Friday, October 31, 2008

Hearsay or Observation

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

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

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

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Spreading the Lust for Liberty

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

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

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


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street"

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

Candidates Exposing Themselves to Libertarians

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

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

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

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

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

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


Why Is It Wrong To Harm the Innocent?

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, October 28, 2008

"Officer Safety"

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

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


Monday, October 27, 2008

Speaking With "Authority"

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

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

And they claim libertarians are "utopian".


Sunday, October 26, 2008

Saturday, October 25, 2008

State Addiction

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

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

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


Friday, October 24, 2008

It's Up to You

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

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

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

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

Start now. Keep working at it. Never stop.


Thursday, October 23, 2008

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner

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

Tattling to the State

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

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


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

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

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

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


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Living the Life

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

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

Monday, October 20, 2008

Liberty As I See It: The Island Scenario

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Saturday, October 18, 2008

OBAMcCAIN the Muslistian/Chrislim

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

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

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

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


Friday, October 17, 2008

The Cruelest Utopia: Minarchy

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

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

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

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


Thursday, October 16, 2008

Government's Role

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


Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Libertarian Parenting

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Rights, Liberty, and Responsibility

Rights exist by virtue of being a person.

Liberty is a consequence of exercising those rights.

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

At least, that is my take on the relationships.


Monday, October 13, 2008

Optimism and Denial

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

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

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

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

Saturday, October 11, 2008

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

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

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

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

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


Friday, October 10, 2008

Even A Stopped Clock.....

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

This has a couple of implications.

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

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

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Take A Breath

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

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

This is one of those times.


Wednesday, October 08, 2008

"Learning From The Insane" by Bob Wallace

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

What Would it Take?

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, October 07, 2008

OBAMcCAIN Debates Itself

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

Strange Priorities

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

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

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


Monday, October 06, 2008

Energy Crisis or Too Much Government

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

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

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


Saturday, October 04, 2008

I HATE Politics

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

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

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


Friday, October 03, 2008

Young Voters, Lend Me An Ear

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

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

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

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


Thursday, October 02, 2008

One Less False Authority

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

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

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


Wednesday, October 01, 2008

"They Differ Where It Matters To Me"

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

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

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

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

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

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