Saturday, August 30, 2008


As a libertarian/anarchist I believe that I should not attack or steal from other individuals. That isn't a very radical position. Except for sociopaths, there is little disagreement over this.

I think even most statists believe in the same ethics for individuals. Where they go terribly wrong is that they think that agents of the state are exempt and have a different ethical standard. They are desperate for a reason to justify this unjustifiable insanity. So they call those acts by different names. Or they simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

I refuse to do either.


Friday, August 29, 2008

Liberty Works For Me

I have never run into a situation where liberty doesn't work. With all the nebulous "what if"s out there nothing has ever happened that "required" me to initiate force.

That doesn't mean that my life has gone perfectly. Just like everyone else, some things have seemed unsolvable.

In order to "fix" some things, people would probably need to commit murder. Since that violates just about every legal, moral, and ethical code in existence (not just my personal one) I can discount that "shortcoming". The unforeseen consequences would undoubtedly be worse than the situation which was "fixed". Plus, it would just be wrong. As they say "extreme cases make for bad law". So it is with personal philosophies. Since liberty continues to work, I will continue to live it. It is the right thing to do.

"Criminals For Gun Control" Video

Check out this video: Criminals For Gun Control. Obviously, this applies to the badged ones as well as the free-lancers.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Scared of a Plant

No government that is so afraid of a plant that it lies, kidnaps, and kills people deserves any respect. It deserves scorn and contempt. And not just from us anarchists, but from the statists, too.

I mean, your government is supposed to be such a big, strong daddy that it keeps you safe from "those other people" who are scary to you. It supposedly knows all the answers and tells you how to best live your life. But when confronted by a plant that has been used medicinally and recreationally for thousands of years without killing anyone (also used for rope that has killed countless people, both good and bad, but that's another issue) this big, strong state gets so scared that it behaves irrationally and spreads absurd propaganda about the feared plant through the national media; propaganda that knowledgeable people laugh at. And you still think your government is "big and strong"? Pshaw.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Keep Hoping, Statists

I think there are a good many people out there who are desperately hoping that libertarianism and its more radical child, anarchy, can never work. They have a lot invested in statism and keep looking for reasons why liberty "can't" work.

It is up to libertarians and anarchists to prove them wrong.

We can do this in our private and public lives on a daily basis. We can do this when we have a conflict between ourselves or with statists by taking the high road. We can do this by never initiating government contact when there is a conflict. If they initiate it, we can still deal with the situation in a principled way, though it may be harder.

Prove to the statists that the state is not only unnecessary, but undesirable, to us, at least. Show them that they are being ridiculous when they claim we will all kill one another without the guns of the state pointed at our heads; keeping us in line. Let them keep hoping while we keep proving them dead wrong.


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Libertarian and Anarchist

I have had a revelation. I have always maintained that libertarianism and anarchism are related, as in "Anarchism is libertarianism in full bloom". I think I just figured out a deeper relationship.

"Libertarianism" describes my interations with other individuals. I respect their rights and expect them to also respect mine.

"Anarchism" describes my interactions with Rulers of any sort. I ignore their illegitimate authority until the issue is forced, and then I regard them as the parasites upon civilization that they have proven themselves to be throughout all of recorded history.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Learning "Obedience to Authority"

Public schools (and their private counterparts) are not really in existence to teach you science, history, geography, language skills, or math. They are there to teach you to obey authority and jump at the sound of a bell.

It has been estimated that you can be taught all the skills you need in order to take care of your own education in about 100 hours. The rest of the time, usually 12 years of formal schooling, is used for teaching you something that is much more difficult. It teaches you to betray yourself. This lesson didn't set well for some of us.

In high school, when a teacher used a small pickled flounder as an example in a test and called it a skate (as an example of chondrichthyes) I refused to go along. The teacher got very angry at my insistence, but I felt it was important to not give the kids false information. He never admitted he was deceiving the class, but he knew I knew.

I'm sure my life would be easier had I absorbed my lessons in obedience, but I would not trade my independence for ease. Well.... maybe sometimes.


Saturday, August 23, 2008

Libertarian, But.....

You have probably noticed, as have I, how many supposed libertarians cling to government at some level. It is as if they are scared to take that last step. They come up with excuse after excuse for why that last vestige of government is necessary to keep us all from killing each other.

Often they point to the Constitution, the "founders", religion, or their own military career as justification for their beliefs. They resort to insults such as the over-used "If you don't like it, move". Brilliant, Sherlock. And where exactly would you suggest as fertile ground for freedom? The entire globe is infected with your statism.

I am so tired of hearing them make excuses for blocking freedom. If you are scared, fine. Get out of the way and at least stop being a traitor to liberty. This really makes me angry. Governments should have "friends" like these.

So, should we simply write those people off as hopeless? I don't know, but I think they are even more stubborn and dangerous than flaming statists.


