I don’t hate cops.

Wait, let me clarify. I don’t hate cops, and neither should you.

Let me clarify further. It’s become a theme in libertarian, anarchist, gun-rights and drug-rights communities to bash police officers. I’ve seen the sentiment “The only good pig…” expressed five times in the past week. I see “armed tax feeder” and “government thug” and other similar euphemisms, and I see outright name-calling.

I don’t hate politicians, either, and neither should you.

Recent events have shown many examples of moral failures by men in power. History, in fact, bears out the stereotype that politicians are unfaithful to their wives and have generally low character. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner are simply the latest singers in a chorus which stretches back to prehistory. There is, it seems, none righteous.

I don’t hate teachers, union workers, government employees, soldiers, welfare recipients or mortgage officers, and neither should you.

There are men who are drawn to be soldiers because of the chance to do violence, who are drawn to the police force because they want authority, or who are drawn to politics because of an addiction to the spotlight. Government employees may not represent the best and brightest members of society, and individual welfare recipients may be lazy rather than in need of any real help. ‘Private-sector’ businesses are frequently guilty of lobbying the government for their own benefit, in direct opposition to the betterment of humanity at large.

But attacking these folk for their shortcomings on a personal basis is supremely non-helpful. The policies in place guarantee that these roles will always be filled by the same sorts of people, and name-calling or even direct persuasion on an individual level won’t produce results. Angering a single educator or convincing a single cop to change his behavior isn’t going to do anything to change the government’s way of doing business, or bring us any closer to complete freedom. What it will do is reduce the credibility of our ideological fellows and weaken our overall argument.

So don’t hate the player – the cop, the soldier, the TSA screener. Hate the game of government, the set of social ‘contracts’ which bind us to servitude and limit our lives. Attempt to change policies, rather than attacking individuals. Make sure that the truth reaches as many ears as possible: keep on filming the police and recording the TSA. But realize that the human beings on tape aren’t the enemy. The enemy is the Leviathan State.

Available here: https://www.gunlaws.com/WGOG.htm

I had the pleasure to pick up Larry’s book and I was surprised at the number of revelations in store.  I consider myself a senior member of the gun community in both the use of firearms and contending with the constant government depredations and threats visited on the gun community yet I had no idea the breadth and depth of gun cultures and ownership off our shores.  I have often thought that if these united States are the freest country in the world for guns, the planet must be a hoplophobe’s paradise.  Not so.  We are considering a move overseas and Larry’s book was most instructive.  He was most kind to answer the ten questions I sent him.  I am certain that if anyone has any further questions I may not have entertained, we will post them to the ZeroGov Forum and discuss them there.  BTW, the US is number nine of the list meaning that eight nations are freer than America with respect to gun rights. -BB

1. What motivated you to write the book?

I was motivated to write my book on gun laws in numerous other countries around the world when I realized that U.S. anti-gunners were either misinformed or untruthful when they claim the U.S. is the only country in the world with free and easy gun ownership rights and the only country with a gun culture.

It seemed important to me to get accurate, usable information into the hands of our own defenders of the right to own and use firearms.

2. I was very surprised at the results in the book because we are propagandized to think that we are the only country on earth that protects private firearms ownership.

Private ownership of firearms is seen by a significant number of people around the world as a deterrent to crime, civil unrest and tyranny, as evidenced by how quickly guns and ammunition are spirited away from battle sites or places where police confrontations have occurred and hidden.  Also some—but not all—nations that have been cruelly overrun by neighboring aggressors subsequently tend to allow relatively free and easy private gun ownership.  Finland, Switzerland and San Marino are examples.  Government officials in Israel, Belgium and Thailand have forgotten their lessons, but still allow some gun ownership.

3. Any updates or addition or deletions since you published the book?

Gun laws on an international basis are a sometimes fast-moving target.  Change seems to be common.  This change, however, has—of late—been relatively modest.  Gun owners and citizens in general seem to have united within their various countries to minimize and deflect any significant tightening of rules and regulations.  This has been demonstrably true in England, Brazil, France and Switzerland.

4. Where are the most optimal places outside of the US that allow the legal ownership of suppressors and/or machine guns?
If ownership of guns is absolutely the only issue, it is probably the Khyber Pass area of Pakistan.  However, there is little rule of law or property rights in those places to attract most westerners.  Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Argentina, Crete, San Marino and Oman have very agreeable gun rights.  But each of these places has its own limitations ranging from poor climate to very expensive costs of living to poor to no religious freedom.

5. If there was one country you could move to as a gun owner, where would that be?

I have seriously considered moving to New Zealand.  They speak a kind of intelligible English, have a nice standard of living, modest cost of living, good property rights and some workable gun rights.  New Zealand is a complete anomaly on a world-wide basis.  Citizens there tend to trust their government—a characteristic we gun-owning Americans cannot comprehend.

6. I think folks will be surprised at the status of Luxembourg and Suisse, can you explain how you think they have managed to retain the rights they do in spite of the hoplophobic EU?

Explaining how these little countries such a Luxembourg and Switzerland, managed to retain their gun rights is a tough, mostly theoretical, philosophical question.

I believe they have their gun rights for four principal but certainly debatable reasons:

(1)  They were once overrun by a neighboring aggressor.
(2)  They have a culture of independence rather than dependence, and are—or were—a Christian nation.
(3)  They are relatively wealthy.
(4)  They are compact and homogeneous societies wherein citizens frequently communicate with each other.

7. Looking around the globe, is there anything we as Americans can learn from other countries to either retain or improve our gun ownership?

Yes, many of the rules and regulations promulgated by the anti’s have their origin in other countries.  For instance, regulations prohibiting private ownership of pistols may have started in the U.K. or Russia.  Ballistic tracking and registration may have its origin in Ecuador; limitations on numbers of guns one may hold in Colombia; limitations on silencers and full auto guns in the U.S.; sporting purposes in Germany, and so on.

8. What are the prospects of rolling back the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA and other obnoxious restrictions on gun ownership in the US?  Again, any strategies we can learn from other countries?

Canada and New Zealand both to a limited extent rolled back or ignored some parts of their gun laws, but I am not optimistic for the U.S.

Politicians, especially controlling, autocratic ones, fully realize that they are in mortal danger if they start allowing citizens to own common military weapons.

9. Is it easy to legally ship guns out of the US to a destination country if one decides to expatriate?

This mostly depends on the country.  Diligent inquiry in specific countries must be undertaken before any shipments are made.  Also, keep in mind that shipping guns is becoming very, very difficult.  I recently worked with a fellow who wanted to ship three antique (pre-1898) guns out of Sweden and could not find a carrier to take them back to the U.S. for him.

10.        Do you suspect that things in America will get worse in the future for gun owners here?

If I could accurately predict the future, I would soon grow wealthy in our stock market.  Yet, I do believe American gun owners are sufficiently alerted that their vigilance will preclude many major changes in our gun laws.

Most encouraging, it would seem, is the imminent financial collapse of our government.  They may not have sufficient funds to send out agents to harass us.

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t.  You cannot shirk this and be a man.  To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.” ~Mark Twain


“What signify a few lives in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

– Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Col. William S. Smith (November 13, 1787)

The quote above is employed by members of the Patriot and Sovereign movements all the time to provide the basis for what ails them.  These movements tend to be comprised of a startling number of professionals (dentists, doctors, etc) and, as expected, a fair number of them are in the courts and prison system maintained by our rulers in DC and their satraps in the states.

I rarely, if ever, accept speaking invitations from Patriot or Sovereign groups whether clothed as militia or religionists.  I made that error early in my career but started to notice a disturbing trend of state idolatry, as long as it was their construct.

