Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Libertarians embrace all values

Libertarians embrace all values

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 29, 2011. As originally written, not as published.)

Liberty is primary a libertarian concept, in fact, you could say it is THE libertarian concept, but a it is concept that is often borrowed and used by others.

Just as you are not a chess player if you make up your own rules for playing the game, regardless of whether or not you use the proper board and pieces, you are not a libertarian unless you advocate maximum liberty and minimum government. For the vast majority of libertarians that means living by the Zero Aggression Principle as well as you can, and accepting that you have violated your principles if you fail on occasion.

Yet, there will aways be quibbles about the meaning of "maximum liberty and minimum government". It is generally a matter of degree, but there are limits to how far you can stretch the concept without it tearing.

Personally I see maximum liberty to be the freedom to do anything that does not cause physical harm to anyone else or their private property, and does not use deception, theft, or coercion to separate others from their property. I see minimum government to be self government, also called self control. I see the existence of a statutory institution (a "State") as far above and beyond the preferable minimum government.

If someone or some group claims to be libertarian, but is advocating less than maximum liberty, or is excluding some people from those it considers worthy of maximum liberty, then that individual or group is not living up to its libertarian principles.

If an individual or group self-identifies as libertarian, but is advocating some amount of government in excess of the minimum, whatever that may be, then they are also falling short of their libertarian principles.

If some "libertarian" is excusing theft, coercion, or the rationing of inalienable human rights, for any reason, by rogue individuals or by duly-elected governments, then they are betraying their true nature and giving the lie to their professed principles.

Not everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is, nor do all those who give lip-service to "liberty" or "freedom" understand the concepts, or practice what they preach. In fact, some of those who cry "Freedom!" the loudest are its worst enemies.


Monday, August 29, 2011

Stealing isn't sharing

Sharing is nice. "Sharing" other people's property is theft.

This is a difference I am trying to teach my daughter. It makes me unpopular sometimes when people think I need to make her "share". If I make her do it, it is not sharing.

I don't want her to grow up as one of those idiots (such as the president, congress, and other various puppeticians and bureaucraps) who think it is nice to give welfare to poor people. Charity, with your own money- great. "Giving" money that was never yours to give, which you supported being stolen under threat of death- not such a "good thing".

I do encourage my daughter to share, and ask her to put herself in the place of the other kid. But if she chooses not to share I will not force her to hand over her toy.

And, I never let her get away with forcing other kids to share with her, either. If the other kid's parent tries to force their kid to share I ask that they not do so.

Voluntaryism makes all the difference.


Sunday, August 28, 2011

The State as Church

I was just talking to someone about my contention that The State is today's most popular god. He disagreed that The State is analogous to a god, saying it is more like the church.

Fair enough. In fact, thinking more on it, I agree.

So the idea that it is OK for some people to rule over other people is the god, government is the religion that the god spawns, and The State is the church (the people, not the buildings) that results from that religion being put into practice.

It is still based upon a harmful delusion.


Saturday, August 27, 2011


The only people who have known me in person and claimed I was dishonest are those I caught trying to defraud me, and I stopped them from completing their plan.

When caught, they turned the blame on me. It hasn't happened too many times, but enough that I have noticed the pattern.

I can live with that.


Friday, August 26, 2011

Bad words

I really don't believe there are any such things as "bad words".

However, I'd prefer my daughter not be taught to use certain words. At least not yet.

A lot of words have social consequences. I use words that have social consequences all the time- words like "libertarian", "anarchy", "liberty", and "guns"- but I am prepared for the way the words may be received by others.

The words that some other people use might have different consequences, but the consequences are still there and should be recognized. Even if they are silly.

I have never punished my kids for saying any word, even if my personal preference would be that they not use it. I'm not going to start now.


Thursday, August 25, 2011

"Stone Soup"

My daughter has a book based on the little tale of "stone soup". It's a cute enough book, but it illustrates that most people don't understand the market.

In the book two travelers (who happen to be pigs) come to a village ("peopled" by various, occasionally cannibalistic, animals) where the residents don't want to share their food and lodging. Nowhere does the story mention that trading value for value works better than expecting a handout. The shop owners hide their wares and the banker hides all the money. No one even seems to expect that the travelers will offer to pay. I mention this glaring oversight to my daughter every time I read her this book.

