The Philosophy of Liberty

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 04 Aug 2002 12:00:00 GMT

Claire Wolfe at Backwoods Home Magazine - Are you ready for liberty in your lifetime? - Claire covers the Free State Project. They've got 500 people signed up so far. When they reach 5,000, they'll pick a state. When they reach 20,000, they'll all move there and set about changing that state's politics to favor liberty. I wish them luck.

Ken Schooland and Lux Lucre at the International Society for Individual Liberty - The Philosophy of Liberty "is based on the principle of self-ownership." Flash animation brilliantly illustrating libertarian philosphy. Based on Mr. Schooland's book, The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible. [Mrs. K]

MoPaul at The Libertarian Enterprise - TIPS - Hehe.

Jeremy Lott at Reason - Cool Libertarians - Mr. Lott's last "Editor's Links" column of his internship at Reason. Contrasts right- and left-wingers with libertarians. Guess who wins. [tle]

Sam Grove at The Libertarian Enterprise - Letter to the editor - good short screed on the libertarian effort. [tle]

Libertarians accept the reality of human nature which is that autonomous beings operate from self interest and the libertarian model, in my view, is most likely to harmonize the variety of interests to be found among humans. All other socio-political models either promote conflict (albeit unintentionally) or strive to suppress the variety of human interests.

All other social-political models require some form of concentrated political power with its attendant corruption. The first corruption is the acceptance of political power as a means. The essence of political power is extortion; threatening a higher value to obtain a lesser value. Hence the exercise of political power is immoral. Always has been and always will be.

Carl Bussjaeger at The Libertarian Enterprise - Tips, and Tactical Timing - some ideas for fighting the new fascist spies. [tle]

Mark Etanerkist at The Libertarian Enterprise - Assassination Politics vs. Electoral Politics - Elections are bad, AP is neutral. [tle]

...Assassination Politics is like a gun. The system itself is amoral, what matters is who is using it and how. If the system is used to kill off people who do not deserve to die, it is just as immoral as using a gun to kill an innocent person. However, if the system is used to kill politicians who have a record of supporting a murderous government, it is no different than if an individual kills someone who is threatening his life...

...

It is in no way wrong to impose anarchy. Anarchy is the state of nature. It is existence without some individual or group of individuals who can get away with initiating force. Because of this, it is impossible to impose anarchy, it can only be restored. Or, one could say imposing anarchy on people is like imposing gravity on people. Some may not like gravity, but that is the way it is. It is possible to suspend gravity, just as it is possible to suspend anarchy. And if the suspension of anarchy, or gravity for that matter, violates rights, there is nothing wrong with punishing the people who are responsible for violating rights, as long as the punishment doesn't harm innocent people. Because today's government is so large, and the people in control hold so much power, nothing less than the death of the people who are in power will restore anarchy. And nothing yet discovered other than Assassination Politics has the potential to restore anarchy without violating rights.

Butler Shaffer at The Libertarian Enterprise - Will A Police State Protect Your Liberty? - of course not. But you knew that. Mr. Butler's is this week's featured TLE article.

Americans are slowly beginning to discover the nature of the police state that the political establishment has been putting together in recent decades. In case you are foolish enough to believe that the "Department of Homeland Security" was but a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, be advised that proposals for such an agency had been considered long before last September; that legislation for such a body was introduced at least as early as March 2001, and was being discussed at various symposia and "think tanks" at the time. You should also make yourself aware of the fact that the US government had plans in place, prior to 9/11, for an invasion of Afghanistan -- to begin in October 2001 -- reportedly for the purpose of removing from power Afghan officials who were not being cooperative in the creation of an oil pipeline across their landscape.

...

I have neither heard nor read any significant questioning of the suggestion that internment camps might once again be established in America -- as they were for Japanese-Americans during World War II -- or that the US military might have the kind of presence in our daily lives that one sees in the banana- republics to the south. We like to pretend that we have learned much from history that can help us avoid problems experienced by our ancestors. I am more inclined to the view that our social systems, like the business cycle, have recurrent themes. How else do we explain the fact that civilizations seem to follow the same general patterns of growth and decline, with widespread militarism a common feature preceding the ultimate collapse?

...

We have thus left to our children the sorry spectacle of a view of history that condemns a Hitler for his vicious wrongs against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and communists, but leaves, relatively unscathed, the far more butcherous records of Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and others. I would not even hazard a guess as to the number of books, motion pictures, and television programs depicting the horrors of Nazism. I am equally hard-pressed to identify more than a handful of such creations describing communist tyrannies. Hitler seems to have come in for greater criticism than Stalin because he tyrannized minority groups. Stalin, because he was an equal- opportunity tyrant who brutalized all without distinction, escapes the condemnation of most.

Vin Suprynowicz at The Libertarian Enterprise - An 'Unreviewable and Irreversible Power ... To Acquit' - Vin relates his recent jury duty and how Americans are no longer cognizent of their right and duty to judge the law as well as the alleged law-breaker. [tle]

But in the most insulting part of the proceedings, Judge McGroarty asked every prospective juror to enter the box "And will you promise to obey any instructions in the law I may give you, even should you disagree with one or more of them?"

Every nodding little lamb (I never made it into the jury box for questioning, being the 24th alternate) agreed to thus betray their most sacred duty as a juror.

One correct answer, for the record, would be to respectfully instruct our servant and employee, the tax-salaried judge:

"The honorable court may wish to review the words of Founding Father and second president John Adams, a quite notable attorney of his time, who said in 1771: 'It is not only (the juror's) right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court' (1771 2 Life and Works of John Adams, 253-255 -- C.F. Adams ed. 1856.)

...

Since enforcement of the murder statutes are hardly a matter of current political debate, Judge McGroarty's question was completely unnecessary for this panel, of course. Rather, the reason it's vital for jurors to understand this power inherent in any system of citizen juries is because more than one American in 12 already opposes all gun and drug laws. Convictions for any such invented "crime" will thus immediately become impossible as soon as all citizens have been apprised of their full and proper jury powers, and refuse to cooperate any longer in this kind of intrusive "voir dire" -- a French term for stacking juries so as to contain only those citizens who have sworn in advance not to consider whether the underlying statute is constitutional.

Think how that would clear out the current backlog of the courts, allowing cases involving real crimes -- like murder -- to be dealt with far more promptly.

Mark Lamoree at The Libertarian Enterprise - Tonight - thoughts on the Pennsylvania governor's response to the rescue of nine miners. [tle]

My impression of the whole episode is that it is illustrative of a difference between basic elements of society. On one hand, you have the miners, and on the other, the politicians.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
The Five-Minute Reich
Tamara A. Millay
Quotes and Comics
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
We Don't Need No Steenking Terrorists, We've Got Government
I Can't Believe I Read the Whole Thing
Dragon's Fury - Trodden Under
Escape from Heaven
Traficant Beamed Up
Response to Walters

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair