To know liberty is to love it
(My Clovis News Journal column for March 15, 2013)
Why isn't liberty attractive to most people? It is a question that crosses my mind frequently.
Thomas Jefferson said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." He went on to state "I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Jefferson knew that "laws", even in his day, were often wrong. They have only gotten worse today. The protection of individual rights is the only justifiable excuse for any law. Not protection of government, its employees, or their income. Not guaranteed outcomes, but no "legal" barriers. Almost every "law" now on the books is a violation of individual rights, rather than a protection thereof. The "law" has become perverted, assuming it was ever legitimate.
As a result Americans don't have much liberty left, and due to "there oughta be a law" thinking, it gets worse every day.
Yet, hardly anyone notices, and those who do notice are scorned and ridiculed. Where did this anti-American apathy and hostility toward liberty come from? Most people have allowed their fear of the freedom of others to justify the whittling away of their own liberty.
So, why isn't liberty attractive?
Maybe it is because people don't want to be responsible for their own lives. Perhaps they believe they can hand that responsibility over to someone else.
Maybe it is because people don't like to be exposed to others' "unobstructed action" even when it violates no one's rights. "I'm OK, but you need to be controlled!"
Maybe it is because so many people want to be able to dip their hands into the "tax" money fountain- believing they can come out ahead. They believe it isn't really socialism if they benefit at the expense of others, or if it has a long history of being pursued, in America, by "Salt of the Earth" people. No one wants to feel guilty. That changes nothing.
Of course, if you can convince people that they are free, then the reality doesn't matter. They'll fight you tooth and claw in denial of the fact that everything not forbidden (with the proper permits) is mandatory. They have been told they are free, so you dare not say otherwise.
Jefferson's "rightful liberty" has been replaced by the hollow "liberty" touted by a famous New York politician who claimed that liberty means doing what you are allowed to do. No wonder liberty isn't attractive- no one knows recognizes it anymore.
.
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Take note and keep moving
I don't want to sound callous, but if you can't keep going with life after the latest school massacre or bombing, how will you function when the War for Liberty heats up? When there may be dozens of such incidents every week. Or day. When those who value liberty are blamed- when we know it is only another false flag event calculated to turn "public opinion" toward the strong arms of Big Brother and away from scary liberty.
Don't be paralyzed by fear, or by hate. Take note and keep moving.
I am truly sorry for all who were killed, all who are hurting, and all who had a fun day ruined by an act of violent cowardice. But I still have a responsibility to myself and those I am accountable to.
.
Don't be paralyzed by fear, or by hate. Take note and keep moving.
I am truly sorry for all who were killed, all who are hurting, and all who had a fun day ruined by an act of violent cowardice. But I still have a responsibility to myself and those I am accountable to.
.
Labels:
advice,
Crime,
future,
government,
liberty,
police state,
responsibility,
society,
terrorism,
tyranny deniers
Unexpected inspiration
You just never know who will inspire you.
I recently re-connected online with someone who I knew when she was about 10 through 12, when I was about 18 through 20. At the time I worked at her grandfather's pet store. Anyway, it has been decades since I had heard from her.
Now I find out she is a serious prepper. She has more skills than I do, and is in a better situation than I have been in in years. I have trouble picturing that little girl becoming who she is now, but I am in awe.
She has inspired me to work on some of the gaps I am aware of in my readiness, and to fine-tune some other areas.
She has also made me start thinking about others who have inspired me. Some inspired me in specific areas; others inspired me in general. I'd better not start naming names, because the list would be too long, and I'd feel awful if I forgot to list someone who was critically important to me. But I deeply appreciate all those whose influence has made me a better person in one way or another.
So, look around you. See the people in your life- even if they were in your life long ago- and think of what their influence has done to make you who you are.
.
I recently re-connected online with someone who I knew when she was about 10 through 12, when I was about 18 through 20. At the time I worked at her grandfather's pet store. Anyway, it has been decades since I had heard from her.
Now I find out she is a serious prepper. She has more skills than I do, and is in a better situation than I have been in in years. I have trouble picturing that little girl becoming who she is now, but I am in awe.
She has inspired me to work on some of the gaps I am aware of in my readiness, and to fine-tune some other areas.
