...to Own and to Carry any Weapon...

Those of us who are interested in owning firearms and other defensive weapons put up with a lot of abuse at the hand of The State.

Do you realize that the Second Amendment does not give you the right to "keep and bear arms"? It recognizes a right that is yours simply because you were born a Human Being.

No part of the Bill of Rights even applies to you unless you work for government; then it tells you exactly what things you are absolutely prohibited from doing. The rights existed before government; they will exist long after government is in the compost pile of history.

Any politician, enforcer, or bureaucrat who violates any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights (which supersedes the Constitution) has broken the highest governmental law and has illustrated that government is the worst criminal organization, and is subject to justified self-defensive violence.

Yet, even if the Constitution permitted gun "laws" they would still be wrong. All gun "laws" are counterfeit "laws". In fact, almost all US laws are counterfeit. Real laws (those in line with Natural Law) do not need to be enforced. Counterfeit "laws" must NOT be enforced. Only an evil person will advocate, pass, or attempt to enforce a counterfeit "law".

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

Blaming the Victim

I'm sure you have noticed, as have I, that frequently when we hear of a murder, rape, or other crime of violence, people say "if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town..." (whatever that means), or "if only she hadn't been dressed like that", or "you shouldn't flash money around that way", or some other drivel.

This is just blaming the victim.

It is a psychological defense mechanism that allows us to delude ourselves that if only we behave a certain way, bad things will never happen to us, personally.

I see a similar phenomenon in libertarian thought on occasion. Instead of blaming the heartless cop who is "only enforcing the law", or the soulless reavers of the IRS who steal the livelihood from our friends and neighbors, or the mindless bureaucrats who take up valuable space, some will blame their victims.

They insist that others fight back as "they" believe they ought to, instead of seeing that they may have too much at stake to make a scene at this time. Or they may simply have other priorities.

If you refuse to submit to a "driver's license", or ignore income taxes, or reject a "Social Security Number"; if you build without a permit, or carry a gun without government permission, or any of the other nice ways we can fight back, then that is wonderful. I support your defiance 100%. Just do not despise your neighbor whose family would not survive if she went to jail or got murdered for refusing to cooperate with the government thugs. She is not the problem; she is the victim. Blaming the victim is a mental problem that hides reality from your conscious mind.

(From the archives. Originally posted on September 6, 2006. Updated.)

.

No one represents you in election

No one represents you in election

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 17, 2012)

Obama or Romney. Or, should that be "Obamney"?

It is amusing to watch the election promoters trying to make the anointed presidential candidates look different from one another. Especially when it means they are now promoting a candidate they had vigorously opposed mere months ago. Every time election season oozes across the landscape I feel sorry for voters; especially in a case where there is no substantive difference between the candidates they will be allowed to choose from. I empathize with their desperation.

Most voters will try to justify their new-found support for Candidate X. The honest voters will say "Sure it's a bad choice, but what else can I do? Just give up?"

Well, sure, you could do that, but it's not necessary.

In my opinion as a libertarian, a vote for a Democrat or Republican is always a wasted vote. For that matter, any vote is probably always a wasted vote, since no one can ever truly "represent" another person, other than on a one-to-one basis. Even then it's iffy and you can easily be betrayed. Almost no aspect of life should be subject to majority opinion or control, anyway. Society can't be "run".

However, if you still feel the need to vote, only vote for a third party candidate. You are still legitimizing an illegitimate and completely broken "system", but at least your vote won't go toward the person/party that the mainstream media and the government want you to believe to be your only option.

Another choice you always have is to refuse to play a rigged game. Withdraw consent and walk away. That's not "giving up". If you are playing cards against someone who has mirrors arranged so that he can see the cards you hold, who has a stash of aces (or whatever he might need) in his lap, and who gets to have final say in any dispute you might have concerning the outcome of the game, why would you keep sitting there and placing bets? The situation in politics is even less honest.

This realization can free you to spend your time and energy elsewhere. Instead of waiting for some politician to do things you feel are important, start the ball rolling yourself. Instead of waiting for tax money to be allocated to your cause, publicize your cause and get voluntary donations. Instead of advocating a "law" to force people to act as though they agree with your or your cause, convince them. And if all that fails go on without their help- leaving them free to go their own way. It's how decent people operate. Let's bring decency back to life.

