Tuesday, March 31, 2009

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

'Gun control' keeps on killing and killing and killing

Not Only does "gun control" kill. The mere mention of possible new "gun laws" triggers killing sprees. Don't believe me? Pay attention when new "gun control" laws are first mentioned. It won't be long before a new mass murder occurs. Or several. It is happening now. It happens every time. So, it must be that there are people out there with fragile mental states who crack up when politicians, or their lapdogs in the media, start suggesting new victim disarmament "laws".

Either that or someone has gone to a lot of trouble to "prepare" people, chemically or hypnotically, to go on murderous rampages just when it is "needed" to promote support for a new round of immoral and illegal laws against guns. And that would be tinfoil-beanie paranoid, right?

Just to be clear, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" anyone the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). That right has existed since before the first human picked up a rock, regardless of any law or government. What the Second Amendment does do is prohibit anyone from passing or enforcing ANY laws regulating weapons in any way. That's right: it makes it a crime to pass or enforce any "gun control" laws, and those, like the mass-murder cheerleaders of the Brady Campaign, who advocate for new "laws" are guilty of encouraging others to become criminals.

No "laws" meant to disarm the violent bad guys will fail to make it more difficult for the good guys to remain armed. After all, it is only the good guys who concern themselves with obeying "laws" in the first place. It is evil to try to disarm people. There is just no excuse for it.

Just in case the "dated language" of the Second Amendment is too difficult to understand, I offer my "illuminated" version:

"Because a very effective, armed, population is essential in order for America to stay free and safe, the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

Monday, March 30, 2009

Principles must be universal or they are meaningless

Principles must be universal or they are meaningless

If one has real principles, one must be consistent. All people have the exact same rights as all other people, regardless of the demands of the local Rulers and enforcers. Regardless of constitutions or bills of rights. Regardless of "laws".

If something is wrong for me to do, then it is still wrong for me or anyone else to do even if we put on "the silly hat of government". Each person is free to do as he or she wishes as long as they harm no innocent person. Are you prepared for that?

By your actions you may set in motion a series of consequences you may not like, but no one has any obligation to save you from yourself; from the consequences of your own actions. In fact, attempting to do so without being asked is meddling, and asking for help when you caused the situation to begin with could be seen as becoming a parasite.

Accepting your responsibilities willingly

Accepting your responsibilities willingly

Some things are your responsibility whether you wish to accept it or not. Just because there is a government "professional" who claims that he is now responsible for your "welfare" doesn't mean you can stop thinking and start grazing on your meadows of clover.

It is your responsibility to provide for your own personal safety and protection. You can attempt to shirk this responsibility and rely on police, but they never have your best interests at heart. After all, they are normally more concerned that you obey all their nonsensical rules than whether you are in danger. (A recent event in Dallas should illustrate this quite clearly) No one can be paid well enough to care as much about your own safety as you already do.

It is your responsibility to educate your children. How you choose to do that can make a huge difference in their lives. No government employee cares one fiftieth as much as you do how your children are prepared for life. No one at the school is as concerned for the safety of your children as you are. There is no way to pay them enough that they will care as deeply as you do.

Your financial future is your responsibility. No government program is sufficient for all your needs and wants. The fact that the program has been stealing your money for decades doesn't mean it will be there when you need it. You need to either hide any future money from the muggers, or plan for a future without that source of income.

Your health is your responsibility. Socialized "free" health care isn't the answer (unless the question is "what is the least likely way to get quality health care?"). No profession survives being taken over by the mafia without becoming beholden to the thugs who call the shots and hand out the money. Your health takes a backseat to other concerns.

It is your responsibility to make your own choices and then deal with the consequences. You may try to shift the blame when things go wrong, but the responsibility is yours alone. Will you accept it or try to ignore the truth?

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?

Is it time for a 'one-world currency'?

The coming collapse of the US dollar has caused some people to question whether it is time for a "one-world currency".

Should there be one? Yes and no. There should not be a government-mandated "one-world currency", especially not of the "fiat" variety, but there should still be "one currency" anyway: freedom of choice. Ditch the government monopoly on money, which orders you to use worthless printed paper, and let people across the entire world choose what to use as a placeholder of trade value. Everyone will choose their own personal favorites.

Gold and silver are obvious choices for money, but if you would rather work for (literally) peanuts... or ammunition, or sexual favors, or bottle caps, or whatever .... that should be your choice. And truthfully, it always will be.

No government can coerce you into using its worthless fiat money in all your dealings, no matter how hard it tries. It's time to start trying out your freedom wings. Exercise now will make it a lot easier to fly on that day when you are pushed off the cliff.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Are libertarians weak on national defense?

Are libertarians weak on national defense?

"Isolationist"? "Anti-war"? I hear some people use those reasons as an excuse for why they can't support libertarian philosophy (and Libertarian candidates).

It is dead wrong and absolutely absurd.

I am not "isolationist" in the slightest. That would be barring the door and ignoring the rest of the world. No, I agree more with the founders of America who warned that we should pursue "Trade with ALL nations; entangling alliances with none". That is reasonable and logical behavior. It avoids the mistakes that have marched deluded folks off to foreign battlefields and made otherwise sensible people into murderers in foreign lands. Yet, the false "conservatives" use this excuse a lot to avoid facing their own lack of consistency.

I am "anti-war" in as much as I know it is wrong to invade another country with government troops on false pretext. Starting a war of aggression makes you the bad guy. "Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is the excuse of a bully. If you really want to believe libertarians are "anti-war" see what happens if you send troops to our neighborhoods. I have no qualms about "fighting them" here. At least there is no mistaking who the guilty party is in that case.

How does it promote "national defense" to create enemies through meddling, destroying, and killing in other countries? Might the reality possibly be that such acts raise up new generations of individuals who (mistakenly) blame the people of America for the actions of the rogue US government? Doesn't that undermine "national security"? Doesn't that put us all in danger?

If the alternatives to the supposed "isolationist" and "anti-war" views of libertarians are the policy of meddling in everyone's business and the "invade and kill them all before they do something to America" dogma that is chanted in place of intelligent debate, then no thank you. I'll laugh while you call me names.

Friday, March 27, 2009

I Got Twitterpated

In an attempt to get more readers for my Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner column I am now on Twitter. My readership dropped through the floor over the past couple of days, so I am looking for ways to boost it a bit.

Twitter always seemed a little creepy to me. I'm sorry, but I refuse to post my every move on there, but I will let you know when a new ALE column is posted. Who knows, I may even post a few extra things from time to time. I suppose I am open to suggestions as to things you would like for me to post. Within reason.

