Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The Year in Review

Not really, but isn't that what we are supposed to say now?

All I want to really say is a big "thank you" to my loyal readers. I hope 2009 will be better for you than 2008 was. I hope you will make a commitment to be freer in your personal sphere this coming year.

I'll just leave you with this thought:

Liberty happens one person at a time, in spite of the claims to the contrary. Take charge of your own liberty. Don't worry about the moronic agents, enforcers, or bureaucrats of the state. They will bring about their own demise if we let them. So, let them.

Stay safe, but not too safe.


Tuesday, December 30, 2008


The inconsistencies that make a person take on authoritarian attributes confuse me. I respect consistency. I may hate a person's stance on a particular issue, but if they are completely consistent, I can at least respect the fact that they are not a hypocrite.

Yet, while I have met people who seem consistently "libertarian" (something that can be done without much effort, as long as you overcome your brainwashing), I have yet to find anyone who seems consistently "authoritarian". They always make exceptions for themselves, and often for their friends. This is how you can tell that they are wrong.

This doesn't mean that everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is consistent, just that it is more obvious and glaringly ridiculous when they aren't. All rights for everyone, everywhere, for all times without exception. That's where "consistency" dwells. Any "but"s show the flaws that are still present in the person's thinking.


Sunday, December 28, 2008

"Well, That's Different"

The government's "War on (some) Drugs" depends upon ignorance in order to retain popular support among the population. Unfortunately for rationality, ignorance is rampant.

As an illustration: Someone I know recently handed some prescription medications to another person who was in pain. I pointed out that, by DEA standards, the act made both people "drug criminals" and made the "supplier" (who, by the way, supports the stupid and evil "War on Drugs") hypocritical. The "supplier" said "Well, I think this is different." I said "That's why it is hypocritical."

I just wonder how many other things are "different" to the state-hypnotized mind.


Saturday, December 27, 2008


On the whole, I like people. There are some whose actions I despise, and some people are so devoid of any redeeming characteristics that I just write them off and do my best to avoid them. Still, most people are not too bad, even if I don't agree with them.

On the other hand, most people who hold authoritarian ideology seem to hate and distrust everyone. This is how they justify trying to control every aspect of other people's lives. Even some people who dubiously claim the label "libertarian" seem to be this way, and it is probably what diverts them from the path to liberty.

Don't waste your time hating people or looking for ways to punish them. Most "offenses" should probably be ignored. Only respond with force when you are attacked.

That doesn't mean that I will let others, who say they only want to "help" me, have any authority or control over my life. Their right to tell me what to do ends where it runs up against my self ownership and my self determination. Live and let live, or there may be unpleasant consequences.


Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Hello, Everyone

After being without internet for a day and a half, I'm back, but I'm taking a couple of days off to spend time with family. Enjoy whichever variation of the winter solstice celebration you observe.

Merry Christmas!


Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Rules of the Road

A common misconception of us liberty types is that we "refuse to stop at stop signs". To this, I reply: Not usually. Remember, most of us have no problem with legitimate "rules", but only with rulers. I oppose (and sometimes ignore) rules that are obviously ridiculous and designed to only control actions that have no victims.

Stop signs are not usually in that category. Although I could point one out, if you would like, that I never saw anyone stop at. Yes, It was that ridiculously placed! Normally, stopping at stop signs is just a case of common decency, and one rule I follow.

Another legitimate rule of the road is the rule for driving on a particular side of the road. It makes sense that certain rules permit me to know what to expect on the road as I come around a blind corner, at least up to a point. Technology will one day make this a moot point, but for now, please stay on "your side of the road". It is simply courtesy and responsible behavior.

"Speed limits" usually are pointless and distracting. They force a driver to divide his attention between safely operating the vehicle and watching an arbitrary parameter. However, as long as the speed limit doesn't unnecessarily endanger me or my passengers, I normally follow it anyway.

That does bring me to a serious road hazard. Speed traps, or whatever you wish to call them, are a serious danger to safe travel on the roads. Notice how often drivers who are not even "speeding" slam on their brakes at the sight of one of the highwaymen hiding in his extortion collection vehicle. And when these parasites actually pick a victim, they pull off to the side of the road and compromise "public safety" even more; sacrificed for monetary gain by the state. The drivers singled out are rarely causing any danger, but are simply violating an arbitrary rule about velocity. This "traffic stop" behavior is a violation of the rules of the road, in my opinion.


Monday, December 22, 2008

Statist Feelings

This may came as a shock, but there are times and occasional situations, where my first feeling is not exactly "libertarian". When that happens my first assumption is that I am wrong. It is a good assumption, because it has turned out true every time so far.

I stop and try to think about why I feel that way, and I invariably find that there is a blind spot I haven't noticed or some toxic feeling that I am holding onto unnecessarily. Usually it is in response to hearing about some crime that seriously disturbs me, and thoughts of what should be done to the attacker.

With a bit more thought and reflection I can replace the incorrect feelings with rational thoughts. It's like flushing the toilet. With the new perspective comes a clarity that was lacking before, and it is like a breath of fresh air.

Fortunately, this happens less and less frequently. With experience a person can learn that liberty is always the right answer no matter the question.


Saturday, December 20, 2008

Fawning Over Government


Why do they seek approval from the state for their every act? Why do they enthusiastically cheer on the tightening grip of the police-state? Why do people try to be noticed and praised by those in government? Why do they act like desperate puppies needing to be praised by the "master"?

Do they need to be told they are a "good little citizen"? Do they believe they will get the crumbs of the elite, Do they honestly believe that as long as they fawn over those in power they will not be eaten, or do they more realistically hope to be eaten last?


Just trying to wrap my head around this one.

Friday, December 19, 2008

"Liberals Who Like Guns"? Hardly

On a conservative gun blog, I dared to point out the folly of picking and choosing when it comes to rights. Not all gun blogs are this way, and the one in question isn't always that way, either. But... sometimes....

Anyway, one commenter decided that since he couldn't refute the statement I made, he would insult me. Fine. He said:

rights for everyone..." Libertarians are just Liberals who like guns. You guys
are exactly useless, just like the anarchists..

OK, first of all I am an anarchist, so your attempt at an insult missed the mark (be sure of your target).

Second of all, if, as you claim, I am only a Liberal who likes guns, tell me why I absolutely despise any form of welfare. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, all those things (and more) are repulsive to me. They are financed through theft from working people. Socialism and fascism are not any nicer if you call them by trendy names.

This tired tactic gets used on me a lot. "Conservatives" call me a liberal, and "Liberals" call me a right winger. What you have got to grasp is that this is a "divide and conquer" technique. As long as you can be convinced to support only those basic human rights you happen to like, the state, our true enemy, wins. It is all or nothing folks. That is why I will continue to speak out for ALL rights for EVERYONE for ALL times.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Crazy People

What can be done for crazy people? You know, the ones who the more sensitive types might call "mentally ill"; and particularly the ones who are prone to violence, since the others are not really a problem.

I'm not a psychologist or anything, so my opinions carry no weight. I'll express them anyway.

Do the rules not apply to the "mentally ill"? I think they do. Don't initiate force, and if you do, expect consequences. I think coddling crazy people only reinforces their behavior. Don't shield them from consequences or they will never learn to take responsibility for their action. If they insist on calling the cops when their cannabis is stolen, let them. If they attack innocent people, let the chips fall where they may. Some actions need to be selected against by our evolutionary imperative. Short-circuiting nature doesn't help anyone in this instance.

If your family is burdened by such a person, and you can't keep them under control, you may need to wash your hands of it and hope for the best. There is no Utopia. Just don't expect me to pay for the upkeep of violently crazy people through "taxation". That just might make me violently crazy.


Tuesday, December 16, 2008

New Mexico Suffers Damaging "Storm"

The tyrants and enforcers of the New Mexico state government are so pleased with themselves for coming up with a new campaign for "fighting drunk (sic) driving". They are bragging about their new idea in radio ads and on billboards.

They are calling it "The Storm". The inference I am supposed to make, I suppose, is that if I dare to drive "drunk" (or just in an area where they fear "drunk" drivers may be travelling) the wrath of State-God will descend upon me and violate all of my human rights.... for the good of the collective.

They claim "It’s a clear warning to drivers—Do not put others or yourself in danger by driving after drinking." Where is this "danger" coming from? Not the alcohol, but from the enforcers. They are the real danger.. to our lives and liberties. To think that in other areas, where your rights are not violated with quite as much enthusiasm, "drunk" driving has also declined. Maybe tyranny isn't necessary after all.

So, in violation of human rights and civil liberties, state troopers will be bringing a storm upon the people who dare to travel in "their" state. Does this make them "stormtroopers"? Yes. Yes, it does. Empowered and burdened with all that the label implies.


Monday, December 15, 2008

Bill of Rights Day- Do "They" Care?

