Government property rights

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Government has zero property rights. Government is not a person nor an individual of any kind and can own nothing. Not only that, but individuals who are a part of government have no property rights over the "government property".

The postmaster has no property rights over the post office. The forest ranger has no property rights over the forests. The traffic cop has no property rights to the roads. The president has no property rights over "Area 51"(nor do any of his military goons) . Nor do any government employees have any authority to administer the property rights of government, because those rights don't exist. Period. Government property is stolen property and does not belong to the thief or his gang, nor their descendants. It is No Man's Land.

That doesn't mean government enforcers won't murder or kidnap you if you violate those imaginary government property rights, or any terms thereof, but when they do, it is an unvarnished murder or kidnapping. It is exactly like if a crook broke into your house, claimed it as his own, and then killed you when you returned home. So be careful of government thugs enforcing their deadly delusions.

.

Movie recommendation: The Ledge

I don't normally get into doing movie reviews. Such things are just too subjective, and I don't assume your tastes mesh well with mine. But I'll make an exception now.

If you haven't seen "The Ledge" you are missing something entertaining and thought-provoking. Watch it.

It isn't the type of movie I normally want to watch. I had read about it, thought it sounded interesting, and put it on my Netflix list a month or so ago. I'm glad I did. Unfortunately I don't remember where I first read about it, so I don't know who to thank.

I started to write more about the movie, and the thoughts it brought to my mind, but erased it all to just say see it for yourself. I don't think you'll regret it- unless you'd be offended by Liv Tyler's naked breasts. And if that sort of thing offends you I doubt you'd be reading this blog.

.

"When should you shoot a cop?"

"Should". That's a pretty loaded word.

Somehow I ended up on some Tea Party mailing list. The email I got from them most recently mentions a flyer (which has been blamed on Tea Party activists) that asks the question "When should you shoot a cop?"

I can't tell you when you "should" shoot a cop, but I can tell you when you would be ethically justified in shooting one: Whenever that is the best way to stop one from violating your life, liberty, or property, or to prevent the same from being committed against someone you have accepted responsibility for. In other words, exactly the same conditions that justify the shooting of any other individual. The "job" gives no immunity from "natural law" even as it gives some immunity from statutory "law".

The "should" is up to your own assessment of the situation.

.

Pop in and say "Boo!"

Feel like using the witching hours to do some haunting, but prefer to do your haunting in cyberspace? Then pop on over here to visit some comments. Witness someone who just hates me, and someone else (I suppose) who hates all gun owners in general (and admits it).

Since the post was about being ruled, and ruling, by fear, Halloween seems an appropriate time to scare the sheep.

.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to eat your brains!"

Boo!

Sorry, but I didn't write a new tale of terror to post today. Here's a re-link to my little Halloween story from last year: The Werewolf

Have a happy Halloween and don't let the Statists catch you!

.

My philosophy

In honor of Halloween, and to give you a bit of a fright, here is my personal philosophy in a nutshell:

The individual is the atom of humanity.

All rights reside inside, are centered upon, and flow from, the individual, alone. Your rights do not overlap anyone else's rights- your rights end where the other person's rights begin. No one can have rights over another individual's body. A mutually-consensual contract can be valid as long as it does not violate anyone's rights to their own property, self, or rights.

No group can have any right that each individual in the group does not have.

You have a right to do anything that does not initiate force, or take or damage another's property. It isn't always a good thing to do everything you have a right to do. Everything has consequences, even doing the right thing.

You should not do anything that initiates force upon any individual.

You should not do anything that takes or damages any other individual's property.

If you go ahead and do something you have no right to do, you should expect consequences, and to be a good person you must accept and deal with those consequences without using the consequences as an excuse to do something else wrong.

Evil is any action that harms someone (or their property) who is not attacking or stealing from anyone. People aren't evil; actions are. However a person who is engaging in evil acts could be called evil without stretching the truth too far.

.

Freedom basis of libertarianism

Freedom basis of libertarianism

(My weekly Clovis News Journal column for September 30, 2011.)

Libertarianism rests upon the answers to a few questions. Which is better: Freedom or slavery? Honest possession or theft? Truth or falsehood?

For any random individual the answer might be "it depends". For one thing, define "better".

Society prospers as individuals prosper. It is not right to make different rules for different people. This isn't to say "one size fits all", but that if something is true, it is true for all people for all times. If it is wrong for me to do something to you, then it is also wrong for you to do the same to me. It is universal.

One individual might be harmed by freedom. Either his own or someone else's. Should he be able to infringe on the freedoms of other people to prevent himself being harmed? Yes, but only if those others wish to express their freedom by attacking or stealing. Should other people be able to infringe on his freedom to prevent him from hurting himself? No. That individual has the choice to exercise his freedom, or not, even if his choice would harm himself. It's the same choice we all have.

If you claim slavery is better than freedom, that means you believe everyone should be a slave to someone else. Even the slave owners. That's socialism. Yet, there are always individuals, those who make the rules they are willing to enforce with violence, who aren't forced to follow those rules. Those who are most insistent on imposing this system on everyone else exempt themselves, either openly or in practice. Slavery is not best, even in the eyes of the would-be slave master.