The war on drugs is a war on us all

The war on drugs is a war on us all

The "War on Drugs" is as likely to be won as a "War on Gravity". That is probably a good thing. Even if a "War on Gravity" could be won, it would destroy the universe. If the War on Drugs were won, it would destroy part of what makes us human. There is no real danger of either happening.

Whether it is alcohol, THC, or any of the so-called "hard drugs", the fact is that a majority of people enjoy feeling "altered" mental states of some sort. From early childhood humans seek out the sensation. I'm sure you have noticed young children spinning until they can't stand, haven't you? "Drunk" is like dizziness. It is a manifestation of the same desire. It is an integral part of the human condition and it is ridiculous and evil to try to change that in any way other than gentle persuasion. "Laws" and punishments can't make people stop. I can understand that, why can't the state? (I have my suspicions that they really do "get it", but have their own reasons for fighting this endless war.)

Just as gravity can be used in many ways, including in counterintuitive ways such as to make an airplane fly, so could the basic human desire to feel "altered" possibly be used for seemingly counterintuitive purposes. Yet, aside from government labs where the "laws" don't apply, any exploration of this possibility is tightly regulated and often prohibited.

This isn't even a moral issue, although some will try to tell you it is. Is it wrong to listen to a song that alters your moods? Is it wrong to skydive? Why are some things "legal" and other things "illegal" when the resulting feeling is very similar? It isn't the potential for harm, or alcohol would be "illegal" and marijuana would be "legal".

Pure and simple it is about three things: control, money, and the power that the state can seize. There are huge profits to be made, as long as drugs remain illegal, on both sides of the "law". The crime and violence that logically result from prohibition can be used to scare the population into begging to be saved by government. Government can use the violence as an excuse to attempt to disarm the population, in particular, those who are not part of the problem.

The "War on Drugs" is a distraction. Pursuing it is evil and stupid. It is really a war on your freedom. Just say "No!" to continued prohibition!

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Dear Dull 'Hawk, #1

Dear Dull 'Hawk,

The government steals from us all the time. That seems to mean that government people are thieves. Thieves don't have any moral right to what they have stolen, as I understand it. If we steal (really: take back,or homestead) things from government or from government people, do we act morally? If so, what of the fact that what we liberate will be repurchased with funds that come from insurance pools that include non-state people who are guilty of nothing?


[First, here is advice from Mike:

Well, anonymous, Since it's "free market" advice, I'll take a shot.
I'd have to say first and foremost that the collective "we" is out of place
here, and it muddles things considerably. If you, or any other actual person
with a name, has had some specific piece of property taken from you, then, yes,
you have a moral right to it, no matter who took it. Of course, if you you try
to take it back from the government, expect to be jailed or killed for your
trouble. Morality and reality are not the same thing-ask Jesus.

But, when you say "we" and "us" you get into very dangerous territory,
since you have no claim on something stolen from someone else-only your own
stuff. That means that if you "liberate" something, be it money or other
property, that was stolen from me, or that someone else like an insurance co.
has a claim on, you are still a thief, but morally and legally. Since just
because it was once stolen, does not make it fair game for you to take as
This is part of why collectivism is so terrible, it confounds morality. But
that's just me. Can't wait to hear Kent's thoughts.]

Dear Anonymous,

If some of your property is in government possession, if you take it back you have acted morally. I will blog about the injustice of your arrest (kidnapping) or honor your memory. Since you know the government will continue to steal from others to replace your property if you take it back, the only permanent solution is to make certain the thief can't continue to steal.

Then Mike asks:

"Since at one point virtually all property was stolen, particularly land, is it really possible to have a claim to private property? In the strict principled sense, or is there a degree of pragmatism involved since true original ownership is impossible to determine?"

Dear Mike,

If the original owner of a piece of land, or specific descendants, can be identified, I think they should be reimbursed. If the real original owners are lost in the mists of time, then no living person was stolen from, and no one alive is guilty of theft. I don't hold people responsible for what their parents did, much less for the actions of their great-great grandparents. I can wring my hands over the injustices of the past, or I can focus on making sure no more injustices occur. Just my opinion.

End the government monopoly; give people a choice

End the government monopoly; give people a choice

In the comments under the column on welfare, "straightarrow" mentioned that he thinks Social Security should be voluntary. I can fully agree to that. In fact, that is all I am truly saying on any of these issues: let people have a choice to opt out of government programs if they so choose. Don't use coercion to force people to use, or at least pay for, government "services" they don't want or need. End the government monopoly!

I have no problem paying the city for the water I use. I would prefer there were competition so that quality would improve, and price might go down, but I have no desire to get something for nothing. Trash pick-up is the same way. I get a service; I pay for it.

What I would really rather not have is a "once-a-month rabid skunk delivery service" mandated by the state, and charged to me even if I insist I don't want it. That is what most government "services" are to me.

If parents wish to home-school (or "unschool") their children, don't force them to keep paying for the system that they have come to realize is socialist indoctrination. If a person realizes that they don't need "police protection", but can do the same job better and cheaper for themselves, don't expect them to pay for the "protection" of others who are not as self-responsible. If an inventor creates a flying car that uses no government roads, don't steal money from him in the way of "road taxes" every time he fuels his vehicle. Choices, options, and an end to the destructive and coercive monopoly.

I don't want or need police "keeping drunks off the road" by violating the basic human right to travel unmolested. I can watch out for myself. That is my responsibility, after all. In fact, I don't want or need police at all.

I don't want to pay for the FCC to fine TV stations on my behalf (though, of course, THEY keep the money) to protect me from things the government thinks I shouldn't see or hear. If the TV offends me I can turn it off. If it offends you I will be glad to show you where the off-button is.

I don't want to pay for the "privilege" of having a Congress. If they want to be "in the club" so badly, let them pay a membership fee and work as volunteers. Best of all, let any "laws" they create only apply to those who are members of their club and leave the rest of us alone.

I don't want the DEA murdering people, for my "benefit", because they have hemp leaves in their possession, nor killing people who are manufacturing chemicals that the state has created a demand for through prohibition. Also, it certainly doesn't benefit me to have government keep these victims of government-gone-amok in prison, at my expense, with the real aggressors and thieves.

I don't want or need a wall built along the southern border to keep "those people" out. If you own property, you have the only say in who may or may not cross it. The US government owns NO property legitimately. Don't let it pretend it does. Do you worry about the "drain on the economy" that you imagine immigrants cause? Then demand an end to all forms of welfare immediately. Worried about the "drug crime" that crosses "the border"? End prohibition and destroy the black market for the "drugs". Otherwise you are just being hypocritical.

Now, if you want some of these "services", then you should be happy to pay for them out of your own pocket. Don't force me, at gunpoint, to "contribute" to your cause. If your "services" violate anyone's rights, even my sworn enemy's, expect me to hold you accountable.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Dear Dull 'Hawk, .....