Today, December 15th, is Bill of Rights Day. In recognition of that, I thought I would post an illustration of why the Bill of Rights, while arguably a nice idea, does nothing to restrain out-of-control statists. I understand we are talking about non-federal statists here, but I don't see any federales rushing in to defend these victims of tyranny, either.

I read this story about Amish people being fined and harassed for not getting building permits. A few quotes that illustrate the statist mindset really stand out:

"They just go ahead and don't listen to any of the laws that are affecting anybody else. It's quite a problem when you got people next door required to get permits and the Amish don't have to get them"

So, stop attempting to meddle with anyone's private business, you parasite. Yes, I realize it would take away your power and deprive you of your ill-gotten gains, but you're just going to have to put on your big-boy pants and get over it. Tyranny is wrong, no matter the excuse you use.

"You try to work with both sides," Howe said. "(We tell them) this is what we need you to do so everyone can go home and relax."

And if you would get out of people's lives, everyone could still "go home and relax". You are the only one preventing that with your counterfeit "laws". Understand? You are the one in the wrong here, not the Amish homeowners. You are demanding that they lie back and enjoy the rape "just to get it over with". That makes you evil.

"Custom-built homes are allowed in Wisconsin as long as the plans meet code standards, but apparently the Amish don't understand that"

So if a free person refuses to comply with your petty demands, you think it is because they are too stupid or backwards to understand what you are saying? Are you really that pathetically delusional? Oh, you are a bureaucrat, so we all know the answer to that.

"The government must show a strong reason why regulations outweigh religious freedoms"

This quote comes from the guy defending the Amish, and just shows how deeply the statism mythology runs. Instead of being wishy-washy here, he need to educate the nanny-staters: The First Amendment which forbids the government certain authority, dictates that there is no option for your governmental edicts to "outweigh" religious freedom. Not unless cannibalism of live victims or some other rights violation were being committed. That activity is much more likely among the bureaucratic kind, than among the Amish. Nope, here there is no "victim" here other than your ego and illegitimate power over the lives of others. Your desire to control others does not outweigh the right to be left alone by vermin like you.

"Building officials argue permits and codes ensure structural safety, but Amish homes aren't falling down, he said."

Exactly, so the bureaucrats are helping no one and must be told to mind their own business and get an HONEST job.

"People aren't getting hurt," he said

That is the bottom line. No victims, no "crime"; no authority for government interference. None.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Liberty Trends: Personal vs Societal

Depending on the situation, I can come across as optimistic or pessimistic. I would say I am a mixture of the two. It is because I see things from more than one perspective simultaneously. When it comes to liberty, I am pessimistic about my own future and optimistic about the future of humanity as a whole. Part of this is because I see how far we still have to go, while I also see the general trend throughout history. It is hard to be free while surrounded by a police-state, but not impossible.

In my own life, I follow Robert A. Heinlein's statement as much as I can: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." Of course, I realize this can result in death from agents of the state in certain circumstances. There are fates worse than death. All you can do is refuse to comply or bow down one day at a time and let the chips fall where they may.

On the other hand, I see that the general direction, in all of the history of human civilization, is towards greater liberty in society. (At least after uncertainty of primeval "liberty" was traded for the "safety" and comfort of "civilization".) There have been horrible sidetracks along the way, obviously, but these are always temporary. Sometimes these sidetracks even spawn greater liberty after they are gone as people try to distance themselves from the atrocities of the former Rulers. Soon technology, and a new frontier, will make the available liberty increase exponentially. I just probably won't be around to enjoy it. Perhaps my kids will be.


Friday, December 12, 2008

Conspiracy Theories

I hear people being castigated frequently for believing, or even simply mentioning, conspiracy theories, but the amusing fact is that government runs on conspiracy theories.

Its agents look for terrorists under every bush. They read our emails and listen to our phone calls, convinced that everyone is plotting against them. Illegal "laws" like the PATRIOT Act would not even exist without the state's paranoid delusions of conspiracies everywhere. Every country that the Rulers hate (or fear) must be hiding "weapons of mass destruction", you know.

So, the next time you feel the need to scold some conspiracy theorist, look at the most delusional ones of all. They are easy to identify: their names are usually spelled with only three, capitalized, letters.


Wednesday, December 10, 2008

"Reasonable" Regulations?

Whenever the victim disarmament goons start trying to advocate their particular brand of evil, they almost always call for "reasonable" regulations or restrictions. In this way, they think they will paint anyone with the sense to oppose them as unreasonable. Sorry, you perverted, murderous monsters, I'm not falling for it. Not even if you lie and call your draconian edicts "common sense".

It seemed "reasonable" to many settlers (and to the US government) during the 1800s to kill indigenous people in the American west.

It seemed "reasonable" to some in America to imprison Japanese Americans during WWII.

It seemed "reasonable" to some in Germany to kill Jews in the concentration camps during that same era.

And today, it seems "reasonable" to some to prohibit private gun sales, or to ban guns based on how they look or how many bullets they fire when the trigger is pulled. Even to those traitors in our midst. It is only "reasonable" if the final goal is to kill those who would fight to stop you long as they are armed with effective weaponry. Well, guess what: Your "laws" won't protect you if you declare war on liberty; not even if the guns all magically vanish (which ain't gonna happen).

The only reasonable gun law is the Second Amendment, which makes it treason to advocate, pass, or enforce any restriction on gun ownership or possession. Yet, even its repeal won't alter the right to own and to carry arms one iota, in case the hoplophobes among us were plotting something.

Every time one of those mass-murder-fans opens its ignorant mouth to advocate "reasonable" restrictions, remember what they really are, and treat them as such.


Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Pointing Out the Obvious

If foreign troops invade and occupy your home, and you fight back, you are not an "insurgent".

"Rules of war" is a ridiculous concept. "War" is all about breaking the rules: killing, stealing, destroying; you know, the things you instinctively understand as "wrong". Obviously, an attacking force doesn't care about following rules of morality, otherwise they would not be invading and killing. And make no mistake, the defenders are under no moral obligation to "respond appropriately" to people who are trying to kill them and destroy their property. Once you invade another country, to demand that your victims play by rules that benefit you is insane.


Monday, December 08, 2008

What We Have Here is a Serious Lack of Imagination

I am becoming more convinced all the time that any objections to a really free society stem from a lack of imagination. For any objection raised, I can see all manner of possible solutions. For any solution, others seem committed to only thinking of endless problems. I have never been accused of being an optimist, either.

Yet I still realize that my own imperfect imagination prevents me from seeing most of the possibilities. I'm not the sharpest member of the species by a long shot. The human mind, and necessity, will in time find solutions beyond my wildest dreams. It always has, and I see no reason to believe the future will be any less innovative.

OK, so I have occasionally been accused of having an overactive imagination, but I don't base any of my scenarios on UFOs landing and changing human nature or altering the laws of the Universe. Nor do I have hope of Sasquatch donning a robe and preaching the word of liberty to adoring masses. Instead, I think people will continue to act in their own best interest, as they always have. My own experiences have taught me that respecting other peoples' rights IS in my own best interest.

It is just frustrating to me that people say "it can't be" when it obviously can, but people will need to stop thinking like they have been trained, by the state, to think. That is probably the first baby-step, but may be the hardest. It is time to let go of the indoctrination and imagine what liberty will look like and how it will work. Because liberty is ALWAYS the best course.


Saturday, December 06, 2008

Libertarian Blogging

I am not the only libertarian blogger out there. I do think I am one of the most daring; willing to say the things others think are too controversial. I think I am consistently libertarian in all my views (well, of course I would think that, wouldn't I). Even to the point of having some libertarians disagree for whatever reason. I make no exceptions for the state, which is where I think some others falter. I'm not going to soft-pedal or make it sound sweeter to try to avoid scaring the cattle. A stampede might be just what is needed.

Yet, as I say, as long as we are moving in the same direction I applaud the efforts. If others finally reach their destination and are content to stop reaching for more liberty, I will thank them for their help, bid them "good day", and I will keep striving to go even farther. As long as they do not try to forcibly stop me, I will hold no grudges. We have a long ways to travel before that becomes an issue.

Friday, December 05, 2008

Proclaiming Liberty

The irony of those who, like me, publicly promote liberty is that we give up some of our personal liberty in order to do so.

In many cases our anonymity is gone, even if we think we are protecting it. After all, our true enemies are holding a gun at the heads of our internet providers. I believe that the most any encryption can do is make them spend a little more time unraveling our identities. I hope I am wrong.

Our opinions, which may be highly unpopular, become public. We spend our precious time trying to educate people on this philosophy that we know to be so critically important. Sometimes, this reaps threats of violence. Which may be why so many drop back out of sight after a few years. After all, talking about liberty is pointless if you aren't living it. It is a temptation that is familiar to me, but I think I would find it too difficult to maintain for long. But, you never know.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

"Studiously" Avoiding Libertopia

Most objections to a free society (or "Libertopia") are based on roadblocks that are in place because of government, not because of "real people" problems. Either it is "the law", or it is because people have gotten so used to government telling them how to live that their "self-responsibility muscles" have atrophied. Guess what: you aren't going to build them back up again by avoiding responsibility for your own life. At some point you have to grow up and stop being nannied.

