Watching inside your house with infrared and reading your emails

A while back, on Claire Wolfe's blog, the discussion was about privacy.  I agreed with those who said that, while irritating, I (and my property) had no right to not be looked at or photographed while outdoors, or in public.

I added: "Now, if they use infrared (or anything else) to see inside my house, that’s another issue. It’s the difference between what I have in the open and clearly visible, and what I have concealed on my property." (link to full comment)
Then, Thomas Knapp said: "I have to disagree with Kent on infra-red. My ability to generate heat does not in any way create an obligation on the part of others not to look at the heat I generate."

I realized where he was coming from and decided I had been wrong initially.

But... I keep thinking about something else connected to this and it keeps nagging me... and I hope Thomas Knapp weighs in on this again.

What's the difference between being watched inside your home with an infrared camera, and having your emails, phone calls, and internet usage watched and analyzed?  It seems to me to be different manifestations of the same kind of behavior.  If it's OK to watch people inside their homes with infrared, then wouldn't it be OK to read their emails and other "private" communications?  And if it is wrong to read your neighbors' private emails, wouldn't it also be wrong to watch them inside their homes?

There seems to be a connection there.  If I am wrong about that, I would like to know why.

.

Malcolm Reynolds, whistle-blower

Captain Malcolm Reynolds, in the movie "Serenity", is Edward Snowden. He is Chelsea/Bradley Manning.

Consider this quote from Mal, which sets the stage for the epic battle the movie centers around:

"I know the secret. The truth that burned up River Tam's brain. The rest of the 'verse is gonna know it too. Cuz they need to."

That's the same thing all the Edward Snowdens and Chelsea/Bradley Mannings have said about the incriminating evidence they uncovered.  And, just like Mal, they are on the right side.

.

Liberty Lines 9-12-2013

(Published in The State Line Tribune, Farwell TX/Texico NM)

Until people stop looking for answers in all the wrong places, they will continue to be led astray.  Or worse.

I saw a news story out of Albuquerque that mentioned that "several organizations are asking how the (mayoral) candidates plan to keep people safe".

Sorry, but no mayor can "keep people safe".  Nor can their employees or co-workers.  That is YOUR job.

In a similar vein, some people beg politicians to show "leadership" on one issue or another.

Looking to politicians for leadership is like fishing for bluefin tuna in your kid's wading pool.  You're going to either come up empty, or someone is pulling a fast one on you.  Leadership from politicians?  You might as well beg a newborn to rebuild your transmission.

Any leadership you imagine you see from politicians will lead to the wrong place.  And why would you want to follow them anywhere?  This group of people is notoriously incapable of running their own personal lives.  Why would you want them "helping" you with yours?

Don't look for politicians to "help" the middle class, or families, or taxpayers, or anyone else.  They are not capable of doing anything to help anyone but themselves.  Even if they give the appearance of helping you, it is an illusion that will end up doing more harm in the long run.

The only positive effect any politician or bureaucrat can have is by getting out of the way.  But that isn't rewarded with votes; it looks too much like "doing nothing".  In truth, "nothing" is the best thing they can do.

Don't waste your precious life waiting for help to come from someone else.  Life is built from the bottom up, not handed down to you from Washington DC or Austin.

That doesn't mean it's completely pointless to pay attention to what the Keystone Kongress or the current president are doing.  If you like Three Stooges movies you may get a laugh from watching the elected buffoons, too.  Everyone needs a hobby.  Just don't take them too seriously, and never look to them to provide leadership of any sort.  That's a futile, and counterproductive, wish.

.

9/11: "Liberty's Memorial"

On this date in 2001, liberty died.  Killed not by "terrorists" or a false flag event, but by the reactions of normal people like you and me.  People who allowed a gang of thugs, calling themselves "government", to destroy the concept of liberty and replace it with some sort of carefully rationed privilege- all because of a very public tragedy.

