A lot of times I read that libertarians are "not fair". Usually this comes from people who don't want anyone to suffer the consequences of their own actions or don't like the fact that some people are living in poverty.
These people are still only seeing half of the picture. They see the "victims" of their own choices or of economic realities, but ignore the people who they would punish for not making bad personal or financial decisions. How is that "fair"? You can't only look at it from the perspective of "the less fortunate" after all. Not if you are really wanting to be "fair". No, you have to look at everyone's situation. I think these "compassionate" people are unduly attracted and sympathetic to the underdog. That is fine, as long as you don't blame the rest of the world for your poor "victim's" plight.
Sure, I would love to be wealthy. But not enough to do what would be necessary to achieve it. That is no one's fault but my own; I weighed my choices. I am not a "victim" of poverty. I have also suffered consequences for personal decisions I have made. I don't ask anyone to rescue me from them. Life may not be fair, but it still follows basic physical and economic laws.
So, what do these people think is "fair"? "Redistribution"? That's just a fancy word for theft. "Liberals" may see themselves as "Robin Hood"; taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but they are actually on the opposite side of the moral fence. Robin Hood was not stealing from the innocent rich, but from the thieves who enriched themselves through taxes and fees, and giving the money back to the theft victims. He was not being generous; he was being "just". You can not be generous with other peoples' money. You can ask them to give, or you can steal from them. One is charity; one is theft. There is no middle ground.
I don't have much respect or pity for those who say libertarians are "unfair". And the more I read their drivel, the faster that little remaining respect fades away.
------------------------------------
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Consequences of Being Unpleasant
You can be an unpleasant person without initiating force and without being a thief. What should the consequences be for bad things that may not exactly violate the ZAP? I am not one to think everything needs to be punished "officially".
Obviously, I think shunning should be used if you feel the need. That is just a part of freedom of association. Most of us use it to some extent already. If you don't like someone, you probably don't go to barbecues at their home. Where we are unable to use shunning is where government criminalizes our free choices of who to associate with.
Just remove the "legal" protections that keep unpleasant people from needing to deal with their issues. The same goes for stupid people. You can't really protect them from the consequences of their actions, so stop penalizing the rest of us.
....................................
Obviously, I think shunning should be used if you feel the need. That is just a part of freedom of association. Most of us use it to some extent already. If you don't like someone, you probably don't go to barbecues at their home. Where we are unable to use shunning is where government criminalizes our free choices of who to associate with.
Just remove the "legal" protections that keep unpleasant people from needing to deal with their issues. The same goes for stupid people. You can't really protect them from the consequences of their actions, so stop penalizing the rest of us.
....................................
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Economic Stimulus
I hear the congresscritters, on the orders of the president, are planning to "save" the economy by giving money to those who didn't earn it. This money they plan on giving away doesn't really exist, but is made up out of thin air, based on the belief that your children will someday pay the government for the privilege of being oppressed by its stormtroopers, through taxes or whatever new scheme is dreamed up in the future.
Now, why would the government give corporations this fictional money instead of simply firing up the printing presses and dumping lots of FRNs all over the country from low-flying planes? That would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and most people would be a lot happier with that "plan". Government won't do it that way because the current plan constitutes a bribe to buy loyalty from those who are being "rescued"; powerful people. Not at all like you or I. This "stimulus" will stimulate something, that's for certain. I betting on more corruption, irresponsibility, and poor business decisions.
However the government proceeds, the long-term effect will be the same: the money in your pocket or retirement fund will be further diluted by all this new counterfeit money. It won't matter if the money has a physical existence or is just digital information; either way it is stealing value from you just as surely as if a free-lance mugger were holding you at gunpoint while you empty your pockets for him.
And yet, almost no one is screaming "No! You will not economically enslave my future!" or refusing to be robbed. Rather, people are debating how much oversight should the government have, or complaining about all the add-on edicts. I, for one, see through the smoke and mirrors. I suspect that you do too.
................................................
Now, why would the government give corporations this fictional money instead of simply firing up the printing presses and dumping lots of FRNs all over the country from low-flying planes? That would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and most people would be a lot happier with that "plan". Government won't do it that way because the current plan constitutes a bribe to buy loyalty from those who are being "rescued"; powerful people. Not at all like you or I. This "stimulus" will stimulate something, that's for certain. I betting on more corruption, irresponsibility, and poor business decisions.
However the government proceeds, the long-term effect will be the same: the money in your pocket or retirement fund will be further diluted by all this new counterfeit money. It won't matter if the money has a physical existence or is just digital information; either way it is stealing value from you just as surely as if a free-lance mugger were holding you at gunpoint while you empty your pockets for him.
And yet, almost no one is screaming "No! You will not economically enslave my future!" or refusing to be robbed. Rather, people are debating how much oversight should the government have, or complaining about all the add-on edicts. I, for one, see through the smoke and mirrors. I suspect that you do too.
................................................
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Are You Ready?
