Why blog? Since I don't think it is right to force my views on anyone, my only alternative is to try to convince you that I am right, and that liberty is really the best way to live life. That is really the only point to this blog.
I started this blog as a campaign blog for my presidential run. That is over now, yet I keep writing.
As long as think I am still doing some good, I will continue to blog. Some people will continue to view me as a crackpot. That can't be avoided without abandoning my principles. The state's brainwashing runs deep in most people today. Anyone who points out its flaws will seem ridiculous to anyone who refuses to think critically about the reality. I seek to make them think. Sometimes that means stating the facts in a stark manner, and letting the chips lie where they fall. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings. It is simply unavoidable at times.
I deeply appreciate those of you who have written to express your support of this blog, and especially appreciate those who have donated money as a show of support. Your kindness will not be forgotten.
................................
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Should "Immoral" = "Illegal"?
My answer is "of course not". As you probably know, I don't think there is any justification for any "law". However, I can understand making "laws" against initiated force and theft, even while realizing it is an exercise in futility. I just think "laws" are pointless and ridiculous. If something is wrong, making a law against it doesn't make it impossible to do. Making "laws" against "immorality" is even worse. Many times no one is hurt, except ...possibly.... the person behaving "immorally".
Then there is the problem of whose moral code do you follow? And why choose that particular one over the other possibilities?
If you go by the Christian moral code, just as an example, you could pass "laws" against prostitution, gay marriage, adultery, theft, and murder. But then you would also be able to justify passing "laws" against working on Sunday, men with long hair and women with short hair, eating shellfish, and killing (but not necessarily against beating) your slaves. Slavery would still be fine, as would having many wives and concubines. And the penalty for raping a virgin would be marrying the victim. Strange "morality".
If you base your "laws" on a different religion's moral code, the details would be different, even if there were similarities with the "big stuff" like murder and theft. So you would need to pass "laws"regulating a plethora of ridiculous things that prohibiting "morally" must have seemed "right... at the time".
The wiser choice is to stop criminalizing self defense, and recognize that your morality may not be your neighbor's morality. And to realize that as long as no innocent person is being harmed, what other people do in their private lives is none of your business and it is wrong to try to make it your business. That kinda takes the wind out of the busy-bodies' sails doesn't it?
...................................
Then there is the problem of whose moral code do you follow? And why choose that particular one over the other possibilities?
If you go by the Christian moral code, just as an example, you could pass "laws" against prostitution, gay marriage, adultery, theft, and murder. But then you would also be able to justify passing "laws" against working on Sunday, men with long hair and women with short hair, eating shellfish, and killing (but not necessarily against beating) your slaves. Slavery would still be fine, as would having many wives and concubines. And the penalty for raping a virgin would be marrying the victim. Strange "morality".
If you base your "laws" on a different religion's moral code, the details would be different, even if there were similarities with the "big stuff" like murder and theft. So you would need to pass "laws"regulating a plethora of ridiculous things that prohibiting "morally" must have seemed "right... at the time".
The wiser choice is to stop criminalizing self defense, and recognize that your morality may not be your neighbor's morality. And to realize that as long as no innocent person is being harmed, what other people do in their private lives is none of your business and it is wrong to try to make it your business. That kinda takes the wind out of the busy-bodies' sails doesn't it?
...................................
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Children and Adults
Babies and children really can't take care of themselves; adults can. There is a real, absolute, concrete difference. Parents have a legitimate responsibility to care for their children. That sometimes means keeping the children from doing things that will harm them... often against their will. It is right to do so. Does your protection violate their rights and liberty? Does it violate the ZAP? Probably in the same way as pushing a person out of the path of a speeding stagecoach does. When your children are old enough or mentally aware enough to understand the principle, ask them how they feel about it.
