The Worst Kind of Human

What image do you conjure up when you think of "bad people?"  At the most basal level, it's probably something like thieves, rapists, and murderers, right?

If you look at the end result of someone's actions, the most notorious serial killer, the most successful thief, and the most abhorrent rapist are amateurs when compared to the average politician.

Worse than the worst serial killer

Even the most successful serial killers can only boast numbers in the dozens.  When politicians wage war, millions die.  And the vast majority of these deaths are innocent bystanders.  Take the Clinton sanctions against Iraq in the 90s.  By official estimates, more than 500,000 Iraqi children (not counting adults) were starved to death as a direct result.  When Madeline Albright, then Secretary of State, was asked if this horrible cost was worth it, she didn't even hesitate to say "we think the price is worth it."

Worldwide, war in the 20th century is estimated to have claimed more than 79 million lives. Even this is child's play when compared to Democide (death by government), which does not include war-related deaths and is estimated to have killed more than 260 million people in the same time period.  Individuals committing murder doesn't even hold a candle to the kind of carnage politicians unleash.

More despicable than the most "successful" rapist

In the United States in 2013, there were roughly 2.2 million people in State and Federal prisons.  (Side note: The United States houses just 5% of the world's population, but has 25% of the world's prisoners.)  Of these people, nearly half are incarcerated for non-violent crimes.  In the Federal prison system specifically, 86% of the prison population never harmed an actual victim.  To the objective observer, there are far too many people locked in cages who do not belong there.

Each year, more than 200,000 men are raped behind bars.  It stands to reason that about half of those people are among the non-violent offenders who should never have been locked up in the first place.  In other words, because of the arbitrary rules of politicians, roughly a hundred thousand innocent men are raped each year.

More insidious than the grandest larcenist

Each year in the United States, the IRS "collects" (steals) more than $2.2 TRILLION from people in the form of taxes.  This legalized form of robbery utterly dwarfs private robbery, which topped out at just $3.5 billion in 2014.  In fact, aside from taxation, police stole $5 billion from private citizens through their civil asset forfeiture program in the same year.

Civil asset forfeiture is where police "seize" property on nothing more than the suspicion that it was destined for illicit purposes.  Formal charges are never actually brought against the victims of this armed robbery, and targets are almost never able to reclaim their property.  All of this is on the say-so of some faceless politician.

It's time to stop holding politicians to a different standard than "ordinary citizens."  When the end-result of their actions is so demonstrably horrendous, maybe it's time to start considering alternatives to the way of life they have chosen for the rest of us.

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”  -Robert Higgs

Taxation is Theft and Authority is a Lie

I have a couple of lines of questioning for you to consider.  The first deals with the nature of taxation.  The second, the nature of authority.

The Nature of Taxation


What is theft?  Or if you prefer, what is robbery?  From www.dictionary.com:

Theft.  Noun.  The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Robbery. Noun.  The felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

I would amend these to include acts of fraud as well.

Fraud.  Noun.  Deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Put more simply, I see "Theft" as the taking of something that does not belong to you, either by force or fraud.

Does the government own you, and by extension, the product of your labor?  Or do you own yourself, and so, the product of your own labor?  Because of public school "education," this one gives some people pause.  But the obvious answer is that the government does not own you, and so, cannot rightfully own the product of your labor.

In light of this, is it theft when the government takes the product of your labor through taxation?  If not, there is really only one alternative.  If taxation is not theft, then the government owns you, and taxation is slavery.  You might try to argue that it is neither, because you voluntarily and happily pay your taxes.  And maybe that's true for you, but what about your neighbor?  Are they happy to be extorted with every paycheck?  Morally speaking, you don't get to make that decision for them, only for yourself.

Bottom line: Taxation is theft, or worse, slavery.  But it's more than that.  If you don't pay your taxes, then eventually, men with guns will show up at your house to take everything you own and put you in a cage.  If you resist, they will use deadly force against you.  Ultimately, taxation is armed robbery with a side of aggravated assault.  And as with all robberies, sometimes government-sponsored robbery "goes wrong," and the victim winds up dead.

"If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized."  -Lysander Spooner

Authority is a Lie


Do you have the right to use violence to force your neighbors to behave a certain way?  Assuming they aren't aggressing against you you, clearly, you do not.  If you tried to force them to do what you wanted, you would be seen by all as a wrongful aggressor.  People would fully expect your neighbors to use self-defensive force against you.

