“The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.”

-David Friedman

Anarchists, libertarians, socialists, environmentalists, monarchists, Democrats, democrats, Republicans, republicans, Flemish nationalists and Maori separatists can all see problems in the world. Any group of a hundred human beings selected at random might even be able to reach a consensus as to which problems are gravest; a group selected based on geography, ideology or age is likely to reach a stronger consensus much more quickly. Some such groups might even reach an accord as to the best solution to these problems.

Despite that, ideologically compatible groups seem to spend more time quibbling over minor disagreements than they do attempting to solve the problems they can both recognize. The anti-war Socialist Anarchist and anti-war Anarcho-Capitalist choose to spend time and effort arguing over private property while their tax dollars are used to purchase flying robots to murder Pakistanis. The Libertarian and the environmentalist are liable to start a cat fight over logging and mining rules, disregarding their near-complete agreement on US drug policy. The advocate of free markets and the advocate of free health-care almost certainly share an opposition to the Federal bailouts of large and powerful corporations, but they freely choose to argue with each other about doctor’s bills.

I make two assertions:

  1. That continuing wars of empire are the single greatest threat to human freedom and well-being; and
  2. That a concentrated effort by those who oppose war is more likely to be effective than half-hearted occasional lip service offered by those who spend most of their time arguing about political theater on the internet.

Based on these assertions, I conclude that the best thing a bright, active and motivated lover of humankind can do to improve the overall condition of our species is to loudly, publicly and peacefully take a stand against foreign wars.

Right now, people I respect and frequently agree with are up in arms over undeserved disability payments, appropriate vocabulary, and milk. Meanwhile, we edge ever closer to a declared war with Pakistan and continue to spend money we don’t have building sexy-looking fighter jets we don’t need.

I realize that universal agreement is neither practical nor desirable. But while these wars continue, aren’t they a bigger concern than big-screen televisions for the undeserving, or whether Ron Paul goes to church?

 

“I’m not against the police; I’m just afraid of them.”

– Alfred Hitchcock

The Bench

No one who reads this blog expects police fetishism to evidence itself and yet another reason for the growing alienation between the police and the citizen emerges from an Indiana Supreme Court ruling allowing not only further trashing of expectations of privacy but opens the door even further to justify the killing of citizens who resist a raid on the wrong address.  Not only is American jurisprudence simply a rubber stamp on police depredations on the subjects they rule but resistance to the armed tax-eaters is now.  This may even create a cottage industry of miscreants who pose as cops to ensure compliance with their attempts at unlicensed criminality (as opposed to the organized crime sanctioned by the state in the conduct of its everyday affairs).

The Ephors aver:

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Please examine this last sentence carefully.  This is a declaration of war.  This means that any government sanctioned initiated aggression, even if it results in the maiming and murder of innocents, must be allowed to proceed.  In fact, it will most likely get the police perpetrators a paid administrative time away from work while the department waits to bring the thugs back aboard.  This codifies the license to kill that cops have had all along.  A cops ability to get away with murder has quite literally been given government approval.  For every cop who murders on the job and is convicted for an unjustified killing, there are thousands in the ranks who get away with it.

The hubris of the robed government employees never ceases to increase over time.  We all know the Constitution is the water-carrier for this kind of police over-reach.  The Judge might as well have quoted the Tele-Tubbies or episodes of Gilligan’s Island as precedent or advice on law.  The government injustice system serves one primary purpose – control and cowing of a citizenry to ensure compliance to the ocean of laws on the books and a free pass for the police forces and “law enforcers” plaguing the American landscape.  Imagine if every police officer from local to Federal were held personally responsible for their actions instead of the taxpayers for payment of damages resulting from their misbehavior.  The system is perverse now because the taxpayer quite literally foots the bill for his own oppression (along with the unborn burdened with the absurd debt pyramiding at all government levels).

