Authoritarians want to punish those who harm no one

Authoritarians want to punish those who harm no one

Most garden-variety authoritarians, commonly called "conservatives" and "liberals" in modern America, are probably pretty nice people. They don't go around attacking their neighbors, even though that is the reality of the philosophy they follow. They simply haven't thought their positions through that thoroughly. They are your friends and neighbors, your family and co-workers. Maybe even you. So why do they cling to authoritarianism?

I think some of it has to do with the emotional need to punish those who hurt others. That is understandable in a way. I'll address the "punishment culture" another time. The problem is that the same irrational emotions get co-opted and aimed at those who are harming no one, except, possibly, themselves. No matter how much their actions or behaviors may offend you, their private lives are none of your business. Until they initiate force against you.

Of course, some authoritarians cry out that drunk drivers, drug abusers, gun owners, or independent migrants ("illegal immigrants") could cause harm if they aren't punished first. Probably so. So could everyone else, since nothing is 100% safe.

If anyone causes harm to another, drunk or not, addicted or not, whichever tools he might use, regardless of his "legal status" with the government, he should be held accountable.

The crime that is often associated with drug use comes not from the drugs, but from drug prohibition. If sugar (and sugar substitutes) were outlawed tomorrow, criminal gangs would start fighting turf wars over that commodity, too. The price would go up, and people who wanted it would be forced to become criminals to get it. It's the same story every time prohibition is tried. Most drug users live perfectly average lives until they cross paths with the enforcers of prohibition. Then it is a downward spiral caused by the sanctions placed upon them and the public scorn. Often from people who are engaged in the exact same behaviors, but who have not yet been caught.

Most gun owners never shoot anyone, much less an innocent person. Yet anytime a violent attacker uses a gun in his attack, the gun owners who never hurt anyone are targeted by the government nannies. All this does is make future attacks more likely, and likely to be more deadly. It is complete insanity.

Independent migrants only become an issue because of their imagined drain on "tax supported" social services. Since ALL welfare is immoral and based upon theft, it should be ended, thereby destroying the argument.

None of these issues justifies meddling in the private affairs of your neighbors. Why not shrug off the heavy cloak of the control-freak and let yourself relax? You might be surprised how liberating it is.

The "Zero Aggression Principle"

The "Zero Aggression Principle"

"No human being has the right - under any circumstances - to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

This version of The Zero Aggression Principle, formulated by L. Neil Smith, is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. Personally, I DO think this is the foundation of libertarianism. This is how you show your respect for the self-ownership of those around you. If you follow this principle, you may not be a perfect person, but you would probably be a pretty good neighbor. You would definitely be a good example of true libertarianism.

The ZAP has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others; each culture has its own way of saying basically the same thing. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Even small children understand the concept of "he started it!" Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Only someone physically attacking you or making a credible threat against you has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force.

You may have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smart to simply walk away. This is not always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.

Some people may claim that this is "Utopian" but I know it works, for real, in everyday life. I have never run across a situation where it failed to provide the proper perspective in dealing with others. If you don't want to accept it, you can sit around and formulate all sorts of "what if" scenarios that you will probably never face. That just shows me that you have a desire to keep open the option of attacking someone you don't like, even if they have not attacked you first. That is a sign that you may not be a trustworthy, or nice, person.

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner

Good news and bad news. I am now the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner. That probably means most of my blogs will be written for that site, with only an introductory paragraph here. After all, even a libertarian anarchist likes a little money now and then.

Please continue to visit me there.

Thanks.

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

Philosophy of Libertarianism explained

Philosophy of Libertarianism explained (My first Examiner column)

In case you are unfamiliar with libertarianism I'll explain what the philosophy means to me. Most people talk of "left" or "right"; "Liberal" or "conservative", when they talk about politics. This is a misdirection. The true distinction is between those who wish to control your life, the "authoritarians", and those who do not, the "libertarians". Liberals and conservatives are just different aspects of the authoritarian end of the political hierarchy, or as I frequently say: different sides of the same cow patty.

