Admit your limitations

Admit your limitations

Kevin Wilmeth's observation in yesterday's comments that a good teacher admits when he doesn't have an answer really struck a chord in me. It reminds me of when I lost respect for a state-employed teacher over a silly act of "saving face".

Our class was preparing for a zoology test on taxonomy, where we would look at examples of different animals and assign them to their proper order, class, and family.

Things were fine until I got to a tiny pickled flatfish in a jar. The teacher said it was a "ray". Now, that is a major discrepancy, since a flatfish is a bony fish (Osteichthyes) and a ray is a cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes); almost as different as two fish can be while still being fish. When I pointed it out to the teacher, he said I was wrong. I knew I wasn't. I got reference books and showed him the pictures clearly illustrating the differences. He got very angry and said "You're beating a dead horse. I don't care if you are right; for our purposes it is a ray." My respect for him plummeted as a result. He was not only unwilling to face the truth for himself, but he was also actively teaching false information to people who had been trained to accept whatever "authorities" told them.

How many of the students he deceived went on with life, never questioning whether what they were told was the truth? How many became good little cogs in the machinery of the state due to lies even more egregious than this? On the other hand, how much did this event help cement my own suspicion that "authorities" were at least as likely to be wrong as anyone, and less likely to admit it when they were?

This one experience may have helped make me the anarchist I am today. In that case, thanks Mr. S.


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

Being right means being ignored

Being right means being ignored

One thing I have experienced many times in my life is knowing something with absolute certainty while others fumble about in confusion, without being aware of, or admitting, their confusion.

One manifestation of this occurs when I am out and about with other people and I see an animal track; especially of an odd species or in a somewhat unexpected spot. In most cases the species of animal that left the track is as clear to me as it would be were a label attached to it. However, if I don't know what left the track I am not afraid to admit it. Even if I don't know what species did leave the track, I can usually know for certain the species that did not leave it.

If the other people with me have no knowledge of tracks at all, and have no outdoorsman egos to protect, they will usually accept my assessment. If they imagine themselves knowledgeable, however, they frequently ignore my conclusion as their theories become more outlandish and their justifications become more unhinged from reality. Sometimes I will silently listen to the bizarre guesses of other people around me, as they try to assign the track to some species that does not leave similarly shaped tracks, is of a vastly different size, and lives only on the other side of the planet from the track in question.

If, at this point, I again speak up and tell these observers what species the track belongs to, my input is almost invariably ignored completely. It is as if I never said a word. It doesn't change the nature of reality, though. So, I just sit back and watch the show, trying to learn from this lesson.

The same has occurred with regards to wild plants as well. I don't eat wild things harvested by others, without checking it carefully first, for this very reason. I can't understand why people have such a hard time seeing what to me adds up to obvious differences, but then I am the same way with cars; to me a car is a car, unless I manage to read the label. Wisdom comes from knowing who to listen to on each individual subject.

So it is with freedom. Most of the "big issues" have government's tracks all over them. I, and many others, point this out time and again only to have the majority continue to chase obviously false leads. Our observations are unwelcome and unfamiliar, and lead to "scary" conclusions, so they are ignored. Those who think they know some of how "politics" or "society" function are the worst about acting like this. They will continue to argue over which is the best way to control others and make them do "the right thing" while the correct answers (all involving respecting the freedom and rights of the individual) are offered on a silver platter right under their little statist noses.

Well, you can lead a statist to information, but you can't make him think.


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

A new way to be a snitch: 'Text-a-tip'

A new way to be a snitch: 'Text-a-tip'

Some places are very innovative in the pursuit of death and tyranny. If it isn't cameras watching our every move, and a permit check for every activity, it is finding ways to recruit the lowest common denominator of "society" as eyes and ears for the state.

Just in case you want to be able to hand people over to the government, call it "violence-by-proxy", but you are too cowardly to risk the real-world consequences of doing so openly, the LEOs are anxious to accommodate you. You can now anonymously (so they say) text a tip to the local enforcers.

The dramatic cases used to give the above-linked story "human interest" will not be the reality of the system. No one wants actual thugs to get away with their aggression (unless you are a badge-licker and those thugs are the enforcers you worship). The fact is that the vast majority of "crimes" are non-coercive, individual behavior or consensual acts between private individuals rather than acts of aggression or fraud. So, which type of "crimes" will make up the majority of these texted tips?

What do you think the chances are of remaining anonymous for long if you used the "tool" to report aggression by the state's own hired thugs, or reported an IRS employee for theft?

