In an attempt to get more readers for my Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner column I am now on Twitter. My readership dropped through the floor over the past couple of days, so I am looking for ways to boost it a bit.
Twitter always seemed a little creepy to me. I'm sorry, but I refuse to post my every move on there, but I will let you know when a new ALE column is posted. Who knows, I may even post a few extra things from time to time. I suppose I am open to suggestions as to things you would like for me to post. Within reason.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The war on drugs is a war on us all
The war on drugs is a war on us all
The "War on Drugs" is as likely to be won as a "War on Gravity". That is probably a good thing. Even if a "War on Gravity" could be won, it would destroy the universe. If the War on Drugs were won, it would destroy part of what makes us human. There is no real danger of either happening.
Whether it is alcohol, THC, or any of the so-called "hard drugs", the fact is that a majority of people enjoy feeling "altered" mental states of some sort. From early childhood humans seek out the sensation. I'm sure you have noticed young children spinning until they can't stand, haven't you? "Drunk" is like dizziness. It is a manifestation of the same desire. It is an integral part of the human condition and it is ridiculous and evil to try to change that in any way other than gentle persuasion. "Laws" and punishments can't make people stop. I can understand that, why can't the state? (I have my suspicions that they really do "get it", but have their own reasons for fighting this endless war.)
Just as gravity can be used in many ways, including in counterintuitive ways such as to make an airplane fly, so could the basic human desire to feel "altered" possibly be used for seemingly counterintuitive purposes. Yet, aside from government labs where the "laws" don't apply, any exploration of this possibility is tightly regulated and often prohibited.
This isn't even a moral issue, although some will try to tell you it is. Is it wrong to listen to a song that alters your moods? Is it wrong to skydive? Why are some things "legal" and other things "illegal" when the resulting feeling is very similar? It isn't the potential for harm, or alcohol would be "illegal" and marijuana would be "legal".
Pure and simple it is about three things: control, money, and the power that the state can seize. There are huge profits to be made, as long as drugs remain illegal, on both sides of the "law". The crime and violence that logically result from prohibition can be used to scare the population into begging to be saved by government. Government can use the violence as an excuse to attempt to disarm the population, in particular, those who are not part of the problem.
The "War on Drugs" is a distraction. Pursuing it is evil and stupid. It is really a war on your freedom. Just say "No!" to continued prohibition!
The "War on Drugs" is as likely to be won as a "War on Gravity". That is probably a good thing. Even if a "War on Gravity" could be won, it would destroy the universe. If the War on Drugs were won, it would destroy part of what makes us human. There is no real danger of either happening.
Whether it is alcohol, THC, or any of the so-called "hard drugs", the fact is that a majority of people enjoy feeling "altered" mental states of some sort. From early childhood humans seek out the sensation. I'm sure you have noticed young children spinning until they can't stand, haven't you? "Drunk" is like dizziness. It is a manifestation of the same desire. It is an integral part of the human condition and it is ridiculous and evil to try to change that in any way other than gentle persuasion. "Laws" and punishments can't make people stop. I can understand that, why can't the state? (I have my suspicions that they really do "get it", but have their own reasons for fighting this endless war.)
Just as gravity can be used in many ways, including in counterintuitive ways such as to make an airplane fly, so could the basic human desire to feel "altered" possibly be used for seemingly counterintuitive purposes. Yet, aside from government labs where the "laws" don't apply, any exploration of this possibility is tightly regulated and often prohibited.
This isn't even a moral issue, although some will try to tell you it is. Is it wrong to listen to a song that alters your moods? Is it wrong to skydive? Why are some things "legal" and other things "illegal" when the resulting feeling is very similar? It isn't the potential for harm, or alcohol would be "illegal" and marijuana would be "legal".
Pure and simple it is about three things: control, money, and the power that the state can seize. There are huge profits to be made, as long as drugs remain illegal, on both sides of the "law". The crime and violence that logically result from prohibition can be used to scare the population into begging to be saved by government. Government can use the violence as an excuse to attempt to disarm the population, in particular, those who are not part of the problem.
The "War on Drugs" is a distraction. Pursuing it is evil and stupid. It is really a war on your freedom. Just say "No!" to continued prohibition!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Dear Dull 'Hawk, #1
Dear Dull 'Hawk,
The government steals from us all the time. That seems to mean that government people are thieves. Thieves don't have any moral right to what they have stolen, as I understand it. If we steal (really: take back,or homestead) things from government or from government people, do we act morally? If so, what of the fact that what we liberate will be repurchased with funds that come from insurance pools that include non-state people who are guilty of nothing?
Anonymous
[First, here is advice from Mike:
Dear Anonymous,
If some of your property is in government possession, if you take it back you have acted morally. I will blog about the injustice of your arrest (kidnapping) or honor your memory. Since you know the government will continue to steal from others to replace your property if you take it back, the only permanent solution is to make certain the thief can't continue to steal.
Then Mike asks:
"Since at one point virtually all property was stolen, particularly land, is it really possible to have a claim to private property? In the strict principled sense, or is there a degree of pragmatism involved since true original ownership is impossible to determine?"
Dear Mike,
If the original owner of a piece of land, or specific descendants, can be identified, I think they should be reimbursed. If the real original owners are lost in the mists of time, then no living person was stolen from, and no one alive is guilty of theft. I don't hold people responsible for what their parents did, much less for the actions of their great-great grandparents. I can wring my hands over the injustices of the past, or I can focus on making sure no more injustices occur. Just my opinion.
The government steals from us all the time. That seems to mean that government people are thieves. Thieves don't have any moral right to what they have stolen, as I understand it. If we steal (really: take back,or homestead) things from government or from government people, do we act morally? If so, what of the fact that what we liberate will be repurchased with funds that come from insurance pools that include non-state people who are guilty of nothing?
Anonymous
[First, here is advice from Mike:
Well, anonymous, Since it's "free market" advice, I'll take a shot.