The term "libertarian" encompasses different degrees of libertarianism, from "libertarians" who really would fit better with the authoritarians (*cough* Bob Barr *cough*), through the minarchists, all the way to "libertarianism in full-bloom": the anarchists. I am definitely on the anarchist path.

Don't worry, though, I am not about to start lobbing Molotov cocktails anytime soon. The people who do that are not really "anarchists", but are instead anti-business, and anti-society. They are socialists; just another aspect of the authoritarians. "Anarchy" means "without rulers"; not "without rules". There is a huge difference. "Anarchy" is not "chaos", no matter what news reports may claim. The words are not interchangeable, although common, incorrect, usage has put "chaos" into the dictionary under "anarchy". Some people are searching for a new word that hasn't yet been corrupted to describe the philosophy, but none has yet caught on.

What I am talking about here is a recognition that all humans have the exact same rights, no matter what the "laws" surrounding them may claim. You have the absolute right to live your life however you see fit, as long as you are harming no innocent people. You own your body and your life. You can throw them away if you want to. No one has a right to stop you. No one has any claim on you or the products of your labor. You are free to enter into any contractual agreements you wish. No one has any obligation to protect you from your own poor choices. They can offer help if they want to, but charity is not forced. You have no right to interfere with the private lives of others, no matter how much their choices may offend your sensibilities, as long as they are harming no one else by their actions. This is summarized quite well by The Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

Walk with me and I will attempt to take you on a journey where I can show you what "liberty" and "freedom" really mean.


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

Dreaming

Last night I dreamed I was sitting in a bar. It was a comfortable place where I fit in and felt at home. As I sat there a crew of people swarmed in and started redecorating around me. The fixtures were swapped out and lots of chrome and "bling" were added. The walls were covered with huge photos of smiling "urban" celebrities and a motif of "PPP", which I understood to stand for "Pretty People Posse", was on everything. Suddenly the place was full of people dressed in expensive clothing who acted like I was covered in oozing sores. They all kept laughing at my hat as I sat there in my chair, where I had sat during the entire transformation. They seemed stupid and shallow; talking a lot without saying anything. At last a big bouncer type walked over and motioned for me to get out of the chair. I stood up and was escorted from the premises and was told I wouldn't be seeing the inside of this establishment again. I felt a bit lost, as I had not changed; only my surroundings had.

I am not one who worships "America", but once upon a time America was founded by people who weren't that different in philosophy from me. I probably would have fit in very well. Then the place was changed around me. I didn't change but became a pariah by standing for the things that at one time were common. I'll keep standing for Liberty for ALL - All rights for everyone, everywhere for all times.

Honesty

Most of us like to think of ourselves as fairly honest people. When we do lie, we excuse ourselves. I know I do.

Is it ever OK to lie? I really think it is, although I could be wrong. If I were hiding a person from state aggression; because of issues involving ANY counterfeit "law" for example, I wouldn't think twice about lying in order to protect them. Lying to a liar in order to protect the innocent is the right thing to do, in my opinion. I have no problem lying to anyone in government anyway, as the entire organization is built on a foundation of lies and theft. You don't owe the state the truth when that truth will be used to rob or otherwise harm you or other people.

I will also lie to protect my friends from harm. I don't lie in order to hurt people, nor would I go along with the lies of another that are hurting some innocent person. I once had a disagreement with some good friends because they lied to another person and hurt her, and when she asked me about it I told her the truth. On several occasions I have had problems that result from lies others have told about me; where a third party thought I was lying because of the lies they were told about me. Because I didn't go along with the original lie, I was accused of being the liar, and was never able to totally clear my name. But that is just how it goes.

The truth is probably easier in the long run, even when it hurts someone right now. Unless you are facing the thugs of the state. In that case, do what your conscience tells you is right.

..........................