Your authority- use it wisely

Your authority- use it wisely

Government has no authority that isn't given to it, or that it didn't take under false pretenses, or that it didn't steal at the point of a gun. None. Not the authority to do one piddling little thing.

The authority is yours. All authority is yours. No one can honestly take it from you, but you can be fooled or coerced into giving it away. You betray yourself when you hand it over to someone else (government or others) by voting or "going along" and then you become part of the problem when those others use your authority to harm the innocent. In this case, if you allow government to act on your behalf, using your authority, your authority is in the wrong hands and has been misused. People have been harmed and even killed with the authority you willingly handed over.

This is like if you loan a friend your gun and he goes on a shooting rampage. You didn't pull the trigger, and you may not have known what he would do with your gun, but it is your responsibility to take back your gun at the earliest opportunity. It is also a wake-up call to not hand your gun to someone whom you do not trust completely.

You don't know who will be using your authority when you hand it to government. It is like leaving your gun on a park bench with a note saying "please don't misuse this gun". It is irresponsible and dangerous. I would even claim it is lazy and unethical.

Take back your authority and don't give it away again.


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

Life is not horrible unless you make it horrible

Life is not horrible unless you make it horrible

A comment on the Libertarian Examiner column has a statist asking:

"what is it about Libertarians that they hate just living life? every
Libertarian speaks as if living life was horrible."

That is just so sadly misinformed. I don't hate living life. I certainly don't appreciate it when people attempt to meddle with my ability to live my life as I see fit, when I am harming no one, by trying to bind me with "laws" and surround me with militarized enforcers. In my day-to-day life I pay very little attention to the edicts of the statists and I generally manage to avoid those enforcers. The things that make me happy are the things I will continue to do regardless of any "laws" to the contrary. I may have to become more secretive, though. If I allow the authoritarians to make me unhappy that is as much my fault as theirs. They and their opinions are just not that important to me.

It seems to me that people who feel the need to rule and control those around them are the miserable losers. Why else would they feel that life is so awful that they need to try to take away the free choices of their friends and neighbors? I'm perfectly happy letting other people live as they wish as long as they don't agress against, or defraud, me or others. Miserable people don't live like this.

Statists must resent the fact that those of us who understand freedom don't just wink and nod at their plans for genocide and those policies they push which eventually lead to genocide. Because we take their threats seriously they think we are miserable. Or maybe they are just upset that we are paying attention and hope that by calling us names we will feel guilty enough to back off and let them "win" by default. Sorry to disappoint them, but it's not going to happen. We are not the ones "in the wrong".

Now, back to the original comment. I don't agree with every detail in Mr. Crowley's column; he is much more "conservative" than I, but I definitely didn't see any "life is horrible" stuff in there at all.


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

Perfect-sized states?

Perfect-sized states?

Any time the subject of "secession" comes up, you get the apocalyptic hand-wringers saying that the "USA" must stay united at all costs. Isn't this the justification Lenin/Lincoln used to facilitate the murder of multitudes of people? Yet, the same people who vociferously defend holding the "USA" together in spite of all the reasonable arguments to the contrary are the same ones who oppose "one-world government". So, which is it? They can't have it both ways.

How much "state" is the perfect amount for the statists, and how do they know that the current size of the "USA" is "it"? What are the odds that the status quo is the best possible situation? Maybe it would actually be the "perfect size" by annexing New Zealand (no offense to Kiwis) or by kicking out Florida. Or perhaps a better situation could be had by splitting the "USA" along the Mississippi River. America is not "united" except by a common enemy: the US government.

It is unthinkable to these people that America be "allowed" to break up into smaller, more appropriate bits. Bits based upon demographic regions or simply based on states seceding. They speak about how "we are stronger together". Yet, if that were true, or if they really believed it were true, there is no stronger, bigger "unit" than the entire planet.

Just as I don't support "nations", I do not support "one-world government". Not even if I were able to emigrate to a new politically-unspoiled world. That is because I know there is nothing good or ethical or even "safer" about coercive government of any size.

I advocate the ultimate in secession: down to the level of the individual for permanent "social unit size". For temporary, voluntary, collectives, any size or combination is acceptable, but only as long as membership or participation is completely voluntary and can be unilaterally abandoned by anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason) with no punishment, as long as their legitimate commitments were satisfied. That goes against everything the statists believe. And it shows their hypocrisy beyond any shadow of doubt.

'Letter-to-the-editor project' now online!