A privilege that exists only at the whim of those thugs, and is subservient to their wishes.

I came across an older newspaper the other day, from Memorial Day, and one of the ads in it spoke of "Freedom's Memorial".  They were talking about a memorial to dead soldiers, but they spoke more truth than they know.  You only memorialize something dead.  And, government-employed soldiers, whatever their intentions might be, have always helped kill freedom.

So, if a carved monument to dead soldiers is "Freedom's Memorial", September 11, 2001 is Liberty's Memorial.

I remain saddened by the events of that morning, but not for the reasons most people seem to be.  I am saddened because the "event" is ongoing, and accelerating.  It stacks up more victims every day, and will continue to do so until each and every one of us says "Enough!" and means it and backs it up with decisive action.  Unfortunately, I am not sure what that action should be.  But I know it would be "illegal".  The bad guys can't have liberty defeat their schemes.

.

Read beyond your comfort zone

Read beyond your comfort zone

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 9, 2013.)

Just about anytime you bring up the subject of libertarian books and authors, someone will mention Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". That's OK, and I do enjoy the book- even the infamous monologue- while pointing out that it is not specifically libertarian. I will admit it has inspired a lot of people to shift their world-view in a more libertarian direction, though.

Most people seem to think "Atlas Shrugged" is too preachy, and many like to focus on Rand's personal shortcomings rather than stay focused on the book. For those people, and the rest of us, it's a good thing there are so many other libertarian books that are a lot more fun to read.

If fiction is your preference, you might like "Hope" by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, which looks at what might happen if a real libertarian ever found himself elected president. It's a fun story!

If you are a younger reader you might enjoy "Out of the Gray Zone" by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman which follows the adventures of a young escapee from a totalitarian society.

Many books by science fiction authors H. Beam Piper and Robert A. Heinlein have a strong libertarian streak. In fact, most science fiction either tends to be either highly collectivist in nature or very libertarian. Perhaps because science fiction explores the extremes.

Lying between fiction and non-fiction is "A Vision of Liberty" by Jim Davies. Mr. Davies lays out his vision of a free society looking back at the end of government.

For non-fiction readers there are also plenty of options.

In "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne, this liberty activist and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate describes his personal experiences living a free life while surrounded by people who don't appreciate freedom.

If Browne's ideas inspire you, you might like "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook" by Claire Wolfe. In it you'll find 179 things you can do to protect and increase your individual liberty now, and have fun, while confounding those who would prefer to see you enslaved to one degree or another.

Of course you shouldn't limit your reading to only things that you agree with. See what the other side has to say. It is fun to read random fiction and, for example, see where the characters went wrong and how they could have avoided problems by not initiating force. Or think of ways you could have solved their Big Problem without violating the rights of any of the other characters. As always, worthwhile reading exercises the mind.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Toss away the training wheels!

A couple of nights ago I was trying to help my daughter learn how to ride a bike without training wheels.  It's a difficult thing to explain to another person- it's mostly instinctive when you've been doing it for decades.

I tried to tell her how to turn the wheel, and to keep her speed up, but in the end it's just a matter of doing it.

As a way to help her gain confidence, I first took off the training wheels (at her request) and then told her to just have fun coasting back and forth on the sidewalk.  My thought was that in coasting she might get the feel for balancing.  And, I think that helped.  I saw her coast better and better.  So, as I mentioned yesterday, we went to a parking lot a block from the house for a bigger practice arena.  On our way down the street, she was sitting and coasting and I got a little tired of the slow walk, so I asked if I could push her to go faster.  She said "OK, but don't let go!"

I told her I wouldn't let go until she asked me to.

So, as we turned into the parking lot she said I could let go.  I did, and she actually rode for about 20 feet.  She was very thrilled and wanted to do that again.  So I did, and that time she rode about twice as far.  And the next time she almost went into a fence... but the very next time she took off and rode completely across the whole parking lot.  In minutes she was riding around all over the lot and smiling from ear to ear.