Sorry, But The World Is NOT Flat....

I run into a lot of situations where someone I know is wrong; they hold an incorrect idea or belief, and insist on bringing it up at every opportunity. Many, but not all, of these beliefs concern the state in some way.

Just a few examples that come to mind:

"Illegal immigrants" are not destroying "our society" no matter how much "they are costing us". Welfare, in the form of food stamps, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, "public schools", and a multitude of other scams, is. Face the real issue here.

There is no excuse to "enforce the gun laws we already have" since every single one of them is illegal, immoral, and evil. "Conservatives" are just as wrong on the issue of guns as "liberals" are. Every gun "law" is wrong and should NEVER be enforced against ANYONE. Regardless of how much you dislike them, and no matter how much of a threat they pose to the state.

Taxation is theft and there is no excuse for it. None. It doesn't matter how important you think the government programs you happen to like are. No government program is important enough to steal in order to finance, and none is important enough to kill those who don't want to fork over their property. If you like the government program enough that you think it is OK to steal and kill to support it, then I suggest you try to do it on your own instead of sending badged and uniformed thugs to do your dirty work for you. I also suggest you try to develop some character so you can shed this immoral belief.

The War on some Drugs is completely evil. I see news reports of how many people are being killed in the drug trade and want to scream at the top of my lungs: "Prohibition will ALWAYS produce the same results!" It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong to use drugs or not. It is completely stupid to sacrifice so many lives for your delusions. If you support prohibition, the blood is on your hands.

There. I got some of those out.

I have been trying to learn to keep my mouth shut after my first run-in with these erroneous beliefs. After all, the person obviously knows I don't agree with them. Especially if they caught me off-guard when they mentioned or acted upon the belief in the first place. If they want to examine their belief more closely, I will help. It does no good to state why they are wrong every time the issue crops up. This will only make them cranky, and make me frustrated, and I would be a jerk for making it into an argument every time. Still, I consider it a little boorish of the other person to keep harping on things I know are wrong, and that they know I know are wrong.

......................................

Ruled by Emotions

It seems as if most people are ruled by their emotions. Whenever there is some "crime", everyone is out for blood, regardless if the accused actually did it or not, and regardless of whether the "crime" harmed any people or not.

One BIG point of evidence for this is that when I read of a "drug bust" on the local newspaper's website, a majority of the comments are cheering the bust, never even considering the truth behind the evil and stupid War on some Drugs. Never even considering if the arrestees are actually guilty of doing what the state says they did. Just celebrating their downfall.

It is also the same if someone is arrested on "child pornography" charges. It doesn't matter to them if the charges are true or not in the slightest degree. Or if a real attack occurred. Remember that cartoons; fictional, non-existent characters, who have no real "age" at all and therefore can't be "minors" no matter how they were drawn to appear, involved in imaginary acts that never occurred, can qualify as "child pornography" if the state decides it does (which it always will), and can be used by the state to destroy lives. Yet those who are ruled by emotion jeer and say they hope the accused suffers the most hideous assaults while kidnapped by the state.

It's as bad as the gun owners who say that gun owners like Wayne Fincher and David Olofson "got what they deserved" when they were arrested for having "illegal" machine guns, even though neither of them ever harmed or threatened anyone in any way. No government has the authority to regulate guns in any way, with or without the Second Amendment. Yet, emotions say to rip apart the victims while they are down; like a pack of wolves would do. It really makes me sick.

Stop acting out of emotion. Think. Reason. Grow up.


.......................................................

Criminals and Outlaws

Since it is absolutely impossible to live without breaking the "laws" the government has invented, that means that we are all "criminals" in the eyes of the state. There are two classes of "criminal": those who have actually initiated force (economic or physical) and those who are only guilty of violating some counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in reality.

Of those "criminals" who are only guilty of violating counterfeit "laws" there are two groups: those who are still under the delusion that they are "good, law-abiding citizens", and those who know the score, and accept their status as "outlaws".

