Saturday, April 11, 2015

If I were mayor

After last week's Liberty Lines came out in the paper, one person suggested I should run for mayor.

No, I shouldn't. And partially because the thought appeals to my dark side. There is one "political litmus test"- Do you want the job? If so, you are disqualified. Not to mention the "job" of "mayor" shouldn't exist at all.

But, letting my dark side fantasize just a bit, and justifying the fantasy with the idea that at least I'd keep someone worse (that's right- I'd be the lesser evil) from holding the "job" as long as I held it...

Instead of posting reminders about getting building permits before improving your property (as the current clownishly evil mayor did in the same issue of the paper where my column appeared) I would post this:

People of Farwell- from now on, there are only two rules in town: Do not violate anyone by attacking them, and Do not violate anyone's private property. That's it. I will not stand behind the police if they enforce any other "law", nor if by doing so they violate those two rules. 
"Do not violate anyone by attacking them" can best be summed up 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." If you "initiate force"- that means "start it"- your victim can legitimately defend himself against you, no matter who you are, and no matter what your job may be. Thugs be warned!
Another way to explain the re-adoption of these forgotten rules is in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
All other "laws" violate the rights of the individual. Do not violate anyone or their private property and we'll be fine.



  1. First thing to come to mind is something you said; "We don’t argue over who should be placed in charge of human sacrifice to the Aztec gods. Well, most of us don’t. So why select representatives or people to fill posts someone, at some point in time, thought necessary?"... and happened to be reading,
    "I was once asked if I thought the 'Founding Fathers' had good intentions. I replied that this was subjective and irrelevant. The only pertinent issue is whether they or any present day advocates of constitutional government believe[d] that protection and the other services governments provide should be provided on a voluntary basis. Would they arrest and place in jail a person who refused to contribute to the government?" ADVENTURES IN LEGAL LAND (2005), p. 224.

    I cannot understand the Statist mind. It is more enigmatic than the big-bang black hole theories. I learned these simple principles before I entered kindergarten. It seems in statism we are born grown up and spend our time devolving.

    1. I have been finding it harder and harder to take "authorities" seriously- whether they be the cop, the mayor, the president, or whoever else. I see them as nothing but bullies. And right now I am reading Larken Rose's book "The Most Dangerous Superstition" which is going to erode that tiny bit of seriousness even further.