I don’t want to curb cop misbehavior and violence against the innocent.  I want ALL departments disbanded and private justice instituted.  As with all things statist, incentives are perverse and the behavior is violent in so many respects that it begs the question of who is being served.  This ruling is illuminating because, at last, it unveils the state in all its glorious bloodletting and shows that in the end, everything justifies the means to achieve the end state they seek – complete subjugation of all residents in a given tax jurisdiction the whims of the government cattle ranchers.

Resistance is futile, slave.  Get over it.

The Enforcers for the Bench

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right… The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds.”

– HL Mencken

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

– Romans 13:1 (KJV)

Jesus Christ serves as an exemplar of peace. Holding ultimate authority and command of a large number of men, he allowed himself to be arrested, tortured and killed. Many of his followers did likewise, allowing themselves to be martyred by the powers that were rather than fighting to protect themselves. Indeed, the entire 13th chapter Paul’s letter to the Romans is dedicated to the idea that Christians should submit to legitimate authority and allow Caesar to maintain peace and prosperity in the Roman empire.

It’s difficult, therefore, to reconcile opposition to government with Christian faith. On one hand, we say that The State does evil and that we ought to oppose its advances strongly. On the other hand, we have Paul telling us that God has ordained the powers that be, and that we ought not to stand against them.

One of the great difficulties facing all sorts of scholars is the importance of context. Religious scholars are particularly hard-pressed by this; centuries of history and human interpretation and seemingly contradictory directions from on high mean that reading a single verse or passage of a religious work is unlikely to give a clear picture of the author’s intent. If we read John 11:35, “Jesus wept,” and nothing else, does that mean that Christ’s example is to cry endlessly and openly? certainly not.

The context of Paul’s letter to the Romans, and the 13th chapter in particular, is important to understanding its meaning. Indeed, in the 12th chapter, Paul writes:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

– Romans 12:17-21

So Paul recognizes that there are evil men in the world, and that Christians can have enemies. But he advocates peaceful, non-violent resolutions to conflict. He recognizes the best method to “heap coals of fire upon” the enemy’s head: to do kindness despite persecution.

Furthermore, Romans 13 imposes duties upon Caesar, upon states and governments:

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

– Romans 13:3-6

And God frequently strikes down kings and nations throughout the course of the Bible. The Babylonians, Ahab, Saul, and the Beasts in Revelation are all recognized authorities, ordained by God, and they are all brought low by Him. Indeed, just before the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy, Samuel warns the children of Israel:

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

– 1 Samuel 8:10-18

Overall, I think it safe to say that God is not a statist. Paul is not advocating the existence or the actions of Caesar’s office or his empire: he is denouncing violence as the solution. Paul is advocating a peaceful church, not a complacent church. A Christian Anarchist is not a contradiction in terms, unless he engages in violence.

Governor Schweitzer,
I would urge you to reconsider your recent veto of HB271, “AN ACT REVISING THE LAW RELATED TO THE OFFENSE OF CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON;  PROVIDING THAT THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A HANDGUN UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW;  AND AMENDING SECTION 45-8-317, MCA.”

As you wrote, House Bill 271 would allow anyone “eligible to possess a handgun under state or federal law” to carry a concealed weapon, without a permit. You fail to note, however, that carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is already legally permitted in much of the state: Montana’s concealed carry laws apply within the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining or railroad camp. In these cases, law enforcement is already deprived of the opportunity to make any determination regarding the suitability of responsible adults to make their own decisions regarding firearms.

Furthermore, I find the assertion that this bill would “greatly imperil the work and safety of Montana’s lawmen” juvenile and ridiculous. Indeed, under current law, county sheriffs are responsible for issuing concealed weapons permits, and it is unsurprising that they and the associations which represent them would oppose efforts to cede this authority. However, those who would imperil the work and safety of Montana’s lawmen are unlikely to be overly concerned with laws regarding the carrying of concealed weapons. This bill would not put guns into the hands of dangerous scofflaws: such people will choose to carry regardless of the laws in place.