In the end, the pigs do find a way to trade something for food- I suppose you could say they trade party planning skills and a bit of entertainment for food and lodging. As long as everyone is happy, it all works out.


Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Do the bad guys know they are the bad guys?

To me it is obvious that everyone who works for the government knows, if only subconsciously, that they are the bad guys.

That's why they attempt to insulate themselves from righteous retribution at the hands of their victims with the "officer safety" mantra, weapon bans, and other "laws".

If they truly believed they were doing the right thing, they wouldn't believe they need to protect themselves by violating the rights of everyone around them. Their paranoia is very informative. And it may be useful.


Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Libertarians can bridge parties

Libertarians can bridge parties

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 21, 2011. As written, not as published.)

I place a high value on liberty. My own, obviously, but also on yours. After all I only get as much liberty as I respect for all others. My own liberty, and yours, would be enhanced by living in a free society made up of free individuals.

If we are to ever have that free society, rather than going it alone and living your liberty independently while those around you suffer the ills of hidden slavery, there is a realization that needs to occur: It takes all kinds. Or at least, almost all kinds. As long as we are heading the same direction on the one issue of increasing liberty for all, I am willing to work with just about anyone.

Back when I thought I was conservative I only noticed the liberal parts of libertarianism and didn't even see the conservative parts. Those were invisible to me because they were unremarkable. I see the same thing happen in others now. Liberals only see the conservative in libertarianism and conservatives only see the liberal. Unless they are exposed to the parts they agree with first. Then they mistake the libertarian for one of their own and are shocked when confronted by the opposite position in the libertarian.

Conservatives are great advocates for some forms of liberty. They are generally pretty good about advocating for more liberty to use your property, and earn your money, as you wish. As long as it doesn't grate against their notions of morality. They are also fairly good about respecting the right of self defense and the tools to make it possible. Conservatives are generally the ones pointing out that tax rates everywhere are too high.

Liberals are also great advocates for some forms of liberty. Generally telling government to stay out of your bedroom and body. Until they decide you must be forced to make "better choices" for your own good, or unless you violate their notions of "fairness". They have been pretty good, until recently, about questioning the excuse of "national security" for endless war and domestic spying. Usually liberals recognize that a person's personal life has no bearings on the liberties that person is owed.

Libertarians can be the bridge between the two. Grasping on to the liberty advocated by others (and letting them think it is their idea) and helping make it real. This means ignoring, when possible, the authoritarian tendencies exhibited by others so that you can work together for a common goal. It means ignoring the inconsistencies if possible, while being an example of liberty for all. More often than you might imagine, others are influenced to be a little more accepting of liberty they hadn't previously considered important. That helps us all.


Decorating lampposts or giving one final chance?

A lot of times when people discuss the immediate aftermath of the end of The State, you hear quite a bit of talk about decorating the lampposts with the corpses of all who have worked for The State as "law" imposers, enforcers, and tyranny-enablers. But is this the best course?

Sure, after decades of abuse from these monsters, thinking of this does feel good. But, once The State collapses would none of its organs learn a lesson? Do you not think that in their fear they might try extra hard to become decent people for once?

Which increases the total amount of good in the world- killing those who have done wrong or giving them a chance to try to make up for it? Probably all but a select few deserve the chance to finally become productive and good. One last chance.

Since all "laws" against self defense will be history, and there will no longer be any exceptions for theft, murder, kidnapping, and rape by (former) agents of The State. They will have to fly right from that moment on- or else. At the first return to their old ways they can suffer the consequences.

Just don't use nice hemp rope; use the splintery crap their stupid "laws" have saddled us with.


Monday, August 22, 2011

Playing with idiots

Over at this blog post, I commented

Yes, there are fully automatic handguns. I'd love to shoot one someday, but I wouldn't be able to afford enough ammo to shoot for long.

Which caused "Anonymous", who seems to be obsessed with trying to insult me, guns, or libertarianism every time I post a comment over there (which is why I have renamed him "Anonymous FanBoy"), to spout

Kent, if you had a bigger dick would you still be so into guns?

To which I replied

Anonymous FanBoy- If you had a smarter mind would you still be so obsessed with me?

It's one of my most enjoyable moments in all my years of making comments to idiots!


Hail to The Greatest Generation!

Sometimes, when exposed to a ubiquitous myth, I want to gag.