She has the riding down, and is now working on starting without me pushing, and on braking.

It reminds me of trying to help people enjoy liberty.  To those of us who
just do it" it's instinctive- but until a person just does it, how do you explain it to them?

It seems scary.  They are sure they will fall and get hurt.  They are used to the training wheels- which actually make them less safe, but give false confidence.  You can give them a little push, but if you break their trust they'll blame liberty for your betrayal.  In the end, they just have to do it for themselves to see how easy and exhilarating it is.  You can't do it for anyone else- the best you can do is to show them by example that it is possible (and fun!).

Cheer them on and we can all ride together into a better tomorrow.

.

Excitement in the neighborhood

Ah, the "joys" of living in town.

We have some fairly new neighbors.  When they moved in I went over and introduced myself, and immediately sensed "something wrong" with the husband.  I was neighborly and loaned him a shovel, and asked if their kids could play with my daughter, and things went OK.  Mostly.  But there was still something wrong with the guy.

The weeks have gone by and my opinions of him have continued to plummet.  He is frequently sitting on his porch drinking beer and screaming and cussing at his kids.  He seems to be the typical "Low IQ- no impulse control" sort of person who causes so many problems.  For weeks now I have not allowed my daughter to go play in their yard if the dad is home, and she is to leave immediately if he comes home.  And I stay outside to keep an eye on things while she is there.

Unfortunately, his young son is on track to be a clone of the dad, and frequently hits and tackles my daughter, even though he is a lot younger than she is.  His older sister seems fairly normal, considering, and my daughter likes to play with her, but they really aren't allowed to play without the aggressive boy.

Tonight (September 8, 2013), my daughter and I were down the block on a parking lot and she was learning (successfully!) to ride her bike.  The "problem neighbor's" house was between us and home.  I heard some metal banging and tried to see the source, but could see nothing.  Then I heard a woman yelling the guy's name.  I hear a lot of yelling coming from that house every day, so I took it in stride.

Soon my daughter's mom came to the parking lot and told us avoid going past that house when returning home.  She told me of the domestic fight- the husband was yelling, punching the house, the grill, the street sign pole, kicking stuff around the yard, and making animalistic grunts of anger- and that the woman was yelling for someone to call the cops (Hubby Dearest had apparently thrown her phone across the street), and was afraid I would get involved if I saw the guy hit his wife (which didn't happen as far as I know).

Now, when I am out with my daughter, SHE is my first priority.  I am not going to do anything to endanger her- even if it means not stopping a murder.  Sorry, but that's just the way it is.  But, if I could have dropped her off at home first...

Anyway, we started home, going the long way around the block.  When we were still a block away, the cop cars showed up.

I don't approve of the existence of cops, and really think the violent dumb guy should be allowed to face undiluted consequences for his behavior- some people just need to be shot in the act if they initiate force.  As it turned out, no one was hauled off, the cops eventually left, and everyone went back inside.  I'm betting that's not the end of it.  I just hope when he tries to kill the family, they manage to put him down first.  And I'll be watching just as closely as I have been- maybe a bit closer.

And my daughter isn't going to be playing in their yard anymore.

Added: at 11:45PM, after lots more screaming, the cops showed up again and were there for 20 minutes or so.

.

Chocolate, the kitten

A while back I mentioned that I had taken in a new orphan.  Well, she has now made her Facebook debut.

Meet Chocolate- the (Formerly) Orphaned Kitten.  You can get her story by going to her Facebook page.  Or by asking questions in the comments below if you (understandably) avoid self-incrimination sites like Facebook.

This is one of the few times I will publicly talk about one of my orphans.  The goons of The State have a bad habit of killing the "wild orphans" and punishing their rescuers, so I won't endanger them by exposing them (or me) to the notice of the "authorities".  Fortunately I haven't yet heard of rescuers of domesticated animals getting brutalized for the crime of saving kittens or puppies.  Give 'em time...