These are the same folk who divine guidance from touchstones as various as the Illuminati to the New World Order to issues of Constitutional steerage.  On occasion, they think we share common cause and in that they are mistaken.  When I lived in north Idaho, some people in the community became Sovereigns as a convenient means to avoid fulfilling contracts they had entered in to and discovered they could not fulfill such as payments on loans.  They would talk about the evils of the Uniform Commercial Code and the strawman government, debt elimination and “rescinding” your Socialist Security Number.  I find no profit or merit in any of these contentions but they may believe what they wish.  The worst mistake these adherents make is thinking that they can prevail in a judicial system formed, maintained and staffed by the State.  Somehow, their amazing and passionate legalistic formulations are going to convince the robed government employee on the dais and his minions that the powers invested in the State must be reduced or eliminated.  Good luck with that.  As a matter of fact, there is no precedent or antecedent for that historically in America.  The history of America has been one long march toward greater and more expansive collectivism.

We see the influence of Dominionism and its subsets in Christian Reconstructionism animating large swaths of the Patriot movement with some rather nasty offshoots like Christian IdentityGeorge Grant goes so far as to:

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

World domination issues indeed and a unique vision of the efficacy of Romans 13.  This is simply a sampling of the religious aspects of this collectivist ideology.  Yes, you heard that right.  I submit that the Patriot Movement, with very few exceptions, is peopled by folks who don’t want to be free of the state but simply wish to transform it into an instrument and hammer of force to compel others to submit to their ideology of how a government should be run.  I have written before of the infantile and asinine notions of some of the usual suspects mewling about returning to the “real Constitution”. There is no such animal.  What was birthed in 1791 is the reason we suffer under Leviathan government today.  That document is a blueprint for big government and the Federalists (they prevailed) were quite candid in the Federalist papers about that very thing.  Hamilton did not even need the king he longed for because his rabid collectivist vision came to pass…in spades.

I get the desire to be a sovereign citizen but the notion of going to the court system to plead for interpretations of ownership the State will never recognize and bait cops with supercilious and fruitless notions of independence is barking up the wrong tree.

This not about building a better government, a more just state and “getting the right people in office”, this is bigger than that that.  Much bigger.

This is about changing the paradigm to embrace one simple nostrum:  the violation of a man’s self-ownership who does not harm others is always wrong.  Period.  Not only is his consent inviolate but the initiation of aggression through force or fraud is always morally wrong.

The Patriot and Sovereignty movements embrace violence at the more extreme fringes of behavior and uniformly engage in what is arguably a greater sin:  the intellectual and spiritual justification of the initiation of force against others to form their version of governance which in the end will be just as bad as the worst variants we have seen on the North American continent.

And by the way, I despise the collectivist apologists and state fetishists at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  That particular entity has been the driving force magically transforming citizens who are fed up and subscribers to different ideologies in the same camp as domestic terrorists.  A pathetic and intellectually bankrupt organization whose closest analog in our history is the thugs Woodrow Wilson subsidized during WWI.

Civil disobedience begins most elementally in the conviction that your self-ownership is yours to dispose of as you wish and your greatest weapon is your refusal.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”  ~Voltaire

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com


Notes in the Margin: Ernie Hancock just published his new e-zine and I am featured on page 44.  See: https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Magazine/Magazine-List.htm?MagNo=00001

Publisher’s Note: This a first guest post by Kent and while it may appear vitriolic in tone on occasion, he strikes at the heart of an important truth.  Cops are not here to defend the citizenry.  Their first job is the defense of the statist quo and the maintenance of power for the ruling elite and the bureaucratic satraps scattered through the land whose first loyalty is not to the local citizenry but to the body and corpus of laws endlessly vomited out by the Federal government and all its political subsidiaries in the complex tax jurisdiction known as these united States.  This is not Mayberry RFD, this is Vichy France in WWII.

Here is some the finest on film for 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVf-iintxio


Recently, I have gotten very angry over cops. Very! Not just the cops themselves, but those who support (or even worship) cops. L. Neil Smith calls these starry-eyes fans “copsuckers”.

My first reaction to my own anger is “Why should I get mad? It’s a waste of energy to get mad over stupid people.” But then I remind myself that there are times when anger is the only reasonable response. Of course, I get mad. This is an outrage! Unconditional cop-loving is similar to saying it is OK to rape babies. Any decent person should get mad over such nonsense.

