Liberty Lines 5-12-2011

(I expanded on a previous blog post for this State Line Tribune Liberty Lines column)

I find the idea of "social contracts" to which I never explicitly agreed to be silly. There is a better way.

In the spirit of doing the right thing, here is my personal pledge to the people of Farwell:

I will not attack you, steal from you, or intentionally trespass or damage your property. I will also never report you- or cooperate in any way with any investigation of you by any government agent, "authority", or official- for doing things which do not initiate force or involve theft, trespassing, or destruction of private property; even if I personally dislike your actions. I will never support any "law" or policy that violates your self-ownership, private property rights, or even the "least" of your liberties. Not even if I am personally violated by the same "law". Spreading the misery just hurts us all and there is no "fairness" in equality of tyranny.

That's it. It's all that is needed.

It doesn't mean you can attack or steal with impunity, because self defense is a basic human right that can never be legislated away, and I believe in watching out for the life, liberty, and property of others against all violators.

I consider this pledge to be a logical extension of living by the Zero Aggression Principle, which is what makes libertarianism the most consistently ethical philosophy.

This is the only "social contract" I need and it places no obligation on you at all. You choose whether to accept it as offered or to ignore it, and your choice doesn't affect my pledge in any way. You can't beat that deal.

From a "libertarian friend"

Check out this lengthy post on Not My God and read my lengthy responses in the comments I made, below a few other comments. (Which strangely enough all share the same little avatar, which isn't me. I'm not that cute.)

Did I miss anything I should have said? Did I mess up somewhere?

I'm not even going to read the other comments yet. It's late and I'm sleepy.

Solutions shouldn't limit liberties

Solutions shouldn't limit liberties (Originally published 4-14-2011. As written, not as published.)

I am not one to accept things on faith. I want solid evidence, if not concrete proof. However, there is one thing I, along with other libertarians, accept as an article of faith: I believe that any problem which can be solved, can best be solved in a way that bolsters and respects individual liberty. Yet, perhaps that isn't really faith, since all the evidence, along with my experiences and observations, leads me to the conclusion that this is a testable feature of reality.

For example: If "crime" can be solved, and it already has been when The State doesn't get in the way, the solution will be one that does not treat the innocent like a suspected criminal, and does not interfere with non-coercive acts between responsible individuals. It will also be a solution that recognizes, and never violates, the absolute human right to defend oneself with the best tools modern minds and materials have created. In other words, it will be a solution that raises the risk of being a bad guy back to proper levels.

If "drunk driving" can be solved, which I believe it can be, the best and most effective solution will be one that does not violate the absolute right of the individual to use any substance he or she wishes, and does not violate the basic human right to travel without interference. Perhaps the solution will be cars that drive themselves. Perhaps the solution will be something I can't even imagine yet. The solution will never be more "laws" and harsher enforcement which make getting from Point A to Point B a dangerous gauntlet of authority-drunk enforcers.

If environmental problems can be solved, which they can be, it will be a solution that respects private property rights completely. It will be a solution that calls for restitution from the despoiler paid directly to the damaged party, while leaving everyone else alone to use their own property however they see fit. It will be a solution that doesn't excuse environmental destruction by government agencies or by those who pay a government for the privilege of creating environmental destruction without further consequence.

Perhaps you believe my faith is groundless. Perhaps your faith in collective solutions seems more rational to you. I think the evidence shows clearly that collective "solutions", those based upon coercive external government, always fail. I'd like the opportunity to do large-scale experiments, using only those who consent, of course, to test the hypothesis. Are you in?

And, speaking of cars that drive themselves: link

*

Credit where it is due

As you may have read in these "pages", I was having a terrible time getting my Clovis News Journal columns past the publisher.

Then Debbie Harbeson came to the rescue.

A few months ago I had asked her if she'd had any difficulties getting her columns published in the paper she writes for. She said she hadn't. And her local paper isn't even an "editorially libertarian" publication like the Clovis News Journal is.

The rescue came in the form of a post she wrote on her "Debbie and Carl" blog concerning R. C. Hoiles, the founder of Freedom Communications (the company which owns the Clovis News Journal). She asked my permission to mention my difficulties in the post and I consented. Happily.

After forwarding the post to the appropriate channels, my problems with getting published disappeared. Even things I thought would get cut in editing survived. Is there a connection? I believe there is.

So here's a sincere THANK YOU!! to Debbie. Writing the column has been much more enjoyable these past several weeks. I'm hoping the trend continues, but either way I truly appreciate the opportunity to write without the constant stress of looming rejection.

Note: edited per request.

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.

*