End the War on Freedom

From kaba:

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -- Barry Goldwater

From libertyforum:

"Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage." -- Lazarus Long

and:

"No matter how good she looks, some other guy is sick and tired of putting up with her crap." - Anonymous

and:

"If guns cause crime, then mine are defective." -- Ted Nugent

and:

"No matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected."

and:

Someone suggested to J.D. Rockerfeller that if he would only divide his wealth among the poor, poverty would disappear. He handed the man a dollar and said, "Here is your share."

From sepschool:

"Education is the state-controlled manufacture of echoes." -- George Norman Douglas

I expect to be traveling tomorrow, so I will probably not post an update until Sunday, but today's links will likely keep you busy until then. I found a treasure trove yesterday.

Jack W. Boone - Energy - some rational thinking on energy.

While everyone can, as an individual, select his own amount of energy usage and his own type to procure, the world in general has already voted. Plug the house into electricity, put gas in the car.

In the long run, alternatives cannot be legislated, unless they are enough better to change one's way of life. One cannot through legislation effectively force me to leave the car at home and ride a bicycle, although the tradeoff between light and dangerous, and heavy and safe, is very real.

...

So where was this rant going? First, hydrogen power for cars. This is only a source of energy to the extent of the amount of hydrogen in George Bush's hip pocket. Hydrogen on Earth is not an energy source. We don't have any. To create free hydrogen, we must use energy. Hydrogen is a transportation method to move energy from one place to another, and could be used to solve the "long extension cord" problem, but it doesn't create energy.

--------------------

Second, the "Arctic National Wildlife Reserve". As an Alaskan, I live quite near to this one. Until we quit using underground oil and gas as energy sources, we have to get those commodities somewhere, and make reasonable decisions regarding issues like "how many soldiers get killed" vs. "how much are we robbed by the price" vs. "how much harm is being done to the environment".

Regardless of fancy four word names bestowed by a congress 5000+ miles away, over 50 years ago, a better word for this area would be "badlands". Similar to "desert". See "uninhabitable". News media anchors who talk about "pristine wilderness" make me puke. They ought to ask "why aren't there any visitor centers?" Instead, they show beautiful mountain range pictures taken several hundred miles from ANWR. 200,000 caribou live there, probably because even the bears and wolves who would eat their calves have a hard time. Caribou have been proven to increase their numbers after oil exploration. They like to sleep under warm pipelines. Check your maps. How many places of human habitation are in ANWR. None? Why no Eskimos, Indians, or white men? Maybe not enough mosquito repellent? Or not that stupid?

Darren Madigan at Electrolite - posted on June 23, 2003 11:46 PM - a reader comment. I copied the whole thing. [noloconsentire]

I think all I can say to this is my general purpose incredulousness: I wake up every morning and I look around and I say 'so THIS is what it's like to be a good German.' Or, sometimes, if I'm feeling geeky, I say 'so THIS is what it's like to be one of the civilian aides on the Death Star.' And despite the glibness of the reference, it always chills me, as I realize yet again that while America has never really meant anything as good and nice and upright to the rest of the world as it has always meant to us Americans, for all our generally perceived corruption and ugliness and selfishness and obsession with materialism and lack of real spirituality or deep ethical values, nonetheless, over the past few years under Dubya, American has darkened an order of magnitude, or more, in the eyes of the remainder of the world.

We are no longer just the corrupt, willfully ignorant corporate-state that insists on shoving consumer capitalism down everyone else's throat because we think it's honestly a good thing to want to buy the world a Coke. Nowadays, we have become Nazi Germany, but much bigger and more powerful than Nazi Germany ever dreamed of being. We have become Lucas' Empire, and, for that matter, Reagan's Empire of Evil. We are The Bad Guys, the Black Hats, the ones that our own mythos tells us must inevitably fall if freedom is to flourish and mankind is to survive.

My country has become vile and insufferable. We have concentration camps and unlawful, illegal imprisonment for thousands if not millions based only on their nation of origin. We invade whoever the hell we want to invade, kill whoever we want to kill, lock up whoever we want to lock up. We deny basic health care not only to our citizens by the millions but to our own soldiery by denying the deadly side effects of our weaponry. Our government is steadily and very calculatedly stripping away a little more of our basic freedoms every day, and using that steady decrease of civil liberties not to keep us safe, but to make certain of the current junta's continuing power base. The current junta is using its power not to protect the citizenry or make our lives better, but to keep the vast majority of us in grinding, miserable poverty-stricken wage slavery, to support the idle decadence of a tiny sub-fraction of the overall population.