I understand why cop-lovers focus on individual cops when they try to make the case that cops are “regular people” who have families to support, and are nice neighbors and good relatives. It deflects attention from the real problem.

I am sure individual cops can be very nice to those they like. It is just the nature of the vast majority of humans. Pick any human monster or tyrant from history and I’d bet there were those who knew him personally and who would say he was a kind and loving person who was just misunderstood.

It isn’t how the cop treats people he knows in family situations or normal social situations that shows his character, but how he behaves when he is taking part in a check point, or when he sees a person with a gun on his hip walking down the street, or any time when he sees himself as the “authority”. That is when the true character shines through.

An individual mobster might never steal or murder- perhaps his mafia “job” is completely unrelated to those mob functions, maybe he’s just the accountant, but he is tainted simply by belonging to that organization. The same goes for a cop. He might never steal, kidnap, or murder, but by choosing to belong to the police department he is choosing to belong to a group that does all those things as a fundamental part of its daily existence. And no cop, not one, would keep his job more than a day if he refused to take part in, or was open with his opposition to stealing (“fines”), kidnapping (“arrest” for violating counterfeit “laws”), and often, murder (killing for reasons of “officer safety”) committed by his brother officers. A person who makes the choice to remain a part of such an organization is choosing to be a bad person by association even if he stays otherwise “clean”.
I can more easily forgive the old guys. They grew up in an era where the harm of The State was slightly better balanced by some good; good that would have been better provided by a voluntary system rather than a coercive system based upon theft, but still some little good. That is no longer the reality. But they are set in their ways and probably see things as they used to be rather than as they are. Those days are gone and will never return. The State can never again be excused, and young people just starting out and who choose to join this corrupt organization, are making the wrong choice. They are much harder to forgive.

I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would continue to support cops today. But then I remind myself that there is a characteristic that I don’t share with the cop-lovers: Cops are popular only because people have generally been trained to be helpless. A helpless adult is a pitiable thing.

But do even the helpless, pitiable citizens “need” cops? What happens if there are no cops to enforce “laws”? Do “laws” even need to be enforced?

The laws of the Universe- laws of physics- cannot be violated. (Unless you believe in the supernatural, in which case believing in The State is understandable.) These real laws need no enforcement or enforcers, and there ARE no enforcers, other than the laws themselves, to prevent you from going faster than light, or to prevent you from violating gravity for example. The laws of the Universe are self-enforcing.

Laws of ethics are almost self-enforcing, although they can be violated. Remove the blinders that make exceptions for acts of government agents and you know an act that is wrong when you see it. People usually act to stop an act that is wrong if they see it happen, unless they have been brainwashed into believing that is someone else’s responsibility. Few people would excuse me if they saw me beating a child in the street. Put a uniform on me and some people would assume the kid deserved it. That’s insane.
Then there are the false “laws” imposed by The State. “Laws” of The State utterly fail to be self-enforcing and so hordes of enforcers are sent forth to spend their time trying to catch and punish those who violate these nonsensical “laws” which are based upon nothing but the whims of The State.

This is what leads to all the abuses and tyranny. What gets me is that these verminous parasites operate openly all around us without shame and in safety.

Even these obvious things listed above aren’t what trigger my anger, though. No, it is the personal insults and lies.

Of all the verbal flatulence that rips from the mouths of cops and those who worship cops, the worst is that lie that they do what they do “for [my] own good”.

Don’t write tickets against other drivers for me, because it doesn’t help me; I don’t ask you to do it, and I know that traffic cops are the greatest danger to driver safety there is. People, including cops, can either drive well, or they can drive “legally”, but not both. Worrying about silly things like speed limits is a worse distraction than cell phones could ever be.

You do not enforce any “laws” for my own good. I can take care of myself and my family- at least from depredations of the freelance thieves and attackers. People will band together voluntarily and deal with those who commit actual wrongs. Enforcers are a greater danger to most people than freelance aggressors and thieves could ever be. Shooting freelance bad guys in self-defense is still generally acceptable; shooting midnight murder squad goons who happen to wear badges only brings an unending horde of their gang to finish the job of murdering you for daring to defend yourself or kidnapping you if you manage, against all odds, to survive the attack.

