by Ed Lewis

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.”

- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s book entitled “General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century,” 1851

What would Mr. Proudhon write today if he saw a country with possibly the strongest military force in the world headed by a man who is a warmongering idiot capable only of mouthing the words that his controllers want him to stick with?  Get real.  Any person who promotes and wants war in this day and age of government weapons of mass destruction has to be a complete idiot.  And, off course, the word “headed” is used loosely as the man doesn’t actually “head” the nation - he is just the head of the Executive Branch of government.  At least, that is how it is supposed to be.

Govern is an interesting concept, especially since most people mistakenly believe it is the job of the government to govern the people.  From the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

Govern - (transitive verb) 1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. 3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. (My emphasis)

We also find in this dictionary the many definitions for “government”.

“Government - 1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. 2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body. 3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule. 4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. 5. A governing body or organization…” as:

Any American who loves the concept and practice of “liberty” should be scared to the very core of his being when government moves beyond its authority and does not adhere to the dictates of the true governing body - the sovereign people - resulting in a “ruling” body over people.

This is a hard concept to grasp but originally the American people - or any free people - are not governed by outside sources other than their Creator.  Each in a free society governs himself.  Because each of the people governs himself does not mean there is the absence of any form of political authority resulting in disorder and confusion or lacking in any cohesive principle or anarchy.

If we do not understand or come to understand that the sovereign - the people - have the responsibility of self rule based on the laws of God - the cohesive principles - while men forming the government are delegated only to protect this right of God given self-determination (political authority), liberty will not exist in this country - at least for 95 percent or more of the population.

Affect the laws of self-rule and any semblance of a Republic is lost to the emerging dictatorship or oligarchy government being created by those who would undermine liberty.

Because we have lost the concept of “liberty” to tyrannical legislation that has changed our constitutional government to sovereignty resting in elected officials and others, we have essentially allowed our country to be overthrown by greedy, lustful, and immoral persons lacking in integrity.

Now we have this power-mad person in the Oval Office making statements such as this one:  “Thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us,” to which he added, “this terrible knowledge requires us to act differently.”

Well, he is right about one thing - thousands of trained killers are planning to attack us.  But it is the source of these thousands that are not mentioned by him, his staff, or his controllers.  The thousands are those of the different levels of government who now have the primary goal of enforcing de facto laws that, in fact, do not apply to the sovereign.  And, now more de facto laws are being added to “justify” terrorist actions by law enforcers.

This man - biologically speaking, anyway - has also on many occasions used one of his favorite propaganda (lies, in other words) phrases - protecting the freedoms against those who hate the freedoms we in America have.

What a pea-brain.  One cannot protect the rights of people by removing the rights of people.  When are the brain-dead majority of the American people going to wake up to this fact?  When are the brain-dead going to come to realize that the people who hate freedom are not those of foreign origin, except when one acknowledges the District of Corruption as being foreign.

The functions given the federal and state governments are to uphold the Constitution and provide protection against those who would invade our shores and/or infringe upon our rights.  Is this what the current and past administrations have done?

Is this what your state and local governments have done?

If you have any inkling of what is going on, you know the answers to these questions is “no, rights have not been protected but have been infringed upon by every level of government.”

So, you see, we are not having our freedom threatened by foreign countries - we are being threatened by the very organizations that are supposed to provide protection against infringement upon rights, whether from a foreign or domestic source.  And, just as the bush man said, we should behave differently but not the way he means.

Friends - and at least 95 percent of the thousands of people the writer has known during his life - internalized certain values, including those of respecting the rights and property of others - along with working for what one gets.  Integrity was instilled in us by family, friends, other peers, and only in a small way by the threat of “getting caught”.  In fact, people I have been closest to did not consider the possibility of jail as the block to harming another.  The usual reason for avoiding doing something to harm another person was “it’s wrong”.

Thus, one might say there were clear-cut lines of “right” and “wrong”.  But, what of now?

Here we have an administration - all the clods in government regardless of level of government or of position within the government - that openly and flagrantly takes the property of others under some guise or another.  By property is meant not only one’s land, buildings, automobiles, trucks, and money, but also his right to determine how to best live his own life for maximum enjoyment.

The government does this not only domestically but in other countries as well.  If a country has oil that is blocked from US oil interests, then the answer is to change the government of the country (kill the leaders in opposition to US Government’s intents) and put a person or group in place that will go along with oil interests backing and/or in the US Government.

Let’s turn the clock back for a moment.  People managed their own affairs.  What government there was small and non-intrusive on the people.  The laws to obey were the laws of God.  If one transgressed on the rights of another, the people made the judgment as to redress being due and what the redress was.

Most of the people settling this country had had enough of tyranny and lack of freedoms concerning spiritual beliefs and not being able to live as free men. Or, maybe they wished to start a new life with everything they could gain through their own hard efforts was theirs and theirs alone.

Eventually, enough in each of these colonists believed strongly in separating themselves from the rule of England headed by King George III.  They had a long list of grievances never resolved by the King.  Hence, the Declaration of Independence was written and separation from England declared.  The right to do so was fought for - and won (even though some try to convince people we are still under English rule).

Each colony in becoming a State maintained its sovereignty over the other states and, most important, the centralized government.  Certain functions were given the central government which can be boiled down to two - defend the shores of the states against all invasions, whether foreign or domestic, and to uphold the Constitution thereby protecting the Christian and God-given rights, whether enumerated or not, of the people.

The central government’s jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia and territories.  Each state’s jurisdiction was limited to the confines of the State but could not infringe upon the rights of the people.  The duty of the government established for the State was to uphold the Constitution and defense.  Thus, the people were sovereign over the central government, each individual state government, and each man and woman was sovereign to each other.

Now, one might wonder as we have seen the Constitution and the rights of man destroyed by the anti-Christian (including Ashcroft - he’s a fake Christian), anti-patriot forces in all levels of government exactly the necessity for a government if the government is intent on infringing upon human rights.  Or, asking in another fashion, if government makes laws that infringe on the rights of even one man or woman, then is it not an anti-constitutional act, which must fall into the category of treason?  We must ask then - do we need treasonous governments?

Consider for a moment the purpose for weapons of mass destruction.  Better yet, consider why they are even developed.  Is it for defense?  And, if so, why is such defense a necessity?  Is it because the people in one country want to destroy the people in another country?  Or, is it because leaders of countries want something some other country has?

While considering this, also think about this.  The people in this country are being told that Muslims (first, it was just Islamics hated but it spread to include all Muslims) hate Americans because of their freedoms.  We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles so the “alleged” conflict between the two religions is often brought up - you know, the old religious war thing.  But, if this is so, why have Christians and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in Egypt with the only expulsion being Jews?

To bring up another relevant point, let’s say you are on a picnic with many of your family and friends on the 4th of July.  There are several other groups, one of which is close enough for you to see what they have.  Now, let’s say the group has an item of food or drink your group doesn’t have.  Is your first inclination to think - “Hey, let’s go over there and take their food that we don’t have”?

A bunch of us were having a military group picnic on one of the beaches In Okinawa.  Near to us was an Okinawan wedding party.  Well, a couple of the kids smelled our roasting hot dogs and saw us roasting marshmallows, something this group had not seen before.  The kids wanted some so a couple of us that knew a few words went to talk to the adults and see if it was okay.

It was and we worked out a mutually beneficial trade.  They shared their Okinawan food and drink with us and we shared ours with them.  Quite a deal.

The point is that neither group wanted to attack the other to get what they had.  We ended up having a great afternoon and evening sharing food, drink (saki for bourbon and beer) and many laughs in spite of the language barrier.  It is still one of my fondest memories for the past 36 or 37 years (I was either 19 or 20 at the time).

There was no “government” to tell us how to behave.  All that governed us were our respect for other people.

The founders of this country preached and practiced non-interference with other nations, just as most of us preach non-interference with other people.  We were at peace with the world as long as this doctrine was upheld, just as we remain at peace with other people when we do not interfere with their rights.  Other countries that were open to visitors accepted us, including those in the Middle East, now alleged by government to be the “deadly” enemies of our freedom (excepting Israel).

Our colonists who became the American people lived and traded with each other and other countries without any bad feelings developing that would have resulted in wars being declared.  Trades for goods were worked out.  Even though most of the world’s people were armed, arms were not used to take what they wanted.  Governing bodies have always done this, not the people.

Not so now.  American foreign policy today is nothing more than “Hey, you back my aggressive war-like actions against such and such country since we (my financial backers and companies I am associated with) need its resources and I will make sure you get my backing (or money) in your aggressions against such and such country.”  Or - “Don’t back us and we will assure you will be boycotted or bombed back to the Stone Age.”

Name a war that was not instigated by a government rather than the people.  Next, prove that the war was not the result of persons in government - or those who supported government financially, meaning major industrialists and bankers - wanting something that another country had and for the lust for power and control over other people.

Without centralized governments, People, I fervently believe that all people, regardless of country of origin, would be much further down to the road to world peace.  It is always leaders, whether political, religious, military or a combination of these that starts wars.  They are NOT started by the people who want only to live their lives in peace.

Thus, war machinery and weapons are developed for the governments to provide defense for themselves, not for the people.  The US Government does everything to protect itself, not the people.  Read for example, the final paragraph is EO 12333 issued by Reagan.  And when you do, remember the United States is only the District of Columbia and United States Citizens are “artificial persons” under the jurisdiction of the US Government.  This does not include the people of the many States.

The US Government protects itself because of the many invasions this country has made into the private affairs of other countries. It uses the people to defend its actions by promoting “patriotism” and “defending freedom”.  Invariably, when the bottom line cause for the attacks on other people is revealed, the reason is without fail related to major industrialists, especially defense contractors, oil suppliers, illegal drugs, and bankers that influence to the extent they effectively own the US Government.

If this country’s central government had never began interfering in the affairs of others - including the States that seceded from the union -there would have not been any need for probably 95 percent of weaponry developed.  Effort and resources could have been directed to improvement of mankind, including lawful birth control methods, rather than control and destruction.

If the assumed elite - but gutter scum scoundrels to me - had not wanted to control the oil and drugs in the Middle East and to aid Israel militarily and to the tune of billions of dollars a year in aide and equipment, there would not be any terrorist actions by Middle Eastern people against any American.

If the gutter scoundrels - elite to them - had not wanted, as another example, to control the oil and drugs in Central and South America, there would not be any of our people covertly - and occasionally overtly - killing leaders of other countries who do not go along with the present politico/military/industrialist coalition of the federal government.

Damn, People, put yourselves in the shoes of the other people.  How would you feel if suddenly a bunch of Chinese (and they far out number us) started invading your towns and cities, killing leaders and others at will because they decided Texas or California rightfully belonged to Mexico or because they wanted control of - darn, can’t think of a product I know is 100 percent American made - anyway, something we have they don’t?  Wouldn’t you get rather upset and try to take acts of retribution against them as a freedom fighter?

Now, consider this.  Do you hate other people because your first conscious thought of them was “I hate them” or were you taught to hate, primarily based on false information?

It is my contention that without learning to the contrary one does not care about races, religions, or anything else that keeps people separate.  (You are welcomed to prove hate for a specific type of person or belief is innate in people.)  If one learns based on false information, then what is learned is false.  The government knows this very well.  Thus, its words against Middle Eastern people - especially Muslims of the Islamic persuasion -excepting Israel which uses the same sort of hostile actions as the Palestinians.  The difference in terminology at to ‘terrorism” or “freedom fighters” - none except the US Government seems to want to be partners in crime with Israel.

Is all the false information about other countries because of and controlled by the US Government?  You can bet your sweet bippy it is.  It is called divide and conquer.  Besides, regular everyday people haven’t the need to run a propaganda campaign to justify its attacks on other countries.  Regular people could give a healthy crap about what people in other countries are doing.

To date, events credited to terrorists in this country were found to be - or highly suspected - works orchestrated by the federal government (including massive cover-ups) as tools to establish the New World Order and domestic tyranny over the American people.  The actions, along with wars, conflicts, and covert actions by the US Government, have also been used - at least since the build up to the Civil War - to instill fear in our people, to get the brain-dead to go along with removal of rights, and to cause fervor for the unconstitutional attacking of other people.