She has also made me start thinking about others who have inspired me. Some inspired me in specific areas; others inspired me in general. I'd better not start naming names, because the list would be too long, and I'd feel awful if I forgot to list someone who was critically important to me. But I deeply appreciate all those whose influence has made me a better person in one way or another.
So, look around you. See the people in your life- even if they were in your life long ago- and think of what their influence has done to make you who you are.
.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Boston Marathon bombing
I thought about this a lot, wondering what (if anything) to say.
Well, I don't really have much to say about it. My outrage has apparently been used up by one dramatic act of violence after another.
Now my only thought when anything of this sort happens (and after I am fairly sure no one I personally know* was harmed) is "what will the goons who call themselves 'government' do with this? How will it affect me and my loved-ones?" That is, if the FBI (or another federal terrorist group) wasn't behind it like they have been behind so many "foiled terror plots" in the past few years. "Plots" that would have never gone anywhere without them pushing, prodding, and providing manpower, ideas, and materials.
I am under much more danger from the government extremists than from any other kind of "terrorist". And I know it, and if you are paying attention, you know it is true for yourself, too.
Added: I've seen speculation that this will be used as justification for "laws" allowing the TSA or someone to grope people in the streets.
*I know someone who was running, and he wasn't physically hurt. I am glad of that.
Well, I don't really have much to say about it. My outrage has apparently been used up by one dramatic act of violence after another.
Now my only thought when anything of this sort happens (and after I am fairly sure no one I personally know* was harmed) is "what will the goons who call themselves 'government' do with this? How will it affect me and my loved-ones?" That is, if the FBI (or another federal terrorist group) wasn't behind it like they have been behind so many "foiled terror plots" in the past few years. "Plots" that would have never gone anywhere without them pushing, prodding, and providing manpower, ideas, and materials.
I am under much more danger from the government extremists than from any other kind of "terrorist". And I know it, and if you are paying attention, you know it is true for yourself, too.
Added: I've seen speculation that this will be used as justification for "laws" allowing the TSA or someone to grope people in the streets.
*I know someone who was running, and he wasn't physically hurt. I am glad of that.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
"Guns- The human right to own and carry them" video
My latest "Basics of Liberty" video:
Labels:
Constitution,
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
government,
guns,
liberty,
NRA,
Property Rights,
responsibility,
Rights,
society,
video
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Do you live near a Registered Liberty Offender?
I know there have been various attempts to shame liberty offenders of various stripes by putting their info online. I also know the hazards that go with putting any information about dangerous State gang members online- they claim they are being threatened (by having the truth disseminated) and use their coercive enforcement thugs to turn the threat around. In other words, to object to the accusation, they prove the accusation.
Still, it would be fun to find a way to set up a Liberty Offender Registry, where all the pertinent information could be posted. Style it after the State's own sex offender registries. Only, for this registry, list the specific offenses the registered offenders are known to have committed, rather than leave people guessing. It would be easy since the worst offenses are committed openly, often with reporters recording the event.
Will Grigg's blog would be an excellent resource to find badged thugs who need to be registered. But, really, you could just put every cop you run across onto the registry. As well as the vast majority of judges. And District Attorneys. And presidents, congresscritters, and DMV employees. And "mainstream media" government extremists. Anyone who is known to molest people in the pursuit of destroying their individual liberty.
It would be vitally important to list all the local Offenders, so you would know who lives near you, in order to protect yourself and your children from them, but don't forget the gang leaders and enforcers who have nationwide influence. For Registered Liberty Offenders #1 and #2, I nominate Joe Arpaio and Barack Obama (AKA "Barry Soetoro"), not necessarily in that order.
To be protected from being molested by those who act as "The State", you need to know who these registered liberty offenders are.
Think they'd squeal like a stuck pig? Think I care?
.
Still, it would be fun to find a way to set up a Liberty Offender Registry, where all the pertinent information could be posted. Style it after the State's own sex offender registries. Only, for this registry, list the specific offenses the registered offenders are known to have committed, rather than leave people guessing. It would be easy since the worst offenses are committed openly, often with reporters recording the event.