People say "it can't work, because of ___". Almost without exception, that which fills in the blank is a problem caused and perpetuated by thinking that "government is the answer and the only solution". It isn't, unless you refuse to see any other solution. Just stop your complaining and think for a few minutes.

Freedom is never safe, but it is always worth the risk. A living death is the alternative. "Safety" is always an illusion; a lie, anyway. I'll take my chances with the truth, thank-you-very-much.


Wednesday, December 03, 2008

No New Laws!

There is nothing that can be solved by passing a new "law". Of course, this is something I have believed for a very long time, but it seems more evident every day. Every act of aggression or theft is already illegal. New "laws" only give the state more power or (false) authority to harm people who are not harming anyone else.

I won't obey any new "laws". I refuse to obey a lot of the existing ones already. If it is convenient to obey, and it doesn't interfere with my life in ways I am not willing to live with, I might obey. But don't count on it. I have had enough. Also, don't count on me allowing you to violate my rights. I might let you get away with it if you have me at a disadvantage.

I am determined to be left alone by the state or any other bad guys out there. Just as many others are.


Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Liberty Musings

Freedom isn't free, but it can't be purchased from the state. It can't be found in government or politics. It is not present in government jobs; it is never gained by working for the state in any capacity. This is like looking for life in the grave. Helping the state is in direct opposition to liberty.

Liberty is a free market product. Regulation destroys it, even while claiming to strengthen it. Freedom is purchased with responsibility. It can't be bought with stolen money, even if you call it "taxation". It is found in direct proportion to the liberty you respect in others.

"Safety" is freedom's mortal enemy; its Kryptonite. There can be no compromise between the two mutually exclusive goals. Nor is freedom advanced through punishment. When you try to punish someone, your own liberty takes a direct hit.

Liberty forgives, but never forgets. The enemies of liberty too often attempt to wrap themselves in its cloak, but they are still rotten with the worms and maggots of control and punishment. Their words and actions betray their true spirit. The cloak that they abuse will transform itself into a noose; they would be wise to run from it.


Monday, December 01, 2008

Not Anger; Determination

I am often accused of being angry when I try to express my opposing opinions to statist "philosophy". Usually, I am not angry at all. Sometimes I am even amused. The things people try to excuse in support of the state... astoundingly ridiculous!

No, I am rarely angry, but I am almost always determined. Some people mistake determination for anger. There is a difference. Anger leads to rash mistakes. Determination leads to results. Those results may not always be pleasant for all parties involved.

Whether online, or in my daily life, I don't think I will ever stop fighting for real liberty for ALL. It is in my bones. If, somehow, the internet becomes unavailable to free speech, then I will focus my efforts somewhere else. The more the statists try to squelch liberty, or try to redefine it to their advantage, the more determined I become. This is one of those "unintended consequences" we often hear about. I suspect that others may react the same way. If that is the case, the more the state tries to destroy liberty, the more it digs its own grave. I can't wait to spit on the grave at the funeral. I hope to see you there.


Saturday, November 29, 2008

Basics of Liberty

It seems most of my writing energy has been going towards commenting on another blog for the past few days. I don't normally spend so much time commenting elsewhere, but this is a very good discussion. The topics don't sound promising at first, dealing as they do with the platform of the LP, but the topic only serves as a foot in the door to discussing real "liberty issues".

Dissecting the Libertarian Party…. Act I

Dissecting the Libertarian Party… Act II

Libertarian Platform Act III

Go, read, think, and comment. I'm sure he would appreciate it. In the comments you will be "treated" (?) to more of my thoughts on the basics of liberty than I have put in writing in quite some time.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thankful THINKsgiving

It is good to be thankful, but you also need to be "thinkful". Think about the good things in your life and about how you can keep them. Think about the bad things and how those can be fixed. Think about the true value of those around you. Think about how you can advance the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of yourself and your loved ones.

There are a lot of things I am thankful for. Not just today, but everyday. I am sure that the same is probably true for you. So, say "thank you" to those you are thankful to.

And speaking of those I am thankful to: Thank you, dear reader!


Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Working Through the "Blahs"

It's that time of the year. The depressing time. Less sunlight; heightened expectations; social pressures; no way to blow off steam. And just behind the curtain, I feel the pressure of the growing police-state closing around .... well, around all of us.

So, instead of whining about it, I am trying to think of ways to, not just keep the liberty I have, but to increase the real, tangible liberty in my life.

Part of that is education. I don't necessarily seek out the information (that would be overwhelming and even more depressing), but I remember that which I run across. Absorb and categorize. The technology of the state is fragile, whether they admit it or not. The more they rely on technology, the more an inventive, creative person can defeat them.

Part of the "plan" is preparing my mind-set. This involves "survival mentality". Prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best. Or the "not so bad" at least.

Cleaning my guns usually helps my mood, too.


Tuesday, November 25, 2008

"Great Planetwide State-Out"

I was thinking about the recent "Great American Smoke-Out" and thinking there are better things to focus on. I mean... who is spending their time encouraging people to not smoke for one day? Non-smokers? Other smokers? If you don't want to smoke, don't.

Anyway, I thought it would be great if there were one day a year when we could encourage people to refuse to participate in the state. Just one day to illustrate that it is unnecessary to rely on the state for anything.

On that day, those who work for government in any capacity could stay home. No government services would be used (other than the coercive monopolies that can't be avoided, of course). No taxable purchases would be made. All just for one day. It should be a lot easier than asking smokers to not smoke one day. But then I may be underestimating the addictive powers of the state on some people.

If you like this idea, let's discuss it and come up with a plan.


Monday, November 24, 2008

"Calling John Galt"

A new blog that shows a lot of promise. Check it out: Calling John Galt

More on Abortion

Recent discussions have brought this toxic topic to my mind again. I wish I had a concrete answer, backed up by rock solid logic and data, to show you once and for all that abortion is either right or wrong. But I don't. Everything is based upon religion, emotion, or feelings. You can base personal views on those things, but you should never inflict those views, through coercion, on others.

I don't like abortion, but I also understand that advocating or passing "laws" to prohibit it is wrong. "Laws" only provide an excuse to punish people. That adds to this perverted "culture of punishment" that we are already wallowing in. Nothing is made better by this course of action.

If you think abortion is wrong, I challenge you to change peoples' minds with facts, not with scare tactics, emotionalism, or threats. And absolutely not by attacking them with the big stick of the state. That tends to turn rational people against you. If you are right that abortion is morally wrong, two wrongs still DO NOT make a right.

I already do everything I morally can to prevent abortions: Being male, I have never had an abortion. Plus I have never advised anyone to get one unless their life was in serious danger. That is all I can do without sticking my nose where it doesn't belong. A lot of other people and groups would do well to follow my example.


Sunday, November 23, 2008

My Crystal Ball

I write these blog posts ahead of time. Usually a week or so ahead. I could be dead a week before anyone would notice. My blog would go on without me, until the pre-written posts run out, anyway.

That's not the point, though. What amazes me is how many times I start to write about something, and then before it posts, that subject pops up in the news or in my life. It happens over and over again.

Now, if only I could harness this "power"....


Saturday, November 22, 2008

Calling All Statists

I don't use the term "statist" in an attempt to start a fight, I simply know of no other word to designate those who believe that "government" is a legitimate human activity. Substitute your own word of choice in the title if "statist" offends you.

I would really like to hear from some people who think I am completely wrong. If you really believe that government control is superior to individual liberty, then try to convince me. Don't bother trying to convince me it is possible to balance the two or that government control does not negate individual liberty, because that would be pointless. Although, if that is really what you believe, go ahead and state that for the record. I will not agree with you or believe you, but it is important to know where you stand for the debate.

If you can't make that argument, but know someone else who can and would be interested, send them a link to this post and invite them to speak their mind. I would really like to know where I am wrong, if I am wrong.


Friday, November 21, 2008

Prisoners' Rights

A right can be respected or violated, but can not be regulated, licensed, restricted, or limited. At least, not "justly". Not even for those who are incarcerated. (Otherwise it wouldn't be a "right", but only a "privilege". ) That means that when "society" prevents a prisoner from exercising his rights, society is (temporarily?) violating his rights. Is it right? Is it necessary? Is it worth it?

I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just wondering.


Thursday, November 20, 2008

To Bush's Supporters

This letter is not aimed at most of my readers, but only at those who supported Bush through all of his presidency, whether because of "religious" reasons, or because you really enjoy seeing other countries invaded and "those people" killed. Very difficult times are coming. And it is more your fault than the fault of the politicians who will usher in the hard times. You are the ones who keep believing it is OK for a government to control my life. You are the ones who allowed it to go this far and called the dissenters like me "crazy" for speaking up against the abuses.