Meddling political types often use the same rationalization when "protecting" adults from harming themselves. They claim to know better than the targets of their meddling. It doesn't matter even if they really do. Adults are not children and should not be treated as such. Adults have had years to learn how the world works; both physical processes and human interaction. If they somehow managed to avoid learning, that is their problem and should not be used as an excuse to interfere in the lives of the rest of us. Even the targets of the protective meddling could demand restitution from the state's agents for having their rights violated and for having force initiated against them "for their own good".
If, however, they enjoy being taken care of like helpless children, then as long as the state survives, let them. Just don't make anyone else pay for it or be subjected to the same stupidity. If they are still not smart enough to survive after the state is gone, at least they will improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it.
.....................................................
Meddling political types often use the same rationalization when "protecting" adults from harming themselves. They claim to know better than the targets of their meddling. It doesn't matter even if they really do. Adults are not children and should not be treated as such. Adults have had years to learn how the world works; both physical processes and human interaction. If they somehow managed to avoid learning, that is their problem and should not be used as an excuse to interfere in the lives of the rest of us. Even the targets of the protective meddling could demand restitution from the state's agents for having their rights violated and for having force initiated against them "for their own good".
If, however, they enjoy being taken care of like helpless children, then as long as the state survives, let them. Just don't make anyone else pay for it or be subjected to the same stupidity. If they are still not smart enough to survive after the state is gone, at least they will improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it.
.....................................................
Friday, November 14, 2008
Politics- Diversionary Tactic For The State
The more I think about it and the more I look at real-world results, the more I think that politics is a waste of time. At least for people who are interested in Liberty.
I'm not going to blast you for pursuing that path if that is what you want to do. If nothing else, you will be a distraction to the "Rulers" if you are annoying enough. Be a buzzing, biting fly ceaselessly attacking politicians' ears and eyes. It isn't my path, though. The system is hopelessly rigged. The right questions are not even allowed to be asked. Instead of asking who should be ruling us, people should be asking if someone should be ruling us. Instead of voting away privileges, people should be exercising their rights.
I have seen zero evidence that politics can increase freedom in any way. At best, it holds the predators off for a year or two. In the long run that may not even be very helpful. It gives a false sense of accomplishment. It puts off what must be done. It also keeps people from living free in their own lives.
..............................................
I'm not going to blast you for pursuing that path if that is what you want to do. If nothing else, you will be a distraction to the "Rulers" if you are annoying enough. Be a buzzing, biting fly ceaselessly attacking politicians' ears and eyes. It isn't my path, though. The system is hopelessly rigged. The right questions are not even allowed to be asked. Instead of asking who should be ruling us, people should be asking if someone should be ruling us. Instead of voting away privileges, people should be exercising their rights.
I have seen zero evidence that politics can increase freedom in any way. At best, it holds the predators off for a year or two. In the long run that may not even be very helpful. It gives a false sense of accomplishment. It puts off what must be done. It also keeps people from living free in their own lives.
..............................................
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Just a thought....
I think that some day, people will look back and be astounded that we ever tolerated government roads.
"Free Market"? Hardly!
"Free market". The term refers to voluntary interaction and trade without government interference or coercion. Seems pretty straightforward, right?
There is an organization I recently became aware of called "The Free Market Foundation". They are not concerned with freedom, but with using government to promote their brand of religion. They do advocate keeping government out of the areas where government intervention would offend their beliefs, but as soon as government meddling can advance their agenda, they run to government.
They fight against the ACLU, which is battling government in many areas. The ACLU definitely has its blind spots as far as supporting some rights while ignoring others, but the Free Market Foundation opposes them because it opposes allowing people to exercise their basic human rights which happen to offend the group's sensibilities. This is mainly because these "free marketeers" wish to get government to support discrimination against gay people. The ACLU also tries to keep the government in compliance with the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and establishment of none; something the Free Market Foundation opposes. This is not "free market" but government intervention. A group really concerned with the free market would only be advocating the removal of laws, not the passage of new ones.
They have the right to call their organization anything they choose, of course. I also have the right to point out their hypocrisy. How would they appreciate a group of Iraqi Muslims calling themselves "The American Christian Foundation"? Probably not too much, and they would probably run to the government to force them to change their name.