Here is a rule of thumb.  Anytime the government balks at or blocks independent investigations - or threatens people to keep their mouths shut - or suddenly one who is whistle blowing is killed under questionable circumstances - you can safely bet there was federal involvement in the act of terrorism or that a proper agenda would expose its hidden agendas.  Good God, People, common sense ought to tell you that.  But, alas and deep sigh - government schools are also wiping out common sense.

As a final observation of recent declarations by the Bush crowd of evildoers, how often have you been at a family gathering, a meeting of some sort, or at other functions with several people present where the topic became “You know, we people need to wipe out the government in Mexico.  I heard some of the people there have arms and they could use them against us someday.  So, we need to change its government.  Joe, why don’t you and a few of your elite killers go down there and take care of that SOB that let his people have guns.  It may someday attack us and we should do it first.  Let’s take them out.  And, don’t worry about any innocents killed - we’ll just call them ‘collateral damage’.”

Or, have often have you thought - “Hmm, my neighbor bought a firearm.  I think I had best get rid of him before he uses it against me.”

Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?  Well, that is exactly the reasoning of the US Government, with the focus currently on Iraq, a country our treasonous government wants to attack come hell or high water.  It will then be followed by attacks on maybe 60 more countries, unconstitutional military operations that are going to make a few tons of money for defense, oil, and pharmaceutical interests, all of which are tied in extensively with the present administration.  The truth in this is, of course, hidden from a dummied down American who believes anything any corrupted SOB in government or its media puppets tells them.

Shoot, if I were another country, I would be preparing to the utmost of my country’s ability or other sources to get weapons not to attack America, but to defend against being attacked by it.  So would all Americans.   Say, wasn’t that originally the concept behind government weapons development we were told - to DEFEND, not attack.

Furthermore, do people sit around saying we have to have the oil in such and such country?  Not hardly.  Most people don’t even know where the gas they fill their cars comes from.  Ask them.  Shoot, ask the place you buy your gas.  Only the oil soaked US Government says this.

Most people I know talk about why the federal government has blocked extremely highly efficient alternate energy measures to petroleum or blocked vastly improved, highly efficient systems (300 to 400 miles per gallon in some cases or no petroleum derived fuels at all) for the past 40 years.

How about drugs and their legalization?  Now, before you answer, get the facts, primarily the facts concerning recreational use BEFORE government intervention and its push for getting people addicted compared to the number of users today.  And, try to find out how much money has been made by the federal government after forcing through armed acts of terrorism unconstitutional drug control measures on the people.

Then, answer the question of why countries the US Government intervenes in either have oil, natural gas sources, produce large quantities of controlled drugs, especially cocaine, or a combination of the three and - simultaneously - has a government blocking US interests.

I believe that without centralized governments acting as the governing authority, the majority of the world would be living in peace.  I believe it is the destiny of Mankind to do so.  There will always be exceptions.  No matter what those of the one world government is shoving down your throat, peace does not come at the end of a gun just because one group holds all the guns (the UN).

Peace comes when all people respect the rights of all other people.  Only the evil people directing and controlling centralized governments and their horrendous desire for increased wealth and power have caused major world unrest.  History bears this out.

My faith is that all people on Earth - regular everyday people - can live in peace and overall harmony but my reality tells me it will never come to pass as long as evil fills or controls governments, whether the governments are based on political, religious, military, or a combination.  It is that evil we must direct our attention to, not what the evil tells us to believe.

Thus, my conclusion is we need a central government for two reasons - to uphold the Constitution and to defend the God-given rights of Man.  In both, the current government - I should say “dumb-ya’s administration” since Congress and the Supreme Court is filled with cowards and traitors to their oaths of office - is failing miserably.  It is acting as an invader, committing treason by the hour by conducting acts of terrorism against the people of this country.

Thus, we would be better off - and certainly more secure - without it.

We can simply govern ourselves “like civilized people” - the way it is supposed to be.

 

Originally published at Liberty For All May 21, 2007.

 

Ed Lewis is a columnist at Liberty For All.  Contact Mr. Lewis at elewis@shighway.com.

by Rhys M. Blavier

Election Day 2009 has come and gone. Relatively speaking, this election was as insignificant as any off-year election is, as opposed to a mid-term election, but it still could have been an important year for the Libertarian Party, if we had simply bothered to show up. There were six elections / ballot initiatives which could have possibly been affected by the Libertarian Party… if we actually had a long-term strategic plan. As it is, some things happened for which it is notable that the LP had no role in. In no particular order, let’s look at where we could have had real impacts this year.

Governor’s Race - New Jersey: New Jersey voters tossed out their incumbent Democratic Governor, Corizine, in favor of Republican Chris Christie. It may have happened because Corizine is very unpopular with the citizens of his government-corruption prone state .While Christie’s election is not necessarily a bad thing, what made this election notable was that it swung on independent voters. Christie won 49% of the vote, Corizine won 44% and independent candidate Chris Dagget walked away with 5% of the vote.

Governor’s Race - Virginia: Republican candidate, Bob McConnell, with 60% of the vote, easily won election over his Democratic opponent, Creigh Deeds. For over 35 years, Virginians have consistently voted into office Governors of the opposition party to that of a sitting President, so this win might have seemed inevitable. What made this race notable for the LP is that it was again the independent voters who made the difference. In 2008, Virginia bucked its own tradition of voting for Republican presidential candidates and, instead, voted for Democratic candidate Obama.  In that case, Obama won because Virginia’s independent voters were pretty evenly split between Obama and McCain. This year, however, independent voters were 2 - 1 in favor of McConnell and we can see the results from that quite easily.

Mayor’s Race - New York: In this race, Independent candidate Michael Bloomberg won a very narrow victory against his Democratic opponent, the essentially unknown City Comptroller. The name of the Democratic candidate is not important. What is important is that even with spending approximately $100,000,000 (yes, 100 million) dollars of his own money, Bloomberg only won 51% of the total vote, only 5 points ahead of his Democratic opponent. This will be Bloomberg’s third term, which was only possible because he supported changes to New York City’s term limit law, which had limited mayors to only being able to be elected for two terms. A strong Libertarian presence could have raised the term-limit issue by speaking strongly for them.

House of Representatives Race - New York’s 23rd District: What can be said here that hasn’t already been said? In what was probably the most noteworthy race of 2009? For the first time in over 150 years, this district will not be represented by a Republican. The story is remarkable. The Republican Party chose Dede Scozzafava, an NRA-approved candidate who also was pro-choice and in favor of same-sex marriage. The Democratic Party chose an un-noteworthy sacrificial lamb, Bill Owens, because the New York state House has a one person majority and they didn’t want to risk losing that majority by running their state Representative in an “unwinnable” race. So what happened? The far-right stepped in and ran their own Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, against Scozzafava. Why? Because she wasn’t conservative enough to satisfy far-right extremists, like Sarah Palin and Dick Armey. I think that this race was probably the most important this year because for what it signifies.  The extreme far-right conservatives are not interested in Republican Party loyalty, they put political ideology above all else.  Hoffman had no knowledge of or concern for “his” district’s local issues, he didn’t even live in that district  In a move reminiscent of the worst examples of the “rotten boroughs” in British politics before the 20th century, the national leaders in the far-right conservative movement found someone whose only “qualification” was the purity of his ideology. Don’t worry though, if Hoffman HAD won, he promised that he would move into the District he would then be representing. Scozzafava eventually pulled out of the race and put her support behind the Democratic candidate.  The extreme conservatives didn’t simply put their own candidate in a roll to beat the Republican candidate; they chased a loyal Republican out of the Republican Party, itself. In the end, enough loyal Republicans still voted for her that Conservative Hoffman lost. The final tally? 49% to 45% to 6%. I told you, folks… they’re eating their own.

This race, more than any other, demonstrates the collectivist desires of the extreme far-right conservatives… Local issues are not important to them; they want nothing less than to fill Congress with extreme conservative political ideologues who will put the desires of the conservative movement above every other consideration. Ideological purity is their litmus test, and having elected officials who will do the bidding of political masters instead of serving the needs of their constituents is a model for a one-party state with a collectivist government.  We have seen such systems before and, trust me; their loyalty is NOT to their constituents… it is to their party.  The far-right conservative extremist movement is trying to lead America down a very dangerous road.

In addition to these for elections, there were two ballot initiates that need to also be included in our summary. The first of these was the vote to overturn the law which passed the Maine legislature that made same-sex marriage legal in Maine. Drawing an immense amount of support from OUTSIDE the state, the conservatives managed to overturn that law by garnering 53% of the public vote to repeal it. The other ballot initiative we need to make note of was the approval in Breckenridge, Colorado of a law which decriminalizes all personal possession of one-ounce or less of marijuana. State and federal laws are still in place but for the first time, a city has stood up and said “it isn’t worth the government fighting to enforce those laws”. And who was responsible for this victory? If you said the Libertarian Party, you would be completely wrong. The organization that was responsible for getting 71% of the voters to approve that law was the modestly named ‘Sensible Colorado’… 71 freaking percent of the voters approved this and the LP had no hand in (and, thus, get no credit for) this win. Both of these initiatives were about personal freedom, personal MORAL freedom. If we, as Libertarians, are not the ones who can stand up for the side of freedom, then who the hell needs us?

So, what lessons should the LP learn from these elections? A couple of things. One is that being an extreme far-right, conservative neo-Republican party will not win for us.   Those people are not disaffected, they are simply scared. They have their own machine and we would simply get swallowed entirely by them… and good-bye to the Libertarian Party. Another lesson is that independents really do matter. They might not be enough to win an election on their own, but that can certainly swing an election. In these elections we can all see the importance of a liberal movement. If we can mobilize it, we can win. The moderates, independents and liberals who turned out in numbers sufficient to elect Obama last year are the unmotivated and disaffected pool of voters we can turn to.  There is power there, strength that is simply waiting to be utilized.

The Republicans are feeling elated about winning the two governor’s races this year.  They are patting themselves on the back by seeing importance on the wrong victories.  While governors might be the Chief Executives in their state, they have no role in formulating national legislation.  The two House elections this year, both of which were won by the Democratic candidates, are much more significant in the larger picture of current American politics. What this says about the 2010 election possibilities is fascinating.

Candidates in reliable Republican districts will now be facing primary challenges from the far-right if they are not seen as being ideologically pure enough.  Why is that important?  Remember center-left Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island? He had to spend most of what he had in his campaign war chest to beat a far-right Republican opponent for the Party’s nomination.  After the primary fight, he didn’t have enough money left to effectively campaign for the Senate seat, itself, and he lost to the Democratic nominee.  We can look for more of this in 2010 as big money from national figures fighting for their far-right agenda will flood into the coffers of Republican candidates who aren’t seen as being conservatively pure.  Any primaries in which the far-right challenger looses will leave the winner with little or no money to campaign for the actual seat or office in question.

Since Obama’s election a year ago, he has turned this country’s very active liberal base into an unmotivated “lost generation” looking for someone to give them hope. THAT is where our future lies. WE need to be the ones who can break the American liberals out of their ennui, to rally and mobilized the untapped political power they represent. THEY are the people who can make or break elections. Those people are looking for leadership and hope. Now is the time to bring back Ed Clark’s Libertarian movement. Now is when we need his “low-tax liberals” to rise up again and take the Libertarian Party back from the neo-Republicans.   In every one of the elections I have mentioned here, WE could have made a difference, we could have made ourselves known again to the general public, we could have been leaders… and, to be politically viable, our future rest with being able to harness the unfocused liberalism which Obama has let wither away. The conservative extremists are destroying the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is showing itself to be incapable of leadership. There are holes being torn in American politics and, as nature abhors a vacuum, those holes WILL be filled. What we have to ask ourselves is, can we the party that fills those holes?

