Christian Butterbach

I'm sure some of you know of Christian Butterbach and the contributions he has made to the advocacy of liberty and panarchy.

Well, he is in need of financial help. (Sorry I wasn't clear what kind of help before, so I clarified.) He didn't ask me to mention this, but if anyone could help him out a little, I know it would mean a lot to him. And to me.

Contact him at cb [at] butterbach.net if you can help.

*

Perversion of the justice system

The purpose of a justice system is to provide justice- to return the victim of theft or aggression to a condition as close as possible to their condition before the violation occurred.

The justice system doesn't exist in order to teach anyone a lesson. Not that you'd know that anymore.

If a lesson is learned by the bad guys in the course of providing justice, that is just icing on the cake, but it isn't necessary. If restitution is required enough times, and if shunning follows an offense, and if an intended victim's self defensive violence is upheld as correct and justified regularly, then bad guys have a choice to make: learn a lesson or keep facing consequences, including the very real possibility of being killed by the next target.

When the perverts who populate legislatures, enforce "laws", and sit in judgement in courthouses try to use the justice system to teach people a lesson justice is thrown out the window. Those idiots in government try to pervert the justice system to teach drug abusers that they shouldn't use (not just abuse) "drugs". Those parasites in government try to wield the justice system as a club to teach people that they must comply with, and assist, The State in its theft of their property. The justice system has been stolen to be used as a way to impose the twisted desires of government psychopaths on you and me. Justice isn't even a goal any longer; punishment is. And the excuse used is that "we must teach these people a lesson". Balderdash.

Most people brought before the courts aren't even there for anything that concerns a real justice system at all. And those who are... well, there's a very good chance the only reason they have fallen into a life of theft and/or aggression is due to the criminal assembly line the "justice system" has become for those who dare to assert their self-ownership in ways The State forbids.

Justice isn't possible in a system that has been stolen by the bad guys, to be used by the bad guys, to teach the rest of us to do as they demand we do, or ELSE! Insist, and enforce, a separation of court and State.

Newspapers or internet?

The internet at this time is a lot like the newspapers of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Back then newspapers were full of stories about mermaids, monsters, and incredible things that we laugh at today. Not just for their absurdity but for the poor attempt to make the incredible believable. You had to want to believe to fall for most of the tales.

Now, of course, newspapers seem much more realistic with their State-approved lies. "Osama's recent demise" is a good illustration.

I just hope the internet never becomes a similar organ of State-approved lies. I'd rather sift through the nonsensical garbage than to know that everything was thought up, spun, and/or officially sanctioned before going on the internet.

Take your "protection" and ...

I'm having real trouble seeing any real difference between having cops running around town extorting money from people and ordering them around, and having the same done by mafia enforcers.

Even when I mentioned this to someone else, the only objection she could think of was "The mafia will kill you". I mentioned that the cops will, too. So she said "But the mafia will kill you for no reason".

I doubt it. Where's the profit in that? As long as you pay your "protection money" ("taxes"), don't try to resist the shakedown, and don't undermine the organization, you'll probably be left alone. Why kill the cash cow? As long as you do things the way the mafia/cops demand, you'll probably be left alone to enjoy your "freedom".

The enforcers don't make the rules; their bosses do. You have as much say in the rules The State (or city council) imposes on you as you do in setting the mafia's agenda. You have been fooled if you believe otherwise.

The mafia will protect those within their sphere from attacks by other thugs, just as will cops. You can't be a successful parasite if your host dies, and if others drain off some of the money you had planned to steal there is less for you and your bosses.

I don't need cops or mafia goons. Take your "protection" and shove it. I am not impressed by your fancy uniforms or shiny cars (with the flashing lights) bought with stolen money. You are a disgusting parasite and you should be flushed out.

*

TSA

TSA: Terrorist Security Administration.

It's the unspoken motivation behind all they do. After all, it takes one to protect one.

*

"Winning" by abandoning principles?

The recent discussion with Kerodin and the Arctic Patriot got me thinking again. About the coming unpleasantness.

