Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Signs of freedom

I hang my head in shame and admit I have never shot a road sign. Never even felt tempted to.

Now, probably most people who do shoot road signs aren't doing it as an expression of liberty. They just see something that attracts their attention and shoot it. "Shiny objects", and all that.

Others, just perhaps, are expressing themselves when they perforate those ugly sheets of metal. For them, road signs are an affront; a stand-in for the people who enforce the "instructions" on the sign. It is freedom of expression- "free speech", supposedly protected from State interference by the First Amendment. In that case, shoot away! If it makes you happy (and you are aware of your backstop).

Road signs aren't private property. Their utter destruction, in most cases, wouldn't harm anyone. In fact, they should all (well, all but those which give directions to get from here to there) just be removed forever- and those which give needed information, replaced with signs placed there by the individual who owns the road, using his own money, after the socialist road system dies a well-deserved death. And shooting those individually owned signs would be wrong.

I recognize that destroying a road sign will cost "tax" money when it is (stupidly) replaced. I realize that if a sign gets shot up badly its message- whatever that may be- will not be communicated to travelers. And in the case of ignorant things such as "speed limits"- your ignorance of the "law" is no excuse, and some enforcer who is ignorant of the laws which should eliminate his "job" will still violate you for doing whatever the sign said not to do. But highwaymen have always been a danger for travelers. The solution remains the same.

So, to me, a road sign riddled with bullet holes is a symbol of freedom. If there ever comes a day when the signs have no bullet holes, it will be a clear sign that freedom and liberty have been lost.



  1. Last week I was trucking in GA between August and Atlanta -- a beautiful stretch of pines along I 20. It set me to thinking: it seems to me that where religion has the greatest stronghold, authoritarianism is also strongest. Religion and authoritarianism seem to go hand-in-glove -- today, as well as throughout history.

    I began to categorize signs (when you're in the cab of a truck 11 straight hours you begin a number of tactics to pass the time and keep your brain active). Of course there were the religious signs of one type or another -- some with just a single word depicting a single religious icon ("Jesus"), others with messages urging you (and, of course, "your representatives" in Atlanta and/or up in the District of Collectivism, if you believe you have representatives among the white man's group of psychopaths) to do or refrain from doing things such as abortion, violence, etc.

    But the ratio of religious signs seemed to be in direct proportion to the number of county, state and federal signs endlessly decorating the shoulders -- speed limit, seatbelt, "speed detected by mechanical devices" -- all warnings ("we're watching you") of all types and descriptions.

    I'm with you: shoot 'em all up, I say. Let the piny woods speak for themselves. Sam

  2. I hang my head in shame and admit I have never shot a road sign.

    Great opening line!

  3. A road sign riddled with holes is NOT a symbol of freedom. It's a signal that some knuckle dragging, booger eating, brain donor has no grasp on the fact that those signs make it possible for people to drive multi ton steel monsters at high speeds in a fashion that allows society to enjoy the delights of PERSONAL transportation in relative safety. Those signs personify the rules of the road that make the
    PERSONAL use of motor vehicles by virtually every one in the country without direct and immediate supervision possible. It is moronic mouth breathing proclamations such as the one made about destroyed signs equaling freedom that causes most people to view "libertarianism" as the irrational mental disease it so often is.

    1. Dan, thank you for illustrating some things for me. I may use your sad case in a blog soon.

      It amazes me that people can get so emotionally attached to something that they attack anyone who suggests a better way. If your claim is true, why are there car wrecks? Could it be that in reality it still comes down to people paying attention to their surroundings? Signs don't "do" anything. Signs don't control the vehicles. People do, and people can ignore signs. All the signs accomplish is giving enforcers a flimsy excuse to rob (or worse) travelers at gunpoint.

      If you'll actually read my post, without letting your emotions blind you, you'll see I didn't say anything about having no signs at all- I suggested allowing the private owners of free market roads place signs (those necessary for actual safety) at their own expense. And I said any destruction of THOSE signs would be wrong.

      My objection is against "state-owned" roads, and theft-financed signs. And any strike against either of those things is a strike FOR liberty, no matter how emotionally invested you are in The State and the "signs" of its presence.

      It is also amazing that you think signs make safe travel possible, and that you think the alternative is "direct and immediate supervision". That's really tragic. What has made you believe the lack of road signs would result in disaster?

      I would suggest you watch a couple of videos which show that it is actually statism which is the irrational mental disease that makes people believe government road "controls" are "necessary" when they demonstrably are not- and traffic flows better and safer without them.

      Roads unfit for people
      Roads FIT for people

    2. Oh, and Dan, you might also do well to consider the difference between "freedom" and "liberty".

  4. Shooting holes in signs is on my bucket list. Until then, see this:


    1. Excellent and like a breath of fresh spring air. Thanks, Paul!