HB 217 would not, as you say, remove the Sheriff’s authority and discretion to issue or deny concealed weapons permits. Under Montana Code Annotated 45-8-321, county Sheriffs retain their authority to issue permits to carry concealed weapons. Nor does HB 217 dismantle any “reasonable regulations” or void Montana’s reciprocity agreements with other states that recognize concealed carry permits, or void the laws that allow Montana permit-holders to forgo the background checks required for firearms purchases. As is the case in Arizona and Alaska, Montana would continue to issue permits to carry concealed weapons specifically for purposes of continuing Montana CCW permit holders to enjoy the benefits of reciprocity and to continue to forgo background checks as they do now. These permits would be issued by county Sheriffs, as they are now. In fact, HB 217 leaves 45-8-321 completely unchanged!

In closing, you urge the sponsors of the bill to “consider the absurdity of the standard set forth in HB 217.” This standard does not, would not and should not apply to driver’s licenses, pilot’s licenses, building permits, or hunting licenses. Nor is the standard of personal responsibility ‘absurd.’ What is absurd is your lack of understanding of the relationship between HB 217 and 45-8-321, your blatantly false statement regarding the peril of Montana’s lawmen, and the false equivalence you draw between HB 217 and driver’s licenses.

Governor Schweitzer, you disappoint me, and you have lost my support forever.

Sincerely,

Kaiser Leib

Voter

I will be a guest on Ernie Hancock’s show today live from 1200 to 1400 AZ Time.  You can tune in here:

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Media/089550-2011-05-10-bill-buppert-in-studio-for-2-hours-blog-www-zerogov.htm

Ernie is the creator of the Ron Paul Love-alution logo and has been a prominent liberty Freddom Fighter for over two decades.  I have the pleasure of his friendship and we have even been to the Range together (that is Church in certain partsd of the Inland West).

While I am a mote in the Liberty universe, he is a force of nature there.  -BB


And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .”

– Alexandr Solzhenitzyn “The Gulag Archipelago,”

There is no larger tangible threat to liberty and freedom than police.  During the “Arab spring” around the world this year and last, the dictators and rulers always sent their police and security forces after protesters and citizens alike to “restore order” which is a nice way to say retighten the cuffs and fetters in the feedlot.  People often talk of the political threat to freedom and liberty as the sin qua non of the entire fetid system of government.  The usual suspects gripe about the absence of responsible statesmen and politicians.  Much like limited government, these people have not and will never exist but the police forces are the “law enforcers”.  They are the water carriers and virus transmitters for the government meme that has enslaved and maimed and killed millions in the last few centuries.  The police at every level from local to state to federal fulfill one primary goal – to threaten, fine, cage, maim and kill free citizens.

A quick aside:  Malum in se laws are the acknowledged evil of initiated aggression against person or property such as rape, murder or theft.   Malum prohibitum are the majority of laws in tax jurisdictions (nation-states) around the world.  These are characterized by the War on Drugs, tax compliance and a myriad of other forms of armed robbery and abuse the government has institutionalized.  The lion’s share of what cops do support the latter and very little of the former.  By its very nature, police forces don’t prevent crime and for the most part are historians who arrive at the scene of a crime after the fact.  Police forces in these united States serve two primary functions: first, assessment of fines for non-crimes like speeding and drunk driving to increase revenue to the state above and beyond the dozens of taxes imposed on the citizens and second, the snaring and capture of subjects who have violated one of the hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that darken the American dream every day.  The increased militarization of police forces, the self-selected bullying archetype attracted to the job and the propagandized cop fetishisms that are vomited out of the government-media-education complex on an hourly and daily basis make for a wicked brew of brutality, sadism and a systematized revulsion of individual rights. All police and “justice system” functions will only be effective if divorced from the government and privatized.  Which brings us to officer safety.

This is the notion that in any police encounter in America, the citizen’s rights are always subservient to that of the cop.  As a matter of fact, the citizen’s life is of less value in the court system and the cops will overwhelmingly be vindicated by the state apparatus and the robed government employee in the courtroom.  The courtroom is that special place in America where the only private citizen other than the defendant may be his attorney if he hired one; otherwise, it is an isolated cocoon of idolatry to the state where the worship of government power is at its most pure.  It is the junction of force and self-satisfied sanctimonious self-congratulation on keeping civilization intact.  That is the story-book version when in reality it is the kingpin of the barbarism and unbridled savagery of the government.  The sanctified hall where “justice” is meted out to the unlucky five million plus (jailed, on probation and parole) presently ensnared in the prison-industrial complex the government is so proud of.

