Not a libertarian? You're not free

Not a libertarian? You're not free

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 1, 2013)

So, you're still not a libertarian? Why not?

Let's get beyond misguided religious excuses, justifications regarding "fairness", and overblown, irrational fears.

What all these excuses boil down to- as reasons why you can't embrace libertarianism- is wanting to feel OK with having someone available to hurt other people who are not harming you.

Yes, that really is at the foundation of all acts non-libertarians are trying to justify.

Libertarianism recognizes your absolute right to self defense when you are being attacked, and to defense of your property against "takers". You can't claim you need to reject libertarianism in order to protect yourself from villains. The rejection of libertarianism is based instead upon a desire to hurt people who are minding their own business, but doing something you don't like.

It is not "self defense" when you use force against those who are not harming the innocent, but who are somehow offending you. If this is the case, don't join in. Ignore them or laugh at them. Speak out against what they do. Just don't use aggression or "the law" against them.

If you are supporting "taxation" it means you want someone else to be responsible for taking property from the rightful owners to pay for things you feel are important enough to steal for.

It isn't enough for you to contribute your own money, and you apparently don't think you can convince enough people to join you. Since you fear your argument for your position is too unconvincing to get support, you want to force others to pay for what you want through "taxation". If not enough people are willing to pay for it voluntarily, without the threat of "legal action", then it needs to go away.

A rejection of libertarianism means a recognition that everyone has equal and identical rights is not enough for you. The right to stand up for the victimized is not enough. You believe some should have "special rights", and you want someone else to punish those you think are treating someone unfairly.

Sure, some people- an increasing number with each passing day- reject libertarianism because their livelihood is tied to The State. That is tragic, but it is at least an honest reason to reject liberty in favor of slavery.

Johann von Goethe said "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."

Shed the inconsistencies. Free yourself.
.

Opposition to the "law" doesn't mean support for the act

Just because I know "laws" against prostitution are stupid and evil, it doesn't mean I want my sister to be a hooker.

Just because I know the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is destructive and wrong, it doesn't mean I want my daughter in a relationship with a drug dealer.

Just because "laws" forbidding suicide are pointless and stupid, it doesn't mean I want my best friend killing herself.

There are lots of things you have a right to do that are not the best thing you could be doing.  I really don't want to see anyone doing anything to hurt themselves even when they have every right to do so.

Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

.

A thought

It isn't that certain things need to be "made legal"; it's that it was wrong to ever make them "illegal" to begin with.

.

Asset forfeiture? No. Theft.

Government (well, in reality, those who claim to be part of government) possesses nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen/counterfeited money.  "Asset forfeiture" is just another twisted example.

I can't make up a rule- say, I declare you can't have any dogs that are a color other than black- and then claim that by violating my "rule" you forfeit your property rights and I get to take your "illegal" dogs and other property.

And it is no more "right" when goons calling themselves "government" do the same thing simply because you have bits of a plant or a gun or anything else that they decided you shouldn't have.

.

Slavers and thieves

If you ever want to help me out financially, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

If you ever want to hold a gun to someone else's head- in person or through "taxation"- to "help" me... don't bother.

It isn't compassion or generosity to give away other people's money.  It is nice to help others and share when you can.  It isn't "nice" at all to share what isn't yours to share.

I also don't wish to benefit from slavery.

If you want to force an expert to provide me with services against his will or without compensation based upon mutual consent, then you are advocating in favor of slavery.  It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe it to be, or what you call it.  The truth is the truth.

I was watching a video the other day that was ridiculing "conservatives" for their opposition to socialized medicine.  The above points- which are indisputable if you value reality- were never considered.

The slavers and thieves are all around us.  They are pretending they are the last bastions of compassion while carrying out the Old Evils.

.

"Coexist" doesn't mean you get to kill me

I can coexist with those who worship flags; who parrot "patriotic" utterances; who pretend a State can be anything other than a massive mafia.

Life is what it is.

What bothers me is that those people aren't honest about what they are supporting.  They pretend they are The Good, and everyone else is The Evil.  They pretend their favorite flavor of socialism, fascism, tyranny, and mass murder is none of the above.

Or, they are cryptostatists and pretend they aren't supporting statism at all, when they are.

Either way, I could let them go their own way if only they'd stop trying to force me to go along with them, and pretend that they aren't full of ... "humbug".