'Letter-to-the-editor project' now online!

The "letter-to-the editor" project which I suggested a while back is now up and running.

Find it here: http://www.rationalreview.com/project-lte Thanks to Thomas Knapp for bringing this to life.

Give it a look, and if you have a little spare time give some support to the cause of freedom, especially when it is being buried under statist absurdity. Let's let no statist claim go unchallenged, and no unpopular freedom advocacy go unsupported. This is something YOU can do RIGHT NOW for the cause of freedom.

'Hate crime' plot exposed in the nick of time

'Hate crime' plot exposed in the nick of time

As I have mentioned before, I think the concept of "hate crime" is ridiculous. However, I know of one example of a act that was calculated to defraud, and to spread hate. This act should be classified as a "hate crime" by those who support the stupidity of "hate crime laws" IF they are to be consistent. I'll not be holding my breath.

Now, I dislike "the right" about as much as I dislike "the left". Both "sides" are really only different flavors of "what can our hired thugs do to you today?" However, in the case of dead census-taker Bill Sparkman, his killer quite definitely intended to make the blame fall upon the innocent people of "the right". Of course, he was his own killer, but that doesn't change his act.

A person owns his own life and has the right to use it or dispose of it in any way he likes, as long as he harms no innocent person. In this case, the innocent person was not the dead man, but those he knew he was intentionally implicating in his death by scrawling the word "FED" on his own body: the people who were rightly suspicious of this man and those others from government. He didn't care if someone ended up being sentenced to death due to his suicide.

Sparkman's main intent was defrauding an insurance company, and for this fraud to be successful he placed blame and incited hatred toward those he apparently hated. Some innocent person could have been kidnapped by government or killed in the aftermath of his act as a direct result of his deception, either by government's hired guns or by some government sympathizer. The fact that his apparent motive was "only money" makes his act all the more evil.

Obviously, I do not really support government prosecution of a dead man, nor of any one else for that matter. The guilty party can't harm anyone now, and in this case no restitution is necessary since the plot was foiled in time. Without the absurdity of "hate crime" to contemplate, this man's death would have just been another suicide. By using the socialists' own "laws" against them, I only mean to illustrate the stupidity of such "laws" and their unintended (?) consequences.

'Remember the Bushwhackers!'

'Remember the Bushwhackers!'

Here is an entertaining video. Like it says at the end, these were flawed people fighting for a flawed cause. Harming the innocent is never right under any circumstance. We have the moral high-ground over the state and its supporters. Let's keep it. Still, we need to learn from the experiences of others who were fighting against a powerful enemy government when and where we can so we don't make the same mistakes they made.
Enjoy.. link

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

Happiness- pursue it with the proper tools

Happiness- pursue it with the proper tools

There is something I have been meaning to address for a while. That is the fact that happiness is more important to me than freedom. In a reply comment on her blog, Tessa Rose had this to say:

"...freedom is not my highest value, either -- happiness is. If I believed that
happiness for all of humanity could actually be achieved by a ruling elite, I
would be okay with that. I believe that maximum freedom is the road to happiness
for all, but anyone who wants to argue the point with me is free to do so!"

I agree with her. My only clarification would be that I don't think happiness for all of humanity can be achieved by any one strategy, be it freedom or "safety". Fortunately, freedom is not "one strategy", but encompasses an almost infinite number of ways to seek that which you really want. I know freedom is the best tool for finding your own optimal happiness. Freedom is the means to the end of happiness. Only freedom allows many different strategies to be used concurrently by different people with different values to find their own version of "happiness", or die trying.

Freedom means that if you want to live in a tightly controlled socialist community that has almost no liberty whatsoever, as long as you don't force unwilling people to join you (either by kidnapping them or by saying "this is now our territory- like it or leave it"), you would be free to do so. People need the freedom to give up their own freedom if the rest of us are to be consistent. Yes, I realize that sounds incredibly contradictory. Just remember that the rest of us have no obligation to house, clothe, feed, or otherwise rescue them from their own bad choices. Suicide is their absolute human right as long as they take no innocents with them.

The only thing that can never be allowed in this "pursuit of happiness" is those whose happiness depends upon harming the unwilling innocent. That means if it would make you happy to be a Ruler or other sort of sociopath, you are out of luck unless you find people willing to let you harm them (the basis of all government). You can not impose on those who are unwilling, and if you do, your victims have every right to stop you in any way necessary; your "rules" to the contrary notwithstanding.