Once the shooting starts, if we abandon our principles in order to win, have we won? Can you stop acting like government after the war? If not, the struggle was in vain since there is no gain in swapping out one gang of violent, unprincipled monsters for a new gang of violent, unprincipled monsters. Not even if they include you.

The only possible point in flipping the social pyramid upside down in this way would be in hoping that when the smoke clears you end up nearer the top. But that's not good enough for me. I don't want to flip the pyramid; I want a civilization based upon the Zero Aggression Principle and The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. I want there to be no pyramid, where some exist by coercively using others, at all. I don't think you can get there by acting like those in government act.

*

Police State in my own front yard.

Small town police state. It's happening. Right here, right now. I thought they were just picking on me for being somewhat open with my opposition to their parasitism, but I have discovered they are out of control and on a thieving rampage.

Even a non-libertarian I spoke to yesterday admitted that this town has too many cops (3) trying to finance their unnecessary and pointless jobs through extortion. So he didn't say it in quite those words, but that was the gist. This town, until not that long ago, had no cops at all. Not one. There was no problem with that. If anything seemed, to the weak and scared, to call for LEO intervention, the sheriff was more than capable of handling the situation.

Of course, with millions of new "laws" being added to the books to be enforced every year, I'm sure the "job" became too large for such an efficient and non-intrusive system. That is not a sign "we" are getting worse, it is a sign law pollution is destroying civilization.

Now this town has 3 cops all trying to find ways to justify their jobs, and apparently now on notice that they had better pay their own way by shaking down the residents. They should all be fired, at the very least, since they can't control themselves.

Government is so silly

Well, technically, acting like government is important is what is silly.

Government is like a role-playing game. Those who are involved act like the things they worry about and work on are real. Yet, in every case those things only exist within the matrix of the game. It is when those in-game scenarios are foolishly applied to real life and imposed on the rest of us that tragedy results. A "gamer" who gets off-kilter could start slaying people with a sword or trying to throw lightning bolts at people. A "stater" will start stealing real money and killing people over possession of plants.

Most gamers know better than to be silly enough to think their game is of importance to anyone other than the other players. They don't threaten people who aren't involved in the game. In other words, whether you think their game is a waste of time or not, they don't expect you to bow to their game. They also know their game isn't the only game available. Live and let live.

People who are involved in role-playing games aren't hurting anyone as long as they keep their grasp of reality and don't initiate force or steal. For some reason, those staters playing the game of The State can't seem to keep their fantasy in perspective. Or maybe we only notice the truly sick individuals who take the fantasy into the real world and start hurting innocent people. I pity these people while reminding myself that I can pity the rabid dog while realizing that I must defend myself from its bite.

*

Silver

If I had any money I'd buy all the silver I could afford right now.

On the other hand, if I were you I wouldn't take any financial advice from someone who is always broke and seems to get more so every year.

*

People can't be forced to be free

People can't be forced to be free

(As originally written, not as published. As usual. On another note, I've decided to see if I can remember to put my liberated CNJ columns up at the top once I post them in their entirety. This one was originally published on April 1.)

There is no way to force someone to be free. As a libertarian I see the absurdity of that impossible notion. So when I point out the wrong of liberty-destroying laws I am not demanding that those who feel they need them give them up. That would be trying to force them to be free. On the contrary, they can live under any handicaps they choose. How is that for irony? They are free to be enslaved if that is what they clamor for.

The problem arises when those counterfeit "laws" which attempt to regulate or control something other than an attack or theft are imposed on those of us who don't need them and don't consent to them. Those of us who are not afraid of other people living free within the full scope of their rights. Your right to be a slave ends at the other guy's right to liberty.

I see the words "liberty" and "freedom" as having distinct meanings; unlike some who use them as synonyms. There is some overlap, though. Freedom is doing what you want, whether right or wrong. Liberty is the freedom to act as you want, but only within the boundary of your rights. You might be free to rob a stranger at gunpoint, but since you have no right to do so, and would violate his property rights if you tried, you have no liberty to commit this act. In fact, he would be well within his rights to use deadly force to stop you, regardless of the legal opinion of The State.