I have discovered that even before I made this kitten public, she had damaged my reputation locally, with the few people who knew about the situation.  I wasn't aware I had a reputation, or that it could be damaged by showing my soft side, but life is what it is.

.

It's about choice and liberty

If "government" took over all food distribution and decided we all would be supplied (at "taxpayer expense") with a monthly ration of a perfectly adequate food pellet, would you hate me if I wanted to opt out?  Would you throw a fit, asking if I want "the liberty to starve to death"?

You could rant and rave that by rejecting my rations I obviously don't want to eat.

Just like statists do when I say I don't want government's schools, police, fire departments, roads, libraries, or whatever.

And, you'd be wrong.

The government food pellets may have all the vitamins, minerals, supplements, and fiber I need, and they may even be delicious, but that's not good enough for me.  I prefer to use my money, in my own way, to purchase what I would prefer to eat.  Even if it isn't as good for me.

Well, the same goes for all the things your government now "provides" with stolen money.  I would rather keep my money (and leave your money in your pockets, as well) and make my own food decisions and mistakes.  And I don't wish to pay twice- once for the government "service" I don't want, and once for the food I do want.

But for statists, such an assertion is like a declaration of war against all they hold dear.

.

2800

This is blog post #2800.  And about seven years worth of writing.

My very first post to this blog was made on September 3, 2006, and my first "real" post was written on September 5, 2006 (the previous posts were mostly attempts to figure out how to use the blog set-up).  Wow!  Never did I think I'd keep blogging this long.

The origins of this blog probably seem silly to most of you.  After all, it was in connection with my presidential campaign.  I've grown beyond such things since then.  Although, some people might have considered my admonition "Don't vote- but if you still feel the need to vote for someone, vote for me rather than throwing it away on someone else" to be a "not serious" campaign strategy from the first.

I almost ended the blog when I stopped actively campaigning (mostly due to conflicts and lack of familial support, and the potential for someone "at home" being a source of embarrassment- I've never really explained the reasons, and I'm not going to now beyond that).   I actually passed several "finish lines" over the years.  At one point I thought I'd probably stop after 100 posts.  (What more could I say after that?)  Then I thought I'd stop after one year.  Or two.  Or when I hit 1000 posts.  Now I realize I will keep on writing this blog until I have nothing more to say, or until no one reads it anymore.  Or until economic reality requires me to shut up about things that might make me unemployable.

Looking back over the years I see a lot of changes in my personal attitudes.  I hope that all the changes have been for the better, and toward a more complete understanding and acceptance of liberty.  I hope I am a better person because of this journey.

I am also reminded of some good times and some terrible times in my personal life.  When I read the things I wrote during those times, even when I never publicly spoke about them, the memories are triggered.  I remember what I was thinking and feeling.  I remember some times of despair and some times of great hope.

And, through it all, I understand that liberty is the right course.  Not only for myself, but for whoever might consider me their worst enemy.  I only get the liberty I am willing to respect in others- if even that.  But it's a path that is worth it.  It has proved that to me in so many ways, time after time.

I hope you experience that as well.

-

I also wish to send out a big "Thank you so much!" to all of you who have sent donations to help me continue this blog for this long!  I seriously wouldn't have been able to do this if not for your help and support.  Your donations are not only a huge financial help, but a powerful psychological boost as well.  Thanks again!

.

A libertarian I just met...

In case you missed the news, I just got back from a weekend camping trip.  (Isn't it nice to be able to have blog posts automatically show up during an absence?)

As I was taking down the tent, this little scorpion was disturbed from his hiding place.  Apparently he had been taking shelter under the floor of the tent.  I didn't mind- and was glad he didn't choose a boot or shoe to hide in, as they like to do.

It made me wish more people were like that scorpion.  As long as I didn't attack him, he didn't attack me.  We each went on about our lives unharmed by the other.

