Unethical ethics for immoral moralists

I am honestly astonished by the contortions statists will go through when their statism is challenged.

I actually had one claim that slaves should have obeyed the "law" and been good slaves until the "law" could be changed, because there was no "law" prohibiting slavery.

How do you even respond to that?

(This was in response to Ross Ulbricht's horrifyingly unjust caging and life sentence. He was a "criminal" who got caught- he should have obeyed the "law", according to her.)

-

Support?
.

Bless their hearts...

Tim McGraw recently showed himself to be an idiot, by taking an extreme anti-liberty position against gun ownership.

Not the first celebrity to do so- including a lot of them who ought to know better. Such as Reba McEntire, Steve Earle, and others. It's a crowded bandwagon, slippery with drool. (And I like country music.)

I mean, I can understand someone coming from the cultural desert of NYC or Chicago making fools of themselves by outing themselves as anti-liberty bigots, but a lot of the others didn't have such a backward upbringing and should have been exposed to rationality and reason. Exposure doesn't mean it'll stick.

I guess it takes a "certain kind" to become a celebrity- which is why I ain't one.

I suppose celebrities embrace anti-gun and anti-liberty positions because they imagine it makes them look enlightened. It doesn't. Not to anyone beyond the ignorami they are trying to impress, anyway.

-

Support?

"You libertarians want a 'Lord of the Flies' world!"

Odd to me that the fears over "Lord of the Flies" scenarios resulting from Rightful Liberty all center around people acting like government. Killing, stealing, raping, etc. You know, living by the "political means" rather than by the "economic means".

This is why "we need government"? To protect us from people behaving like "government" employees behave?

Really?

What other fantasies do you entertain?

-

Support?
.

Looking for trouble

People always seem to be looking for problems that the Zero Aggression Principle, or libertarianism in general, can cause.

That seems twisted.

I've never experienced- or even seen- any problems caused by refusing to initiate force or by respecting the property of others.

Problems come when I don't live up to the ZAP or when I violate other people's property. That's the real world, not the statist world of "what if?".

You can dream up "what if"s all day long. I can make up imaginary animals, too, but I'm not going to live my life fearfully searching for them.

-

Support?
.

Bullying by statists will continue

Bullying by statists will continue

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 8, 2015)

If, like me, you are unconvinced that coercion, theft, and aggression are proper behaviors to organize a society around (assuming societies can be organized at all) there are a few automatic responses you will repeatedly encounter as people attempt to belittle your position. Besides the standard quip "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" there is also "If you think taxation is wrong, stop driving on roads!"

If only it were that simple.

It isn't only about roads, though. There are a great many services provided by this enforced monopoly I am forced to pay for against my will. Services I may not want, and may never use. For the services which are wanted, in many cases, if you try to offer people a free market alternative, you will be ordered to cease and desist; facing arrest if you don't comply. Breaking the monopoly is said to be "illegal". Even in cases where free market solutions are allowed, you are forced to continue paying for the theft-funded service, too-- government schools, for example.

I believe if you pay for something-- even if forced to do so-- you have every right to use it. How can anyone believe otherwise? Since you pay for "government" roads, even if you would prefer not to do so, you have as much right to use them as the most enthusiastic fan of government coercion.

I would prefer being able to voluntarily pay the road provider I choose, instead of the one which is imposed upon me. Obviously, I would avoid roads provided by those who think it's a good idea to fill their roads with armed pirates with flashing lights, hired to accost travelers; extorting property from them by using the excuse that some arbitrary rule was violated-- but you might not. As long as you and I are given no choice in the matter, no one will know which way works better.

No one should ever be forced to pay for something they don't want and would rather not use. Nothing is so important that people should be forced to finance it, and if people do have to be forced, it's probably an inferior service anyway.

The other side of the coin is those who use a service or product should be willing to pay for doing so, or expect to be shut out.