But that isn't the Way of the Statist.  Misery loves company, and rabid statists hate to see anyone who isn't under the same delusions they enjoy.  Their slavism is too wonderful to not be "shared"- with force.  Funny, but if you have to force someone to join you, perhaps your path isn't as superior as you pretend.

I wouldn't force you to be free even if I could, but refusing to allow you to feed off of me isn't "forcing" you to do anything.

Statists wish to be left to the wolves, whom they see as their protectors.  I simply don't wish to let them drag me along.  Not without trying to defend myself.  And, that, to a statist, is unforgivable.


.

Defense of Marriage...?

My marriages failed because of ME.

Before I had ever heard of gay marriage.

I probably could have saved at least one of my marriages by doing a lot of things different; by putting forth a lot more effort and sacrifice.  But what uninvolved "others" were doing couldn't have saved them.  My marriages would have failed regardless of what relationships or marriages other people- most of whom I don't know and will never meet- choose to engage in.

So, to claim you are "defending marriage" without addressing the reason mine failed- probably the same reason the vast majority of marriages that fail do so- is silly.

No one else's relationship status can threaten my relationships, or weaken them in any way, unless I let them.  And that would probably mean I am focusing on the wrong thing.

.

You are being played

Arbitrarily changing rules to benefit yourself isn't right- especially when those new rules violate someone.  Even my young daughter has figured that out (it hasn't stopped her from trying to get away with it, though).

She was complaining that one of her playmates changes the rules as she goes in order to make sure she wins.  I pointed out that when someone does that it makes makes others not want to play their game.

As I said it I suddenly thought of The State.

"Theft is wrong, unless we do it and call it 'taxation'."

"Here, change your clocks so that you can be forced to get up early and feel sick for a month or so."

"Stop for at least 4 seconds at this red metal octagon or we get to steal money from you so that we can afford to keep stealing money from others who fail to stop 'good enough' at this and other red metal octagons."

"This gun was OK here last year, but today if you are caught with it we get to kidnap you and murder you if you resist."

Some rules were changed to benefit the bad guys centuries ago, and some will be changed tomorrow.  It makes no difference when the change occurred if the new rules go against liberty, and benefit those who want you to believe you owe them allegiance.  You know what the rules should be- anything more is going backwards.

And on and on it goes.  Smart people know they are being played.  How do they respond to that knowledge?

.

Judges shouldn't have final say

Judges shouldn't have final say  (and they don't!)

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)

I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.

The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.

Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.

Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".

The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.

Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.

Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.

You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.

And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.

--

Bonus video:

.

Equality... in what?

There are some "imperial entanglements" in my life I have avoided, and others I have gotten dragged (unwillingly) in to.

I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty.  I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.

The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.

If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them.  But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture.  Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.

So I posted this status on Facebook:

I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.

Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people.  People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.

Here is part of what was said:

This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.

So, without the State, there can be no contracts.  Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread.  And, so, I finally "blocked" him.

Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:

Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!

I really need to remember that it's only the internet.  I can laugh and walk away at any time.

.

The mall adventure

A couple of days ago I was at the local mall- a very small and slow mall by "mall standards"- so my daughter could see the Easter Wolverine... umm, Bunny.

Anyway, while trying to convince her that the scary costumed critter wouldn't eat her, we were sitting on a bench and this group of people walked by.  I noticed that one had a nice, modern semi-auto pistol on his hip, and was obviously not "law enforcement".  I thought "Good job!" and wanted to thank him, but I was in the middle of an explanation to my traumatized daughter about how most people in Easter Bunny costumes don't want to hurt her, and even if this one wanted to, I wouldn't let it happen.

A few minutes later I noticed an obviously excited- but reservedly so- mall cop pacing around.  I wondered if he had just encountered the armed patron, or if someone had "reported" the guy, but mall cop hadn't been able to find him.  Or, if he was just always one to act testosterone-pumped and the one thing had nothing to do with the other.  Although, I had seen mall cop just a few minutes earlier and he seemed much more relaxed as he sauntered along in a daze at that time.

I watched but never saw "open carry guy" stroll through again.  Too bad because I wanted to shake his hand and give him my card.  I was also willing to say something in his defense if mall cop got out of hand.

I have never noticed any "No guns (unless you plan to massacre)" signs anywhere in the mall, and New Mexico is an "open carry" state.  But it is a rare sight around here, indeed.  I would love for it to become a lot more common.  (Of course, living as I do between two states, and Texas being one of the shameful states on that map, I'd have problems.)