A random individual might claim theft is better as long as he is the one receiving the stolen goods. If this were actually true, then as soon as the tables were turned, and everyone began taking advantage of the new morality and stealing his stuff, he would probably change his mind. Once again you can reverse roles to see through the propaganda.

Some people obviously prefer lies over truth. "Do these jeans make me look fat?" or "Do you think my sister is cuter than me?" Those are questions that are not always safe to answer truthfully. Not quite a "verbal grenade", but very close. But are lies "better"? No. All things, even the truth, come with consequences.

So, for most individuals, freedom, property rights, and truth- the foundations of libertarianism- are preferable to the alternatives. Libertarianism is still the most ethical way ever discovered for dealing with others.

The meaning of "The Pledge"

What "they" are really saying when they recite "the Pledge of Allegiance":

I give my promise of loyalty to the banner made of cloth that is a symbol of the criminal government that now rules the country of America,

And to the empire for which it now stands.

One nation, under (some nebulous interpretation of) God (that we only think we can force you to agree on), til death do us part (because if you try to leave, I will kill you),

With blah-blah-blah* and something-something* for all.

*Words that the reciters haven't got the faintest clue what they mean.

.

In "praise" of the donut munchers

As long as you are force to "pay" for a government employee's existence, you'd be better off to have one who does nothing.

A conscientious government employee is violating you twice. Not only are they robbing you, but they are also raping your rights with everything they accomplish. And someday they may actually kill you.

.

Listen to FREEDOM FEENS!

This is always an interesting podcast, and I highly recommend it.

FREEDOM FEENS Podcast - Michael W. Dean and Neema Vedadi’s fun 'n' feisty weekly chat about Constitutional, libertarian and voluntaryist issues, abuse of authority by police, the War on Drugs, self-defense, States' Rights, Natural Rights, Austrian Economics, DIY art, low-budget filmmaking, digital recording, activism, punk rock, hip-hop and more.

Great content, great production values, high-quality audio, and radio safe.

Now with streaming audio for mobile

.

Americanism is a real problem

Americanism. I guess that's what I'd call the mental problem infecting a large percentage of those around me.

You know the type:

Stuck in a fictional myth of the 1950s as The Golden Era. Borderism. Religionism. Militarism. Guns "from my cold, dead hands"... but only as long as we can keep them away from the "wrong people". Infected with just a tinge of "White supremacism". A deep fear of "brown people" or change of just about any sort. A love of punishment and revenge. An abiding belief that Democracy, along with The Constitution, is the Alpha and the Omega of freedom. Clinging to the demonstrably false belief that cops are the good guys. Symbols of the USA are worshiped, and no fault can ever be found in the global actions of the US government.

It is nostalgia elevated to religion. Kind of like the Amish.

.

The lazy man's way: authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is the lazy way out.

When I am tired or distracted it would be so much easier to just "lay down the law" with my daughter than to think things through, that it becomes a great temptation.

It is more time-consuming and requires more thought to pursue libertarian parenting. It is a lot of work to be logical, consistent, reasonable, and listen to (or consider) counter-arguments. It's easier to just say "because I said so", even in cases where you are operating from a flawed perspective or with insufficient data. Because I have seen the harm that comes from that style of "parenting" I try to avoid that trap.

But, like I say, it can be a lot of work. Most worthwhile things are.

On the other hand, a little effort now saves a lot of trouble in the future.

.

Politicians and their "values"

I see a lot of puppeticians who claim to have "values". And a lot of their sheeplike followers believe them.

"Dedicated to the values of idiocy" is not a virtue. Yet, it seems those who are dedicated to such are venerated and put upon a pedestal by their equally deluded followers. Sad.

.

Don't let government stop you

Don't let government stop you

(My Clovis News Journal column for September 22, 2011.)

What is it you most would like to do if you had no onerous regulations and laws holding you back? What would you do with liberty?

This is a question libertarian author and novelist L. Neil Smith has posed in the past. It is still one of the best ways to awaken to the potential that liberty has in store for you. Just think about it.

I seriously doubt that you would daydream of a career as a robber or attacker. Nor would I. Why imagine the worst of others? Even if someone else did have those types of ambitions, there would still be the equal and identical rights of others, backed up by an absence of restrictions on self defense and defense of property, to prevent him from becoming a real problem. It isn't as if laws, and the chance of being caught by the enforcers, stop bad people from being bad now.

Many of us would probably dream of starting a business or pursuing a hobby that is just too difficult with government looking over your shoulder; demanding you jump through certain hoops for permission, and then demanding a cut of your efforts if you make a profit. Or, even when you don't.

The trick is that you need to come to the realization that your wishes depend on you leaving the other guy alone to pursue his dreams as well. Do you want to follow your dreams enough to stop preventing him from following his? You only get as much liberty as you respect in the other guy.