Kind of sad to think a scorpion is better company than some people.

.

An armed society is a polite society

An armed society is a polite society

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 2, 2013.)

Those who want to do more to violate the right of every human to carry whatever kind of weapon they choose, openly or concealed as they see fit, everywhere they go, without ever asking permission of anyone, have all manner of emotional pleas at their disposal. And their scenarios always fail when exposed to reality.

Just before Christmas last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) reacted to the suggestion of having armed guards in government schools by whining “Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?”

I admit it- I laughed. Obviously she has never spent time in an armed camp- other than being surrounded by her automatic-weapons-bearing security detail, I mean.

But I have. Many times. And it was wonderful and peaceful. If you have never been to a mountain man rendezvous or some similar event, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Everyone is armed with multiple "historical" (and still lethal) firearms, and it's probable everyone also has weapons of modern design either hidden on their person or in camp.

People there are friendly. Strangers are openly welcomed, without fear. Disputes are cordial, or at least resolved before they get out of control. No one stole from anyone at any of the events I attended, even though valuables were left unattended in plain sight. No one attacked anyone.

All rules are by unanimous consent, as are all fees, and agreed to beforehand and not changed. While there are those whose "job" it is to arbitrate disputes, prevent fights, and make sure the rules are followed, I almost never saw them doing anything "official". If someone does break a rule, they are asked to either stop or leave. No one uses force on them nor cages them. The knowledge that if they caused a real problem they would not be able to recruit a helpless victim takes the bluster away.

Author Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying "An armed society is a polite society", and he is right.

I only wish every American could experience living for a while in a universally armed camp. All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than anti-liberty, ideology driven politicians and citizen disarmament advocates like Feinstein and her gang- would ever again want to give up such a life.

No one would ever be able to propose or enforce another anti-gun "law" without being sent packing to North Korea where their ideas are politically correct (while still wrong).

.

Intra-gang violence- The Hasan death penalty

So, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was given the "death penalty" for the Ft. Hood murders.  As I have said before, I am against such a punishment, for several reasons.  But, unlike most cases, this one doesn't pluck at my heartstrings too much.  I see this case strictly as an internal affair.  A gang member turned on others in his gang, and the gang "leadership" is dealing with it in a violent manner.  Gang members kill each other all the time, and my main concern is that they don't start killing people outside their gangs.  Why should I be surprised or outraged?  I am not involved with that gang, nor do I support it in any real way.

And, no, I am not just referring to the "military" as the gang- the entire idea of "government" is the gang; the "military" is simply one part of it.

One thing I find ironic is that those gang leaders aren't accepting their share of guilt in the murders.  Whoever the evil idiot was who decided that members of the military, on a military base, "needed" to be unarmed is at least 50% responsible for every murder after the first one.  Sure, a psycho could kill one person before a universally armed populace could react and stop him, but he could not likely kill 13.  Nope, he had lots of help.

I would hope that such overwhelming stupidity is limited to government militaries, and would find no support among militias.  

.

Too hard on cops?

You probably think I am too hard on cops.  I assure you, I'm not nearly hard enough.  They are where the rubber meets the road, where tyranny is concerned.  No one else on the side of The State matters- there is no other meaningful enemy of liberty.

You can live in an area "Ruled" by Hitler's crueler brother, filled with counterfeit "laws" until the law pollution is so bad that everything you want to do is forbidden, and everything you'd rather not do is mandatory, but unless there are thugs willing to enforce those "laws" against you, it doesn't matter.  You still could be free and never even care what any of those "laws" say.

Tyranny and oppression begins and ends with enforcers.

.

Magic words and enforcers

I am not one of those who believes you can memorize some magical script to use against cops; an incantation which will banish them back into the shadows of Hell faster than a vampire faced with a cross made of garlic raised on holy water.  But it can be educational to think about things you could say to a cop to show the true nature of "law enforcement".

