Saturday, February 28, 2009

Random Weekend Thoughts

  • It is no wonder most children don't know right from wrong. They are told, if there is a problem, call the cops. That is wrong.
  • People don't understand because they don't want to understand. Denial and "head-in-the-sand" are frequent reactions to things people don't want to understand.
  • Freedom isn't "easy", but it really isn't that hard either.
  • Until you stand up for unpopular freedoms, even those you personally despise, you are not standing up for freedom at all, but are supporting oppression and tyranny.
  • Those who don't learn from history.... get elected and doom the rest of us to repeat it. Unless we are smarter and more prepared than most people.
  • There is a thin line separating "being helpful" and "being meddlesome"... and the one who gets to define the line is the recipient of your ministrations.
    • Friday, February 27, 2009

      Intrusive Government

      Recently, someone I know was stopped by a cop for something that had no conceivable safety implications, but only "identification" issues. The license plate light was burned out. In the course of the traffic stop, the highwayman wanted to know where he was going, why he was going there, who he knew in the area, if he had a job, and numerous other things that were of no relevence.

      Not wanting to get shot, he answered the questions (not necessarily honestly), but left feeling dirty, as if he had just been raped as well as having been accused of being unworthy of the benefit of the doubt. If he had said or done anything that tweaked the highwayman's interest, he could have (and probably would have) ended up arrested, tasered, or shot dead.

      Is this what the US police-state has become? People who are harming no one in any way, being accosted, interrogated, and basically threatened at gun-point for simply travelling? Yes, it is. The sooner those on the "liberty fence" realize this, the sooner it will end. It is past time.


      Thursday, February 26, 2009

      Libertarians Are The Best!

      Libertarians have the potential to be the best people in the world. It is because our core philosophy, when followed, will just about guarantee that result. If we aren't it is because we are not living up to our potential.

      Other groups have conflicted "principles" in their core beliefs. Things like stealing is wrong, unless it is government stealing for a cause they happen to support. Or murder is wrong, unless it was government doing it and it was an "honest" mistake (or "they deserved it").

      Of course, it is considered very impolite to point out the inconsistencies in the beliefs and philosophies of the "mainstream" groups. That makes libertarians somewhat unpopular at times. It makes those other people uncomfortable, and makes them want to blame libertarians instead of examining their own inconsistencies. Happily, they don't have to agree with us for us to be right.

      So, remember your potential, and strive to live up to it. You can point out the inconsistencies, but don't dwell on them since those who do not want to see, won't see. A good example is more persuasive than winning debates any day.


      Wednesday, February 25, 2009

      Common Sense

      "common sense
      sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence." - From

      What is "common sense"? What seems to me to be common sense is often not what the other person sees as common sense. "Common sense" is what works for you in your day-to-day life. It is based on your physical senses and your experiences and is what allows you to function when faced with a problem to solve. But..... It isn't always factually correct. Sometimes specialized knowledge or training steps in where "common sense" fails. There are even cases where, when faced with a problem that requires specialized knowledge, "common sense" responses can get you killed.

      The Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory, and (apparently) biological evolution by natural selection violate "common sense" for most people. That is because common sense is extremely limited by your own personal experiences.

      Because we don't experience travel through space at large percentages of the speed of light, relativity seems counter to our common sense perceptions.

      Because we don't experience the incredibly tiny universe of the subatomic particles, quantum effects do not fit our notion of common sense.

      Because our lives do not span geologic time scales, we have trouble with the concept of deep time in which natural selection causes species to change until a new species exists.

      And - because we exist in a seething maelstrom of statism that is accepted as "the way it has always been done", anarchism seems to violate most peoples' notion of common sense.

      "Common sense" has its place, but it also has its limitations. Use it when it works; accept the truth when it fails. Don't rely on it as a crutch in place of thinking and learning.


      Tuesday, February 24, 2009

      Right to Life?

      Why is it that when the right to "bear arms" is discussed, a huge amount of time is spent discussing the responsibilities that go along with it, yet when the right to life is discussed, by certain politico-religious groups, there is never any mention of any responsibilities attached? Is the right to life the only right that carries no responsibilities? No obligations at all? Why is the right to life given a free pass?

      Obviously, I believe there is a responsibility that goes along with living: the obligation to never initiate force. Those who are loudest about the right to life seem to not agree.