Rather than forcing someone to be free, the best you can do for someone else is to remove obstacles to their liberty if it is your legitimate business to do so without violating anyone else's rights in any way. The most commonly ignored way to do this is to simply stop doing things yourself that violate their liberty.

This means you should stop using laws which force others to do things, or forbid them from doing things, for "their own good". This means withdrawing support for those who violate the liberty of those "under" them. This means you should accept that other people will have opinions that you may find reprehensible, just as your opinions may be extremely offensive to someone else. As long as no one is forced to participate- as long as there is no coercion or fraud- it is no one else's business. No matter how much you may be offended or frightened by their non-coercive actions. This also means that while no one has the authority to forbid you from living in liberty, you have no authority to try to force them to be free. Not here and not in Afghanistan.

"Credible threat"

A couple of posts on a couple of different blogs, especially in the comments, inspired some thoughts that I will share with you. It concerns striking the other guy before he has a chance to strike you.

One detail that seems to trip up many people when the Zero Aggression Principle is discussed is when it's OK to act in self-defense before a serious, or even deadly, blow has been struck against you. I think the only time it is OK is when there is a "credible threat" of harm.

To me a credible threat is when, to the best of your knowledge, the threatener has the intention to follow through with the threat and the means to actually carry it out.

A braggart who just wants to look big in front of his friends, but who is too weak to actually do you any damage and who is unarmed (listen up, goverthugs in the Pentagon) is not a credible threat no matter what he says, and an armed person who has no intention of attacking you, even if they are justified, (listen up, LEOs) is also not a credible threat.

Of course, if you attack first anyway, he has no obligation to take it without fighting back, and once you attack, no matter who you are or what you think your "job" is, YOU are a bad guy. Even if you "win". If that is OK with you, then who am I to tell you to get a conscience? You do what you think you must and live with the consequences, all of them, like a self-responsible person.

*

Governments lie

One thing I know as surely as I know I have 10 fingers is that governments lie.

You can endlessly debate all kinds of details and definitions such as whether thumbs are fingers or whether I know how to count or what "government" is or what constitutes a "lie" or whether the lies are "necessary", etc... but that's just avoiding the truth that everyone knows unless they are too stupid to remember to breathe: governments lie.

Just a reminder...

If anyone is planning to buy anything from me soon- shirts, books, flags- or make a donation, now would be a good time since I'm still in dire need of funds.

Osama/Obama

It bewilders and sickens me how fast the "conservatives" are to accept the word of a known liar, whom they otherwise are smart enough to distrust, when he claims Osama is now dead, just because it serves their death-cult worship of the military.

Osama bin Laden is/was a despicable, evil man, but unlike Obama, he never threatened my liberty in any way. I know who the real terrorists are and I will not be distracted by silly charades. I'll await the next move.

"I'd like to solve the puzzle, Pat"

O_ _m_ - _ _ _th - c_ _t_f_c_t_

"Obama birth certificate"!

Sorry, that's old news. The answer is "Osama death certificate". You lose- America loses.

Anyone else find it suspicious that when the news of the indisputable fakery involved in the released "Obama birth certificate" looked like it might actually no longer be avoidable to the news media, Osama's cryonically preserved, I mean "freshly dead" corpse appears? Convenient timing or something more sinister?

And, no, I don't give a rodent's orifice where Obama (or Bush or ???) was born since no one has the right or the authority to rule over any other person, no matter the results of any election or coup. But it does go to show how dishonest these parasites are.

Voting in self-defense; no consent

I understand the sentiment of "voting in self defense". I have even done it in the past.

The thing is, I think a self-defensive voter needs to make very clear that the voting is only done to try to avoid difficulties later by either "legalizing" liberty, or by rejecting a "legalized" restriction on liberty, but that if the results of the election go against liberty the voter has no intention of going along with the result.

There is NO consent. Liberty is NOT subject to a vote!

I still think it's better to laugh at the whole silly rigged game.

*

Shut me up? Here's how...

Wanna know one thing that really makes me mad?