My own pursuit of happiness means I would not waste my time telling those others how they should live. If they wish to pay attention and learn from examples, they would benefit. It also means that I will not submit to live under their system of restricted liberty, either. This is the offer of peace that statists can not abide because it undermines their entire society. Too bad for them.

'Laws' cause behavioral flaws

'Laws' cause behavioral flaws

I have made an observation that is sure to be disputed by statists, but it is an observation made with my own eyes nonetheless.

"Laws" enable and encourage bad behavior. Rather than judging acts as "right" or "wrong" I think a majority of people today only consider whether their actions are "legal" or "illegal". I see this all the time, especially among drivers. They will drive just within the bounds of "the law" but without courtesy.

If each driver thinks they are doing the "legal" thing, they think the other must make way for them no matter what common sense or decency would suggest. They may not be quite initiating force, but they are pushing the envelope to the ripping point.

This confirms my suspicion that, just as cops cause "crime", "laws" cause boorishness.

How much does this apply in other areas of life? How many times do you hear people questioning whether the course they would like to take is "legal", even though it is obvious that it would not be nice. I see it happen often enough to destroy any justification for the current law pollution we are being subjected to.

If anyone asked my opinion I would suggest that they concern themselves with whether their actions initiate force or deception. Then I would also ask, because it matters in the long run, whether their conscience will be clear. The question of "legality" would never cross my mind unless they were discussing possible consequences.

'Hate crimes'

'Hate crimes'

"Hate crimes". Is there any more ridiculous concept? If something is wrong to do, your hatred as motivation for doing it doesn't make it worse, just like any possible good intentions as motivation don't excuse any harm that you do. If "hate crimes" must become a "legal reality" then the flip-side, mass-murder with the "best of intentions", must be made "legally" acceptable as well.

Oh, wait.... "gun control", "universal health care", The Iraqi/Afghanistan/Pakistan war(s), "bailouts", the War on (some) Drugs, and every other government project and program... all indicate that the government has beaten me to that idea. Notice, though, that it is only "acts of state" that are excused on those grounds, not acts by individual, independent, "well-meaning" monsters. Government: the ultimate Hate Crime, and the only one to be ignored by the "law".

In the most pointless instances "hate crime laws" are just a way to add punishment on top of punishment for acts of aggression. In the worst cases, they are Orwell's "thoughtcrime" come true.

Get past the past

Get past the past

One excuse that a lot of people use to avoid living free from this moment on is "injustices of the past".

I understand this in a way. It is horrible that certain races have been marginalized, enslaved, or exterminated throughout history. It is tragic that genocide against indigenous people has been more-or-less the norm in most examples of human migration. All land has been stolen from its rightful owners uncountable times, both throughout recorded history and in the impenetrable mists of prehistory. That was wrong, but there is no way to "make it right" today. Any "solution" would only cause more harm to people who didn't commit the aggression to begin with.

If there are actual survivors, then by all means let them seek restitution. Don't harm anyone who wasn't directly responsible while arbitrating these events. Don't expect restitution for abuses done to your forebears by someone else's forebears. For me to be punished for something someone else did before I was born is wrong and ridiculous. For me to benefit from some "restitution" applied to some situation that I wasn't directly harmed by, paid by someone who did no direct harm themselves, is just as bad. In cases like these I think it is more ethical to do nothing than it is to actively cause new harm. Not everything has a real solution, unfortunately. It would serve everyone well to realize that.

There has to be some point where I decide to wipe the ledger clear. The past is the past. It is done. Let it go and start fresh today. What I can do toward this goal is say "Never again" and act on that declaration. Never will I contribute to, or support, such barbarous acts. Never can any government (using money stolen from me) claim to be committing these acts in my name. Nope. Not in my name; not on my account. When and where such wrongs do occur anew, speak out if that is all you can do. Don't excuse the evildoers for any reason. Monkey-wrench and stand up to the bullies and thieves if you are in a position to do so. The future is ours to direct.

Don't let today become the regrettable past of tomorrow.


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

For those who claim "Atheism is a religion"

I got a comment in connection with my Examiner column on Freedom of Religion that said, in part:

No matter what religion you ascribe to (including atheism)...

I hear this all the time, and it is a sign of some really faulty thinking. However, I know from past experience that this is something that is taught in some churches, so it doesn't surprise me that it gets repeated. But if you want to be taken seriously in your argument you need to let that notion go.

Seriously, if atheism is a religion, then good health is a "disease" and an empty dog house just contains another breed of dog. A lack of something is not a different type of something.