I'd have to say first and foremost that the collective "we" is out of place
here, and it muddles things considerably. If you, or any other actual person
with a name, has had some specific piece of property taken from you, then, yes,
you have a moral right to it, no matter who took it. Of course, if you you try
to take it back from the government, expect to be jailed or killed for your
trouble. Morality and reality are not the same thing-ask Jesus.
But, when you say "we" and "us" you get into very dangerous territory,
since you have no claim on something stolen from someone else-only your own
stuff. That means that if you "liberate" something, be it money or other
property, that was stolen from me, or that someone else like an insurance co.
has a claim on, you are still a thief, but morally and legally. Since just
because it was once stolen, does not make it fair game for you to take as
well
This is part of why collectivism is so terrible, it confounds morality. But
that's just me. Can't wait to hear Kent's thoughts.]
Dear Anonymous,
If some of your property is in government possession, if you take it back you have acted morally. I will blog about the injustice of your arrest (kidnapping) or honor your memory. Since you know the government will continue to steal from others to replace your property if you take it back, the only permanent solution is to make certain the thief can't continue to steal.
Then Mike asks:
"Since at one point virtually all property was stolen, particularly land, is it really possible to have a claim to private property? In the strict principled sense, or is there a degree of pragmatism involved since true original ownership is impossible to determine?"
Dear Mike,
If the original owner of a piece of land, or specific descendants, can be identified, I think they should be reimbursed. If the real original owners are lost in the mists of time, then no living person was stolen from, and no one alive is guilty of theft. I don't hold people responsible for what their parents did, much less for the actions of their great-great grandparents. I can wring my hands over the injustices of the past, or I can focus on making sure no more injustices occur. Just my opinion.
End the government monopoly; give people a choice
End the government monopoly; give people a choice
In the comments under the column on welfare, "straightarrow" mentioned that he thinks Social Security should be voluntary. I can fully agree to that. In fact, that is all I am truly saying on any of these issues: let people have a choice to opt out of government programs if they so choose. Don't use coercion to force people to use, or at least pay for, government "services" they don't want or need. End the government monopoly!
I have no problem paying the city for the water I use. I would prefer there were competition so that quality would improve, and price might go down, but I have no desire to get something for nothing. Trash pick-up is the same way. I get a service; I pay for it.
What I would really rather not have is a "once-a-month rabid skunk delivery service" mandated by the state, and charged to me even if I insist I don't want it. That is what most government "services" are to me.
If parents wish to home-school (or "unschool") their children, don't force them to keep paying for the system that they have come to realize is socialist indoctrination. If a person realizes that they don't need "police protection", but can do the same job better and cheaper for themselves, don't expect them to pay for the "protection" of others who are not as self-responsible. If an inventor creates a flying car that uses no government roads, don't steal money from him in the way of "road taxes" every time he fuels his vehicle. Choices, options, and an end to the destructive and coercive monopoly.
I don't want or need police "keeping drunks off the road" by violating the basic human right to travel unmolested. I can watch out for myself. That is my responsibility, after all. In fact, I don't want or need police at all.
I don't want to pay for the FCC to fine TV stations on my behalf (though, of course, THEY keep the money) to protect me from things the government thinks I shouldn't see or hear. If the TV offends me I can turn it off. If it offends you I will be glad to show you where the off-button is.
I don't want to pay for the "privilege" of having a Congress. If they want to be "in the club" so badly, let them pay a membership fee and work as volunteers. Best of all, let any "laws" they create only apply to those who are members of their club and leave the rest of us alone.
I don't want the DEA murdering people, for my "benefit", because they have hemp leaves in their possession, nor killing people who are manufacturing chemicals that the state has created a demand for through prohibition. Also, it certainly doesn't benefit me to have government keep these victims of government-gone-amok in prison, at my expense, with the real aggressors and thieves.
I don't want or need a wall built along the southern border to keep "those people" out. If you own property, you have the only say in who may or may not cross it. The US government owns NO property legitimately. Don't let it pretend it does. Do you worry about the "drain on the economy" that you imagine immigrants cause? Then demand an end to all forms of welfare immediately. Worried about the "drug crime" that crosses "the border"? End prohibition and destroy the black market for the "drugs". Otherwise you are just being hypocritical.
Now, if you want some of these "services", then you should be happy to pay for them out of your own pocket. Don't force me, at gunpoint, to "contribute" to your cause. If your "services" violate anyone's rights, even my sworn enemy's, expect me to hold you accountable.
In the comments under the column on welfare, "straightarrow" mentioned that he thinks Social Security should be voluntary. I can fully agree to that. In fact, that is all I am truly saying on any of these issues: let people have a choice to opt out of government programs if they so choose. Don't use coercion to force people to use, or at least pay for, government "services" they don't want or need. End the government monopoly!
I have no problem paying the city for the water I use. I would prefer there were competition so that quality would improve, and price might go down, but I have no desire to get something for nothing. Trash pick-up is the same way. I get a service; I pay for it.
What I would really rather not have is a "once-a-month rabid skunk delivery service" mandated by the state, and charged to me even if I insist I don't want it. That is what most government "services" are to me.
If parents wish to home-school (or "unschool") their children, don't force them to keep paying for the system that they have come to realize is socialist indoctrination. If a person realizes that they don't need "police protection", but can do the same job better and cheaper for themselves, don't expect them to pay for the "protection" of others who are not as self-responsible. If an inventor creates a flying car that uses no government roads, don't steal money from him in the way of "road taxes" every time he fuels his vehicle. Choices, options, and an end to the destructive and coercive monopoly.
I don't want or need police "keeping drunks off the road" by violating the basic human right to travel unmolested. I can watch out for myself. That is my responsibility, after all. In fact, I don't want or need police at all.
I don't want to pay for the FCC to fine TV stations on my behalf (though, of course, THEY keep the money) to protect me from things the government thinks I shouldn't see or hear. If the TV offends me I can turn it off. If it offends you I will be glad to show you where the off-button is.
I don't want to pay for the "privilege" of having a Congress. If they want to be "in the club" so badly, let them pay a membership fee and work as volunteers. Best of all, let any "laws" they create only apply to those who are members of their club and leave the rest of us alone.