Since 1984, the LP has driven itself to an extreme end of the American political spectrum, an end that is mostly allied with the extreme far-right.  That is not what first attracted the general public to the idea of libertarianism.  It was the combination of the ideas of fiscal responsibility AND liberal social policies that first put the LP on the lips of the American people.  Both the Republicans and the Democrats parties are moving farther and deeper into their own ideological extremes.  I believe that any two-party system is going to naturally gravitate between polar opposites.  The reason that it is important for America to also have a centrist party is because there needs to be a party that can comfortably welcome people from the right, left and middle.  What makes the Libertarian party important is not conservative or liberal politics; it is our view of the role and function of government.  What we oppose is authoritarianism.  Personally, I am pretty far to the left while the political figure I know and admire the most is pretty far to the right; I believe that some government is necessary and she is an anarchist.  Where we find commonality is our shared belief that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party are serving the American people. THAT is why we both share a belief in libertarian philosophy, and the day that we can get both my moderate right Republican father and my independent green (liberal AND vegetarian) sister to vote for our candidates is the day that we will know that we have arrived.

 

© Copyright 2009 by Rhys M. Blavier

 

Rhys Blavier’s passion is studying government, politics and The Constitution from an historical analysis perspective and then imagining how government can be changed to better serve its people.  He also believes that government should serve all of its people rather than just corporations and the wealthy. His personal motto is “Truth, Justice, and Honor… But Above All Honor” because, he says, you can have truth without justice or honor, you can have justice without truth or honor, but you cannot have honor without truth and justice. He also believes that there is nothing so sacred or controversial that it cannot be questioned and/or laughed at.

by Kevin Tuma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Richard C. Evey

I first have to tell you the story and then give you the other bad news. I have taken portions of a news story, giving you the main facts and the important details that will lead to the main point of this writers rant.

Mr. Meservey, a resident of Stanwood, Washington, was drunk and belligerent when he got into the drivers seat of his car. He had been cut off by the bartender after he got pushy with a few females customers.

A number of the customers were concerned about a man attempting to drive, as he presented to be a risk to himself and most important, others on the road. One of the customers call 911 and told the dispatcher that they were all concerned about the guy leaving the parking lot and informed the dispatcher that he was extremely intoxicated.

Officer Troy Meade, 11 year LEO, of the Everett PD arrived at 11:39 PM, 5 minutes later Officer Steven Klocker arrived.

Mr. Meservey was hedged in by cars on both sides and a parking lot fence in front of him. Meade parked his patrol car behind Mr. Meservey boxing him in. He had nowhere to go.

Joanne Hancock was outside the bar when the LEOs arrived and went inside and told the people that “They’ve got him.” A group of people went outside to watch the arrest.

Meade spent over 5 minutes trying to convince Meservey to get out of the car. Klocker reported that Meade’s attitude was “belligerent” and that Meade “used language which made him (Klocker) uncomfortable because of the nearby civilians.”

Meade told Meservey “I don’t know why the f**k I am trying to save your dumb ass”, according to Klocker’s statement. Both officers pulled electro-shock torture devices (Tasers). Meade shot Meservey through the opened window. Meservey started the car and tried to drive away, over a concrete curb and ran into a chain-linked fence.

Remember Meservey was boxed in and Officer Meade could have just reached into the vehicle and removed the keys to the vehicle.

Meade then drew his weapon and took up a position near the left rear wheel of Meservey vehicle. “Time to end this, enough is enough” Meade said according to the Klocker. Then from a distance of 6 to 7 feet Meade fired 8, repeat 8, shots murdering Meservey.

When other LEOs arrived, they reported Meade was pacing back and forth. Meade then told the LEOs “I’m out of it, I want my Garrity.” He wants WHAT?? The “Garrity Rule” came out of a US Supreme Court ruling (Garrity v New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, 1967) which triggers an enhancement of rights against self-incrimination that only government armed enforcers may enjoy. Any statement made after the Garrity incantation can only be used for departmental investigations BUT not for criminal prosecution.

In the Garrity case, LEO’s were advised that they had to answer questions subjecting them to criminal prosecution or lose their jobs. The Court rule that this was unconstitutional. There are two prongs in Garrity: first, if a LEO is compelled to answer questions as a condition of employment, the LEO’s answers and the fruits of those answers may not be used against the LEO in a criminal prosecution. Second, the department becomes limited as to what they may ask. Such questions must be specifically, narrowly and directly tailored to the LEO”s job.

Also, the Garrity Rule is not automatically triggered simply because questioning is taking place. The LEO must announce that they want the protection under Garrity.

My Take; The only force that should have been used in this situation was the force necessary to remove the keys from Meservey vehicle. Rather than using a logical approach to the situation, Meade (who was involved in a lethal shoot before) decided to go from talking to murder. Even the use of the Tazer is questionable.

There has been a $15 million lawsuit filed, Meade has been charged with first-degree manslaughter (manslaughter?) and placed on PAID vacation time (WHAT?). This person is walking the street at tax payer’s expense, if it was a civilian who did this: no bail and locked up until trial.

I ask: It would be nice if “We the People” had the same rights that the government paid Gestapo had? Announce a rule, then answer questions, get a slap on the wrist, go back to your job or get a paid vacation. I wonder how many LEOs have used this Garrity rule to get off, when they shoot someone or do some questionable action? Do they do it on their own, at the advice of a fellow LEO or a supervisor? Remember the blue wall!

We the People can invoke the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution but the Gestapo would take us to task and not let up, but the LEOs get a pass. If we do not talk to the LEOs, we can be charged with a crime of withholding information, non cooperation, obstruction of justice and a dozen other laws we do not know about. If “We the People” do not bow down we are toast. Remember “Animal Farm”; “We are all equal, some more equal than others.”

Anytime we seek “help” from the government paid armed law enforcement are we effectively allowing them to use deadly force?

by Jessi Winchester, author of From Bordello to Ballot Box and America: The Final Chapter

“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”

- Dave Barry, Pulitzer Prize winner Miami Herald journalist

In his book, Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama says in his own words, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  To the detriment of America, he is clearly doing just that.

September 11, 2001 plunged us into war with Islamic extremists who intentionally murdered 3,000 American citizens and declared Jihad upon the United States.  When captured, they were returned to U.S. control as ‘prisoners of war’ …. not as civilian criminals.  They were held in military confinement and by every logical and legal rationale, should be tried in a military tribunal.  Enter President Barack Obama.  He has declared that they be transferred to a civilian jail in New York to stand trial in a civilian court - as civilian criminals.  For me - and millions of other freedom loving Americans as well as the families of the murdered victims - this is the final outrage.  It is time to call this president by the label he himself is cultivating … Traitor.

There were so many ‘red flags’ when Obama was a candidate.  Criminal associations with people who shared his disdain for our free and open society, refusal to produce an authentic certificate of birth that would prove to voters that he was legally eligible to run for the highest office in the land in the first place, many passages in his two books that make it clear his love and allegiance was not with America, and his openly Socialist leanings.  Political correctness, enchantment with a ‘rock star’ personality, refusal by a majority of voters to research the candidate and view him realistically, and corruption on the part of the candidate in getting elected in the first place … all played into his election as president.

As each day dawns, we see a president who is stripping the nation of more and more freedoms, claiming powers for himself that have been unheard of since the birth of this nation, surrounding himself with like thinking conspirators, and simply ignoring the Constitution to implement completely illegal and unconstitutional policies that are placing America in harm’s way.  He has instilled enough strong arm tactics and fear that no one challenges him, tries to make him accountable, or even dares to be ‘politically incorrect.’  Nearly twenty years ago, Charlton Heston told his Brandeis University audience that, “political correctness is tyranny with manners.”  He was sadly right on the money.  We now have a revised nomenclature that prevents people from saying things the way they are for fear of ‘offending’ someone or getting themselves in trouble for being candid and blunt.  The prevention of an open and honest dialogue is exactly the goal of those who desire to take over our nation.

Innocent, every day citizens are declared terrorists if they express their loyalty to the Constitution and everything American, yet this president has ordered true terrorists who have murdered citizens of this country, to be tried in a court he knows will be more lenient and possibly free these Islamic murderers.

He’s also setting an intentional precedent.  If the 9/11 terrorists go free, Obama will order the Ft. Hood Islamic terrorist to be tried in civilian court as well.  And from then on, all terrorists will be tried as civilians so anyone wanting to wage Jihad on America will know they have a friend in the White House and won’t fear taking terrible tolls on our country.

Everyone is too afraid and too politically correct to say outright that this president has made his intentions and political allegiance very clear.  He is not only inept, unfit to lead, and intentionally trying to ruin this nation … he is quite simply, a traitor.

In one short year, he and his comrades have devastated this nation financially and morally.  His policies have, and are, marching us toward Socialism and a One World Order.  We must take fervent action quickly or we will no longer be in control of our own nation and future.

This is a man who has given us sufficient proof and reason to remove him from office.  We’ve never faced a situation of treason by a sitting president in the nation’s history so the road to removal is not set in stone but one thing is clear - this is tyranny - not simply an issue of impeachment.  However, the Founders clearly never envisioned the possibility that a United States President could ever commit treason so there is a lack of guidelines regarding removal of a president for treason.

If an avenue of impeachment is pursued, it would begin in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.  After hearing the charges and testimony from witnesses as required by Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Committee will either draw up Articles of Impeachment or decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed.  If they draw up Articles, they are then sent to the House of Representatives for discussion and vote.  If approved, the Articles are sent to the Senate, who is the only assemblage lawfully entitled to hear a trial.  If 2/3 of the Senators present vote to convict, the president is then removed from office.

Another avenue to removal may be for the public to put so much pressure on their congressional representatives that Congress would convene a Grand Jury whose extensive power could force an ‘investigation’ of Obama.  There are only two offenses on a federal level that a Grand Jury will hear; capital, or infamous crimes.  Additionally, there were no inferior federal courts at the time the Constitution was drafted so any court action involvement would be restricted to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be the court to which any official report and subpoena by Congress would be presented.  The U.S. Supreme Court could then issue an arrest and removal warrant and present it to the Pentagon who would then order troops to go to the White House and remove the president.  Whatever method of removal is employed, it must be done immediately if we hope to remain free.

We can’t bury our heads in the sand any longer and hope the 2010 mid-term elections will put a Republican majority into Congress and then we’ll all live happily ever after.  Obama has another year to put his election corruption into place to make a Democratic win inevitable, or worse - to manufacture a ‘national emergency’ where he can suspend the election altogether.  I have no hope we will have an authentic and free election.

If Congress is too spineless or fearful of the President to take action, then how can this president explain to the mothers of our current military soldiers, the mothers of our Fallen Heroes, and the families of those murdered in the Twin Towers that he is not a traitor?  Obviously, Obama doesn’t understand the powerful love of a mother who is denied justice for her loved one.  That kind of un-American treasonous injustice festers.

 

Copyright © Jessi Winchester 2009 All Rights Reserved

by R. Lee Wrights

“In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy - there is no middle ground while our soldiers are in harm’s way.”

- Guy Shepard, Kirtland, New Mexico, from a letter to the editor in the Farmington Daily Times

For too many people the answer to the question, “What is wrong with patriotism,” is simple and easy.  They will merely say, “Nothing is wrong with patriotism” and then dare anyone to disagree.  To them the question is the same as asking, “What is wrong with loyalty,” or, “What is wrong with baseball and Mom’s apple pie?” They falsely see the question as a decision to be made between standing up for America in all her glory or supporting her enemy du jour. Well beloved readers, it just is not that simple. There are some serious flaws in the kind of patriotism expressed by Mr. Shepard in his letter to the editor.

By way of clarification let me say that I think patriotism is not only acceptable, but also noble in its proper constraints. Being an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Air Force, I consider myself to be a patriot of the highest measure. I do not only talk the talk but I have walked the walk. Love for one’s country is the driving force behind any progressive society not to be taken lightly by any means. However, just like anything else in life when carried too far, patriotism becomes detrimental to individual freedom and has caused more atrocities to be justified than any other emotion known to mankind.

For example, Mr. Shepard says, “In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country….” With this one simple statement he gives carte blanche to whoever owns the government to act with impunity. It is this very attitude that has allowed dictators to rise throughout history and massacre untold millions whether it be in the name of the Fatherland, or the Motherland, or the Homeland. It says that in times of war it is the citizen’s duty to support their leaders regardless of how evil or pure their intentions may be. I am sorry, but I just cannot accept that as a proper definition of patriotism. Blind allegiance is the mother of tyranny, not patriotism.