America is slowly but surely turning into every dystopia every really depressing science fiction writer ever wrote about, and we're working hard to export our own increasingly disfunctional culture to the four corners of the globe.

And I, the not so good German, keep waiting for the Homeland Security troopers to come take me away...

Capitalism.org - Guns, Self-defense, and the Second Amendment - our right to possess defensive weapons is a logical consequence of our right to life. The second amendment affirms this right, but does not grant it. This principle elucidates the boundary of the right to keep and bear arms. For example, nuclear weapons are not included. [kaba]

The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one's life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life (a corollary is here defined as a self-evident implication of a general principle).

It would be absurd to say one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the means necessary to protect that life. It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to purchase food. Yet, this is what opponents to the right to own a gun are really against: the right to life.

Unfortunately, it is the right to life, that is ignored in the debate over the right to bear arms, both by its opponents, and by its so-called defenders! As Alexander Maher writes in Capitalism Magazine:

"The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man's rights. Statistical arguments on gun control are a red herring -- as the leftists' appeals to hungry children or the environmentalists' appeals to clean parks are also meant to distract their opponents from the fundamental issues at stake. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other defenders of the right to bear arms argue over statistics and interpreting the Constitution, the real issues remain untouched and are sacrificed to the enemies of our freedom."

...

There is no right to bear weapons like a gun, outside of the right to life (whether for self-defense, or hunting, etc.). A corollary of a principle (such as the right to bear arms) cannot violate the principle on which it hierarchically depends upon (the right to self-defense). A nuclear weapon -- i.e., an atomic bomb -- is a weapon of mass destruction. There is no such thing as the right to mass destruction, as it lies in contradiction to the right to self-defense. One does not defend oneself against a mugger by tossing a nuclear bomb.

Paul Wakfer at Strike the Root - A Critique of the Declaration of Independence - a point-by-point refutation of the collectivist language in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Wakfer titled his corrected version the Declaration of Individual Independence (DOII). Mr. Wakfer also prefers the language concerning rights in The Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777. The language of the DOII is rather obtuse, though the content appears reasonable. I found the "copyright" at the bottom of the page interesting: [kaba]

This website is not copyright because its creators do not agree with government copyright laws. Readers are welcome to copy and distribute any text within the site as long as they do not modify the text and they provide a link to this website as its clear source.

The DOII is part of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project, "A program to achieve freedom from government coercion for those who understand and want it and are responsible enough to live it." The Self-Sovereign Individual Project is the current focus of MoreLife. From their introduction page:

MoreLife offers tools, as well as information, for the purpose of expanding the user's life both in quantity and quality. Merely increasing the length of life is not sufficient to the owner of that life. The ability to enjoy life at age 100 with the exuberance of youth - a greatly increased health span - is what we (the owners of MoreLife) think is necessary and what we think is possible.

Our short-term goal for MoreLife is that it be a repository and link center for science-based information in the general areas of life span and life quality expansion. We see it as an online "encyclopedia" of such information both onsite and elsewhere - all founded on, and with references to evidence-based, scientific reports. Conclusions from extrapolations of facts are clearly stated as such and substantiation is provided. No wild conjectures, no armchair theorizing without practical purpose, and no promises based on wishful thinking will be found on this website.

Our medium-term goal is to participate in and promote the discoveries of the life extension sciences by our review of the peer-reviewed literature on many topics, by commenting on our findings and those of others in public venues, and by bringing to light, for new or renewed scrutiny, ideas and connections which may have been ignored or missed by both "experts" and laymen.

Finally, our long-term goal is to see radically life extending methods thoroughly established and available so that we can concentrate on life quality expansion both for ourselves and for all of humanity, and delving deeply into the foundations of reality which is the only route which will fully enable that continued expansion.

To find ways to vastly extend life's duration while also significantly increasing life's quality, is what we at MoreLife seek.

Since we, the creators of MoreLife, wrote the above in March of 2001, there have been enormous changes in the scientific, regulatory and social structures of technologically advanced countries which are increasingly working against both the extension and the quality of the lives of enlightened forward-looking people. For this reason, we have become very concerned that if current social structures are not radically altered, the establishment and availability of life extending methods that we seek will not be achieved before our deaths. Therefore, our current evaluation of the best use of our time to achieve our own optimal total integrated life happiness has caused us to spend far less time on the short and medium term goals as described above, and to search for a way to more quickly attain a major portion of the long-term goal, also described there, of greatly increasing our freedom to do as we please with our own lives so long as we do not initiate physical force, threaten physical force or use fraud against others. Specifically, we think that nothing short of a revolutionary change in the social structure of the technologically advanced world is necessary and we think that we have found a way in which this might peaceably be brought about. For current details see the Self-Sovereign Individual Project.