      I would say that, rather than a "right to life", we all have a right to defend our life. If a person isn't able to defend their own life, then someone can step in and defend the defenseless. But do you have a right to defend the life of another? Just thinking....


      Monday, February 23, 2009

      The More Things "Change"... & Ron Paul: Alien Overlord?

      Has anyone else ever noticed that no matter the promises, no matter how "good" a candidate looks, no matter what a politician's previous stand has been on an issue, as soon as they get elected or appointed, they keep the government on the same path as it has been on? There may be minor deviations of course, but the reality is there is almost no hiccup in the operation of the state machine.

      Obama keeps doing the same things his predecessor was doing, although he justifies the actions with different excuses (and claims this equals "change". His appointees keep following the same policies even though they previously spoke out against them.

      It is as if "government" has a life of its own, and really isn't "made up of individual people" as most of us have believed. It is a hive that alters its parts to suit its purposes. A collective mind that absorbs and alters the minds of those who become a part of it. Makes me wonder how Ron Paul has managed to avoid (mostly) this effect. Perhaps he is an extraterrestrial, but is hiding his otherworldly powers ... for now!

      This should probably be a clue that it isn't a matter of getting "the right people" elected; but is a matter of needing to abolish the entire system. Although there will be some who keep tilting at windmills and hoping against hope.


      Saturday, February 21, 2009

      The "Rich Warlord" Boogeyman

      One of the main factors that cause people to cling to the archaic notion of "government" ("the state") is a fear of the "rich warlord" who would supposedly take over your life without repercussions if no government were holding him back. It is claimed that government is the only thing that keeps him contained or from gaining power.

      Let's examine this idea.

      Would people who have tasted real freedom be so easy to take it from again? Probably not for a generation or two. However, there would undoubtedly come a time when the lure of ease and "safety" would sound nice to the less honorable among us. Then the cycle would start anew. However, I think it is better to start from scratch occasionally than to watch the state get bigger, more tyrannical, and less benevolent. Even if this is inevitable, which I am not convinced of, I think it is good to make them rebuild the state from the ground up ever so often. If you can't dig up the weed, at least chop it off at ground level from time to time.

      But considering the "warlord" again: First of all, would this really be worse than the situation we are in now? We already live under a rich warlord who steals over 87% of our economic production, and demands more every year. He will kill us if we refuse to pay. He demands a ransom be paid on our homes or he will steal them from us. He demands control over whether or not we are allowed to own and carry effective weapons of self defense, and has criminalized the most effective ones; the very ones his own Constitution puts off-limits for him to touch in any way. He demands control over our travel, our business, our children, even our own bodies. He pretends to be a benevolent protector, and seems honestly bewildered at those of us who see through his velvety smooth words to the harsh truth behind them. This rich warlord is the main proponent of the boogeyman of the other, unknown, rich warlord.

      Perhaps the monster we don't know is worse than the monster we know. What then? I think that the only time to keep the rich warlord from becoming a real problem is before he consolidates his power and passes "laws" that make it hard, or even impossible, to stop him. In other words, kill him upon his first act of aggression. Do you think he will behave nicely his whole life until one day he suddenly starts acting like the blossoming monster he is to become? I would imagine he will have a life-long history of aggression and coercion. Remove the "legal" prohibitions on self-defense and he will not survive to become a real threat. This means we are already at an extremely difficult phase in trying to rein in the full grown monster we currently know. Not impossible, but it will take a paradigm shift where enough people realize it is necessary. What is the tipping point?


      Friday, February 20, 2009

      Eric Holder: Attorney General and Racist

      "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in
      things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many
      ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Attorney General Eric Holder
      Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but "we, as
      average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."

      Read that last part again: "we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race." Wow! And that boils down to what racists, like Eric Holder and others, think matters. They want people to keep focusing on, talking about, and obsessing over race so that race will continue to be a divisive issue. Divide and conquer.

      It isn't about race, folks. It is about honoring the basic right of every individual to live his life as he sees fit as long as he does not attack or steal. Period. Do this and you are at least OK; violate this and you are a dangerous parasite, especially if you collect a paycheck financed by stolen money. As does Mr. Holder.

      Thursday, February 19, 2009

      The Tip of My Nose....

      I had a person write to me, taking issue with my repeating of the common sentiment that "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." His reason was that this constitutes "assault" even before the nose is touched. He is right to a point. I would like to thank him for giving me permission to post my reply here.

      Here is my take on the "assault" issue.