Will Grigg's blog would be an excellent resource to find badged thugs who need to be registered. But, really, you could just put every cop you run across onto the registry. As well as the vast majority of judges. And District Attorneys. And presidents, congresscritters, and DMV employees. And "mainstream media" government extremists. Anyone who is known to molest people in the pursuit of destroying their individual liberty.
It would be vitally important to list all the local Offenders, so you would know who lives near you, in order to protect yourself and your children from them, but don't forget the gang leaders and enforcers who have nationwide influence. For Registered Liberty Offenders #1 and #2, I nominate Joe Arpaio and Barack Obama (AKA "Barry Soetoro"), not necessarily in that order.
To be protected from being molested by those who act as "The State", you need to know who these registered liberty offenders are.
Think they'd squeal like a stuck pig? Think I care?
.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Anti-gun "laws" may be sealing fates
No, don't answer. But, as the anti-gun "laws" get more insane, will you comply?
If the penalty for owning a semi-auto "normal" gun approaches that for owning a fully automatic weapon of war (you know, the kind the Second Amendment is actually referring to- complete with the safety attachment called a suppressor) why settle for the lesser weapon?
If everything you want to do with your gun is "illegal", will you bury it, or will you push back?
If you know you are going to be targeted, or maybe even droned, for what you own or what you say, why just sit and wait for it to happen? Why not "make a splash"?
The buffoons who sit around throwing their law tantrums must believe, contrary to reality, that they are immune to the law. All the laws, actually. The law of unintended consequences, Natural Law, and even the counterfeit "laws" they pass in their tantrums. Because they have hired goons with fully-functional weapons surrounding them most of the time, they are not concerned about you or me. "Crime" doesn't usually touch them. That's for the "little people" to worry about.
But I don't worry.
They are the bad guys. I know it, and the people who matter know it. Some of their hired goons even know it. The real Laws won't be thwarted. Nature won't be cheated. It doesn't even matter what you or I do, in the long run. The Universe will balance out. The general trend has been towards more liberty.
These anti-liberty bigots are on the losing side of history and they are fighting against the coming darkness that they hope will not engulf them. So they target gun owners and other people who understand Liberty. We are not their real enemy. They have already lost. Their nerve signals are still sluggishly transmitting the news of their death to their reptilian brains. They will be so surprised in that moment when they suddenly get the news. And I hope I'm still around to enjoy their pain, and to relieve myself in their dying faces. No pity- not anymore.
.
If the penalty for owning a semi-auto "normal" gun approaches that for owning a fully automatic weapon of war (you know, the kind the Second Amendment is actually referring to- complete with the safety attachment called a suppressor) why settle for the lesser weapon?
If everything you want to do with your gun is "illegal", will you bury it, or will you push back?
If you know you are going to be targeted, or maybe even droned, for what you own or what you say, why just sit and wait for it to happen? Why not "make a splash"?
The buffoons who sit around throwing their law tantrums must believe, contrary to reality, that they are immune to the law. All the laws, actually. The law of unintended consequences, Natural Law, and even the counterfeit "laws" they pass in their tantrums. Because they have hired goons with fully-functional weapons surrounding them most of the time, they are not concerned about you or me. "Crime" doesn't usually touch them. That's for the "little people" to worry about.
But I don't worry.
They are the bad guys. I know it, and the people who matter know it. Some of their hired goons even know it. The real Laws won't be thwarted. Nature won't be cheated. It doesn't even matter what you or I do, in the long run. The Universe will balance out. The general trend has been towards more liberty.
These anti-liberty bigots are on the losing side of history and they are fighting against the coming darkness that they hope will not engulf them. So they target gun owners and other people who understand Liberty. We are not their real enemy. They have already lost. Their nerve signals are still sluggishly transmitting the news of their death to their reptilian brains. They will be so surprised in that moment when they suddenly get the news. And I hope I'm still around to enjoy their pain, and to relieve myself in their dying faces. No pity- not anymore.
.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Bitcoin- a fun ride
Bitcoin. Seems like lots of people are talking about it recently. Some extolling its virtues, and others screaming "Scam!".
I finally started accepting Bitcoin a while back- at a good time, it would appear.
