Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Don't Call Me a "Citizen"!

I try to avoid using the word "citizen" when I speak of the people who inhabit a region. The definition I linked to defines "citizen" as someone who "owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection". By that definition I am quite positively NOT a citizen. I owe no government anything but contempt, and I am not "entitled" to anything from any government but to be left alone.

Another of the definitions is "an inhabitant". I do inhabit this area, although I don't worry about the local (or other) Rulers who, while lording over the compliant inhabitants, may think they have authority over me. As an inhabitant, I could be considered a "citizen", although that usage sounds silly.

I am just me. There is no need to label me because of where I live.


Sunday, July 27, 2008

Nothing to Hide?

Some government sympathizers scold the more sensible among us for not wanting government snoops poking around in our private matters by saying "If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you care?" or by proclaiming "I have nothing to hide!"

Fine. Then let me come to your house and look through your underwear drawer, medicine cabinet, computer files, and under your mattress. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?

Or do your doors open only for those who can kill you if you refuse? Why does it matter?

Think about it.


Saturday, July 26, 2008

Don't Let Anyone Tell You "Driving is not a Right"

When I am reading about "sobriety checkpoints", "drivers' licenses", or other statist nonsense, I notice some person always makes the comment that "driving is a privilege, not a right". What utter balderdash.

If the right to travel freely is not really a right, then there are no rights. And don't say that you can walk wherever you wish to go, but to drive a car you need government permission. If cars were a recent invention, and were not so necessary to integrate yourself into modern life, that might hold water. But that hasn't been true for many decades. Nope, operating your car without asking permission from anyone is a right. Neither can you claim that because the state has a monopoly on road ownership, that they can set the rules for travelling on their roads. If they didn't maintain that monopoly with coercion and theft, that might be true. Aggressors are not allowed to set the rules in a free society.

That doesn't mean that owning a car is a right. Just like the right to own and to carry firearms, no one is obligated to give you a car. However, if you can afford to buy one and fuel it, no control-freak has the authority to stand in your way. Get the coercion out of the equation and cars would be affordable enough for anyone, and fuel cost wouldn't be an issue.

If you own a car, or are loaned one for your use, using it to travel wherever you want to go, as long as you are not trespassing or harming innocent people or their property, is an absolute human right not subject to regulation by the state. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply trying to give the state power over your life.

Added: Eric Sundwall posted this excellent link on my Haloscan comments:
I recommend you read it.

Friday, July 25, 2008

My Responsibilities

When you refuse to allow the state to use you as an excuse to tyrannize your neighbors it means you take on some responsibilities. These are not difficult. Nor are they unusual. Just a few years ago, they were "normal", but they are not recognized too frequently anymore.

It is my responsibility to watch out for drunk or otherwise dangerous drivers while I travel. I do not ask the state to conduct immoral checkpoints on my behalf. I may not see all danger coming, but neither can the state protect me from all potential dangers. I'd rather take my chances with random accidents than with intentional bullies with badges, attitudes, and roadblocks.

It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family from attackers and thieves. I do not need the state to use its enforcers to oppress the community, or the world, pretending that it does this for my "safety". If they continue to do this, it is not for me. Just get out of my way and let me do my duty.

The foods, chemicals, and other substances I put into my body are my responsibility. If they make me obese, insane, or dead, it was my poor choice that did it. Don't kick in my neighbors' doors or kidnap their children to protect me from these things.

It is my responsibility to educate my children. Don't demand a ransom from my neighbors' houses on my behalf to pay for your government indoctrination centers. Don't expect me to train my children to salivate at the tone of your bells, either.

It is my responsibility to find food and shelter without taking money stolen from my neighbors by agents of the state. That may mean I live in my car and eat weeds that grow wild. It wouldn't be the first time. I will try to avoid that situation from now on, but if it can't be avoided, it is still preferable to living off the fruits of coercion.

Obviously, this is not a complete list. I am not suggesting that your list would be the same as mine, but I imagine there would be substantial overlap.


Thursday, July 24, 2008

Pathetic Statists

Whenever a liberty advocate points out the folly or the evil of the state, some pitiful creature will always respond with a "but my child was killed" story.