I would like to try something a little different. Just as an experiment. How about a "liberty advice column", right here on this blog? You can either pose your questions in the comments (avoid using the Haloscan comments for this) or email them to me at: dullhawk@hotmail.com (please reference this blog post in the subject line somehow) and then I will see if I can give you some advice on the blog the next day. Of course, unlike most advice columns, other commenters may disagree and give you competing advice. Free-market advice.

Make up a nice pseudonym and have at it. This is important- If you don't want the question and answer to be public, please tell me and I won't post it on the blog, otherwise....

PS: I am still looking for any "investors" who would like to help get the coins into production.


Different labels describe the same basic concept

Different labels describe the same basic concept

I keep seeing debates about the labels we liberty-lovers may choose to put on ourselves. I see so many trying to claim they are not a libertarian because.... well, they have their reasons, usually having to do with "too much baggage" attached to the word. Still, they act like MY definition of a libertarian. Then there are some who call themselves "Libertarian" who certainly don't normally act like they are. Is there any use applying "labels"?

Labels can divide us and are over-rated. I am a "clumper". I started out calling myself "libertarian", then because of the inadequacies of the word, started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then I embraced the term "anarchist". Now, for purposes of writing for Examiner.com, I am calling myself "libertarian" again, since they didn't want an "Anarchy Examiner". My attitudes haven't changed throughout all this shuffling of labels. If pressed, I could, on different occasions, say that I consider myself a libertarian, an anarchist, a sovereign individual, a self-governor, an abolitionist, and many more. I can find some common ground with conspiracy theorists, minarchists, "right-wing" gun owners, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates. Where our "common ground" ends is where anyone calls for government "fixes" for their pet cause, or if they call for force to be initiated against another person. The only real "fix" is to get rid of government so it can not continue to divide and conquer our liberty.

These definitions that people apply to their philosophy, what do they all mean? Yes, I know you can look up definitions in a dictionary to see what someone, somewhere, thought the word meant when they were writing the definition, but those definitions may not be what you really have in mind when you use the words. They seem to all fall short of the concepts. Yet, we are trapped. If we make up new words they will also drift away from our original intent as soon as someone else uses them. You can't totally avoid using labels unless you are satisfied to use a paragraph (or a chapter) each time you try to relate the concept. It turns out, that is what I sometimes end up doing. This column is an example of that. Labels are a shortcut. I don't think they can be eliminated or completely avoided. I will simply try to be aware that you and I may not mean the same thing when we use the same words, or that we may use different words to express the same concept.

MamaLiberty says she calls herself an "individual sovereign". I can identify with that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as the word "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.

As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying. I know a fellow traveler on this road toward freedom when I meet one. That is the important part. So, for the purposes of this column, I will use the term "libertarian" to mean all of those things.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

You asked; I deliver

OK. Here is the rough draft of my coin, the "Silver Dubloon".

Libertarians can afford to be bold

Libertarians can afford to be bold

There are very clear reasons why we hold fast to the principles we do. We have clear, rationally derived reasons, so we can be bold when taking our stand. Timidity shows doubt and it isn't necessary. You have weighed your positions, haven't you? Just because our positions may not be popular doesn't mean they are wrong.

When it comes to the absolute right of each person to live life according to his wishes and values, as long as he harms no innocent person, even when his choices are unpopular or scorned by the vast majority, libertarians can't afford to be wishy-washy. There is enough of that out there already. If you only stand up for the popular rights, you are really taking no stand at all.

I'll give you just a couple of examples that cause some libertarians to stammer and try to change the subject.

Guns: Every person has the legacy of tool-use imprinted on his or her body, mind, and quite possibly, DNA. Guns are tools, just like the first flint scrapers or a slightly more advanced copper axe. They give the owner power over his immediate environment. Just like any tool, guns can be used unwisely, however unwise use does not make the tool guilty, nor mean that others who did not use the tool to cause harm must lose their tools. At least, it doesn't mean that unless you are a reactionary control-freak. Then it is "obvious" to you that the tool must be blamed and restricted. Tool prohibition harms innocent people and empowers the predators who live among us. What do we call actions that harm the innocent?

"Drugs": No one owns your life or the vessel that contains it but you. This is the most fundamental "property right" of them all. Without this one, there are not, and can never be, any others. "Ownership" must include the right to destroy the thing you own, or it is meaningless. It gives you no right to steal from others, nor to attack them in any way since this would be violating your victim's property rights. "The drugs made me do it" is a cop-out that would lead to an early grave in a free society if tried very often. However, most people who use chemical substances never harm anyone else, regardless of what the scare-mongers in government wish you to believe. It may not be smart, it may even kill you, but as long as you are harming no one else it is your right. Government has no authority to make certain that you (and your family) are harmed by its sanctions for your choices. To be perfectly honest, that is where most of the harm from "drug use" comes from. Prohibition is a failed concept and a destructive policy. It harms innocent people. That is the very definition of "evil".

Monday, March 23, 2009

The absurdity of trying to force freedom on someone

The absurdity of trying to force freedom on someone

Can you "vote yourself free"? Even if you can, what about those who would choose servitude to the state? Is it right, or even possible, to "force people to be free"? Isn't that a contradiction? Does a majority have the right to "impose freedom" on an unwilling minority? Does a libertarian minority have the right to impose freedom (if it were even logistically possible) on a frightened or authoritarian majority?

I don't believe it is possible to force anyone to be free (the current "military mission" in Iraq should be all the evidence anyone needs that it doesn't work). Until the people are familiar with freedom and realize its potential, and then want it, all you are doing is shoving another unwanted edict down someone's throat, just like the last bully-in-charge did. After all, if people wish to voluntarily organize into a socialistic state they should be free to do that as long as they do not force anyone to participate who does not wish to. And there is the problem.

The very nature of the state is that no one is allowed to opt out. It would cause the entire house of cards ("prison of cards"?) to collapse if people were free to choose to be enslaved or not. Taxation is theft, and volunteering to be stolen from is evidence of your slavery. The government claims the "income tax" is "voluntary"... until you stop volunteering to be stolen from. Then you will either submit or the state will keep escalating the aggression until it kills you. This is just one example among millions.

While liberty-lovers would allow a voluntary "statist society" to exist alongside a free society, the state would never reciprocate. It would see liberty as a virus that would spread to those who had previously agreed to live under its "authority". A shining example that it could not shield from the notice of its population. The state would die by attrition.

You can not be allowed, by the state, to choose between tyranny or freedom, because too many would choose freedom, especially if they could see it in action. Those who would choose slavery depend on those who would choose freedom to be the fuel and machinery that runs the society. Without them you have nothing but parasites looking for an absent host. Hmmm. This is sounding like a synopsis of "Atlas Shrugged".