In my opinion there is just too much intellectual dishonesty in Mr. Shepard’s statement to ignore. The gentleman from New Mexico says we have only two choices when he proclaims, “In time of war, patriots throw their politics aside and stand behind their leaders, because there can be only allegiance to their country, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy….” It’s not bad enough that he tells me once the shooting starts I must follow a leader blindly even if he is insane; he also tries to transform me into an enemy sympathizer if I dare disagree with the anointed one leading the charge. I could fertilize the whole north forty with this many droppings of the bull.

Is it not this kind of thinking that is the foundation of every militaristic dictatorship ever established throughout the annals of recorded history? Is this not the philosophy that caused hundreds of thousands to march in goose-step behind an insane elected official who was killing millions behind the “patriots’” backs? Do we really want hundreds of thousands of highly-trained and well-armed government employees that will follow the orders, without question, of every crackpot that manages to achieve high military or civilian rank? One of my favorite people in the world (Barbara you know who you are;-) taught me long ago that a good patriot always reserves the right to question authority.

Mr. Shepard closes his fairy tale description of patriotism by righteously proclaiming, “…there is no middle ground while our soldiers are in harm’s way.” He becomes redundant all too quickly and chooses to remind us, in his subtle way, that once the bombs begin to burst there is no turning back. He obviously agrees with President Bush’s foreign policy, which is simply,

“You are either with us or you are against us. And God help you if you are against us!”

I have never cared much for that my-way-or-the-highway kind of thinking, with the exception of situations where there are truly ONLY two choices. It is representative of the vilest of all false principles because too many freedoms are relinquished as a result of it and too many people fall in battle to defend it.

The “middle ground” Mr. Shepard is, bring the troops home where they belong.  That should ALWAYS remain a viable option when engaging in an aggressive military action especially when such action escalates to the level of full-blown war. Better yet, never send young men and women, who pledged only to defend their country and constitution, to their deaths on far-away battlefields serving in the capacity of global nation builders. And certainly do not attempt to create the false doctrine that it is some how unpatriotic to oppose such despicable actions just because they are perpetrated by the government of one’s own homeland. And don’t you dare tell me that I must follow any president blindly in order to prove my patriotism. I am a free-thinking, independent patriot BECAUSE I stand in opposition to a government corrupted thoroughly by a flawed foreign policy.

So Mr. Shepard, and all Americans that agree with their friend from Kirtland, I will return to answer my own query which is, “What’s wrong with patriotism?” The short answer is nothing. I can find no fault in any individual simply because he/she has a genuine affection for the nation of their birth. I share this sentiment explicitly; so much so, I volunteered five years of my precious youth serving in my country’s military establishment as an United States Air Force MST (medical services technician). One honorably-discharged veteran non-commissioned officer says there is nothing wrong with “pure” patriotism, which is simply love of one’s homeland. But just as with anything else that is precious, it will require vigilance to preserve patriotism in its purist form; and, not allow it to become perverted with political propaganda produced by the marriage of blind allegiance and ridiculous rhetoric.

Again, and it cannot be reiterated enough, Mr. Shepard’s declaration does not resemble anything close to patriotism. In fact, what he tries to pass off as patriotism is really a formula for totalitarian tyranny. He has articulated nothing more than unadulterated blind allegiance auspiciously adorned in patriotic garb. It is a lie! I don’t care if most of the American people do agree with Mr. Shepard. As the French author and critic Anatole France wrote before his death in 1924:

“If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”

And if 200 million people believe a lie, it is still a lie.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States (1901-1909)

 

Originally published in Liberty For All April 1, 2003.

 

R. Lee Wrights is a writer and political activist living in North Carolina. He is the co-founder and editor of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Contact Lee at rleewrights@gmail.com.

by Jessica Geary

“There has never been a good war or a bad peace.”

- Benjamin Franklin

“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge to mankind.”

- Thomas Jefferson

I am deeply anti war. I am accused of lacking “patriotism” because I don’t feel that murder and destruction are conducive to a civilized humanity. I don’t apologize for this. I assert that my abhorrence of war is a manifestation of my love for, not only, my country, but for humanity as a whole. To me empty jingoistic nationalism is not patriotism; it is hubris and a maniacal assertion of one’s own supposed superiority. It’s the manifestation of an empty soul. To accept the idea that fealty to the state is patriotic is to renounce the very heart of the American ideal of a free society. Our country was founded in the belief that the individual had natural rights and no government was divinely granted any power that infringed upon those rights. I am an un-terrified Jeffersonian Democrat, I believe in freedom and I know from history that war is the main mechanism in which the state destroys the liberties of those who live within its borders. So, let us beg the question: What is patriotism?

“…patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be.”

- Socrates

Much like the love of my children leads me to correct them when they make a mistake and teach them to be independent, thoughtful, and polite; my love for my country leads me to want to correct it when it is wrong. To sit silently while atrocities are committed using my money and in my name makes me a compliant co-conspirator in the murder, rape, and theft the state partakes in. My love of the American ideal makes me want my country to act in accord with said ideals, not use it as a shield from criticism.

The founders were critical of war, entangling alliances with other nations, and blind devotion to the state. When I question our naked aggression towards others I am carrying on the tradition of American patriotism, I am suspect of the rationalizations I hear and I won’t defend the state because I am not willing to sanction their blatant disregard for human life and liberty. I am also unwilling to sacrifice my neighbor’s, or my own, children on the altar of the US quest to maintain its bellicose empire. It’s time to renounce the broken idea that we can make the world “safe for democracy” or “spread our goodness” by the barrel of a gun. It is not our job to police the world and it is folly to think otherwise.

“PATRIOTISM, n. 1) The inability to distinguish between the government and one’s ‘country’; 2) A highly praiseworthy virtue characterized by the desire to dominate and kill; 3) A feeling of exultation experienced when contemplating heaps of charred ‘enemy’ corpses; 4) The first, last, and perennial refuge of scoundrels.”

- Chaz Bufe

Most self-styled patriots I have come into contact with are not patriotic, they are collectivists who derive their sense of self-worth from vicarious glory, which unfortunately is garnered by murder and torture. There is no threat to them as they sit safely at home criticizing anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the talking heads that endlessly reinforce the false virtue of worshiping the state. This attacking of the character of those who oppose war is nothing new:

“But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” 

- Hermann Goering

As a Nazi minister he was knowledgeable about the state’s use of propaganda to further the war racket. The state needs external, as well as internal enemies, to tighten their control over their own people, any war will do.

The “War on Drugs” has been the excuse for the militarization of our local police forces, while the “War on Terror” is an ambiguous unending war that is used to step up the surveillance on and the restrictions of the liberties of the American people. For the state, we are the true enemies, not Muslims in the sands of a far off desert, however they need to maintain their mask of benevolent authority. They do this by enlisting the people themselves into their service by furthering the myth that they are a legitimate enterprise, that they need to go to war for the “good of the people”. There have been no cases throughout the entirety of human history where war was justifiable, it has always been those in power using those they lord over as sacrificial lambs in order to keep and expand their power.

For me to follow my conscience I must leave you with this thought: By using violence in any way that is not purely defensive, we are committing an act of evil. If we break our laws in the name of justice, there is no justice. I refuse to submit to the idea that I must support the state to be a patriot, to me dissent is patriotic, as is peaceful resolution of our conflicts. Anything else is just an excuse to hate blindly. So, if this makes me unpatriotic I wear the label proudly, as it means that I think and speak for myself.

 

Jessica Geary is a 36-year-old mother of three beautiful girls who lives in Clayton, NC. She is a full-time mother and part-time writer who enjoys reading, painting and stirring the pot.  You can contact Jessica at jessicapacholski@gmail.com.

by Donna Mancini

“Don’t walk before me, I may not follow; Don’t walk behind me, I may not lead; Just walk beside me and be my friend.”

- Author unknown

Why do people need, or even want, Rulers and Gods? What is it they think the other guy has that they don’t?  Besides a few minor variations we are all basically the same, and if you have seen one you have seen them all.

Why would anyone give away the ultimate control of his or her destiny to someone else on earth or in the sky? At this point, the God crowd will boo me and say because God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything. However, no one has ever met this Heavenly creature and all accounts of its existence came from other earthly human beings who make mucho money from the idea. So, just count me out of the God Club.

On second thought let’s give some of “Gods” fans (the ones who don’t try to shove their beliefs down your throat) two points for doing what appears to be trying to merely express gratitude for the Big Bang to the Biggest Banger of all times. The universe is totally awesome and I for one will admit, I did not create the place. It is great to be alive and who wants to give all the credit to your frumpy weak parents?

But worshipping another human being and deferring to their every whim? Come on! Give me a break! This is insane! But this is what we do when we give a president, or any other politician, and their cohorts in crime an arsenal of guns and grant them control over millions of complete strangers in a country, state or city. The whole idea is so idiotic it is unbelievable!

Who is the President, or any other mortal human being, that he or she should decide what any of us can do in the privacy of our own homes or businesses with our own honestly-earned money and property?

Why would anyone revere and respect people who take away our money; limit our choices and opportunities; and, push us around like they own us?  As the old adage goes: With friends like that who needs enemies?

Name one thing a president, or any other elected so-called “leader,” ever did besides give us Grief and Misery?

In reality, all the government does is monopolize the media with frightening propaganda, and pontificate about how we could not possibly live without them. Then, if we the people are having too much fun or getting too happy and prosperous, despite their efforts to the contrary, they declare a crisis, start a “war,” and kill a bunch of people, including our families and friends, in order to reestablish a need for their so-called  “services.” All the while, the Big Boss and his accomplices sit in his big fancy house, all safe and warm while he eats, drinks, and watches himself on FOX News 24/7! And guess what… the joke and the bill are on “We the Suckers!”

Warning: Repeat this procedure as necessary to prevent “Chaos,” otherwise known as a voluntary, peaceful, market-driven society. 

In all seriousness, TV and advances in technology have made government, as we know it, totally outdated, unnecessary and disastrous for Liberty and the overall human condition.

We need to fire all our “RULERS!” ASAP!!

We the Individuals should be casting our votes in the free marketplace, voluntarily, with our honestly-earned money, where we can put a provider of goods or services who does a lousy job out of business.

Hasta la Vista, Baby!

The political or plunder-driven system that we have now is going to put us all in the poor house, the nut house, prison or an early grave…

Freedom Works!

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men together in a society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it.”

- Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

 

 

Originally published in Liberty For All May 24, 2007.

 

Donna Walker Mancini is a columnist for Liberty For All. Find out more about Donna at www.myspace.com/donna4freedom.

by Rhys M. Blavier

I did alot of driving this last week-end, alot. This gave me a great deal of time to think and process recent experiences. One conclusion that I did arrive at is that if a group of people gather together for a common cause (other than masturbation) and then spend their day in a mutual masturbation circle jerk they will have accomplished nothing.

On Saturday, I went to a Libertarian gathering which seemed to be more about libertarians telling themselves how successful they have been at furthering their cause even if they haven’t been able to actually get anyone elected to a significant office. There were no strategies or concrete ideas for getting anyone elected or for spreading the libertarian idea to a wider audience. While I met some good people, I found that the main value for me to have made the trip was in observing and listening to the others there. What I did not hear were any words which spoke of libertarianism as being about anything except “me”. One speaker even lived up to the cliché view of what current libertarians are when she spoke about reading Ayn Rand and realizing that caring about others or helping to make the world a better place has no value.

On Sunday, I drove to my old home town to help some friends do some work on a house. This house has been a special place for a long time. In 1972, a group of college friends found a place to live in off-campus. During the 70s, it was pretty much a commune for the local science fiction group. For probably 15 years it was home to a rotating group but the house was always there for us. For most of the last 20 years, it has been the permanent home to a few of the gang but the house has remained a constant in the lives of many. I moved away and moved on with my life but 17 years later I came back and the group still gathered at the house on regular annual times. I have never lived there or even spent a night there but when the message went out that there would be a work day on the house, I was there. I gained nothing, at least in objectivist terms, by helping out but it was a small gesture of thanks for what the house and the people who have lived there have meant to me.