All of you who supported Bush while he violated the rights and liberties of people you disapprove of have seen your chickens come home to roost. You closed your eyes while he violated his oath of office from the moment of his inauguration and now you will pay the price. All the tools of the expanded presidency are now in the hands of a man who will have no problem targeting you.

It is funny to me, being a libertarian, seeing you wringing your hands in despair now. All the dictatorial powers that Bush stole, with your acquiescence, Obama will now use against you. It was fine for Bush to take these powers as long as he was using them against "the other side", but now you will be Obama's target. How does it feel?

You cry out in anguish that Obama will appoint federal judges who favor gay rights and abortion, yet you thought nothing of Bush appointing federal judges who favored the war on drugs or whatever police-state tool you liked. Bush invaded foreign countries and violated the Constitution. You ignored it or even cheered. You waved your federal flag. Now Obama will have his way with you. Using the weapons that Bush stole and stockpiled in the Oval Office. The weapons of "extraordinary rendition", "the Decider", Gitmo, the "PATRIOT" Act, the Military Commissions Act, etc. All of them will now be aimed at you and your family.

I hope you live to regret your complicity and feel your guilt. And I hope you learned your lesson: It is never OK to meddle in other peoples' lives if they are harming no one else. Never! No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation. That obviously includes human beings who are running (or working for) the government.

Your support of laws allowing discrimination against certain people based upon victimless behaviors or preferences have made Obama dangerous to all our liberties, just as Bush was. Each president is worse, both personally and politically, than the preceding president. Obama may have skipped us ahead an administration or two, but the historical trend has not really changed.

It is time to acknowledge that government is not a legitimate human activity, but is just large scale theft, murder, kidnapping, extortion.... coercion - force - violent aggression. It is completely wrong in every instance. "Good" cannot be accomplished through evil actions. Stop pretending it can. It is time to withdraw your support completely from the system. Don't give up your freedom to the next parasite who pretends to be on your side in order to get your vote. He is lying too.

I am willing to forgive your part in the coming "interesting times". Please just come to your senses before it is too late.


Wednesday, November 19, 2008

National Ammo Day is TODAY

Don't forget that today is National Ammo Day. Please buy at least 100 rounds of ammo today. Your chances to do so "legally" may be evaporating soon. Make sure you have enough* if that happens.

*I know, there is no such thing as enough ammo. Try anyway. After the state collapses, you can use the extra for currency.


Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Blogging: Is There a Point?

Why blog? Since I don't think it is right to force my views on anyone, my only alternative is to try to convince you that I am right, and that liberty is really the best way to live life. That is really the only point to this blog.

I started this blog as a campaign blog for my presidential run. That is over now, yet I keep writing.

As long as think I am still doing some good, I will continue to blog. Some people will continue to view me as a crackpot. That can't be avoided without abandoning my principles. The state's brainwashing runs deep in most people today. Anyone who points out its flaws will seem ridiculous to anyone who refuses to think critically about the reality. I seek to make them think. Sometimes that means stating the facts in a stark manner, and letting the chips lie where they fall. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings. It is simply unavoidable at times.

I deeply appreciate those of you who have written to express your support of this blog, and especially appreciate those who have donated money as a show of support. Your kindness will not be forgotten.


Ammo Day Reminder

Don't Forget!

Monday, November 17, 2008

Should "Immoral" = "Illegal"?

My answer is "of course not". As you probably know, I don't think there is any justification for any "law". However, I can understand making "laws" against initiated force and theft, even while realizing it is an exercise in futility. I just think "laws" are pointless and ridiculous. If something is wrong, making a law against it doesn't make it impossible to do. Making "laws" against "immorality" is even worse. Many times no one is hurt, except ...possibly.... the person behaving "immorally".

Then there is the problem of whose moral code do you follow? And why choose that particular one over the other possibilities?

If you go by the Christian moral code, just as an example, you could pass "laws" against prostitution, gay marriage, adultery, theft, and murder. But then you would also be able to justify passing "laws" against working on Sunday, men with long hair and women with short hair, eating shellfish, and killing (but not necessarily against beating) your slaves. Slavery would still be fine, as would having many wives and concubines. And the penalty for raping a virgin would be marrying the victim. Strange "morality".

If you base your "laws" on a different religion's moral code, the details would be different, even if there were similarities with the "big stuff" like murder and theft. So you would need to pass "laws"regulating a plethora of ridiculous things that prohibiting "morally" must have seemed "right... at the time".

The wiser choice is to stop criminalizing self defense, and recognize that your morality may not be your neighbor's morality. And to realize that as long as no innocent person is being harmed, what other people do in their private lives is none of your business and it is wrong to try to make it your business. That kinda takes the wind out of the busy-bodies' sails doesn't it?


Saturday, November 15, 2008

Children and Adults

Babies and children really can't take care of themselves; adults can. There is a real, absolute, concrete difference. Parents have a legitimate responsibility to care for their children. That sometimes means keeping the children from doing things that will harm them... often against their will. It is right to do so. Does your protection violate their rights and liberty? Does it violate the ZAP? Probably in the same way as pushing a person out of the path of a speeding stagecoach does. When your children are old enough or mentally aware enough to understand the principle, ask them how they feel about it.

Meddling political types often use the same rationalization when "protecting" adults from harming themselves. They claim to know better than the targets of their meddling. It doesn't matter even if they really do. Adults are not children and should not be treated as such. Adults have had years to learn how the world works; both physical processes and human interaction. If they somehow managed to avoid learning, that is their problem and should not be used as an excuse to interfere in the lives of the rest of us. Even the targets of the protective meddling could demand restitution from the state's agents for having their rights violated and for having force initiated against them "for their own good".

If, however, they enjoy being taken care of like helpless children, then as long as the state survives, let them. Just don't make anyone else pay for it or be subjected to the same stupidity. If they are still not smart enough to survive after the state is gone, at least they will improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it.


Friday, November 14, 2008

Politics- Diversionary Tactic For The State

The more I think about it and the more I look at real-world results, the more I think that politics is a waste of time. At least for people who are interested in Liberty.

I'm not going to blast you for pursuing that path if that is what you want to do. If nothing else, you will be a distraction to the "Rulers" if you are annoying enough. Be a buzzing, biting fly ceaselessly attacking politicians' ears and eyes. It isn't my path, though. The system is hopelessly rigged. The right questions are not even allowed to be asked. Instead of asking who should be ruling us, people should be asking if someone should be ruling us. Instead of voting away privileges, people should be exercising their rights.

I have seen zero evidence that politics can increase freedom in any way. At best, it holds the predators off for a year or two. In the long run that may not even be very helpful. It gives a false sense of accomplishment. It puts off what must be done. It also keeps people from living free in their own lives.


Thursday, November 13, 2008

Just a thought....

I think that some day, people will look back and be astounded that we ever tolerated government roads.

"Free Market"? Hardly!

"Free market". The term refers to voluntary interaction and trade without government interference or coercion. Seems pretty straightforward, right?

There is an organization I recently became aware of called "The Free Market Foundation". They are not concerned with freedom, but with using government to promote their brand of religion. They do advocate keeping government out of the areas where government intervention would offend their beliefs, but as soon as government meddling can advance their agenda, they run to government.

They fight against the ACLU, which is battling government in many areas. The ACLU definitely has its blind spots as far as supporting some rights while ignoring others, but the Free Market Foundation opposes them because it opposes allowing people to exercise their basic human rights which happen to offend the group's sensibilities. This is mainly because these "free marketeers" wish to get government to support discrimination against gay people. The ACLU also tries to keep the government in compliance with the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and establishment of none; something the Free Market Foundation opposes. This is not "free market" but government intervention. A group really concerned with the free market would only be advocating the removal of laws, not the passage of new ones.

They have the right to call their organization anything they choose, of course. I also have the right to point out their hypocrisy. How would they appreciate a group of Iraqi Muslims calling themselves "The American Christian Foundation"? Probably not too much, and they would probably run to the government to force them to change their name.

I wrote to them pointing out their "error", but I never got a response. In my mind, that just compounds the dishonesty.


Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Let's Be Animals

As a way to survive (and succeed) while we wait for the state to implode, I suggest we behave like wild animals. No, I don't think we should eat our young or one another. What I mean is that we should simply live our lives and ignore the shenanigans in government unless we are cornered.

Animals don't care or worry about who imagines himself the Ruler of America. They don't concern themselves with "laws". All that matters to them is getting on with the business of living. That includes biting, clawing, or flogging anyone who tries to trap them. Don't be a pet or farm animal who grovels or submits to a fleecing. Cling to your hide and defend your territory. And ignore the flatulence wafting from DC or more local sources.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

"Wow! The Renaissance of America!"

