Binghamton tragedy is full of reminders
When a tragedy like yesterday's massacre in Binghamton NY occurs, libertarians need to be careful to not say "I told you so" to people who are hurting. It can be hard, because we do keep warning that these things are an inevitable consequence of "gun control". The fewer good people who are armed, the more bold the bad people become.
That doesn't mean we stop holding accountable the tyrants who enable these horrific acts with their counterfeit "laws" against effective armed self-defense. Remember that most people, for whatever reason, can't see the logical outcome of victim disarmament "laws". The politicians and enforcers, however, do know they help madmen kill unarmed innocents. Yet, they keep repeating "don't resist; don't arm yourself. Leave protection up to the professionals". It is almost as if they want you dead. Why would they do that?
Unlike some people, I doubt most of the victim disarmament pushers really want you dead. They want you disarmed for the same reason -the ONLY reason- anyone wants someone else disarmed: to do things to you that you would not permit if you were able to resist effectively. Whether it is to steal your money, your home, your right of transportation or your self-ownership, you might be more dangerous to fleece if you had "claws". They can't keep milking you for "taxes", labor, and votes if you are dead. They need for you to keep lending an air of legitimacy to the established kleptocracy with your vote (even if it is by voting for the lesser of two evils). They also want you to be afraid. They want you to crawl to them for your protection when an event frightens you. They need you to think you need them.
However, there are some who would prefer that you were dead. People who take responsibility for their own protection shine a harsh light of reality on the failure of the state. The minority who doesn't roll over for crazed attackers reminds us all that "give the criminal what he wants" only works if you know for certain he doesn't want your life.
There is no liberty, no self-responsibility, no civilization, without the people being willing and able to meet the challenge. "It can't happen here." Are you willing to bet your life, and the lives of your children, on that? Will you be cowering under a desk, or will you at least put up a fight? Don't look to the government; this is up to you. I am asking YOU.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Friday, April 03, 2009
Massacre in Binghamton NY
Massacre in Binghamton NY
People who are not too concerned with the reality of the way the world works, and don't understand that murder is already illegal (so more "laws" will not stop killers), might think I am psychic due to this: "Gun Control keeps on killing and killing and killing..." They would be wrong. I am not psychic. It is a simple matter of seeing behind the curtain. Next prediction: Watch the blood-dancers start clamoring for more unarmed victims for other evil people to target.
People who are not too concerned with the reality of the way the world works, and don't understand that murder is already illegal (so more "laws" will not stop killers), might think I am psychic due to this: "Gun Control keeps on killing and killing and killing..." They would be wrong. I am not psychic. It is a simple matter of seeing behind the curtain. Next prediction: Watch the blood-dancers start clamoring for more unarmed victims for other evil people to target.
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA
Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner: Open letter to the NRA
I realize all my long-time blog readers have already seen this. It just seemed appropriate somehow.
I realize all my long-time blog readers have already seen this. It just seemed appropriate somehow.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?
Is there a place for luke-warm libertarians?
I am a radical libertarian; an anarchist. I recognize that any government is too much and can never really be controlled or contained. It is a cancer. The US Constitution was a good try, but its failure to rein in government should be a lesson to all the minarchists out there. Statism of even the mildest sort is hopelessly Utopian.
Those who are bold get scolded that they "make us all look bad". How can that be? The pragmatists always lose their consistency somewhere along the line. That is where they part ways with the bold libertarians. Somewhere they betray liberty in order to look more like an authoritarian of the "right" or "left". Have they then betrayed their own principles in order to be accepted by some authoritarians? I can't say since I don't know what makes up any other person's principles, but it does appear that way to me.
Is there a place for "pragmatic" minarchist libertarians? Yes. They can follow the bold libertarians who are not afraid of the scorn and ridicule that comes with telling the plain unvarnished truth. As I often say, as long as we are going the same direction -toward more liberty and away from a powerful government- I consider us on the same side.
This struggle is like a tug-of-war, with some pulling harder than others, and all pulling on a very slightly different tangent, but those on the same end of the rope are all contributing in some way. If, sometime in the future, society becomes as free as you are comfortable with, you can rest while others of us keep pulling.
Whether it is "you don't really think there should be NO laws against drugs?" or "but you don't think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, do you?" the answer is always, consistently, that freedom of any sort is less dangerous than authoritarian control- but even if it weren't, liberty is still the birthright of every human. Someone needs to stand up for that.