I don't want the DEA murdering people, for my "benefit", because they have hemp leaves in their possession, nor killing people who are manufacturing chemicals that the state has created a demand for through prohibition. Also, it certainly doesn't benefit me to have government keep these victims of government-gone-amok in prison, at my expense, with the real aggressors and thieves.
I don't want or need a wall built along the southern border to keep "those people" out. If you own property, you have the only say in who may or may not cross it. The US government owns NO property legitimately. Don't let it pretend it does. Do you worry about the "drain on the economy" that you imagine immigrants cause? Then demand an end to all forms of welfare immediately. Worried about the "drug crime" that crosses "the border"? End prohibition and destroy the black market for the "drugs". Otherwise you are just being hypocritical.
Now, if you want some of these "services", then you should be happy to pay for them out of your own pocket. Don't force me, at gunpoint, to "contribute" to your cause. If your "services" violate anyone's rights, even my sworn enemy's, expect me to hold you accountable.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Dear Dull 'Hawk, .....
I would like to try something a little different. Just as an experiment. How about a "liberty advice column", right here on this blog? You can either pose your questions in the comments (avoid using the Haloscan comments for this) or email them to me at: dullhawk@hotmail.com (please reference this blog post in the subject line somehow) and then I will see if I can give you some advice on the blog the next day. Of course, unlike most advice columns, other commenters may disagree and give you competing advice. Free-market advice.
Make up a nice pseudonym and have at it. This is important- If you don't want the question and answer to be public, please tell me and I won't post it on the blog, otherwise....
PS: I am still looking for any "investors" who would like to help get the coins into production.
-----------------------
Make up a nice pseudonym and have at it. This is important- If you don't want the question and answer to be public, please tell me and I won't post it on the blog, otherwise....
PS: I am still looking for any "investors" who would like to help get the coins into production.
-----------------------
Different labels describe the same basic concept
Different labels describe the same basic concept
I keep seeing debates about the labels we liberty-lovers may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons, usually having to do with "too much baggage" attached to the word. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Then there are some who call themselves "Libertarian" who certainly don't normally act like they are. Is there any use applying "labels"?
Labels can divide us and are over-rated. I am a "clumper". I started out calling myself "libertarian", then because of the inadequacies of the word, started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then I embraced the term "anarchist". Now, for purposes of writing for Examiner.com, I am calling myself "libertarian" again, since they didn't want an "Anarchy Examiner". My attitudes haven't changed throughout all this shuffling of labels. If pressed, I could, on different occasions, say that I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and many more. I can find some common ground with conspiracy theorists, minarchists, "right-wing" gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where anyone calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only real "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.
These definitions that people apply to their philosophy, what do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions in a dictionary to see what someone, somewhere, thought the word meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you use the words. They seem to all fall short of the concepts. Yet, we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I sometimes end up doing. This column is an example of that. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words, or that we may use different words to express the same concept.
MamaLiberty says she calls herself an "individual sovereign". I can identify with that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as the word "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.
As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying. I know a fellow traveler on this road toward freedom when I meet one. That is the important part. So, for the purposes of this column, I will use the term "libertarian" to mean all of those things.
I keep seeing debates about the labels we liberty-lovers may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons, usually having to do with "too much baggage" attached to the word. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Then there are some who call themselves "Libertarian" who certainly don't normally act like they are. Is there any use applying "labels"?
Labels can divide us and are over-rated. I am a "clumper". I started out calling myself "libertarian", then because of the inadequacies of the word, started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then I embraced the term "anarchist". Now, for purposes of writing for Examiner.com, I am calling myself "libertarian" again, since they didn't want an "Anarchy Examiner". My attitudes haven't changed throughout all this shuffling of labels. If pressed, I could, on different occasions, say that I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and many more. I can find some common ground with conspiracy theorists, minarchists, "right-wing" gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where anyone calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only real "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.
These definitions that people apply to their philosophy, what do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions in a dictionary to see what someone, somewhere, thought the word meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you use the words. They seem to all fall short of the concepts. Yet, we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I sometimes end up doing. This column is an example of that. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words, or that we may use different words to express the same concept.
MamaLiberty says she calls herself an "individual sovereign". I can identify with that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as the word "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.
As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying. I know a fellow traveler on this road toward freedom when I meet one. That is the important part. So, for the purposes of this column, I will use the term "libertarian" to mean all of those things.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Libertarians can afford to be bold
Libertarians can afford to be bold
There are very clear reasons why we hold fast to the principles we do. We have clear, rationally derived reasons, so we can be bold when taking our stand. Timidity shows doubt and it isn't necessary. You have weighed your positions, haven't you? Just because our positions may not be popular doesn't mean they are wrong.
When it comes to the absolute right of each person to live life according to his wishes and values, as long as he harms no innocent person, even when his choices are unpopular or scorned by the vast majority, libertarians can't afford to be wishy-washy. There is enough of that out there already. If you only stand up for the popular rights, you are really taking no stand at all.
I'll give you just a couple of examples that cause some libertarians to stammer and try to change the subject.
Guns: Every person has the legacy of tool-use imprinted on his or her body, mind, and quite possibly, DNA. Guns are tools, just like the first flint scrapers or a slightly more advanced copper axe. They give the owner power over his immediate environment. Just like any tool, guns can be used unwisely, however unwise use does not make the tool guilty, nor mean that others who did not use the tool to cause harm must lose their tools. At least, it doesn't mean that unless you are a reactionary control-freak. Then it is "obvious" to you that the tool must be blamed and restricted. Tool prohibition harms innocent people and empowers the predators who live among us. What do we call actions that harm the innocent?