Now, I am still not convinced that Bitcoin is as wonderful as some seem to think. I may be wrong, and that would delight me.
My suspicions center on a couple of things:
Bitcoins are not based on anything tangible. You can't hold a Bitcoin and turn it over in your hands. This may not bother people accustomed to digital FRNs in their bank account, but it does bother me a little. Anything digital can vanish without a trace- without you even doing anything negligent to lose it. Maybe the digital world will keep getting more robust so that this will become a complete non-issue. Other than government records, I would like to see information become impossible to accidentally lose.
The second part of my suspicion is less justifiable- I don't completely understand them. Yeah, I have read volumes of stuff and watched numerous videos, but my ignorance must go deeper than mere information can fix. Perhaps it's because I am more of a "stone knives and bearskins" sort of person, and not a computer geek.
Still, I don't like keeping all my eggs- or money- in one basket. So I will keep dabbling in, and accepting, Bitcoin to see where this ends up. It's good entertainment anyway.
.
I finally started accepting Bitcoin a while back- at a good time, it would appear.
Now, I am still not convinced that Bitcoin is as wonderful as some seem to think. I may be wrong, and that would delight me.
My suspicions center on a couple of things:
Bitcoins are not based on anything tangible. You can't hold a Bitcoin and turn it over in your hands. This may not bother people accustomed to digital FRNs in their bank account, but it does bother me a little. Anything digital can vanish without a trace- without you even doing anything negligent to lose it. Maybe the digital world will keep getting more robust so that this will become a complete non-issue. Other than government records, I would like to see information become impossible to accidentally lose.
The second part of my suspicion is less justifiable- I don't completely understand them. Yeah, I have read volumes of stuff and watched numerous videos, but my ignorance must go deeper than mere information can fix. Perhaps it's because I am more of a "stone knives and bearskins" sort of person, and not a computer geek.
Still, I don't like keeping all my eggs- or money- in one basket. So I will keep dabbling in, and accepting, Bitcoin to see where this ends up. It's good entertainment anyway.
.
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
Biggest pest: Government-owned property
Biggest pest: Government-owned property
(My Clovis News Journal column for the week.)
Clovis' Park Land Prairie Dog Poison Pellet Program shows some of the flaws with "public" property, and with the sad state of property rights in general.
Some people, me included, really appreciate prairie dogs for their historical significance to the region, and for their vital niche in the ecosystem. Wildlife of any sort is a valuable addition to the area.
Others want them eradicated. Nearby landowners are claiming damage from prairie dogs that wander- or emigrate- from Ned Houk Park onto their property. They want the city government, which claims the park, to pay for killing all the prairie dogs in the park so that no more will wander where they are not wanted. Sadly, no government ever truly pays for anything- that falls to all those who are "taxed", whether they consent to that use of their money or not.
I understand the economic damage that prairie dogs and other wildlife can cause to property owners, and I would never demand anyone "put up with it" on their own property. But don't expect others to bear the burden that is yours.
If all property were privately owned, and private property rights were actually respected, this entire situation would be less of a problem. Land owners who want prairie dogs could have them. Those who want to kill any on their property could do so, however they saw fit, as long as they didn't violate their neighbor's property rights. They could shoot them, poison them, or send tunnel-roaming killbots after them. As long as their bullets, poison, or killbots didn't affect anyone else's property no one would have any say in the matter.
Deals could be worked out between land owners for who is responsible for keeping prairie dogs where they are welcome, and away from where they are not. Any damage migrants cause to a neighbor's property could be dealt with through agreement, arbitration, or insurance.
There would be no issue of forcing people to pay to kill a species they like, nor any issue of forcing people to host animals they consider to be pests.
With "public" property you always have a conflict in how that property is used and administered. You always end up with people being forced to pay for things that disgust them. When there is no individual owner who is responsible, the buck gets passed and suboptimal decisions get made and forced upon everyone. Someone always ends up very unhappy.
This is the way it always works any time socialism is embraced. "Public" property is a cornerstone, if not the foundation, of socialism.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for the week.)
Clovis' Park Land Prairie Dog Poison Pellet Program shows some of the flaws with "public" property, and with the sad state of property rights in general.