That is sad, but does not excuse the existence of the state. Obviously if your child died from an act of non-state aggression, the state's liberty-crushing efforts did not prevent it. Why sacrifice my children on the altar of tyranny? Is this your idea of "an eye for an eye"?

Whether it is "sobriety checkpoints" or victim disarmament schemes, children still die.

There are thousands upon thousands of draconian, immoral, unethical, stupid, and evil "gun laws". They don't stop death from happening, and in many cases actually empower the attackers. They give renegade federal agencies permission to destroy gun owners.

Those disgusting checkpoints don't stop drunk driving; they destroy an absolute human right to travel unmolested. They also give the Liberty Eradication Operatives (LEOs) "exciting" new ways to snoop and intimidate normal, peaceful people. That may be their real purpose: to desensitize formerly free people to living under the boot of the police state. Even if that is an unintended consequence, it is enough to condemn such abominations.


Wednesday, July 23, 2008


Even though I have been called "anti-government", and have even referred to myself that way on occasion, I am not ... really. I am just extremely "pro-liberty". If government were a way to increase liberty, instead of the greatest threat to it, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, history has shown a clear picture of what happens when liberty and the state meet. Oil and water? More like gunpowder and flame.

Some have tried to establish governments in order to "secure liberty". It's like trying to get healthy by giving yourself cancer. It is doomed to fail every time. This tactic has been tried because some people fear bad people so much, feeling that the world is crawling with them, and imagine that there is no defense without the state. The solution doesn't lie in giving the most crafty of those bad guys an incentive to seek political power with which to prey upon the decent people with near-impunity, but in freeing people to take care of themselves without fearing reprisals from the state.

If you think I am joking about "near-impunity", just watch what happens when someone tries to make a video of police "doing their jobs". Point out that "sobriety checkpoints" are wrong and ineffective for the stated purposes, but excellent conditioning for soviet-style society. Or suggest that some congresscritter is a traitor who should be held accountable. Or notice how often LEOs are found to have done "nothing wrong" when committing acts that would get you or I many years in prison, IF we were not shot on the spot. Point out the many crimes of the state and you will be treated like a criminal, not just by the oppressors themselves, but by the majority of society who will deny the existence of tyranny as it loads them into the cattle cars. Question not thy masters. That is pretty close to impunity if you ask me.

I will continue to be "pro-liberty". If that seems "anti-government" to you, you may be a statist.


Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Good Neighbors

Not that I have any personal experience, but I would think that libertarians would make excellent neighbors. Who doesn't want a neighbor who minds his own business and is willing to help out? And don't underestimate the value of a neighbor who will work things out if there is a problem without getting the enforcers involved.

One problem might crop up if your libertarian neighbor chooses to use his property in ways you don't approve of. I have been "guilty" of this. But it was my house and, except for offending the neighbors, it was causing no harm. I didn't even complain when the neighbors used pneumatic power tools on their cars late at night, but they sure squealed about my tall grass and poultry. "If you mow your yard and find a car, you might be a ....." well, you know the rest. Add to that the occasional gunshots, campfires, and somewhat unconventional landscaping. Hey, the neighbors annoyed me, too.

So, on second thought, I was probably wrong. I guess libertarians would make excellent neighbors for other libertarians, but a major pain in the posterior for control-freak types. This is why I know that I should only live in the boondocks far from "more civilized" types.


Monday, July 21, 2008

Sunday, July 20, 2008

You Know What They Say About ..... Statistics...

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that." ~ Homer Simpson

During a recent endeavor I was told that I needed to cite statistics and quote experts in order to bolster my credibility. I tried, but I guess I am not cut out for statistics. That, plus the government agency I was trying to get the statistics from either had no data to share or the real data showed they were full of male Bos taurus fecal matter.

The problem I have is that I don't tend to believe statistics when I read them. They are so easy to manipulate. And when they come from government.... well, any possible believability just flew right out the window.

Oh sure, I will cite a statistic now and then, when the mood strikes and the statistic is easy to find. Don't believe the ones I post either. Here's what to believe: your own experience. Or that of people you trust. Don't trust agencies or groups who have an agenda, especially when the statistics cited would give them an excuse to have more power to control your life. They might be (gasp!) lying to you!