.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need ... roads!

Building onto the "eminent domain" theme has me thinking about roads.

I am frequently asked how we will have roads if there is no government road program or fuel taxes.

Note that this isn't "the only way" roads might work in a free society, but only a possible solution. The reality would probably be different than I can even imagine.

I think that all roads should be private property. Everyone would own the road that runs through their property. Or if it runs along a boundary, they would own the half of the road that is on their side of the property line.

Now, If I owned half of the road in front of my property, would I want the bother of maintaining it, and the liability if someone were driving on it and was in an accident? No, I wouldn't. Would I close off the road to travelers? I wouldn't, but I am sure some folks would. That would be their choice. Would there be any profit in keeping the road open? Yes. (Plus, businesses have a vested interest in keeping roads open so that customers can get to them.)

No one, including me, wants a stupid toll-booth every hundred feet or so. So what would happen?

I think that the market would soon find a workable solution. My hunch is that companies would form which would buy or lease roads from land-owners, taking on all costs and liabilities, but also most of the profits. These companies (not "corporations", which are a government creation) would probably sell a form of travel insurance or something of the sort that would permit travel upon their roadways and also guarantee against road hazards, and maybe even mechanical problems.

They could also sell or lease out business locations along the shoulders.

There would probably not be enforcers and roadblocks along the road. If a road's owner allowed this to happen, competitors could profit by offering an alternative. Bad traffic problems would be a cause to find a real solution, and "one size fits all" wouldn't be the name of the game. Traffic signals could be dispensed with by those who are aware of the problems they cause.

If you think this sounds unreasonable, go back to the title of this post. If this solution didn't make everyone happy, what would happen? What would stop inventors from creating vehicles that don't use roads? It has already been done. The biggest stumbling block along this line has been (for over 50 years) the government regulations which cripple innovation with red tape and inertia. Does the FAA sound familiar?

So you will have a choice: use the roads and pay a fee (or have the fee absorbed into the cost of doing business) which would undoubtedly be less than the fuel taxes you pay now, or leave the surface entirely.

The sky is no limit when you have liberty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 5, 2006. Updated.)

.

"Eminent Domain"

This is just a fancy way of describing theft by government.

I realize this is a long-established practice, but it is still wrong. Making something "legal" can't make it right- not even when the Supreme Courtjesters uphold it.

If you or I desperately want a certain piece of property, we must come up with the owner's asking price or find another piece of land. We can't force the owner to accept a bad deal. Disappointment stinks, but that is reality.

Government should not own land, much less steal it. (And, in fact "owns" nothing it didn't steal or "buy" with stolen money.) There is no such thing as "the common good" so using that excuse for theft is empty.

(From the archives. Originally posted September 05, 2006- slightly updated)

.

The Constitution was poison from the first

Need proof that the Constitution is a poisonous dose of tyranny, rather than the beacon of liberty some patriots believe it is? The so-called "fifth page of the Constitution" was recently unveiled to the public, and the article mentions that the "sixth page" is apparently lost, but there are transcripts. On this sixth page is proof that the Constitution was a compromise with evil from the very beginning. Boston T. Party has been proved right.

George Washington admitted this in a note (the "sixth page") to Arthur St. Clair, the president of the Congress when the Constitution was adopted. Washington explained the justification behind the new, stronger central government. He exposed himself as no better than Obamney or Bloomie or any other parasitical puppetician or tyrant in recent history.

He said:

“Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.”

Is it clear to you yet?

.

Division of labor

It's a little frustrating when someone claims that by not voting nor being "politically involved" I am doing nothing to promote liberty. The truth is, liberty is not popular enough to win votes on a large enough scale to "win"- even if it were possible to vote yourself free.

So, you can agitate and advocate and campaign for a candidate (or cause) that you believe is pro-liberty, but even if he really is... no, especially if he really is, he will not win. (This is assuming against all evidence that the system isn't rigged to make certain he doesn't win.) The voters are not ready yet. They still care more about what some collectivist puppetician is promising to steal from someone else and give to them. Or who some parasitical politician is promising to "protect" them from. And chances are if he really does win after all your support, he'll betray you and reject liberty once he gets into office.