Officer safety is not only the mantra of the police but all their cheerleaders in the government education system and the media.  How many old ladies and gentlemen, pregnant women and children do we have to see brutalized to finally come to our senses and see the crimes committed for what they are?  How many times have we heard the cop say he felt threatened?  How many times has the wonderful technology of cameras shown that cops lie a lot?  Those of you who have had the misfortune of being pulled over for a revenue violation on the highway see that the cops are quite literally dressed to kill yet are in one of the safest professions in the country.  Fisherman and loggers are far more likely to die on the job than cops and a significant number of cops die in high-speed pursuits along with the people they kill during the chases.  So the noises about the dangers of the job are highly overrated.  There have been many explanations for why cops can literally get away with murder.  Search the ‘net and watch the thousands of videos of police mistreatment and brutality visited on citizens every day.  For every cop behind bars, thousands roam the streets with impunity despite documented records of brutality.  Even in England.

 

The keenest explanation is none of the above.  The reason they get away with the wonton and rampant misbehavior and brutality is that without them the government would collapse.  Every institutional bias in the state speaks to the protection and coddling of the Praetorian Guard that keeps them afloat.  Without the violent armed men in official costumes, no one would comply with the manifest and malicious foolishness of government interferences in their lives on a daily basis.  If it weren’t for cops and tax collectors, America and, for that part, the world would be free.  The Thin Blue Line is actually the Thin Red Line, the demonstration project that all objection and resistance to government occupation and force will be met with extreme violence and mayhem.  The Red Line also signifying the Keepers of the Collectivist Flame maintaining the sacred order of government force and coercion.  This is why the police are insured the sacred protection that allows them to maim and kill if they “feel” threatened and get away with it.

Officer safety is the reminder that government officials are more equal than others.  All professions come with risks but the police are a special case because without their warrant for the use and initiation of force against others, our government and governments around the world would collapse because citizens would be able to ignore malum prohibitum laws with impunity.  Civil disobedience would have a real effect and non-compliance, a peaceful endeavor, could not be stopped with bloody violence.

Every time that armed state official walks up to your car in pursuit of raising revenue for his masters, he is poised to maim and kill you if he wishes.  Whether using the trumped up charges of  “a furtive movement” or “resisting arrest”, the departments will find a way to keep their costumed & armed tax-eaters protected.  They will be back on the streets to terrorize and cow more citizens into submission.  That is their charter. The apprehension and detention of real criminals (malum in se) is but a small part of the enterprise.

To protect and serve, indeed – the government.

 

“I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air — that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.”

– H. L. Mencken

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com



He’s noble enough to know what’s right
But weak enough not to choose it
He’s wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
– Rush

Is it safe to go out and be Americans again?

This morning I woke up to hear that the man that kept my family and I in a constant state of fear is dead. Osama Bin Laden was killed during a commando raid somewhere in Pakistan. Hooray! We got him! Finally, after all of these long years, living in a perpetual state of terror is over! Does this mean we can check out at Wal-Mart without Janet Napolitano lecturing us? Does this mean that we can travel without being molested by government agents? Does this mean some patriotic country singer will try and capitalize on this good news? Man, I sure hope so!

I had a voice mail when I woke up this morning, it was my brother. He is ten years younger than I am, and does not think the way I do. He said, “Chris, check the news, it’s about Bin Laden! WE killed his ass!” I thought to myself that “we,” well, that implies me, and I killed no one. I mentioned the word “we” in the first paragraph quite a bit, because it just seems to be engrained in our minds. Exactly what does “we” mean? When my brother said “we” he was referring to the US Government. I am not part of the US Government, and neither is he. Sure, agents claiming to be from the Government steal our money to fund themselves, but does that make us a part of it? If some gang of thugs came to your home and robbed you, would you say “we” robbed my house when you reported the crime to the police? Of course not! So why does everyone use the word “we” when referring to the US Government, or any branch of the Government, including the Army?