The point is, I am not here to quote statistics or to tell you what the experts think. I am here to tell you what I think and to get you to then think for yourself.

Therefore, I will leave you with another quote from an expert:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain

Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Solution to "Government"

I am becoming convinced that the solution to the problem of "government" is to just get over the delusion that it is necessary. It's not, even if you can't currently imagine life without it. For every argument for government, several alternatives present themselves if you spend a little time thinking outside the carefully constructed, mirrored, box.

Those government indoctrination centers that we are encouraged to call "public schools" cripple our critical thinking skills where government is concerned. I'm sure that isn't accidental.

I'd love the chance to see what one month of absolutely zero government at any level would bring. You can bet that the former Rulers would try their hardest to monkeywrench the experiment. That might present some wonderful opportunities for ridding ourselves of that type of destructive parasite altogether. Would you allow your glorious anarchistic liberty to degenerate into chaos? Me neither.

Together we could teach the truly aggressive individuals that they had better shape up or be darwinized. Then, even if by some tragedy government came back, society would still be better for lack of bad guys. I wonder if any cops would survive the vacation from tyranny. A few might be able to behave themselves for a month.


Friday, July 18, 2008

Uphill Battle? It's a Wall!

The article was about a "meth lab bust". My comment was "Prohibition deja vu. Sigh. Outlaw something that people want and are willing to pay for; the price goes up and bad people (and some not-so-bad people) get involved in providing the product. Lessons learned? I guess not."

One brilliant ninny* wrote back " either have a strange sense of irony and humor, or you really are that stupid and ignorant. Methamphetamine is a highly addictive substance with devastating consequences, which include anxiety, violence and psychosis. Give reading a chance." He then posted a link to a government information site. (Yeah, you'll get "truthful" info there! LOL)

Blind, deaf, and illiterate ignorance displayed all in one paragraph! He's probably a LEO (Liberty Eradication Operative) or a relative of one. Where does this person read in my comment that I think that using meth is a good way to spend your weekend? Acknowledging the futility (and evil) of the War on (some) Drugs does not equal an endorsement of using them, Taterhead! Yet, this is what most people probably think first when confronted with the truth. The thought that killing people over chemicals might be stupid and evil never crosses their "mind". Their knees jerk and force words out of their mouths instead of their brains forming thoughts that turn into words.

This probably made me more angry than is warranted, but it gets tiresome fighting against such deeply ingrained stupidity on a regular basis. When someone posts a comment like that, he should be buried under an avalanche of ridicule and derision. Yet, there is only silence. Are people even awake?

Why is meth production profitable? Prohibition.
Why do violent aggressors get involved in the production and distribution of meth? Because Prohibition keeps out the nicer people.
Why do people choose to spend their money to purchase meth, knowing (yes, they know) that it will harm them? For the same reason that humans have always used mind-altering substances: it is a hard-wired part of being human to seek these experiences. No "law" or "war" will ever change that no matter how badly the control-freaks wish it were so. To pretend otherwise, and make policy decisions based upon that fantasy, is delusional. The harm those policies cause to civilization is inexcusable.

*This waste of skin posted a comment today making fun of the winner of the "Ms. Plus America" pageant. I guess his stupidity and rudeness knows no bounds.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Messy Freedoms

There is a bell-curve of acceptance of liberties. It is shaped like the cross-section of a sunny-side-up fried egg, with the yolk being those things that no sane person doubts: the right to not be raped, murdered, kidnapped, or stolen from.

The "egg white" is the liberties that are really the same, but with the understanding that government and its agents are also not allowed to be doing those same things to anyone while calling them "taxation", "arrest", "law enforcement", etc.

The "messy freedoms" I speak of are the ragged edge of the egg where the grease has spattered and bubbled: the freedom to trade sex for money, the freedom to own and carry a fully automatic gun as you walk around town, the freedom to destroy yourself with chemical abuse, the freedom to end your own life if you decide to. These things are just as important as the ones that the majority agrees on. Maybe even more so for the simple fact that while the timid may deny it, the rights are the same: the right to live your own life however you see fit as long as you do not harm another innocent person. "Harm" does not include offending someone's sensibilities, or violating their sense of morals, either.