Oliver Klozovat at Liberty Forum - A Declaration of Individual Independence - more succinct than the DOII above, though not as complete. Mirrored here. [morelife]

Oliver Klozovat at Liberty Forum - The Hanover Street Shoe-Shine Boys - a parable explaining the reality of taxation as theft. Mirrored here. [libertyforum]

George H. Smith at Liberty Forum - In Defense of Rational Anarchism - why Ayn Rand was really an anarchist, even if she would not admit to that label. Why the state cannot be justly sovereign. Long, but worth the time, IMHO. [libertyforum]

John Locke identified two fundamental problems that must be addressed by the political philosopher. First, what is the justification of the State? Second, assuming that we can justify the State in theory, what are the standards by which we can judge the legitimacy of a particular government? Too often minarchists deal only with the first question, while ignoring the second.

Suppose I am asked what could conceivably change my mind and cause me to endorse government, and suppose I give the following reply: "If I believed in the God of Christianity, and if I believed that God had dispatched a squad of angels to communicate with me personally, and if these angels told me that the State is a divine institution, ordained by God for the protection of human rights, and if these angels further informed me that anarchism would lead to widespread death and destruction - then, under these circumstances, I would abandon my anarchism in favor of minarchism."

But consider an important feature that would be missing from my newfound justification of the State. While believing that the State is justified, qua institution, I would not possess specific standards by which to judge whether a self-professed "government" is in fact a legitimate State at all, or whether it is merely a gang of usurpers and oppressors who claim to act on behalf of that divine institution.

As a remedy for this problem, suppose the angels provide me with a clear and unmistakable standard, to wit: "You will know legitimate rulers by the visible halos over their heads. This sign, and this sign alone, will mark the agents who are authorized by God to act on behalf of the State." Well, after looking around at the functionaries of existing governments, and after seeing no such halos, I would conclude that no one who presently claims to represent the State is morally authorized to do so. On the contrary, I would surmise that America is currently in a state of anarchy, since it contains no legitimate government - so, devoted minarchist that I am, I would dedicate my life to abolishing our wicked "government" and to exposing those Satanic politicians who fraudulently pose as functionaries of that divine institution, the State.

This is a species of the "practical anarchism" that Objectivists must logically endorse. For halos, they have substituted consent as the discernible sign of a legitimate government - and, like halos, consent is nowhere to be found in real-life governments. Hence, while defending the State in theory, these consent-minarchists should oppose all existing governments in practice. And this, I dare say, is a kind of minarchism that I can live with quite well - for we are more likely to be visited by angels than to find a government based on consent.

...

A remarkable system of competing governments also existed in America for many decades prior to the War for Independence. The colonials came to regard their provincial governments as independent and autonomous institutions that were necessary to check British power. And the British government, in its turn, restrained the power of the colonial assemblies. This situation resulted in a paralysis of power (since neither government could do much) and in a great deal of personal liberty.

Later, after the countervailing power of Britain had been eliminated by a successful Revolution, the Constitution established a powerful national government - which, as Madison proudly announced during the Philadelphia Convention, was vested with greater powers than even the British Parliament against which Americans "have so lately rebelled."

This sentiment was seconded in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, who criticized the fundamental principles of the American Revolution, called for their repudiation by the American people, and advocated instead a Constitution and monopolistic government that were based on a newer and more sophisticated "science" of political sovereignty.

In just a few short years the decentralized legal pluralism of pre-Revolutionary America had succumbed to the logic of sovereignty and a powerful central government - those evil Siamese-twins that are largely responsible for our present unhappy condition.

A comment from OWK:

What good is going round and round with this anarchy/minarchy disagreement? Will it do anything to reduce the size and scope of the government we have in our faces right now? Both ideals seem equally unreachable.

That's just the point.

Both anarchy and minarchy are unreachable as political goals.

You cannot force your unwilling countrymen to WANT to be free.

But rational anarchists take a different approach.