Does government ever do good?

Does government ever do good?

I come down pretty hard on externally-imposed coercive government all the time. Am I being fair? Am I being honest about what government is and what it does? Perhaps a better question is, is anything that government does "right" or "ethical"? Are the final results ever good even if the government's methods and reasons are not right?

Does it really matter? Two wrongs don't make a right. Nothing government does is ever done without harming some innocent person. To pretend that those who are harmed don't matter, or are not numerous enough to matter, is wrong. If there is something you want, which government currently claims to provide, can you think of a way to get that without using coercion? If not, then maybe you should reconsider what it is that you desire. Chances are that it is not right, and therefore not worth the price.

For "taxation" to not be theft it would have to be completely voluntary with absolutely no penalties for not paying. People would have to be able to pay only the amount they want to pay, and designate exactly where they want the money to be spent. If that meant your favorite program withered and died, then that is exactly what needed to happen. People would have voted with their money.

For "laws" to be right they would not penalize anyone, ever, for non-aggressive or non-deceptive behavior. It wouldn't matter if 99% of the population designated that their voluntarily-donated "tax" money go to enforce those "laws". Their "might", their overwhelming majority, doesn't make "right".

As you can see, if a government could abide by these guidelines, it would not be a government by definition. That is why "minarchy" isn't realistic. That is why any real form of coercive government is without merit and is wrong to support or advocate. I can't support evil even if it is convenient and "beneficial" for me personally.

On the other hand, there is a bright spot concerning government: the US government is killing itself. That is a result I can support, even if I dislike the means which are bringing it about. Through statist acts government is assuring its own demise. Sure, they'll try to lay the blame elsewhere. It won't stick. Over-printed counterfeit "money", wars of aggression and colonization (not that there is a difference), "taxation" and regulation which destroy or drive away businesses and jobs, "dumbing down" information to keep statist-drone children from feeling too bad... all of these things are only accelerating the approach of "E Day".

It may not be pretty at the end, but it is not the freedom activists who chose this path. In fact, we have offered alternative after alternative, only to be threatened and marginalized. So be it. Stay out of the way as government dies and be prepared to fight any new Rulers who arise to "fill the void". Make sure there is not ever a "power vacuum" by keeping power where it belongs: in the hands of the individuals. In the new, free world, I suppose we could look back and thank the short-sighted stupidity of the current crop of statists and their political ancestors for our new beginning. It may be the only good to ever come from the actions of government.

"Poaching" is not wrong

Added to the state's list of prohibited victimless acts is the imaginary offense of "poaching".

"Poaching" is the act of not recognizing government's claim over something it does not own: the wildlife that lives within the country's imaginary borders. I suppose it is not surprising that the government employees think they own the deer, since they also think they own the humans, but it is a concept I will continue to correct when I run across it.

Purchasing a license from the government in order to hunt is admitting that you agree that government owns the animals. You should ask the property owner before hunting on his land, but if a deer is on your property, and it has no ownership indicators, it is yours to take. "Poaching" would only be wrong if someone owns the animals while they are running free, or if you trespassed to get to the animals. No one owns the animals in most cases, since "the state" can own nothing it did not first steal, and thieves have no authority to dictate what can be done with the property they stole.

Hunting is an activity that teaches people to provide for themselves. It short-circuits the welfare cycle that government depends upon for dependence and loyalty. Pretending to own the wildlife and then selling permission to hunt it simply gives the state more unwarranted power over the people. It is another way to take money from productive people and give it to the parasites of government. Plus, in order to hunt, people need to own effective weapons and have the skills to use them. That is more reason for government to demand a license: to keep track of armed people. Hunting often involved stalking and tracking and an awareness of your surroundings. Those are skills that your enemies would not like for you to hone, since they may serve you in the future.

I am certainly not advocating mindless slaughter of wildlife. I hate waste. I would not shoot it unless I was prepared to eat it, or otherwise use it. I also know that some of the money from licenses goes toward habitat and such, but the amount is a tiny percentage (that which is left over after the excessive bureaucracy is paid for) and could be done much better by the market through privately owned property. Mostly your license fees go to support those who want to exercise control over you and your guns. Don't undercut freedom by supporting the state with your obedience or with your money. You owe the state nothing.

Is it 'libertarianism' or is it 'anarchy'?

Is it 'libertarianism' or is it 'anarchy'?

A common theme in comments is that what I am advocating is not "libertarianism", but "anarchy".