Here is another mention of my writings, this time in Christian Butterbach's blog: "Wow! The Renaissance of America!"

"The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs"

Here, from a non-libertarian site, is their list of "The Top 100 Libertarian Blogs". I'm not sure what criteria they used to choose, but I was happy to see myself on there. Of course, they included me with the "politicians". Eww! The campaign is over so if I ever was one, I'm not one anymore!

"Forever Stamps"

Do you notice that the US government assumes it will exist forever? I ran across one of those "Forever Stamps" today. You know, the ones that are supposed to be good "forever" no matter what the price of mailing a letter climbs to. I think there is some baseless assuming going on there. "Forever Stamps" are good "forever" only if the US government lasts forever. The courier company that replaces the government monopoly after the US is gone will not honor them. Why should they?

Why would the US government and its supporters make such an irrational and silly assumption about its permanence? Probably because they honestly can't imagine the alternative. But there has never been a government that lasts "forever", and I seriously doubt there ever will be. Few last more than a couple centuries. It just isn't rational to ignore this fact. The more a government meddles, the less likely it is to last much longer. The more strict a government is, the sooner it collapses. And the less mercy its "organs" and collaborators receive.

That doesn't mean that a free society is the inevitable outcome, but it does mean that to make that happen, some plans need to be made. Now. I'm making mine; how about you?


Sunday, November 09, 2008

An Instinct for Liberty

I hope I am not alone in this, and judging by what I read from a few other people out there, I suspect I am not, but I feel as though I have an instinct for liberty. It just seems to be a natural part of my existence. I am not talking about anything mystical, but a natural, inborn understanding of what liberty really is and why it is important to protect. Read the rest

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Life, Love, and Liberty

This is a different kind of post. It is more philosophical than I normally write. You may think I am completely off-base, but I can only judge this by own life. Think what you will.

I think that in order to be happy and fulfilled, humans need life, love, and liberty. When I say "life", I don't mean mere existence, but "A Life"; a "Purpose". Those are the minimum requirements. You can have one or two of those and still be relatively content, but without all three, you may seek a substitute for that missing component.

The substitutions that come first are entertainment, sex, and money. Entertainment can make you forget that you don't have much of a life. After all, living vicariously can make you feel more alive, can't it? Sex can take away the pain of living without love, since it is usually a part of a life that has enough love in it. And money can buy you a lot of privileges that can be almost indistinguishable from real liberty. The only difference is that when the money is gone, so is the "freedom". Yet there is another level down from these substitutes.

The last level can be the saddest. I am not saying these things are necessarily bad, just that if they are your only outlet for those higher level needs, they are not really satisfying. This is the level of diversions, porn, and debt.

Diversions may not really entertain you, but only occupy your time. They keep your mind and hands busy and keep you from thinking about how bad your life is. If your life is normally OK, then a diversion now and then doesn't hurt anything. In that case, it is just a way to spend your down-time. At the worst, they are the busy-work you do while waiting to die. Porn is sex without human contact. While those who have real love can enjoy porn, to have it as your only outlet is tragic. Then there is debt. It is pretending to be able to buy things that you really can't afford. It might give you a little temporary illusion of freedom while it bolts the chains around your ankles. You are betting on an uncertain future.

I would say that most of us have dipped into the substitutes for Life, Love, and Liberty from time to time. It is my hope that you and I do not end up spending our lives down there.


Friday, November 07, 2008

Rights Violators

Why is it that most people seem more interested in taking rights away from others than they are in securing their own rights? This is just an observation from the recent election. If it weren't for the promises of keeping some "other people" from "legally" exercising their rights, there wouldn't have been many political ads out there.

Whether it is "gay rights", abortion, gun ownership, migrants, or economics, as long as no one is being coerced, their lives are not your business. Liberty will never be increased while we keep fighting over keeping others from living their own lives as they see fit. Live free and mind your own business around others.


Thursday, November 06, 2008

Revisionist History

Government always lies.

I grew up surrounded by conservatives to whom "revisionist history" was blasphemy. As I have since discovered, it should probably be called "revealed history". History gets revised as new information, long suppressed by those in government who would be exposed, becomes available. Often because the perpe-traitors die off.

As a somewhat frivolous example, the government's OFFICIAL story about "The Roswell Crash" has changed multiple times. If no one had pressed the issue, the government would not have bothered changing its story. Well, other than changing the original official government revelation that a crashed "disc" had been recovered. And, for the record, I don't think an extraterrestrial spacecraft crashed in Roswell in 1947. But I do know the government has lied about the event ever since it happened. Each current version is said to be the final word... until the next version, anyway.

How many other events were allowed to go unexamined and therefore remained unchanged from the original, dishonest, version? How many have been examined, but the findings marginalized? The Civil War? Pearl Harbor? JFK? Viet Nam? Waco? The OKC explosion? 9/11?

How many evil people have been undeservedly honored by history? Washington? Lincoln? FDR? Or all of the above.

The reason history gets revised is because "history is written by the winners". Government always initially lies about an event when the truth would make them look bad (which the truth will always do for a group based upon coercion and theft). The government that "wins" gets its version of the story made "official". The lies become a part of the cultural mythology and are defended with the fervor of a religion. People have a need to cling to those lies and myths in order to not feel they have thrown their lives away supporting an evil, dishonest institution. But the truth is the truth. Sometimes it is painful. Let it go.


Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Probably Not What They Bargained For...

Here's some "hope and change" for you: Hooray for Obama!

Will You Remember THIS 5th of November?

An opportunity is knocking. This could be the beginning (or the middle) of the end for government. If we care enough to make it happen. Won't you contribute to the movement? Encourage all your electorally disappointed friends and family to withdraw support of the illegitimate government now.

Now that the election is past, it is time to realize that government can only rule you if you let it. Don't. People should NOT be afraid of "their" government; governments should be afraid of the people. Make them afraid. Get a backbone. Stop bowing. Stop apologizing. Stop obeying. Stop paying any attention to government at any level. They are the bad guys. Remind them of that fact if they force you to. Ignore them otherwise.

We outnumber them. We always have and always will.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Election Day: No One is "Fit To Be President"

There is no one on the planet who is "fit to be president". Not. One. Person. Voting for someone is going against this simple truth. When you vote, you are saying that you think it is OK for someone to rule others. It is not.

Military "service" does not qualify a person to rule others. Being "dog catcher" does not qualify someone to rule others. Being elected to lower positions and working your way up the ladder of corruption does not qualify someone to rule others. "Experience" does not qualify someone to rule others. In fact, I think all the above should automatically disqualify a candidate. Only insanity would make a person imagine that it is OK for them to rule others. Insane people should not be elevated into positions of power over others where they can do harm.

I include myself in the above assessment. I am not fit to rule others. If I ever believed I would actually be elected when I asked for your votes, I would be insane and/or evil. I still believe it is best to not vote. I would not condemn you for voting, since I understand the desperation. Write in my name to satisfy your urge to vote so that you do no harm. But.... Voting doesn't help. It doesn't protect liberty. It doesn't protect your rights. The results would be thrown out on some technicality if they actually made any difference towards increasing liberty in any meaningful way. Or the results would just be ignored. Examples abound.

The only things that should possibly be voted upon are things that no one disputes should be done and that don't violate anyone's rights in any way. And then those who do not agree should not be forced to participate or finance those actions. The voting should really just be a way to say "I approve this and I volunteer to chip in to pay for it."

I'll let you in on a "secret": Big government is sure to win the election. You and I are sure to lose if we continue to participate and care. It is a done deal. The system is hopelessly rigged.

If you vote, you shouldn't complain about the results. After all, you have agreed that the system is legitimate, and you have agreed to abide by the results whether "your side" wins or loses. So any disaster that results is in your lap.

Now, instead of voting, get out there and do something real with your life.


Monday, November 03, 2008

Voting - My Libertarian / Anarchist Opinion

Voting is like choosing your next meal from the tank of a portable toilet behind the downtown bus station.



Sunday, November 02, 2008

Today in The Libertarian Enterprise

Do you get those ridiculous emails that try to scare you about immigrants by giving you all the statistics about how bad they are? Me too. Normally I just delete them, but this time I decided to do something different. And then I passed it along to The Libertarian Enterprise.
See the results here.

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Drunk Driving

The core of this post is taken from an email conversation I had with someone a while back. I got to thinking about those police-state abominations called "checkpoints" and decided I should put this out there for all to see.

The problem isn't driving with a blood-alcohol content ("BAC") of a certain level, but causing harm by driving when you are "impaired". Impairment can come in many forms, not just alcohol or chemical related, but emotional, physiological, distractions, and other "problems". A "standard" BAC is not possible or reasonable. Anyone who causes damage, injuries, or death for any reason should be held accountable. Punishing people for potentially causing harm isn't good, not even if you think they are likely to cause harm.