Imagine being stopped for going faster than the arbitrary "speed limit", or not "stopping sufficiently" at a stop sign, with no harm done to anyone.  Imagine saying to the enforcer:

"Who is the individual you are alleging I have harmed?  And where is this individual, and how has he been harmed?  (wait for ridiculous response)  If you have no answer, yet you insist on continuing this encounter, you are the bad guy.  You have become nothing more than an armed robber."

No, I don't imagine that would have the effect it should.  Still, it cuts right to the heart of the matter.  No victim- no foul.  Where is your accuser?  Is it the cop?  If so, does this mean he is the one you are accused of victimizing?  Is it "The State"?  Then I want to face The State and have him (her?) accuse me in person.  Not through a representative, but one to one.

Magic words don't normally "work", unless by "work" you mean to get you to consider the truth.

.

"Tax"-addict trolls?

A few days ago I got into a discussion with someone online.  Shocking!  I know.  Anyway, the subject was originally "border control" and "immigration", but when I asked a couple of test questions about that I got a bizarre response that went on about tariffs and such.  I suggested the person was talking about slavery (importing people) rather than about immigration control.  And then I got the response I reproduce here, along with my replies.

"You are taxed based upon the annual value of your work (just as a simple example). You, I, and everyone are nothing more than a commodity." To whom? Those who believe they are owed something for nothing- a "piece of the action" for their protection racket. When forced to do work, where someone else takes a percentage between 0% and 100% of your labor/time/money, you are a slave. It's not a matter of not being a slave to someone else until the percentage stolen from you reaches some magical percentage. And, yes, "taxation" IS theft. Nothing else.

"Human Labor is a commodity." Yes. And it belongs to the person who labors, no one else.

"You mistake that for slavery." I'm not the one making the mistake here.

"I assure you that is not the case." You can "assure" me all day. You are wrong, either unwittingly, or you are lying.

 "Anytime you work for money, you are selling yourself for a set time at a certain price." Yes. And that is fine as long as it is mutually consensual. 

 "Looking at the movement of people between nations is just as taxable and prohibit-able as the importing of certain goods and services." Just because thieves and thugs can get away with committing an act doesn't make it right. It's like claiming that babies are just as rapable as grown women. Theft is theft; slavery is slavery; wrong is wrong- and dressing them up in fancy StateSpeak doesn't change the foundational truth of the acts you are advocating.
  

I have heard that "government" agencies employ trolls to try to attempt to put a positive spin on the disgusting things done by various "government" goons. Hmmm.

Seriously, don't you think this guy sounds like a paid shill for The State?

.

72+ Types of terrorists

So, supposedly the morons who call themselves "government" have a list of 72 types of people they consider to be "terrorists".  Isn't that special.

"We are surrounded by TERRORISTS!!"

Of course, being able to read and remember for more than a few seconds, unlike the fearmongering collectivists of The State, I notice there are a lot of repeats and overlaps on that list.  Gotta pad the numbers and make sure no one feels left out, ya know.

The sad thing is they left off whole categories of terrorists.  I feel the need to help.

73. Those who feel a "law" can make it OK to rob, kidnap, torture, murder, or otherwise harm people who have done nothing aggressive to anyone else.

74. Those who kill people over a plant or two.

75. Those who gather in groups designated with letters.  Examples are BATFE, IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI, SCOTUS, CONUS, etc.

76. Anyone who is so afraid of those around them that they feel it is necessary to spy on them, and then lie about it or otherwise try to make their terroristic actions seem "legal" or "legitimate".


(H/T)

The disease of "Compliance"

People are just too compliant.  I include myself in that criticism.

The first time some pervert insisted on a urine test in exchange for a job offer, he should have been laughed at, and if he laid a hand on the person in his insistence- punched.  Now that too many people comply in order to have a job, those who would refuse will end up unemployable (in many cases, in their chosen career).