Rather than advocate anarchy as a political goal, they embrace it as a personal goal. Instead of seeking to have the nation conform to them, they recognize that the world in which they find themselves is inherently unfree (and that it will remain so for the foreseeable future).

They therefore act to maximize their personal liberty (by ignoring unjust laws, refusing to participate in state, and where possible refusing to fund the state).. all nice and low-key.

Being free isn't about others... it's about you.

and:

On the other hand, the state LP convention I attended over the weekend left me totally depressed. They were arguing at the business meeting over bylaws, and discussion of resolutions seemed more political than principled; it was "major party" this and "major party" that. Becoming a "major party" just may be the thing that kills it off in this state. It's definitely gone downhill since the convention I attended in '01.

Seeking control of the ring is not the answer. It cannot be used for good.

Oliver Klozovat at Liberty Forum - Man, Reason, Rights... Inescapable Truths - can you tell that I like OWK's writing? [libertyforum]

In order to pursue the rational advancement of their values, individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.

The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud. Recognition of this truth, provides the foundation of a moral code. Initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud, are immoral inasmuch as they act to infringe man's pursuit of his happiness as he defines it. All initiated force, threat of initiated force, or fraud, are immoral, whether perpetrated by an individual or by a collection of individuals sometimes known as government.

...

Democracy is not a political end in itself, but in fact a means to a political end. It may be used to advance and defend inherently moral philosophical constructs such as rights, or it can be used to subjugate the minority.

In fact, democracy (in the absence of a fundamental respect for the rights of individuals) can be the most horrific and tyranical form of government one might encounter. When the tyrant is an individual dictator, the oppressed may simply appeal to their fellow victims to cast off the oppressor.... but to whom does one appeal, when the oppressor is the majority of one's own countrymen?

High Nibley - The Parable of the Changed Man - How a true realization of your mortality can entirely change your perspective on reality. I fall into this from time to time, a deep longing for something I can take with me when I go home. So far, I haven't found anything. I have yet to discover anything in this world that is not transitory. [libertyforum]

Garet Garrett at Liberty Forum - The Revolution Was - the New Deal was a revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. government, without firing a shot, and without most of the country even realizing it had happened. As usual with Liberty Forum posts, there's a lot in the discussion. [libertyforum]

In a revolutionary situation mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent.

At the end of the first year, in his annual message to the Congress, January 4, 1934, President Roosevelt said: "It is to the eternal credit of the American people that this tremendous readjustment of our national life is being accomplished peacefully."

Peacefully if possible -- of course.

But the revolutionary historian will go much further. Writing at some distance in time he will be much less impressed by the fact that it was peacefully accomplished than by the marvelous technic of bringing it to pass not only within the form but within the word, so that people were all the while fixed in the delusion that they were talking about the same things because they were using the same words. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same word signs. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin.

Until it was too late few understood one like Julius C. Smith, of the American Bar Association, saying: "Is there any labor leader, any businessman, any lawyer or any other citizen of America so blind that he cannot see that this country is drifting at an accelerated pace into administrative absolutism similar to that which prevailed in the governments of antiquity, the governments of the Middle Ages, and in the great totalitarian governments of today? Make no mistake about it. Even as Mussolini and Hitler rose to absolute power under the forms of law... so may administrative absolutism be fastened upon this country within the Constitution and within the forms of law."

For a significant illustration of what has happened to words -- of the double meaning that inhabits them -- put in contrast what the New Deal means when it speaks of preserving the American system of free private enterprise and what American business means when it speaks of defending it. To the New Deal these words -- the American system of free private enterprise -- stand for a conquered province. To the businessman the same words stand for a world that is in danger and may have to be defended.

Leslie Miller The Washington Post vie Liberty Forum - Airport Screeners May Get X-Ray Vision - back-scatterred X-Ray imaging devices, that see through clothing, coming to an airport near you. This was in the news shortly after 9/11. Seems that they may be serious about using it now. Expect huge class-action lawsuits 20 years hence for X-Ray damage. They claim that there is none. Yeah. Right. Actually, I doubt that this will "fly". Americans are much too Puritanical to allow sekurity drones to viddy their naked bodies. Ananova has a sample image. Comment from alpowolf:

No doubt this new gizmo will save the "data", allowing the TSA employees to compile photo albums of their favorites. Hey, if you're really hot they'll probably post your picture on the Internet.

Aside from pure disgust, there is also a slightly more important issue: people who are supposed to be looking for weapons will be too busy looking at T&A.

Add comment Edit post Add post