Friday, August 22, 2008

True Environmentalists Don't Support Socialism

I love the natural world. I value unspoiled wilderness and wildlife. I can't stand litter and can't fathom why some people are ignorant enough to toss trash on the ground instead of putting it in trash containers. It has never hurt me even a tiny bit to hold onto my trash for a few minutes. People who crap in their nest by polluting and damaging the world are no friends of mine. But neither are the people who think that Law Pollution is the answer to trash and chemical pollution.

Those who embrace government protection of the environment are ignoring the fact that governments the world over are the worst despoilers of the natural world. They also fight against technological civilization while glamorizing tribal herdsmen; ignoring the fact that technology usually lessens the impact of the individual on the environment.

I have nothing against tribal herdsmen nor against high-tech societies. I have a lot against those who think the solution to anything is the growth of government control at the expense of the individual's liberty. Once again, government is not the answer. People generally protect that which they own, but even in the cases where they don't, they OWN the property, not the government, not society, not the neighbors. Taking their use of their own property is theft.

If you pollute or otherwise damage your neighbor's property, you should be held accountable. Your damage is not OK. Not even if you are a government weapon facility.

To give the biggest, worst polluter and despoiler the authority to tell others how to dispose of or use their own property is socialism. It is wrong. Real environmentalists support private property. They will educate property owners so they will understand how taking care of the environment helps their own interests. And they will leave those alone who do not go along.


Thursday, August 21, 2008

Life As It Should Be

Do what you want and don't bother me.

That should be enough. Initiate force against me and you are bothering me. Victimize innocent people and you are bothering me. Steal, murder, or kidnap under color of "law" and you are bothering me. Otherwise meddle in stuff that is none of your business, and you are definitely bothering me.

I don't want anything from anyone except to live in peace and to not be victimized by the state if I need to defend that peace. That is the essence of libertarianism and of anarchy. Is that too much to ask?

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Open Letter to the NRA (With Updates)

Dear NRA,

I have written you numerous times. Your only response has been those infuriatingly vapid "thank you for contacting us" form letter emails. This email, and any responses from you will be published on my blogs and sent to my friends and contacts who may also be NRA members. I am tired of being ignored. I am tired of being sold down the river by your support of authoritarianism. I am sick of being shoved aside and sacrificed to your police-state buddies, their liberty destroying programs, and your absolutely delusional assessment of the situation. I regret ever joining your organization, and especially regret shelling out the money for a life-membership. I may as well have joined one of the other victim disarmament gangs.

My September 2008 copy of your official journal, America's 1st Freedom, arrived this week. Can you say "last straw"? I am angry and I will be heard.

In past Presidential (and other) elections* you have ignored the true pro-gun candidates of the Libertarian Party in order to endorse your darlings of the Republican Party. Now look where it has gotten you. In this copy of America's 1st Freedom, you go to great lengths to decry Obama's anti-gun history while ignoring McCain's even more disturbing anti-gun history. I say "even more disturbing" simply because this is the traitor you are pushing as the gun-owners' candidate! The man is a traitor in more ways than one, and on gun ownership is no better than the other traitor, Obama. Only McCain lies more smoothly because of your help. His history is swept under the rug, again with your help. Stop it NOW! In this election, partly because of your ignorance, the LP doesn't even have a pro-gun candidate. Did you orchestrate this situation on purpose? Because you couldn't have sabotaged gun owners any more thoroughly if you had.

Then, once again in America's 1st Freedom, your official voice, we are treated to an absolutely delusional assessment of the Heller decision. You crow about the "victory" while ignoring the fact that the black-robed traitors have effectively rubber-stamped any victim-disarming scheme short of an all-out ban. Any permits, restrictions, or other infringements are well within the scope of the "allowed" prohibitions. "Shall not be infringed" could not be any more clear. Where is the wiggle-room?

Stop supporting and endorsing police-state programs such as PROJECT EXILE. Stop supporting the enforcers who prop up these programs. No LEO ("Liberty Eradication Operative") who has ever enforced even one gun law is worthy of your adoration. Authoritarianism and gun rights are mutually exclusive. Choose sides and stop sitting on the fence. It makes you look like fools.

"Concealed Carry legislation" is unnecessary. Don't pass new laws, just strike the old illegal laws from the books. Or ignore them. Whatever you do, don't train people to beg for permission to exercise their basic human rights. It is a dangerous, slippery, slope that leads nowhere good.

Stop advocating the disarmament of children and teachers in government schools. Is there any place more dangerous than where parents can not be to protect their children? Bad people will always find a way. Stop giving them the advantage by supporting hideously cruel "gun-free" zones.