This isn't good enough for pro-government extremists, who want to ensure there is no real choice offered. Once again liberty lovers are told by statists "If you don't like being bullied, we'll just have to agree to disagree." By which they mean the bullying will continue and intensify.

.

The Truth in Headlines Project

Just for fun, and just when a headline strikes me as particularly dishonestly statist, I sometimes like to re-write it to be more truthful.

Such as:
"Government files for asset forfeiture of firearms seized in raid" should be "Thieves ask themselves for permission to keep property they stole in armed robbery"

Or "U.S. thinks China is behind big data breach" needs to be "World's largest gang of bullies accuses other gang of stepping on its turf".

Feel free to join me. Just write your more truthful headline and "sign it":
"-The Truth in Headlines Project".

-

Support?

Extraordinary claims with zero evidence

If you were living on a planet, and a ship landed with beings on it who told you they were now the government and you were obligated to live according to their opinions, would you?

If they killed to discourage disobedience would that somehow make their claim legitimate?

So, why do people believe the same lie when it's members of their own species (supposedly) making the outlandish claim?

Their claim doesn't even make sense- it's nonsensical from every angle- so they can't prove anything. Yet, instead of laughing and defending themselves from these parasites, people let themselves be bullied.

.

Being poor shouldn't be a crime

One of my earliest anti-government/pro-liberty thoughts, back when I was a kid, was the realization that government made it basically illegal to be poor. Which was sort of bad news to me, because making money wasn't high on my list of priorities.

I was thinking of all the things I wanted to do with my life which didn't really require money... until you got "laws" involved.

You couldn't "legally" just make a life for yourself on some unowned land- because if it wasn't individually owned, some government pretended to own it and would kick you off and destroy your house and all your work if they caught you living there.

Even if you had enough money to otherwise survive in town, "taxes" would increase your costs, and if you couldn't pay, you'd be jailed, again losing all you had worked for. Silly property codes often make gardens and affordable houses "illegal", and of course, transportation is a big problem.

If you don't have the money to do certain things for your kids- things beyond what is needed for a good life- they'll be kidnapped by employees of the State, claiming "neglect and abuse".

If you can't afford certain bribes ("licenses", "permits") you'll be forbidden to start a business- at least openly- to improve your circumstances. And even if you somehow manage, the theft-by-government has only just begun.

And, really, if you think about it, the list of potential "infractions" goes on and on. All due to a lack of money to keep "government" thugs off your back.

I don't resent money, or those who have a lot. I resent those who make sure to punish those who choose to not spend our lives in pursuit of money, in order to pay their bribes and extortion.

.

Becoming one with your brokenness

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.

I know people who get their identity from their damage.

Either they have a medical condition which becomes their identity- even to the point of getting tattoos commemorating it, having it as their "profile pic", and posting endless links about it- or they were the victim of a violation and it becomes their identity in the same way. It is them on some deep level.

I understand that damage can get into your mind, but is it really healthy to obsess over your victimhood or brokenness? And seemingly celebrate it?

Well, I see "patriotism" in the same light. It's like Stockholm Syndrome gone cancerous. Not only identifying with your violator, but letting your violator become your entire world. Tattooing yourself with the violator's symbols and words, flying his banners, being proud of his claim of ownership over your life and body.

It's one thing to accept past damage or current circumstances you can't change. It is quite another to celebrate it and let it become your meaning in life.

.

Reacting to statism

(Previously posted to Patreon)

Believe it or not, in person I really try to not be that person who has to respond to every insane statist word that comes out of someone's mouth during conversation. I try very hard to listen without immediately trying to think of a comeback, or of how to put the final nail in their mind's coffin.

Sometimes, during a pause, I just hold my tongue and think things I'd like to say, but won't. That has led to awkward pauses.

I suspect I often get that deer-in-the-headlights look on my face.

To me, saying something statist is about as reasonable as claiming that goats rule the world. Or suggesting we should all start sacrificing children to Cthulhu. (Although I've known a few children who make that idea seem less crazy.)