Whether it is a gun ban or an economic collapse, just about everyone can see that "interesting times" are on the way. They will be hard times for those who are not ready. I intend to make certain they are not as hard on me as they could be. Sometimes, I think I actually thrive under tangible threats.
Regardless of what comes, there are things we all need to be doing. The following advice is probably worth what you paid for it.
I never have understood the advice to "save your money". It's like putting a snowball in your pocket for next week. It makes a lot more sense to me to buy stuff that you can use or trade when times get tough. Money loses value all the time - well fiat money does, anyway. We all know "fiat" is just a euphemism for "counterfeit" as long as it is government or their associates who are doing the counterfeiting. If you feel the need to have some "savings", at least buy real stuff first. Silver, gold, ammo, guns, toilet paper, dried or canned foods, medicine..... whatever you may need when your "dollars" are not worth anything anymore, and when you discover that your "savings" could possibly buy you a half of a Happy Meal.
Which brings me to another point. If you don't have enough guns, (and who does?) take some of that rapidly evaporating money and spend it on guns. And don't forget the ammo. If nothing else, it is an investment that will not lose value. You may need to be willing to enter the black market in order to cash in, but that is probably the coming reality for all of us no matter what.
A gun in the hand is worth two in the store. Or, a .22 in the hand is worth two .45s in the safe. Or a .22 in the hand is better than worthless money in a checking account. If things get too "interesting" for those who are less than honest, they may decide to separate you from your supplies. Make certain you have the means and the determination to stop them. If stormtroopers decide to separate you from your family, weapons, supplies, or liberty they have crossed the line and should be stopped as well.
There are also other things you can do to get ready for the future. Many of those are mental preparations. Educate yourself so you are not one of those who will panic and be caught by surprise. That will do more toward easing your future than just about anything else. Life is an adventure. Sometimes a test can come along, and if you meet it well you will find a satisfaction that can't be found in "normal" life. Your attitude, along with preparedness, can make all the difference.
..................................................
Regardless of what comes, there are things we all need to be doing. The following advice is probably worth what you paid for it.
I never have understood the advice to "save your money". It's like putting a snowball in your pocket for next week. It makes a lot more sense to me to buy stuff that you can use or trade when times get tough. Money loses value all the time - well fiat money does, anyway. We all know "fiat" is just a euphemism for "counterfeit" as long as it is government or their associates who are doing the counterfeiting. If you feel the need to have some "savings", at least buy real stuff first. Silver, gold, ammo, guns, toilet paper, dried or canned foods, medicine..... whatever you may need when your "dollars" are not worth anything anymore, and when you discover that your "savings" could possibly buy you a half of a Happy Meal.
Which brings me to another point. If you don't have enough guns, (and who does?) take some of that rapidly evaporating money and spend it on guns. And don't forget the ammo. If nothing else, it is an investment that will not lose value. You may need to be willing to enter the black market in order to cash in, but that is probably the coming reality for all of us no matter what.
A gun in the hand is worth two in the store. Or, a .22 in the hand is worth two .45s in the safe. Or a .22 in the hand is better than worthless money in a checking account. If things get too "interesting" for those who are less than honest, they may decide to separate you from your supplies. Make certain you have the means and the determination to stop them. If stormtroopers decide to separate you from your family, weapons, supplies, or liberty they have crossed the line and should be stopped as well.
There are also other things you can do to get ready for the future. Many of those are mental preparations. Educate yourself so you are not one of those who will panic and be caught by surprise. That will do more toward easing your future than just about anything else. Life is an adventure. Sometimes a test can come along, and if you meet it well you will find a satisfaction that can't be found in "normal" life. Your attitude, along with preparedness, can make all the difference.
..................................................
Monday, February 09, 2009
"Not Everyone Wears a Sidearm"
In some commentary on another website, I was pointing out that children in the park could be, and should be, watched over by parents who would share the responsibility. At mountainman rendezvous I have attended this was standard procedure, though no one ever told us to do so. And, with everyone in camp being armed, no one would risk harming a child (or anyone else).
A commenter said that such a thing sounded good, but wouldn't work in regular society because "not everyone wears a sidearm". Well, why don't they?
Some people don't want to. That is OK. I would never force anyone to carry a gun if they were uncomfortable doing so. Some people wouldn't shoot an attacker for any reason. Sad, but reality. Some people know that they can not trust themselves with a gun. I wonder why they would then trust themselves with anything else that can be dangerous (cars, knives, lighters, medicines, etc.), but that's another issue.
What about those people who would like to, but don't? Why don't they? Government regulations and prohibitions are the most likely reason. Some people still want to see themselves as "law abiding" although that is not a good thing when the laws are immoral. So, instead of doing what is right and necessary, they fearfully and irresponsibly obey dangerous prohibitions. If you fall into this category, maybe it is time to shed misplaced respect for a reprehensible system that expects you to sacrifice yourself for the convenience of the parasites and thugs among us. Both governmental and free-lance. Think about it and do what is right instead of what is "legal". Society, which is just to say each innocent individual, will be safer for it. It may just make you a better, more aware and caring person, too.