The first time some coward told someone to leave the gun at home, or with the sheriff, in order to go about your business he should have been ignored.  And shot if he tried to take the gun.  Now, in many locations, there is almost nowhere you can go off your own property without violating someone's slaughter-enabling zone.

The first time some police department set up a "sobriety checkpoint", the offending officers should have never made it home alive.  Now the slightest hesitation to submit is seen as a threat to "officer safety" and can be dealt with in a lethal manner, and your death will be "within departmental policy".  Oh, and your murderers will be rewarded and promoted, and your neighbors will think of you as the bad guy.

Normal people have enabled the death of liberty by being too polite and too compliant to unreasonable demands, and now we are ALL paying for it- while still being too compliant, so that our kids will have it worse than we do.

When will enough be enough?

.

Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy

Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 26, 2013)

Commentator Michael Lind called it "The question libertarians just can’t answer": "If [the libertarian] approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? Why are there no libertarian countries?"

It seems Mr. Lind doesn't understand what he's asking; he certainly doesn't understand libertarianism. That's a common problem with criticisms of libertarianism.

There can't be a true "libertarian country" because libertarianism is strictly individual, just as is any philosophy or way of life. You can't have a libertarian country because a "country" has no mind, opinions, or philosophy- those things belong to the individual. A "country" is an intangible concept, not a physical entity. When you try to base a country upon any one philosophy, you are pigeonholing everyone who lives there into one cramped box, and your concept inevitably breaks down because a huge percentage of the residents are being forced to live in a way that they don't want. A way they may even find reprehensible, repugnant, and wrong.

Good or bad, there are only individuals. A country can not initiate force or commit theft. Only individuals can. Each individual makes that choice for himself, and blaming it on the abstract collective is a failed attempt to avoid responsibility.

A State, or rather those representing themselves as that State, can either leave individuals to live as libertarians, or can try to force them to behave as collectivists of one sort or another by regulating or prohibiting consensual, non-aggressive behavior, and by violating their right of association and property rights. Individuals who would prefer to live free will always find a way.

However, there have been countries where the State mostly stayed out of the way and let individuals live a libertarian life: early America and medieval Iceland are two popular examples.

Even today most people live a largely libertarian life in their daily interactions with others. Not only here, but all across the world. Most individuals seek to trade for what they want rather than steal it. Most people try to reach an agreement with others rather than to beat them into submission. Most people will "live and let live" as long as they don't see a "one-size-fits-all" order being imposed on them and on everyone around them.

Perhaps this means the world is mostly libertarian already, if you ignore the professional political realm. And, it is probably better for your mental health and happiness if you do ignore that realm as much as possible.

-

And please don't forget.

.

The powderkeg of "troops"

Are individuals in America better off that there are US troops all over the planet?  Do troops really help "the people"?

Think about it.

Was Germany better off by having and supporting the Nazi troops?  Or, in the long run was the normal, average German made less safe and less prosperous because of "the troops"?  (And don't bother trying to misuse Godwin's Law on me- I'm on to that game.)

The only ones helped by "the troops" are those who work for that gang of thugs called "government".  Everyone else is harmed.  They may think they are benefiting, but only until consequences catch up to them all.  At that time the veil is ripped away.

Abuses will have consequences.  It will be painful.  The longer those abuses and violations are allowed to continue, and the worse they are allowed to get, the more harsh those consequences will eventually be.  If you "support the troops" you are ensuring a dire and agonizing future for your kids or grandkids.  Those chickens WILL come to roost, sooner or later.  The future can't be held off forever.  And the later it is, the worse it will be for those who were seen to be complicit by "supporting the troops".  Or those who are mistakenly assumed to have done so, because of an accident of geography and birth.

If you really "support the troops", demand of the congressvermin they be brought home or ask them, individually, to quit.  Anything else is just stacking more black powder next to the campfire.

.