For related material: Under my column "Voting is usually wrong" I have been having a debate in the comments with Eric Sundwall. I recommend you go read it, as it inspired this column. It can give you a feel for the two views of the issue.

A New Obsession - Can You Help?

I have gotten one of my obsessions again. Last time I had a "liberty related" obsession, I designed the "Time's Up" flag. This time it is a 1 oz silver coin which I have designed.

I lost money on the flags, which was OK with me. I'd like to hit on something that would make me financially comfortable, but that isn't the most important thing to me.

The thing is, I can't afford to lose money on another project, not right now, and I don't have the money to have to coins made.

The design I have created should appeal to libertarians, "Three-percenters", Free State Project participants, anarchists, pirate enthusiasts, my "fans and supporters", numismatists (since this will be the most wonderful coin ever designed), and more. And, because the coins would be one ounce of .999 fine silver, they would be a good investment. Since I am trying to protect my design, I won't release it to the public yet, but I like it.

So, if there is anyone out there who would like to commit to buying a certain number of coins, or who would just like to finance the whole venture, let me know and maybe we can reach an agreement. I'd really like to see these coins become a reality so I can get it out of my mind and move onto something else.


Welfare has become a way of life

Welfare has become a way of life

I know of a person who lives near me who is said to be a "welfare queen". She is sneered at by most of her neighbors. Neighbors who, in a majority of cases, happily ignore the fact that they too are living on welfare.

It is hypocritical to denigrate the neighborhood "welfare queen" while you collect your Social Security, your farm subsidies, your Medicare, while you "benefit" from public schooling, or go off to your government job.

It is all the same: living off the wealth and production of others. In other words, theft. Some are OK with this, thinking that it is somehow different in their personal case. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but there is no difference. At least have the integrity to accept welfare for what it is, whether it is being paid to you or taken from you, and don't turn your nose up at others if you are in the same boat.

Consistency in applying your principles. The importance of this can not be overstated.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

New Mexico gets rid of death penalty

New Mexico gets rid of death penalty

The rulers of the territory of New Mexico recently decided to do away with the "death penalty". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am one of those who feels the only legitimate death penalty is carried out at the moment of the attack by the intended victim or a rescuer.

There is no government anywhere that I feel is honest enough to be trusted with power over life and death. They demonstrate time after time, year after year, that they can't be trusted with small things, why on earth would we entrust them with the most important thing there is? Too many on death row have been vindicated, after decades of imprisonment, by DNA evidence. Getting a conviction, so as to appear to be "doing something", is more important than finding the truth to those who depend on an active "criminal justice system" to make money. Lastly, governments always turn to their court system to punish those who oppose or annoy them. Those like you and me.

"What about crime?" you may ask. I don't believe that keeping the death penalty as an option really reduces crime; every attacker thinks they will be the exception to the rule; the one who gets away with it. Once a person is captured they are no longer a threat to the general population. When the killer is no longer a threat, killing him is revenge rather than justice. It doesn't return the victim to life. Nor does it truly protect any future victims. The only thing that does that with any success is a universally armed population, which New Mexico can, and should, have.

Fellow prisoners should be protected from the truly violent predators (rather than the "crime of passion" types). Of course, no one but violent attackers should be in prison in the first place. Others, those whose crimes are of a financial nature, should be working on their restitution rather than living off the stolen money of the state. Those other people who were kidnapped by the state for counterfeit "crimes" which harm no one (in other words, the majority of those in prison) should not be incarcerated to begin with. Not in a rational society, anyway.

Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism

Light of liberty illuminates the failures of authoritarianism

The quickest way to see that libertarianism is correct is by reading the views and opinions of the opposition. The inconsistencies in any adherent of authoritarianism should be glaringly obvious to just about anyone who takes the time to look with open eyes and an engaged mind.

Authoritarians always have exceptions to their "principles". Evil actions are disguised behind euphemisms: It is wrong to steal, unless you are doing so under the guise of "taxation", for one common example.

The consistency of libertarians is frightening to some authoritarians. They keep trying to find exceptions by proposing increasingly bizarre scenarios to libertarians; saying "but what if....".

These scenarios are normally either of the "deserted island" or the "powerful warlord" variety. Of the two, the "powerful warlord" scenario is the more realistic, since that is the situation we find ourselves in now.

A powerful band of warlords, calling themselves "government" has declared that they own us and the products of our lives. We are told we can choose which of them is the anointed figurehead for a certain number of years, but are not allowed to officially opt out of the system entirely. A choice that makes no difference is not a real choice. They demand to be paid tributes for "giving" us the privilege of having them rule over us. They pretend to be protecting us from the very sort of threat that they themselves pose to our lives, our liberties, and our pursuit of happiness.

Since authoritarianism failed to prevent a gang of powerful warlords from taking control, why keep looking to the same misguided delusions in an attempt to protect us from yet another powerful warlord? The answer lies in accepting and exercising responsibility for your own life, and in the determination to not let anyone usurp that self-ownership under any pretext.

These scenarios are no problem for a libertarian grounded on a solid foundation of self-ownership, non-aggression, and responsibility for one's own actions. If real exceptions exist, I have yet to find one.

Libertarians defy the usual labels

Libertarians defy the usual labels

One rather humorous invective that gets hurled at libertarians occasionally is that we are "just liberals who like guns". Being outside the traditional political "right vs left" nonsense confuses those who wish to insult us. "The Right" calls us "bleeding heart liberals"; "The Left" calls us "heartless right-wingers". The truth is we are the only ones who remain consistent.

Not all libertarians agree on all the issues, so I can only speak for myself here. On the "liberal" side I oppose the death penalty, since no government is worthy of being trusted with power over life and death. I am against drug prohibition since if you don't own your own body, to dispose of however you please, you own nothing. I am against "laws" regulating or controlling sexual activity between responsible consenting individuals for the same reason.

On the traditional "conservative" side I oppose any attempts by any government to regulate weaponry. The right to bear arms ("to own and to carry weapons") existed before the Second Amendment and will still exist after the USA is a historical footnote, no matter what the prevailing legal environment demands. I am against government becoming a burden on business, through "taxation" or regulation. I am against penalizing people and businesses for success. I am against government interference with any sort of religion; believe what you want, just don't pass "laws" attempting to control non-coercive behavior based upon those beliefs. I am for property rights; it is your property, do with it as you wish as long as it doesn't escape your property to harm others. You may have noticed that by my yardstick there are no longer any "conservatives" in government at the national level, regardless of their claims.