Like when I hear the "WWII generation" called the "Greatest Generation". Really? Those who were around when the creeping socialism became a tsunami and instead of stopping it, wondered what they were entitled to, are "great"? Those who "fought it over there" and then ignored it over here, or even embraced it, are the "greatest"? I don't think so.

Sure, this is all generalization. There are no great generations; only great individuals. However, there are trends. And I just don't see enough people of that generation bucking the trend.

I'm not picking on anyone here- "my" generation has done no better, and often even worse.

No, the real Greatest Generation hasn't happened yet. The Greatest Generation will be the generation which finally stomps out collectivism and exalts liberty for ALL. Perhaps even rejects the religion of The State altogether. Not a generation that wants to collect all it feels entitled to- which was stolen from its descendants.

Is it your young children, or a generation yet to come, who will become the Greatest Generation? Help them reach that potential by giving them the love of liberty, and the understanding, to make it happen!


Sunday, August 21, 2011

Scammed? Suck it up and move on.

When I read opinions about Social Security [sic], Medicare, and various other "welfare programs", one of the things I hear repeatedly trotted out as a reason "we can't just end it now" is that "we must keep the promises we made". Huh? Are you insane?

Let me let you in on a little secret. One particular person promised me $2 million if I would just give her one month of my life, after I had told her I didn't like her at all. Of course, then it morphed into two months, and then the dollar amount kept rising, and ... Anyway... That was years ago. I eventually found out she didn't have even $200 to her name, much less millions. I could sulk and whine about the money I am owed, but if the money isn't there, it isn't there. I was scammed and lied to. Truth sometimes hurts and none of us enjoy admitting we fell for a scam. I doubt any of us enjoy admitting we can fall prey to greed, either.

So, back to the government's scams. Now, I didn't make any promises to "seniors" or anyone else who consented to take part in any government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. Not only that, but the thieves who did make the promises are dead, and have been for a long time. Recent puppeticians are still feeding on the false promises of dead thieves, and feeding the greed of current victims of the scam. Isn't it time to let it go and stop pretending there can still be a pay out?

Yes, it is.


Saturday, August 20, 2011

Superstitions and the Believers

Superstitions bewilder me. Well, maybe not the superstitions themselves as much as those who fall for them.

Superstitions such as "don't let a black cat cross your path", "don't walk under a ladder", "support Israel", and "unlucky thirteen". How can people believe such nonsense?


Thursday, August 18, 2011

Escaping captivity.

If you are being held prisoner and you kill or otherwise use violence against your captor in order to escape, have you "initiated force"?

I don't believe you have.

Even if your captor is not the one who originally captured you and is being "nice" and bringing you food and water I think you are justified in using any level of force required to escape. Some people may be squeamish about this. They may have friends and family who are helping imprison people, and may not enjoy thinking of these people as bad guys. Then, there are lots of prisoners who are not behind any bars but who are no less captives.

Think about it.


Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Natural law vs Contract law

The book I am currently reading, The Law of the Somalis, had a bit in it that really struck me. The last paragraph on page 162, speaking of the complementary and contrasting nature of natural law and contractual law, said:

Whereas contract law is whatever the contracting parties may agree to so long as it is not inconsistent with natural law (emphasis mine), natural law principles and rules and the procedures for protecting and enforcing them are not as easily identified.

Which speaks to me of the Bubble Theory of Property Rights. In fact, this is the same argument, probably worded better, that I have made in the past. A contract which violates natural law is null and void on those points before it even has a chance to be enforced. Self defense and your personal property, which surrounds and infuses your physical body wherever you may be, are natural laws that can't be nullified by contract.

Or, at least that is how I see it.


Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Politicians feel pressure to act

Politicians feel pressure to act

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 15, 2011. As written, not as published.)

Politically-minded people are starting to anticipate election season. This means many of them will be asking the wrong questions of the candidates; who will be all-too willing to answer them.

We are already hearing politicians detailing what they would do about things that no government, nor any politician, has any authority to be involved in. Things like the economy and job creation, to pick a couple of prime examples.

Sure those things are important, and the natural desire of many seems to be to find or place someone "in authority" to do something beneficial for both. This path to a solution leads nowhere but over the cliff.

It's like asking me what I would do to stop dogs from scratching themselves in public. Or what I would do to stop my neighbors from watching the "wrong" television programs, or from eating unhealthy food. It is not, and could never be, within my authority no matter my job title, and even if it were, anything I might propose to do would be useless if not outright counterproductive due to unintended consequences.