Some people, me included, really appreciate prairie dogs for their historical significance to the region, and for their vital niche in the ecosystem. Wildlife of any sort is a valuable addition to the area.
Others want them eradicated. Nearby landowners are claiming damage from prairie dogs that wander- or emigrate- from Ned Houk Park onto their property. They want the city government, which claims the park, to pay for killing all the prairie dogs in the park so that no more will wander where they are not wanted. Sadly, no government ever truly pays for anything- that falls to all those who are "taxed", whether they consent to that use of their money or not.
I understand the economic damage that prairie dogs and other wildlife can cause to property owners, and I would never demand anyone "put up with it" on their own property. But don't expect others to bear the burden that is yours.
If all property were privately owned, and private property rights were actually respected, this entire situation would be less of a problem. Land owners who want prairie dogs could have them. Those who want to kill any on their property could do so, however they saw fit, as long as they didn't violate their neighbor's property rights. They could shoot them, poison them, or send tunnel-roaming killbots after them. As long as their bullets, poison, or killbots didn't affect anyone else's property no one would have any say in the matter.
Deals could be worked out between land owners for who is responsible for keeping prairie dogs where they are welcome, and away from where they are not. Any damage migrants cause to a neighbor's property could be dealt with through agreement, arbitration, or insurance.
There would be no issue of forcing people to pay to kill a species they like, nor any issue of forcing people to host animals they consider to be pests.
With "public" property you always have a conflict in how that property is used and administered. You always end up with people being forced to pay for things that disgust them. When there is no individual owner who is responsible, the buck gets passed and suboptimal decisions get made and forced upon everyone. Someone always ends up very unhappy.
This is the way it always works any time socialism is embraced. "Public" property is a cornerstone, if not the foundation, of socialism.
.
Freedom vs Liberty
Freedom is sex; Liberty is consensual sex.
Freedom is violence; Liberty is defensive violence.
Freedom is making a profit; Liberty is making a profit honestly.
OK. What others can you think of?
.
Freedom is violence; Liberty is defensive violence.
Freedom is making a profit; Liberty is making a profit honestly.
OK. What others can you think of?
.
Monday, April 08, 2013
No "good cops"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There are NO good cops.
This offends a lot of people, especially those who have family members who are in "law enforcement", and those who love a cop who claims to be a "peace officer". But, the truth is still that there are no good cops.
If there is even one, show me.
But then consider: Has this person ever enforced a single counterfeit "law"? Any anti-drug "law", anti-gun "law", "tax law", speed limit, seat belt enforcement, property "code", asset forfeiture, etc.? If so, the person isn't a "good cop"- certainly not a good person while acting as a cop.
Some cops may be less evil than others; I certainly hope so. But "less evil" falls very short of "good".
Don't use the excuse that "the people" wanted the "laws" the cop is enforcing. Majority rule is just as illegitimate as dictator rule. If 100 billion people "decide" to violate the rights of one individual, it is still wrong. Enforcing a "law" based upon that violation is wrong. If you have no choice, then you can't be good and do your job.
Cops don't enforce every "law" on the books, anyway (as some claim); it is utterly impossible. They will always use their discretion to decide which "laws" to enforce and which to ignore when they see them being broken. And they almost always ignore broken laws when it's other cops they see doing the lawbreaking.
And don't give me that BS about having taken an oath to enforce the "laws". "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." Any "law" that violates the Constitution has been declared by the Supreme Court to not be a law. (Even if they now weasel-word their way into claiming that anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" and health care "laws" and compulsory schooling "laws" don't violate the Constitution. Ha!) If a cop took an oath to the Constitution, and then ever enforced a "law" that violates the clear language of the Constitution as written, then that cop violated his oath. But that's small potatoes.
If you, as a cop, ever enforced any "law" that violated anyone else's Natural Rights, then YOU were the thug and the bad guy. Don't try to pass the blame and say you were "only doing your job". It didn't work at Nuremberg and it won't work at Nuremberg II.
You have a brain- use it.
I still say show me ONE cop who doesn't initiate force or theft as a part of being a cop- regardless of what the majority tells him to do- and I will accept that he is a good cop. On an individual by individual basis. I have never, ever been shown even one... and I have been asking for years for just one example.