"Drugs": No one owns your life or the vessel that contains it but you. This is the most fundamental "property right" of them all. Without this one, there are not, and can never be, any others. "Ownership" must include the right to destroy the thing you own, or it is meaningless. It gives you no right to steal from others, nor to attack them in any way since this would be violating your victim's property rights. "The drugs made me do it" is a cop-out that would lead to an early grave in a free society if tried very often. However, most people who use chemical substances never harm anyone else, regardless of what the scare-mongers in government wish you to believe. It may not be smart, it may even kill you, but as long as you are harming no one else it is your right. Government has no authority to make certain that you (and your family) are harmed by its sanctions for your choices. To be perfectly honest, that is where most of the harm from "drug use" comes from. Prohibition is a failed concept and a destructive policy. It harms innocent people. That is the very definition of "evil".
There are very clear reasons why we hold fast to the principles we do. We have clear, rationally derived reasons, so we can be bold when taking our stand. Timidity shows doubt and it isn't necessary. You have weighed your positions, haven't you? Just because our positions may not be popular doesn't mean they are wrong.
When it comes to the absolute right of each person to live life according to his wishes and values, as long as he harms no innocent person, even when his choices are unpopular or scorned by the vast majority, libertarians can't afford to be wishy-washy. There is enough of that out there already. If you only stand up for the popular rights, you are really taking no stand at all.
I'll give you just a couple of examples that cause some libertarians to stammer and try to change the subject.
Guns: Every person has the legacy of tool-use imprinted on his or her body, mind, and quite possibly, DNA. Guns are tools, just like the first flint scrapers or a slightly more advanced copper axe. They give the owner power over his immediate environment. Just like any tool, guns can be used unwisely, however unwise use does not make the tool guilty, nor mean that others who did not use the tool to cause harm must lose their tools. At least, it doesn't mean that unless you are a reactionary control-freak. Then it is "obvious" to you that the tool must be blamed and restricted. Tool prohibition harms innocent people and empowers the predators who live among us. What do we call actions that harm the innocent?
"Drugs": No one owns your life or the vessel that contains it but you. This is the most fundamental "property right" of them all. Without this one, there are not, and can never be, any others. "Ownership" must include the right to destroy the thing you own, or it is meaningless. It gives you no right to steal from others, nor to attack them in any way since this would be violating your victim's property rights. "The drugs made me do it" is a cop-out that would lead to an early grave in a free society if tried very often. However, most people who use chemical substances never harm anyone else, regardless of what the scare-mongers in government wish you to believe. It may not be smart, it may even kill you, but as long as you are harming no one else it is your right. Government has no authority to make certain that you (and your family) are harmed by its sanctions for your choices. To be perfectly honest, that is where most of the harm from "drug use" comes from. Prohibition is a failed concept and a destructive policy. It harms innocent people. That is the very definition of "evil".
Monday, March 23, 2009
The absurdity of trying to force freedom on someone
The absurdity of trying to force freedom on someone
Can you "vote yourself free"? Even if you can, what about those who would choose servitude to the state? Is it right, or even possible, to "force people to be free"? Isn't that a contradiction? Does a majority have the right to "impose freedom" on an unwilling minority? Does a libertarian minority have the right to impose freedom (if it were even logistically possible) on a frightened or authoritarian majority?
I don't believe it is possible to force anyone to be free (the current "military mission" in Iraq should be all the evidence anyone needs that it doesn't work). Until the people are familiar with freedom and realize its potential, and then want it, all you are doing is shoving another unwanted edict down someone's throat, just like the last bully-in-charge did. After all, if people wish to voluntarily organize into a socialistic state they should be free to do that as long as they do not force anyone to participate who does not wish to. And there is the problem.
The very nature of the state is that no one is allowed to opt out. It would cause the entire house of cards ("prison of cards"?) to collapse if people were free to choose to be enslaved or not. Taxation is theft, and volunteering to be stolen from is evidence of your slavery. The government claims the "income tax" is "voluntary"... until you stop volunteering to be stolen from. Then you will either submit or the state will keep escalating the aggression until it kills you. This is just one example among millions.
While liberty-lovers would allow a voluntary "statist society" to exist alongside a free society, the state would never reciprocate. It would see liberty as a virus that would spread to those who had previously agreed to live under its "authority". A shining example that it could not shield from the notice of its population. The state would die by attrition.
You can not be allowed, by the state, to choose between tyranny or freedom, because too many would choose freedom, especially if they could see it in action. Those who would choose slavery depend on those who would choose freedom to be the fuel and machinery that runs the society. Without them you have nothing but parasites looking for an absent host. Hmmm. This is sounding like a synopsis of "Atlas Shrugged".
For related material: Under my column "Voting is usually wrong" I have been having a debate in the comments with Eric Sundwall. I recommend you go read it, as it inspired this column. It can give you a feel for the two views of the issue.
Can you "vote yourself free"? Even if you can, what about those who would choose servitude to the state? Is it right, or even possible, to "force people to be free"? Isn't that a contradiction? Does a majority have the right to "impose freedom" on an unwilling minority? Does a libertarian minority have the right to impose freedom (if it were even logistically possible) on a frightened or authoritarian majority?
I don't believe it is possible to force anyone to be free (the current "military mission" in Iraq should be all the evidence anyone needs that it doesn't work). Until the people are familiar with freedom and realize its potential, and then want it, all you are doing is shoving another unwanted edict down someone's throat, just like the last bully-in-charge did. After all, if people wish to voluntarily organize into a socialistic state they should be free to do that as long as they do not force anyone to participate who does not wish to. And there is the problem.
The very nature of the state is that no one is allowed to opt out. It would cause the entire house of cards ("prison of cards"?) to collapse if people were free to choose to be enslaved or not. Taxation is theft, and volunteering to be stolen from is evidence of your slavery. The government claims the "income tax" is "voluntary"... until you stop volunteering to be stolen from. Then you will either submit or the state will keep escalating the aggression until it kills you. This is just one example among millions.
While liberty-lovers would allow a voluntary "statist society" to exist alongside a free society, the state would never reciprocate. It would see liberty as a virus that would spread to those who had previously agreed to live under its "authority". A shining example that it could not shield from the notice of its population. The state would die by attrition.