Do you want to keep your guns bad enough that you will stay out of your neighbor's marriage? Do you enjoy your raw milk products enough that you will stop worrying about what the cancer patient across the street is smoking? Do you value your religious beliefs enough to stop trying to interfere with the other guy's religious practices? Do you want to keep your own property enough that you stop justifying the theft of someone else's property? Do you want to live your life as you see fit enough to fight for the right of your enemy to do the same?

If so, start now. If not, perhaps you need to get out more and develop some interests. What's stopping you? Life is waiting.

.

"...nor was I discussing political agendas."

Regardless of what some people seem to believe, right and wrong isn't a "political agenda". It just so happens, though, that libertarianism is intimately concerned with right and wrong in a consistent way that no other philosophy can be. And that translates into a logical way to organize our interactions, which means "politics" to a great many observers.

Yes, that disturbs people who have no ethical foundation for their politics, but that isn't my fault. They could look to improve themselves. We all have to start some time.

.

Thought of the moment

Libertarianism is not just misunderstood, it is un-understood. How much of that is willful, I'll leave to you to decide. I suspect it is a lot.

.

Dependency pushers

I saw a news article that quoted some puppetician who said the Social Security [sic] increase was a good thing.

What I don't get: "Drug dealers" are treated like criminals, even though their customers are consensual. Welfare advocates are treated as heroes, even though their customers and those who actually provide the product are coerced.

Both "drug dealers" and politicians are pushing dependency. Yet, only one of those "pushers" are using coercion to obtain the product and keep the customers.

Remove the negative effects of prohibition and I'll tell you which sort I'd rather have as a next-door neighbor. And it is NOT the tax parasite.

.

The killing of Gadhafi- self defense or revenge?

I can't join the majority in the celebration over the killing of Gadhafi.

Yes, he was a very, very bad guy. Almost everyone who seeks political power is. Any one of his victims would have been fully justified in killing him in self defense. But... the old monster was not a credible threat any more- he was no longer the ruler and was not engaged in an initiation of force at the time he was killed. He was killed in revenge, not in self defense. I also don't see any justice in it.

I think revenge is wrong. Understandable, but wrong. I'm not saying I would never again do anything in revenge, myself, but if I did I would be wrong. I have done a few things in revenge in the past. I was wrong.

When I smeared poison ivy all over the toilet seat, and my wife's vibrator, before I abandoned my house to her and her new boyfriend, I was wrong. If I had it to do over again I hope I would make the right decision this time. I have the benefit of years of libertarianism to guide my actions now.

The rebels, who are now falling all over themselves in the rush to set up another State to abuse them and violate their liberty, were wrong for killing Gadhafi. And they are wrong for allowing a new government to be established. Actions have consequences. Watch what happens next.

.

Gunwalker, or Fast and Furious(ly insane)

As is always the case when the psychopaths who work for government choose to violate their very clear operating instructions, the "Fast and Furious"/ Gunwalker scandal is not an announcement that there need to be more "laws". Only idiot congresscritters could see it that way. No, it is a clear call to repeal all "laws" (and agencies) that made the scandal possible.

Say you were born into a neighborhood where one guy has declared himself the head of a homeowners' association that you never agreed to join, but existed before you were born. Maybe 50% of your neighbors either agree, or at least are under the impression that somebody "needs to be in charge". Vastly fewer actually think he should be "the one" or that what he does is good. Anyway, the "head guy" insists that all houses remain unlocked so that he can check them at will for burglars. When you discover that HE is the main burglar in town do you let him then make more rules that don't address the problem, do you insist on replacing him with another power-mad maniac who wants the "job", or do you install locks and arm yourself against his next intrusion?

This is as clear an illustration as possible that government is not your friend and is not necessary. It is the problem, not the solution. It needs to be abolished, or ignored to death. However, as a compromise, I would suggest the following steps the government can take to show "good faith":

Repeal any "law" that seeks to violate the Second Amendment. And that is every "law" that applies to guns in any way. Yes, even the "pro-gun laws". The government is forbidden from addressing guns. Obey or die.

Abolish any agency or bureaucracy that deals with enforcing any of the forbidden "laws" that affect guns. And don't try to be cute by shifting the "job" to someone else. The "job" is illegal. Treat it as such, with enthusiastic fervor.

Repeal any "law" that makes it a "crime" to resist or kill any government employee who tries to violate any person's rights or property in any way.

Repeal, repeal, repeal. No, there shouldn't be a "law". Anything less shows that government is only sorry its tools got caught.

Follow this path and there would never be another scandal like Gunwalker. Follow a similar path every time government breaks its own rules, those which govern its existence, and before long we'd actually live in a free society.

.

Who would Jesus vote for?

I am not being facetious; I am completely serious.

Please ask this of your Christian friends who vote. Especially pose the question to ones who, like some of my family members, say they will vote for Perry, Cain, or Romney because they "have to vote for someone".

Who would Jesus vote for? Do you really think he would vote for the "lesser of two evils"? Isn't that like choosing to commit the lesser of two sins? Do you really think he would want you to vote for the lesser of two evils?

Christians who vote are not obeying his admonition to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" and are instead giving Caesar that which does not belong to Caesar: their attention, time, and respect.

Grow up. Withdraw consent.

.