Then the cops try to create shame on my part by claiming to “put our life on the line for YOU.” What a filthy lie. If you are doing that, you are doing it without my permission. You need to immediately stop it and go away. You are not wanted and you are not needed. You don’t have my permission to do anything on my behalf. I did not ask for this “favor”.  The price is too high.

The final insult is when they whine “Don’t you think that [sacrifice] would deem some type of respect?” of course not is my response, especially when I have asked you to go away.

If an intruder in your house is cleaning your toilet and you ask them to leave but they refuse, are they worthy of respect? If you try to kick them out and they (or their gang) kill you for rejecting their “help” are they heroes?  Hardly.  They are invaders and trespassers and thieves and murderers. Cops today are the worst threat to liberty; much more dangerous than any “terrorist”. They need to either change what they do and the way they do it, or they need to go away. If they don’t go away peacefully, they need to be eliminated forcefully, without initiating force, of course.

In this town, it may be dangerous to speak the truth about cops. The majority of people here are very “law and order”, even though they excuse their own illegal activities. I expect it is very possible that I will be targeted by the cops for speaking out against them.  I may even be “set up”.  It will only prove my point if that happens.

Editor’s note: This is the first guest post from Jim March, who may be reached for comment at 1.jim.march@gmail.com in addition to the comments section here. – KL
Further Information: The Arizona Daily Star has released a PDF of the affidavit in support of the search warrant which led to the shooting. And Will Grigg chimes in: https://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w217.html

These and other photographs © 2011 by Jim March. The “for sale” sign is on a neighbor’s house.

Executive Summary:

On Memorial Day, May 30th 2011, I attended a rally and set of speeches surrounding the shooting of recent Iraq-war returnee Jose Guerena, USMC. The Oath Keepers were the primary sponsors but to their credit didn’t try and dominate the proceedings, which included everything from a Code Pink contingent to Guerena family members and supporters and generally interested members of the community. What I learned there and in study of the available data suggests serious problems at all levels: horrible policy decisions beforehand, a grossly mis-managed raid and an appearance of a cover-up after the fact. Throughout this article, I will try and portray the facts available in the best possible light for the law enforcement officers and managers involved.

As we’ll see, even when we try and do that, the resulting implications vary from disgusting to terrifying.

First, before reading this, I urge you to study the available video footage of the shooting scene at least twice:


Preliminary conclusions:

  • In my study of the actual shooting location and the video footage Pima County has made available to date, I have reason to think that the footage is incomplete. At a minimum, one of the deputies who was actually shooting had a helmet cam as one of two visible “dongles” on his helmet. Below is a still image from the video, at 30 seconds in – where is that video?

  • Deputies knew that Mr. Guerena was a recent combat veteran of two tours in Iraq, that he legally owned guns, and that the raid was taking place just over two hours after he did a 12hr shift at a mine. Combined with the very brief warning period before battering his door in and the use of a “siren” that sounded more like a car alarm, they knew or should have known that Mr. Guerena wasn’t going to survive this encounter.
  • Because nothing whatsoever was found in Mr. Guerena’s home, we can be certain that if given the opportunity, Mr. Guerena would have consented to the search. He didn’t have to die.
  • Close-range photography of Mr. Guerena’s front door shows that “suppressive fire” was being sprayed in. This was closer to a “drive by” than anything resembling modern police work – and it happened in a home where they knew a woman and child were present.
  • Worse, the photographs of the front door show sprays of “misses” to either side that, at least at first glance, don’t appear to have been made during the period where most of the shots were made as per the video released by Pima County to date. If video is being withheld that shows additional firing, criminal misconduct may have happened that the Pima County sheriff’s office is attempting to suppress knowledge of. Again: I don’t know this for sure – the various “doorframe hits” may indeed have happened within the 54 seconds of video from a single, distant camera released so far. But, I don’t see those hits happen or anybody in position to make all of those exact hits.
  • If it is now policy to lethally eliminate anybody who attempts to defend their home when it is impossible to distinguish between home invaders and law enforcement because they behave in exactly the same fashion, then it is finally time to question the “war on drugs”. Ending it is now a simple survival measure for gun owners. To his credit, former “drug warrior” and former Sheriff Richard Mack is now admitting this, publicly. To their discredit, the “Oath Keepers” aren’t quite ready yet. Individual members clearly “got it” but the official policy isn’t there yet.