I wrote to them pointing out their "error", but I never got a response. In my mind, that just compounds the dishonesty.
..................................
There is an organization I recently became aware of called "The Free Market Foundation". They are not concerned with freedom, but with using government to promote their brand of religion. They do advocate keeping government out of the areas where government intervention would offend their beliefs, but as soon as government meddling can advance their agenda, they run to government.
They fight against the ACLU, which is battling government in many areas. The ACLU definitely has its blind spots as far as supporting some rights while ignoring others, but the Free Market Foundation opposes them because it opposes allowing people to exercise their basic human rights which happen to offend the group's sensibilities. This is mainly because these "free marketeers" wish to get government to support discrimination against gay people. The ACLU also tries to keep the government in compliance with the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and establishment of none; something the Free Market Foundation opposes. This is not "free market" but government intervention. A group really concerned with the free market would only be advocating the removal of laws, not the passage of new ones.
They have the right to call their organization anything they choose, of course. I also have the right to point out their hypocrisy. How would they appreciate a group of Iraqi Muslims calling themselves "The American Christian Foundation"? Probably not too much, and they would probably run to the government to force them to change their name.
I wrote to them pointing out their "error", but I never got a response. In my mind, that just compounds the dishonesty.
..................................
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Let's Be Animals
As a way to survive (and succeed) while we wait for the state to implode, I suggest we behave like wild animals. No, I don't think we should eat our young or one another. What I mean is that we should simply live our lives and ignore the shenanigans in government unless we are cornered.
Animals don't care or worry about who imagines himself the Ruler of America. They don't concern themselves with "laws". All that matters to them is getting on with the business of living. That includes biting, clawing, or flogging anyone who tries to trap them. Don't be a pet or farm animal who grovels or submits to a fleecing. Cling to your hide and defend your territory. And ignore the flatulence wafting from DC or more local sources.
Animals don't care or worry about who imagines himself the Ruler of America. They don't concern themselves with "laws". All that matters to them is getting on with the business of living. That includes biting, clawing, or flogging anyone who tries to trap them. Don't be a pet or farm animal who grovels or submits to a fleecing. Cling to your hide and defend your territory. And ignore the flatulence wafting from DC or more local sources.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"Wow! The Renaissance of America!"
Here is another mention of my writings, this time in Christian Butterbach's blog: "Wow! The Renaissance of America!"
"The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs"
Here, from a non-libertarian site, is their list of "The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs". I'm not sure what criteria they used to choose, but I was happy to see myself on there. Of course, they included me with the "politicians". Eww! The campaign is over so if I ever was one, I'm not one anymore!
"Forever Stamps"
Do you notice that the US government assumes it will exist forever? I ran across one of those "Forever Stamps" today. You know, the ones that are supposed to be good "forever" no matter what the price of mailing a letter climbs to. I think there is some baseless assuming going on there. "Forever Stamps" are good "forever" only if the US government lasts forever. The courier company that replaces the government monopoly after the US is gone will not honor them. Why should they?
Why would the US government and its supporters make such an irrational and silly assumption about its permanence? Probably because they honestly can't imagine the alternative. But there has never been a government that lasts "forever", and I seriously doubt there ever will be. Few last more than a couple centuries. It just isn't rational to ignore this fact. The more a government meddles, the less likely it is to last much longer. The more strict a government is, the sooner it collapses. And the less mercy its "organs" and collaborators receive.
That doesn't mean that a free society is the inevitable outcome, but it does mean that to make that happen, some plans need to be made. Now. I'm making mine; how about you?
.................................................
Why would the US government and its supporters make such an irrational and silly assumption about its permanence? Probably because they honestly can't imagine the alternative. But there has never been a government that lasts "forever", and I seriously doubt there ever will be. Few last more than a couple centuries. It just isn't rational to ignore this fact. The more a government meddles, the less likely it is to last much longer. The more strict a government is, the sooner it collapses. And the less mercy its "organs" and collaborators receive.