-------------------------------
A commenter said that such a thing sounded good, but wouldn't work in regular society because "not everyone wears a sidearm". Well, why don't they?
Some people don't want to. That is OK. I would never force anyone to carry a gun if they were uncomfortable doing so. Some people wouldn't shoot an attacker for any reason. Sad, but reality. Some people know that they can not trust themselves with a gun. I wonder why they would then trust themselves with anything else that can be dangerous (cars, knives, lighters, medicines, etc.), but that's another issue.
What about those people who would like to, but don't? Why don't they? Government regulations and prohibitions are the most likely reason. Some people still want to see themselves as "law abiding" although that is not a good thing when the laws are immoral. So, instead of doing what is right and necessary, they fearfully and irresponsibly obey dangerous prohibitions. If you fall into this category, maybe it is time to shed misplaced respect for a reprehensible system that expects you to sacrifice yourself for the convenience of the parasites and thugs among us. Both governmental and free-lance. Think about it and do what is right instead of what is "legal". Society, which is just to say each innocent individual, will be safer for it. It may just make you a better, more aware and caring person, too.
-------------------------------
Sunday, February 08, 2009
"Know Thine Enemy"
THE SEVEN VARIETIES OF GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE by Gus Cotey, Jr.
"The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. " Read the rest
"The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. " Read the rest
States Declare Sovereignty
I got this interesting tidbit from blogger Bill Hicks. Go read it: link
Now, if only people would realize that their individual sovereignty outranks ANY political entity. Some of us know that already.
Now, if only people would realize that their individual sovereignty outranks ANY political entity. Some of us know that already.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
The Political Parties- a Personal Perspective
A post on another blog got me to consider how I see the political parties. I am not talking about objective specifics, just how I see them very subjectively.
Republicans are the moralizing father. Strong and a little harsh. He wants order and obedience out of all those unruly children around him. He is deeply religious, but many times must insist "do as I say; not as I do". He will never "spare the rod" on those he thinks need a good whipping, "for their own good" of course. He only wants "what is best" for his naughty children and feels that without his guidance they will turn into smelly, lazy hippies.
Democrats are the permissive mother. At least she will make you believe that while she guilts you into obeying her desires. She may use some of the same methods as the father, but she is sneakier about it. In her heart she wants everyone to just get along. She believes everything should be fair, and will impose fairness, as she sees it, on everyone around her, even if it means forcing a child to share his most charished toy with a sibling who will break it on purpose. She is slightly neurotic and delusional and can't understand why anyone would disagree with her, since she only wants what is best for the poor, slightly stupid children around her. After all, without her to protect them they would poke their eyes out.
Libertarians (the LP) are the cool uncle who you can tell all your secrets to. He knows how things really are, but he doesn't want to offend the Mother and Father, so he tries to downplay the truth around them to avoid causing problems in the family. He might smoke a joint with you when the uptight parents are not around, or discuss things your parents would rather pretend don't exist, but often will keep his mouth shut if the family starts scolding you for your wayward behavior. After all, it is his family, too and he still wants to be recognized as a relative. He will also give you a hand or bail you out of jail without subjecting you to a lecture.
Then there are people like me. This is obviously the least objective description of all. We are the black-sheep of the family. We see where the others get off-track and try to avoid their mistakes. We also see where the others are right and embrace those positions fully, although we may not admit it if they thought of it first. We try to stay consistent instead of holding one position for one person and the opposite position for another person, as we see the others do. We know what we want, and we actually live it day to day in our personal lives, but we get really tired of hearing that our concrete reality, where we actively live, is a fantasy or "Utopia".
.......................................
Republicans are the moralizing father. Strong and a little harsh. He wants order and obedience out of all those unruly children around him. He is deeply religious, but many times must insist "do as I say; not as I do". He will never "spare the rod" on those he thinks need a good whipping, "for their own good" of course. He only wants "what is best" for his naughty children and feels that without his guidance they will turn into smelly, lazy hippies.
Democrats are the permissive mother. At least she will make you believe that while she guilts you into obeying her desires. She may use some of the same methods as the father, but she is sneakier about it. In her heart she wants everyone to just get along. She believes everything should be fair, and will impose fairness, as she sees it, on everyone around her, even if it means forcing a child to share his most charished toy with a sibling who will break it on purpose. She is slightly neurotic and delusional and can't understand why anyone would disagree with her, since she only wants what is best for the poor, slightly stupid children around her. After all, without her to protect them they would poke their eyes out.
Libertarians (the LP) are the cool uncle who you can tell all your secrets to. He knows how things really are, but he doesn't want to offend the Mother and Father, so he tries to downplay the truth around them to avoid causing problems in the family. He might smoke a joint with you when the uptight parents are not around, or discuss things your parents would rather pretend don't exist, but often will keep his mouth shut if the family starts scolding you for your wayward behavior. After all, it is his family, too and he still wants to be recognized as a relative. He will also give you a hand or bail you out of jail without subjecting you to a lecture.
