Wednesday, December 31, 2008

The Year in Review

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

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

I'll just leave you with this thought:

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

Stay safe, but not too safe.


Tuesday, December 30, 2008


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

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

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


Sunday, December 28, 2008

"Well, That's Different"

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

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

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


Saturday, December 27, 2008


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

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

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

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


Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Hello, Everyone

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

Merry Christmas!


Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Rules of the Road

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

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

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

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

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


Monday, December 22, 2008

Statist Feelings

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

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

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

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


Saturday, December 20, 2008

Fawning Over Government


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

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


Just trying to wrap my head around this one.

Friday, December 19, 2008

"Liberals Who Like Guns"? Hardly

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Crazy People

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, December 16, 2008

New Mexico Suffers Damaging "Storm"

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

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

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

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


Monday, December 15, 2008

Bill of Rights Day- Do "They" Care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"People aren't getting hurt," he said

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Liberty Trends: Personal vs Societal

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

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

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


Friday, December 12, 2008

Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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


Wednesday, December 10, 2008

"Reasonable" Regulations?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, December 09, 2008

Pointing Out the Obvious

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

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


Monday, December 08, 2008

What We Have Here is a Serious Lack of Imagination

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

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

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

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


Saturday, December 06, 2008

Libertarian Blogging

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

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

Friday, December 05, 2008

Proclaiming Liberty

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

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

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

Thursday, December 04, 2008

"Studiously" Avoiding Libertopia

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

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

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


Wednesday, December 03, 2008

No New Laws!

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

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

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


Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Liberty Musings

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

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

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

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


Monday, December 01, 2008

Not Anger; Determination

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

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

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