You can not be allowed, by the state, to choose between tyranny or freedom, because too many would choose freedom, especially if they could see it in action. Those who would choose slavery depend on those who would choose freedom to be the fuel and machinery that runs the society. Without them you have nothing but parasites looking for an absent host. Hmmm. This is sounding like a synopsis of "Atlas Shrugged".
For related material: Under my column "Voting is usually wrong" I have been having a debate in the comments with Eric Sundwall. I recommend you go read it, as it inspired this column. It can give you a feel for the two views of the issue.
A New Obsession - Can You Help?
I have gotten one of my obsessions again. Last time I had a "liberty related" obsession, I designed the "Time's Up" flag. This time it is a 1 oz silver coin which I have designed.
I lost money on the flags, which was OK with me. I'd like to hit on something that would make me financially comfortable, but that isn't the most important thing to me.
The thing is, I can't afford to lose money on another project, not right now, and I don't have the money to have to coins made.
The design I have created should appeal to libertarians, "Three-percenters", Free State Project participants, anarchists, pirate enthusiasts, my "fans and supporters", numismatists (since this will be the most wonderful coin ever designed), and more. And, because the coins would be one ounce of .999 fine silver, they would be a good investment. Since I am trying to protect my design, I won't release it to the public yet, but I like it.
So, if there is anyone out there who would like to commit to buying a certain number of coins, or who would just like to finance the whole venture, let me know and maybe we can reach an agreement. I'd really like to see these coins become a reality so I can get it out of my mind and move onto something else.
..........................................
I lost money on the flags, which was OK with me. I'd like to hit on something that would make me financially comfortable, but that isn't the most important thing to me.
The thing is, I can't afford to lose money on another project, not right now, and I don't have the money to have to coins made.
The design I have created should appeal to libertarians, "Three-percenters", Free State Project participants, anarchists, pirate enthusiasts, my "fans and supporters", numismatists (since this will be the most wonderful coin ever designed), and more. And, because the coins would be one ounce of .999 fine silver, they would be a good investment. Since I am trying to protect my design, I won't release it to the public yet, but I like it.
So, if there is anyone out there who would like to commit to buying a certain number of coins, or who would just like to finance the whole venture, let me know and maybe we can reach an agreement. I'd really like to see these coins become a reality so I can get it out of my mind and move onto something else.
..........................................
Welfare has become a way of life
Welfare has become a way of life
I know of a person who lives near me who is said to be a "welfare queen". She is sneered at by most of her neighbors. Neighbors who, in a majority of cases, happily ignore the fact that they too are living on welfare.
It is hypocritical to denigrate the neighborhood "welfare queen" while you collect your Social Security, your farm subsidies, your Medicare, while you "benefit" from public schooling, or go off to your government job.
It is all the same: living off the wealth and production of others. In other words, theft. Some are OK with this, thinking that it is somehow different in their personal case. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but there is no difference. At least have the integrity to accept welfare for what it is, whether it is being paid to you or taken from you, and don't turn your nose up at others if you are in the same boat.
Consistency in applying your principles. The importance of this can not be overstated.
I know of a person who lives near me who is said to be a "welfare queen". She is sneered at by most of her neighbors. Neighbors who, in a majority of cases, happily ignore the fact that they too are living on welfare.
It is hypocritical to denigrate the neighborhood "welfare queen" while you collect your Social Security, your farm subsidies, your Medicare, while you "benefit" from public schooling, or go off to your government job.
It is all the same: living off the wealth and production of others. In other words, theft. Some are OK with this, thinking that it is somehow different in their personal case. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but there is no difference. At least have the integrity to accept welfare for what it is, whether it is being paid to you or taken from you, and don't turn your nose up at others if you are in the same boat.
Consistency in applying your principles. The importance of this can not be overstated.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
New Mexico gets rid of death penalty
New Mexico gets rid of death penalty
The rulers of the territory of New Mexico recently decided to do away with the "death penalty". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am one of those who feels the only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the moment of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer.
There is no government anywhere that I feel is honest enough to be trusted with power over life and death. They demonstrate time after time, year after year, that they can't be trusted with small things, why on earth would we entrust them with the most important thing there is? Too many on death row have been vindicated, after decades of imprisonment, by DNA evidence. Getting a conviction, so as to appear to be "doing something", is more important than finding the truth to those who depend on an active "criminal justice system" to make money. Lastly, governments always turn to their court system to punish those who oppose or annoy them. Those like you and me.
"What about crime?" you may ask. I don't believe that keeping the death penalty as an option really reduces crime; every attacker thinks they will be the exception to the rule; the one who gets away with it. Once a person is captured they are no longer a threat to the general population. When the killer is no longer a threat, killing him is revenge rather than justice. It doesn't return the victim to life. Nor does it truly protect any future victims. The only thing that does that with any success is a universally armed population, which New Mexico can, and should, have.
Fellow prisoners should be protected from the truly violent predators (rather than the "crime of passion" types). Of course, no one but violent attackers should be in prison in the first place. Others, those whose crimes are of a financial nature, should be working on their restitution rather than living off the stolen money of the state. Those other people who were kidnapped by the state for counterfeit "crimes" which harm no one (in other words, the majority of those in prison) should not be incarcerated to begin with. Not in a rational society, anyway.
The rulers of the territory of New Mexico recently decided to do away with the "death penalty". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am one of those who feels the only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the moment of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer.
There is no government anywhere that I feel is honest enough to be trusted with power over life and death. They demonstrate time after time, year after year, that they can't be trusted with small things, why on earth would we entrust them with the most important thing there is? Too many on death row have been vindicated, after decades of imprisonment, by DNA evidence. Getting a conviction, so as to appear to be "doing something", is more important than finding the truth to those who depend on an active "criminal justice system" to make money. Lastly, governments always turn to their court system to punish those who oppose or annoy them. Those like you and me.
"What about crime?" you may ask. I don't believe that keeping the death penalty as an option really reduces crime; every attacker thinks they will be the exception to the rule; the one who gets away with it. Once a person is captured they are no longer a threat to the general population. When the killer is no longer a threat, killing him is revenge rather than justice. It doesn't return the victim to life. Nor does it truly protect any future victims. The only thing that does that with any success is a universally armed population, which New Mexico can, and should, have.