Then there are people like me. This is obviously the least objective description of all. We are the black-sheep of the family. We see where the others get off-track and try to avoid their mistakes. We also see where the others are right and embrace those positions fully, although we may not admit it if they thought of it first. We try to stay consistent instead of holding one position for one person and the opposite position for another person, as we see the others do. We know what we want, and we actually live it day to day in our personal lives, but we get really tired of hearing that our concrete reality, where we actively live, is a fantasy or "Utopia".
.......................................
Friday, February 06, 2009
Strength in Numbers
I frequently hear people say that good people can't do anything about bad people and that is why cops and government are necessary. Nonsense! Good people outnumber the bad people by a huge margin. If that weren't the case no number of cops, even if they were interested in protecting the good guys, would be able to hold back the tide of violence. The bad guys know they are outnumbered, but they depend upon you and I not realizing that fact.
This makes me think of a program I recently watched about modern pirates. Small crews of heavily armed pirates outgun large crews of defenseless merchants. It is ridiculous! If ships' crews would arm themselves properly, the pirates wouldn't have a chance, but "laws" and "custom" dictate that the honest people be sitting ducks for those who feel no obligation to die for your convenience. It's time to stop being silly.
People who do not want to personally steal from others or harm innocent people are the majority. We should start behaving as though we realize this fact. Even most statist-socialists will not do the stealing personally; they depend on the government to do it for them. If the rest of us stand up to them, they will be powerless.
This makes me think of a program I recently watched about modern pirates. Small crews of heavily armed pirates outgun large crews of defenseless merchants. It is ridiculous! If ships' crews would arm themselves properly, the pirates wouldn't have a chance, but "laws" and "custom" dictate that the honest people be sitting ducks for those who feel no obligation to die for your convenience. It's time to stop being silly.
People who do not want to personally steal from others or harm innocent people are the majority. We should start behaving as though we realize this fact. Even most statist-socialists will not do the stealing personally; they depend on the government to do it for them. If the rest of us stand up to them, they will be powerless.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
You Don't Need Money to Live
It seems like it should be obvious that you or I don't need money in order to live. You could grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house, and trade for things you can't provide yourself- making use of talents you possess that others do not. Money can be a convenient placeholder of value, to be used in trade for what you do need, but that is all.
Except, government makes it "illegal" to have no money. The primary reason money is necessary is to comply with the state's extortion schemes. Government demands money for its extortion payments such as property "tax", and its numerous fees and permits, which you will pay or government will kill you.
You could be rich in possessions, but without "money", government will attack and kidnap you, and if you resist you will be murdered. It seems like a bizarre situation until you realize that it is necessary if government is to exercise control over your life. If it could "allow" you to take care of yourself, government would have much less power.
That is another important reason that all government theft, whether called "taxes", "permits", "licenses", or "fees", must be ended forever. Let those who would be fine without money live unmolested.
.........................................
Except, government makes it "illegal" to have no money. The primary reason money is necessary is to comply with the state's extortion schemes. Government demands money for its extortion payments such as property "tax", and its numerous fees and permits, which you will pay or government will kill you.
You could be rich in possessions, but without "money", government will attack and kidnap you, and if you resist you will be murdered. It seems like a bizarre situation until you realize that it is necessary if government is to exercise control over your life. If it could "allow" you to take care of yourself, government would have much less power.
That is another important reason that all government theft, whether called "taxes", "permits", "licenses", or "fees", must be ended forever. Let those who would be fine without money live unmolested.
.........................................
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Texas "Open Carry" Movement
I got this message and would like to pass it along.
Subject: Final Pre-bill Push for Texas Open Carry Petition Needs YOU!
Open Carriers Across America:
Representative Riddle (R – Houston) will soon introduce historic legislation to restore the right to open carry handguns in Texas. But that does not mean the fight is over – it’s just beginning. That’s why we need to drive up the signature count on the petition for Texas at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.petitiononline.com%2Ftexasoc%2Fpetition.html
And all Americans can help just like in 1836 when volunteers came from many states to help Texas fight and ultimately defeat an invading Mexican Army.
So if you known anyone who lives, works, or goes to school in Texas, now is the time to contact them and urge them to sign the open carry petition for Texas at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.petitiononline.com%2Ftexasoc%2Fpetition.html
The petition is now at over 54,000 signatures but we need to drive that signature count well North of 55,000 in the coming days to send a clear signal to Austin that open carry needs to be passed this year.
And if you blog in Texas, or can spare a few moments to add this message and/or the petition link to Texas blogs, please do so immediately. And remind folks to use valid email addresses so that they can receive vital updates on legislative matters from the Texas Open Carry working group which is going to be a permanent and effective pro-gun force in Texas to be reckoned with this year and in the future!
Please act on this message today.
Mike Stollenwerk,
Co-founder, http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://Opencarry.org
Subject: Final Pre-bill Push for Texas Open Carry Petition Needs YOU!