That is how the anti-gun crowd operates. The fact that other people do bad things is no excuse to violate my rights in even the slightest way.

I think that someone who knows they have a drinking problem might, when they are sober, choose to install an ignition breathalyzer to prevent ruining their own lives. Especially if their insurance company (the only ones who should set any such standards anyway) were to give a discount for it. I also envision car companies in a free society making more crashproof cars and offering different options to defend against accidents. Would people be willing to pay the extra amount? I don't know. The thing is the cost should be borne by the ones who wish to pay it, and not by the ones who don't. As it is, we ALL pay the price for everyone else's stupidity, both real and potential.

Why couldn't cops, if they must get involved, simply help the drunks get home instead of turning it into an opportunity to shove someone around, kidnap them, and rob them? Is it a "power thing"?

Many people today hate insurance companies, and don't want them having anything to do with driving. I think the biggest problem with insurance companies comes from the state requiring insurance. If they had to compete for your business, other than just assuming you have to pick someone, I think they would be much more innovative and helpful in their dealings with customers. They would have much more leeway in what behaviors they penalized and rewarded. Some things obviously increase their financial risk, and that is why they would reasonably charge more for someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt. However, you might have such a good driving record that it would more than offset their risk and cause them to give you a discount. I don't really know what all might happen.... BUT, in a FREE market you would probably pay a tiny fraction of your current expense no matter what. That is the effect of eliminating the monopoly.

I would pay more for a car with active collision avoidance technology. Even though I don't drink. I have almost fallen asleep at the wheel too many times. That would also help pedestrians who would otherwise be in danger of being run down by drunk drivers. That is part of what I mean by "crash proof". I am also thinking that there are other ways of protecting the occupants and other vehicles that haven't been implemented yet. I wouldn't mind having a car that could drive itself as long as I could override that option if I wanted to. I have issues with letting others have control (even a machine).

As always, I am sure these are not the only solutions to the problem, since the market is more responsive, and people are much more clever, than is usually recognized. If a problem exists, it can be solved without violating rights. Once again, government is NOT the solution.

Added: Eric Sundwall posted this link in the Haloscan comments and I think it needs to be read: Legalize Drunk Driving.


Friday, October 31, 2008

Hearsay or Observation

Authoritarians, both left and right, base all their fear about a certain candidate on hearsay: "He said if he got elected he this horrible thing! I just heard about it from Statist News Channel" Oh No!! Gasp! Or: "I'm afraid of what he might do if he is elected! You know how those people are!" Please.....

Libertarian types base our assessment of a candidate on his observed attitudes about liberty and on his demonstrated respect for individual rights. It is much a more reliable and honest method. I like "easier and more accurate", don't you?

Ignore the gossip and cut throught the crap. Does the candidate think it is OK to tell others how they must live even if they are harming no one? Then that tells you all you need to know.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Spreading the Lust for Liberty

This blog is pointless if it never gets read by people who are not already sold on the idea of liberty. "Thank you" to those of you who have helped me get readers by alerting friends (and enemies) to my blog. I appreciate it a lot. If those of us who have a strong longing for liberty don't spread the desire to those who may be on the fence, we won't get very far toward a free society.

If you can string words together, start a blog. If I can do it, it must not be very difficult. If thinking up subjects to write about on a regular basis seems too daunting, there are other ways to spread this "liberty virus". Comment on blogs or on newspaper websites. You can find lots of news items that could use a libertarian or anarchistic perspective to counter all the deluded cheerleaders-for-the-state.

If you can't seem to find the words to express what you are thinking and feeling, then post links to libertarian blogs and websites everywhere you can. There are lots of good ones to spread around (check out my links on the sidebar). The main thing is to expose people who would otherwise never learn about it to liberty, its philosophy, and its ideas. Every little bit helps.


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street"

A good article By Michael Shermer: The Welfare Queens of Wall Street.

Candidates Exposing Themselves to Libertarians

I have noticed a humorous thing about political ads. Whenever Candidate A tries to show how evil Candidate B is, he always inadvertently exposes his own evil. "Candidate B has tried to destroy the sanctity of marriage" is code speech for "I, Candidate A, don't believe that all people have the same rights."

When they say "Candidate B advocates the redistribution of wealth", what that tells us is that Candidate A also advocates the same thing, just in a different way, and he hopes you won't realize that fact. Otherwise he would call for an end to all taxation and welfare, and he isn't doing that, is he?

When Candidate A announces that Candidate B doesn't support "reasonable regulation" of guns, I would love to see the definition of "reasonable". I would also love to see, in writing, where Candidate B recognizes the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they see fit, everywhere they go, in any way they desire, without asking permission from anyone, ever. Anything other is a restriction, and is way beyond "reasonable".

Most things should not be up for debate, from either side. "Hands off my rights, you meddling parasites!"

For every political ad, there is a clear exposure of both candidates and their absolutely evil opinions about key issues.

See how being libertarian frees you up to see the truth?


Why Is It Wrong To Harm the Innocent?

It just is, but why? Is there a logical reason? Does there need to be a logical reason? I suppose I'll examine the issue in my own warped way. I'm sure others have better reasons based upon ... who-knows-what.

"Wrong" in this case means something that is undesirable for moral reasons; in other words, something that is "bad". Bad actions damage those they are directed against. Bad food does not nourish the body properly. Bad car parts don't function correctly and are replaced with good ones. Bad plans result in failure. Bad people can be killed in self-defense without guilt (though not always without "legal" consequences). "Bad" is to be avoided and can result in the elimination of its source. Once again, some would say this is too "utilitarian". Yet, you may as well make your plans according to the existence of gravity if you are in our universe. Ignoring the truth or complaining that you don't understand exactly why it is as it is doesn't get you anywhere. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to get to the foundation. There may be a "Moral Grand Unified Theory" out there somewhere.

So, moving along- "Innocent" means someone who does not deserve harm, at least in the immediate instant or situation. So, it is bad to harm someone who doesn't deserve to be harmed.

If it is not wrong to harm the innocent, I would say there is NO such thing as "wrong" at all. I know that is not a good reason. Everyone understands at an instinctive level that it IS wrong to harm the innocent.

Or, sort of. People who are not mentally ill know it is wrong to harm innocent people that they know, or who live around them, but they often think it is OK to harm innocent people that they don't know, like strangers in Iraq or Pakistan. That is just part of the human tendency toward tribalism. It is OK to want to protect your own, but it is not OK to think of others as "less than human". Remember the term "collateral damage" if you want a name for this evil way of refusing to think.


Tuesday, October 28, 2008

"Officer Safety"

The belief that any of us should give up the slightest of our rights, or even conveniences, to protect the troops of the "standing army" that occupies our towns and countryside is disgusting. Whether it is a prohibition on tinted vehicle windows, or "laws" concerning the carrying of weapons, no "officer" is entitled to protection or safety that infringes on the rights of the people.

I am not saying that they don't deserve safety, just that they deserve no special safety above and beyond that which any of us deserve. If it is right for one, it is right for all. I have no right to insist that you give up any of your rights in order to make me feel safer. Neither does a cop.


Monday, October 27, 2008

Speaking With "Authority"

People who don't know their history too well, or who have an unfortunate addiction to the state, have a way of seeming to speak with a voice of authority and scolding libertarians for "not living in the grown-up world".

They can sound like they know what they are talking about, and seem to be "adults" while at the same time completely ignoring reality.

And they claim libertarians are "utopian".


Sunday, October 26, 2008

Saturday, October 25, 2008

State Addiction

Those who rant the most about "drug addicts" seem to be the most susceptible to being addicted to the state. Why do they so vehemently hate other addicts? Maybe it is because between the two, addiction to the state is by far the more destructive addiction. The numbers of "dead-by-chemical" can't even begin to compare to the numbers of "dead-by-state".

Face it, any addiction can be harmful. Some people are addicted to video games. Some are addicted to coffee. Some are addicted to music. Some are addicted to control and intimidation. Some are simply addicted to the worship of those who are addicted to control.

Liberty for ALL is the treatment for state addiction. Withdrawal may be painful for some statists. Some may not even survive. In a case like this, if the state-addicts were not a danger to everyone else they could be left alone to live out their days in their extremely crippled state. Unfortunately, one of the hallmarks of state addiction is that it severely impairs the ability to mind one's own business, and causes the addicts to form highly aggressive gangs. Therefore, treatment of statists is self-defense. They should all be given the choice, however: "Leave us alone and go on your way, or keep attacking us and receive treatment."


Friday, October 24, 2008

It's Up to You

No elected "official", not even the president, is going to "save" the country. He might be able to destroy it, but he can't help it in any substantive way. It's just a sad fact.

It is up to YOU to save the country, one person at a time. You must free yourself. You must ignore counterfeit "laws". Yes, that means you will have to become an outlaw. Don't worry; you are already a "criminal", at least according to the state.