      I think that "assault" is a legal concept which has no basis in reality, apart from the government. Thinking this, I would still claim that until actual force is initiated, or a credible threat is made, no rights have been violated. A person swinging his fist at a high velocity toward your nose is a credible threat. Inertia would prevent him from stopping before contact is made. Knowing the laws of motion, you could make a reasonable assumption that your nose was in real danger and could strike back.

      Otherwise, with "laws" regulating fist swinging, I can't help but wonder how much distance from nose-tip to fist would be demanded. It would vary from person to person, depending on a lot of issues. The "assault" wouldn't even need to necessarily be aggressive in nature for a particularly "brittle" person to make an issue of it. Then again, even a standardized "legal distance" would be pointless since unless the judge and/or jury were present during the event, a subjective interpretation would make the same action seem different to various observers.

      This is why I still see the right to swing your fist ending at the tip of my nose, as long as no contact is made, or would be made without intervention.

      HOWEVER, in a free society you could take action to defend yourself against perceived aggression using your best judgement (or reflexes) and then take your chances with a dispute resolution organization or a private "court", which would be more open to actually achieving justice than current government courts are. After all, they will have free market competition so will need to maintain a spotless reputation in order to attract "business". If I were hired to rule on such a case, I would not fault a person for striking back against someone who was swinging a fist at his nose, even if the nose in question were not touched. And I seriously doubt anyone else would either.

      Just because a right exists does not mean that the exercise of that right is always the best course of action. This is where I think responsibility comes in. You may have a right to swing your fist up to the tip of my nose, yet you have a responsibility to not do so, and if you choose to do so, you may find yourself on the dangerous end of a gun barrel. And rightly so. You must accept any and all consequences of your actions, or you will find yourself getting a bad reputation and possibly shunned to the point of starvation (or living on charity).

      Wednesday, February 18, 2009

      Everyone Knows....

      At one time, long before Columbus, almost everyone "knew" the world was flat. Some very observant and intuitive people had figured out that the earth was a sphere, but no one would listen to them seriously.

      That is the position libertarians are in now. Everyone "knows" that a strong government is necessary to protect "us" from "them", whether "them" is terrorists, immigrants, criminals, dishonest businessmen, stupid neighbors, or even our own stupidity. It doesn't matter that some have observed, through carefully examining the facts, that this is utter nonsense. Everyone "knows" it, so those of us who point out the truth are dismissed.

      Time will tell.


      Tuesday, February 17, 2009

      Cops Cause Crime!

      OK, so this is speculation on my part, based upon what I observe about human behavior. I'm not even talking about all the murderers, thieves, and rapists who wear badges, or the crimes against humanity committed "in the line of duty" due to enforcement of counterfeit "laws", but am talking about free-lance theft, murder, rape, and whatever else falls under the label of real "crime". (I am not talking about the peaceful, consensual, victimless, yet "illegal", behavior of others who are harming no innocent person, since those things are only "crimes" to the state, but not to sensible people.)

      I have witnessed what happens when someone stumbles. If they are with one person, that person will normally try to catch them before they fall. If the stumbler is with a couple of people, though, often they will fall before the two people act. They each thought the other person would grab the tripping friend. It isn't a purposeful desire to watch someone fall, but is just a result of not acting because there is a question of whether someone else will take care of the situation. Even a slight hesitation is too much. I think the same principle applies to crime.

      Crime thrives where people believe it is someone else's responsibility to take action. In big cities it is easy to think someone else will get involved, so you will mind your own business. This is even more true where there are a lot of cops. If someone is supposedly being paid to stop crime, it is even easier to turn away and let them handle it. In fact, cops encourage this poor behavior by criminalizing and punishing self-defense. "Don't be a hero. Call the professionals." Except that cops are under no obligation to protect you from crime. Try to sue the local LEOs after they fail to protect you from crime if you doubt me.

      Stop contributing to the success of crime. Ignore the cops and take responsibility for your own safety. If it is your nature, take responsibility for the safety of those around you. Don't wait for some "professional", whose interests are not where you may assume they are, to step up and fix it for you.


      Monday, February 16, 2009

      The Most Important Thing

      Freedom is the most important thing there is. That may be a radical thing to say, but it is true. Freedom is the one thing that allows you to pursue whatever else seems most important to you. It is the one thing that can allow you to find your value in life; your joy. You can't be happy without the freedom to be happy, even if you must steal that freedom out from under the nose of those who would attempt to deny it to you.