But, maybe your political activism will get some people to consider the idea of real liberty. Stranger things have happened. But then you have divided your time and effort. I simply choose to put almost all my efforts at this time into making the ground fertile for liberty to take root. I am trying to pave the way by making people ready for liberty so that if political action is helpful to the cause of liberty you'll someday have a receptive audience. And if it isn't helpful, we haven't put all our eggs in one basket.

You do what you think will help and I'll do the same.

.

My encounter with a hardened criminal

Her- out of the blue: "I'm breaking the law."

Me: "So? I promise not to tell on you."

Her: "I've already been warned."

Me: "We're all breaking the law, so don't worry about it. If we worried about all the laws we break everyday we'd just worry all the time."

The above conversation was between me and a sweet little old lady* who had committed the heinous crime of walking her happy Pomeranian to the post office, and taking him inside.

She seemed, at first, truly upset that she was a lawbreaker. I don't know her history. Maybe she spend a lifetime agitating for the police state we now live in. But, in that moment, I believe she "got it".

We are all outlaws, and it's OK. Really.

(*There was also an elderly man going through his mail at the same time, agreeing with everything I was saying.)

.

Think! Before you embarrass yourself.

Hey, Statist. When you justify The State and its "taxation" by bringing up roads, fire fighters, mail delivery, defense, and the abuses of corporations, it shows a certain blind spot in your thinking processes.

Why do you believe those things you list can only be accomplished through coercion and theft? Because if you believe government alone can do them, that is what you are claiming. Don't scoff; those are the only tools government has that are not generally available to the rest of us (without dire consequences, anyway). Do you not believe those things can be done voluntarily instead? If something can't be done voluntarily it shouldn't be done at all.

And, why do you believe The State is necessary for prosperity, and that corporations are the problem? The biggest barrier to prosperity is the government/corporations. There is no distinction. You may believe government is "necessary" but this just shows you haven't thought it through sufficiently.

.

Heart and Brain

Long ago I heard something to the effect that if you were young and conservative it meant you didn't have a heart, but if you were mature and liberal it meant you didn't have a brain.

I'd say that was half right, it just ignored the other half of the truth. To have a heart AND a brain means you are libertarian.

.

No loopholes in libertarianism

No loopholes in libertarianism

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 10, 2012)

It's usually nice when you run across something that confirms what you already thought to be true. However, "nice" doesn't really get you anywhere if you care about truth. The best way to find out whether or not something is true is to try as hard as you can to disprove it. Therefore I keep trying to disprove libertarianism to myself.

I know that's not how people normally operate (Me? Normal?), but unless you search for flaws in what you believe to be true, you never get any closer to the real truth. So I am continually looking for loopholes. Perhaps, deep down I suspect, or fear, that those who claim libertarianism can't work in the real world may be right. Maybe this is because I am exposed, on a daily basis, to so many who try to justify their opposition. They seem to believe the only thing keeping everyone (other than themselves, of course) from becoming mass-murdering thieves is the threat of governmental punishment.

So I keep searching. After all, I'd rather BE right than BELIEVE I'm right.

I try to find the instance where it really is necessary or ethical to be the first to throw a punch; to "initiate force" in the parlance of libertarians. I look for those cases where taking property from its rightful owners for "the common good" really is the right thing to do. I look for examples where a problem was honestly solved by using the coercive force of The State.

So far, despite my best efforts, I have consistently come up empty.

Sure, there have been times I thought I had found the crack in the wall. Usually it came as a result of someone passionately trying to justify their opposition to something I had written. Each time, for a moment, I thought to myself that perhaps this was "it"; the exception to the rule. Every single time it turned out I wasn't thinking the problem- or the consequences of the "solution"- through sufficiently. I wasn't working from principles, but giving in to fuzzy thinking or emotionalism, or ignoring human nature and reality.

The people who hate the principles of liberty the most, and forcefully inform me of their opinion, are the ones who offer me the best tools to try to find the flaws I seek in libertarianism. For that I appreciate them. I wonder how many of them take the equal opportunity I offer for searching out the flaws in statism.

.

September 11: Consequences Day

I've been calling September 11th "Blowback Day" for years. Thinking about it today I decided that needs to change. Blowback is only one aspect of the date; just one of the consequences.

Henceforth this date, September 11th, shall be called "Consequences Day".

The events of September 11, 2001 (regardless of what actually happened or who was actually behind it) were the consequences of past actions coming home to roost.