You must fix your own personal economy. Don't wait for some ignorant bureaucrat to bail you out. Don't wait for some politician to protect your job. Don't wait for your FRNs to become fancy printed toilet paper.

Don't even wait for enlightened extraterrestrials to swoop in and solve all of humanity's problems. It will never happen in your lifetime.

Start now. Keep working at it. Never stop.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner

If you are concerned about gun rights, check out David Codrea's latest project: Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.

Tattling to the State

How do you know if something is none of your business?
How do you know if you should probably just keep your nose out of it?
If it is something you can (and should) deal with on your own, then as long as you are not violating anyone's rights, go ahead.
If, however, you feel the need to tattle to anyone, you are probably in the wrong.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Someone I know pretty well sent me a copy of a letter-to-the-editor she wrote. I was disappointed in it, to say the least.

She was writing in support of "rent controls" in Los Angeles.

What I don't understand is why people can't see the unintended consequences of government interference. I mean, it is obvious, isn't it? Can't people see that if you control rent (in other words, keep it artificially low in spite of the market) fewer people will be willing to become landlords and places to rent will become more scare, thereby harming the very people the government meddling was claimed to be intended to help? This isn't rocket science and anyone should be able to understand the consequences of such "laws".

I guess this is why bitter statists say libertarians "refuse to grow up". We won't play their grown-up lying games.


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Living the Life

Sometimes, when I read the blogs, it seems that some of the commenters think that "we" who value freedom should all go out into the world with a chip on our shoulders. If I state that I will not back down if confronted by a certain abuse, I am asked why I am not out there being shot or arrested "for liberty". Amusingly, the comment usually comes from those too afraid to even call a tyrant "a tyrant".

It seems to me the true test of a decent way of life is in being able to actually live. Yes, there are things you may come across that confront your resolve to not be a victim, and there will be a line-in-the-sand somewhere. But those things are extreme circumstances. In dealings with everyday people and situations those events should be rare. Especially if you make a point to avoid dealing with agents of the state if at all possible. Why seek out the sick and deranged? If you know a rabid badger lives in a hole, do you shove your hand down there just to annoy him? I don't.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Liberty As I See It: The Island Scenario

I sure do run into a lot of people who don't seem to understand "liberty" in the same way as I understand it.

Some of them, it seems to me, seem intent on finding the hard cases where liberty might break down as a philosophy. Yet, even in those cases, liberty still seems the best available option, even if it doesn't solve all the difficulties. The other options certainly don't solve anything.

A recent example: You and I are stranded (shipwrecked or plane crash survivors) on an island with no available food (hard to believe there is nothing to eat, but let's pretend). If you found the emergency rations and refuse to share, and I need food in order to survive, do you violate my right to live if you don't hand your food over to me? The person proposing this scenario to me certainly thought so.

So, lets think about this. Does communism solve the problem. Take from the "have" and divide it between them both. Where did this government suddenly come from that is now dividing the rations? Maybe I found a gun among the wreckage and can coerce you out of your food by myself. So, then instead of a greedy person, we have a greedy person and a thief. That's not any better.

Does democracy solve the problem? We vote on it, and the vote will undoubtedly end up a tie. Even if I somehow trick you into thinking I have two votes to your one (Wilson votes to share!), how will I enforce your compliance with the "election". Once again, we see that force (theft) comes into play.

No, I have no right to your food if you don't want to share. Your actions might mean you are not a nice person, but you have no obligation to keep me alive.

My thought is that in this case cooperation would be advantageous to us both. I can start fires without any modern aids, I can make rope and stone tools, and shelter, and might just be able to find some of that "nonexistent" food and fresh water. Whatever skills you might be able to add to the equation would just increase our odds of survival. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will want to cooperate.

If the roles were switched and I had found the food, and you had the gun, I would probably walk away from the food and let you fend for yourself. After all, as long as I stayed away from you, I would soon have the whole island to myself.

Liberty does not eliminate the bad people, it just takes away most of their power and ALL of their legitimacy. Something no other system or philosophy can do.


Saturday, October 18, 2008

OBAMcCAIN the Muslistian/Chrislim

I get really tired of listening to the people who are worried that half of OBAMcCAIN might be a Muslim because of his name or parentage. I never realized that your beliefs were dictated by your name, but...whatever. It is just a diversion from the real issue: the man is a socialistic monster who thinks you belong to "society". You have no value except as fertilizer for the collective. You are just unprocessed Soylent Green.

In other words, his real opinion of you is exactly the same as that of his other, presumed Christian, half.

If he can't use you, he has no use for you. OBAMcCAIN will tell you whatever it thinks you will be most susceptible to. That is reality, based upon an examination of its real actions and history, and not based upon imaginary things. Don't fall into the pointless debate, but keep returning the discussion to the real, objective, world.

And don't, under ANY circumstance, vote for any incumbent or "major party" candidate. In fact, just don't vote. But if you still feel you must, write in my name.


Friday, October 17, 2008

The Cruelest Utopia: Minarchy

Minarchy, the "smallest possible government", is a cruel idea. It means no pension for government employees, that's for certain.

Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." In other words, every generation or so, in order to keep government in check, and to keep liberty alive, those who love liberty need to kill off all the politicians.

Admit it. The idea made you smile. That would make it a lot less likely to have lifetime career parasites... uh.... politicians and bureaucrats. If they still wanted that power over the lives of others that badly, they would want to get in and out as quickly as possible. Maybe like a thrill-seeking thing. Still it is a very bad way to organize a society, especially since the bloodshed is unnecessary if you just keep tyrants from gaining power to begin with.

Government is a cancer. It is not possible to leave a small tumor inside and scold it into not growing. You must cut the thing out. If you leave a bit of it, you will need to repeat the surgery every time the tumor gets dangerously large. It is simpler, more effective, more realistic, and less painful, to get rid of ALL of the cancer at once.


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Government's Role

What is the "proper role" of government? Besides as a discredited historical curiosity, I mean. Government, IF it is "necessary", which I do not believe it to be, should only be your bodyguard. And only if you are somehow too defective to defend yourself, of course. Your bodyguard can defend you from attack, but should not tuck you in at night, feed you, or wipe your butt. If that is what you need, you need a nanny. I don't.


Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Libertarian Parenting

I wish I had the answers to this one. Really. I welcome any thoughts and ideas from you. In the meantime here are my random thoughts on the subject.

Do parents "own" their children? No. Children are not slaves to be forced to do the housework or yardwork that the parent doesn't feel like doing. Children should not be subjected to counterfeit "laws" or rules anymore than adults should be. That includes such things as fashion, music, and hairstyles. If others, such as public school "officials", try to enforce nonsensical rules on your kids, I would hope you would stand behind reason and not behind "authority". (That is, IF you haven't taken the self-defensive step of removing your kids from those government indoctrination centers.)

Parents do bear a huge responsibility to protect kids and teach them how the world works so that they can grow up independent and realistic. Sometimes that means letting them see that the world isn't often fair or rational, and that the majority seems to love authoritarianism. Show them why the majority is wrong. I try to show my kids that libertarianism frees them and makes them better people. I try to show them it gives them a better way of dealing with others. I'm trying; I'm just winging it.

My belief is that all parents screw up their kids in some ways, and the best parents try to minimize that and give their kids the mental and emotional tools to overcome it.

My two older kids have grown up to be pretty libertarian. I am pretty happy with them, and I like them as people. What more can be said?

My youngest kid (pictured above), well, what can I say ... all toddlers are cuddly anarchists.


Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Rights, Liberty, and Responsibility

Rights exist by virtue of being a person.

Liberty is a consequence of exercising those rights.

Personal responsibility is how you retain your liberty and keep from being killed by others who are also exercising their rights and protecting their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

At least, that is my take on the relationships.


Monday, October 13, 2008

Optimism and Denial

Happy optimism is one thing, but denial of a bad situation helps no one. You need to be realistic.

That's why, when you "support America" no matter what the US government does, or when you gloss over the aggression that has become standard operating procedure for the police... alert, critical thinkers dismiss you.

Good things surround you. Acknowledge those things and be happy about them. Recognize the bad stuff, too. You can't change the bad stuff if you refuse to see it. Take the first step.

When the bad stuff overwhelms the good stuff, no amount of laws or body armor will protect the tyrants against unintended consequences. That is Liberty's ace in the hole.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

"The Bad Guys Won't Play By The Rules"

I often see people complain that a society based upon the ZAP (or any other nice libertarian or anarchist principle) won't work because the bad guys won't cooperate. Face it; the bad guys don't cooperate with the system in place now. Not only that, but they use the system to their advantage. They often get elected to public office, or put on a badge, where they can prey on society with much less personal risk. This would not be possible in a ZAP-based society.

The reason I like these principles; the really great thing about them, is that they don't depend upon the cooperation of the bad guys. That's right, the bad guys become irrelevant. Can your proposed system achieve that?