The Second Amendment prohibits the Federal government from passing or enforcing any law regarding personal weapons of any sort. That means your call to "enforce the laws we already have" is dead wrong. There is no way that enforcing any gun law helps me or the rest of us average, non-violent gun owners. Any prohibitions against "felons", "mentally ill", or anyone else possessing any type of guns, does not help anyone but the state, and does not make you or me safer in any way. Any prohibition or restriction on any sort of gun is prohibited by the Second Amendment. Yes, that includes machine guns. Any limitation of where or when or HOW (openly or concealed) anyone can carry any type of personal weapon is strictly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Stop tip-toeing around the issues. You may shock or scare some people, but really, how much more can the gun-banners hate you anyway? Stop catering to them. Start standing up for the people who want to be on your side. A principled stand will show you are worthy of the support of gun owners again. Maybe some of those "as long as I can keep my deer rifle..." gun owners will get a clue and follow your lead. If nothing else, you can see who is really supportive of the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

I will not resign my membership, but feel free to kick me out. I, and principled members like me, will continue to be your conscience. Will you continue to ignore us?

Kent McManigal
NRA Life member (#-------)

Added: Four days and counting and no response other than the "we received your email" reply.

An "answer" from NRA; five days later, and obviously a somewhat dated form letter. Notice how my points were completely ignored:

Dear Sir,

Please know that the NRA is a non-partisan organization. When considering candidates for endorsement, our political action committee, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF), reviews several aspects of a candidate's campaign. In addition to determining a candidate's position on the Second Amendment and firearms ownership rights, we also review other factors such as viability, likelihood of making a runoff, campaign strategies, methods and staffing, and, finally, whether or not a candidate has a possibility of success in a particular district or state. Obviously, some districts are so one-sided in relation to partisan politics that support for any other candidates or parties would be fruitless and wasteful.

NRA-PVF has an obligation to our contributing membership to support and assist the best pro-gun candidate, and you can rest assured that all serious candidates are considered and reviewed. Regardless of party affiliation, all candidates are given the same consideration. But when it comes to a pro-gun incumbent running against a pro-gun challenger, we will almost always side with the incumbent.

McCain certainly is not perfect, but he is far better than Obama on gun issues. Obama has a near perfect anti-gun record, while McCain has voted on the wrong side only a few times. McCain voted to restrict our lobbying activities (McCain-Feingold) and to increase regulations at gun shows, but he voted against the Clinton gun bans and voted to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among many other pro-gun votes.

As for the Heller decision, with Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kennedy, our individual right to keep and bear arms was formally recognized by the highest court in the land (Justices Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens).

The Washington D.C. gun ban is now overturned, and this new precedent will be the foundation for furthering the protection and expansion of our right to keep and bear arms, both legislatively and judicially, especially in areas with restrictions as severe as California's.

Further, NRA has already filed five lawsuits challenging local gun bans in San Francisco, and in Chicago and several of its suburbs. The San Francisco lawsuit challenges a local ordinance and lease provisions that prohibit possession of guns by residents of public housing in San Francisco. The Chicago case challenges a handgun ban nearly identical to the law struck down yesterday in Washington, D.C. The other Illinois suits challenge handgun bans in the suburban towns of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

All five suits raise the issue of the application of the Second Amendment against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, known in constitutional law as "incorporation." Because Washington, D.C. is not a state, incorporation was not specifically addressed in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the decision did repeatedly equate the Second Amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, which have applied to the states for 80 years.

We believe violent criminals who use guns during the commission of crimes should serve long, mandatory prison sentences. We will not change our stance on that issue. We believe that crime control, rather than gun control, is the solution to the violent crime problem.

We don't support the idea of "gun-free zones":

We are not all-powerful. We cannot suddenly have all anti-gun laws repealed. However, we are the most powerful lobbying organization in the country and we will continue to use our influence to steer legislation in a way that will protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although we may not get everything we want all of the time, everything we do is aimed at improving the current situation.

We do not cater to anyone but our members, fellow gun owners, and others who believe in the sanctity of the Second Amendment. I hope this helps.

Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots

Added 9-24-2008:

So... I got my NRA magazine again and I see an election primer, spelling out which politicians are "pro-gun", at least by your reckoning. How in the world am I supposed to trust what you say? Your organization gives good marks to anti-gun oppressors who might have supported one of your pet pieces of legislation while ignoring TRUE pro-gun people who haven't had a chance to help out the cause because you refuse to endorse them. I might as well be voting blind.
*Of course, this was written well before I realized the stupidity of participating in the rigged game known as "elections". Abstain from Beans!


Tuesday, August 19, 2008

A Bully Will Arise...

How do you counter the argument that in an anarchistic society a big thug will arise to become the Ruler?

I know that it is a silly objection because that is already the situation we find ourselves in: The strongest, least ethical, monsters have set themselves up as "our government" and made rules that protect themselves to our detriment. I also realize that a fully armed population, willing to defend themselves from tyrants, is the remedy to this, but few people will accept that.

This is the objection to liberty that I find most difficult to dispell, even though I don't believe it myself. How do you convince people, who base their entire lives on this premise, that they are wrong?

Monday, August 18, 2008

Barge World

I don't know if you ever read Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog, but this idea has always sounded good to me: Barge World. Not as "the only way" but as "one possible way".