The stark contrast between how the two days were spent was startling. A second conclusion I arrived at is that I think that there is more to be gained by working together to build a better world around us than there is from seeing the world as a place where it is ok for the strong to prey on the weak. The week-end reinforced what libertarianism meant to me when I was first attracted to the movement.

30-years ago, I had the profound honor of hearing a man named Ed Clark speak at Texas A&M University, courtesy of the Memorial Student Center’s Political Forum committee. Rudder Theater was full that night. There were many there who were, like me at age 20, preparing to vote in our first Presidential election (and for me, my first government election as I was briefly living in the United Kingdom in 1978 - 79). This man was the candidate for a new political party, and was that Party’s first candidate to be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Libertarian movement and idea was getting some national attention because of how “radical” and fresh it was. They had a vision of a limited government which would combine the best facets of conservative fiscal policies with progressive social policies. In a radio interview, Clark described Libertarianism as “low-tax liberalism”. Hearing him speak in person was a remarkable experience for me. Not only were his ideas progressive and forward-thinking, they were inclusive and logical.

To this day, I still call myself an Ed Clark Libertarian. Unfortunately, the Party pushed Ed Clark and his liberal / moderate wing out of the Party in 1984. If you ask people today what a Libertarian is, most of what you will hear are descriptions of a radical, conservative, neo-Republican lunatic fringe group. In 1980, it looked like the Libertarian Party might, one day, have a legitimate influence on American government. Coming up on 2010, it looks like we have crawled beyond the fringe to create our own unique brand of American political lunacy, on a par with the Anti-Masonic “Know Nothing” Party of the 1800s. With this in mind, I want to make a modest proposal to all of those who hate government, despise paying any taxes, want to “be off of the grid” and want to be left completely alone by every government.

We will GIVE you a 5,000 square-mile plot of land in Alaska. Not enough? How about 10,000 square miles? We will set aside that land and will legally declare it to be independent of the United States of America or of any other nation of the world. It will be free land on which you can settle and create your own society with a complete absence of government. You will not be subject to any law or be a part of America in any way… no taxes, no military service, and no government interference of any kind. We will also shoulder the costs to relocate anyone who wants to leave the United States to participate in this experiment. This will be a one-way, one-time ticket. We will take all of you to the border of your new homeland and let you enter it freely and of you own volition. Further, we will assume all of your debts, (up to, say, $25,000). If your debts are greater than that, so what? You will be moving to a place where you will be free from debt collectors. What will your credit score matter up there? We will arrange for the sale of your American property, both the free you from the burden and to help pay for the costs which The United States will incur on your behalf so that you will not be beholden to any other person or nation. In short, we will do everything necessary to help you sever all ties between you and the United States. We will give you what you are asking for in its entirety. You can be completely free from any and all government control or responsibility. By doing this for you, however, there would be a lot of changes that you would need to be aware of.

Remember, infrastructure is created by governments. There will no roads, electricity, water, sanitation, waste removal, hospitals, medical care, medicines, schools, postal service, police or fire departments, judiciary, defense, phones, internet or any other public “improvements” other than what you will be able to create for yourselves. In your new haven, there will be no government, no law, no order, and no society which you do not create for yourself.

We understand that you don’t like anything that is “tainted” by being provided to the general public, and / or bought or created through the use of “Federal Reserve Notes” (and yes, this week-end I heard someone talking about their new business and saying that they would not accept “Federal Reserve Notes”). So you will not be allowed to take any United States currency with you because you will not, of course, need it. You will not be allowed to incur any additional debt through credit so, in preparation for your move, you will be limited to dealing on a cash only basis. If you want to convert it all to gold or silver or gumdrops, you can, but remember, you will have to carry everything you will take in with you. I assume your economy would be based on the barter system. I will be curious, though, about what you will be able to barter with to get AT&T to provide you with communications capabilities, as one example.

Your American citizenship will be permanently revoked, as will those of any of your families, dependents, and friends who join you. As such, you can never again vote in any American election. You can never again enter the United States without proper documentation and / or visas. If you try, you will be subject to being arrested and deported back to your homeland, the same as any other illegal alien, you know, like Mexicans. You will never again receive any government payments, benefits, healthcare (federal or military) or assistance which would “force” you to possess any documentation, utilize our immoral currency or rely in any way on the government which you hate so much. This means that you will never receive any social security payments, Medicare, retirement funds, insurance payments, not even the annual payout made to citizens of Alaska because, of course, you will be citizens of your own non-nation. Oh, and about that land, you will each be able to possess as much of it as you can take and hold onto. You will have the absolute freedom to make your land your own BUT you will not, of course, be given any actual legal title to the land because to give you such title would require a legal and judicial system… and you wouldn’t want that either, would you, because they are also creations of government.

While I suppose that we could allow you to take in a suitcase of your own clothes (whatever you can carry), to fully honor your John Galt desires, we would not allow you to take any tools or other products created by our industrial mass production system. You see, we would want to respect your wishes to not be tainted by anything as ignoble as having been purchased with “Federal Reserve Notes”. Maybe we could provide some of you with forges but how you would carry them into your new nation without tools or carts made by tools that you have made for yourself, I don’t know. Even if I had the answer to that, though, you wouldn’t want to know it because you want be pure, untainted and left entirely to your own devices. Each of you, after all, are John Galt.

Of course, you would be completely landlocked by the United States but that, again, would only be out of respect for your demands for complete independence and your wishes to have no “foreign entanglements”. We would thus ensure that you would be free of the temptation and taint of dealing with other nations. Y0u will also, not be able to have membership in, nor the support of the United Nations, because it is an “evil” institution. No, you will be completely and entirely free. You will be given your own country and cut off from any influence, hindrance, or assistance from anyone outside of your own borders. Imagine if “Escape from New York” was about turning Manhattan into a self-contained country instead of a prison… but without all of the inconvenient reminders of civilization and development like buildings and roads. We will give you all of it. All you would have to do is give up everything else… oh, and allow those of us who do not believe as you do, those of us who do not share your vision of an anarchist “Heaven on Earth”, free to carry on our ridiculous desire to actually improve the society that we are part of. You will all agree to leave us alone in this immoral world which we believe can be improved. We leave you alone and you leave us alone… for ever (or until you all die off). Do we have a deal?

Now, for those of us who are left when the dust of the mass migration settles, let’s work together to figure out how to make the government we do have better. Let us create a fair and equitable tax system. Let us work on the problem of creating a society which benefits all of the people. Remember, political and philosophical extremes create unworkable absolutes. Some of us believe that the only way to make the system better is by working within it. We can have less government, lower taxes, and a beneficial society. All we have to do is be willing to work for it. I, for one, will not abandon my fellow man. Wanting a limited government does not mean that I reject the idea and value of government altogether. I believe in government and I believe that it can be improved. Remember, we get the government that we deserve. In a free society government is the creation and responsibility of a free people. If our government does not work properly, it is our fault for not caring enough to figure out how to make it better. It is also our responsibility to make government work for the people it serves, not be served by the people who work under its system. I am willing to stay here and do what I am capable of doing to make it better for EVERYONE… even those who don’t believe as I do. How many of you out there will help me?  Can we work together to create a practical, rational and realistic idea of Libertarianism and, from there, a practical, rational and realistic idea of libertarian anarchy which can be “sold” to those outside of our movements?  I think that we can and I, for one, am ready to start trying.

 

© Copyright 2009 Rhys M. Blavier

 

Rhys Blavier’s passion is studying government, politics and The Constitution from an historical analysis perspective and then imagining how government can be changed to better serve its people.  He also believes that government should serve all of its people rather than just corporations and the wealthy. His personal motto is “Truth, Justice, and Honor… But Above All Honor” because, he says, you can have truth without justice or honor, you can have justice without truth or honor, but you cannot have honor without truth and justice. He also believes that there is nothing so sacred or controversial that it cannot be questioned and/or laughed at.

by Sheila Dean

Public-private partnerships are known for behavior we compare to vultures. Scavenging birds circling your tax payout to contract goods and services that may, or may not, directly benefit you.

In the following example, the identity industry has the most to gain from mandating national identity standards to pursue life normally. Basic standards for a nationalized ID card are a far cry from what some of these corporations urge our government to endorse: massive database systems, biometric face prints, RFID, DNA laminates and now fingerprints in order to secure legal working status.

Fingerprinting is one solution proposed to curb illegal immigration. There have been recent murmurs on Capitol Hill, that NY Senator Chuck Schumer has got a walking agenda for the biometrics industry based on immigration reform. He has plans to propel legislation requiring everyone to submit copies of their fingerprints in order to have the right to work in the United States.

Charles Schumer said the following during a summer floor speech:

 “There is only one way to really get a system that will stop illegal immigration and stop employers from hiring, and that is by creating a biometric-based Federal employment verification system that will give both employers and employees the peace of mind that employment relationships are both lawful and proper. It will also give the American people the same peace of mind. This system will be our most important asset in dramatically reducing the number of illegal aliens who are able to live and work in the United States.

…I am eager to enact comprehensive reform with a strong, tough employer verification system.”

We disagree with Schumer. Erecting fingerprint standards as a gate to one’s right to work does not lend peace of mind for those with concerns about privacy.

We believe Schumer’s recent motivation to act on universal fingerprinting may have something to do with standards identity industry corporations set themselves. They propel their agenda onto Congressional leaders with a soft spot for certain lobbyists.

 

Sheila Dean is the blog editor for BeatTheChip.org and an organizer for the 5-11 Campaign, a single issue advocacy campaign opposed to Real ID. She also hosts & produces Waking Up Orwell, a weekly online radio magazine spotlighting privacy, technology and civil liberty.

by Brian Irving

Just as predictable as the media’s “gotcha” coverage whenever a politician gets caught cheating or stealing is the inevitable call by political reform groups for more laws to prevent such abuse in the future and for “better” ways of financing campaigns. They ignore warning from our nations Founders’ who understood that the more corrupt a State the more it legislates.

More laws aren’t the answer to corruption because most of our current elected “leaders” bend, twist or simply ignore the law whenever it suits them. Witness all the “I don’t recall” and “I can’t remember” responses during the recent State Board of Elections hearing, or Governor Perdue’s response to the court-ordered release of convicts.

It’s pointless - and disingenuous - however to propose that forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns they don’t agree with will promote honesty. Compelling anyone to pay for something they oppose is not just dishonest and corrupt, it is immoral.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical,” as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Corruption stems not from lobbyists money but from taxpayer money. As long as government isn’t limited in what it can spend your money on there will always be people who will find a way to get the politicians to spend it on them.

Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” The corollary to this is that without power there can be no corruption for the politician has nothing to sell.

The absolute corruption of absolute power is evident in North Carolina government. Taxpayer-funded elections would only further strengthen the absolute power of the Democrat-Republican duopoly that wields on iron grip on state government by manipulating the law to favor supporters, reward cronies and thwart any third party or independent candidate who challenges that control.

Government is no longer about protecting individual liberty and promoting personal responsibility, it’s about “what’s in it for me” and “how much can I get.”

The framers of our nation’s Constitution understood that power corrupts, which is why they set up a government with specific and limited powers. As James Madison put it, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Modern political satirist P.J. O’Rouke put it another way: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

If you reduce government power and restore the concept of limited government our nation was founded on, you eliminate the opportunity for corruption. Of course, the major party duopoly is not interested in reducing their power. That is why North Carolina has the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation.

Any non-Demopublican or independent candidate must collect 80,000 or more signatures to qualify for the ballot. That takes time and money. Once they have climbed that mountain they can start running a campaign. That is, if they have not exhausted all their volunteers, resources and energy just getting to the starting line. It’s like asking an athlete to run a marathon before entering a 100 meter race.

Real campaign finance reform will begin at the ballot box when Libertarians, Greens, Constitution and independent candidates can challenge the two-party state in a race without first having to have run a marathon.

 

North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections is a non-partisan state Political Action Committee dedicated to free, equal and proper elections in a state that has a history of restrictive ballot access laws.