Government can't create jobs other than government jobs, but government jobs don't help the economy; they diminish it. Government can also destroy jobs and prevent the market from creating jobs through regulation and taxation. The best thing government can do for job creation is to get out of the way. And the best thing government could do for the economy, along with getting out of the way of job creation, would be to shut down the counterfeiting operation at the Federal Reserve.

Yet those solutions are seen by most voters as "doing nothing", so are avoided at all costs. Politicians want to be remembered for action, even if it is the wrong one, rather than what is seen as inaction.

The best answers a candidate can give to those sorts of questions would make him unelectable, which is why America ends up with a growing economic mess and devastating law pollution, no matter which of the increasingly indistinguishable major parties takes the reins.


Freedom comes with limitations

Freedom comes with limitations

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 7, 2011. As written, not as published.)

The past week leading up to Independence Day made it glaringly obvious to me that few people today really know what "freedom" means. Sure, they know and use the word, but it is something like the word "Relativity" to them: something they have heard of and that they might think they understand because of how others have explained it to them. Often that explanation is in error.

Few are so completely clueless that they believe, as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is quoted as saying in a speech back in March of 1994, that "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."    He would want his subjects to believe that, of course, but he was completely wrong.

Freedom means doing what you want to do. Nothing more and nothing less. That can be good or it can be bad, depending on what it is you want to do. There is a responsibility that goes along with freedom.

You have a right to exercise your freedom but only within certain limits: You have no right to harm people who are not harming you and no right to violate their property rights. If, by exercising your freedom or by doing your job, you step outside these bounds, your freedom- your action- is in the wrong. As long as you operate within this constraint, your actions are not subject to another's wishes, opinions, edicts, or whims. No matter what they may tell you in an attempt to justify violating your liberty.

The question is, are you free to do anything you want that doesn't cause physical harm to someone else and doesn't steal from others or damage their privately-owned property? If not, why not?

If someone or something interferes with your ability to do what you want, limited only by the condition that you not harm others, no matter the justification used, they are not advancing freedom, but are an enemy of freedom. Those enemies of freedom are what we should be commemorating our independence from, on July 4th and throughout the year.


Sunday, August 14, 2011

President Ron Paul

I admit it. I want Ron Paul to win.

As an anarchist I have two reasons for this.

First, I feel it would be less likely that the Zombie Apocalypse (otherwise known as "business as Washington DC usual") would result in the deaths of people I care about under a Ron Paul presidency. I could be wrong about that.

Second, this needs to happen in order to get energetic, involved, people to realize that politics is NOT the answer. I wish people would stop wasting their time and energy on politics and just start living free! Once Ron Paul tried and failed to get the fe(de)ral government under control (on the things it does that he wants to get under control) then maybe people would see what a waste politics really is if you value (and understand) liberty.

I'm still waiting for him to call me up to ask me to be his running-mate. My pledge would remain the same.


Saturday, August 13, 2011


"Puppetician": Any politician who is controlled by anyone or anything other than Principle. (That covers just about all of them, doesn't it.)


KentForLiberty site to expire soon. UPDATED

UPDATE: Crisis averted due to some very generous people. Thanks!

Back to the original post:

Just for your information...

If you want to save anything from my KentForLiberty.com or Dullhawk.com websites, copy it now. The bill is due and I don't have the money to renew right now. So, if there was anything there that you like to reference, grab it quick. Sorry for the inconvenience. If I can, I'll get them back up.


Friday, August 12, 2011

Justifying your preferences

As a libertarian, you can be religious or atheist or environmentalist or vegetarian or whatever- and that's fine... but don't use libertarianism as justification. Because libertarianism has nothing to do with any of those things.

Don't initiate force against another human being. Respect the rights and the property of other people. Minimum government; maximum liberty. And within those bounds, the sky's the limit.


Thursday, August 11, 2011

Government empowers Big Evil

The vast majority of people recognize evil acts when they see them. Unfortunately for civilization, the majority of people tend to also have faith that The State exists to prevent evil acts from getting out of control and overrunning the planet.

What those people don't seem to understand is that the greatest evils can only be maintained by government, or through the belief in government and the acceptance of the ways and methods of government.

By believing that government, The State, is the solution to great evil, they empower those individuals most likely to cause great evil. It needs to stop.


Wednesday, August 10, 2011

"No Man an Island" by Kent McManigal

No Man an Island (Original link and comments)

They say “no man is an island”, and that we all need other people for support. Especially when things go wrong. Sometimes it helps to have the right kind of support.

Several years ago I woke up in a really bad situation. Through bad choices, and bad people seeking to harm me, I one day found myself in the position that my wife was telling me to get out of my house within 24 hours. She was moving her boyfriend in, and he intended to beat me up if I was still at the house when he arrived.

I was living 1500 miles from the nearest family member, having moved across the country at the urging of my wife. I did have some local friends, but most of them were not in a position to do too much to help, and I hesitated getting them involved since I felt it would show them what an idiot I had been. They had rescued me from my wife once before on short notice (that time she had actually called someone and told them to come get me or she would kill me) and I was embarrassed that I was in trouble again and that the situation was even worse this time.

At the time I was just trying to avoid having to shoot anyone. Seriously, I didn't want to be forced into killing anyone in self-defense- especially when I knew the confrontation was coming. It has always been my intention to get out of the way of violence when I can. However, I had no intention of walking away from all my possessions and letting my wife and her new boyfriend have them. She had already pretty much cleaned me out by buying the house with my money and then refusing to put my name on it. I had asked her for some time- a week or so- to find a place and get out. She laughed and said I had better be gone by the next night. Then she left to drive a few hundred miles to pick up this guy she had met online.

So, I scrambled and put a key lock on my bedroom door, hid any valuables that I could, and did something really stupid: I got a "protection from abuse" order from the local court. I should have known better (actually, I did know better, but I panicked) and it didn't turn out well. Even the local cop I knew told me it was a stupid thing to do- as soon as he found out I had done it. I was also warned, by the sheriff, that "every woman" who had a "protection order" filed against her will turn around and "cross file" in retaliation- and she did. This resulted in the sheriff showing up at the house demanding all my weapons- right at the time I needed them most. I even pointed this ironic fact out to him, but he said "it is The Law". Use you imagination to decide whether he got them all or not. All in all, the protection order did keep my wife and her boyfriend away from me while I found a place to live, but things could have been handled better, and with fewer entanglements and ongoing problems, had other options been readily available on short notice. Plus, the boyfriend turned out to be so afraid of me I doubt he would have done anything.

Fast forward a few years.

I was living with someone I had discovered to be a liar who was out to hurt me and anyone I cared about. I fled with nowhere to flee to and with almost no money. I slept in my car and in the woods. I showered at friends' houses when I could, and ate what I could find. The person I fled from harassed my friends and my family, relentlessly trying to track me down and get everyone to pressure me to go back to her. Finally, under pressure and with no good options, I gave up and went back. Defeated and broken, with my family thinking the worst of me due to some very detailed and graphic lies (along with forged documentation).

I'm still dealing with the consequences of both of these messes.

Unfortunate Truth #1 is "People are idiots" and no one exemplifies this truth better than me. However, no one who is being abused should have to face that alone, idiot or not.

How would things have turned out in those situations had there been a way I could have called for backup? Would I have even gotten into the second situation had the first turned out better? What if there had been people I could call for legal advice and help as well as physical assistance when I so desperately needed it?

I'll never know what would have happened back then, but there is a way to make sure you have access to that kind of back up from now on.

Personal stupidity isn't the only bad thing that can happen in today's messed up world. Simply standing up for what is right- for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness- can put you in the position of needing specialized help ASAP.

Think about it: How much more bold would you be in "living your liberty" if you knew someone had your back in case of a run-in with The State? Would you say "No" to agents of The State more readily? Would you be more willing to stand up for what is right?

When activists like Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman strike out on one of their road trips to spread the word about liberty they seem to always run into enforcers or other pro-State extremists who are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of making an example of them for not "properly" kow-towing to the "authority" of the badge or the robe. Fortunately each time this happens people know about it immediately and are able to at least keep an eye on the situation to make sure no abuses can go unnoticed.

But what happens if some power-drunk enforcer corners YOU late one night far from family and friends?

Few of us are well-known liberty activists who have networks of people ready to lend a hand if needed. In all probability if you or I had a run-in with what passes for "The Law" in these Police States of America, no one but our family would know about it until the crisis had passed and we were able to tweet our adventure to the world. What if you had a way around that? Well, you do.