Libertarians seek to maximize personal freedom while minimizing government interference in the lives of individuals. Zero is the absolute "minimum". Nothing achieves that better than anarchy, in fact, nothing else even has a chance.

I am not speaking of "hyphenated" libertarians or anarchists, since that hyphen only exists in order to negate the "anarchy" and "libertarianism". Whatever is added by that hyphen makes the combined word mean something completely counter to the original word. You may as well substitute "Un-" in every case. (It's like that silly advertising slogan "There's strong, and then there's 'Army strong'")

Anarchy is libertarianism in full bloom; carried to its logical conclusion, with all the inconsistencies stripped away. It is not an either/or situation. If you claim libertarian status, but don't consider yourself an anarchist, you are being inconsistent somewhere. You are lying to yourself or others for some reason. Which basic human rights do you not want others to exercise? Which government function do you consider important enough to kill innocent people in order to finance or carry out?

Some might claim that you need to have some amount of externally-imposed-by-force government around in order to protect the freedom of the individual. How much government does that take? How do you keep that optimal amount of government constrained? Why has nothing designed to constrain that "perfect amount" of government ever worked? Could it be that by its very nature government always grows and becomes draconian? I have yet to see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

Right makes might

Right makes might

One common excuse for keeping government around is that otherwise "we will go back to a society where 'might makes right'". You mean, kinda like what happens when government decides that it will back up its unethical counterfeit "laws" with kidnapping and murder? Like now. And don't fool yourself; all governments do it. In fact it is the only thing all governments have in common.

Instead, it is true that "right makes might". In other words, being right gives you strength. It lets you have the courage to move ahead, knowing that whatever happens, as long as you are doing the right thing, no one can oppose you without being wrong. This gives you the courage to do what you know you should; knowing that if it comes down to it you can, and will, defend yourself and others with a clear conscience. That is empowering.

So go out there, be right, and be properly prepared to act on that rightness.



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

Freedom of religion

Freedom of religion

Any government powerful enough to "promote" your religion today, is powerful
enough to prohibit your religion tomorrow. Judge a politician's actions; not his
cheap words and pious pretense.

Those words are from my 2008 presidential campaign platform. I know there are a lot of people who are afraid of Muslims taking over America. I know because I hear from them all the time.

Well, guess what. A great many of the very people so worried about it now ignored and encouraged violations of the separation of church and state and made such a scenario possible. By insisting on violating the freedom of religion of others, they built the tool and are now fearful of that tool being turned against them.

I wouldn't like that outcome any more than anyone else would, but I also don't think Islam is the only religious threat to freedom. It seems to me that freedom is caught in a continuing repeat of the Crusades even now in the 21st Century. Truthfully I don't want either side to win.

Believe anything you want to believe. Don't try to force me to pretend to agree with you. Once you do, you make defensive action against you a legitimate choice. It doesn't matter which version of god you are pushing. It doesn't matter if you are trying to impose Sharia "law" on the non-Muslim or trying to use stolen money to pay for monuments to the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments to be put in courthouses, which are built with stolen money on land that was stolen and are centers of statist evil.

Religion has no business being the basis of any rule that is applied to those who do not follow that particular religion. What is "moral" to one religion is "an abomination" to another. Stick with the few rules that predate and transcend religion: Don't initiate or accept force, and don't initiate deceit.

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion if it is to have any meaning whatsoever. That includes mine, his, hers, and yours.

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

Statism is too overly complex to 'work'

Statism is too overly complex to 'work'

Some people have claimed to me that libertarianism, anarchism, or "individual sovereignty" (or whatever you prefer to call the philosophy of freedom, responsibility, and non-coercion) is "too simplistic". Normally this is the excuse pulled out when all others have failed. When they say this I immediately realize that they don't have a very good grasp of the way things really work.

Most of the time reality is much simpler than fantasy. The way our Solar System operates, with the orbits of the planets as they fall around the sun, all held together by gravity, is much simpler than the Greeks' ideas of "epicycles" and gods. This is where Occam's razor comes in. The simplest explanation is generally the truth.

The fact that you own yourself and all the products of your life is so much simpler than the labyrinth of states, "laws", and obligations that have been created out of thin air for the past several thousand years in order to justify government.

Even when there are more "parts" (more individuals compared to the number of states), the fact that just a few rules explain the motions and interactions of all those parts means that the system is simpler and closer to reality. Don't let the best evidence that freedom is right be used as a illusory weapon against you.