Stop the Pledge of Allegiance

The following came to my inbox. I am familiar with Rex Curry's investigations and consider this information vital to overturning statism.

For publication (or Letter to Editor)

The official Olympic salute originated in the United States, as did the Nazi salute. Both gestures are products of the early Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in American Schools.

Another school year is here and it is time to teach students about their right to reject the Pledge of Allegiance and its robotic ritualism. Please help inform the public about new discoveries showing that the Pledge was the origin of the notorious stiff-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis).

The Beijing Olympics did not use the official Olympic salute, and the opening ceremony substituted extended arm waiving that was a odd reminder of the stiff-armed salute from older Olympic games.

While China rejected the salute for the Olympic games, China continues to use the stiff-armed gesture officially.

A photograph is at

Mao Zegong's portrait and dogma is present at the Olympic games in Beijing. Mao still holds one of the worst records for mass murder with Hitler and Stalin.Mao was part of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was apart): ~60 million killed under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; ~20 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If mass murder were an Olympic event, Mao would have taken a medal.

Beijing is slated to be one of the first cities to host one of five new Wholecaust Museums with Moscow, Berlin, New York City, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles.

Another school year is here and it is time to teach students about their right to reject the Pledge of Allegiance and its robotic ritualism. Please help inform the public about new discoveries showing that the Pledge was the origin of the notorious stiff-arm salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis).

New documentary video movies expose the shocking facts on youtube and as a school resource for teachers on teachertube

The government also popularized robotic chanting to flags. The swastika was popularized as S-shaped symbolism for "socialism" in the late 1800's and early 1900's in the United States, eventually migrating to Germany with the straight-arm gesture.

A frightening photograph is at

More amazing photographs are at

Those historical facts explain the enormous size and scope of government today, and the USA's growing police state. They are reasons for massive reductions in government, taxation, spending and socialism.

"Stop The Pledge" (STP), a pressure group, works to repeal laws in those states that still retain a daily Pledge ritual in government schools. The group needs help in notifying the public to contribute information (via email at or the contact info below) for a study of how many students are taught the whole history of the Pledge; how many students still chant robotically each day; and how many students feel they would be disciplined or persecuted for refusals. Many students say that they sit during the Pledge because they "refuse to kiss the government's butt every morning." STP pays students to reject robotic ritualism and to"take the pledge not to pledge."

The ongoing Pledge litigation in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California includes these issues in the brief by Attorney Rex Curry at

The brief is archived under "current litigation" at

Dr. Curry showed that the early Pledge Of Allegiance did not use an ancient Roman salute, and that the 'ancient Roman salute' myth came from the Pledge Of Allegiance.

Government schools in the USA popularized the straight-arm salute for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSGWP). People were persecuted for refusing to perform robotic chanting to the national flag at the same time in the USA and Germany (to the American flag, and to the German symbol flag).

The dogma behind the Pledge was the same dogma that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): ~60 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million under thePeoples' Republic of China; ~20 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was the worst slaughter of humanity ever.

The author of the Pledge (1892), Francis Bellamy, was a self-proclaimed National Socialist, as was his cousin Edward Bellamy, author of an international bestseller that launched the Nationalism movement globally. Edward's book was translated into every major language, including German. The Bellamy boys promoted "Military Socialism." They wanted government to take over all schools and impose robotic chanting to flags. When the government granted their wish, government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. That behavior even outlasted German National Socialism.

Children are coerced into the robotic ritualism of the socialist's pledge daily, and never learn of America's anti government libertarianism. In addition to the notorious salute, American socialists (e.g. Edward Bellamy teamed with the Theosophical Society) also bear some blame for the notorious symbol used by the National Socialist German Workers Party on its Swastika flag. While Edward and the Theosophical Society worked together,the swastika symbol was used by the Society. It was used as alphabetical symbolism for socialism, and adopted later by German socialists as their flag symbol. The NSGWP had clear roots in National Socialism promoted in theUSA.

Although an ancient symbol, the swastika was altered for use as overlapping S-letters for 'socialism.' It was deliberately turned 45 degrees counterclockwise and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as the Volkswagen VW logo.

American soldiers used the swastika symbol in WWI (against Germany) and the symbol was used by the American military during WWII.

The discoveries are part of the growing work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets"). They have been reviewed and verified on Wikipedia. Every journalist who has examined the new discoveries has confirmed them. The research is receiving growing media coverage

Fan mail is also growing for work exposing the Pledge's poisonous pedigree

The USA is still the worst example in the world of bizarre laws that require robotic chanting to a national flag in government schools every day for 12 years. It has changed generations of Americans from libertarians to authoritarians. The government bamboozled individuals into believing that robotic group-chanting in government schools is a beautiful expression of freedom.

Real Americans don't pledge allegiance to big government. Help educate students in the new school year.