Direct Evidence – The Front Door

  • Round marked “one” hit the end of the door with it swung open, so the entry point isn’t visible with it closed. What you see here is the exit.
  • As best I can tell, entry holes two and three match door exit holes four and five – in other words, like hole number one they entered the door’s “end” with it swung open, but they also passed through the doorframe and made initial entry holes at two and three. If so, this indicates a fairly extreme downward angle, as if Mr. Guerena was already on the ground?
  • In general, what we see here is at best evidence of “spray and pray” fire. At worst, if these were made after the initial burst of fire, they were part of an attempt to “make sure he’s dead”.
  • This door proves that a fully military operating using distinctly military tactics1 have now been applied to somebody with no criminal record, with a recent distinguished combat record in the service of this country, in a densely populated suburban area against a home that contained a child that “law enforcement” knew was present.

Direct Evidence – Rear Of Home

This isn’t quite as bad as it appears to be. What looks like “horizontal stringing” (a tendency for the group of shots to land in an up-and-down pattern) may not be, because we don’t know what the pattern looked like coming through the glass. And as rounds struck within the home, they would likely be deflected “at random”…in other words, bullets entering anything (flesh, walls, furniture, etc.) can pop out at odd angles, and do so at near-random angles in a sort of “cone shaped” area of probability on the other side of whatever they hit.

Parting Commentary

  • If answering home invaders with a gun in hand will always get you killed if it happens to be law enforcement acting like home invaders, then the 2nd Amendment has been essentially nullified.
  • A search warrant carried out under circumstances that will predictably lead to the death of the person being searched is, by definition, an unreasonable search. Therefore both the 2nd and 4th Amendments were severely disrespected in this instance and in far too many others related to the “war on drugs”.
  • For this reason, it is now far past time for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, CalGuns Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the Arizona Citizen’s Defense League and the like to figure out that “the war on drugs” is now a “war” on every American, especially gun owners. I for one don’t believe law enforcement should decide to kill me at the merest suggestion that I’m harboring contraband, and I for one will fight such policies at every possible level.
  • Taking this stance would put them in alignment with the ACLU on this issue, and would possibly conflict with some elements of their “conservative base”. Said elements however need to learn from this incident and decide which is more worthy of preservation: the US constitution, or high prices for various mind-altering substances? That is really the choice we’re down to, and I believe most are ready to support the former over the latter once it’s presented that way.

1. Not performed very well mind you! See also the video – they bust the door down, then stroll away, then casually wander in while others “hang out” in the area where bullets could fly past if there really was a murderer present. They were very, very lucky they were NOT up against a determined killer. Five rounds from a 50cal Barrett would have turned them all into hamburger. Then again, so would a Civil War era front-stuffer cannon – or similar improvised out of plumbing supplies…


“When there’s a single thief, it’s robbery.  When there are a thousand thieves, it’s taxation.”

-Vanya Cohen

I know, it’s a bold claim. I could make the same old worn out claim that taxation is theft, which it is, but I believe I could take it a little further. I believe the failure to pay taxes will lead to your death, and paying your taxes will also lead to your death. Either the death of your freedom or your physical death.