Open Carriers Across America:
Representative Riddle (R – Houston) will soon introduce historic legislation to restore the right to open carry handguns in Texas. But that does not mean the fight is over – it’s just beginning. That’s why we need to drive up the signature count on the petition for Texas at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.petitiononline.com%2Ftexasoc%2Fpetition.html
And all Americans can help just like in 1836 when volunteers came from many states to help Texas fight and ultimately defeat an invading Mexican Army.
So if you known anyone who lives, works, or goes to school in Texas, now is the time to contact them and urge them to sign the open carry petition for Texas at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.petitiononline.com%2Ftexasoc%2Fpetition.html
The petition is now at over 54,000 signatures but we need to drive that signature count well North of 55,000 in the coming days to send a clear signal to Austin that open carry needs to be passed this year.
And if you blog in Texas, or can spare a few moments to add this message and/or the petition link to Texas blogs, please do so immediately. And remind folks to use valid email addresses so that they can receive vital updates on legislative matters from the Texas Open Carry working group which is going to be a permanent and effective pro-gun force in Texas to be reckoned with this year and in the future!
Please act on this message today.
Mike Stollenwerk,
Co-founder, http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://Opencarry.org
What if They Outlawed Sugar?
In thinking about the absurdity of the evil "war on (some) drugs", and the violence that comes with any prohibition, I started wondering what would happen if the government outlawed sugar. Of course, instead of sugar it could also be anything that people are able to "legally" enjoy today, even though it may not be great for them. Things like fat, caffeine, TV, or games. There is no real incentive for the prohibition of sugar, nor can I imagine one, but logic and reason have no place in governmental actions. So for this mental exercise, I will pretend that by royal edict, or by majority rule, sugar is outlawed as of now.
Of course, sugar substitutes would fall under this prohibition as well. Can't allow people to get around the prohibition that easily. Kind of like how anything with similar effects are outlawed as fast as they are found in the "war on (some) drugs". It is the effect that is prohibited as much as the specific substances.
Do you think a black market would arise for sweet treats? Of course it would. And with black markets come artificially inflated prices. And with artificially high prices and increased risk in providing the substance come bad people who are already accustomed to such endeavors. Soon gangs would fight over their share of the sugar trade. New names would be coined to covertly describe the product; each new name becoming obsolete when "decent society" started calling sugar by its "street name". Greenhouses and attics with grow lights would start growing plants that could be refined for their sugary sap. Basement set-ups where sugar cane and sugar beets were turned into "sweet gold" would crop up everywhere.
Maple trees would have to be cut and burned. Even many kinds of wild grasses with sweet juices would suddenly cause a homeowner to forfeit his property, if the feds discovered the wild plants growing on private land. Home chemistry labs where artificial sweeteners of undetermined purity could be mixed up would be started. Dangerous chemicals would undoubtedly be used in the manufacture of such things. But the demand would still be there.
I know it would be impossible for even a draconian police-state such as the US to carry out such a massive eradication program, mainly because the moral busy-bodies are not decrying sugar.... yet. Not to mention the environmental destruction that would result. But it really isn't as far-fetched as it might seem at first.
Even if "drugs" were as bad as the perpetual liars in government claim, the loss of liberty and violation of rights under the misguided, Constitutionally illegal, and evil "war on (some) drugs" is not worth it.
................................................
Of course, sugar substitutes would fall under this prohibition as well. Can't allow people to get around the prohibition that easily. Kind of like how anything with similar effects are outlawed as fast as they are found in the "war on (some) drugs". It is the effect that is prohibited as much as the specific substances.
Do you think a black market would arise for sweet treats? Of course it would. And with black markets come artificially inflated prices. And with artificially high prices and increased risk in providing the substance come bad people who are already accustomed to such endeavors. Soon gangs would fight over their share of the sugar trade. New names would be coined to covertly describe the product; each new name becoming obsolete when "decent society" started calling sugar by its "street name". Greenhouses and attics with grow lights would start growing plants that could be refined for their sugary sap. Basement set-ups where sugar cane and sugar beets were turned into "sweet gold" would crop up everywhere.
Maple trees would have to be cut and burned. Even many kinds of wild grasses with sweet juices would suddenly cause a homeowner to forfeit his property, if the feds discovered the wild plants growing on private land. Home chemistry labs where artificial sweeteners of undetermined purity could be mixed up would be started. Dangerous chemicals would undoubtedly be used in the manufacture of such things. But the demand would still be there.
I know it would be impossible for even a draconian police-state such as the US to carry out such a massive eradication program, mainly because the moral busy-bodies are not decrying sugar.... yet. Not to mention the environmental destruction that would result. But it really isn't as far-fetched as it might seem at first.
Even if "drugs" were as bad as the perpetual liars in government claim, the loss of liberty and violation of rights under the misguided, Constitutionally illegal, and evil "war on (some) drugs" is not worth it.
................................................
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
A "Milestone"?
This is my one-thousandth blog post.
Wow. I never dreamed I would keep blogging this long; never thought I'd keep coming up with things to say. Of course, I am one of those people who have actually spent 6 to 8 hours at a time on the telephone. So, talking (or writing) has never been a problem...unless someone wanted me to keep my opinions to myself.