That doesn't mean that a free society is the inevitable outcome, but it does mean that to make that happen, some plans need to be made. Now. I'm making mine; how about you?
.................................................
Sunday, November 09, 2008
An Instinct for Liberty
I hope I am not alone in this, and judging by what I read from a few other people out there, I suspect I am not, but I feel as though I have an instinct for liberty. It just seems to be a natural part of my existence. I am not talking about anything mystical, but a natural, inborn understanding of what liberty really is and why it is important to protect. Read the rest
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Life, Love, and Liberty
This is a different kind of post. It is more philosophical than I normally write. You may think I am completely off-base, but I can only judge this by own life. Think what you will.
I think that in order to be happy and fulfilled, humans need life, love, and liberty. When I say "life", I don't mean mere existence, but "A Life"; a "Purpose". Those are the minimum requirements. You can have one or two of those and still be relatively content, but without all three, you may seek a substitute for that missing component.
The substitutions that come first are entertainment, sex, and money. Entertainment can make you forget that you don't have much of a life. After all, living vicariously can make you feel more alive, can't it? Sex can take away the pain of living without love, since it is usually a part of a life that has enough love in it. And money can buy you a lot of privileges that can be almost indistinguishable from real liberty. The only difference is that when the money is gone, so is the "freedom". Yet there is another level down from these substitutes.
The last level can be the saddest. I am not saying these things are necessarily bad, just that if they are your only outlet for those higher level needs, they are not really satisfying. This is the level of diversions, porn, and debt.
Diversions may not really entertain you, but only occupy your time. They keep your mind and hands busy and keep you from thinking about how bad your life is. If your life is normally OK, then a diversion now and then doesn't hurt anything. In that case, it is just a way to spend your down-time. At the worst, they are the busy-work you do while waiting to die. Porn is sex without human contact. While those who have real love can enjoy porn, to have it as your only outlet is tragic. Then there is debt. It is pretending to be able to buy things that you really can't afford. It might give you a little temporary illusion of freedom while it bolts the chains around your ankles. You are betting on an uncertain future.
I would say that most of us have dipped into the substitutes for Life, Love, and Liberty from time to time. It is my hope that you and I do not end up spending our lives down there.
...............................................
I think that in order to be happy and fulfilled, humans need life, love, and liberty. When I say "life", I don't mean mere existence, but "A Life"; a "Purpose". Those are the minimum requirements. You can have one or two of those and still be relatively content, but without all three, you may seek a substitute for that missing component.
The substitutions that come first are entertainment, sex, and money. Entertainment can make you forget that you don't have much of a life. After all, living vicariously can make you feel more alive, can't it? Sex can take away the pain of living without love, since it is usually a part of a life that has enough love in it. And money can buy you a lot of privileges that can be almost indistinguishable from real liberty. The only difference is that when the money is gone, so is the "freedom". Yet there is another level down from these substitutes.
The last level can be the saddest. I am not saying these things are necessarily bad, just that if they are your only outlet for those higher level needs, they are not really satisfying. This is the level of diversions, porn, and debt.
Diversions may not really entertain you, but only occupy your time. They keep your mind and hands busy and keep you from thinking about how bad your life is. If your life is normally OK, then a diversion now and then doesn't hurt anything. In that case, it is just a way to spend your down-time. At the worst, they are the busy-work you do while waiting to die. Porn is sex without human contact. While those who have real love can enjoy porn, to have it as your only outlet is tragic. Then there is debt. It is pretending to be able to buy things that you really can't afford. It might give you a little temporary illusion of freedom while it bolts the chains around your ankles. You are betting on an uncertain future.
I would say that most of us have dipped into the substitutes for Life, Love, and Liberty from time to time. It is my hope that you and I do not end up spending our lives down there.
...............................................