Brian Irving is a board member and press secretary for North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections. The retired U.S. Air Force captain lives in Cary.

by Lady Liberty

In George Orwell’s classic “1984,” Big Brother was the personification of Big Government. He was always there to protect citizens and to steer them in the “right” direction “for their own good.” To maintain the status quo (i.e. government as the ultimate authority), Orwell’s Big Brother did everything from rewriting history and redefining language to engaging in constant prophylactic surveillance of citizens on the streets and in their homes.

In the world of “1984,” thorough records were kept on each and every citizen, and paranoia and fear alone ensured that Big Brother’s control was absolute even when his technological eyes might randomly be turned elsewhere. Those few who dared rail against such things were re-educated using tools ranging from mere propaganda to outright torture.

Is it any wonder, then, that more and more people are talking about Big Brother these days?

If redefining words or rewriting history is “Big Brotherish,” we must take note of recent developments.

The manipulation of history isn’t new, nor is it as difficult as you might think when you consider that history is typically written by the victor. A prime example is the virtual hero worship of President Abraham Lincoln who is credited with ending slavery in America. The reality of Lincoln’s actions leading up to and during the Civil War aren’t quite so glorious.

Lincoln gave no consideration to the Tenth Amendment implications of secession and instead permitted the escalation of the bitter differences between the states into a shooting war. Lincoln was not an abolitionist prior to gaining the presidency; he didn’t speak out against slavery but rather condemned the threats of secession. He could have issued his infamous Emancipation Proclamation at any time; instead, he waited until it fit his military strategies thinking less about ending slavery than about gaining allies behind the lines. He suspended habeas corpus, and acted ruthlessly in his single-minded determination to keep the union together.

In fairness, Lincoln did hold the union together, and though the war and its aftermath were terrible things - particularly in the south - it’s difficult to imagine what might have happened had he not made the choices he did. But to honor him for ending slavery which was really ended more by default than any desire of Lincoln’s is more than a little revisionist!

The Civil War was, of course, a significant conflict and it suited the interests of many to depict all that happened in a certain way. But over the course of the ensuing years, revisions seem to be made for more…well, personal reasons.

Former President Bill Clinton once wondered aloud what the definition of “if” might be, suggesting that if “if” were defined in a certain way, he’d committed no wrongs when he engaged in a sexual relationship with an intern. Then he bombed an aspirin factory which, at the time, we were told was in some way a danger to American interests. You’ll forgive me if I find it difficult to believe that US intelligence operatives are so easily led astray as to think an aspirin factory made, say, munitions.

Democrat candidate for president Senator John Kerry became infamous for telling Americans that he’d voted for a measure before he voted against it. Later, it was also made public that Kerry’s much-vaunted three Purple Hearts had been awarded for negligible wounds (in one case it was reported he’d demanded the medal for a minor cut on his finger). Kerry’s after-the-fact explanations apparently weren’t accepted by many voters, but there’s little doubt that plenty of them swallowed the revised definitions and histories whole.

Most recently, while Iraq’s deposed president was rightly vilified for having used (and perhaps being willing to use again) chemical weapons, the US itself admitted it had used white phosphorous in the Iraqi conflict. American authorities had defined WP as a chemical weapon years before. In fairness, some dispute that designation is correct, referring to such rounds as “incendiary” and “conventional” instead, as well as noting that chemical designations are mentioned in Pentagon documents but are not in any treaties signed by the US (while strictly speaking, that may be true, Iraqi authorities are now accusing the US of the possible breaking of an international treaty forbidding the use of WP or napalm on civilians). Condemning one government out of one side of your mouth while defending another’s comparable action is doublespeak at its finest.

It’s not just politicians manipulating political matters. Academics with an agenda and members of the major media on a mission contribute their fair share to the mix. A professor of history at Emory University by the name of Michael Bellesiles wrote a book entitled “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.” In that book, Bellesiles delighted anti-gun advocates everywhere by presenting the results of research that definitively showed Americans historically owned far fewer guns than previously thought, and that the so-called “gun culture” was a modern and undesirable phenomenon.

Unfortunately for those to whom Bellesiles became an instant hero, his research was found to be fraudulent. Information he claimed to have reviewed didn’t exist; his own notes were mysteriously lost. Eventually, the professor resigned his position in disgrace, but not before he’d spent some very heady time as a media darling, and certainly not before thousands were misled by Bellesiles fabrications. There are doubtless still people today who believe Bellesiles’ discredited contentions thanks to the very public and frequent repetition of his claims.

The Pentagon headed in the opposite direction when it was accused of trying to manipulate public opinion by refusing to release photos of the caskets containing the bodies of soldiers killed in the War on Terror. The Pentagon insisted its refusal was a matter of respect for the dead; critics claimed officials were trying to hide reminders of the true cost of war from the American public. Eventually, the Pentagon reluctantly released a number of photos. Given that the photos showed how much respect and honor was accorded each of the flag draped caskets, it’s hard to believe the critics didn’t have a point.

Fortunately, media manipulation doesn’t always work because many Americans have begun to realize just what’s happening. According to the Media Research Center’s Media Bias Basics page, most reporters consider themselves liberals, and most Americans know it. Of course, that didn’t stop Dan Rather whose credibility took a serious fall when documentation he used in a story proved to be suspect (for the record, Rather still denies any wrongdoing despite the fact that some involved in the debacle lost their jobs over it).

Unfortunately, media manipulation can work despite our frequent skepticism. Repetition, especially from the mouths of those we view as authority figures, can convince plenty of people that what they’re hearing is entirely true whether it is or not. The case in point is the much-vaunted DARE program. Despite a shortage of evidence showing that it works - in fact, a few studies have shown that it actually causes more problems than it prevents - local police forces all over the country continue to push the program. Although it’s tempting to read more into it than there is, it’s only fair to point out that one of the key points of the DARE program involves indoctrinating young kids to tell on their parents.

Sadly, the government has other options than media, not the least of which is simply ignoring the Constitution and passing a law. The PATRIOT Act is an example of ignoring the Constitution, of course, but the ultimate in Big Brotherliness is exemplified by the more recent REAL ID Act. Ostensibly an immigration measure and a terrorism-prevention tactic, the reality of REAL ID is a government busybody’s wet dream. Making matters even worse is the fact that such a plan was in the works long before the 9/11 terror attacks.

If you think REAL ID is bad - and it is - the ultimate in Big Brother is on the immediate horizon. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips are currently being used in more and more venues as a method of inventory control. It’s relatively inexpensive, and very efficient; no wonder companies on both ends of the supply chain are excited! The problem, however, is all of the other things that RFID will revolutionize. Forget about the security cameras that are popping up everywhere, and start worrying about tracking devices we’ll carry with us - or even in us - in the near future.

Some people have already received implanted chips bearing medical or identifying information on them. Some clothing manufacturers plan to put chips into tags allowing inventory control, prices changes, and more. While these things might also sound like a good idea, if big business and big government get their way, we’ll each of us be tracked at all times. Think that’s paranoia? So did I until I read a book called “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.” Not only are these things already being proposed patents have been granted and implementation is being discussed. It’s not paranoia when they really are out to get you…

I find it difficult to imagine that anyone reading Orwell’s masterpiece put the book down and said, “Wow. Wouldn’t it be great if we all could live like that?” But if we don’t consider all of the aspects of double-edged technologies, and if we get too caught up in convenience or too scared to accept less than the most intrusive security, that’s the world we’re going to live in. If we accept at face value anything we’re told merely by virtue of an authority figure saying it, we’ve already lost the world we had. And if we refuse to work to see to it that the worst of these things don’t happen, then maybe that’s the world we deserve.

by Kevin Tuma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Alan Gottlieb and Joe Waldron

Writing in the Boston Globe, reporter Susan Milligan noted that the Democratic Party, “long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.”

Later, she notes that a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence “acknowledged that gun control supporters have done a poor job of framing their arguments in ways that do not make lawful hunters fear their lifestyle is under attack.”

Milligan’s well-written piece, unfortunately, did not explain that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, nor did it say that Democrats are changing their opinions about guns and the people who own them. Not surprisingly, gun rights activists who frequent KeepAndBearArms.com - the busiest firearms rights website in the country - were quick to pick up on this. Wrote one correspondent: “It’s always ’seeking to improve the chances of its candidates’. Notice exactly whom that serves…OK, contrast it to ’seeking to better understand their constituents’ needs’.”

Throughout the Globe article, there were repeated references to hunters, but the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners in this country aren’t hunters. They own firearms for personal protection, competition, recreational shooting and collecting. Even hunters own guns for other purposes. Many gun owners simply like to tinker with firearms the way car buffs spend hours under the hoods of their high-performance sports cars.

Democrats will not acknowledge that they really aren’t changing their underlying philosophy about guns, they’re simply trying to repackage the message to make it less offensive to the tens of millions of Americans upon whose gun rights they want to infringe. They stopped calling it “gun control” and now call it “gun safety,” but the product is always the same: Some new scheme that ratchets down on a citizen’s right to own a gun. Sometimes, as reported by the St. Petersburg Times recently, they shy away from the gun issue altogether, terrified to admit that theirs is the party of restrictive gun laws.

Brady spokesman Peter Hamm said gun owners are wary that efforts to ban so-called “assault weapons” are actually aimed at taking someone’s hunting rifle. No, that’s not the problem, Peter. The problem is that semi-automatic rifles and shotguns used by hunters operate the same as the ugly black guns targeted by such bans. The problem is that Democrats treat the right to bear arms as a privilege, subject to myriad regulations and the whims of Congress and state legislatures.

Gun owners understand this is about a Constitutional right, equal in standing to the right of free speech, press and religion. It is no less important than the right to legal counsel for those accused of crimes, or the right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The firearms community knows that if Congress can ban one kind of firearm, it will be easier to ban other kinds of guns later on.

Democrats just don’t get it. Gun owners aren’t stupid. They know what’s at stake. Gun owners are a rather independent lot. They value their liberty. They frame the issue as not being one about guns, but about control, of their property and their lives. And, they are right.

If Democrats really want to impress gun owners, they can stop pushing laws - and repeal those now on the books - that strip people of their gun rights for something foolish they may have done 30 years ago as a youth. They can restore funding to allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to once again conduct investigations to restore a person’s gun rights. They can oppose laws that allow police to seize someone’s firearms merely on “suspicion.” They can endorse a national concealed carry law. They can vote to overturn the Washington, D.C. gun ban.

But that’s not what Democrats want or believe in, and they know it. They just can’t bring themselves to admit it. Instead, they worry about how to reinvent themselves.

Chameleons do that, but gun owners understand that chameleons, no matter what they look like, are still reptiles.

 

Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Joe Waldron is executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

by Kevin Tuma

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

-Henry David Thoreau

An Open Letter to Ron Paul:

Mr. Paul, you have served the cause of individual liberty superbly, and honorably, in your role as the last living statesman remaining in the United States Congress.

You have recently gone on to score great rhetorical victories-and achieve much fame in the public eye-in the debates, where you have so adroitly told the world The Emperor Has No Clothes.

You have earned the respect of virtually every libertarian in America, as well as every true conservative.

You have served your country well, and, I might add, proudly represented the fine state of Texas. You have taken your oath of office seriously, in an age when other politicians have only chosen to serve the twin gods of Marx and Mammon.

I have one question for you, Mr. Paul, and it’s a very important question:

After your GOP presidential candidacy ends, because the neo-conservative elites–and their cronies in the media–push you out, in one manner or another, will you do one more great thing for the cause of Liberty?

Will you, in turn, announce that you are officially switching your party affiliation to the Libertarian Party?

Thereby helping this small, struggling Third Party land its first high-profile presidential candidate, its first sitting US Congressman—and giving the party a much-needed shot in the arm for future benefits from federal matching funds?

The reason the GOP bigwigs, and the elite classes who control them, have rushed to embrace Rudy Guliani is because that particular authoritarian, establishment liberal is the quintessence of a modern-day Republican. Modern-day GOP ‘conservatives’ are only distinguishable from Democrats by “virtue” of their lust for aggression, warfare, and bombs. In almost all other respects, the two parties are now fully synonymous, as you well know.