I hate paying my property taxes. I believe it is completely immoral to perpetually tax me on my property. I remember the first time I paid property taxes. I was 18, and still living at home. My father handed me a bill for the property tax on my car. I remember saying, “what’s this?” He said “it’s the tax bill for your car”, I said “what?!? I already paid the taxes on my car!” He said “well, it is what it is”. So after that little dialogue, he gave me a rundown on how the perpetual scam known as property tax works. I knew in my heart that this was wrong, but I paid it anyway. To this day, I refuse to pay my property taxes. The tax jurisdiction (county) I live in will tack on penalties and interest to the taxes they claim I owe. So they tax me on the annual tax bill they send me. I eventually drive down to the county office, and offer to pay the tax, but I always refuse to pay the penalties and interest. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. However, I only stroke the check for the amount of the tax they claim I owe. Let them continue to charge me a tax on a tax, so be it. That they can garnish my paycheck for, I refuse to pay it, at least face to face.

Back in 2005 I tried to refuse to pay the IRS, and that went over like a lead balloon. My paychecks were eventually garnished. To make a long story very short, I claimed more dependents than I actually had, and they audited me. They claimed I committed “fraud” and I was lucky I wasn’t going to jail. They took every paycheck from me for five weeks, I forgot exactly how much they stole from me, but I recall it was around 90% of my paycheck. I’m sure I could have called and begged them to be merciful, but that’s just not my style. I am thankful I work with my hands, someone’s car is always broken, and that is money they will never get from me. So apparently it’s “fraud” if you try to keep property that is rightfully yours. It’s hard to try and take a principled stand on taxes, and have a young family at home. I applaud those that do. For now, I’ll continue to tuck my tail, and pay up, therefore funding my own death.  I will do what I can without getting thrown in a cage. We do most of our shopping at places where no sales tax is charged, or at places where I can talk them out of charging me tax. Seeing as how everything is taxed, it’s tough to avoid.

I would like to examine both of these situations and see what would have happened to me if I absolutely refused to pay. I’m sure my mailbox would have been flooded with tax bills they claim I owed with astronomical “penalties” tacked on. After that, maybe some threatening letters. In the end, taxes are always backed up by the gun. It will always come down to heavily armed men paying me a visit. If I chose to resist the theft of my property, I will be killed. If I do not resist my arrest, and get thrown in a cage, my freedom that was already on life support would be dealt the final death blow. Either way, death will come from resistance or non-resistance, the death of me, or my freedom.

Even if taxes are paid in full on time, every time, I still run the risk of State caused death. In this country, there are almost five armed police raids every hour! I would be very naive to think these armed tax-eaters are after the very worst among us. I highly doubt the majority of these raids are targeting murderers, and rapists. I’m willing to bet most of them are militarized fishing expeditions. The taxes we pay go to fund all of it. Do you think it can only happen to drug dealers? I’ll bet most of you reading this are breaking some kind of law, code, or statute, and you don’t even know it. Your tax money is being used to fund the very thing that will eventually turn all of you into criminals. Don’t believe me? Study history.  When this happens, pay up or get thrown in a cage, criminal. Resist and die.

I wrote this story-  https://zerogov.com/?p=1681
In it, I talked about how the county I live in made a criminal out of me for not covering my truck with a vehicle cover, outrageous. Now the same bureaucrat (whose paycheck I help fund!) that accused me of the heinous crime of not covering my truck now has now taken to the skies. The county (which is totally broke) bought an airplane (with tax money) to try and rob the good rural folk around here of more money. My buddy has a 170 acre farm, and he has quite a few old vehicles out back by the barn. He was informed by the county that he was only “allowed” to have two unregistered vehicles “visible” on the property, if he did not remedy this situation he would have to pay. We pushed the vehicles in the barn and told them to go to hell. The tax jurisdiction I reside in is now airborne, and spying on the cattle. My buddy does not think the way I do (although I’m trying!) and he pays his taxes. His resistance to the violation of the ordinance would have eventually led to his death, or the death of his freedom. It won’t be long now until we are all criminals, and this will mean fines, jail, and even death.

If you choose not to fund the State, and you resist paying taxes, your death, either in terms of the death of your freedom or your physical death will be quicker than choosing to fund the State. However, if you choose to fund the State you choose to fund the death of your freedom, and maybe you will end up funding your own death. I liken it to this analogy; pick up a candle hold it horizontally and light both ends. Sure, one end might get there first, but the end results are the same, you will get burned.