There are some things that "both sides" disagree with me over. Democracy is not the Holy Grail of freedom; it is "the tyranny of the majority". There are very few things that should be subject to a vote, and a vote should never determine whose rights to violate.

I recognize that taxation of any amount is blatant theft. It doesn't matter how much you love to see the money spent on your favorite program. Theft is always wrong.

I accept that there is no right to not be offended. Stop running to government every time someone says or does something that offends you. Get a thicker skin.

Public schools are a disaster and are indoctrinating children to accept socialism without question. They are financed by ransoming the homes of the people in the area. You can't teach children to be good people with stolen money. Real education is much too important to leave to government bureaucrats.

National borders are a handy way to control people. Anything that can keep "them" out can keep "us" in. A fence works both ways and really only helps the farmer to control his livestock until it is time to butcher.

Immigration is only a problem if welfare is available. End it. Return to a time when charity was the safety net, instead of weaving one from theft. Charity is voluntary. You get to help whoever you like for whatever reason you have.

So, as you see, when libertarians are accused by one branch of authoritarians of belonging to the other camp of authoritarians, they miss the boat so completely as to appear silly. It is your choice to laugh as you walk away, or to try to correct them. Good luck.

Friday, March 20, 2009

What Will I Call Myself Today?

I think labels are over-rated. I started out calling myself "libertarian", then started using the term "freedom outlaw" and its related term "firefly". Then "anarchist". Now, for purposes of writing for Examiner.com, I am calling myself "libertarian" again, since they didn't want an "Anarchy Examiner". My attitudes haven't changed throughout all this shuffling of labels.

MamaLiberty says she calls herself a "individual sovereign". I have always liked that term, although I think it has as much baggage attached to it as "anarchist", at least to those who know what it means.

I still think all these terms are different ways of expressing the same thing. As MamaLiberty explains it: "I take personal responsibility for my life, my property, my safety and my future. I don't willingly allow anyone to interfere with that and I do not aggress against anyone else. " That's all we're saying.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

ALE update

Just a little update on the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner.

The first few days I was consistently the #1 Albuquerque Examiner. I supposed it was because I was new, and because of my attempt to get the word out. Since a couple of days ago, I have been pretty regularly #2 or #3, with occasional slips to #4. Still, I don't consider that too bad since I don't really have the time to push the project as hard as I should. Obviously I'm not even on the radar for the national Examiner stats. That will come a little later, right?

I really want to thank all of you who have been visiting faithfully everyday, even though I am kind of giving an elementary overview on the site right now.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Should you exercise every right you possess?

Should you exercise every right you possess?

A common assumption that authoritarians make about libertarians is that since we talk a lot about "rights", we believe in a free-for-all. That is completely wrong.

I am a firm believer that just because you have a right to do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. Common courtesy and self-responsibility should temper your actions.

An often-quoted erroneous statement about rights concerns the right of free speech. The claim is that rights are subject to "reasonable" legal restrictions. They are not, because then they would not be "rights", but "privileges" granted by a government. The opinion is that while you have a right to speak freely, you have no right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. That is dead wrong. You do have that right, since rights have no limitations, however if you choose to exercise that right you will also bear the responsibility for any harm that comes as a result. This is a perfect example of a right that is better left unused. Only a fool or an evil person would commit such an act. Responsibility doesn't end there. If you are sitting in a theater where someone yells "Fire!", you have a responsibility to react to the situation without trampling the other patrons. It would make sense to look around, sniff the air, and see whether there is any cause for alarm before attempting to navigate the stampede. Watch out for yourself and for those you have a responsibility toward.

The problem is that self-responsibility has atrophied from disuse. You have to give people a chance to make the wrong decisions and take responsibility for the outcome. If every action is either mandatory or prohibited where does judgment come into the picture? Children don't learn to walk if they are carried everywhere. Neither do people learn to take responsibility for their choices if they are never allowed to make any but the most trivial of choices. The state is preventing a lot of people from growing up. Of all the damage government does, this may be the most lasting. How can a generation that never learned to self-govern teach their children to be responsible?

Monday, March 16, 2009

Resources for libertarians

Resources for libertarians

What if you are new to libertarianism, or are simply interested in finding out more? Where, besides here, can you go for more information? You are in luck.

If you are looking for online news or commentary, you should check out The Libertarian Enterprise every Sunday when the new issue comes online. A variety of writers, from everywhere along the spectrum of "libertarianism", write on just about any imaginable topic. The Price Of Liberty has good, solid libertarian commentary on the news, and a lot of current "keep and bear arms" information. There is also Liberty for All, which often has some incredibly good articles. There are also hundreds of libertarian blogs; some better than others. Search engines can lead you to them. You will need to judge for yourself how "libertarian" the writers are.

If you are looking for information on how to express your newly recognized freedom more fully, there are some websites that can give you an education. One of the best, in my opinion, is The On Line Freedom Academy, or "TOLFA". This will guide you step-by-step through the process of showing why government is never a good idea, and how to get past the conditioning of the state. There is also Strike the Root, which has a huge collection of very good columns aimed at striking at the root of tyranny and evil. The Advocates for Self-Government has many resources for further reading, plus the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" so you can find out where you stand. They also have a list of libertarian, and libertarian-leaning, celebrities, in case that sort of thing interests you.

Perhaps you enjoy reading the printed page. You won't be left out. Non-fiction books include Lever Action, a collection of essays from L. Neil Smith. This is the book that caused me to realize I had always been a libertarian. A Vision of Liberty by Jim Davies (the originator of TOLFA) describes the possible scenario after government has evaporated. There are also books by more historical liberty lovers like Henry David Thoreau and Rose Wilder Lane. Mark Twain even had a pretty strong libertarian streak running through him. Of course, there are also the early heavy-lifters of the philosophy of freedom such as Frederic Bastiat. A quick internet search can turn up dozens of others in short order.

If your tastes run to fiction there are still a lot of choices, many of them science fiction. That genre lends itself to libertarianism. Robert A. Heinlein's books are generally among the favorite with libertarians. L. Neil Smith has also written quite a few good science fiction books. The Probability Broach being my personal favorite. Of course, one can't forget Ayn Rand. Love her or hate her, her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, have had a huge influence on many libertarians. It is interesting to see Atlas Shrugged being acted out by the clueless or diabolical clowns in government even as you read these words. (It wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual!)

If you simply want to connect with other like-minded freedom lovers join the Get Your Hands Dirty forum, or The Mental Militia forum. There is also Bureaucrash Social, which is fairly new, but attracting good folks quickly. You may even be lucky enough to find a libertarian Meetup group near you.

If you would like to see "the other side", read criticisms of libertarianism and notice the flaws in the argument. Or, find things to agree with him on. Please remember that just because he says "this is what libertarians believe" doesn't make it true. Think for yourself. Always.