These "Outlaws" are the only honest people left. I happily count myself among them.

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

Blood Money

I don't want to "give" any of my money or other property to the government, and I don't want government to "give me back" any money taken from others. I am not "entitled" to stolen money, not even to "pay back" money that has been stolen from me. I'll get into why I believe this in a minute.

This is the fallacy behind "Social Security", tax refunds, stimulus checks, and anything else government "gives" the people. This money is either stolen, or it was printed up out of thin air. If you or I did this, the government would call us counterfeiters. And they would be right, although they would excuse their own actions in spite of there being no real difference. Even if it was stolen from you originally, it is still tainted by the time you get it back. It's a difficult moral dilemma. What was stolen from you 6 months ago is gone. Spent. What the government "gives" you back was stolen from someone else more recently. And since everything government does is backed up by a monopoly on force, and ultimately by threat of death, the money was stolen at gun-point. It is blood money.

The same goes for any wages paid by any government entity. That money was stolen from someone, somewhere. This is why I think it would be best, if you do choose to work for government in any capacity, that you do so on a volunteer basis. If it is really that important to do, it will be done by volunteers, right?

Now, would I scold you for accepting these "benefits"? No. Maybe your understanding of morality and ethics differs from mine. But as for me, no thanks. Keep your blood money.

.......................................

Inevitability

It seems that people expect things to always be like they are now. Maybe small changes here and there, more technology obviously, but basic institutions and such staying pretty much the same. That isn't going to happen no matter what.

Stasis is highly unlikely over the long-term. Changes WILL happen. It is inevitable. The question is, are you going to help the changes tip toward more freedom, or toward more tyranny? The steps you take in your daily life shift the balance more than you think. More than even actions the government takes. After all, they can do nothing if we stand against them.

Relying on cops tips us toward tyranny. "Rugged individualism" tips the scales towards freedom. Behaving like a jerk and not taking responsibility for your life and actions causes a shift towards tyranny. Accepting responsibility shifts the balance more towards liberty. Abusing the rights you have hurts freedom, while using your rights wisely strengthens freedom.

You and I, and everything we do, has a profound effect on liberty for all. Nothing any of us do is irrelevant. So, please, think before you act. Because change is coming. It is inevitable. The direction the change takes depends on what each and every one of us do.

..............................

The Story of My Run for President

It was suggested by Anne Cleveland of An Octogenarian's Blog that I write the story of my presidential campaign. Bits and pieces of the story are here in earlier posts, and I hope I don't forget or leave out important parts, but here it is.

I had given up on "politics", but liked L. Neil Smith enough that I was wanting him to run for the LP nomination for 2004. He decided against it, but endorsed Michael Badnarik. I read Mr. Badnarik's website and really liked what I saw, so I wrote him. He wrote back and eventually we spoke on the phone a couple of times. I really liked him and couldn't find any point where we disagreed, so I tried to help his campaign and encouraged my friends to look into his campaign and consider supporting him. Against the odds, he actually won the LP's nomination, but didn't do well in the election. The day after the election, I woke up thinking that if a libertarian wasn't going to win anyway, I could lose an election as nicely as anyone else could. So, I decided I might as well run for president; after all, I had 4 years to build momentum. Like a glacier.

That night, I sat down and made a Geocities page, detailing what I would do as president. The same campaign promises are still posted on my KentForLiberty site. Then I went on the Claire Files forum (now The Mental Militia Forums) and made my first public announcement.

I joked and discussed my campaign with a few people, not taking it very seriously. I did get a rubber stamp in order to put my Geocities website, shortened through notlong.com, on FRNs. If you run across any bills stamped "kent2008.notlong.com", that is my work.

Things went slowly for a year and a half, then things exploded. I'm not even certain what happened. People discovered my campaign somehow. I was in the middle of a strange 6 month-long vacation when I was contacted and "challenged" to start a blog to discuss my stand on the issues and allow people to ask me questions. I had never thought of blogging before, and was certain I would run out of things to talk about after a couple of weeks. After all, I had said all I needed to say on my campaign page, right?