Taxation is immoral. Taxation is theft. Taxation is death.

“To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.”
-Benjamin Tucker


Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.
~Ludwig Börne

It’s time to give up on the concept of rights. Like republics, democracies, and any other concept man have devised to only grant him partial freedom, they have outlived their usefulness. It’s time to recognize them for what they have been, stepping stones on the bumpy road to liberty.

Throughout history, men have fought and died for the rights that we have today; these rights have not come easily, and they are lost much easier than they are gained (or more accurately, recognized). Men have demanded they have rights to limit the tyranny brought upon them by those claiming “authority” either by God, blood, or vote. When really examined, it has been a great injustice that men have had to plead with other men just to be left alone. It’s hard to look at documents like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights as triumphs of human rights when to this day we spend most of our time just trying to hold on to a fraction of the rights those documents proclaimed we have. We feebly hold up these pieces of paper with our hands trembling hoping to break the waves of tyranny, but alas, the tide of evil can only be held back for so long.

Rights have become tools of the State. The basic human rights our forefathers fought for are now the very chains of our enslavement. The State has successfully co-opted a concept that was once a good thing, but this is a common tactic of all tyrannical governments. They are the proclaimed protector of these rights supposedly granted to you by your creator. They are allegedly “inalienable”, these rights of ours. Just so that we are clear, here is the definition of inalienable.

in·al·ien·a·ble > – adjective 1.  not to be taken away or transferred

Now that we are all on the same page, does anyone of you still believe this? Or, did you ever believe it!? It does not matter if your rights are God-given, Natural, or Inalienable; they are non-existent! I will make a radical claim here, but I will attempt to prove it. You have no rights!

Humans created the concept of coercive governments, and then humans created the concept of rights to protect themselves from coercive governments. Huh?!?! Does anyone get the logic here? As long as you lend any kind of legitimacy to an entity that systematizes coercion you won’t have rights, you merely have a piece of paper, NOTHING MORE. The only way rational animals can truly have rights is when those rights are recognized by other rational animals. That’s it. If an entity is based in violence, by its very nature, that entity is an enemy of your rights. The two concepts cannot exist together. One is born of reason, one is born of force.

The government cannot be protector of your rights; it is the one true violator of them. The government is the reason we need to claim rights in the first place. As the brilliant Marc Stevens says, “If the government was really the protector of life, liberty, and property, they wouldn’t be the first ones to try and take it.” Life and liberty by law has been a failure, although not a complete failure. Our forebears efforts were not all in vain, some gains were made, but our enemy, the State, has found a way to capitalize on the gains that have come out of bloodshed, and sacrifice. These sacrifices were made by men yearning to be free in the hopes their children, and their children’s children might live a more peaceful life. It was the best way they knew at the time, and I stand ready to make similar sacrifices; however I would like to enter the battle on my terms, not the State’s. We have enumerated our rights, and the State has successfully picked them off one by one. What a brilliant strategy, any young officer worth his salt would see the opportunity to divide and conquer here. Go for the weak ones, and then we regroup for the rest. This strategy is not working anymore. It is time for us to claim one right, the right to life, and all that goes with it. I no longer claim anymore rights, but one. Let us level the battlefield a bit.
> If they want my rights, fine, they can have them, but know this; I keep my life, and all that comes with it. I have the right to live my life how I see fit, to do whatever I see fit, as long as I live my life non-aggressively. I claim freedom, every bit of it. From here on out, it’s all or nothing. They cannot have any of it, no more concessions. I no longer claim the Bill of Rights, because rights do not exist, they are nothing but fluff to make citizens feel good about their immoral governments. Government is not reasonable or rational, it is force. Therefore, it does not recognize my “rights”. These two concepts cannot exist in the same context, which one will you choose? I choose the right to life, not the wrong of government.

As long as humans choose coercive governments, their rights will not exist; when humans finally decide to be rational about organizing society, they won’t need their rights.

“The mere fact that an individual argues presupposes that he owns himself and has a right to his own life and property.” -Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

“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.