Maybe you could call these things "fringe liberties". These are the things "polite society" tries to prohibit, control, or otherwise regulate, but in doing so, initiates force against those who choose to pursue happiness in those things. That is wrong, no matter how you slice it.


Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Me, a "Bad Example"

I was recently reminded that I am used as a bad example by some people. "You don't want to turn out like Kent!" goes the warning.

Well, if you want to turn out to be a "citizen" who belongs to the state, then I would be a bad example. If you want to worship Rulers and their "laws", then you might want to choose another person to emulate. If you want to control the lives of others even though they are harming no one but themselves, you need another hero. If you idolize the military or "law enforcement", then I am not your man. If you want to be rich, not that there is anything wrong with it, then look elsewhere for a model. I don't dress like a typical 21st century American, so you might want to look at GQ or something for fashion ideas.

I am not wealthy, or even successful. I have had failed businesses, marriages, and quests. On the other hand, I don't beat my kids or my girlfriend. I do take charity from family sometimes, but I don't accept welfare. I try to help people when I can, even at risk to myself. I have never hit anyone in anger, although I have come close. My friends like me, and I make new friends easily when given the chance. Even people who don't like me are given a chance. Life is too short to make enemies. Why waste the time and energy?

Really, it seems the only people who don't like me are those who have tried to cheat me and were thwarted. I don't really care for them too much, either, if you get right down to it. The difference is that they can't get over it, and I have.

I am living life to the best of my ability, using what I have. If that is not good enough, then I don't know what to say.


Monday, July 14, 2008

Ambassador For Anarchy

I don't always live up to what I am trying to do, but....I am trying to be an ambassador, not a sniper, for anarchy. That means not shooting the fence-sitters. That means I sometimes listen to what others are saying about the state without giving my (wonderful, informed, well thought out, insightful) opinion. You wouldn't believe how hard that can be. Well, yes, I'm sure you know exactly how hard it is.

In my moments of listening I find that, even among the government sympathizers, dissatisfaction is running high. They know something is wrong, but are too blind (or brainwashed) to see what it is.

It is not "which scoundrels" we elect; it is the entire idea of electing Rulers to control our lives that is disastrous. It is the fact that we have been lied to and deceived into believing that every problem can be solved by passing a new law. A "law" to control or restrict the other guy; to steal a little more of his liberty to enrich our own lives in some way. It does not work and never will.

Each piece of "the other guy's" liberty we steal is also stolen from our own liberty. As Ambassadors for Anarchy I hope we can steer others to find the real solution. Otherwise, it's gonna get messy.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Anarchists and Lotteries

I can understand why people still pay taxes. The guns of the state pointed at your back if you refuse and all that. Less understandable is why people play the state lottery.

I started thinking about this after standing in line waiting to pay for my milk while some guy bought $36.00 "worth" of lottery tickets. One ...... at ...... a ...... time. OK, not quite one at a time, but not quickly either. I am not an impatient person; just ask anyone who travels around with me. I can happily wait for a whole line of cars to pull into the intersection. Or I can invite people to cut in front of me, especially if I am having a lazy day. I was just thinking how much money the guy was wasting, and what he might use the money for if he hadn't been handing it over to the Rulers. Anyway, back to the topic.

Someone once called a lottery "A tax on people who are bad at math". When you realize your chance of winning is less than your chance of being obliterated by an asteroid strike you should put that money back in your pocket. Or buy something useful, like ammo.

The other thing is that it is a completely voluntary tax. There are no goons with guns forcing you to pay. You are walking in and voluntarily handing your money to the state. Money that you could use better and that the state doesn't deserve. Yes, I realize there is a tiny chance of a payoff, and I have succumbed to the temptation a couple of times. Still, that is money that is going to the state, and we who know better should not give a cent to the state voluntarily.

Just something to think about.


Saturday, July 12, 2008


Here are some new mottos for government programs, agencies, and people.

The USA PATRIOT Act: "Protecting you from liberty." or "Giving the government more ability to combat Liberty."

The IRS: "You would have just wasted your money on food and rent anyway."

TSA: "Making air travel safe for terrorists."

BATFE: "Ensuring the government's monopoly on force grows stronger each day."

FDA: "Making your life and death decisions so you and your doctor won't have to."

CIA: "Creating foreign terrorists for the next generation."