Can you give a right you don't have to someone else?  Said another way, can you ask someone to use violence against your neighbors on your behalf?  Clearly, you cannot.  And once again, you (and your accomplice) would be seen as a wrongful aggressor.

Can you and your 10 best friends give away a right that none of you has individually?  Can the group of you decide to hire an agent to steal from your neighbor to fund a program you think would be good?  Once again, if none of you has this right, it cannot be given to another party.  The same can be said for any number of people.  You can all make a decision for yourselves - you can decide to chip in individually for a program or choose a leader for yourselves - but you cannot morally force these decisions on someone who has not voluntarily chosen to participate.

How, then, does a politician get the right to use violence ("law enforcement") and theft ("taxation") to run their organization?  If nobody can give this right to them - which they can't - then politicians do not have it.  In reality, politicians are nothing more than a gang of thugs who use violent, coercive force to form society as they see fit.  The only difference between the government and the mafia is that the general population thinks the government is legitimate, and the mafia is not.  Practically speaking, they operate in exactly the same manner.

The first step towards righting these wrongs is for people just like you to see the situation for what it is.  Spread the word.

"The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis." -Dalai Lama

The Bare Necessities of Firearm Safety

There are probably a million articles out there covering the topic of firearm safety, but a blog about Liberty wouldn't be complete if it weren't mentioned here.  If you are going to take up the means to defend yourself against any aggressor, you must be versed in using those means.  Which means, you must practice.

But before you ever pick up a gun, there are a few things you must sear into your mind.  Failure to follow proper safety procedures is the overwhelming cause of accidents involving firearms.  Much like a band saw, you must know how to handle the tool to ensure you don't lose a finger, or worse.

The basics of gun safety are extremely simple.  In order of importance (to this author), they are as follows:

1) Trigger Discipline.  Never put your finger inside the trigger guard when you are simply holding your firearm.  The only time your finger should ever touch that trigger is in the moments before you pull it.  For me, it is most natural to rest my trigger finger along the side of the gun, just above or across the guard.  See the photo at the beginning of this article for an example.

2) The Gun Is Always Loaded.  Even if it's not.  Always treat your guns as if they are prepared to fire on the next squeeze of the trigger, even if you just removed the magazine and cleared the chamber.  Which leads into the next item...

3) Never Aim at Something You Don't Intend to Destroy.  Always be sure you are pointing the end of your firearm in a safe direction.  Don't muzzle sweep your best friend's legs - it makes them nervous, and could end in tragedy.

4) Always be Sure of Your Target.  And what's behind it.  Most gun ranges have a huge berm of earth piled up behind the target area to soak up discharged bullets.  You never want to set up a target a quarter mile from your neighbor's house with nothing to halt your plinkers between you and them.

That's it - now you know the bare necessities of gun safety.  Obviously, there is a whole lot more to learn about the various firearms out there, but no matter what you have, these rules will always apply.  Next, it's up to you to get out there and make damn sure you know how to use your weapon, should the need arise.  Remember to exhale as you squeeze (rather than "jerk") the trigger!

Building the Future

Most people I know would agree that children are the future of our species and planet.  Most of them would also say that it all starts with a proper education.  It's true - we have to teach them to be good stewards of the planet and to continue to advance the Human species, but there is something much more important than teaching them math and science.

We have to stop producing fucked up kids.

Too often, there is a cycle of violence in families.  Your parents spanked (hit) you to gain your obedience as a child, and your grandparents did the same.  And so, you hit your children to illicit the same compliance.  It's easy to understand why - this is all you've ever known.  And clearly, it worked out okay for you.  But did it really?  If you are using physical force to make your kids behave, maybe your thought patterns need some adjustment.

Think about what it teaches a child when you operate under this paradigm.  They internalize the idea that violence is an acceptable means to resolve basic disputes.  They also learn that there are two classes of people: Those who are "allowed" to use violence against others, and those who are forbidden to defend themselves against this compliance-seeking force.