If you can honestly say the person you are claiming to be a good cop has never once enforced a single counterfeit "law", then you still have to answer what they did about all their "brothers in blue" they knew who were enforcing those "laws". Because if they didn't stop them- using everything up to and including deadly force- then they are not a "good cop". They allowed bad cops to commit evil acts and get away with it.
A "good cop" wouldn't survive with his job for even one day.
Thus, there are no "good cops". (There are, however, "nice cops".)
But there are good ex-cops. I know because I have met a few. And they generally despise cops, and admit that the things they did while a cop were wrong. Not everything, but enough things to make their cop past a shameful thing. There is no honor in being a cop.
.
This offends a lot of people, especially those who have family members who are in "law enforcement", and those who love a cop who claims to be a "peace officer". But, the truth is still that there are no good cops.
If there is even one, show me.
But then consider: Has this person ever enforced a single counterfeit "law"? Any anti-drug "law", anti-gun "law", "tax law", speed limit, seat belt enforcement, property "code", asset forfeiture, etc.? If so, the person isn't a "good cop"- certainly not a good person while acting as a cop.
Some cops may be less evil than others; I certainly hope so. But "less evil" falls very short of "good".
Don't use the excuse that "the people" wanted the "laws" the cop is enforcing. Majority rule is just as illegitimate as dictator rule. If 100 billion people "decide" to violate the rights of one individual, it is still wrong. Enforcing a "law" based upon that violation is wrong. If you have no choice, then you can't be good and do your job.
Cops don't enforce every "law" on the books, anyway (as some claim); it is utterly impossible. They will always use their discretion to decide which "laws" to enforce and which to ignore when they see them being broken. And they almost always ignore broken laws when it's other cops they see doing the lawbreaking.
And don't give me that BS about having taken an oath to enforce the "laws". "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." Any "law" that violates the Constitution has been declared by the Supreme Court to not be a law. (Even if they now weasel-word their way into claiming that anti-gun "laws" and anti-drug "laws" and health care "laws" and compulsory schooling "laws" don't violate the Constitution. Ha!) If a cop took an oath to the Constitution, and then ever enforced a "law" that violates the clear language of the Constitution as written, then that cop violated his oath. But that's small potatoes.
If you, as a cop, ever enforced any "law" that violated anyone else's Natural Rights, then YOU were the thug and the bad guy. Don't try to pass the blame and say you were "only doing your job". It didn't work at Nuremberg and it won't work at Nuremberg II.
You have a brain- use it.
I still say show me ONE cop who doesn't initiate force or theft as a part of being a cop- regardless of what the majority tells him to do- and I will accept that he is a good cop. On an individual by individual basis. I have never, ever been shown even one... and I have been asking for years for just one example.
If you can honestly say the person you are claiming to be a good cop has never once enforced a single counterfeit "law", then you still have to answer what they did about all their "brothers in blue" they knew who were enforcing those "laws". Because if they didn't stop them- using everything up to and including deadly force- then they are not a "good cop". They allowed bad cops to commit evil acts and get away with it.
A "good cop" wouldn't survive with his job for even one day.
Thus, there are no "good cops". (There are, however, "nice cops".)
But there are good ex-cops. I know because I have met a few. And they generally despise cops, and admit that the things they did while a cop were wrong. Not everything, but enough things to make their cop past a shameful thing. There is no honor in being a cop.
.
Labels:
cops,
Counterfeit Laws,
Crime,
drugs,
guns,
liberty,
murder by cop,
Property Rights,
responsibility,
Rights,
society,
taxation,
tyranny deniers
Sunday, April 07, 2013
"We need to talk..."
What is this "citizenship" thing I have heard so much about? If you want to sell me on the idea, and get me to join up and be a "citizen", you'll have to do a better job of convincing me that it's in my best interest. So far I have seen no evidence of that.
No, I didn't consent when I was born, nor did I "implicitly consent" [sic] because I failed to move away from my friends, family, and home at some later time. Don't keep feeding your delusions about our imaginary "relationship".