I am a radical libertarian; an anarchist. I recognize that any government is too much and can never really be controlled or contained. It is a cancer. The US Constitution was a good try, but its failure to rein in government should be a lesson to all the minarchists out there. Statism of even the mildest sort is hopelessly Utopian.
Those who are bold get scolded that they "make us all look bad". How can that be? The pragmatists always lose their consistency somewhere along the line. That is where they part ways with the bold libertarians. Somewhere they betray liberty in order to look more like an authoritarian of the "right" or "left". Have they then betrayed their own principles in order to be accepted by some authoritarians? I can't say since I don't know what makes up any other person's principles, but it does appear that way to me.
Is there a place for "pragmatic" minarchist libertarians? Yes. They can follow the bold libertarians who are not afraid of the scorn and ridicule that comes with telling the plain unvarnished truth. As I often say, as long as we are going the same direction -toward more liberty and away from a powerful government- I consider us on the same side.
This struggle is like a tug-of-war, with some pulling harder than others, and all pulling on a very slightly different tangent, but those on the same end of the rope are all contributing in some way. If, sometime in the future, society becomes as free as you are comfortable with, you can rest while others of us keep pulling.
Whether it is "you don't really think there should be NO laws against drugs?" or "but you don't think people should be able to own nuclear weapons, do you?" the answer is always, consistently, that freedom of any sort is less dangerous than authoritarian control- but even if it weren't, liberty is still the birthright of every human. Someone needs to stand up for that.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing
'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing
Not Only does "gun control" kill. The mere mention of possible new "gun laws" triggers killing sprees. Don't believe me? Pay attention when new "gun control" laws are first mentioned. It won't be long before a new mass murder occurs. Or several. It is happening now. It happens every time. So, it must be that there are people out there with fragile mental states who crack up when politicians, or their lapdogs in the media, start suggesting new victim disarmament "laws".
Either that or someone has gone to a lot of trouble to "prepare" people, chemically or hypnotically, to go on murderous rampages just when it is "needed" to promote support for a new round of immoral and illegal laws against guns. And that would be tinfoil-beanie paranoid, right?
Just to be clear, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" anyone the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). That right has existed since before the first human picked up a rock, regardless of any law or government. What the Second Amendment does do is prohibit anyone from passing or enforcing ANY laws regulating weapons in any way. That's right: it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any "gun control" laws, and those, like the mass-murder cheerleaders of the Brady Campaign, who advocate for new "laws" are guilty of encouraging others to become criminals.
No "laws" meant to disarm the violent bad guys will fail to make it more difficult for the good guys to remain armed. After all, it is only the good guys who concern themselves with obeying "laws" in the first place. It is evil to try to disarm people. There is just no excuse for it.
Just in case the "dated language" of the Second Amendment is too difficult to understand, I offer my "illuminated" version:
"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"
Not Only does "gun control" kill. The mere mention of possible new "gun laws" triggers killing sprees. Don't believe me? Pay attention when new "gun control" laws are first mentioned. It won't be long before a new mass murder occurs. Or several. It is happening now. It happens every time. So, it must be that there are people out there with fragile mental states who crack up when politicians, or their lapdogs in the media, start suggesting new victim disarmament "laws".
Either that or someone has gone to a lot of trouble to "prepare" people, chemically or hypnotically, to go on murderous rampages just when it is "needed" to promote support for a new round of immoral and illegal laws against guns. And that would be tinfoil-beanie paranoid, right?
Just to be clear, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" anyone the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). That right has existed since before the first human picked up a rock, regardless of any law or government. What the Second Amendment does do is prohibit anyone from passing or enforcing ANY laws regulating weapons in any way. That's right: it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any "gun control" laws, and those, like the mass-murder cheerleaders of the Brady Campaign, who advocate for new "laws" are guilty of encouraging others to become criminals.
No "laws" meant to disarm the violent bad guys will fail to make it more difficult for the good guys to remain armed. After all, it is only the good guys who concern themselves with obeying "laws" in the first place. It is evil to try to disarm people. There is just no excuse for it.
Just in case the "dated language" of the Second Amendment is too difficult to understand, I offer my "illuminated" version:
"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"
Monday, March 30, 2009
Principles must be universal or they are meaningless
Principles must be universal or they are meaningless
If one has real principles, one must be consistent. All people have the exact same rights as all other people, regardless of the demands of the local Rulers and enforcers. Regardless of constitutions or bills of rights. Regardless of "laws".