The mainstream media is now reporting there might be some “terrorist” retaliation due to the killing of their mastermind, Osama. I’m a little confused here. When he was alive we had to constantly be in fear for our lives, but now that he is dead, it might be worse? Well shoot, maybe “we” should not have killed him. It seems “we” are damned if “we” do, and damned if “we” don’t.

I wonder something: will the same people that say “we” when referring to the killing of Bin Laden, still claim “we” when referring to “collateral damage”? Will these same people that group themselves in with murderers and thugs, still take responsibility for killing children, and other humans? Will they take responsibility for the fact that “we” have made many more “terrorists” with the killing of innocent humans? Those that group themselves in the “we” category, ask yourself this question. If an occupying force killed your family, what would you do?

I will not give any details about Osama Bin Laden’s killing. I am not a MSM reporter, and I will leave the propaganda up to them. I am only a country boy with an opinion. I will leave you with this thought: those that say “we got him!” should go to your computers, use your favorite search engine, and type in Middle East collateral damage, then look at the pictures and say to yourselves: “WE shot them!”

To all of those that say “we,” know this: you do not include me.

“If we are to fight, we are a few. If we are to die we are many.”
–Crazy Horse (Teton-Lakota)

 

Publisher’s Note: Kaiser has penned an elegant and abbreviated jeremiad on why the production of Obama’s BC is not only irrelevant but in the end more distraction from the real problem.  Whether Obama or whatever his name is hails from Hawaii, Palookastan or is a Manchurian candidate from the Soviet Union’s last political gasp; it simply does not matter.  The real question is how the office retains any legitimacy whatsoever.  The President is nothing more than the Tax Collector-in-Chief for his tax jurisdiction.  The pomp and circumstance that surround the office and all the tentacled bureaucracies has one objective:  maintenance of power through the vampiric expropriation of wealth and means of its subjects coupled with a government media complex to provide psychic cover for mass theft and extortion.  Citizenship is not a privilege, it is the means to establish that poor sap’s eligibility to be fleeced, fined, jailed, maimed and killed by his tax jurisdiction.  The very locus of the entire controversy, the birth certificate, is nothing more than a government registration of a taxpayer at birth.  A brilliant but diabolical system. -BB

Barack Obama has released his long-form birth certificate. You should download it as a historical curiosity, if you are interested in such things.

What you should not do is dissect that birth certificate, looking for errors. What you should not do is to insist that the darkened numeral ‘1’ or the PDF inconsistencies or the color of the background offer proof, or even suspicion, that Mr Obama should not be permitted to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

You should not do these things because they do not matter. Barack Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof is a moot point. In the last decade, there was talk of amending the constitution so that citizens born in other countries could be president; the intention was that Arnold Schwarzenegger would make an ideal Republican candidate.

 

The Terminator Movie Poster
Above: Presidential Material

 

In the last election, John McCain’s legitimacy as a presidential candidate was also in doubt. McCain was born in Panama, which is not a State of the Union. Congress declared him to be an acceptable candidate despite this, with the reasoning that the founders would never have intended to prevent the children of servicemen born abroad from holding office. They made no statement as to the founders’ intentions regarding the presence of servicemen abroad to produce such children.

Every one of these men, and every other born in history, has exactly as much right to rule as you and I do: none. Whether Obama or Schwarzenegger or McCain or Queen Elizabeth happened to be born on this continent, within some arbitrary geographic boundaries, has absolutely no bearing on whether it is right for them to decide whether how you ought to live.

In days of old, there were rules regarding the taking and keeping of slaves. Today, we recognize slavery as an unnecessary wrong, and those rules have no bearing. It’s not that we take slaves and then treat them according to certain rules: it’s that we simply don’t take slaves any more, because slavery is wrong. The prospective slave owner’s legal claims are meaningless, because we recognize that no individual can own another.