Friday, November 07, 2008
Rights Violators
Why is it that most people seem more interested in taking rights away from others than they are in securing their own rights? This is just an observation from the recent election. If it weren't for the promises of keeping some "other people" from "legally" exercising their rights, there wouldn't have been many political ads out there.
Whether it is "gay rights", abortion, gun ownership, migrants, or economics, as long as no one is being coerced, their lives are not your business. Liberty will never be increased while we keep fighting over keeping others from living their own lives as they see fit. Live free and mind your own business around others.
----------------------
Whether it is "gay rights", abortion, gun ownership, migrants, or economics, as long as no one is being coerced, their lives are not your business. Liberty will never be increased while we keep fighting over keeping others from living their own lives as they see fit. Live free and mind your own business around others.
----------------------
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Revisionist History
Government always lies.
I grew up surrounded by conservatives to whom "revisionist history" was blasphemy. As I have since discovered, it should probably be called "revealed history". History gets revised as new information, long suppressed by those in government who would be exposed, becomes available. Often because the perpe-traitors die off.
As a somewhat frivolous example, the government's OFFICIAL story about "The Roswell Crash" has changed multiple times. If no one had pressed the issue, the government would not have bothered changing its story. Well, other than changing the original official government revelation that a crashed "disc" had been recovered. And, for the record, I don't think an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in Roswell in 1947. But I do know the government has lied about the event ever since it happened. Each current version is said to be the final word... until the next version, anyway.
How many other events were allowed to go unexamined and therefore remained unchanged from the original, dishonest, version? How many have been examined, but the findings marginalized? The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? JFK? Viet Nam? Waco? The OKC explosion? 9/11?
How many evil people have been undeservedly honored by history? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Or all of the above.
The reason history gets revised is because "history is written by the winners". Government always initially lies about an event when the truth would make them look bad (which the truth will always do for a group based upon coercion and theft). The government that "wins" gets its version of the story made "official". The lies become a part of the cultural mythology and are defended with the fervor of a religion. People have a need to cling to those lies and myths in order to not feel they have thrown their lives away supporting an evil, dishonest institution. But the truth is the truth. Sometimes it is painful. Let it go.
________________________
I grew up surrounded by conservatives to whom "revisionist history" was blasphemy. As I have since discovered, it should probably be called "revealed history". History gets revised as new information, long suppressed by those in government who would be exposed, becomes available. Often because the perpe-traitors die off.
As a somewhat frivolous example, the government's OFFICIAL story about "The Roswell Crash" has changed multiple times. If no one had pressed the issue, the government would not have bothered changing its story. Well, other than changing the original official government revelation that a crashed "disc" had been recovered. And, for the record, I don't think an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in Roswell in 1947. But I do know the government has lied about the event ever since it happened. Each current version is said to be the final word... until the next version, anyway.
How many other events were allowed to go unexamined and therefore remained unchanged from the original, dishonest, version? How many have been examined, but the findings marginalized? The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? JFK? Viet Nam? Waco? The OKC explosion? 9/11?
How many evil people have been undeservedly honored by history? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Or all of the above.
The reason history gets revised is because "history is written by the winners". Government always initially lies about an event when the truth would make them look bad (which the truth will always do for a group based upon coercion and theft). The government that "wins" gets its version of the story made "official". The lies become a part of the cultural mythology and are defended with the fervor of a religion. People have a need to cling to those lies and myths in order to not feel they have thrown their lives away supporting an evil, dishonest institution. But the truth is the truth. Sometimes it is painful. Let it go.
________________________
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Will You Remember THIS 5th of November?
An opportunity is knocking. This could be the beginning (or the middle) of the end for government. If we care enough to make it happen. Won't you contribute to the movement? Encourage all your electorally disappointed friends and family to withdraw support of the illegitimate government now.
Now that the election is past, it is time to realize that government can only rule you if you let it. Don't. People should NOT be afraid of "their" government; governments should be afraid of the people. Make them afraid. Get a backbone. Stop bowing. Stop apologizing. Stop obeying. Stop paying any attention to government at any level. They are the bad guys. Remind them of that fact if they force you to. Ignore them otherwise.