If something is wrong for me to do, then it is still wrong for me or anyone else to do even if we put on "the silly hat of government". Each person is free to do as he or she wishes as long as they harm no innocent person. Are you prepared for that?
By your actions you may set in motion a series of consequences you may not like, but no one has any obligation to save you from yourself; from the consequences of your own actions. In fact, attempting to do so without being asked is meddling, and asking for help when you caused the situation to begin with could be seen as becoming a parasite.
If one has real principles, one must be consistent. All people have the exact same rights as all other people, regardless of the demands of the local Rulers and enforcers. Regardless of constitutions or bills of rights. Regardless of "laws".
If something is wrong for me to do, then it is still wrong for me or anyone else to do even if we put on "the silly hat of government". Each person is free to do as he or she wishes as long as they harm no innocent person. Are you prepared for that?
By your actions you may set in motion a series of consequences you may not like, but no one has any obligation to save you from yourself; from the consequences of your own actions. In fact, attempting to do so without being asked is meddling, and asking for help when you caused the situation to begin with could be seen as becoming a parasite.
Accepting your responsibilities willingly
Accepting your responsibilities willingly
Some things are your responsibility whether you wish to accept it or not. Just because there is a government "professional" who claims that he is now responsible for your "welfare" doesn't mean you can stop thinking and start grazing on your meadows of clover.
It is your responsibility to provide for your own personal safety and protection. You can attempt to shirk this responsibility and rely on police, but they never have your best interests at heart. After all, they are normally more concerned that you obey all their nonsensical rules than whether you are in danger. (A recent event in Dallas should illustrate this quite clearly) No one can be paid well enough to care as much about your own safety as you already do.
It is your responsibility to educate your children. How you choose to do that can make a huge difference in their lives. No government employee cares one fiftieth as much as you do how your children are prepared for life. No one at the school is as concerned for the safety of your children as you are. There is no way to pay them enough that they will care as deeply as you do.
Your financial future is your responsibility. No government program is sufficient for all your needs and wants. The fact that the program has been stealing your money for decades doesn't mean it will be there when you need it. You need to either hide any future money from the muggers, or plan for a future without that source of income.
Your health is your responsibility. Socialized "free" health care isn't the answer (unless the question is "what is the least likely way to get quality health care?"). No profession survives being taken over by the mafia without becoming beholden to the thugs who call the shots and hand out the money. Your health takes a backseat to other concerns.
It is your responsibility to make your own choices and then deal with the consequences. You may try to shift the blame when things go wrong, but the responsibility is yours alone. Will you accept it or try to ignore the truth?
Some things are your responsibility whether you wish to accept it or not. Just because there is a government "professional" who claims that he is now responsible for your "welfare" doesn't mean you can stop thinking and start grazing on your meadows of clover.
It is your responsibility to provide for your own personal safety and protection. You can attempt to shirk this responsibility and rely on police, but they never have your best interests at heart. After all, they are normally more concerned that you obey all their nonsensical rules than whether you are in danger. (A recent event in Dallas should illustrate this quite clearly) No one can be paid well enough to care as much about your own safety as you already do.
It is your responsibility to educate your children. How you choose to do that can make a huge difference in their lives. No government employee cares one fiftieth as much as you do how your children are prepared for life. No one at the school is as concerned for the safety of your children as you are. There is no way to pay them enough that they will care as deeply as you do.
Your financial future is your responsibility. No government program is sufficient for all your needs and wants. The fact that the program has been stealing your money for decades doesn't mean it will be there when you need it. You need to either hide any future money from the muggers, or plan for a future without that source of income.
Your health is your responsibility. Socialized "free" health care isn't the answer (unless the question is "what is the least likely way to get quality health care?"). No profession survives being taken over by the mafia without becoming beholden to the thugs who call the shots and hand out the money. Your health takes a backseat to other concerns.
It is your responsibility to make your own choices and then deal with the consequences. You may try to shift the blame when things go wrong, but the responsibility is yours alone. Will you accept it or try to ignore the truth?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?
Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?
The coming collapse of the US dollar has caused some people to question whether it is time for a "one-world currency".
Should there be one? Yes and no. There should not be a government-mandated "one-world currency", especially not of the "fiat" variety, but there should still be "one currency" anyway: freedom of choice. Ditch the government monopoly on money, which orders you to use worthless printed paper, and let people across the entire world choose what to use as a placeholder of trade value. Everyone will choose their own personal favorites.