It was the consequence of mandating inadequately armed airline passengers.

It was the consequence of allowing a federal government to run rampant- killing, blockading, embargoing, occupying, manipulating, spying, threatening, bullying, robbing, and many other evil actions- all over the globe.

It was the consequence of permitting stupid and evil people to demonize defensive violence and make no distinction between types of violence.

It was the consequence of teaching people to go along quietly with those who mean to do them harm.

It was the consequence of the past couple of centuries of statism.

It was the consequence of choosing false "security" over liberty.

It was the consequence of trusting government.

It seems few people have learned anything from the tragic consequences of this date in history.

.

Friends don't let friends rule

OK, maybe they "let" them; they just don't support them.

Just because I might like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson doesn't mean I want either of them to rule me or my neighbors. I'll bet I'd enjoy sitting down to talk with either of these men. Whether they would enjoy talking to me is another matter.

The fact that I thoroughly dislike Obamney, in whichever incarnation, only adds to the fact that it can never rule me. I'll bet I would have a hard time remaining civil during a chat with Obamney.

I don't need a president, and neither do you. Let those who do believe they need one play the game, and let's ignore the results of their stupidity.

Oh, and "happy" Blowback Day.

.

"Render ... unto Caesar..."

Here's a familiar passage (choose your translation):

"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?

Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

This little exchange has been the genesis (pun intended) of a lot of Christian statism. For no good reason.

I would say that all this means is "don't steal". Render unto "Caesar"... Let's get rid of the name Caesar. Perhaps then we can see it more clearly. Render unto "Bob" that which belongs to Bob. Don't claim Bob's stuff as your own, and if you are in possession of Bob's stuff, give it back to him. I don't think it means you have to give Bob anything of yours that he did not earn in a completely voluntary fashion.

Does your money belong to Caesar- or in current terms, The State- just because The State says it does? Ridiculous! Only those things which are the rightful property of The State need to be handed over to The State.

What does The State rightfully own? You? Your life? The fruits of your labor? NO! The State, every State, possesses nothing it did not steal or "buy" with stolen (including counterfeited) money.

Render unto Caesar, or Bob, whatever you want to, including whatever you feel you must to avoid being murdered by him, but don't ever feel guilty for keeping what is yours. And never again use this passage as justification for "taxation" or a State.

.

The danger of having a State

A free society, one without a centralized government, doesn't need to worry too much about being invaded and conquered. This is one of the "yeah, but what if"s that people present in opposition to true liberty. They think that without Washington DC, and it's armed goons, keeping out the invaders, Chinese troops (or whoever the speaker personally fears) will overrun America and annex us.

Then there's reality.

Consider this recent offering from Fred Reed concerning why it is so hard for empires to defeat one particular region:

"In Afghanistan there are no targets of high value to destroy, no clear lines of supply to be cut, no cities whose capture means you win, and no concentrations of enemy to be easily killed."

And this is in a region where there is little liberty. Add real liberty to that equation and the odds are stacked even more in favor of the home team. Without a city to capture and win, you have to defeat each and every individual. It won't happen.

The State endangers me and it endangers you. Stop pretending otherwise.

.

The 2012 Obamney election pageant

I wish I had the whole clip where they debate the "titanium tax" with the lines:

"I say your 3 cent titanium tax goes too far"

"And, I say YOUR 3 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough"


.

Liberty Lines, September 6, 2012

(Published in the Farwell, Texas/Texico, New Mexico, State Line Tribune)

Everyone creates something. Shoemakers create shoes. Blacksmiths create ironworks. Bakers create bread. And, apparently, city councils create criminals.

The slew of new ordinances proposed recently will do nothing but make more people into lawbreakers. It is inevitable. Then the resultant "crime spree" will be pointed to as justification for even more controls and stiffer enforcement.

Aren't all the real bad things (and a lot more) already illegal? Instead of creating new laws for people to break, deal with the true offenses- theft, destruction of property, and aggression; the "mala in se" (bad in and of themselves) acts. No "mala prohibita" ("bad" just because we say so) offenses need to be dreamed up or enforced, as America- including Farwell- is already being crushed under an avalanche of them.

Just because the state of Texas or some international code (part of Agenda 21- look it up) says you have to impose certain rules on those of us in Farwell, that is no reason to comply. There is an honorable tradition known as "nullification" wherein a bad legal example is not emulated. It only takes a little courage.