It also helps that I have a subject I care passionately about. As you know, I can go on and on about liberty. Just look at any of the discussions I have taken part in on this or other blogs and websites. Evidence of my wordiness abounds. Liberty is important. Not just to me and other libertarians, but to those who don't realize its value yet. If, in some small way, my words can get someone to reconsider the importance of liberty, then my life was not a waste.
I have noticed that lately, when I do a Google search for "libertarian blog", my blog comes up 6th or 7th. That amazes me. Of course, maybe Google knows I am the one searching and gives me my own blog as a higher ranked result so my feelings won't be hurt. Who knows.
I would like to say a BIG "thank you" to all my readers, regardless of whether you are new or someone who has been around since the beginning. I also invite you to look over my old posts. I feel bad that the old posts have faded from sight. You don't want me to start publishing a "best of", do you?
I just have one question that keeps sneaking into my head: Does this mean I am a "writer" yet?
---------------------
Wow. I never dreamed I would keep blogging this long; never thought I'd keep coming up with things to say. Of course, I am one of those people who have actually spent 6 to 8 hours at a time on the telephone. So, talking (or writing) has never been a problem...unless someone wanted me to keep my opinions to myself.
It also helps that I have a subject I care passionately about. As you know, I can go on and on about liberty. Just look at any of the discussions I have taken part in on this or other blogs and websites. Evidence of my wordiness abounds. Liberty is important. Not just to me and other libertarians, but to those who don't realize its value yet. If, in some small way, my words can get someone to reconsider the importance of liberty, then my life was not a waste.
I have noticed that lately, when I do a Google search for "libertarian blog", my blog comes up 6th or 7th. That amazes me. Of course, maybe Google knows I am the one searching and gives me my own blog as a higher ranked result so my feelings won't be hurt. Who knows.
I would like to say a BIG "thank you" to all my readers, regardless of whether you are new or someone who has been around since the beginning. I also invite you to look over my old posts. I feel bad that the old posts have faded from sight. You don't want me to start publishing a "best of", do you?
I just have one question that keeps sneaking into my head: Does this mean I am a "writer" yet?
---------------------
Monday, February 02, 2009
"Patriotism" of the Past
I think it was easier in the past to justify supporting the state. Back then, the evil just under its veneer was more difficult to see. You could always point to a greater evil that was looming over the horizon (even if it was exaggerated by the agents of the state). There was a tangible difference between the freedoms which were left at home, and the tyranny abroad. You could be "patriotic" and still feel like you were really supporting individual freedoms and liberty. Such is no longer the case.
Now "patriotism" consists of waving the federal flag in support of its many invasions across the globe, and in support of brutal human rights violations at home. Those who think of themselves as "patriotic" generally think it is OK to kill multitudes of "them". They frequently think it is OK to ignore human rights, even the ones mentioned in the Bill of Rights, in order to "get" the bad guys. The claim is that is makes "us" safer somehow. It doesn't.
It's time to shed the snakeskin of "patriotism" and start living your life free; standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, everywhere, for all times. Lead by example. Lift the banner of freedom high.
-------------------------------
Now "patriotism" consists of waving the federal flag in support of its many invasions across the globe, and in support of brutal human rights violations at home. Those who think of themselves as "patriotic" generally think it is OK to kill multitudes of "them". They frequently think it is OK to ignore human rights, even the ones mentioned in the Bill of Rights, in order to "get" the bad guys. The claim is that is makes "us" safer somehow. It doesn't.
It's time to shed the snakeskin of "patriotism" and start living your life free; standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, everywhere, for all times. Lead by example. Lift the banner of freedom high.
-------------------------------
Sunday, February 01, 2009
New Meetup Group - Clovis, New Mexico Area
I have started a new Meetup group to see if anyone in my area (around Clovis, New Mexico) is interested in getting together. It is called The Tumbleweed Territory Libertarians.
If you know anyone in my area who might be interested, please let them know about it.
If you know anyone in my area who might be interested, please let them know about it.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Who Defines Your Liberty?
Yesterday, I was pointing out that many people get their definition of "freedom" from government and its indoctrination centers (called "schools"). Government wouldn't know "freedom" if it stepped in it, and would avoid it if it did.
This makes me think of the virus my computer recently became infected with. It masqueraded as a solution to the problem it caused. Just like government does. Look at recent and ongoing events if you doubt me.
Economic disaster? Blame the "lack of regulation" instead of seeing that it is caused by the exact opposite: too much government meddling in the market.
Too much "crime"? Look at who empowers the violent criminals: government and its drug laws and victim disarmament "laws" lead the list of causes.
Government redefines "freedom" to mean whatever suits its purpose (and doesn't threaten its power). It tells you what freedom is, and how to use it. It tells you the price of liberty, and insists you can only purchase it from the state. Don't let the virus sell you the false cure.