Fellow prisoners should be protected from the truly violent predators (rather than the "crime of passion" types). Of course, no one but violent attackers should be in prison in the first place. Others, those whose crimes are of a financial nature, should be working on their restitution rather than living off the stolen money of the state. Those other people who were kidnapped by the state for counterfeit "crimes" which harm no one (in other words, the majority of those in prison) should not be incarcerated to begin with. Not in a rational society, anyway.
Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism
Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism
The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.
Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.
The consistency of libertarians is frightening to some authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".
These scenarios are normally either of the "deserted island" or the "powerful warlord" variety. Of the two, the "powerful warlord" scenario is the more realistic, since that is the situation we find ourselves in now.
A powerful band of warlords, calling themselves "government" has declared that they own us and the products of our lives. We are told we can choose which of them is the anointed figurehead for a certain number of years, but are not allowed to officially opt out of the system entirely. A choice that makes no difference is not a real choice. They demand to be paid tributes for "giving" us the privilege of having them rule over us. They pretend to be protecting us from the very sort of threat that they themselves pose to our lives, our liberties, and our pursuit of happiness.
Since authoritarianism failed to prevent a gang of powerful warlords from taking control, why keep looking to the same misguided delusions in an attempt to protect us from yet another powerful warlord? The answer lies in accepting and exercising responsibility for your own life, and in the determination to not let anyone usurp that self-ownership under any pretext.
These scenarios are no problem for a libertarian grounded on a solid foundation of self-ownership, non-aggression, and responsibility for one's own actions. If real exceptions exist, I have yet to find one.
The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.
Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.
The consistency of libertarians is frightening to some authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".
These scenarios are normally either of the "deserted island" or the "powerful warlord" variety. Of the two, the "powerful warlord" scenario is the more realistic, since that is the situation we find ourselves in now.
A powerful band of warlords, calling themselves "government" has declared that they own us and the products of our lives. We are told we can choose which of them is the anointed figurehead for a certain number of years, but are not allowed to officially opt out of the system entirely. A choice that makes no difference is not a real choice. They demand to be paid tributes for "giving" us the privilege of having them rule over us. They pretend to be protecting us from the very sort of threat that they themselves pose to our lives, our liberties, and our pursuit of happiness.
Since authoritarianism failed to prevent a gang of powerful warlords from taking control, why keep looking to the same misguided delusions in an attempt to protect us from yet another powerful warlord? The answer lies in accepting and exercising responsibility for your own life, and in the determination to not let anyone usurp that self-ownership under any pretext.
These scenarios are no problem for a libertarian grounded on a solid foundation of self-ownership, non-aggression, and responsibility for one's own actions. If real exceptions exist, I have yet to find one.
Libertarians defy the usual labels
Libertarians defy the usual labels
One rather humorous invective that gets hurled at libertarians occasionally is that we are "just liberals who like guns". Being outside the traditional political "right vs left" nonsense confuses those who wish to insult us. "The Right" calls us "bleeding heart liberals"; "The Left" calls us "heartless right-wingers". The truth is we are the only ones who remain consistent.
Not all libertarians agree on all the issues, so I can only speak for myself here. On the "liberal" side I oppose the death penalty, since no government is worthy of being trusted with power over life and death. I am against drug prohibition since if you don't own your own body, to dispose of however you please, you own nothing. I am against "laws" regulating or controlling sexual activity between responsible consenting individuals for the same reason.
On the traditional "conservative" side I oppose any attempts by any government to regulate weaponry. The right to bear arms ("to own and to carry weapons") existed before the Second Amendment and will still exist after the USA is a historical footnote, no matter what the prevailing legal environment demands. I am against government becoming a burden on business, through "taxation" or regulation. I am against penalizing people and businesses for success. I am against government interference with any sort of religion; believe what you want, just don't pass "laws" attempting to control non-coercive behavior based upon those beliefs. I am for property rights; it is your property, do with it as you wish as long as it doesn't escape your property to harm others. You may have noticed that by my yardstick there are no longer any "conservatives" in government at the national level, regardless of their claims.
There are some things that "both sides" disagree with me over. Democracy is not the Holy Grail of freedom; it is "the tyranny of the majority". There are very few things that should be subject to a vote, and a vote should never determine whose rights to violate.
I recognize that taxation of any amount is blatant theft. It doesn't matter how much you love to see the money spent on your favorite program. Theft is always wrong.
I accept that there is no right to not be offended. Stop running to government every time someone says or does something that offends you. Get a thicker skin.
Public schools are a disaster and are indoctrinating children to accept socialism without question. They are financed by ransoming the homes of the people in the area. You can't teach children to be good people with stolen money. Real education is much too important to leave to government bureaucrats.
National borders are a handy way to control people. Anything that can keep "them" out can keep "us" in. A fence works both ways and really only helps the farmer to control his livestock until it is time to butcher.
Immigration is only a problem if welfare is available. End it. Return to a time when charity was the safety net, instead of weaving one from theft. Charity is voluntary. You get to help whoever you like for whatever reason you have.
So, as you see, when libertarians are accused by one branch of authoritarians of belonging to the other camp of authoritarians, they miss the boat so completely as to appear silly. It is your choice to laugh as you walk away, or to try to correct them. Good luck.
One rather humorous invective that gets hurled at libertarians occasionally is that we are "just liberals who like guns". Being outside the traditional political "right vs left" nonsense confuses those who wish to insult us. "The Right" calls us "bleeding heart liberals"; "The Left" calls us "heartless right-wingers". The truth is we are the only ones who remain consistent.
Not all libertarians agree on all the issues, so I can only speak for myself here. On the "liberal" side I oppose the death penalty, since no government is worthy of being trusted with power over life and death. I am against drug prohibition since if you don't own your own body, to dispose of however you please, you own nothing. I am against "laws" regulating or controlling sexual activity between responsible consenting individuals for the same reason.