Suddenly I had more people writing me than I knew what to do with, but I made sure to answer every single one. Even the ones who told me to perform physically impossible acts upon myself and then die. I started finding my campaign mentioned on different websites every day, often in less than complimentary ways. Although I had never mentioned seeking the nomination of any party, thinking I was too radical for any national party, I was finding myself listed as "Libertarian". Someone suggested I write Selectsmart.com about being included in their candidate selector, so I did and ended up being the only "Libertarian" in the quiz ..... until the last moment when the LINOs nominated by the LP were added.

Eventually I was contacted by the Libertarian Party and invited to seek their nomination. This thing was getting more serious than I had intended. I was interviewed by a few different internet "radio" shows, and invited to take part in different forums ("fora"?) to answer questions about my stand on important issues. I tried to accept every invitation, although I normally only participated until the original flurry of activity died down a bit. I took part in several conference calls between the LP candidates. This convinced me that I probably wasn't cut out for politics. I became somewhat disillusioned listening to the less-than-civil exchanges between certain people.

Then came the detractors who said I didn't look "professional" enough, had the audacity to run for president before I had been elected dog-catcher, refused to accept donations, and wouldn't remove the endorsement of "Breechcloth Day" from my web page. Hey, I thought this was supposed to be FUN!

My Geocities page was also said to be hideous, so I sought advice, and got a real website. The response was positive about that change, at least. Still, nothing was ever enough for those who just wanted something to whine or complain about, and I am stubborn enough to stand my ground instead of doing things just to make people happy.

There finally came a point where I needed to get serious, if I wanted to get serious (which had not originally been my plan). I looked into registering with the FEC so I would have a "real campaign". What I ran into there disgusted me. There was no provision for refusing donations, and the paperwork and reporting requirements went against everything I stood for. I now knew why the same type of people keep getting elected: the system is set up to disqualify anyone else. The game was more seriously rigged than I had previously suspected.

Added to some things that were going on personally, I decided I wouldn't continue to seek the LP nomination, and would stop campaigning. So I made the announcement that I was done. The reaction was immediate and upsetting. So many people wrote me, acting like I had let them down. Had I made a mistake?

After some soul-searching I decided that the best thing I could do was offer myself as a write-in candidate. I knew that without registering with the FEC any votes for me would not be counted, but being unwilling to submit to a government commission's illegal interference with the election process left me with few options. At least, few options that didn't compromise my principles.

I continued to answer questions, and to encourage those who still felt they needed to vote to vote for me. I feel that the best way to avoid "wasting your vote" is to refuse to spend it. No one is qualified to "run the country" or anything else other than his or her own life. Vote accordingly.

After the election, I was dismayed to see that everyone thinks someone else won, when obviously all those who refused to vote for any of the clowns on the ballot were clearly giving me a mandate. All the non-voters outnumber those who voted for the current president hundreds-to-one. I guess I don't want the job enough to get my hands dirty in court to challenge the usurper in the White House.

I have been asked by several people if I will run again next time. I have told them "no"; I can't imagine any circumstance arising that would cause me to do it again. The older I get, the more skeptical I become of any form of organized external "government". Self-government is the only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.


......................................................

"World 'Sexting' Day"

Observing "World 'Sexting' Day":

March 2, 2009 - Today is the day to offer your moral support
to the most recent victims of the government's blatant
violation of the First Amendment and Self-Determination: those teens who
have been persecuted or prosecuted for "victimizing" themselves by sending nude
photographs of themselves, by cell phone, to others. Also victimized
are the recipients of those pics who are targeted by prosecutors hungry for
"child pornography" convictions.