I sometimes wonder which is worse: the expression on my face when someone says something utterly statist, or verbally responding to them.

I suppose it depends on the individual.

For the person who is fully vested in statism, reason probably won't help. After all, they have had a lifetime of practice ignoring reason and reality in order to stay statist. For them, the discomfort of having someone silently look at them like their flesh mask just slipped a bit, exposing their insectoid self, might eventually get to them.

As I say, it isn't something I do intentionally. It's automatic- just as the look of horror would be if they actually did let their human mask slip. Something hideous was unexpectedly exposed- how am I supposed to react?

Statism is as anti-human as an insectoid alien might be- if the alien noticed humans at all. Statism sees people as food, fuel, or fertilizer. If it doesn't stun and shock you, you don't understand it.

.

Supporters and other Superheroes

I would really like to get at least $200 more per month in supporters. Either through Patreon or Paypal subscriptions (link to the right). I know, we'd all "like" something, but if you don't ask...

It would take a lot of financial pressure off me.

Plus my birthday is less than two weeks away. So, if you've been considering it becoming a patron or subscriber, just think of it as an early birthday gift.

Added- I discovered a bill someone else was supposedly responsible for, but which wasn't paid. I am paying it, and it's gonna be rough.

Thank you!

.

Rejected, but not dejected

Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do. After not having trouble with either of the papers rejecting columns in quite a while, it happened. The owner/publisher of the State Line Tribune rejected my newest Liberty Lines submission.

He said it was "extreme"; building permits and property codes are not "anti-American" and DC politicians are not "vermin", so he couldn't publish this one. And this is coming from someone who constantly complains about the politicians in DC. However, he wants them to do more of what he thinks they should do- using the power of their hired bullies to impose their opinions (which he hopes mesh with his) on everyone else.

This illustrates exactly why "we" are in this situation: people too scared to call a spade a spade, and refusing to address the root of the problem; instead, offering SpongeBob bandaids to hide boo-boos so they don't have to face reality.

Also, he said my previous column on the matter was enough. Funny, but apparently the city council can still discuss the matter and use his newspaper as their forum, but no one who doesn't believe in their "authority" is allowed to do so. Well, his property- his choice, and he can fawn over the local vermin to his heart's content, but he shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite him. I'd stick up for him anyway.

I understand- he owns a newspaper and a large amount of his content depends on coddling and paying undue positive attention to the local political parasites, whether he really respects them or not.

No, I'm not angry. But I do believe this is important and am bothered that few of my Farwell neighbors will be able to read it. If I had the money I'd start my own local paper to tell the Liberty side of the story- every story- and focus on what real people do and only write true headlines calling the cops, politicians, and bureaucrats what they actually are. I guess it's a good thing I am so broke.

Instead of just posting the rejected column here, I changed it up slightly (to fit a different paper) and submitted it to the CNJ. It got rejected again, but for entirely different reasons. So, I resubmitted a more "generalized" version, with everything intact except the opening paragraph which was very town-specific (and not very relevent to the majority of the CNJ's readers). After the editor changed a couple of things, it was approved. You can read his edited version tomorrow, and in a month you can read the final draft I submitted to the CNJ before it was edited- if you care to see what was changed.

.

Should you live by the ZAP?

Well... I believe you should live by the Zero Aggression Principle.

After accepting there is no right to initiate force, I conclude it is wrong to do so. I "shouldn't" initiate force.

But, really, who cares?

You have no right to initiate force; my opinion of "should" or "should not" doesn't figure into it. If I see you initiating force I may try to make you believe you shouldn't have done so.

The ZAP is a successful way to live among other humans. I think it's the most successful way ever discovered.

It doesn't matter whether it is "just an idea".

Cats don't live by the ZAP, and no one expects them to. They initiate force toward other cats and toward other species. They don't have the capacity to decide they "shouldn't" do that.

