your vote because it endorses a bad system and a terrible idea: tyranny of the majority.
So, what does a principled person with a conscience do?
The best possible way to spend your vote in this rigged game is by using it to send a message.
If you still think voting is a good idea, why would you vote for anyone other than the candidate who believes you know how to run your own life better than anyone else? That can only mean a real libertarian. I trust you to make the right decisions and be a responsible person. Does OBAMcCAIN? Absolutely not!
Why would you vote for someone who fears you enough to try to immorally take your guns out of your hands while in public (you know, where you need them the most)? Instead, if voting is to be worthwhile, vote for the person who has stated that you should be armed at all times if you so choose, including when in his presence. I'll take my chances with true liberty.
Why waste your vote on some joker who thinks other people own your body and are authorized to tell you what to do with it? Instead, if your vote is not to be wasted, vote for the person who knows that no one has the authority to do anything to your body without your permission, nor to prevent you from destroying your own body if that is your choice.
Why waste your vote on someone who might "allow" you to keep "more" of your money instead of recognizing that no one has any right to a cent of your money except for you? If you choose to vote, vote for the one who knows that your property belongs to you alone.
Why waste your vote on a candidate who supports the continued printing of counterfeit money by the Federal Reserve? Instead, vote for a candidate who will insist on a return to real money.
Why waste your vote on a candidate who thinks he and the rest of the Rulers own your personal property and can control "who, what, and why" you allow to be there. Your property is yours and no one else has any claim on it.
Why throw your vote away on some creep who wants to imprison your children for many hours every day, for more than 9 months a year, for 12 or more years, to train them to be good little cogs, all paid for with stolen money ransomed from homes? Your children and their education are your responsibility. You can do a better job... cheaper and without the Pavlovian training to jump at the sound of a bell... than the state. Vote for the person who will fight to free you and your children.
Why waste your vote on someone who believes that it is OK for "society" to tell people who are harming no innocent person that they are being bad and should be kidnapped and imprisoned? If you are harming no innocent person you are free to live your life however you see fit. No matter who is offended by your choices. This is absolutely non-negotiable in a free society.
Don't waste your vote. The only way to truly not waste it is by voting for yourself. I am volunteering to be your proxy. A vote for me is a vote for yourself. I am a true libertarian who acknowledges that you own your own life, and who will help you fight off any attempts to deny you that self-determination.
Write-in voting is inconvenient. The feds will refuse to count the votes. However, if there are enough of them, and they are mostly for one person, they may still refuse to acknowledge the votes, but they won't be able to ignore them. Those votes, if there are enough of them, will scare the "snot" out of them.
I still believe the wisest thing to do on election day is stay home and prepare, or go out and buy ammo. Many people still see value in voting, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If that is the case, please consider voting in self-defense this time.
If you spend your vote on me, and if I were to win, I promise to never cooperate with ANY branch of the federal (or any) government or with ANY federal (or other level) agency. This is the only way to empower liberty: hobble the state. I am the anti-body for authoritarianism. Inoculate the federal government with a dose of me. Or think of me as chemotherapy to fight off the metastasized cancer of government. Either way, I would be much better than the rest of the candidates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have not been pushing my write-in campaign in order to avoid irritating you. It is time to speak up again. I am still serious in my promises to you.
Voting for the "OBAMcCAIN" creature is wasting your vote. There is no justification for it. Voting for the lesser of 2 (or 3 or..?) evils is wasting your vote. It is quite possible that voting at all is wasting your vote because it endorses a bad system and a terrible idea: tyranny of the majority.
So, what does a principled person with a conscience do?
The best possible way to spend your vote in this rigged game is by using it to send a message.
If you still think voting is a good idea, why would you vote for anyone other than the candidate who believes you know how to run your own life better than anyone else? That can only mean a real libertarian. I trust you to make the right decisions and be a responsible person. Does OBAMcCAIN? Absolutely not!
Why would you vote for someone who fears you enough to try to immorally take your guns out of your hands while in public (you know, where you need them the most)? Instead, if voting is to be worthwhile, vote for the person who has stated that you should be armed at all times if you so choose, including when in his presence. I'll take my chances with true liberty.
Why waste your vote on some joker who thinks other people own your body and are authorized to tell you what to do with it? Instead, if your vote is not to be wasted, vote for the person who knows that no one has the authority to do anything to your body without your permission, nor to prevent you from destroying your own body if that is your choice.
Why waste your vote on someone who might "allow" you to keep "more" of your money instead of recognizing that no one has any right to a cent of your money except for you? If you choose to vote, vote for the one who knows that your property belongs to you alone.
Why waste your vote on a candidate who supports the continued printing of counterfeit money by the Federal Reserve? Instead, vote for a candidate who will insist on a return to real money.
Why waste your vote on a candidate who thinks he and the rest of the Rulers own your personal property and can control "who, what, and why" you allow to be there. Your property is yours and no one else has any claim on it.
Why throw your vote away on some creep who wants to imprison your children for many hours every day, for more than 9 months a year, for 12 or more years, to train them to be good little cogs, all paid for with stolen money ransomed from homes? Your children and their education are your responsibility. You can do a better job... cheaper and without the Pavlovian training to jump at the sound of a bell... than the state. Vote for the person who will fight to free you and your children.
Why waste your vote on someone who believes that it is OK for "society" to tell people who are harming no innocent person that they are being bad and should be kidnapped and imprisoned? If you are harming no innocent person you are free to live your life however you see fit. No matter who is offended by your choices. This is absolutely non-negotiable in a free society.