For more information contact -

Tinny Ray
Stop The Pledge
P.O. Box 8816
Tampa, FL 33674-8816

"A Few Bad Apples"

I hesitated to post this that I found on War on Guns. It infuriated me. Be warned that these pillars of the (statist) community use some pretty colorful language. "We're the Only Ones Audio Blogging Enough"

If "good cops" exist, why are scum like these LEOs allowed to survive?

Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Media's Election Manipulation

I have decided that the "mainstream media" may not really be "Leftists". Most are obviously not "Rightists" either. What they are: "Opportunists".

They want and promote the candidate who they think will make the biggest mess. That way they manufacture their own news. McCain was obviously the worst "Republican" candidate, so they pushed him to the top of the compost heap. They had a hard time choosing between Obama and Clinton II, but ultimately chose the one with the most disturbing (to the conservatives) background. After all, some of Hitlary's abominations might have been Bill's fault.

I think they have missed some opportunities, such as Ron Paul or me. Either of us could have given them a lot of news stories by completely overturning the status-quo had we been elected. But our actions would have derailed decades or centuries of more news, so that couldn't be allowed. Therefore it is "more of the same, only worse if possible".


Saturday, August 16, 2008

Swimming in the Sea of Statism

Being immersed in statism can give one a perspective on its absurdity that would be lacking if one were only surrounded by libertarians and anarchists. I constantly get exposed to statist ideas that give me the opportunity to deconstruct them and find the flaws. Usually it is not even that difficult, since accepting statism is a matter of simply not considering the alternatives. It is a matter of "We have always done it this way!"

Many times I keep my mouth shut and listen to see what will be said in defense of statism. Sometimes, at first, the ideas seem to have some validity. However, after just a little thought, the flaws start to become apparent and the statist dogma starts to unravel.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Not Paying Attention

I don't feel too sorry for people who sit on the toilet and fall in because someone left the seat up. Why can't they look for themselves? I do. Usually. I don't feel too sorry for myself when I do something stupid because I wasn't paying attention, either.

With that in mind I don't feel too sorry for people who are surprised when they run up against the US police state. There is ample evidence and warning. In case you aren't paying attention, I will tell you again: You are living in a police state where the "law" is your enemy, and its enforcers are out to kill, or at least enslave, you. Pay attention or don't ask me for pity.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Water "Safety", Brady Gun-Hater Style

Suppose I teach my kids "water safety" in a similar way to the "gun safety" recommended by those mass-murderer enablers of the Brady Campaign. To them, ignorance equals safety. Don't let kids near water... don't teach them to swim.....marginalize those who enjoy water sports, and blame them for drownings, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis..... forbid drawings or discussions of water.... make exceptions to water bans for professionals such as firefighters..... demonize The Little Mermaid for glamorizing water to kids..... Then act shocked when children drown.

Do they not realize the absurdity of their approach; their "campaign"? Or, as is more likely, do they not care? Their advocacy kills children. Their campaign seeks to take away the most effective tool for defending the small and weak from the big and strong. Yet, they pretend moral superiority. Lest they whine "but water is essential for life" I would remind them that "self-defense is also essential for life". Taking away either one is murderous and insane.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Which Government Owns "Illegal" Immigrants?

It seems to me that if you oppose "illegal" immigration, you are averring that you belong to "your" government and that the immigrants belong to "their" government. If only they would jump through the hoops that give ownership of themselves to your government, then you would welcome them here. Right? After all, you may say: "There are legal ways of immigrating." What else could you mean?

Why should immigrants obey the laws of a country they don't live in? I certainly don't even pretend to obey Mexico's or Canada's laws. In order to "legally" immigrate, according to statists, I would have to put myself under those laws before I crossed the government borders. If I felt that I needed to escape to another country, for whatever reason, I would not feel any obligation to sell myself to the government of that country first. Why should anyone do that?

To claim that a government has ownership rights to you and the land you stand on is odd to me. I suppose if you own yourself, you can give yourself to anyone you choose, even a government. But then you wouldn't own yourself and could not give yourself away in the first place. Independent migrants have exactly the same human rights as me or anyone else, regardless of where they stand on our planet. Governments have exactly zero rights of any sort. So, guess who gets my sympathy.

It seems that many people have a strange worshipful attitude about an imaginary line on a map. Lines drawn by governments through treaties and wars. The only thing governments are good for is waging war. War is the main product of government. Do you really want to belong to the War Factory?

Therefore, the answer to the title of the post is: No government owns them (or us).

Besides that, end ALL welfare and you deflate the only reasonable argument against "illegal" immigrants, leaving only the racist excuses.


Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The Day the Cops Surrounded Me

I used to give a presentation on the mountainmen of the Rocky Mountain fur trade each year at the local elementary school. I went to the classroom in full mountainman gear and talked about the history and the tools. I gave a few demonstrations to the kids, such as showing how to set a steel trap, start a fire without matches (both with flint and steel and with a bow drill; the kids' favorite), and how to load a muzzleloading rifle.