Individual Sovereign University has created the Sovereign Mutual Aid Rescue Team project: SMART (or the "University Association" as it is officially known). It is a subscription service that can help with raising bail and various other unpleasant but necessary defensive measures. And that isn't all they offer if you join the association. Visit their site and also read this list of planned services.

By way of disclosure, It is possible I may get paid for writing about this, but I refuse to buy into the common statist delusion that there is something dirty about making money. Paid or not, I'd write this anyway. As painful as the personal disclosure has been, I want you to avoid the mistakes I have made and I want you to have a plan, and be SMART, when things do go wrong.


Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Enemy of The State

The State is not MY enemy, I am The State's enemy. The State is the enemy of Liberty and all those who understand it. I did not go looking for a fight; The State brought the fight to me when it declared me and all the things that I value to be its enemy. The State started the fight and declares that any who defend themselves from its attacks are "terrorists".

The State seeks to shift the blame. It is digging itself into a hole it will not be able to climb out of. The State and all those who support or worship it are fools.

Unfortunately for them, The State is not real. Not in the way you and I are real. It is just a name given to a bunch of cowardly, thuggish, parasites who band together so that they can steal, rape, kidnap, murder, and otherwise do things that would get them killed if they didn't have a gang backing them up. The time is coming when that gang will not be enough. People would be wise to abandon The State before it is too late. If it isn't already.


Monday, August 08, 2011

Libertarianism and Violence?

"Love it or leave it" is the cry of the genocide enabler. This is the point I made that caused someone tell me to "piss off", because he had just tossed that "pearl" at me.

I was commenting on a blog entry that was trying to confuse the issue of violence and aggression and insult libertarians by association with that confusion. People don't understand what they don't want to understand.

I pointed out that I don't mind paying for what I use, I just don't want to pay for "services" I don't want (and I don't want anyone else to unwillingly pay for anything on my behalf, either). A government monopoly is wrong. (Unless he deletes my earlier comments, you can read the exchange up to the point where he flaked).

Anyway, the blogger said "You don't want to pay for US government services? Leave the US." I pointed out that this was the mantra of the genocide enabler (he deleted that comment), and told him I wasn't obligated to leave all I had worked for, or my friends and family, by walking away and handing everything over to the bad guys.

So, he wrote this: "Ok, Kent, piss off. Allowing you to air your quirky views here is one thing, but when you start throwing around insane insults implying that anyone who thinks taxes are legitimate is into genocide, you are done."

It isn't me who is "insane", Gene. After all, you can justify anything, not just counterfeit "laws" and "taxation", by saying "if you don't like it, leave". If you don't like the fact that the local government is killing your friends and family "get out!". Don't defend yourself from the bad guys; don't point out that what they are doing is wrong. Just leave. Just leave so that they can continue doing evil. What kind of "philosophy" is that?

People who delete comments show their fear. They show their weakness and their understanding of the weakness of their argument. I have never deleted one comment that wasn't obvious spam, other than a few comments made by a rather tweaked individual who insisted that his comments be deleted.

The truth hurts, Gene. Suck it up.


Friday, August 05, 2011

A "libertarian society"?

When someone asks for an example of a libertarian society, and is told of one, he usually rejects the example because what he is really wanting is an example of a "libertarian state". I deal with that bizarre notion elsewhere.

1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.

3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.

4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.

5. such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.

So, by definitions 1, 2, and 5 I do live in a libertarian society. I even live in a libertarian society according to definition 4, if you don't emphasize the "highly structured" part too much. Structured, yes. Highly structured, probably not. And that isn't a weakness, but a strength.

I'm still not sure about definition 3. I doubt there is any such thing as "human society" since beyond the biological and psychological basics there is no singular "society" that is common to all humans. Yet, in day-to-day interactions, humans do generally behave in a libertarian (and even anarchist) manner. Otherwise no one would be able to get along at all; everyone would just be stealing, attacking, and shoving each other around every time they encountered another person. Civilization, not to mention "society", would come crashing down.

So, yes, I do live in a libertarian society. Of my making and of my choosing. Those who don't attack me will not be attacked by me. My libertarian society is surrounded by a parallel (and inferior) society that is based upon coercion, but that is not my society. I am not a part of it, even as I must deal with it. The disease is not me.


A "libertarian country"?

Asking for an example of a libertarian state is like asking to be shown a feline ostrich.
It just shows you don't get it.