You have already aroused the anger of the neo-con GOP establishment by challenging its police state and its imperial war mania. They will, in all likelihood, attempt to undermine your seat on Capitol Hill, to take you out of the equation. They did so with sitting Senator Bob Smith, after he caused the party much embarrassment in 1999. They abandoned Alan Schlesinger when he ran against Democrat Neo-con lackey Joseph Lieberman. They will quite likely make some sort of snide, underhanded move to put you out to pasture in the near future, no matter how loyal your past affiliation to the old school GOP platform. The neo-cons expect more than just an “R” after your name–they demand fealty to their military-industrialist Bush throne. Instead, you have been speaking inconvenient truth to power—lecturing pro-war candidates about blowback, protesting the status quo, and generally reminding them all of their complete apostasy to the Constitution.

 
 

The elephants will not forget. I can assure you they are currently kicking themselves for not having given you the bum’s rush years ago. And they are almost certainly planning to try it in the near future, when your next bid for re-election begins.

Why not steal their thunder, and declare yourself, now and always, to be officially a Libertarian?

The Libertarian movement needs you, Mr. Paul. Badly. Your candidacy has already proven that–while there are still a great many real conservatives extant in the public grassroots—in the circles of power, there are no “real Republicans left”.
The Libertarian Party is not perfect. It stretches too diffuse a big tent between anarchists and paleoconservatives. (Anarcho-capitalists, while having many intriguing ideas, don’t belong in a political party, any more than pacifists belong in an Army.) The Libertarian Party, historically, has also been too hung up on domestic social issues, like the War on Drugs, and not focused enough on encroachments in more serious areas. Especially since 9-11, the party has been much too soft-spoken toward the Executive Branch, and too lax toward the state’s grotesquely unconstitutional anti-terror acts.

However, the Libertarian Party is unique in the sense that (a) It is benign, seeking out no monsters to destroy; (b) It recognizably exists on the radar screen of the body politic; and (c) It is classically liberal (or paleoconservative—whichever terminology one prefers).  These qualities make the Libertarian Party a good home for a strong leader motivated toward the cause of Liberty.

There is only one true conservative, and one libertarian, left in Washington in the public eye.  That man is Ron Paul. Whenever you leave Washington, Mr. Paul, for whatever reason, there will be no more conservatives left–only a multitude of Neo-con socialists who treat the Constitution as toilet paper. Hence, when you leave our nation’s capital, constitutionalist conservatism will be dead and officially extinct.

Unless you ignite a powerful political brushfire in your wake. One capable of storming the barricades via the Ballot Box. Become a Libertarian Congressman, and run again in Fall 2008 as the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate.

It is time to shatter the hegemony of the Two Party system. Of all the evils facing America today, there is none that supercedes the corruption of the Two Party system. With only a simple duality of political parties, it is simply too easy for ambitious men to overthrow and poison the waters of an open system. Extreme voter apathy–caused by the ludicrousness of two very similar football teams forever playing one another in the Super Bowl of politics–just exacerbates the problem, by increasing the public’s ignorance, and thereby tolerance, of government intrusion.

If America is to have any hope of surviving its current constitutional crises, Americans who believe in the Bill of Rights and individual responsibility need a party they can support. And the disillusioned youth of America, cynical almost to the point of misery, need a party that they can believe in.

Mr. Paul, you are the long-needed galvanizing public figure who could bring that party to life. By abandoning the GOP when the spotlight shines the hottest, you could energize a potent political movement, and jam the monkey wrench of an effective Third Party into the greased wheels of America’s corrupted, decadent political system.

It’s just the sort of move I believe Dr. Franklin would make.

The cause of freedom does not have to advance only by means of pyrrhic victories, martyrs, or Quixotism. Sometimes, expediency is the best course…especially when it comes at exactly the right time.

Strike the root, Mr. Paul. Millions of libertarians stand ready to follow you.

 

 

Originally published at Liberty For All May 28, 2007.

 

Kevin Tuma is a political cartoonist and an Internet columnist.

His work has been published at Ether Zone, LibertyForAll.Net, Sierra Times, The American Conservative, and regularly appears in the pages of Regulation-The CATO Review of Business and Government.

Kevin Tuma may be contacted at kevintuma@yahoo.com.

by GOA staff

We have reached the point in the battle over ObamaCare which will decide whether we win or lose.

The details of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill are in, and they can be seen at here.

The bill (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages long and weighs over 20 pounds.  And even though a search of the bill will not reveal the word “gun” or “firearm,” that doesn’t mean the bill is neutral in regard to your Second Amendment rights.

For starters, this bill will — like all the ObamaCare versions before it — most likely result in all of your gun-related health data being dumped into a government database that was created in the stimulus bill.  This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned… or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

The bill will also create special “wellness” programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles — and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that “no guns” is somehow healthier.

The bill purports to cut Medicare by $500 billion — in a move which will result in massive rationing for seniors, while ultimately adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

The bill will mandate that you purchase expensive government-approved policies and will (according to some studies) triple your insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements.

Of course, this all means that you will have less money to spend on pursuing your real passions — like providing for your family and purchasing guns and ammunition!

ACTION:  Write your Representative.  Tell him or her to oppose this bill.  Don’t be discouraged by reports in the liberal media which have tried to tell us — since January — that this battle is hopeless.  We can win, and, with your help, we will win.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send a pre-written message to your Representative.

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Representative:

The Pelosi health care bill, sponsored by Rep. Dingell, has now been made public.

For starters, this bill will — like all the ObamaCare versions before it — most likely result in all gun-related health data being dumped into the government database that was created in the stimulus bill.  This includes any firearms-related information that doctors have gleaned… or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude a person from owning firearms.

The bill will also create special “wellness” programs in section 112 which would allow the government to offer lower premiums to employers who bribe their employees to live healthier lifestyles — and nothing within the bill would prohibit rabidly anti-gun HHS Secretary Sebelius from decreeing that “no guns” is somehow healthier.

The bill will, according to some studies, triple insurance premiums through taxes and government requirements — while mandating that Americans purchase expensive government-approved policies.

But, perhaps most instructively, there is this:  Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid promised to produce a $900 billion bill which would not add “one dime” to the deficit.

This bill will cost $1.3 trillion and will increase the deficit by AT LEAST $150 billion.

The only way Pelosi or the Congressional Budget Office can continue to pretend to the contrary is to take $247 billion in bill costs and slip them through in separate legislation.

In short, this process is fraudulent.

I have many issues with this legislation.  And so I urge you to oppose this legislation and keep the government from inserting itself even more into my everyday life.

Sincerely,

——————————————————————————–

 

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

by CCRKBA staff

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today condemned Washington CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli for capitalizing on the murder of Seattle Police Officer Timothy Q. Brenton by announcing a plan to lobby for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” using Brenton’s killing as a launch pad.

“Over the years,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “I have watched as anti-gun extremists rushed to exploit violent crimes to push their agenda, but this case, as reported by Nina Shapiro in the Seattle Weekly, signals a despicable new low in behavior. Fascitelli is essentially dancing in Officer Brenton’s blood, and he ought to be ashamed.”

According to the Seattle Weekly article, “Even though police say they have not yet determined what type of weapon was used, Ralph Fascitelli, president of Washington CeaseFire, says he plans to cite Brenton’s murder when lobbying for the bill in the next legislative session.”

“A police officer has been murdered and the killer or killers remain at large,” Gottlieb said. “A police department is mourning, and a family is grieving. A memorial service has not even been held. This is hardly the time to be exploiting Saturday’s cowardly crime to advance a political agenda.

“If we are to judge any movement by its leadership,” he observed, “the citizens of Washington State and especially its state legislators should be outraged at the callousness now being exhibited by Washington CeaseFire. Frankly, I am appalled.

“The Citizens Committee and Second Amendment Foundation extend their sincere sympathy to Officer Brenton’s family and to the Seattle Police Department,” Gottlieb stated.

 

Copyright © 2009 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
E-mail: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org

by Ari Armstrong

What was the total cost of your last doctor’s visit? If you’re like most Americans, you have no idea, because somebody else is paying most of the bill.

Patients directly pay only about 14 percent of medical bills. The rest comes from insurance or government. This is the fundamental reason why health costs have skyrocketed. Patients have little incentive to monitor costs and look for good value, and sending routine expenses through third parties adds paperwork and administrative costs.

When somebody else pays the bill, many doctors think of their client as the insurer, not the patient. Likewise, insurers cater to employers, not you. The patient often gets cut out of the medical loop.

While Barack Obama pretends that insurance companies are at fault, the reality is that federal tax distortions drove insurance into the expensive, non-portable, employer-paid system. This tax distortion explains why Americans tend to use insurance as pre-paid health care, rather than to cover unexpected, high-cost treatments.

Even as Obama demonizes the insurance companies that federal policies have coddled and favored, his policies expand political favoritism. Obama wants to force you to buy politically controlled insurance, on penalty of huge fines.

If you want to control your health care, you should advocate free- market reforms that expand medical competition, not more political controls. The experiences my wife and I have had with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and high-deductible insurance illustrate the benefits.

We pay $148 per month for high-deductible insurance. We buy it directly, not through an employer. It’s not ideal insurance, but it’s as good as we could find in today’s politically stifled market. We save money for routine care through our pre-tax HSA.

I select my doctor based on who best serves my needs, not who my insurance company happens to like.

My doctor, who came highly recommended by friends, gives me a 20 percent discount for paying at the time of service. I paid $128 for my recent physical, an outstanding value for her high level of care.

Not only does my doctor knowledgeably answer all my questions, she’s also sensitive to my budget. For example, she wanted to see blood tests for my cholesterol readings and glucose levels. Rather than order up expensive tests, she looked at my cholesterol readings I got at no cost at King Soopers just weeks ago. She suggested that I get follow-up blood work in three months.

That is not to say that cheaper is always better. In 2006 I paid my Boulder dentist $925 for a gold onlay for a back molar. I could have paid somebody else less. But I love and trust my dentist, and his onlay is a work of art worth every penny.

In health care, as in much of life, you get what you pay for. If you advocate taxes and insurance premiums for politically controlled medicine, don’t act surprised when politicians and their insurance stooges call the shots. If you want quality care from your doctor, then fight for your right to pay your doctor directly for the routine care you receive.

 

The article originally appeared in the Colorado Daily, October 1st, 2009.

by Rhys M. Blavier

There are many archetypes for the father figure. The most disturbing one is probably the domineering task master whose “love” comes at a cost that can never be paid. That cost is absolute deference, obedience, compliance and respect and, to him, deference, obedience and compliance are the proof of proper respect.

He finds humor in ‘jokes’ which categorize and belittle others because they support his own view of his natural superiority over “lesser” (i.e. - different) people. This archetype believes that his children also begin their life owing him a debt that can never be paid back, life itself. As such, his children are his property; chattel that he has paid for. He sees himself as all-knowing, all-powerful and always right. He is focused on rules and control. He will not tolerate backtalk or even being questioned. He not only wants to instill fear in his children, he wants them to fear that, even if they somehow do something that he sees as wrong without his knowing about it, they will still face retribution and punishment for eternity from a vengeful God; the same God who gives the father-figure his authority by giving him children.

This father-figure believes that his right to have power over others is given to him directly by God; that his power and authority cannot be questioned or limited by anyone, and that few in the world are his equals. His God has also given him the ultimate power, the power to banish to the wilderness those who violate his given order. What he gives, he can (and will) take.

This archetype is what the Republican Party has become.

Like most political observers, I have watched with fascination the Republican Party’s rapid descent into madness throughout the course of the year. In fact, that breakdown has been so spectacular that even people who DON’T widely follow politics or news are aware of it, whether they recognize it or not. While I have heard much discussion of what they are doing, I have not, however, heard anyone pinpoint a single core cause of that breakdown. We have plenty of “what” being talked about but little to none of “why”. As I have spoken of before, people are focused on the “symptoms” of a disease without identifying the “disease” itself. Two recent incidences with my own brother gave me a clue about what that “disease” actually is. The core of the Republican Party is simply an authoritarian “father” who is mad that their “dependents” (the American People) aren’t respecting or listening to them anymore. They are angry because they have no control over their “children” and authoritarians THRIVE on being in control.

The Authoritarian Personality was a 1950 book written by UC-Berkeley psychologists Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford. In their book, they first described the “authoritarian personality” theory of personality. Their research lead them to the conclusion that this personality is developed by psychodynamic, childhood experiences which make them predisposed to follow the dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional values. They identified nine traits, which they hypothesized were clustered together as a result of those experiences, which identified this personality type:

*Anti-intraception
*Authoritarian Aggression
*Authoritarian Submission
*Conventionalism
*Destructiveness and Cynicism
*Exaggerated Concerns over Sexuality
*Power and “Toughness”
*Projectivity
*Stereotyping and Superstition.

In 1981, Canadian psychologist, Bob Altemeyer, gave us a refinement of the authoritarian personality theory, which he introduced as the concept of “right-wing authoritarianism”. Altemeyer found that only three of those nine traits correlated together:

*Authoritarian Aggression (a general aggressiveness directed against “deviants”, out-groups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.)

*Authoritarian Submission (a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.)

*Conventionalism (a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one’s society should also be required to adhere to these norms.)

The “right-wing” in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone’s politics, but rather to their psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authoritarian personality could have either conservative or liberal political views.

In his 1996 paper, The Authoritarian Specter, Altemeyer reported that his research indicated that right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that are the result of compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations. The RWA-scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist beliefs, religious orthodoxy, and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps. Altemeyer found that those who scored highly on the RWA-scale are likely to exhibit several common traits. These personalities tend to:

*Be Highly Nationalistic
*Have Conservative Economic Philosophies
*Not value Social Equality
*Oppose Abortion
*Oppose Gun Control
*Support Capital Punishment.

In role-playing situations, Altemeyer found that authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In his study, sixty-eight authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth’s future entitled the “Global Change Game”. While a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.

Research by D. J. Narby, B. L. Cutler & G. Moran (1993) found that authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than to personal freedom and diversity. For example, they are more willing to support the suspension or abolishment of constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights… at least where those guarantees protect others who they, themselves, have judged to be inferior. They are also more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals. Researches by J. Duckitt & B. Farre (1994) and by M.B. Goodman & B. Moradi (2008) found that people with high RWA scores report that they obtain personal satisfaction from punishing those who they perceive as criminals, and that they tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities, and homosexuals.

The modern Republican Party has been dominated by individuals who are not just authoritarian personalities; they are right-wing authoritarian personalities. Since the period following the War Between the States, they have moved steadily away from being a populist party to being a party focused on being able to exert their will on others, even while in the minority. Money, power and political manipulations made them a corrupt party of “elites” who viewed themselves as being superior to those they “governed”. They used demagoguery as a strategy to gain political power by appealing to the public’s prejudices, emotions, fears, and expectations. They mastered the use of impassioned rhetoric, propaganda and abductive reasoning, often through the use of nationalistic, populist, moralist and / or religious themes.

The current schizophrenic behavior of the Republican Party began, in my opinion, with the almost worshipful attitude of the conservative and Christian far-right to their mythology of Ronald Reagan. They see him as their Moses, who was leading them to their conservative “Promised Land”. In 1994, this Promised Land seemed to be within sight with their takeover of both Houses of Congress. Suddenly, the Republican Party was filled with average, everyday people who not only viewed themselves as being elite, but also as being responsible for “fixing” what they saw as the broken soul of America. The big problem is that, by definition, average, everyday people cannot BE elite. This was the political equivalent of the common people of France deposing their nobility and establishing their “committees of the people” to rule instead. As happened in France, once they were in power, they also eventually turned on those among themselves who they did not see as supporting the orthodoxy or dogma of their revolution. Their equivalence was creating the label “Republican In Name Only”, or RINO. With that label they would work to purge their own ranks of those who were not “pure enough” in their belief in the “correct” orthodoxy, essentially removing the very real existence and accomplishments of the historical moderate and liberal wings of their party from their mythology.

Regardless of what the Republicans “promised” in their infamous Contract With America, once they gained the power and positions they believed were ordained for them, they moved to solidify their control over our government by making the Party (rather than the individual elected members) the dominant feature of American Government. They changed rules for determining committee chairs from being based on seniority to being based on how well members followed the dictates of the party. They collectivized their party to minimize the power of individual members and maximize the power of the party itself. Again, the similarities (in action, if not degree) to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are remarkable. At this point, they became “Daddy”, saying to America “Do what I tell you to do or I will punish you.”

Following in the footsteps of their mythology’s greatest human hero, Ronald Reagan (under whose administration, for example, federal funds and tax dollars were withheld from states which would not comply with federal demands for conformance on issues like drinking, drugs, speed limits, etc. - essentially blackmailing the states), the Republicans controlled Congress with a view to its own dominance, power, and control over the “misguided” states and the people who did not want to do what “Daddy” told or expected them to do. They also envisioned an America under their rule in perpetuity (Karl Roves infamous “permanent majority”). Regardless of their often espoused support of states’ rights (an idea which is not found in The Constitution, contrary to the beliefs of many), they only want the states to be independent of their federal government when the states are ruling as the Party wants them to. In all other cases, they believe that their obligation as the “rulers” of our federal government is to impose THEIR will upon the states when the states aren’t “competent enough” to agree with them.

Even with the 1995 Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, their first since 1955, they were still “impeded” in their movement towards creating the America they envisioned by having a moderate Democrat, Bill Clinton, as President. Thus, much of their effort was to limit, if not remove altogether, political resistance against their power, including their impeachment of Clinton. In 2000, however, all of their wet dreams seemed to be on the verge of coming true with elevation of George W. Bush to the Presidency. Not only did they get a majority in the House, once seated, on January 20, 2001, Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, turned an evenly split Senate into one with a majority controlled by the Republican members. During this period, there was, of course, no talk or consideration of working with the members from the Democratic Party and their ideal of bipartisanship was of the Democratic members doing what their Republican masters wanted them to do. This, of course, went so well that Republican Senator Jeffords (Vermont), holding the Senate seat that had been continuously held by Republicans for the longest period in American history (144 years), quit the party and became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats. This was the first time we, as a nation, got to see how the modern Republican Party would react to being challenged in its holding political dominance and absolute power. How many of us remember THAT little brouhaha?

Starting in 2003, the Republican Party did have complete control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress… and they had their eye on having the opportunity to also stack the Supreme Court with those who shared their vision of America. I won’t rehash what those of us who opposed Bush and the far-right conservatives believe about how he governed and what was done to damage The Constitution under their period of dominance. Suffice it to say that we welcomed the slight shift in power which gave the Democrats narrow control of both Houses of Congress a mere four years later. It was at this time that “Daddy” really started to go seriously insane. What happened in 2008, of course, drove “Daddy” completely over the edge of reason.

What I see now in the Republican Party is the equivalent of Cole Oyl, Olive Oyl’s father in the Popeye cartoons and movie, running around telling everyone “You owe me an apology!” The Republican Party has become politically impotent and its impotence has caused rage among the far-right wing of the Party. They are trying to find something, ANYTHING to latch onto to demonstrate to others that they aren’t impotent. Their quest, however, keeps getting more and more trivial, pedantic and ridiculous with each passing week. They are so blinded by their impotent rage that they are once again attacking those among their own ranks who question the power that they believe is their divine right by not ascribing to the “proper” orthodoxy, dogma and “tenets of faith” as the “true believers”. Like any angry, old authoritarian confronted with their impotence, they are searching for a political orgasm.

Yes, that is what I believe it comes down to… they can’t get themselves off politically. That is, in my opinion, the only explanation for their increasingly erratic and dangerous actions… impotent rage. They have a collective need to not only feel that they are vibrant and virile but also that they can reproduce. I believe that all sociological creations of Man (governments, clubs, businesses, etc.) can be viewed and understood by seeing them as living organisms. They all have the same needs and desires of a living organism and, as a living organism, the far-right Republicans see themselves being replaced by other organisms that do not come from their own seed; they suddenly see themselves as mortal and approaching an ignoble end. Unfortunately, there is no little blue pill that they can take to compensate for their “electile” dysfunction.

Like a once vibrant and dominant man reduced to wearing diapers and drooling; like an alpha-male pack animal who has lost his teeth, those members of the Republican party who are making ever greater fools of themselves are filled with rage against those who robbed them of what they see as their rightful place in American life. In their rage to reclaim their “rightful” place in society they will use any and every means at their disposal to destroy what they can’t have for themselves. If they can’t be in control of our country then they will reduce it to ashes so that there won’t be a country for anyone else to be in control off. It is an attitude that the world has seen before. That is the final lesson that “Daddy” has to teach his errant and ungrateful children… that it is easier to destroy a nation than it is to build one.

Vive’ la Revolution.

 

Rhys Blavier’s passion is studying government, politics and The Constitution from an historical analysis perspective and then imagining how government can be changed to better serve its people.  He also believes that government should serve all of its people rather than just corporations and the wealthy. His personal motto is “Truth, Justice, and Honor… But Above All Honor” because, he says, you can have truth without justice or honor, you can have justice without truth or honor, but you cannot have honor without truth and justice. He also believes that there is nothing so sacred or controversial that it cannot be questioned and/or laughed at.

by Tessa Rose

I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m an anarchist because I believe that every human being belongs to himself, and belongs to others only by choice. I’m an anarchist because I believe that violence is allowable only in defense of life, liberty, or property. I’m an anarchist because I believe that the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed. My political philosophy is probably stated best by this section of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

But you might wonder why, being an anarchist, I would use the words “legitimate government” and refer to a piece of the Declaration that mentions “government.” Isn’t anarchism the opposite, or the absence of government?

Well, yes and no. Anarchism is the absence of government as we know it, or government by a ruling class that claims the exclusive right to use aggressive force to achieve its ends, and claims the right to control everything and everybody within its “jurisdiction.”

But the term “government” can also be used to describe a set of rules and methods of enforcement that regulate some types of social relationships and are agreed upon by everyone to whom they apply. A government instituted by mutual consent to protect everyone’s rights is not a government-as-we-know-it; it is, in fact, well organized anarchy.

If your first thought is: “but the whole purpose of government and law is to force people to do things they don’t want to do and not do things they want to do,” then you have hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly the purpose of government-as-we-know-it, and it is by its very nature nonconsensual.

I reject the common belief that social order, peace, cooperation, organization, and beneficial collective actions are impossible without a ruling class specially endowed with the right to use aggressive violence. In fact, I believe that all these good things are much easier to achieve when aggressive violence is consistently shunned by everyone as a matter of principle.

I am not a starry-eyed utopian, either. I am an anarchist because I see both strength and weakness in human beings. Our strength is our intelligence, ingenuity, compassion, and ability to work together to achieve common goals. Our weakness is our desire to dominate others and promote ourselves at their expense. Given our nature, I believe it’s very dangerous to give one group of humans permission to use aggressive force to control another group of humans: This permission is like the Ring of Power in Lord of the Rings, of which Gandalf says:

“I would take this ring with the intention of doing good, but through me it would wield a power too terrible to imagine.”

Thousands of years of human history is testament to the truth of this, and we have but recently left the bloodiest century in the long, bloody, cruel history of mankind. Despite this, I dare to believe that humans, at heart, are becoming more humane. The horrors of the 20th century were not due to the degeneration of human nature, but to the addition of advanced technologies to the ancient arts of slaughter and domination.

I am an anarchist because I love my fellow man. And how does one express love toward six billion human beings? I cannot hug them all. I cannot feed them all. I can affect only a small fraction of humanity in a positive way. But for everyone else on the planet, the best thing I can do is to respect them and leave them in peace. I can simply refrain from demanding and advocating the enslavement, imprisonment, or death of others for my benefit. I can personally grant everyone their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without any interference from me.

That’s why I’m an anarchist.

 

Tessa Rose is the wife of tax heretic/anarchist writer Larken Rose, with whom many of you are familiar. Find out more about Tessa at http://tessa-rose.blogspot.com/.