For years, there was no problem. Then one year my wife-at-the-time needed to use the car during my presentation. "No problem", I thought. I was mistaken.

That day I finished my program and went to the parking lot to wait for my wife to arrive. I sat down upon my blanket-roll near the school sign; holding my rifle upright at my side. After a few minutes I saw a cop car drive past slowly, but the cop inside didn't look at me. I thought that was odd. He pulled into a driveway and turned around and parked. A minute or so later, another cop car pulled up a little ways from me and also parked along the street. He sat in his car for a minute before getting out and approaching me with his hand on his gun. Out of the corner of my eye I could see the other cop now approaching from behind. I don't appreciate being stalked.

The cop greeted me politely and asked what I was doing. I explained the situation while the other cop stood off and watched. Then the principal of the school made an appearance. We explained what was going on to him, mentioning the teacher who had arranged my program. He knew nothing about it. A passing motorist had reported an armed person at the elementary school. Had I had mayhem in mind, the event would have been over by the time the cops arrived.

The teacher later apologized to me for forgetting to inform the principal of my presence. As it turned out, that was the last year I did the program since I moved away several months later. Amazingly, I survived to tell my tale, but for months townspeople would tell me they saw me sitting there between the two cops, looking rather unhappy.


Monday, August 11, 2008

"Performance Enhancing"

I saw the Supreme Statist on television saying that he opposed "performance enhancing drugs" in sports because it sends the wrong message to young people. He said that if you look at the stats from the athletes from earlier decades, you need to know that there is a real comparison with the stats of today. (OK, he didn't say exactly those words, but he did use a couple of multi-syllabic words, I swear.)

Well, using that same reasoning, shouldn't we ban anyone from competing who has had reconstructive surgery after an injury? After all, that option wasn't really available 50 years ago. Shouldn't athletes of today live with the same risk of getting polio that their predecessors did? After all, that eliminated many potential competitors. Nutrition and training are also probably better today. That gives a skewed comparison when looking at the history of sports. Some athletes are cancer survivors who in the past would surely have died. Isn't it unfair to allow them to continue to compete when others with the same disease died?

Today is different from the past. To try to stop progress at some point in the past is something that some religious groups have tried. Unless we all wish to become Amish we need to recognize that change occurs. Some is good, some is bad, but the genie won't go back in the bottle.


Sunday, August 10, 2008


I talk a lot about "evil". I don't mean anything mystical by that word, but unlike some rational people, I do believe evil exists. I see the consequences and evidence of evil all around me. I see what concentrations of evil, such as a government, do to individuals. Corey Maye, David Olofson, Randy Weaver's family, and Kathryn Johnston are all victims of this institutionalized evil. A Google search on those names is in order if you haven't been paying attention.

When I speak of evil as a noun, I mean "that which harms the innocent". It is the opposite of "good" which is that which helps innocent people. If a person's life, either public or personal, has done much harm, then I may describe that person as "evil". People such as Hitler, Sarah Brady, and Ted Kennedy fall into this category. No person commits only harmful acts; even the worst will have little sparks of kindness towards certain individuals in particular situations. That doesn't outweigh the harm their other actions have caused, and I stand by my assessment of "evil" when referring to them.

Your ways of speaking of these types of actions and people may be different, but I think we would all recognize that their way is not the right way to live.

Added: Eric Sundwall brings up a good point: "Why not just use 'bad' and not risk the mystical association ?" To which I answer: Because bad doesn't go far enough. Driving a car drunk is bad, as is abusing "drugs". But as long as you harm no innocent person, you have not done evil. With much of the evil in the world, there is an underlying intent. The evildoers may not think of it as intending to harm people, but may see it as trying to control them. As we know, trying to control people invariably harms them. In many cases, though, the intent is actually to harm others to benefit oneself, either by gaining power over them, or by gaining wealth at the expense of the innocent.


Saturday, August 09, 2008

Solving Problems With "Laws"

I heard about a town somewhere that legalized golf carts for on-road use to help with travel expenses related to the "high price of fuel" (which is really the high price of having fiat money). While I approve of using alternate vehicles for travel, I think it is arrogant of any town to think it should pass "laws". It wasn't a lack of "laws" that caused the legal prohibition, but a glut of "laws". Some misguided or evil person first had to pass a "law" that prohibited the use of golf carts on the road. Other people had to agree that "there should be a law". Conspirators had to pass the "law" and inflict it on the local population. Enforcers had to rob or kidnap those people who violated the counterfeit "law". This "law" that did not prohibit any act of aggression. This "law" that made a new crime that had no victim. This is the reason we suffer under Law Pollution. Don't pass a "law" legalizing something, remove the "laws" that "illegalize" it instead. Think about that when you hear about medical marijuana "laws", or concealed carry "laws". More "laws" are never the answer.

I will re-emphasize: it is wrong... bad... corrupt... repugnant to propose, pass, support, or enforce any law that tries to prohibit, regulate, or punish anything other than actual physical or economic aggression. If you do so you are causing real harm to real individuals and their liberty. You are violating their rights. In short, you are evil. Repudiate evil by working to remove the burden of counterfeit "laws".