Humans have that capacity. Those who fail to live by the ZAP suffer because of it. Often not as much as I'd like them to suffer, but that's not my call either.

So, "should" you live by the ZAP? I think so, but the choice is yours because you have a brain capable of choosing, and you know how I may decide to respond if you choose not to.

I hope that as time goes on, more and more people will realize the wisdom of living by the ZAP (which will make it increasingly difficult for those who choose to be thugs).

.

Finance without taxation possible

Finance without taxation possible

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 1, 2015)

I am amazed when otherwise intelligent people believe they couldn’t find a way to provide necessary infrastructure and services without committing taxation against their neighbors.

It makes me wonder how many abolitionists were accused of hating farms and cotton by those who couldn’t imagine how fields could be worked in the absence of slaves.

For anything currently financed through taxation I can think of several ways it could be financed voluntarily. If I can, you can too. The more knowledgeable you are about a subject area, the more options you should be able to find.

Don't make assumptions based on how things are done today. Really think. The current way isn't the way it has always been, nor is it the only way it could be. The time for relying on coercion and theft is past.

Think your way out of the restrictive box which has been carefully crafted to imprison your mind. It is built and maintained by those who depend on you not understanding that "authority" is a dangerous superstition, that taxation is theft, and that if you have to rob others to fund something, you'd be better off doing without. Everything good and necessary can be financed voluntarily.

I value education; I love libraries and parks; I even appreciate roads. I am not willing to rob you to pay for any of them.

Many seem to consider tax-funded things to be free. They are not. In fact, they are expensive and inferior compared to what could exist if people kept all their money and paid for what they actually want; choosing among competing providers. Without the burden of taxation you would have much more money to direct toward those things you think are important, whatever they might be. Everyone would be expected to pay for what they use, and no one forced to pay for things they don't use.

The inability, or reticence, to find ways to do things without coercion or theft is a result of having a hobbled mind; it shows a lack of critical thinking and creativity. The brain is a creative organ; able to solve problems. Use it. Don't settle for continuing to be less than fully functional.

It astounds me when people assume a privately owned and maintained road, for example, would require toll booths every few yards or so, as you switch between property owners. What is this, the twentieth century? Come on, think!

Now, picture something you value which is funded by taxing your neighbors. Then, think of ways to provide the same-- or a superior-- service or infrastructure without committing the act of taxation against anyone. It's liberating!

.

Aggression

Aggression is the use of (or the credible threat of using) violence against a person who is not using or threatening violence against you, nor violating your property.

(Constantly, in discussions with statists, they refuse to understand what is and what isn't "aggression". Mostly because they have a statist agenda which would be interfered with by a strict understanding of what constitutes aggression. They'd be forced to face the fact that they are advocating evil, and that is uncomfortable.)

.

What is the point of "laws"?

Trying to look at it from the perspective of misguided people who think "laws" are necessary, or even good, I believe they would claim:

The point of laws:
To protect people and their property.
To maintain community standards.
To provide a framework for justice.

I think it is quite clear that "laws" fail on every point. They are the greatest threat to person and property- much greater than freelance threats which you can end with a gunshot.

They quite often violate "community standards"; instead imposing what a few people want to pretend are the "community standards".

And, "laws" have zero to do with justice. They are instead about revenge. If justice happens under them, it is purely by accident.

The vast majority of "laws" violate life, liberty, and property. And are set up specifically to prevent "pursuit of happiness". They give enforcers the excuse to trespass, molest, kidnap, rob, and murder, and pretend to make it wrong for you to do anything about it. I would be happier in a lawless society- and you probably would, too. I can take care of myself, and I am willing to help others do the same. I would hope "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", but I don't necessarily expect it. "Laws" get in the way of civilization.

"Laws" are worse than worthless; they are a disaster and a danger.

.

Looking for loopholes

Why do some people get so worked up, trying to find loopholes or flaws in the Zero Aggression Principle?

I believe it's because they view it as a threat.
I see it as a promise.