Don't forget that the good people, the ones who would cooperate with such a just system, vastly outnumber the bad guys. The morally neutral people, those who will go along with whatever the social norm happens to be, will tip the odds in our favor even more.

The bad guys will either cooperate or will get killed quickly in a truly just society based upon the ideas that initiating force is wrong, and that the rule applies to EVERYONE equally. A few might even decide it is easier to become honest people rather than risk annihilation at the hands of a universally armed society that no longer has to fear retribution from the state when defending life and property.


Friday, October 10, 2008

Even A Stopped Clock.....

A while back I was told I should reject the scientific fact of evolution because it is taught in government schools. Remember that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

This has a couple of implications.

If you need to know the time, you don't run to check the stopped clock first. However, if you have other ways of verifying the time, you don't decide they are wrong just because the stopped clock happens to display the same time. This is where intelligence and reasoning ability comes into play.

So, don't look to the state for answers, but if you find a truth somewhere, don't discard it just because the state might happen to acknowledge the same truth. You would probably have a different take on it or reach different conclusions anyway.

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Take A Breath

Government is stupid. It is based upon ridiculous suppositions and false premises. It is without moral justification. It is made up of fools, liars, and tyrants. It is cheered on and supported by imbeciles and co-conspirators.

I need to remind myself of that from time to time and remind myself that government has nothing to do with life.

This is one of those times.


Wednesday, October 08, 2008

"Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

This is one of the best things I have read recently (although it appears to have been written in 2005): "Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

What Would it Take?

What would it take to make YOU personally oppose the federal government (or any state or local government)? What would it take to make you actively oppose it rather than just saying that they have "gone too far" this time?

Concentration camps filled with your neighbors? Gun confiscations? Martial law? Tanks rolling down your street? Tax rates of 90%?

Would you only take real action if movies and television or sports were banned? Or if food became scarce? Or if cars were outlawed? Or if the US dollar became (more) worthless?

This is a question which I would seriously like to get you to think about. For some people I think there is nothing that would ever make them oppose "their" government, at least with meaningful action. For others, maybe more than the government is aware of, the next step might be the final straw. Some of you may have crossed that line long ago.


Tuesday, October 07, 2008

OBAMcCAIN Debates Itself

Doesn't that qualify as "masturdebation"? I don't feel like watching this sad creature trying to gratify itself on planetwide television.

Strange Priorities

Since when it is "important" to harm people who are harming no one else? Since when is it a "family value" to violate the rights of others? Or to steal the property of others... or to invade other countries.... or to use coercion to get your way? Why can't some people see that if it were OK for them to do to others, it would be OK to have it done to them. And why would anyone make it a priority to pursue this kind of activism? Fear? Hatred? Prejudice? Ignorance?

Watching the various political factions fighting over who can steal from others better or more fairly or more efficiently makes me feel like I am in a bad comedy. A poorly scripted and acted one at that. I just need Joel and the 'Bots to make rude and clever comments about the action. I could find humor in it if it wasn't harming real people in real ways.

This really is bizarre. I can't understand the mind-set. Does that make me the oddball?


Monday, October 06, 2008

Energy Crisis or Too Much Government

Most problems, even those few not directly caused by government, could be solved by keeping government out of the way. Running to the state to "save" you is the one thing you should never do. It is a complete waste of effort, and will only serve to further enslave you.

The so-called energy crisis could be solved almost overnight if government would just get out of the way. Stop "taxing" fuel and the production and delivery thereof. Stop subsidizing those energy businesses that can't compete in a free market. Let the market set the price of fuel. Let the market determine the desire for new technology. And stop interfering with innovation. Supply and demand.

Yet too many people want the government to "do something" to "save us" from energy problems. They want new regulations to cause hardships that will force people to look for new power sources, and "laws" that will prohibit the use of traditional sources of energy. They spend a lot of money on mass-media advertisements to incite the people to beg government to help. They are really just selling their children to the state. Not a very nice thing to do, in my estimation.


Saturday, October 04, 2008

I HATE Politics

Since I think of "politics" as an attempt to get along with those we dislike, I hate politics. I don't want there to be "people I don't like". If there MUST be people I don't like, I would be content to just "live and let live". Why can't they do the same?

I would like to see the world be free of politics, OR make politics become a club that exists only among those who choose to join. As long as they can't affect the rest of us, they should be free to wage war among themselves. That would go a long way towards making the world safe for the rest of us.

Wouldn't that be an amusing situation? A club where the members argue over whom to coerce, and in what ways. They could talk about "right" and "left" or "conservative" and "liberal" while the rest of us ignore their infantile bickering. They could tax one another, and redistribute the wealth of the members, order one another around, whatever..... but they could not touch anyone who did not sign up to be a part of their twisted club. The rest of us could live our lives with a real free market, with liberty for ALL, and knowing that we will not be kidnapped for defending our lives and property from the few parasites who survive real liberty.


Friday, October 03, 2008

Young Voters, Lend Me An Ear

One half of the OBAMcCAIN abomination is counting on the votes of the young idealistic voters to sweep him to victory. He may be right, but not if they understand what they are voting for. He cries "change" while representing the exact same socialistic nonsense that has been actively destroying freedom for centuries. Your future is at risk from this man and those like him!

Young people need hope. They look to others to provide that hope, only to be used as pawns for ambition. I aim to give them real hope by pointing out that "hope" should come from inside, not from others. I would tell them "Trust your own abilities". I trust them, and all people, to know what is best for their own lives. You can't get experience in living your life if no one lets you.

The state, and much of society, wants to keep them dependent and helpless for many years beyond their real childhood. And then it blames them when they act like the irresponsible children they have been trained to be. That's ridiculous, and cruel.

Look, if you are young and idealistic, don't fall for the trap of voting for more of the same masquerading as something new and different. If you do, those who only want to use you will win.


Thursday, October 02, 2008

One Less False Authority

I have heard it said that atheists simply believe in one less god, among the thousands which have been worshipped throughout history, than do believers. So it is with anarchists: we simply believe in one fewer false authority than do the statists.

I had this brought home to me after I made a comment on another "libertarian" blog where statists are reviled on a daily basis. (This person does have a favorite government activity, however, and I once stepped on some toes by pointing out the hypocrisy of that position. I guess the memory still irritates.) A comment from me elicited an angry reply, effectively ridiculing my stance, even though I had not mentioned anything in my comment that was even slightly at odds with the blogger's point of view. I hadn't even hinted at "anarchism".

If I choose to comment on another blog, I realize I am there at their whim. I am subject to their rules and desires. I do expect consistency and rationality from them. However, that blogger immediately went back to blasting statists, the exact same subset of statists, in the very next post after becoming angry at me for the exact same position! I don't get it.


Wednesday, October 01, 2008

"They Differ Where It Matters To Me"

Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same: socialists who want to kill you unless you agree with them and allow them to control every aspect of your life. As has been said "When there is a boot on your neck, it doesn't matter if it is a right boot or left boot".

Yet fearful "voters" still clamor to be victimized by the group that they believe shares their values. It is just hype. Or a vicious lie. Or sweet, seductively whispered lies, saying just what the desperate person wishes to hear. They want, or need, to believe that the state is at least partially their friend. They want to believe that if only they could get the "right people" elected, things would be OK. They want to feel good about helping the "right side" win the cultural battle against "those people" (whoever that might be).

However, when I recently pointed this out to someone, she said "There are still differences between Republicans and Democrats. They differ where it matters to me." No, they don't. They only trick you into believing that with lies. This belief is pathetically sad and delusional and it leads to the Nazi "showers".

The Democrats and Republicans only really differ in who they lie to. When they are trying to get the votes of a particular segment of society, they will lie to that segment in order to make them falsely believe they are on "your side". Since they usually focus on one segment of society and ignore the rest, they frequently get away with their deception. Only when they try to pander to opposing sides does their duplicity become obvious.

One group I see fall for this trick over and over again is the "religious right". The Democrats have no chance with the "religious right" so they don't even bother to pander to them, choosing to pander to the "progressive churches" instead. The Republicans, however, know they can still fool gullible, desperate, scared "Conservative Christians" into thinking that they are on the same team. Unless those Christians are on the side of genocide, socialism, torture, and tyranny, they are not on the same side. And if they are, then they are enemies of liberty and are to be reviled along with the rest of the statists. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. If you advocate violating the rights of one group you are playing into the hands of the state. Remember my analogy of the "snake's jaws"? Both sides work in apparent opposition toward the same goal. The only way to win is to refuse to be grabbed.

If you advocate violating the rights of any "other" group, be it gays, Christians, a "racial" group, "drug users", or gun owners, you are playing right into the hands of the state. The state will thank you for your help, I am sure. You forget that there are others who feel it is equally important to oppress or victimize you in some way. That is why ALL rights for EVERYone, EVERYwhere for ALL time is the only way. It is called "libertarianism". We will not forget who betrayed us.