Friday, August 08, 2008

"Time's Up" Flag Stickers

I now have some "Time's Up" flag stickers to sell. They measure about 3 1/2" X 2 1/8". They are vinyl and seem to be well made. I have only had one on my car for a few days, but it seems to be holding up well.
I will sell them for fifty cents each, plus fifty cents for shipping any number. So, if you want one it would be $1; if you want ten, it would be $5.50.

Sex and Marriage: One Size Does NOT Fit All

Warning: due to the nature of this post, reader discretion is advised.

If you are easily offended, I apologize, but feel that this is an important issue that has ramifications for us all. Nothing illustrates the stupidity of such things as the "Defense of Marriage Act" better.

I was recently watching a program on TLC about a pair of conjoined twins. These young women look externally (to a non-expert such as myself) like a two-headed person. Internally they each have their own heart, lungs, stomach, and small intestine. They share a colon and reproductive system. They each control the leg and arm on their side of the shared body, and only feel sensation on that side as well.

Please realize I have profound respect for these girls. They are probably the most inspiring individuals I have ever run across on television. I only refrain from mentioning their names and other specifics out of respect for their privacy and in case the state has decided there is some "law" against speculating on the sexuality of these girls due to age or other factors.

As I understand life, what is a "right" for one person is a "right" for everyone, and what is wrong for one person to do is wrong for everyone. (Thanks to Francois Tremblay for bringing this unconscious understanding into conscious thought for me.) I am not speaking of preferences, but morality. In other words, since it is wrong for me to kick in a neighbor's door at 2AM and shoot his dog, then kidnap him, it is also wrong for a thug with a badge and "official" permission to do the same. Which brings us to the dilemma. The state and most religions would condemn these girls to a sexless life. Even the simple, ubiquitous act of masturbation becomes incest in this case.

The program showed the state giving each girl her own "driver's license" in order to be allowed to operate a car. I would expect the state to think it has the same authority (and "solution") to the marriage question. I would hope that these girls reject the notion of government permission to marry, but in case they choose to place themselves in that position, how would that work?

If they accept the mainstream religious ideas and morals they are doomed to be virgins forever, or be guilty of "sexual sins", since threesomes would be unavoidable. If one girl marries, then the partner is "cheating" on her each time they have intercourse. There is no way to only have sex with one at a time, given the shared nature of their reproductive system. If they both marry one person (a guy, for example) he would be a bigamist in the eyes of the state. If they each marry a different individual, then, once again, in the eyes of the state and religion, they are unable to avoid "adultery".

If they have children, both girls would be the biological mothers. Would the state draw up a birth certificate with three spaces for parents? If not, how would they handle that situation?

Of course, you and I know that asking permission from the state for any of these things is ridiculous. These two wonderful young women may not realize that. Yet. Would the state make exceptions to all these "laws" in their case? If so, then that would mean they should allow any couple or group that wishes, to get a marriage license. If there is no room in your state or your religion for the situation these young women find themselves in, then there is something wrong with your state or your religion. Only in the self-ownership of anarchism could these girls find the freedom to live guilt-free and happily. What is OK for them must be OK for the rest of us, and what is OK for the rest of us is OK for them. If the state doesn't make exceptions, then it would probably force these girls to become "outlaws" like you and I. There are far worse fates.

Persecution and/or prosecution may be avoided due to the state and religion not having thought of these issues yet, or through fear of public outrage (though, even in recent cases of astounding state evil, public outcry has been almost nonexistent).


Thursday, August 07, 2008

Living With Rules, Libertarian Anarchist Style

I have mentioned this before, but think it may be time to talk about it again. Libertarians don't hate rules, only Rulers. Rules can be right or they can be wrong; depending upon whether they are legitimate or not. Rulers are always wrong; leaders can occasionally be right.

When you have rules for a group of people, the more people you try to include, the fewer (and less specific) the rules must be. Otherwise you end up violating someone's right of self ownership with your counterfeit "laws" that have no moral foundation.

If, for example, I am making rules just for myself, I can be very specific and say "don't smoke, drink Dr Pepper, don't work for government, don't initiate force, wear a hat, etc." It doesn't matter if the rule has any moral basis or not, since the rule only applies to me, and I agreed to it explicitly. If the situation changes, I can change the arbitrary rules, but since morality doesn't change, the rules with a moral foundation would remain. I can't decide that "today, I will kill someone, just because", but I could decide that today I will smoke a cigar while not wearing a hat, just to be different.

If I am trying to decide with another person what rules we are to both operate under, we would need to eliminate those that do not fit the other person. Maybe they like coffee better than Dr Pepper, so that rule gets tossed. Notice that I am not forced to drink coffee under the agreement. The more people you try to cover with your rules, the less specific they can be or they will surely violate someone's self ownership. At some point you must reduce the list down to "don't violate the rights of anyone else". Which, with over 6 billion humans on the planet, is exactly where we find ourselves. No other rules can have any legitimacy when what applies to one, must apply to all.