      Freedom is being able to worship what and how you want, or not.

      Freedom is being able to make your own mistakes and learn from them.

      Freedom is being able to help those around you who are suffering from their mistakes.

      Freedom is being able to try to make the most of your life, as long as you are hurting no innocent person, in whatever way you think is right for you.


      Saturday, February 14, 2009


      A lot of times I read that libertarians are "not fair". Usually this comes from people who don't want anyone to suffer the consequences of their own actions or don't like the fact that some people are living in poverty.

      These people are still only seeing half of the picture. They see the "victims" of their own choices or of economic realities, but ignore the people who they would punish for not making bad personal or financial decisions. How is that "fair"? You can't only look at it from the perspective of "the less fortunate" after all. Not if you are really wanting to be "fair". No, you have to look at everyone's situation. I think these "compassionate" people are unduly attracted and sympathetic to the underdog. That is fine, as long as you don't blame the rest of the world for your poor "victim's" plight.

      Sure, I would love to be wealthy. But not enough to do what would be necessary to achieve it. That is no one's fault but my own; I weighed my choices. I am not a "victim" of poverty. I have also suffered consequences for personal decisions I have made. I don't ask anyone to rescue me from them. Life may not be fair, but it still follows basic physical and economic laws.

      So, what do these people think is "fair"? "Redistribution"? That's just a fancy word for theft. "Liberals" may see themselves as "Robin Hood"; taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but they are actually on the opposite side of the moral fence. Robin Hood was not stealing from the innocent rich, but from the thieves who enriched themselves through taxes and fees, and giving the money back to the theft victims. He was not being generous; he was being "just". You can not be generous with other peoples' money. You can ask them to give, or you can steal from them. One is charity; one is theft. There is no middle ground.

      I don't have much respect or pity for those who say libertarians are "unfair". And the more I read their drivel, the faster that little remaining respect fades away.


      Friday, February 13, 2009

      Consequences of Being Unpleasant

      You can be an unpleasant person without initiating force and without being a thief. What should the consequences be for bad things that may not exactly violate the ZAP? I am not one to think everything needs to be punished "officially".

      Obviously, I think shunning should be used if you feel the need. That is just a part of freedom of association. Most of us use it to some extent already. If you don't like someone, you probably don't go to barbecues at their home. Where we are unable to use shunning is where government criminalizes our free choices of who to associate with.

      Just remove the "legal" protections that keep unpleasant people from needing to deal with their issues. The same goes for stupid people. You can't really protect them from the consequences of their actions, so stop penalizing the rest of us.


      Thursday, February 12, 2009

      Economic Stimulus

      I hear the congresscritters, on the orders of the president, are planning to "save" the economy by giving money to those who didn't earn it. This money they plan on giving away doesn't really exist, but is made up out of thin air, based on the belief that your children will someday pay the government for the privilege of being oppressed by its stormtroopers, through taxes or whatever new scheme is dreamed up in the future.

      Now, why would the government give corporations this fictional money instead of simply firing up the printing presses and dumping lots of FRNs all over the country from low-flying planes? That would be a lot simpler, cheaper, and most people would be a lot happier with that "plan". Government won't do it that way because the current plan constitutes a bribe to buy loyalty from those who are being "rescued"; powerful people. Not at all like you or I. This "stimulus" will stimulate something, that's for certain. I betting on more corruption, irresponsibility, and poor business decisions.

      However the government proceeds, the long-term effect will be the same: the money in your pocket or retirement fund will be further diluted by all this new counterfeit money. It won't matter if the money has a physical existence or is just digital information; either way it is stealing value from you just as surely as if a free-lance mugger were holding you at gunpoint while you empty your pockets for him.

      And yet, almost no one is screaming "No! You will not economically enslave my future!" or refusing to be robbed. Rather, people are debating how much oversight should the government have, or complaining about all the add-on edicts. I, for one, see through the smoke and mirrors. I suspect that you do too.


      Wednesday, February 11, 2009

      Are You Ready?

      Whether it is a gun ban or an economic collapse, just about everyone can see that "interesting times" are on the way. They will be hard times for those who are not ready. I intend to make certain they are not as hard on me as they could be. Sometimes, I think I actually thrive under tangible threats.

      Regardless of what comes, there are things we all need to be doing. The following advice is probably worth what you paid for it.