This makes me think of the virus my computer recently became infected with. It masqueraded as a solution to the problem it caused. Just like government does. Look at recent and ongoing events if you doubt me.
Economic disaster? Blame the "lack of regulation" instead of seeing that it is caused by the exact opposite: too much government meddling in the market.
Too much "crime"? Look at who empowers the violent criminals: government and its drug laws and victim disarmament "laws" lead the list of causes.
Government redefines "freedom" to mean whatever suits its purpose (and doesn't threaten its power). It tells you what freedom is, and how to use it. It tells you the price of liberty, and insists you can only purchase it from the state. Don't let the virus sell you the false cure.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Do You Value Liberty?
I think most people love freedom. At least, they claim to love freedom. That is good, but it isn't nearly enough.
I, too, "love liberty" but that is merely the beginning. I also recognize its value. I could "love" gold; appreciate its beauty or lustre, without knowing what its value is, or what its uses are. The same goes for liberty. A blind "love" that is based on ignorance or is not backed up by actions is worthless.
To appreciate the value of freedom, you must know what it takes to purchase it. You must buy it for yourself. No one can "give" freedom to you, nor can anyone else "fight for your freedom". Anyone who claims to have done so is lying to you in order to brainwash you into giving up some of your liberty, either to them or to their "masters".
In order to really value liberty, you must see what it can be used for, and you must put it into action. Words are easy; actions are important. If you don't "live your liberty", you don't value it enough. It will be easy for power-hungry tyrants to steal it from you. Make freedom a habit. Assume Liberty in all situations, rather than assuming you will need to ask permission from someone.
There is also the problem that many people don't even know what freedom or liberty really are. They think freedom is whatever government (or its schools) tell them it is. It isn't. Tune in tomorrow for my thoughts on this.
I, too, "love liberty" but that is merely the beginning. I also recognize its value. I could "love" gold; appreciate its beauty or lustre, without knowing what its value is, or what its uses are. The same goes for liberty. A blind "love" that is based on ignorance or is not backed up by actions is worthless.
To appreciate the value of freedom, you must know what it takes to purchase it. You must buy it for yourself. No one can "give" freedom to you, nor can anyone else "fight for your freedom". Anyone who claims to have done so is lying to you in order to brainwash you into giving up some of your liberty, either to them or to their "masters".
In order to really value liberty, you must see what it can be used for, and you must put it into action. Words are easy; actions are important. If you don't "live your liberty", you don't value it enough. It will be easy for power-hungry tyrants to steal it from you. Make freedom a habit. Assume Liberty in all situations, rather than assuming you will need to ask permission from someone.
There is also the problem that many people don't even know what freedom or liberty really are. They think freedom is whatever government (or its schools) tell them it is. It isn't. Tune in tomorrow for my thoughts on this.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Initiation of Force
Part of the reason for this blog is to educate myself; show me where I may be wrong. So, for your perusal I offer this from a discussion on The War on Guns:
TJP- "I'm a law-and-order kinda guy. I can think of examples--from disturbing
the peace to murder--where some stranger (including me) may be required to fill
the role of initiator, because the injured party is indisposed."
With "disturbing the peace" there is no "injured party". With actual aggression, if the injured party is indisposed, you would not be initiating force if you step in for the victim.
"Are there universally understood indicators of the initiation of force?"
Yes. "Force" is the exertion of physical power, or, I would say, the credible threat to use such. "Initiate" means to begin or originate. So, an "initiation of force" is beginning an exertion of physical power, or a credible threat to do so.
"Does your answer take into account that some people understand the display of a weapon to be an act of aggression, no matter the context?"
Those people are wrong. Seeing a weapon does not constitute a credible threat to exert physical power. You can't worry about the people who simply want to be in a knot about everything. There is no right to not be offended.
If you are seriously interested, I suggest you check out The On Line Freedom Academy.
_______________________________________
I recommend you read the entire comment thread. A big point of contention was that "disturbing the peace" IS an initiation of force. So, maybe I am/was wrong about this. I think there is a big difference between being annoyed or offended and being injured. If I am wrong and you are being "injured" by someone disturbing your peace, then it would obviously be your right to step in and defend yourself. If not, it would be wrong.
There have been other cases where I suspect I may have a higher threshold for annoyance than most people. Or, maybe it is that so many things annoy me that I have learned how to control my responses. This may just be a case where you have to do what you think is right, and deal with any consequences later. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need to call the cops on anyone; certainly not for bothering me. I am not saying it could never happen, but I do know that I would feel dirty afterwards if I did it.
Let me know if you have other opinions on this, and I'll keep thinking it over in my own mind. I am confident that there is a right solution, and I intend to find it.
.................................................
TJP- "I'm a law-and-order kinda guy. I can think of examples--from disturbing
the peace to murder--where some stranger (including me) may be required to fill
the role of initiator, because the injured party is indisposed."
With "disturbing the peace" there is no "injured party". With actual aggression, if the injured party is indisposed, you would not be initiating force if you step in for the victim.
"Are there universally understood indicators of the initiation of force?"