What I mean by that is I don't go around trying to catch people initiating force. What I do is promise people that this is how I will behave toward them. I will not initiate force, nor violate their private property. If I do, I accept the consequences.

It is also a warning of sorts: "This is my line in the sand; as long as you don't cross it, we won't have a problem. If you do, this is what you can expect of me". I don't see that as a threat, but maybe you do.

Most people I notice trying to weasel around the ZAP, while treating it as a threat, are wanting to feel good about reserving some imaginary right to initiate force or violate property. A person who has no aggressive designs doesn't generally think twice about it (other than as a philosophical exercise).

.

The "sum of good government" is an impossibility

The “sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, is one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another” and “shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

And, government can't do that. It just isn't its nature. That's like expecting horses to scurry across the ceiling eating flies.

Jefferson was smart in some areas and incredibly stupid in others. He was superstitious and believed in "authority" just enough to cause him to believe such a thing as "good government" is possible. Obviously, it isn't.

Again it comes down to this: all "laws" are either unnecessary or harmful. Comply with the unnecessary ones because you don't want to violate person or property, not because some useless person made up an unnecessary "law". Ignore the harmful ones because you don't want your person or property violated- which is what those "laws" do... unless a bully is watching you. In that case comply until he looks at someone else.

Assume liberty.

(Inspired by this. H/T to War on Guns)

An enemy of cops?

Am I an enemy of cops?

Depends on what you mean by "enemy".

My message to cops is this: I will not initiate force against you. I will not violate your private property. In other words, I make you the same guarantee I make any other person.

On the other hand, there is a flipside to that universal guarantee. I will not look the other way when you initiate force and violate property-- just the same as with anyone else.

If that makes you think of me as your enemy, it shows what kind of person you are.

.

An anti-ethical ethic

(Previously posted to Patreon)


A friend shared the link to this site (Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions) a bit ago and said it was pretty good, except for #30.

Wow, was he right about #30!

30. The Prospective Repeal: “It’s a bad law/stupid rule”Citizenship, an ethical value, requires obeying the law, but a lot of people convince themselves that that laws are voluntary, and that it is somehow ethical to violate “bad” ones, defined, of course, as those that are inconvenient, burdensome, or that stop you from doing what you want to do. Laws embody the ethical values of society, and if one of them seems wrong to you, you are nonetheless obligated to follow it as part of the social contract. To do otherwise is unethical. Your options are limited: write and speak in opposition to the law (or rule), in hopes of changing the societal consensus; work within the system and with others to change the law; find a legal and ethical way around it; or violate it openly as a matter of conscience, and accept the penalty—civil disobedience.  It isn’t ethical to violate what you think is a bad law while it is still a law, because this creates an obvious breach of the Rule of Universality: if everyone followed that course, we would have chaos and anarchy. There are bad rules and laws, no doubt about it. It must be the group—society, the culture—that decides when one of them needs to be amended or eliminated. The individual who does this unilaterally is threatening the stability of society, and that’s unethical no matter what the law is.

I mostly skimmed the others and didn't find anything I disagreed with, except that one- which is simply wrong. Not only is #30 wrong, it turns ethics inside out and fails the ethical behaviors as outlined by the others on the list. Number 30 is anti-ethical.

No, Mr. Ethics, "bad law" is NOT defined "as those that are inconvenient, burdensome, or that stop you from doing what you want to do." A bad law is one which violates your Rightful Liberty. One which props up the superstition of "authority". One which "legalizes" unethical acts like theft, kidnapping, murder, or anything else that would be wrong for anyone not acting as a government employee to do- and which "criminalizes" self defense from those violators. Or a "law" which requires you to submit to them or comply with their vile opinions. That is a bad "law", not what the author imagines one to be.

The author can justify his anti-ethical opinions on that point from now until the sun burns out, and it won't change the fact he is dead wrong on at least that one point.

Of course, there are no comments allowed on the post.

.