Last, but not least, if you are simply looking for a little good-natured "PG-13" entertainment, cruise on over to Libertarian Hotties. After all, if the revolution isn't fun, why bother?

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Authoritarians want to punish those who harm no one

Authoritarians want to punish those who harm no one

Most garden-variety authoritarians, commonly called "conservatives" and "liberals" in modern America, are probably pretty nice people. They don't go around attacking their neighbors, even though that is the reality of the philosophy they follow. They simply haven't thought their positions through that thoroughly. They are your friends and neighbors, your family and co-workers. Maybe even you. So why do they cling to authoritarianism?

I think some of it has to do with the emotional need to punish those who hurt others. That is understandable in a way. I'll address the "punishment culture" another time. The problem is that the same irrational emotions get co-opted and aimed at those who are harming no one, except, possibly, themselves. No matter how much their actions or behaviors may offend you, their private lives are none of your business. Until they initiate force against you.

Of course, some authoritarians cry out that drunk drivers, drug abusers, gun owners, or independent migrants ("illegal immigrants") could cause harm if they aren't punished first. Probably so. So could everyone else, since nothing is 100% safe.

If anyone causes harm to another, drunk or not, addicted or not, whichever tools he might use, regardless of his "legal status" with the government, he should be held accountable.

The crime that is often associated with drug use comes not from the drugs, but from drug prohibition. If sugar (and sugar substitutes) were outlawed tomorrow, criminal gangs would start fighting turf wars over that commodity, too. The price would go up, and people who wanted it would be forced to become criminals to get it. It's the same story every time prohibition is tried. Most drug users live perfectly average lives until they cross paths with the enforcers of prohibition. Then it is a downward spiral caused by the sanctions placed upon them and the public scorn. Often from people who are engaged in the exact same behaviors, but who have not yet been caught.

Most gun owners never shoot anyone, much less an innocent person. Yet anytime a violent attacker uses a gun in his attack, the gun owners who never hurt anyone are targeted by the government nannies. All this does is make future attacks more likely, and likely to be more deadly. It is complete insanity.

Independent migrants only become an issue because of their imagined drain on "tax supported" social services. Since ALL welfare is immoral and based upon theft, it should be ended, thereby destroying the argument.

None of these issues justifies meddling in the private affairs of your neighbors. Why not shrug off the heavy cloak of the control-freak and let yourself relax? You might be surprised how liberating it is.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

The "Zero Aggression Principle"

The "Zero Aggression Principle"

"No human being has the right - under any circumstances - to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

This version of The Zero Aggression Principle, formulated by L. Neil Smith, is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. Personally, I DO think this is the foundation of libertarianism. This is how you show your respect for the self-ownership of those around you. If you follow this principle, you may not be a perfect person, but you would probably be a pretty good neighbor. You would definitely be a good example of true libertarianism.

The ZAP has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others; each culture has its own way of saying basically the same thing. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Even small children understand the concept of "he started it!" Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Only someone physically attacking you or making a credible threat against you has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force.

You may have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smart to simply walk away. This is not always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.

Some people may claim that this is "Utopian" but I know it works, for real, in everyday life. I have never run across a situation where it failed to provide the proper perspective in dealing with others. If you don't want to accept it, you can sit around and formulate all sorts of "what if" scenarios that you will probably never face. That just shows me that you have a desire to keep open the option of attacking someone you don't like, even if they have not attacked you first. That is a sign that you may not be a trustworthy, or nice, person.

Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner

Good news and bad news. I am now the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner. That probably means most of my blogs will be written for that site, with only an introductory paragraph here. After all, even a libertarian anarchist likes a little money now and then.

Please continue to visit me there.



Friday, March 13, 2009

Philosophy of Libertarianism explained

Philosophy of Libertarianism explained (My first Examiner column)

In case you are unfamiliar with libertarianism I'll explain what the philosophy means to me. Most people talk of "left" or "right"; "Liberal" or "conservative", when they talk about politics. This is a misdirection. The true distinction is between those who wish to control your life, the "authoritarians", and those who do not, the "libertarians". Liberals and conservatives are just different aspects of the authoritarian end of the political hierarchy, or as I frequently say: different sides of the same cow patty.

The term "libertarian" encompasses different degrees of libertarianism, from "libertarians" who really would fit better with the authoritarians (*cough* Bob Barr *cough*), through the minarchists, all the way to "libertarianism in full-bloom": the anarchists. I am definitely on the anarchist path.

Don't worry, though, I am not about to start lobbing Molotov cocktails anytime soon. The people who do that are not really "anarchists", but are instead anti-business, and anti-society. They are socialists; just another aspect of the authoritarians. "Anarchy" means "without rulers"; not "without rules". There is a huge difference. "Anarchy" is not "chaos", no matter what news reports may claim. The words are not interchangeable, although common, incorrect, usage has put "chaos" into the dictionary under "anarchy". Some people are searching for a new word that hasn't yet been corrupted to describe the philosophy, but none has yet caught on.

What I am talking about here is a recognition that all humans have the exact same rights, no matter what the "laws" surrounding them may claim. You have the absolute right to live your life however you see fit, as long as you are harming no innocent people. You own your body and your life. You can throw them away if you want to. No one has a right to stop you. No one has any claim on you or the products of your labor. You are free to enter into any contractual agreements you wish. No one has any obligation to protect you from your own poor choices. They can offer help if they want to, but charity is not forced. You have no right to interfere with the private lives of others, no matter how much their choices may offend your sensibilities, as long as they are harming no one else by their actions. This is summarized quite well by The Zero Aggression Principle: "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

Walk with me and I will attempt to take you on a journey where I can show you what "liberty" and "freedom" really mean.



Last night I dreamed I was sitting in a bar. It was a comfortable place where I fit in and felt at home. As I sat there a crew of people swarmed in and started redecorating around me. The fixtures were swapped out and lots of chrome and "bling" were added. The walls were covered with huge photos of smiling "urban" celebrities and a motif of "PPP", which I understood to stand for "Pretty People Posse", was on everything. Suddenly the place was full of people dressed in expensive clothing who acted like I was covered in oozing sores. They all kept laughing at my hat as I sat there in my chair, where I had sat during the entire transformation. They seemed stupid and shallow; talking a lot without saying anything. At last a big bouncer type walked over and motioned for me to get out of the chair. I stood up and was escorted from the premises and was told I wouldn't be seeing the inside of this establishment again. I felt a bit lost, as I had not changed; only my surroundings had.

I am not one who worships "America", but once upon a time America was founded by people who weren't that different in philosophy from me. I probably would have fit in very well. Then the place was changed around me. I didn't change but became a pariah by standing for the things that at one time were common. I'll keep standing for Liberty for ALL - All rights for everyone, everywhere for all times.