The military: "Helping tyranny in the name of freedom."

Department of Education: "Creating submissive serfs through ignorance".

The Federal Reserve: "Making your money worthless to enrich ourselves."

The Democratic National Committee: "Still pretending we are different than the Republicans".

The Republican National Committee: "Still pretending we are different than the Democrats."

The Libertarian Party: "Pretending to still have principles."

The Supreme Court: "Grabbing power that is not ours to take since 1803."

Congress: "Still the opposite of progress."

EPA: "The world's worst polluter ordering you to protect the environment."

Department of Agriculture: "Preventing preparedness through bribery."

Department of Energy: "Innovation in private hands scares us!"

DEA: "Killing for chemicals."

Department of Justice: "Oops. We meant 'just us'"

Border Patrol: "Your friendly jailers."

Police departments across the land: "We are the 'standing army' your founders warned you about!"

National Firearms Act of 1934: "Infringing on your 'militia-appropriate weapons' just to see if we could get away with it. And we have for 74 years and still counting!"

Gun Control Act 0f 1968: "What 'slippery slope'?"

The Brady Act: "Look where momentum will take you."

Obama: "It depends what you mean by 'hope' and 'change'."

McCain: "I hope you mean to change my Depends."

Barr: "I hope and depend on a change in what 'liberty' means.


Friday, July 11, 2008

Self Defense Thoughts

From Check Your Premises we get What is self-defense? Part 2. I think this is an important issue for us all to consider. You can read the previous discussion by following his links.

As I said in his comments, I don't usually consider verbal threats to be very serious, even if it is possible for the threatener to follow through. I have had several people make threats towards me during my life, but have yet to have someone really try to carry the threat out. Perhaps it is because I made it clear that I would defend myself if they tried. Perhaps it is because they cooled off or decided I wasn't worth the effort. Whichever, it means I have not been backed into a corner yet.

I realize that the state is a different critter: it threatens by its very existence, and it does carry out the threats against selected victims. Therefore, I think self-defensive actions are justified, if not always wise. I think it is usually easy to escape notice by the state, but I don't expect or demand anyone to live their life as a scurrying rodent hiding from a predator. I guess this is another case of wishy-washy "do what you like": confront, scurry, scheme, "gulch", or strike back. What is right for me may not be right for you in your current circumstance.

I do think that government is irredeemably evil, but I refuse to live my life worrying about what its agents or enforcers think about me. Government: disgusting, morally vacant, harmful to life and liberty, and never to be trusted with even the smallest power, but still almost completely irrelevant. Until something changes, I don't feel intimidated by them and I hope it stays that way.


Thursday, July 10, 2008

A Sense of "Belonging"

I can understand, in a way, why some people wish to join the military or do other things that make them a part of a group. They want to feel a sense of belonging. It is probably why they obsess over the term "brothers", too. It is unfortunate when those who claim to value liberty join a group that actively works to destroy it, and that is controlled by the worst enemy liberty has ever had, but I can at least see why they willingly blind themselves to that fact. Their need to belong overpowers their love of liberty.

I have rarely had that feeling of belonging. I have always been the black sheep. Maybe it is because I am not willing to turn my back on what I value in order to belong to a group that has opposite values. I would like to be a part of a group (real-life; not virtual) that mirrors my values. I would even enjoy a neutral group that has nothing to do with "values" of any sort, but is simply fun. I used to have that with karaoke. In my current situation, that may not be possible, but I will keep my eyes open to the possibility.


Wednesday, July 09, 2008


I had started writing this blog when I discovered that Sunni had already kinda beat me to the punch on some of my points. Oh well. I will go ahead and say what I was planning to say anyway!

Even though my family thinks I am rather odd, I feel that in a lot of ways I owe them for my oddness. It was my family who raised me and therefore encouraged me to exercise my ability to think for myself. I may have come to some different conclusions than they would have chosen, but without the freedom to think for myself, I would have never become an anarchist. With their support I was able to resist the brainwashing effects of the public "school" system. I was able to see through the smoke and mirrors of the state. For those things, and more, I thank them.