These "services" you pretend to provide in exchange aren't good enough. In fact, most of them are downright unwanted and disgusting. Keep 'em. And don't expect me to pay for crap I don't want. Understand? Yeah, I didn't think so. ("idiot!")
For a relationship of this type to work, I realize there are obligations on both sides. I'm sure you have quite a list; mine is simple, but non-negotiable.
First off, before we get into what you expect of me, let me tell you my conditions- your obligations, if this is to be considered.
First- Don't interfere with my Natural Rights or my defense of them.
That means don't steal from me, don't attack me, and don't whine when I defend myself from those who do. And NEVER get in the way when I need to protect my life, liberty, or property- from anyone, including your hired thugs.
Second- Don't ever do any of those things to other people, claiming it is on my behalf. It's not. I don't consent.
Until you can abide by those conditions, we have no "relationship"- you are just a bully barging in where you are not welcome. Go away.
... Wait... There was no one here. I was talking to myself all along. The State is an imaginary mental construct without any basis in reality whatsoever. Whew! That was close!
.
No, I didn't consent when I was born, nor did I "implicitly consent" [sic] because I failed to move away from my friends, family, and home at some later time. Don't keep feeding your delusions about our imaginary "relationship".
These "services" you pretend to provide in exchange aren't good enough. In fact, most of them are downright unwanted and disgusting. Keep 'em. And don't expect me to pay for crap I don't want. Understand? Yeah, I didn't think so. ("idiot!")
For a relationship of this type to work, I realize there are obligations on both sides. I'm sure you have quite a list; mine is simple, but non-negotiable.
First off, before we get into what you expect of me, let me tell you my conditions- your obligations, if this is to be considered.
First- Don't interfere with my Natural Rights or my defense of them.
That means don't steal from me, don't attack me, and don't whine when I defend myself from those who do. And NEVER get in the way when I need to protect my life, liberty, or property- from anyone, including your hired thugs.
Second- Don't ever do any of those things to other people, claiming it is on my behalf. It's not. I don't consent.
Until you can abide by those conditions, we have no "relationship"- you are just a bully barging in where you are not welcome. Go away.
... Wait... There was no one here. I was talking to myself all along. The State is an imaginary mental construct without any basis in reality whatsoever. Whew! That was close!
.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
"Net Assets"- Carl hit the bull's-eye!
I just finished reading Carl Bussjaeger's book "Net Assets" and I can't say enough good things about it. I'm sorry it took me this long to get around to reading it.
I found myself smiling on each page- it just made me feel that good.
It's non-science fictiony science fiction. It's a feel good liberty-beats-tyranny tale. It's just a really good book. The only thing that would have made it better would be if the spontaneous militia gathering he describes in the book had included a few Time's Up flags among the Gadsdens. But he wrote the book before I created the flag, so that can be forgiven.
So, go download the PDF and give Carl a few bucks or some metal as a "thank you" to him for putting forth the effort to write the book. You'll want to reward him after you read it, so just go ahead and do it now before you forget.
I just downloaded the sequel.
.
I found myself smiling on each page- it just made me feel that good.
It's non-science fictiony science fiction. It's a feel good liberty-beats-tyranny tale. It's just a really good book. The only thing that would have made it better would be if the spontaneous militia gathering he describes in the book had included a few Time's Up flags among the Gadsdens. But he wrote the book before I created the flag, so that can be forgiven.
So, go download the PDF and give Carl a few bucks or some metal as a "thank you" to him for putting forth the effort to write the book. You'll want to reward him after you read it, so just go ahead and do it now before you forget.
I just downloaded the sequel.
.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Liberty Lines 4-4-2013
(Written for an audience that still gives lip-service to the Constitution and "government": State Line Tribune, Farwell TX.)
I love liberty. Mine, yours, and the other guy's. This gets twisted around and misinterpreted. Some mistake liberty for "complete freedom from responsibility and consequences" and suggest it indicates "a lack of discipline and maturity".
How completely backwards they have it.
Freedom is only a component of liberty; not the whole story. Freedom is doing whatever you want to do. That can be good, bad, or neutral. Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate any other person's equal and identical liberty.