There is one way I could back new rules: for each new liberty-infringing rule passed, twenty currently-enforced ordinances must be abolished. At least until a level of maturity is reached where people are ashamed to obsess over what the neighbors might be doing.

Liberty is becoming a rare commodity. Let's stop outlawing it. Stop violating the property rights and the individual liberties of those who live around you. It's just the right thing to do.

.

The hypocrisy of the statist

One thing that constantly crops up as a source of mild amusement- and occasional frustration- is that the same people who have a problem with my lack of respect for The State (and other governments) feel they can ignore certain "laws" without being hypocritical.

I tend to obey most "laws" that aren't a matter of life and death, especially when the risk of being caught is high and the consequences are steep. Yet, some of the people I am referring to ignore "laws" very openly and still look down on me for the "laws" I express scorn for. And they would be shocked! if they faced consequences for getting caught breaking those "laws".

One person, upon discovering that the local "city" council had just adopted a bunch of new ordinances- some of which would negatively affect his life- was at least honest enough to admit "Now MY ox is being gored."

It must be painful to be a statist.

.

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

Gun laws won’t prevent deaths

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 3, 2012. The headline is similar to last week's (part 1?), but it's a totally different column. I promise!)

Wouldn't stronger laws or more strict enforcement stop people from killing the innocent with guns? For the life of me I can't figure out why it's supposedly worse to be murdered with a gun than with a knife, a brick, or a car, but let's skip that part.

The truth of the matter is that guns are a very old technology. That cat is out of the bag and it will not be stuffed back in. The only way to get rid of guns at this point is to eliminate every gunsmith and everyone who knows metallurgy, chemistry, physics, and mechanics; burn every book and ban any website on those subjects, as well as any which gives even a hint as to how a gun operates. Anyone with a bit of knowledge can figure out how to make a gun. You don't even need gunpowder nowadays. As long as a gun can equalize people, they will be built, carried, and used.

Strengthen the penalties? Increase the penalties for getting caught with a gun and you will remove any remaining reluctance to carrying a fully-automatic firearm. After all, if the penalty is comparable, why not go with the supposedly better tool?

All coercive gimmicks ignore the simple fact that the real solution is for more guns to be in the hands of decent people. It's the only thing that will ever work. Nothing will ever disarm people who want to harm the innocent. Nothing. It doesn't matter if you just really hate guns and want them to go away. You can whine about it; you can call gun owners nasty names, you can speculate on how to achieve Utopia. None of that will change reality. To hold back the bad guys you need to be able to stop them, and they need to know that if they try to harm people it is highly likely they will encounter someone like you who is willing and able to put an end to their rampage, no matter when or where they strike.

We are not talking about "chaos, with bullets flying everywhere" since the average gun owner won't pull the trigger until he knows his target and what's beyond it. We are talking about psychological deterrent and the ability to interfere with an active shooter's plans. Even with body armor, getting shot is painfully distracting and that distraction can save lives. There will still be tragedies. Nothing can prevent them all. Don't sacrifice your liberty for false hope, manufactured fear, and misplaced empathy.

.

Shared traits

A badger is not a chair. Both have four legs; both are made of matter- in the case of a wooden chair, mostly carbon like the badger- both cast shadows when in the light; both are affected by gravitational fields, and... well they have a whole host of traits in common. But a badger is still not a chair.

In the same way I am not a conservative or a liberal. I share some traits with both because, frankly, neither of them could be wrong on everything all the time. Where they pick the side of individual liberty- an accidental consequence of individual liberty fitting into one small aspect of their otherwise statist agenda- I will be on the same side. But where their statist agenda stomps on individual liberty they are on the wrong side and I don't side with them.

The amusing consequence is that I end up on mailing lists of statist groups for conservatives (probably due to my pro-self defense stance) and for liberals (probably due to my opposition to prohibition) where they try to sell me their toxic sewage along with the few diamonds they carry. Assuming that because I agree with them on the pro-liberty stuff, I will agree with them on their anti-liberty agenda, I get called a "empty-headed liberal" or a "knuckle-dragging conservative" by those who get offended by my refusal to give up liberty and buy into their fear-mongering.

They are too blind to see that a badger is not a chair, and too narrow minded to understand that a libertarian is not a statist.

.