I think my differences with my family concerning individual liberty come down to the incontrovertible fact (in my eyes, at least) that is is absolutely wrong to punish a person for activities that harm no one but himself. Particularly as in "drug abuse". That fact stymies them every time. They just can't see it. I don't think it is a good thing to harm yourself with anything (medications, "cutting", overeating, job addiction), but adding "punishment" to the equation is just sick and perverted. Talk about making a bad situation worse!

If a person who is abusing drugs harms others, he is subject to self-defense (or owes restitution) just the same as anyone else. I am not excusing aggression by him or by anyone else. His problem does not give the state or anyone else the authority to coerce him to change his self destructive behavior; not through kidnapping (arrest, or forced treatment) or theft (fines, or civil-asset forfeiture). If you try to do so, you are the one committing the aggression and subject to the price of such behavior. And that is just as it should be.

My family would probably disagree, citing some responsibility to save people from themselves, or to prevent aggression before it happens. Unfortunately, they would be causing more damage than they prevented. Giving the state power over the lives of non-aggressors is the worse possible thing you could do to individual liberty. It just comes down to what you value. I can't speak for you, but as for me, I choose liberty!


Tuesday, July 08, 2008

"Gun Crimes"

Some anti-gun (or gun ambivalent) people assume that since I despise victim disarmament "laws" with every cell of my body and every spark of my synapses, I have never lost a friend to a gun-wielding attacker. They would be wrong.

My best friend from my teen years was killed by a gunshot to his abdomen when he was 24 years old. The shooter was only charged with manslaughter and I don't know what ever happened in that case. I didn't care because nothing would have brought my friend back. That doesn't mean I would associate with his killer in any way (being a firm believer in the power of shunning), but revenge ("punishment") accomplishes nothing. Could a gun have saved my friend's life? I don't know since only the killer knows what really transpired in those fatal moments. If the killer's story is true, then a gun would not have saved my friend. If the killer is lying, then it was a fatal mistake for my friend to be unarmed. I would not have denied him the tools to have a chance at changing the outcome.

A few years later another very good friend was murdered by an ex-boyfriend whom she had gotten a restraining order against. That "paper shield" didn't work too well. She was working for a lawyer, and he was advising her on how to deal with the stalker, who kept walking away from the mental health facility where he was supposedly living. I wonder if her boss advised her to get a gun and learn how to use it. If not, he didn't do all he could have done. If I had been around her during this time, I certainly would have helped her in that way. Would it have saved her life? I don't know. The killer pulled up beside her at a traffic light and shot her in the head. I don't know if she ever knew he was there. Situational awareness is so important.

(I had another friend who was shot by a mugger, but survived. Once again, his situational awareness was nonexistent and allowed the attacker to grab him from behind before he was detected. A gun in my friend's hand would probably have changed nothing.)

The point is that my dead friends would be just as dead had they been killed by fists, knives, bricks, or poison. Why do hoplophobes focus on the gun instead of the violation of the ZAP? To deny others the most effective tools for self-defense ever invented because bad people sometimes use the same tools is positively retarded. Give everyone the chance to choose the tools they prefer, without bowing to the desires of the Rulers and freelance aggressors. Helping the most vulnerable among us helps us all.


Monday, July 07, 2008

Eating Our Own

Recent discussions with Joey of The Freedom Symposium have illustrated to me what I think trips up the liberty movement*. The debate has really made me think, and has been very educational and helpful to me. It has helped me understand even more clearly why I believe what I believe (even if am not able to articulate it completely). None of this should be construed as an attack on him or his website, because I certainly don't mean it that way.

If you are a libertarian, you are already free, or at least well on your way to being a free anarchist (don't let that shock you. Just give it time). No one can truly enslave you without your consent, and often-times, with your help. Your body can be caged, it is true, but that isn't the worst enslavement. As long as you refuse to submit, in your mind, you remain free. That is the deepest freedom there is, and forms the foundation of physical freedom.

Most of us want to do so much more, though. We want the rest of the world to experience the joy and wonder of liberty that we experience. There is a stumbling block in our path: libertarians and anarchists will never get far in our quest for freeing the rest of the world if we can't stop "eating our own". It turns off those who may be interested by giving the appearance of a hostile environment. If they want that kind of life they can join the mainstream statists.