I am surrounded by pro-government extremists who constantly subject me to their silly and archaic opinions, but I am expected to remain silent and not express my opinion. My opinions are "not polite" or "socially acceptable", I suppose.

I am expected to not make any efforts to defend myself intellectually from the infectious memes of the government extremists, and certainly take no actions to defend myself.

Even the peaceful and humorous act of putting up a sign is seen as a shameful thing. I am apparently an embarrassment. Had I put up a sign supporting even a candidate they didn't like, it would have been OK, I guarantee. But because my sign exposes the illegitimacy of the whole rigged game, it is "wrong".

I don't make an issue of my disagreement with the one who gives lip-service to freedom while supporting the pro-life [sic] protesters and seeking quick "solutions" through Law and enforcement. It's that ridiculous mythical "harm to society", you know, that must be prevented.

I say nothing about the ones who work for and support The State with their careers in some of the most cruel institutions of The State (public schools and prisons), and with their votes.

I say nothing to those who belong to the most popular Death Cult in America, which celebrates the modern Crusade (and Crusaders) in its worship [sic] services while ignoring the realities of the War on Terror/War on Liberty and is fine with torture as long as it happens to "them".

Because I don't buy into all of that nonsense, and because I have previously dared to let them know where I stand (even though I don't harp on it constantly), I am the bad one.

How about this: You stop making it necessary for me to defend my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness/property from your goverthugs and "laws" and I'll shut up. I don't want to think about The State or any other idiotic superstition, but I have no choice when you make it a constant threat. Keep your filthy government to yourself!

*

Campaign truth

The town is cluttered with campaign signs for the upcoming mayoral race.

Yay.

So, I just placed this sign in my yard to add a little reason to the debate.

PS: I just wish that, for once, my every action was not met by the person who claims to be my partner with eye-rolling, sighs, disgust, and derision. And frequently anger. It gets old.

Fixing the US budget

For this exercise I'll ignore for a moment that the US is a criminal government and that taxation is always and without exception wrong. I'll pretend for a moment that The State has a legitimate place in life. Now, how would I fix the US budget.

Easy. Just cut the total budget, which means every every single individual budget item, in the fe(de)ral government by the same 99.9%. If an agency previously had a budget of $10 million, under the new plan the budget is now $10,000. Can't do "the job" for that amount? Then shut down and give the assets back to those whose money paid for them.

That should get the government back fairly close to the limits the Constitution set upon its "authority" and would solve the budget crisis. Any "extra" money that is not spent on budget items would go toward paying down the debt, unless the government just defaults.

I don't "need" The State, and neither do you.

*

Sociologist could benefit by talking to me

I'm going to step out on a limb again and say that someone who is supposedly smarter than little ol' me has got it wrong. Again.

In this TED video, sociologist Sam Richards almost gets it right, but then he gets sidetracked and caught in the quicksand of the "progressive" mindset. I'm mostly talking about his first exercise in empathy (in the first 3:30 of the video) where he uses the Chinese and Americans in a thought experiment. Watch at least that part then come back and read the rest here.

If, as in his example, "the Chinese" got fabulously wealthy by mining and exporting American coal back to China, then they are buying it from the property owners. Right? Well, in the absence of government, they would be. That's where he misses the point.

Now, he admits that the Chinese only got access to this coal through political deals with Rulers. Deals that enrich the Rulers at the expense of those who actually owned the coal. Why doesn't he think about who owns the coal, and why they are not able to exercise that ownership? Why doesn't he see where the problem originates? The State is the root of this problem; not the resource or those who acquire it.

Where I think he gets it wrong the worst is that he assumes that the Americans in this scenario would be stupid enough to blame the Chinese people and resent their prosperity when the culprits are the political deal-makers in America. They are the thieves. Politicians are always thieves. They are good at making unaware followers blame someone else, though.

Maybe some people are too stupid to see who is really to blame, but that "political elite" better not bet their lives on it.

Now, watch the rest of the video. The funny thing is that he makes the assumption that you and I haven't already put ourselves in the shoes of those who are defending themselves from violent invaders. Or, am I really that different from you?

*