Thursday, July 11, 2013

Hanging Kokesh out to dry

To the anti-liberty bigots there is no difference between what Adam Kokesh did and smuggling regular capacity magazines into states that have declared them "illegal"*.  Or "carrying" when and where State thugs have said you aren't allowed to.  Or owning some type of gun that has been criminalized because of cosmetic features or safety equipment.  Or whatever the individual anti-liberty bigot's particular "hate" happens to be.  It might be politically incorrect drugs, freedom of association, the right to not be stolen from, freedom of travel, sex of some sort, or myriad other possibilities.

You'll never get the anti-liberty bigots to like you (or even stop hating you) by doing what they believe you should be doing, in the way they believe you should be doing it, unless you completely go over to their side and renounce liberty.  Why would you even try?

Nothing Kokesh did in this most recent case was wrong in any real way.  Anyone who takes any action that is noticed by thuggish State employees will be faulted by someone on the "liberty side".  Whether it's writing a blog or a newspaper column that doesn't worship the State, or violating some counterfeit "law", or engaging in acts of self defense or defense of property.  If it's noticed, it will be criticized as "foolish", "unnecessary", "untimely", or something.  Just because it isn't what the speaker believes should be done now.

I am tired of all the second guessing and accusations of "government plant!" every time someone speaks out above the hushed murmur of the crowd.  Sure, some government moles are undoubtedly out there, but as long as you don't get caught up in a cult of personality, and don't violate the ZAP, it makes no difference to what you should be doing.  As long as a person is doing what they have an inalienable human right to be doing, even if it isn't what I am doing, I am not going to be joining in on the crucifixion.

"We" are not hanging together so I guess that means "we" are lining up to hang separately.

*And I am pleased to note Mike V. has NOT joined in the criticisms by making a false distinction over this.

And please don't forget.



  1. It's funny in a way. I have heard people say that what he done needs to be done but when it comes down to the those same people say it is a bad idea.

  2. I know, what is with people, when faced with this type of thing who say "well he shouldn't have done that"? Always,they are first to defend the state when that isn't even the point.

  3. I followed the link to sex in the first paragraph, and was surprised to find:

    Silence is not "consent". In order to consent, there must be no coercion and all participating individuals must say "Yes" to the activity.

    I've slept with a fair number of women, and with almost NONE did explicit verbal consent come into play. All, however, were perfectly willing, and none complained afterward that I'd acted unfairly.

    Your statement sounds quite defensive. Have you been subject to an accusation because a woman did not explicitly say "Yes"? If not, I'm curious where your assertion is coming from.

  4. JdL- There are more ways to say "Yes" than to verbalize that particular word. Ripping the clothes off your body is a "yes" and consent.

    No, I have never been accused of anything like that.

  5. I'm going to go with "oh yeah baby give it to me" and "oh God don't stop" as consent. And said more than once I will accept as an open invitation. Not telling me "no" is telling me yes.