Thursday, March 12, 2009


Most of us like to think of ourselves as fairly honest people. When we do lie, we excuse ourselves. I know I do.

Is it ever OK to lie? I really think it is, although I could be wrong. If I were hiding a person from state aggression; because of issues involving ANY counterfeit "law" for example, I wouldn't think twice about lying in order to protect them. Lying to a liar in order to protect the innocent is the right thing to do, in my opinion. I have no problem lying to anyone in government anyway, as the entire organization is built on a foundation of lies and theft. You don't owe the state the truth when that truth will be used to rob or otherwise harm you or other people.

I will also lie to protect my friends from harm. I don't lie in order to hurt people, nor would I go along with the lies of another that are hurting some innocent person. I once had a disagreement with some good friends because they lied to another person and hurt her, and when she asked me about it I told her the truth. On several occasions I have had problems that result from lies others have told about me; where a third party thought I was lying because of the lies they were told about me. Because I didn't go along with the original lie, I was accused of being the liar, and was never able to totally clear my name. But that is just how it goes.

The truth is probably easier in the long run, even when it hurts someone right now. Unless you are facing the thugs of the state. In that case, do what your conscience tells you is right.


Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Sorry, But The World Is NOT Flat....

I run into a lot of situations where someone I know is wrong; they hold an incorrect idea or belief, and insist on bringing it up at every opportunity. Many, but not all, of these beliefs concern the state in some way.

Just a few examples that come to mind:

"Illegal immigrants" are not destroying "our society" no matter how much "they are costing us". Welfare, in the form of food stamps, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, WIC, "public schools", and a multitude of other scams, is. Face the real issue here.

There is no excuse to "enforce the gun laws we already have" since every single one of them is illegal, immoral, and evil. "Conservatives" are just as wrong on the issue of guns as "liberals" are. Every gun "law" is wrong and should NEVER be enforced against ANYONE. Regardless of how much you dislike them, and no matter how much of a threat they pose to the state.

Taxation is theft and there is no excuse for it. None. It doesn't matter how important you think the government programs you happen to like are. No government program is important enough to steal in order to finance, and none is important enough to kill those who don't want to fork over their property. If you like the government program enough that you think it is OK to steal and kill to support it, then I suggest you try to do it on your own instead of sending badged and uniformed thugs to do your dirty work for you. I also suggest you try to develop some character so you can shed this immoral belief.

The War on some Drugs is completely evil. I see news reports of how many people are being killed in the drug trade and want to scream at the top of my lungs: "Prohibition will ALWAYS produce the same results!" It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong to use drugs or not. It is completely stupid to sacrifice so many lives for your delusions. If you support prohibition, the blood is on your hands.

There. I got some of those out.

I have been trying to learn to keep my mouth shut after my first run-in with these erroneous beliefs. After all, the person obviously knows I don't agree with them. Especially if they caught me off-guard when they mentioned or acted upon the belief in the first place. If they want to examine their belief more closely, I will help. It does no good to state why they are wrong every time the issue crops up. This will only make them cranky, and make me frustrated, and I would be a jerk for making it into an argument every time. Still, I consider it a little boorish of the other person to keep harping on things I know are wrong, and that they know I know are wrong.


Saturday, March 07, 2009

Ruled by Emotions

It seems as if most people are ruled by their emotions. Whenever there is some "crime", everyone is out for blood, regardless if the accused actually did it or not, and regardless of whether the "crime" harmed any people or not.

One BIG point of evidence for this is that when I read of a "drug bust" on the local newspaper's website, a majority of the comments are cheering the bust, never even considering the truth behind the evil and stupid War on some Drugs. Never even considering if the arrestees are actually guilty of doing what the state says they did. Just celebrating their downfall.

It is also the same if someone is arrested on "child pornography" charges. It doesn't matter to them if the charges are true or not in the slightest degree. Or if a real attack occurred. Remember that cartoons; fictional, non-existent characters, who have no real "age" at all and therefore can't be "minors" no matter how they were drawn to appear, involved in imaginary acts that never occurred, can qualify as "child pornography" if the state decides it does (which it always will), and can be used by the state to destroy lives. Yet those who are ruled by emotion jeer and say they hope the accused suffers the most hideous assaults while kidnapped by the state.

It's as bad as the gun owners who say that gun owners like Wayne Fincher and David Olofson "got what they deserved" when they were arrested for having "illegal" machine guns, even though neither of them ever harmed or threatened anyone in any way. No government has the authority to regulate guns in any way, with or without the Second Amendment. Yet, emotions say to rip apart the victims while they are down; like a pack of wolves would do. It really makes me sick.

Stop acting out of emotion. Think. Reason. Grow up.


Friday, March 06, 2009

Criminals and Outlaws

Since it is absolutely impossible to live without breaking the "laws" the government has invented, that means that we are all "criminals" in the eyes of the state. There are two classes of "criminal": those who have actually initiated force (economic or physical) and those who are only guilty of violating some counterfeit "law" that has no foundation in reality.

Of those "criminals" who are only guilty of violating counterfeit "laws" there are two groups: those who are still under the delusion that they are "good, law-abiding citizens", and those who know the score, and accept their status as "outlaws".

These "Outlaws" are the only honest people left. I happily count myself among them.


Thursday, March 05, 2009

Blood Money

I don't want to "give" any of my money or other property to the government, and I don't want government to "give me back" any money taken from others. I am not "entitled" to stolen money, not even to "pay back" money that has been stolen from me. I'll get into why I believe this in a minute.

This is the fallacy behind "Social Security", tax refunds, stimulus checks, and anything else government "gives" the people. This money is either stolen, or it was printed up out of thin air. If you or I did this, the government would call us counterfeiters. And they would be right, although they would excuse their own actions in spite of there being no real difference. Even if it was stolen from you originally, it is still tainted by the time you get it back. It's a difficult moral dilemma. What was stolen from you 6 months ago is gone. Spent. What the government "gives" you back was stolen from someone else more recently. And since everything government does is backed up by a monopoly on force, and ultimately by threat of death, the money was stolen at gun-point. It is blood money.

The same goes for any wages paid by any government entity. That money was stolen from someone, somewhere. This is why I think it would be best, if you do choose to work for government in any capacity, that you do so on a volunteer basis. If it is really that important to do, it will be done by volunteers, right?

Now, would I scold you for accepting these "benefits"? No. Maybe your understanding of morality and ethics differs from mine. But as for me, no thanks. Keep your blood money.


Wednesday, March 04, 2009


It seems that people expect things to always be like they are now. Maybe small changes here and there, more technology obviously, but basic institutions and such staying pretty much the same. That isn't going to happen no matter what.