The point of this event is to send "sext messages", of only
yourself, obviously, to everyone you can, even random numbers and email
addresses. As many as possible should go to judges, prosecuting attorneys,
or any other public or private "do-gooders" who have been active in
the persecution of "sexting" teens. Flood them with so many that there is
no way to sift through them all, and even if they do, in order to be consistent they will be forced to arrest themselves.

So, start snapping those pics and sending them on their way. The
clock is ticking!

Random Weekend Thoughts

It is no wonder most children don't know right from wrong. They are told, if there is a problem, call the cops. That is wrong.

People don't understand because they don't want to understand. Denial and "head-in-the-sand" are frequent reactions to things people don't want to understand.

Freedom isn't "easy", but it really isn't that hard either.

Until you stand up for unpopular freedoms, even those you personally despise, you are not standing up for freedom at all, but are supporting oppression and tyranny.

Those who don't learn from history.... get elected and doom the rest of us to repeat it. Unless we are smarter and more prepared than most people.

There is a thin line separating "being helpful" and "being meddlesome"... and the one who gets to define the line is the recipient of your ministrations.

Intrusive Government

Recently, someone I know was stopped by a cop for something that had no conceivable safety implications, but only "identification" issues. The license plate light was burned out. In the course of the traffic stop, the highwayman wanted to know where he was going, why he was going there, who he knew in the area, if he had a job, and numerous other things that were of no relevence.

Not wanting to get shot, he answered the questions (not necessarily honestly), but left feeling dirty, as if he had just been raped as well as having been accused of being unworthy of the benefit of the doubt. If he had said or done anything that tweaked the highwayman's interest, he could have (and probably would have) ended up arrested, tasered, or shot dead.

Is this what the US police-state has become? People who are harming no one in any way, being accosted, interrogated, and basically threatened at gun-point for simply travelling? Yes, it is. The sooner those on the "liberty fence" realize this, the sooner it will end. It is past time.

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

Libertarians Are The Best!

Libertarians have the potential to be the best people in the world. It is because our core philosophy, when followed, will just about guarantee that result. If we aren't it is because we are not living up to our potential.

Other groups have conflicted "principles" in their core beliefs. Things like stealing is wrong, unless it is government stealing for a cause they happen to support. Or murder is wrong, unless it was government doing it and it was an "honest" mistake (or "they deserved it").

Of course, it is considered very impolite to point out the inconsistencies in the beliefs and philosophies of the "mainstream" groups. That makes libertarians somewhat unpopular at times. It makes those other people uncomfortable, and makes them want to blame libertarians instead of examining their own inconsistencies. Happily, they don't have to agree with us for us to be right.

So, remember your potential, and strive to live up to it. You can point out the inconsistencies, but don't dwell on them since those who do not want to see, won't see. A good example is more persuasive than winning debates any day.

............................

Common Sense

"common sense 
–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." - From Dictionary.com
___________________________________________

What is "common sense"? What seems to me to be common sense is often not what the other person sees as common sense. "Common sense" is what works for you in your day-to-day life. It is based on your physical senses and your experiences and is what allows you to function when faced with a problem to solve. But..... It isn't always factually correct. Sometimes specialized knowledge or training steps in where "common sense" fails. There are even cases where, when faced with a problem that requires specialized knowledge, "common sense" responses can get you killed.

The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory, and (apparently) biological evolution by natural selection violate "common sense" for most people. That is because common sense is extremely limited by your own personal experiences.

Because we don't experience travel through space at large percentages of the speed of light, relativity seems counter to our common sense perceptions.

Because we don't experience the incredibly tiny universe of the subatomic particles, quantum effects do not fit our notion of common sense.

Because our lives do not span geologic time scales, we have trouble with the concept of deep time in which natural selection causes species to change until a new species exists.

And - because we exist in a seething maelstrom of statism that is accepted as "the way it has always been done", anarchism seems to violate most peoples' notion of common sense.

"Common sense" has its place, but it also has its limitations. Use it when it works; accept the truth when it fails. Don't rely on it as a crutch in place of thinking and learning.