Gold and silver are obvious choices for money, but if you would rather work for (literally) peanuts... or ammunition, or sexual favors, or bottle caps, or whatever .... that should be your choice. And truthfully, it always will be.
No government can coerce you into using its worthless fiat money in all your dealings, no matter how hard it tries. It's time to start trying out your freedom wings. Exercise now will make it a lot easier to fly on that day when you are pushed off the cliff.
The coming collapse of the US dollar has caused some people to question whether it is time for a "one-world currency".
Should there be one? Yes and no. There should not be a government-mandated "one-world currency", especially not of the "fiat" variety, but there should still be "one currency" anyway: freedom of choice. Ditch the government monopoly on money, which orders you to use worthless printed paper, and let people across the entire world choose what to use as a placeholder of trade value. Everyone will choose their own personal favorites.
Gold and silver are obvious choices for money, but if you would rather work for (literally) peanuts... or ammunition, or sexual favors, or bottle caps, or whatever .... that should be your choice. And truthfully, it always will be.
No government can coerce you into using its worthless fiat money in all your dealings, no matter how hard it tries. It's time to start trying out your freedom wings. Exercise now will make it a lot easier to fly on that day when you are pushed off the cliff.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Are libertarians weak on national defense?
Are libertarians weak on national defense?
"Isolationist"? "Anti-war"? I hear some people use those reasons as an excuse for why they can't support libertarian philosophy (and Libertarian candidates).
It is dead wrong and absolutely absurd.
I am not "isolationist" in the slightest. That would be barring the door and ignoring the rest of the world. No, I agree more with the founders of America who warned that we should pursue "Trade with ALL nations; entangling alliances with none". That is reasonable and logical behavior. It avoids the mistakes that have marched deluded folks off to foreign battlefields and made otherwise sensible people into murderers in foreign lands. Yet, the false "conservatives" use this excuse a lot to avoid facing their own lack of consistency.
I am "anti-war" in as much as I know it is wrong to invade another country with government troops on false pretext. Starting a war of aggression makes you the bad guy. "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the excuse of a bully. If you really want to believe libertarians are "anti-war" see what happens if you send troops to our neighborhoods. I have no qualms about "fighting them" here. At least there is no mistaking who the guilty party is in that case.
How does it promote "national defense" to create enemies through meddling, destroying, and killing in other countries? Might the reality possibly be that such acts raise up new generations of individuals who (mistakenly) blame the people of America for the actions of the rogue US government? Doesn't that undermine "national security"? Doesn't that put us all in danger?
If the alternatives to the supposed "isolationist" and "anti-war" views of libertarians are the policy of meddling in everyone's business and the "invade and kill them all before they do something to America" dogma that is chanted in place of intelligent debate, then no thank you. I'll laugh while you call me names.
"Isolationist"? "Anti-war"? I hear some people use those reasons as an excuse for why they can't support libertarian philosophy (and Libertarian candidates).
It is dead wrong and absolutely absurd.
I am not "isolationist" in the slightest. That would be barring the door and ignoring the rest of the world. No, I agree more with the founders of America who warned that we should pursue "Trade with ALL nations; entangling alliances with none". That is reasonable and logical behavior. It avoids the mistakes that have marched deluded folks off to foreign battlefields and made otherwise sensible people into murderers in foreign lands. Yet, the false "conservatives" use this excuse a lot to avoid facing their own lack of consistency.
I am "anti-war" in as much as I know it is wrong to invade another country with government troops on false pretext. Starting a war of aggression makes you the bad guy. "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the excuse of a bully. If you really want to believe libertarians are "anti-war" see what happens if you send troops to our neighborhoods. I have no qualms about "fighting them" here. At least there is no mistaking who the guilty party is in that case.
How does it promote "national defense" to create enemies through meddling, destroying, and killing in other countries? Might the reality possibly be that such acts raise up new generations of individuals who (mistakenly) blame the people of America for the actions of the rogue US government? Doesn't that undermine "national security"? Doesn't that put us all in danger?
If the alternatives to the supposed "isolationist" and "anti-war" views of libertarians are the policy of meddling in everyone's business and the "invade and kill them all before they do something to America" dogma that is chanted in place of intelligent debate, then no thank you. I'll laugh while you call me names.
Friday, March 27, 2009
I Got Twitterpated
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)