Stasis is highly unlikely over the long-term. Changes WILL happen. It is inevitable. The question is, are you going to help the changes tip toward more freedom, or toward more tyranny? The steps you take in your daily life shift the balance more than you think. More than even actions the government takes. After all, they can do nothing if we stand against them.

Relying on cops tips us toward tyranny. "Rugged individualism" tips the scales towards freedom. Behaving like a jerk and not taking responsibility for your life and actions causes a shift towards tyranny. Accepting responsibility shifts the balance more towards liberty. Abusing the rights you have hurts freedom, while using your rights wisely strengthens freedom.

You and I, and everything we do, has a profound effect on liberty for all. Nothing any of us do is irrelevant. So, please, think before you act. Because change is coming. It is inevitable. The direction the change takes depends on what each and every one of us do.


Tuesday, March 03, 2009

The Story of My Run for President

It was suggested by Anne Cleveland of An Octogenarian's Blog that I write the story of my presidential campaign. Bits and pieces of the story are here in earlier posts, and I hope I don't forget or leave out important parts, but here it is.

I had given up on "politics", but liked L. Neil Smith enough that I was wanting him to run for the LP nomination for 2004. He decided against it, but endorsed Michael Badnarik. I read Mr. Badnarik's website and really liked what I saw, so I wrote him. He wrote back and eventually we spoke on the phone a couple of times. I really liked him and couldn't find any point where we disagreed, so I tried to help his campaign and encouraged my friends to look into his campaign and consider supporting him. Against the odds, he actually won the LP's nomination, but didn't do well in the election. The day after the election, I woke up thinking that if a libertarian wasn't going to win anyway, I could lose an election as nicely as anyone else could. So, I decided I might as well run for president; after all, I had 4 years to build momentum. Like a glacier.

That night, I sat down and made a Geocities page, detailing what I would do as president. The same campaign promises are still posted on my KentForLiberty site. Then I went on the Claire Files forum (now The Mental Militia Forums) and made my first public announcement.

I joked and discussed my campaign with a few people, not taking it very seriously. I did get a rubber stamp in order to put my Geocities website, shortened through notlong.com, on FRNs. If you run across any bills stamped "kent2008.notlong.com", that is my work.

Things went slowly for a year and a half, then things exploded. I'm not even certain what happened. People discovered my campaign somehow. I was in the middle of a strange 6 month-long vacation when I was contacted and "challenged" to start a blog to discuss my stand on the issues and allow people to ask me questions. I had never thought of blogging before, and was certain I would run out of things to talk about after a couple of weeks. After all, I had said all I needed to say on my campaign page, right?

Suddenly I had more people writing me than I knew what to do with, but I made sure to answer every single one. Even the ones who told me to perform physically impossible acts upon myself and then die. I started finding my campaign mentioned on different websites every day, often in less than complimentary ways. Although I had never mentioned seeking the nomination of any party, thinking I was too radical for any national party, I was finding myself listed as "Libertarian". Someone suggested I write Selectsmart.com about being included in their candidate selector, so I did and ended up being the only "Libertarian" in the quiz ..... until the last moment when the LINOs nominated by the LP were added.

Eventually I was contacted by the Libertarian Party and invited to seek their nomination. This thing was getting more serious than I had intended. I was interviewed by a few different internet "radio" shows, and invited to take part in different forums ("fora"?) to answer questions about my stand on important issues. I tried to accept every invitation, although I normally only participated until the original flurry of activity died down a bit. I took part in several conference calls between the LP candidates. This convinced me that I probably wasn't cut out for politics. I became somewhat disillusioned listening to the less-than-civil exchanges between certain people.

Then came the detractors who said I didn't look "professional" enough, had the audacity to run for president before I had been elected dog-catcher, refused to accept donations, and wouldn't remove the endorsement of "Breechcloth Day" from my web page. Hey, I thought this was supposed to be FUN!

My Geocities page was also said to be hideous, so I sought advice, and got a real website. The response was positive about that change, at least. Still, nothing was ever enough for those who just wanted something to whine or complain about, and I am stubborn enough to stand my ground instead of doing things just to make people happy.

There finally came a point where I needed to get serious, if I wanted to get serious (which had not originally been my plan). I looked into registering with the FEC so I would have a "real campaign". What I ran into there disgusted me. There was no provision for refusing donations, and the paperwork and reporting requirements went against everything I stood for. I now knew why the same type of people keep getting elected: the system is set up to disqualify anyone else. The game was more seriously rigged than I had previously suspected.

Added to some things that were going on personally, I decided I wouldn't continue to seek the LP nomination, and would stop campaigning. So I made the announcement that I was done. The reaction was immediate and upsetting. So many people wrote me, acting like I had let them down. Had I made a mistake?

After some soul-searching I decided that the best thing I could do was offer myself as a write-in candidate. I knew that without registering with the FEC any votes for me would not be counted, but being unwilling to submit to a government commission's illegal interference with the election process left me with few options. At least, few options that didn't compromise my principles.

I continued to answer questions, and to encourage those who still felt they needed to vote to vote for me. I feel that the best way to avoid "wasting your vote" is to refuse to spend it. No one is qualified to "run the country" or anything else other than his or her own life. Vote accordingly.

After the election, I was dismayed to see that everyone thinks someone else won, when obviously all those who refused to vote for any of the clowns on the ballot were clearly giving me a mandate. All the non-voters outnumber those who voted for the current president hundreds-to-one. I guess I don't want the job enough to get my hands dirty in court to challenge the usurper in the White House.

I have been asked by several people if I will run again next time. I have told them "no"; I can't imagine any circumstance arising that would cause me to do it again. The older I get, the more skeptical I become of any form of organized external "government". Self-government is the only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.


Monday, March 02, 2009

"World 'Sexting' Day"

Observing "World 'Sexting' Day":

March 2, 2009 - Today is the day to offer your moral support
to the most recent victims of the government's blatant
violation of the First Amendment and Self-Determination: those teens who
have been persecuted or prosecuted for "victimizing" themselves by sending nude
photographs of themselves, by cell phone, to others. Also victimized
are the recipients of those pics who are targeted by prosecutors hungry for
"child pornography" convictions.

The point of this event is to send "sext messages", of only
yourself, obviously, to everyone you can, even random numbers and email
addresses. As many as possible should go to judges, prosecuting attorneys,
or any other public or private "do-gooders" who have been active in
the persecution of "sexting" teens. Flood them with so many that there is
no way to sift through them all, and even if they do, in order to be consistent they will be forced to arrest themselves.

So, start snapping those pics and sending them on their way. The
clock is ticking!