So many times we fall into the trap of "the only way". We decide our carefully, logically, thought out approach is the only way that will work to free everyone else. We tend to forget (because liberty is so important to us) that many people are scared of liberty and don't think they want to be free. Those people can be ignored for now. We can only help to free those who want it. The others will come around later, or they will join the statists in trying to kill those of us who insist on "liberty for ALL".

Look at history. "The only way" in any area is almost always wrong. Even paths that have led nowhere in the past may work in the future since the landscape constantly evolves. Don't limit your options, and don't denigrate others who are honestly trying. As for the in-fighting....I don't think it leads anywhere except to more centuries of statist domination.

*Just a joke. But sometimes I feel we are about as relevant to the world-at-large.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

"Independence" means.......

"Independence means we have an awesome military!" Huh?

That was an actual quote I heard on the radio during "Independence" day. No wonder so few people understand freedom, liberty, and independence; they are looking in the wrong places for the wrong things. It is very disheartening to hear such vacuous statements as the above quote. How can people work for liberty, or even value it, if they don't have the foggiest clue what it is? How can we educate them when they don't want to hear?

Unless and until the military surrounds DC and cordons it off to keep the tyranny contained, the military has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting "liberty".

"Independence" means you are not dependent. There is no such thing as complete independence since all living beings are dependent on the sun and/or chemicals of some sort, and other life (for us "higher" forms). We should not be dependent on unnecessary things, though. As humans we should never be dependent on theft and coercion, which is all government consists of. For humans "independence" means that we are not a burden on others and do not live as a parasite. It means that we only are part of voluntary associations and do not force ourselves and our preferences on others. Government worship is the polar opposite of "Independence". To support government is to spit on liberty and independence.


Saturday, July 05, 2008

Is There a Silver Bullet?

Ignoring the state is satisfying, but does it accomplish anything more than making me feel good? I doubt that enough people can be convinced to ignore government to make a real dent. I'd love for you to prove me wrong!

Can education reach enough people, and illustrate to them that government is never the right way to solve anything? To show them that coercion is wrong, and collective coercion is the wrongest of the wrongs? It can help. Spread the news every chance you get!

Resistance is futile. At least for your individual liberty. The state and its sympathizers love to make an example of resisters. Liberty already has enough martyrs. If you have the guts for it, though, go ahead and make a stand, but be sure it can't be swept under the rug or ignored by the general population. Otherwise you are just preaching to the choir.

Can politics be used to gain more liberty for me or for you? Since, as I have said, "politics is a method people use to get along with those they dislike", I have my doubts that it can be used for much, other than harming others in some way. Still, if you can make a scene and get your point across.... there are those who automatically reject more unconventional methods; you may convince a few of them.

Voting is something I am very wishy-washy on. Sometimes it is fun, otherwise I would NEVER do it. I don't feel obligated to "go along" with results of elections that I don't agree with, and you shouldn't either. My rights are not up for vote.

Any form of "working within the system" is crippled by the fact that the patients are running the asylum ... and making the rules. Just try to get on a jury when you know your true responsibility. Yet, if you are sneaky enough, you just might make it on a jury and be able to save some innocent person from being state-raped.

The thing is, I don't know what will eventually topple the state and neither do you. It may be one of the paths already being trod, or it may be something new and completely unforeseen. That is why you should keep trying whichever method you like the most. Pricking, stinging, buzzing, tickling, distracting, and otherwise annoying the state in whatever way you can. Eventually something, somewhere, will be the final straw that will make it crumble like a camel-dung tower. We can't afford to stop trying on even one front.


Friday, July 04, 2008

Patriotism and Independence Day

Time's Up for Tyranny.

Many people think "patriotism" is waving the US flag on "Independence Day", or reciting the socialists' "Pledge of Allegiance". Maybe it is. I prefer to not be called "patriotic" anyway.

I stand up for liberty for the individual; not loyalty to a government. Rights should always carry more weight than "authority". Instead of the US flag, I fly either the good old Gadsden flag (the real American flag) or the Time's Up flag. I think about what true "liberty" and "independence" are. I try to stay away from the war-lovers and the tyranny deniers. Those things are negative and negative people bring me down. Life is too short and precious to waste it on them.

If others honor and respect the same things, I am right there beside them; if not.... well, eventually time will show who is right.