      I never have understood the advice to "save your money". It's like putting a snowball in your pocket for next week. It makes a lot more sense to me to buy stuff that you can use or trade when times get tough. Money loses value all the time - well fiat money does, anyway. We all know "fiat" is just a euphemism for "counterfeit" as long as it is government or their associates who are doing the counterfeiting. If you feel the need to have some "savings", at least buy real stuff first. Silver, gold, ammo, guns, toilet paper, dried or canned foods, medicine..... whatever you may need when your "dollars" are not worth anything anymore, and when you discover that your "savings" could possibly buy you a half of a Happy Meal.

      Which brings me to another point. If you don't have enough guns, (and who does?) take some of that rapidly evaporating money and spend it on guns. And don't forget the ammo. If nothing else, it is an investment that will not lose value. You may need to be willing to enter the black market in order to cash in, but that is probably the coming reality for all of us no matter what.

      A gun in the hand is worth two in the store. Or, a .22 in the hand is worth two .45s in the safe. Or a .22 in the hand is better than worthless money in a checking account. If things get too "interesting" for those who are less than honest, they may decide to separate you from your supplies. Make certain you have the means and the determination to stop them. If stormtroopers decide to separate you from your family, weapons, supplies, or liberty they have crossed the line and should be stopped as well.

      There are also other things you can do to get ready for the future. Many of those are mental preparations. Educate yourself so you are not one of those who will panic and be caught by surprise. That will do more toward easing your future than just about anything else. Life is an adventure. Sometimes a test can come along, and if you meet it well you will find a satisfaction that can't be found in "normal" life. Your attitude, along with preparedness, can make all the difference.


      Monday, February 09, 2009

      "Not Everyone Wears a Sidearm"

      In some commentary on another website, I was pointing out that children in the park could be, and should be, watched over by parents who would share the responsibility. At mountainman rendezvous I have attended this was standard procedure, though no one ever told us to do so. And, with everyone in camp being armed, no one would risk harming a child (or anyone else).

      A commenter said that such a thing sounded good, but wouldn't work in regular society because "not everyone wears a sidearm". Well, why don't they?

      Some people don't want to. That is OK. I would never force anyone to carry a gun if they were uncomfortable doing so. Some people wouldn't shoot an attacker for any reason. Sad, but reality. Some people know that they can not trust themselves with a gun. I wonder why they would then trust themselves with anything else that can be dangerous (cars, knives, lighters, medicines, etc.), but that's another issue.

      What about those people who would like to, but don't? Why don't they? Government regulations and prohibitions are the most likely reason. Some people still want to see themselves as "law abiding" although that is not a good thing when the laws are immoral. So, instead of doing what is right and necessary, they fearfully and irresponsibly obey dangerous prohibitions. If you fall into this category, maybe it is time to shed misplaced respect for a reprehensible system that expects you to sacrifice yourself for the convenience of the parasites and thugs among us. Both governmental and free-lance. Think about it and do what is right instead of what is "legal". Society, which is just to say each innocent individual, will be safer for it. It may just make you a better, more aware and caring person, too.


      Sunday, February 08, 2009

      "Know Thine Enemy"


      "The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale. " Read the rest

      States Declare Sovereignty

      I got this interesting tidbit from blogger Bill Hicks. Go read it: link

      Now, if only people would realize that their individual sovereignty outranks ANY political entity. Some of us know that already.

      Saturday, February 07, 2009

      The Political Parties- a Personal Perspective

      A post on another blog got me to consider how I see the political parties. I am not talking about objective specifics, just how I see them very subjectively.

      Republicans are the moralizing father. Strong and a little harsh. He wants order and obedience out of all those unruly children around him. He is deeply religious, but many times must insist "do as I say; not as I do". He will never "spare the rod" on those he thinks need a good whipping, "for their own good" of course. He only wants "what is best" for his naughty children and feels that without his guidance they will turn into smelly, lazy hippies.

      Democrats are the permissive mother. At least she will make you believe that while she guilts you into obeying her desires. She may use some of the same methods as the father, but she is sneakier about it. In her heart she wants everyone to just get along. She believes everything should be fair, and will impose fairness, as she sees it, on everyone around her, even if it means forcing a child to share his most charished toy with a sibling who will break it on purpose. She is slightly neurotic and delusional and can't understand why anyone would disagree with her, since she only wants what is best for the poor, slightly stupid children around her. After all, without her to protect them they would poke their eyes out.