........................................

Right to Life?

Why is it that when the right to "bear arms" is discussed, a huge amount of time is spent discussing the responsibilities that go along with it, yet when the right to life is discussed, by certain politico-religious groups, there is never any mention of any responsibilities attached? Is the right to life the only right that carries no responsibilities? No obligations at all? Why is the right to life given a free pass?

Obviously, I believe there is a responsibility that goes along with living: the obligation to never initiate force. Those who are loudest about the right to life seem to not agree.

I would say that, rather than a "right to life", we all have a right to defend our life. If a person isn't able to defend their own life, then someone can step in and defend the defenseless. But do you have a right to defend the life of another? Just thinking....

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

The More Things "Change"... & Ron Paul: Alien Overlord?

Has anyone else ever noticed that no matter the promises, no matter how "good" a candidate looks, no matter what a politician's previous stand has been on an issue, as soon as they get elected or appointed, they keep the government on the same path as it has been on? There may be minor deviations of course, but the reality is there is almost no hiccup in the operation of the state machine.

Obama keeps doing the same things his predecessor was doing, although he justifies the actions with different excuses (and claims this equals "change". His appointees keep following the same policies even though they previously spoke out against them.

It is as if "government" has a life of its own, and really isn't "made up of individual people" as most of us have believed. It is a hive that alters its parts to suit its purposes. A collective mind that absorbs and alters the minds of those who become a part of it. Makes me wonder how Ron Paul has managed to avoid (mostly) this effect. Perhaps he is an extraterrestrial, but is hiding his otherworldly powers ... for now!

This should probably be a clue that it isn't a matter of getting "the right people" elected; but is a matter of needing to abolish the entire system. Although there will be some who keep tilting at windmills and hoping against hope.



................................

The "Rich Warlord" Boogeyman

One of the main factors that cause people to cling to the archaic notion of "government" ("the state") is a fear of the "rich warlord" who would supposedly take over your life without repercussions if no government were holding him back. It is claimed that government is the only thing that keeps him contained or from gaining power.

Let's examine this idea.

Would people who have tasted real freedom be so easy to take it from again? Probably not for a generation or two. However, there would undoubtedly come a time when the lure of ease and "safety" would sound nice to the less honorable among us. Then the cycle would start anew. However, I think it is better to start from scratch occasionally than to watch the state get bigger, more tyrannical, and less benevolent. Even if this is inevitable, which I am not convinced of, I think it is good to make them rebuild the state from the ground up ever so often. If you can't dig up the weed, at least chop it off at ground level from time to time.

But considering the "warlord" again: First of all, would this really be worse than the situation we are in now? We already live under a rich warlord who steals over 87% of our economic production, and demands more every year. He will kill us if we refuse to pay. He demands a ransom be paid on our homes or he will steal them from us. He demands control over whether or not we are allowed to own and carry effective weapons of self defense, and has criminalized the most effective ones; the very ones his own Constitution puts off-limits for him to touch in any way. He demands control over our travel, our business, our children, even our own bodies. He pretends to be a benevolent protector, and seems honestly bewildered at those of us who see through his velvety smooth words to the harsh truth behind them. This rich warlord is the main proponent of the boogeyman of the other, unknown, rich warlord.

Perhaps the monster we don't know is worse than the monster we know. What then? I think that the only time to keep the rich warlord from becoming a real problem is before he consolidates his power and passes "laws" that make it hard, or even impossible, to stop him. In other words, kill him upon his first act of aggression. Do you think he will behave nicely his whole life until one day he suddenly starts acting like the blossoming monster he is to become? I would imagine he will have a life-long history of aggression and coercion. Remove the "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and he will not survive to become a real threat. This means we are already at an extremely difficult phase in trying to rein in the full grown monster we currently know. Not impossible, but it will take a paradigm shift where enough people realize it is necessary. What is the tipping point?



...........................