Thomas Jefferson phrased it like this: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” In other words, you have no liberty to attack or steal, even if you have the freedom to do so and get away with it, because doing so violates someone else's equal rights. You have either violated their person or their property. Everything else is within your liberty to do, whether listed specifically in the Bill of Rights or not, even if some are offended by your actions- it's just none of their business.
Respecting liberty is the mature and responsible way to live among other people. It is much more ethical and moral than relying on hired hands to enforce silly rules- rules which invariably violate Jeffersonian "rightful liberty"- against your neighbors.
When you ask others to violate the liberty of another person you are asking those you send on your behalf to accept all the responsibility and consequences for the wrong things you send them to do. By doing so you are showing a definite lack of discipline and maturity. But the responsibility is still yours, whether you accept it or not.
I, like Jefferson, prefer the "inconveniences" of "too much" liberty to those of too little. You have chosen your side whether you know it or not. Where do you stand?
.
Wednesday, April 03, 2013
"Good" is in almost everyone
You don't have to be a libertarian to be good. There are good liberals and good conservatives out there- I have met some of both.
The trick is that they are only good when they are acting in accordance with libertarian principles- whether or not those align with the rest of their beliefs.
Everyone follows a lot of libertarian behavior in their daily life- otherwise we'd all be dead. Both "progressives" and "conservatives" embrace plenty of libertarian ideals even though they'd probably rather ignore that fact. But those ideals are the times when they are being the best they can be.
As long as you are not attacking, stealing, defrauding, or trespassing on privately owned property you are acting as a libertarian, no matter what you might call yourself.
The flipside is that libertarians are also only good as long as they are behaving in a libertarian manner. None of us is perfect.
I have learned to be very skeptical when a celebrity (or anyone) claims to be "libertarian". Actions speak louder than words, and most people haven't got the slightest hint of a clue what it means to live by libertarian principles. However, I am willing to give anyone a chance until they show me they don't deserve one.
Personal note:
I had an interesting April Fool's Day. I was super busy, and mostly stayed away from the computer, which saved me from being exposed to a lot of the mean-spirited "jokes" I see online every year. But the universe wouldn't let me get out of it that easy. My dad invited me to run some errands with him. And we got stuck in a car wash when it broke down. Stuck for around 20 minutes. Several other "funny" things happened which included me taking a nice, painful gouge out of the tip of my thumb with a piece of PVC pipe I was trying to repair for my parents' sprinkler system. And then I got a tetanus shot. Typing is more difficult than usual right now, but be glad I don't text these blogs, since the injury to my thumb has made texting incredibly difficult.
.
The trick is that they are only good when they are acting in accordance with libertarian principles- whether or not those align with the rest of their beliefs.
Everyone follows a lot of libertarian behavior in their daily life- otherwise we'd all be dead. Both "progressives" and "conservatives" embrace plenty of libertarian ideals even though they'd probably rather ignore that fact. But those ideals are the times when they are being the best they can be.
As long as you are not attacking, stealing, defrauding, or trespassing on privately owned property you are acting as a libertarian, no matter what you might call yourself.
The flipside is that libertarians are also only good as long as they are behaving in a libertarian manner. None of us is perfect.
I have learned to be very skeptical when a celebrity (or anyone) claims to be "libertarian". Actions speak louder than words, and most people haven't got the slightest hint of a clue what it means to live by libertarian principles. However, I am willing to give anyone a chance until they show me they don't deserve one.
-
Personal note:
I had an interesting April Fool's Day. I was super busy, and mostly stayed away from the computer, which saved me from being exposed to a lot of the mean-spirited "jokes" I see online every year. But the universe wouldn't let me get out of it that easy. My dad invited me to run some errands with him. And we got stuck in a car wash when it broke down. Stuck for around 20 minutes. Several other "funny" things happened which included me taking a nice, painful gouge out of the tip of my thumb with a piece of PVC pipe I was trying to repair for my parents' sprinkler system. And then I got a tetanus shot. Typing is more difficult than usual right now, but be glad I don't text these blogs, since the injury to my thumb has made texting incredibly difficult.
.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
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.
.
(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?
.
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?
.
Labels:
advice,
Counterfeit Laws,
drugs,
Law Pollution,
liberty,
responsibility,
Rights,
society
Monday, April 01, 2013
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