We outnumber them. We always have and always will.
____________________
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election Day: No One is "Fit To Be President"
There is no one on the planet who is "fit to be president". Not. One. Person. Voting for someone is going against this simple truth. When you vote, you are saying that you think it is OK for someone to rule others. It is not.
Military "service" does not qualify a person to rule others. Being "dog catcher" does not qualify someone to rule others. Being elected to lower positions and working your way up the ladder of corruption does not qualify someone to rule others. "Experience" does not qualify someone to rule others. In fact, I think all the above should automatically disqualify a candidate. Only insanity would make a person imagine that it is OK for them to rule others. Insane people should not be elevated into positions of power over others where they can do harm.
I include myself in the above assessment. I am not fit to rule others. If I ever believed I would actually be elected when I asked for your votes, I would be insane and/or evil. I still believe it is best to not vote. I would not condemn you for voting, since I understand the desperation. Write in my name to satisfy your urge to vote so that you do no harm. But.... Voting doesn't help. It doesn't protect liberty. It doesn't protect your rights. The results would be thrown out on some technicality if they actually made any difference towards increasing liberty in any meaningful way. Or the results would just be ignored. Examples abound.
The only things that should possibly be voted upon are things that no one disputes should be done and that don't violate anyone's rights in any way. And then those who do not agree should not be forced to participate or finance those actions. The voting should really just be a way to say "I approve this and I volunteer to chip in to pay for it."
I'll let you in on a "secret": Big government is sure to win the election. You and I are sure to lose if we continue to participate and care. It is a done deal. The system is hopelessly rigged.
If you vote, you shouldn't complain about the results. After all, you have agreed that the system is legitimate, and you have agreed to abide by the results whether "your side" wins or loses. So any disaster that results is in your lap.
Now, instead of voting, get out there and do something real with your life.
..........................................
Military "service" does not qualify a person to rule others. Being "dog catcher" does not qualify someone to rule others. Being elected to lower positions and working your way up the ladder of corruption does not qualify someone to rule others. "Experience" does not qualify someone to rule others. In fact, I think all the above should automatically disqualify a candidate. Only insanity would make a person imagine that it is OK for them to rule others. Insane people should not be elevated into positions of power over others where they can do harm.
I include myself in the above assessment. I am not fit to rule others. If I ever believed I would actually be elected when I asked for your votes, I would be insane and/or evil. I still believe it is best to not vote. I would not condemn you for voting, since I understand the desperation. Write in my name to satisfy your urge to vote so that you do no harm. But.... Voting doesn't help. It doesn't protect liberty. It doesn't protect your rights. The results would be thrown out on some technicality if they actually made any difference towards increasing liberty in any meaningful way. Or the results would just be ignored. Examples abound.
The only things that should possibly be voted upon are things that no one disputes should be done and that don't violate anyone's rights in any way. And then those who do not agree should not be forced to participate or finance those actions. The voting should really just be a way to say "I approve this and I volunteer to chip in to pay for it."
I'll let you in on a "secret": Big government is sure to win the election. You and I are sure to lose if we continue to participate and care. It is a done deal. The system is hopelessly rigged.
If you vote, you shouldn't complain about the results. After all, you have agreed that the system is legitimate, and you have agreed to abide by the results whether "your side" wins or loses. So any disaster that results is in your lap.
Now, instead of voting, get out there and do something real with your life.
..........................................
Monday, November 03, 2008
Voting - My Libertarian / Anarchist Opinion
Voting is like choosing your next meal from the tank of a portable toilet behind the downtown bus station.
Enjoy.
_________________
Enjoy.
_________________
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Today in The Libertarian Enterprise
Do you get those ridiculous emails that try to scare you about immigrants by giving you all the statistics about how bad they are? Me too. Normally I just delete them, but this time I decided to do something different. And then I passed it along to The Libertarian Enterprise.
See the results here.
See the results here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)