One thing I know is that I feel much more endangered by cops (not the unarmed mall cop) than I do armed residents.  Any mall cop ought to be glad to see armed patrons, since they are most likely on the same side.  Unless mall cop decides to come down on the wrong side, that is.


.

Two wrongs don't make a right

"Two wrongs don't make a right."  True, and forgotten far too often.

However, defending yourself or your property from those who seek to attack or steal is not ever "wrong".  No matter who those attackers are, or what justifications they may grasp at.  It may not be smart- depending on the situation- and you may not be able to do it without "collateral damage" [sic] which is NEVER right (no matter what certain thugs may claim), but defense against a thief or aggressor is not wrong.  It doesn't figure into the "Two wrongs don't make a right" equation at all, but is a separate thing altogether.  Don't let anyone fool you by claiming otherwise.

.

Don't forget yourself

What to DO?  I feel the need to do something "important" for my personal liberty.  I realize that the urge to "do something" is a dangerous thing.  It leads people astray.

I'd do better to focus on my life and the things I can immediately affect, rather than concerning myself with what goons calling themselves "government" are doing to someone over a thousand miles away.

But I can't help caring.  I like people- until certain individuals do things to make me dislike them.  If I didn't like people I wouldn't care if they were being violated- or even if they were destroying their own lives by being the violators.

But, still, if I don't focus on my own life, who will?  I am no one's responsibility but my own. I can't really affect the "laws" that the thugs who call themselves "government" impose- no matter how often I am told I can.  Every time in the distant past I tried, I eventually "lost" and the advocates of "more rules" won.  Yet, those rules only affect my life if I let them.  Sure, I might get kidnapped, robbed, and caged for violating some of the "rules", but that is always a possibility no matter what you do.  I'd rather deserve it.

So, I suppose I will keep "prepping" and learning skills, keep trying to sharpen my observational skills, keep meditating on liberty, and do the best I can in this world in which we exist.  If you have other ideas I'd love to hear them.

.

Who should be ashamed?

Some people act as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed for expressing my support for liberty.  Isn't that backwards?

I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name.  I think "Don't they understand what they are saying?  Don't they see what they are really supporting?"

No, most of them don't.  And they don't want to.  It would be inconvenient or even painful.

But, I realize I am in the minority.  When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one.  No one completely agrees with me on anything.  And that's fine.  It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.

That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting.  I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing.  I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.

Nope.  I'll shout it from the mountaintops.  Or rooftops.  Depending on where I find myself standing.

.

Through the meat grinder

Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green.  Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.

Your life is worth only what it can do for "society".  You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey.  Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes".  And I could go on and on with examples.

The government extremists may claim innocence.  They lie.

Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good".  They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.

No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation.  If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators.  And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences.  I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.

No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem.  Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do.  But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt.  How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin?  I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again.  I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf.  Not even if it makes me look like a kook.

.

Eustace vs. The Thieves

A few years ago- maybe more than I thought, now that I think about it- I read a book about a guy named Eustace Conway.  The person who loaned me the book thought I would enjoy it, sensing a sort of kindred spirit I might share with Eustace.  And I did enjoy it.

Now Eustace needs help.  I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.

Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from.  Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property.  It's value to you is being diminished.  Theft has occurred.

I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest.  And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter.  I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.

Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.


.

Rights don't change, even if details do

Rights don't change, even if details do

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)

Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.

It doesn't matter.

Do you enjoy First Amendment protection of your religion or denomination only if it existed in it's present form in the late Eighteenth Century?

Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?

This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.

Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.

The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".

The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.

.

Don't just accept- weigh it all.

I can be wrong.  That realization keeps me from ever simply saying "this is how it is and I will never change my mind".  Well, I might say it, but I don't really believe it.

Everything I believe has gone through the wringer.  Usually more than once.

I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life.  "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?"  "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?"  "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"

The questions lead to a couple of different actions.  I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind.  Deeply and constantly.  And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter.  Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.

I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past.  It may happen again.

The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit.  I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.

Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people.  I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted.  Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.

If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist.   Oh, wait...

.

I care nothing for nations...

You just never know where something to make you smile will crop up.

I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix.  A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment.  Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals."  Awesome.

My thoughts exactly.  "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything.  It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil.  And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong.  Anti-gun "laws" are wrong.  "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong.  Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.

I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.


.

Truth vs. "truth"

In "Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau said "The lawyer's truth is not the Truth..."

That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.

A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking.  But sink it will.  And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.

The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.

And keep respecting the Truth.


.