PS: If you've always wanted a "Time's Up" flag, but been unable to afford one, here's a nice, free, virtual one you can use anywhere (online, anyway) you want. Enjoy it.


Thursday, July 03, 2008

The OverRulers

Government isn't just made up of Rulers, but of OverRulers.
They don't like the rules they are required to follow, so they overrule them.
They don't like the medicines or methods your doctor thinks would treat your condition, so they overrule him.
They don't like who you choose to love, so they overrule you.
They don't like the way you would prefer to live your life, so they overrule you.
And we let them do it!


Wednesday, July 02, 2008

"The Heller Misdirection" By William Norman Grigg

This is the best analysis I have seen of the Heller decision: The Heller Misdirection:

I especially enjoyed this paragraph:

We can't really expect a statist creature like Antonin Scalia to embrace the
view that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right of citizens, acting
either individually or collectively, to kill agents of the state when such
action is necessary and morally justified. Any other view of the Second
Amendment is worse than useless; this is certainly true of the view that emerges
in Scalia's Heller opinion.

I guess Mr. Grigg is threatening to kill people, just like I get accused of doing.

I have been saying that the Heller decision is not a good thing for freedom in the long run. It seems more and more people are reaching the same conclusion. As long as you say something is an individual right, yet can be "limited", you are saying it is NOT a right at all, but a privilege that is granted by the state. That is disastrous for ALL our rights, not just the right to own and to carry weapons. As long as we assent to be subject to the whims of the state our rights are meaningless. Do not fall for it.

Your rights are absolute; not subject to limitations or restrictions. No court, not even a supreme one, has the authority to whittle even the smallest sliver off of your rights. So don't let them pretend that they do. Remember that, even according to a previous Supreme Court decision, you have no obligation to obey any "law" that violates the Constitution because, as they said, it is not really a "law". I guess it is a counterfeit "law".

Of course, in that same decision, the Supreme Court justices became criminals by illegally stealing power that was not theirs to have; leading to this whole "interpreting the Constitution" mess that we keep finding ourselves in. But that is just another example of why you and I should not get our sense of right and wrong from the Clowns of Coercion.

Thanks to The War on Guns

Tuesday, July 01, 2008


It is becoming more and more popular to call yourself a "libertarian". You see many scoundrels running for office or giving misleading opinions under that banner. It is much less popular to actually live up to the label.

I'll ignore what I consider to be the core principle of "libertarianism" for this post, since I can still illustrate my point without bringing it up. I will also not bring up the point that "anarchism" is simply "libertarianism" in full bloom; taken to its logical conclusion. (Ooops! Did I say that?)

Not everyone who calls themselves a libertarian or hangs out with libertarians is one. No matter what your own internal definition of "libertarian" happens to be, I am sure you would agree that many so-called "libertarians" hold mutually exclusive ideas and values. You can not embrace individual liberty while thinking the answer to "the problem" lies in more (or more powerful) government and more (or stricter enforcement of) "laws".

"Libertarian". The core of the word is "liberty". So anyone who is opposed to liberty or seeks to limit it in any way (except where it harms innocent people) must not, by definition, be a "libertarian". It is like saying you could be opposed to good health and be a doctor. Not impossible, but definitely irrational.

The "argument" often used by the timid so-called "libertarians" is: "you can't really want to get completely rid of cops or taxes or all gun laws or....? That would lead to chaos and death in the streets!" I doubt it would, but.... Sometimes individual liberty might be inconvenient. It might even be dangerous. No one who values the individual over the collective ever said life would be or should be safe. A safe life (totally imaginary, by the way) would not be worth much anyway. Liberty is unexpected and exciting. It has no guarantees or limits. Even so, the alternative is much worse. The worst among us get drawn toward a position inside the state's machinery where they can use coercion to control and harm others in ways a freelance attacker can only dream of.

There are many socialists of the "left" and the "right" who are trying to have a bit of the libertarian glow rub off on them by claiming the label. Yet they are not willing to leave their love of the state and their distrust of individual liberty behind where it belongs. If this applies to you, you may need to rethink your ideas of yourself. It embarrasses the rest of us who actually believe in real individual liberty and are not ashamed to stand up for it... even when it is inconvenient.