The current "legal" system is a prime example of the chaos that occurs when the opposite path is taken and it is falsely assumed that the more people you try to cover with your rules, the more specific and numerous the rules must be. It gets to the point that every breath you take is violating some arbitrary rule, which some meddling busy-body decided would be good for you. This helps no one but the state and its sympathizers.


Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Hilton vs. McCain

I've never had an opinion of Paris Hilton, so I can't really say my opinion of her has improved, but I love her attitude in this response to the socialist Republi-corpse's campaign video.

Propaganda Posters

Darian Worden has made some excellent government propaganda posters. Look at them all here: link

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

How Far Do Your Boss' Rights Go? Rights Can Be Wrong.

Does your boss have a right to demand that you behave a certain way on your own time? For example: completely forbidding tobacco use?

Some people argue that this is part of your boss' right to hire who he wants. I am not disputing that right. What I would warn against is the slippery slope of where this leads. Under this scenario, you would be the property of your boss.

You only sell your time to your boss, or looking at this another way, you rent him your body for a certain amount of time each day. He has no claim to your body during the time he is not renting it, nor can he demand to control the time you did not sell him.

Yes, your boss has a right to hire whoever he wants, but if he discriminates in this way, you and I have a right to refuse to do business with him. Any business or dealings. In a free society this could mean shunning him to the point of starving him to death if he chooses to remain a bigot and enough people care.

If a boss wishes to assert ownership of his employees, he is behaving in an evil way. Slavery is still wrong. Your body chemistry is none of his business as long as you are not contagious or radioactive. Unless the substances leave your body and make you into a hazard it is no one's business what you contain, be it nicotine, THC, or whatever. Making your body chemistry a condition of employment is wrong, but still within his rights. It is also a good way to judge the boss' character.

Your boss' rights do not cancel out your rights. You own your own body and life or you own nothing. You can choose to sell yourself to an authoritarian boss. I hope you don't. If fewer people were willing to sell themselves (as opposed to renting themselves) then fewer bosses would be able to assert ownership over their employees. This would increase real freedom even more than decorating lampposts with swinging predators. Who do you spend more of your life around: the boss or a congressman?

Sunday, August 03, 2008

The Myth Epidemic

There is a huge Myth Lab operating in this country. It has outlets in every small town and big city in America. It produces a dangerous, addictive drug that rots the minds of the young and old. This drug is not a chemical, but is an idea. It is the "myth of government necessity" and it kills.

This drug is so deadly that there is no way to handle it safely. Even those who dispose of contaminated materials often become ill from its fumes. It is almost impossible to be in its presence without being harmed.

You may think I am being humorous, but this is incredibly serious. The government myth has killed more people than all the chemical drugs ever created combined. If there can be a war on drugs, then why not a war on a much more dangerous threat?

Saturday, August 02, 2008

My Wordpress Blog

I have imported this blog to a Wordpress site. If you are one of those who would rather read my blog without any fancy background or anything, bookmark that one.

Punishment Culture

Punishment enthusiasm seems ubiquitous.

Right-wing socialists get excited to hear about executions, brutal police action (like the illegitimate "War on Drugs"), wars of retribution, and bad guys "getting theirs".

Left wing socialists salivate over big business getting fined for profiting "too much", over gun owners being arrested and demonized, over the racists they don't like being put in their place.

Even I have a difficult time not enjoying seeing socialists suffering the consequences of the world they have created for all of us.

"Punishment" is not the same as stopping an attack. If you see an innocent person being attacked and you jump in and kill the attacker, that is not "enjoying punishment", but is "ending a threat". Human predators deserve to be neutralized when caught in the act.

In some cases, punishment is appropriate (added: I no longer believe this). In many other cases, it is just revenge. It may even be directed against the wrong person unless the guilty person is caught in the act and stopped immediately.


Friday, August 01, 2008

The War on Free Speech (and Guns)

David Codrea's blog, "The War on Guns", is one of my favorites. Unfortunately Google/Blogspot has decided it is spam. He is blocked from posting until or unless they decide to allow him to continue posting again. It is their right to block him if they choose, but their decision is based upon a lie, false information, or an agenda of blocking speech they don't like. That is wrong.

If they don't unblock him, I will try to move my blog to another host. Maybe if I can figure out how to put it on, that would be my best choice, but I would probably lose all the comments.


Tobacco: Time To Grow Your Own?

With the recent legislative monkey-business from the Swamp of Corruption, it might be time for smokers to grow their own. It might even be time for non-smokers to start growing tobacco just because it will make the meddlers angry. Become a grower before it is illegal. Then continue after it becomes so, if it pleases you.

Of course, similar arguments could be made for lots of activities that are "capital crimes" judging from the state's behavior.