On the traditional "conservative" side I oppose any attempts by any government to regulate weaponry. The right to bear arms ("to own and to carry weapons") existed before the Second Amendment and will still exist after the USA is a historical footnote, no matter what the prevailing legal environment demands. I am against government becoming a burden on business, through "taxation" or regulation. I am against penalizing people and businesses for success. I am against government interference with any sort of religion; believe what you want, just don't pass "laws" attempting to control non-coercive behavior based upon those beliefs. I am for property rights; it is your property, do with it as you wish as long as it doesn't escape your property to harm others. You may have noticed that by my yardstick there are no longer any "conservatives" in government at the national level, regardless of their claims.
There are some things that "both sides" disagree with me over. Democracy is not the Holy Grail of freedom; it is "the tyranny of the majority". There are very few things that should be subject to a vote, and a vote should never determine whose rights to violate.
I recognize that taxation of any amount is blatant theft. It doesn't matter how much you love to see the money spent on your favorite program. Theft is always wrong.
I accept that there is no right to not be offended. Stop running to government every time someone says or does something that offends you. Get a thicker skin.
Public schools are a disaster and are indoctrinating children to accept socialism without question. They are financed by ransoming the homes of the people in the area. You can't teach children to be good people with stolen money. Real education is much too important to leave to government bureaucrats.
National borders are a handy way to control people. Anything that can keep "them" out can keep "us" in. A fence works both ways and really only helps the farmer to control his livestock until it is time to butcher.
Immigration is only a problem if welfare is available. End it. Return to a time when charity was the safety net, instead of weaving one from theft. Charity is voluntary. You get to help whoever you like for whatever reason you have.
So, as you see, when libertarians are accused by one branch of authoritarians of belonging to the other camp of authoritarians, they miss the boat so completely as to appear silly. It is your choice to laugh as you walk away, or to try to correct them. Good luck.
Friday, March 20, 2009
What Will I Call Myself Today?
I think labels are over-rated. I started out calling myself "libertarian", then started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then "anarchist". Now, for purposes of writing for Examiner.com, I am calling myself "libertarian" again, since they didn't want an "Anarchy Examiner". My attitudes haven't changed throughout all this shuffling of labels.
MamaLiberty says she calls herself a "individual sovereign". I have always liked that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.
I still think all these terms are different ways of expressing the same thing. As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying.
MamaLiberty says she calls herself a "individual sovereign". I have always liked that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.
I still think all these terms are different ways of expressing the same thing. As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
ALE update
Just a little update on the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner.
The first few days I was consistently the #1 Albuquerque Examiner. I supposed it was because I was new, and because of my attempt to get the word out. Since a couple of days ago, I have been pretty regularly #2 or #3, with occasional slips to #4. Still, I don't consider that too bad since I don't really have the time to push the project as hard as I should. Obviously I'm not even on the radar for the national Examiner stats. That will come a little later, right?
I really want to thank all of you who have been visiting faithfully everyday, even though I am kind of giving an elementary overview on the site right now.
The first few days I was consistently the #1 Albuquerque Examiner. I supposed it was because I was new, and because of my attempt to get the word out. Since a couple of days ago, I have been pretty regularly #2 or #3, with occasional slips to #4. Still, I don't consider that too bad since I don't really have the time to push the project as hard as I should. Obviously I'm not even on the radar for the national Examiner stats. That will come a little later, right?
I really want to thank all of you who have been visiting faithfully everyday, even though I am kind of giving an elementary overview on the site right now.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Should you exercise every right you possess?
Should you exercise every right you possess?
A common assumption that authoritarians make about libertarians is that since we talk a lot about "rights", we believe in a free-for-all. That is completely wrong.
I am a firm believer that just because you have a right to do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Common courtesy and self-responsibility should temper your actions.
An often-quoted erroneous statement about rights concerns the right of free speech. The claim is that rights are subject to "reasonable" legal restrictions. They are not, because then they would not be "rights", but "privileges" granted by a government. The opinion is that while you have a right to speak freely, you have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That is dead wrong. You do have that right, since rights have no limitations, however if you choose to exercise that right you will also bear the responsibility for any harm that comes as a result. This is a perfect example of a right that is better left unused. Only a fool or an evil person would commit such an act. Responsibility doesn't end there. If you are sitting in a theater where someone yells "Fire!", you have a responsibility to react to the situation without trampling the other patrons. It would make sense to look around, sniff the air, and see whether there is any cause for alarm before attempting to navigate the stampede. Watch out for yourself and for those you have a responsibility toward.
The problem is that self-responsibility has atrophied from disuse. You have to give people a chance to make the wrong decisions and take responsibility for the outcome. If every action is either mandatory or prohibited where does judgment come into the picture? Children don't learn to walk if they are carried everywhere. Neither do people learn to take responsibility for their choices if they are never allowed to make any but the most trivial of choices. The state is preventing a lot of people from growing up. Of all the damage government does, this may be the most lasting. How can a generation that never learned to self-govern teach their children to be responsible?
A common assumption that authoritarians make about libertarians is that since we talk a lot about "rights", we believe in a free-for-all. That is completely wrong.
I am a firm believer that just because you have a right to do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Common courtesy and self-responsibility should temper your actions.
An often-quoted erroneous statement about rights concerns the right of free speech. The claim is that rights are subject to "reasonable" legal restrictions. They are not, because then they would not be "rights", but "privileges" granted by a government. The opinion is that while you have a right to speak freely, you have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That is dead wrong. You do have that right, since rights have no limitations, however if you choose to exercise that right you will also bear the responsibility for any harm that comes as a result. This is a perfect example of a right that is better left unused. Only a fool or an evil person would commit such an act. Responsibility doesn't end there. If you are sitting in a theater where someone yells "Fire!", you have a responsibility to react to the situation without trampling the other patrons. It would make sense to look around, sniff the air, and see whether there is any cause for alarm before attempting to navigate the stampede. Watch out for yourself and for those you have a responsibility toward.