(Now, if you wanna talk about a "libertarian society"...)

Thursday, August 04, 2011

So full of FAIL...

Sometimes I read a blog that is just so full of fail I don't have the energy to keep pursuing it. I'm not sure yet if this is one of those times or not...

I've learned so much recently about the Somali customary law that things like this really grate on me. (Thanks, MS. ;) )

Then when they talk about other things they don't understand on top of that, well, the task becomes gargantuan. Plus, if all they pride themselves on is "snark", then I understand they aren't serious to begin with and further commentary is pointless.


Invite others to Libertopia

If you like my positive take on a libertarian future in Dispatches from Libertopia, please help me spread it around. It is getting pathetically few views, and I hate to think negativity is more popular than showing how a free society could work.


Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Don't shoot your monitor

Almost every single time I get angry enough at the computer (for some malfunction, not for internet content) that I want to start cussing and smashing things, the first instinct is to smash the monitor or keyboard, yet those are not usually the parts of the computer causing the problem. They are just the parts I am interacting with.

I think The State is the same way. Most of us want to smash the parts of The State we see interfering with our life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, when the real problem is the bad guy behind the scenes operating in safety.

Yes, cops and bureaucrats have worked long and hard to earn our well-deserved contempt, but the hidden parasites behind the scenes need to face consequences, too.


Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Conservative is NOT libertarian

I have noticed that many "liberals" try to attack libertarianism by laying out a "conservative" position, calling it the libertarian position, and then attacking it.

Sometimes there is some superficial resemblance (if you only have the intelligence of a liberal, that is), but often there is no resemblance at all. It just makes the "liberal" look silly. And then they start making faces and calling you names when this is pointed out to them.


Too much time spent on problems

Too much time spent on problems

(My CNJ column of July 1, 2011. As submitted, not as published.)

I enjoy solving problems. Not abstract puzzles as much as real-life situations, although the occasional puzzle can sometimes be fun, too. This does not mean I like having problems arise that need to be solved, or that I enjoy people who intentionally cause problems for me. Enough little things crop up spontaneously to provide ample entertainment without any help.

I recognized this personal quirk back in high school. I was at a friend's house when her mom put a package of hot dog buns in the microwave to warm. The metal twist-tie was still on the package and it burst into flame. OK, so the "flame" was like a tiny birthday candle flame, but from her reaction you would never have guessed that. While she ran in circles, wringing her hands and yelling about the fire, I simply opened the microwave and blew out the flame. Problem solved. It felt good.

This part of my nature fits well with my libertarianism. It is fun to see the liberty-respecting solution, which violates no one's rights, that others studiously ignore. It is also amusing the see the contortions that people go through trying to put objection after objection in the way of solving a problem.

Some people are very invested in, almost married to, their problems. They would prefer to complain, or at best, find a partial "solution" that creates more problems downstream than to strike at the root of the matter. They also refuse to admit that most real solutions are very simple compared to the alternatives of letting the problem grow larger, or of building a Rube Goldberg contraption, based upon more coercion and State control, that "solves" the problem in gloriously complicated and prone-to-fail ways. Different strokes for difficult folks. (note to editor: not a typo- I intended to write "difficult folks" there)

It isn't critical to me that people accept the solutions that I find either. Their problem; their life. I still get the benefit of the mental exercise that solving the problem provides. Only when the problem directly impacts me in a way I can't avoid does the solution become personal. Most of the time it is enough that I can see a way out that others haven't noticed.


Monday, August 01, 2011

Liberty Book Bomb

If you are so inclined to still believe that you can "work within the system" to increase Liberty, then here is a suggestion: send your favorite candidate or squatting politician (or is that "sitting politician"?) a copy of one of my books.

I would primarily suggest Problem? Solved!, but judging from experience I suspect their intellectual development might be more equipped to handle Indy Pindy, The Liberty Mouse. On the other hand, Kent's Liberty Primer might be good for a Ruler or prospective Ruler with a more mature mind, but a relatively short attention span. Tao Liberty Ching would probably be good for those who have no attention span at all and can only think in sound-bite sized servings. Or those with a more philosophical bent. If all else fails and you still want to inflict me on some politician, or if you have no complaints with the direction he/she seems to be leaning, you could send them Sandy's Legacy.

This way you could help yourself by spreading the liberty meme while also helping me. You might even help that politician become a productive individual rather than a parasite.