Don't waste your vote. The only way to truly not waste it is by voting for yourself. I am volunteering to be your proxy. A vote for me is a vote for yourself. I am a true libertarian who acknowledges that you own your own life, and who will help you fight off any attempts to deny you that self-determination.
Write-in voting is inconvenient. The feds will refuse to count the votes. However, if there are enough of them, and they are mostly for one person, they may still refuse to acknowledge the votes, but they won't be able to ignore them. Those votes, if there are enough of them, will scare the "snot" out of them.
I still believe the wisest thing to do on election day is stay home and prepare, or go out and buy ammo. Many people still see value in voting, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If that is the case, please consider voting in self-defense this time.
If you spend your vote on me, and if I were to win, I promise to never cooperate with ANY branch of the federal (or any) government or with ANY federal (or other level) agency. This is the only way to empower liberty: hobble the state. I am the anti-body for authoritarianism. Inoculate the federal government with a dose of me. Or think of me as chemotherapy to fight off the metastasized cancer of government. Either way, I would be much better than the rest of the candidates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A Triumph of "Gun Control"
In quiet contemplation of "Gun Control Success Day", I post this illustration from Scott Bieser. Remember: They hate us because we are free.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Are You Part of the Reason Liberty is Dying?
Personally, there are a lot of activities I don't like. Guess what... my opinion is less than worthless. As long as you are not harming another innocent person I have no right to stop you, nor does government. In fact, since government is not a person, it has no "rights" at all.
Suppose your neighbor likes to get together with a group of like-minded people and lick stinging nettles and straddle electric fences on their own property. You may think they are crazy. You may decry the fact that they are harming themselves. You may even be disgusted at the fact that your neighbor gets a sexual thrill from his chosen activity. You can question the reasons behind it. You can try to convince your neighbor that he is damaging his body. But the second you try to use coercion, either personally or by attacking him with the state, you are doing wrong.
Now substitute a real-world activity for the nettles-and-electricity scenario (not claiming no ones does this, just that there are others easier to imagine). Do you love liberty enough to defend the right of the person doing the thing you hate the most, as long as they are not harming others? If not, why not?
Do you seek to throw the state at others in any way? Do you have any pet project that uses the state, but that you defend "just in this one instance"? Do you fall for the propaganda that serves to divide freedom lovers and empower the state as it attempts to control every aspect of our lives? Do you defend the speech rights of those who say hateful things, while still proclaiming that they are wrong, or do you seek to use the state to make them be quiet? If so, you are helping build government, not to dismantle it.
In this time of mega-state Big-Brotherism, we must fight even harder against those who would infringe on even the most bizarre and unpopular victimless activity. Otherwise we are playing right into the hands of the worse enemy human civilization has ever known: government. They know the game of "divide and conquer" and they have been using it for millennia. Don't play their game. Join with your neighbors and smash the state.
..........................................................................
Suppose your neighbor likes to get together with a group of like-minded people and lick stinging nettles and straddle electric fences on their own property. You may think they are crazy. You may decry the fact that they are harming themselves. You may even be disgusted at the fact that your neighbor gets a sexual thrill from his chosen activity. You can question the reasons behind it. You can try to convince your neighbor that he is damaging his body. But the second you try to use coercion, either personally or by attacking him with the state, you are doing wrong.
Now substitute a real-world activity for the nettles-and-electricity scenario (not claiming no ones does this, just that there are others easier to imagine). Do you love liberty enough to defend the right of the person doing the thing you hate the most, as long as they are not harming others? If not, why not?
Do you seek to throw the state at others in any way? Do you have any pet project that uses the state, but that you defend "just in this one instance"? Do you fall for the propaganda that serves to divide freedom lovers and empower the state as it attempts to control every aspect of our lives? Do you defend the speech rights of those who say hateful things, while still proclaiming that they are wrong, or do you seek to use the state to make them be quiet? If so, you are helping build government, not to dismantle it.
In this time of mega-state Big-Brotherism, we must fight even harder against those who would infringe on even the most bizarre and unpopular victimless activity. Otherwise we are playing right into the hands of the worse enemy human civilization has ever known: government. They know the game of "divide and conquer" and they have been using it for millennia. Don't play their game. Join with your neighbors and smash the state.
..........................................................................
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Extremists Defending Absolute Human Rights
The defense of absolute human rights is only an "extreme" position to those who wish to violate those human rights. Violating absolute human rights always leads to death. When you are called "an extremist", remember who is speaking.
Is your accuser dressed in black bullet-proof clothing; riding in an armored personnel carrier, carrying weapons that he would kill you for possessing?
Is the speaker sitting in an office thinking up new ways to take what belongs to you, while counting on those with the "prohibited-to-you" weapons to enforce the theft?
Is the speaker calling for you and your friends and family to be killed to make way for a new, enlightened world?
Is your accuser wanting to see a river of blood usher in his version of "justice"?
Can you tell the difference between extremism in defense of liberty and extremism in the cause of tyranny? Yeah? So can I.
----------------------------------
Is your accuser dressed in black bullet-proof clothing; riding in an armored personnel carrier, carrying weapons that he would kill you for possessing?
Is the speaker sitting in an office thinking up new ways to take what belongs to you, while counting on those with the "prohibited-to-you" weapons to enforce the theft?
Is the speaker calling for you and your friends and family to be killed to make way for a new, enlightened world?
Is your accuser wanting to see a river of blood usher in his version of "justice"?
Can you tell the difference between extremism in defense of liberty and extremism in the cause of tyranny? Yeah? So can I.
----------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)