The problem is that self-responsibility has atrophied from disuse. You have to give people a chance to make the wrong decisions and take responsibility for the outcome. If every action is either mandatory or prohibited where does judgment come into the picture? Children don't learn to walk if they are carried everywhere. Neither do people learn to take responsibility for their choices if they are never allowed to make any but the most trivial of choices. The state is preventing a lot of people from growing up. Of all the damage government does, this may be the most lasting. How can a generation that never learned to self-govern teach their children to be responsible?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Resources for libertarians
Resources for libertarians
What if you are new to libertarianism, or are simply interested in finding out more? Where, besides here, can you go for more information? You are in luck.
If you are looking for online news or commentary, you should check out The Libertarian Enterprise every Sunday when the new issue comes online. A variety of writers, from everywhere along the spectrum of "libertarianism", write on just about any imaginable topic. The Price Of Liberty has good, solid libertarian commentary on the news, and a lot of current "keep and bear arms" information. There is also Liberty for All, which often has some incredibly good articles. There are also hundreds of libertarian blogs; some better than others. Search engines can lead you to them. You will need to judge for yourself how "libertarian" the writers are.
If you are looking for information on how to express your newly recognized freedom more fully, there are some websites that can give you an education. One of the best, in my opinion, is The On Line Freedom Academy, or "TOLFA". This will guide you step-by-step through the process of showing why government is never a good idea, and how to get past the conditioning of the state. There is also Strike the Root, which has a huge collection of very good columns aimed at striking at the root of tyranny and evil. The Advocates for Self-Government has many resources for further reading, plus the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" so you can find out where you stand. They also have a list of libertarian, and libertarian-leaning, celebrities, in case that sort of thing interests you.
Perhaps you enjoy reading the printed page. You won't be left out. Non-fiction books include Lever Action, a collection of essays from L. Neil Smith. This is the book that caused me to realize I had always been a libertarian. A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies (the originator of TOLFA) describes the possible scenario after government has evaporated. There are also books by more historical liberty lovers like Henry David Thoreau and Rose Wilder Lane. Mark Twain even had a pretty strong libertarian streak running through him. Of course, there are also the early heavy-lifters of the philosophy of freedom such as Frederic Bastiat. A quick internet search can turn up dozens of others in short order.
If your tastes run to fiction there are still a lot of choices, many of them science fiction. That genre lends itself to libertarianism. Robert A. Heinlein's books are generally among the favorite with libertarians. L. Neil Smith has also written quite a few good science fiction books. The Probability Broach being my personal favorite. Of course, one can't forget Ayn Rand. Love her or hate her, her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, have had a huge influence on many libertarians. It is interesting to see Atlas Shrugged being acted out by the clueless or diabolical clowns in government even as you read these words. (It wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual!)
If you simply want to connect with other like-minded freedom lovers join the Get Your Hands Dirty forum, or The Mental Militia forum. There is also Bureaucrash Social, which is fairly new, but attracting good folks quickly. You may even be lucky enough to find a libertarian Meetup group near you.
If you would like to see "the other side", read criticisms of libertarianism and notice the flaws in the argument. Or, find things to agree with him on. Please remember that just because he says "this is what libertarians believe" doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. Always.
Last, but not least, if you are simply looking for a little good-natured "PG-13" entertainment, cruise on over to Libertarian Hotties. After all, if the revolution isn't fun, why bother?
What if you are new to libertarianism, or are simply interested in finding out more? Where, besides here, can you go for more information? You are in luck.
If you are looking for online news or commentary, you should check out The Libertarian Enterprise every Sunday when the new issue comes online. A variety of writers, from everywhere along the spectrum of "libertarianism", write on just about any imaginable topic. The Price Of Liberty has good, solid libertarian commentary on the news, and a lot of current "keep and bear arms" information. There is also Liberty for All, which often has some incredibly good articles. There are also hundreds of libertarian blogs; some better than others. Search engines can lead you to them. You will need to judge for yourself how "libertarian" the writers are.
If you are looking for information on how to express your newly recognized freedom more fully, there are some websites that can give you an education. One of the best, in my opinion, is The On Line Freedom Academy, or "TOLFA". This will guide you step-by-step through the process of showing why government is never a good idea, and how to get past the conditioning of the state. There is also Strike the Root, which has a huge collection of very good columns aimed at striking at the root of tyranny and evil. The Advocates for Self-Government has many resources for further reading, plus the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" so you can find out where you stand. They also have a list of libertarian, and libertarian-leaning, celebrities, in case that sort of thing interests you.
Perhaps you enjoy reading the printed page. You won't be left out. Non-fiction books include Lever Action, a collection of essays from L. Neil Smith. This is the book that caused me to realize I had always been a libertarian. A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies (the originator of TOLFA) describes the possible scenario after government has evaporated. There are also books by more historical liberty lovers like Henry David Thoreau and Rose Wilder Lane. Mark Twain even had a pretty strong libertarian streak running through him. Of course, there are also the early heavy-lifters of the philosophy of freedom such as Frederic Bastiat. A quick internet search can turn up dozens of others in short order.
If your tastes run to fiction there are still a lot of choices, many of them science fiction. That genre lends itself to libertarianism. Robert A. Heinlein's books are generally among the favorite with libertarians. L. Neil Smith has also written quite a few good science fiction books. The Probability Broach being my personal favorite. Of course, one can't forget Ayn Rand. Love her or hate her, her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, have had a huge influence on many libertarians. It is interesting to see Atlas Shrugged being acted out by the clueless or diabolical clowns in government even as you read these words. (It wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual!)
If you simply want to connect with other like-minded freedom lovers join the Get Your Hands Dirty forum, or The Mental Militia forum. There is also Bureaucrash Social, which is fairly new, but attracting good folks quickly. You may even be lucky enough to find a libertarian Meetup group near you.
If you would like to see "the other side", read criticisms of libertarianism and notice the flaws in the argument. Or, find things to agree with him on. Please remember that just because he says "this is what libertarians believe" doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. Always.
Last, but not least, if you are simply looking for a little good-natured "PG-13" entertainment, cruise on over to Libertarian Hotties. After all, if the revolution isn't fun, why bother?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)