      Libertarians (the LP) are the cool uncle who you can tell all your secrets to. He knows how things really are, but he doesn't want to offend the Mother and Father, so he tries to downplay the truth around them to avoid causing problems in the family. He might smoke a joint with you when the uptight parents are not around, or discuss things your parents would rather pretend don't exist, but often will keep his mouth shut if the family starts scolding you for your wayward behavior. After all, it is his family, too and he still wants to be recognized as a relative. He will also give you a hand or bail you out of jail without subjecting you to a lecture.

      Then there are people like me. This is obviously the least objective description of all. We are the black-sheep of the family. We see where the others get off-track and try to avoid their mistakes. We also see where the others are right and embrace those positions fully, although we may not admit it if they thought of it first. We try to stay consistent instead of holding one position for one person and the opposite position for another person, as we see the others do. We know what we want, and we actually live it day to day in our personal lives, but we get really tired of hearing that our concrete reality, where we actively live, is a fantasy or "Utopia".


      Friday, February 06, 2009

      Strength in Numbers

      I frequently hear people say that good people can't do anything about bad people and that is why cops and government are necessary. Nonsense! Good people outnumber the bad people by a huge margin. If that weren't the case no number of cops, even if they were interested in protecting the good guys, would be able to hold back the tide of violence. The bad guys know they are outnumbered, but they depend upon you and I not realizing that fact.

      This makes me think of a program I recently watched about modern pirates. Small crews of heavily armed pirates outgun large crews of defenseless merchants. It is ridiculous! If ships' crews would arm themselves properly, the pirates wouldn't have a chance, but "laws" and "custom" dictate that the honest people be sitting ducks for those who feel no obligation to die for your convenience. It's time to stop being silly.

      People who do not want to personally steal from others or harm innocent people are the majority. We should start behaving as though we realize this fact. Even most statist-socialists will not do the stealing personally; they depend on the government to do it for them. If the rest of us stand up to them, they will be powerless.

      Thursday, February 05, 2009

      You Don't Need Money to Live

      It seems like it should be obvious that you or I don't need money in order to live. You could grow your own food, make your own clothes, build your own house, and trade for things you can't provide yourself- making use of talents you possess that others do not. Money can be a convenient placeholder of value, to be used in trade for what you do need, but that is all.

      Except, government makes it "illegal" to have no money. The primary reason money is necessary is to comply with the state's extortion schemes. Government demands money for its extortion payments such as property "tax", and its numerous fees and permits, which you will pay or government will kill you.

      You could be rich in possessions, but without "money", government will attack and kidnap you, and if you resist you will be murdered. It seems like a bizarre situation until you realize that it is necessary if government is to exercise control over your life. If it could "allow" you to take care of yourself, government would have much less power.

      That is another important reason that all government theft, whether called "taxes", "permits", "licenses", or "fees", must be ended forever. Let those who would be fine without money live unmolested.


      Wednesday, February 04, 2009

      Texas "Open Carry" Movement

      I got this message and would like to pass it along.

      Subject: Final Pre-bill Push for Texas Open Carry Petition Needs YOU!

      Open Carriers Across America:

      Representative Riddle (R – Houston) will soon introduce historic legislation to restore the right to open carry handguns in Texas. But that does not mean the fight is over – it’s just beginning. That’s why we need to drive up the signature count on the petition for Texas at

      And all Americans can help just like in 1836 when volunteers came from many states to help Texas fight and ultimately defeat an invading Mexican Army.

      So if you known anyone who lives, works, or goes to school in Texas, now is the time to contact them and urge them to sign the open carry petition for Texas at

      The petition is now at over 54,000 signatures but we need to drive that signature count well North of 55,000 in the coming days to send a clear signal to Austin that open carry needs to be passed this year.

      And if you blog in Texas, or can spare a few moments to add this message and/or the petition link to Texas blogs, please do so immediately. And remind folks to use valid email addresses so that they can receive vital updates on legislative matters from the Texas Open Carry working group which is going to be a permanent and effective pro-gun force in Texas to be reckoned with this year and in the future!

      Please act on this message today.

      Mike Stollenwerk,


      What if They Outlawed Sugar?

      In thinking about the absurdity of the evil "war on (some) drugs", and the violence that comes with any prohibition, I started wondering what would happen if the government outlawed sugar. Of course, instead of sugar it could also be anything that people are able to "legally" enjoy today, even though it may not be great for them. Things like fat, caffeine, TV, or games. There is no real incentive for the prohibition of sugar, nor can I imagine one, but logic and reason have no place in governmental actions. So for this mental exercise, I will pretend that by royal edict, or by majority rule, sugar is outlawed as of now.