The office of President, and the existence of government, are similarly legitimate. The debate over Obama’s birth certificate, or McCain’s, or the amendment for Schwarzenegger, is akin to arguing over when a slave may be bought or sold and how he must be treated. Whether existing laws are changed, or President Obama was born in Honolulu or Kenya or Moscow, whether the founders intended that people like John McCain ought to be allowed to be President, is meaningless, if we agree that the government itself is completely illegitimate.


“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

– Robert Heinlein

Whenever the word Anarchy is whispered it is accompanied by thoughts of Molotov Cocktails, hooded punk youth, and general chaos. I can understand these thoughts, at one point in my life I was the skateboarding punk “Anarchist” who actually had no idea what the principles of Anarchy were. I also was not a very polite young man, and I had no problem proclaiming very loudly my “beliefs” to people who did not necessarily want to hear them.  My view of Anarchy back then is very much at odds with the actual principles of Anarchy, but my views were right in line with the public’s view of the ideology. I just wanted to bring the whole rotten structure down, regardless of what system, or non-system rose up in its place. However, I am also of the impression that Statists also try and tarnish the idea of Anarchism the best that they can. There are documented reports of law enforcement officers dressing up in the standard “anarchist” garb and causing ruckus at public events. Heaven forbid the public ever find out the “State” is just a huge scam, and in fact, the biggest ever.

There are a couple of different traditions in the Anarchist school thought; I most closely follow the individualist flavor of Anarchism. I believe the individual can claim sovereignty over himself, and his claim should be recognized, and respected. I believe I have supreme authority over myself, and the property I claim as mine. Any form of government that puts me at odds with my beliefs I consider immoral. I do not believe man or any group of men has “rights” or “powers” that would violate my own claims. I do not believe man or group of men can take what I claim to be mine for any reason, even if they think it might “benefit” me.


I recently listened to a debate between an Anarchist, and a Libertarian. The debate was very interesting to say the least. The two men spent almost the whole time debating the principles of the ideologies they claim to represent. The Anarchist was claiming individual self-ownership, and that was his principle. He stated no entity has the moral right to violate his claim. The Libertarian claimed that a group had the “right” to usurp his claim of individual self-ownership for the benefit of all. The Libertarian gave the example of defense, and that 7 out of 10 men had the “right” to make decisions that would essentially affect the hypothetical 10 out of 10. In one example, the Libertarian claimed the individuals that made up the group right to self-ownership was violated if the individual who lived in “their” society did not want to pay for defense, but “benefitted” from the “security”. The Libertarian made the claim that the Anarchist was in fact stealing for not paying his fair share. At one point in the debate the Libertarian made the claim that it was the fault of the Anarchist for not siding with the libertarian to stop the Statists. He never stopped to realize HE is the Statist! I will not go into a rant on how absolutely absurd this line of thinking is, and how reckless and dangerous it has proved to be throughout history. I am not writing this essay for that purpose.

I am here to tell you that it is absolutely crucial for the mere idea of Anarchy to live on. Even if an Anarchistic society is never achieved, the idea must never be forgotten. It is the anchor to the ship of Statism. It is the only true remedy for the disease of Government. If the world is plagued by the parasites of the State, what other than Anarchism would be the solution? You don’t get rid of cancer with more cancer. You don’t get rid of Big Government using “Small Government” Libertarians. Sure maybe some libertarians may say, “not on my watch”, but can they promise that for their grandchildren’s generation? Think about it like this, if the idea of Anarchism didn’t exist, where would libertarians pull their ideas of freedom from? Themselves? Absurd! Their principles when broken down to the core are identical to the most rabid Statists! So Anarchists that read this, keep your heads up! You do the world an immeasurable amount of good by simply sharing your principled beliefs with others. I will promise you this, as long as I can speak my mind, I will question theirs! I will try my best to be as principled as can while passing on these ideas. I take comfort in the fact that the idea of pure liberty cannot be extinguished, it is a human condition.

“It is the conservative laissez- fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.”  -~Murray Rothbard

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com