Yes. "Force" is the exertion of physical power, or, I would say, the credible threat to use such. "Initiate" means to begin or originate. So, an "initiation of force" is beginning an exertion of physical power, or a credible threat to do so.
"Does your answer take into account that some people understand the display of a weapon to be an act of aggression, no matter the context?"
Those people are wrong. Seeing a weapon does not constitute a credible threat to exert physical power. You can't worry about the people who simply want to be in a knot about everything. There is no right to not be offended.
If you are seriously interested, I suggest you check out The On Line Freedom Academy.
_______________________________________
I recommend you read the entire comment thread. A big point of contention was that "disturbing the peace" IS an initiation of force. So, maybe I am/was wrong about this. I think there is a big difference between being annoyed or offended and being injured. If I am wrong and you are being "injured" by someone disturbing your peace, then it would obviously be your right to step in and defend yourself. If not, it would be wrong.
There have been other cases where I suspect I may have a higher threshold for annoyance than most people. Or, maybe it is that so many things annoy me that I have learned how to control my responses. This may just be a case where you have to do what you think is right, and deal with any consequences later. I have never been in a situation where I felt the need to call the cops on anyone; certainly not for bothering me. I am not saying it could never happen, but I do know that I would feel dirty afterwards if I did it.
Let me know if you have other opinions on this, and I'll keep thinking it over in my own mind. I am confident that there is a right solution, and I intend to find it.
.................................................
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Looking for the Good
A lot of times, whenever a new figure emerges on the political scene, I try to see the good in them. That usually comes back to haunt me, since no one can ever live up to the standards of myself or other anarchists. But I do try. The example in the link is just the latest person to crop up, but not one I have an opinion on one way or another.
The sad thing is how often I get chewed out for saying something nice about someone. Seriously, I have no desire to live my life looking for things to dislike about everyone. It would be an exhausting and lonely existence. I am learning to keep my mouth shut in most cases.
I do know that no one who gets elected is ever going to be a philosophically pure libertarian or anarchist. It's just the nature of the "game". They will all do things that are horrible, if they haven't already. Or they will associate with some really unsavory statist monsters. However, a lot of people have some things we can appreciate as long as we don't get caught up and lose sight of the goal.
Worship no one, no matter how wonderful they may seem at first glance. Be willing to praise people when they are right. Don't wallow in a hate-fest regarding the people you just can't say anything good about. Some people are just beyond help.
................................
The sad thing is how often I get chewed out for saying something nice about someone. Seriously, I have no desire to live my life looking for things to dislike about everyone. It would be an exhausting and lonely existence. I am learning to keep my mouth shut in most cases.
I do know that no one who gets elected is ever going to be a philosophically pure libertarian or anarchist. It's just the nature of the "game". They will all do things that are horrible, if they haven't already. Or they will associate with some really unsavory statist monsters. However, a lot of people have some things we can appreciate as long as we don't get caught up and lose sight of the goal.
Worship no one, no matter how wonderful they may seem at first glance. Be willing to praise people when they are right. Don't wallow in a hate-fest regarding the people you just can't say anything good about. Some people are just beyond help.
................................
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Blame Sasquatch
The socialists in government and in the media who say that the current economic mess was caused by the free market would probably also blame sasquatch for killing their chickens. We know it was their own dog doing the killing, just as we know government meddling caused, and is still causing, the economic collapse. Denial is alive and well, and surrounds us.
The government supporters need to realize that something as rare as the free market couldn't possibly have destroyed the entire economy. It takes something ubiquitous, like government control, regulation, meddling, and interference.
The free market can be as elusive as sasquatch; reports of sightings come in from everywhere, but when you try to track it down, at least in the places you are told to look, nothing is found. It isn't found in Detroit automakers. It isn't found at Walmart. Corporatism is not the free market. Protectionism is not the free market. They are the exact opposite. Government can't advance the free market by any action other than by going away.
Still, the free market can be found, usually when and where you least expect it, in back alleys, at flea markets, or at your neighbor's farm. Often right under the state's nose, and in violation of its "laws". It is just out of sight of the prying eyes of those who would protect you from the "unfairness" of it all. It's time to poke out those eyes and connect with, or build, your own free market where you live.
....................................
The government supporters need to realize that something as rare as the free market couldn't possibly have destroyed the entire economy. It takes something ubiquitous, like government control, regulation, meddling, and interference.
The free market can be as elusive as sasquatch; reports of sightings come in from everywhere, but when you try to track it down, at least in the places you are told to look, nothing is found. It isn't found in Detroit automakers. It isn't found at Walmart. Corporatism is not the free market. Protectionism is not the free market. They are the exact opposite. Government can't advance the free market by any action other than by going away.
Still, the free market can be found, usually when and where you least expect it, in back alleys, at flea markets, or at your neighbor's farm. Often right under the state's nose, and in violation of its "laws". It is just out of sight of the prying eyes of those who would protect you from the "unfairness" of it all. It's time to poke out those eyes and connect with, or build, your own free market where you live.
....................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)