      Of course, sugar substitutes would fall under this prohibition as well. Can't allow people to get around the prohibition that easily. Kind of like how anything with similar effects are outlawed as fast as they are found in the "war on (some) drugs". It is the effect that is prohibited as much as the specific substances.

      Do you think a black market would arise for sweet treats? Of course it would. And with black markets come artificially inflated prices. And with artificially high prices and increased risk in providing the substance come bad people who are already accustomed to such endeavors. Soon gangs would fight over their share of the sugar trade. New names would be coined to covertly describe the product; each new name becoming obsolete when "decent society" started calling sugar by its "street name". Greenhouses and attics with grow lights would start growing plants that could be refined for their sugary sap. Basement set-ups where sugar cane and sugar beets were turned into "sweet gold" would crop up everywhere.

      Maple trees would have to be cut and burned. Even many kinds of wild grasses with sweet juices would suddenly cause a homeowner to forfeit his property, if the feds discovered the wild plants growing on private land. Home chemistry labs where artificial sweeteners of undetermined purity could be mixed up would be started. Dangerous chemicals would undoubtedly be used in the manufacture of such things. But the demand would still be there.

      I know it would be impossible for even a draconian police-state such as the US to carry out such a massive eradication program, mainly because the moral busy-bodies are not decrying sugar.... yet. Not to mention the environmental destruction that would result. But it really isn't as far-fetched as it might seem at first.

      Even if "drugs" were as bad as the perpetual liars in government claim, the loss of liberty and violation of rights under the misguided, Constitutionally illegal, and evil "war on (some) drugs" is not worth it.


      Tuesday, February 03, 2009

      A "Milestone"?

      This is my one-thousandth blog post.

      Wow. I never dreamed I would keep blogging this long; never thought I'd keep coming up with things to say. Of course, I am one of those people who have actually spent 6 to 8 hours at a time on the telephone. So, talking (or writing) has never been a problem...unless someone wanted me to keep my opinions to myself.

      It also helps that I have a subject I care passionately about. As you know, I can go on and on about liberty. Just look at any of the discussions I have taken part in on this or other blogs and websites. Evidence of my wordiness abounds. Liberty is important. Not just to me and other libertarians, but to those who don't realize its value yet. If, in some small way, my words can get someone to reconsider the importance of liberty, then my life was not a waste.

      I have noticed that lately, when I do a Google search for "libertarian blog", my blog comes up 6th or 7th. That amazes me. Of course, maybe Google knows I am the one searching and gives me my own blog as a higher ranked result so my feelings won't be hurt. Who knows.

      I would like to say a BIG "thank you" to all my readers, regardless of whether you are new or someone who has been around since the beginning. I also invite you to look over my old posts. I feel bad that the old posts have faded from sight. You don't want me to start publishing a "best of", do you?

      I just have one question that keeps sneaking into my head: Does this mean I am a "writer" yet?


      Monday, February 02, 2009

      "Patriotism" of the Past

      I think it was easier in the past to justify supporting the state. Back then, the evil just under its veneer was more difficult to see. You could always point to a greater evil that was looming over the horizon (even if it was exaggerated by the agents of the state). There was a tangible difference between the freedoms which were left at home, and the tyranny abroad. You could be "patriotic" and still feel like you were really supporting individual freedoms and liberty. Such is no longer the case.

      Now "patriotism" consists of waving the federal flag in support of its many invasions across the globe, and in support of brutal human rights violations at home. Those who think of themselves as "patriotic" generally think it is OK to kill multitudes of "them". They frequently think it is OK to ignore human rights, even the ones mentioned in the Bill of Rights, in order to "get" the bad guys. The claim is that is makes "us" safer somehow. It doesn't.

      It's time to shed the snakeskin of "patriotism" and start living your life free; standing up for ALL rights for EVERYONE, everywhere, for all times. Lead by example. Lift the banner of freedom high.


      Sunday, February 01, 2009

      New Meetup Group - Clovis, New Mexico Area

      I have started a new Meetup group to see if anyone in my area (around Clovis, New Mexico) is interested in getting together. It is called The Tumbleweed Territory Libertarians.

      If you know anyone in my area who might be interested, please let them know about it.