Given this, is it any wonder that most people don't think twice about such problems as police brutality?  Or the demonstrable fact that the political class does not operate under the same set of rules as the little people?  The whole of American society is currently based around using physical force against those who will not comply with what a few corrupt people in suits have scribbled on paper.  This force is applied even when the "criminal" has caused no actual harm to a victim.  To a healthy and rational Human being, this is a morally repugnant way to organize societies.

You might say that children will be forced into this paradigm anyway when they grow up, and for now, you would be right.  But people do not internalize ideas in nearly as permanent a way when they are adults.  What children experience during their most formative years becomes the bedrock of their worldview.  And while it can be unlearned (this author being an example), it takes a great deal more work and pain to shift how you see the world once you are an adult.  Too many people are not even capable of questioning the core beliefs they have always held.  And when they have learned the rule-by-force paradigm, the wheel continues to turn without so much as a second look.

The time to build a better future and break the cycle of violence starts right here, right now, with you.  If you want to learn more about Peaceful Parenting, here's a good place to start: http://www.peacefulparent.com/the-peaceful-parenting-philosophy/

"Children must be taught how to think, not what to think." -Margaret Mead

"Children are not things to be molded, but people to be unfolded." -Jess Lair

"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." -Frederick Douglass

"Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see." -John F. Kennedy

Has your moral compass lost True North?

This message is for all the proud "law abiding citizens" out there.  The ones who think that, no matter what any law says, it ought to be followed to the letter.  The people who would happily vote "Guilty" on a case of illegally collecting rain water.  Or growing a garden in your front yard.  Or inhaling a leaf.  "Guilty," just because someone in a costume told you it was wrong for them to do those things.  "Guilty," despite that person never having harmed an actual victim.  "Guilty," ripping a family apart and throwing a peaceful person in a cage, effectively destroying the rest of their lives.  "Guilty," despite the knowledge that you are not compelled by any law to vote this way, no matter the evidence.  "Guilty," and damn it, you think they got exactly what they had coming to them.

What the hell is the matter with you?

Are you really not able to separate the morality of an action from the words written on a piece of paper by some faceless politician you'll never meet?  Do you not realize that the "law of the land" is nothing more than the law of men?  That these men, especially those who have sought and held positions of power, are nothing more than corrupted tyrants who couldn't care less about your well-being?  These people care for only one thing: Their own power.  And the worst part is that you know this!  Nobody thinks politicians are the most virtuous among us.  Everybody knows exactly how crooked they are.  How corrupt.  How untrustworthy.

Yet somehow, you think it's a great thing when someone is thrown in a cage on the say-so of these monsters.

If a person takes an action that does not cause harm to a victim, it is morally reprehensible to lock that person in a cage.  And if you participate in this imprisonment, or even think it is a righteous thing to do, you are the criminal.  And on some level, that's okay.  Just own it.  Stop trying to justify your actions as moral and righteous based on the words of corrupt men.

Of course, I do wish you would reconsider your thought patterns.

In any case, if you find yourself on trial for a victimless "crime" and I find myself sitting on your jury, I will not let your life be destroyed that day.  Maybe someday, you can offer me the same courtesy.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."  -Thomas Jefferson

"If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." -Henry David Thoreau

Breath in your lungs, a Beat in your heart, and a Light in your eyes

Have you ever stopped to contemplate the sheer impossibility of your own existence?

Think about it.  The Universe, as far as we can see it, is at least 92 BILLION light years in diameter. And light is the fastest thing we know of: It takes it only 8 minutes and 20 seconds to traverse the 92.6 MILLION miles from the Sun to the Earth.  In a year, a beam of light travels 5,879,000,000,000 - almost 6 TRILLION - miles.  And that's just one year - our Universe is 92 billion of these years across.

There's a whole hell of a lot of space out there.  Much more than our brains can even begin to comprehend.  And it looks like our Universe gets bigger all the time.

In that space, as far as we can see, there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars.  We see more all the time as their light reaches us.  Each of those stars can easily have as many planets surrounding it as our own star.  Many of them probably have a lot more planets than our solar system.

That's a whole hell of a lot of planets.  Once again, far more than our brains can possibly understand.  There is truly little doubt that thousands or millions or even billions of those innumerable planets have conditions similar to our own Earth, and could support life exactly as we know it.

Given all this, is it even possible to calculate the odds that you, the person reading this, are alive and conscious in this time and in this place?  On the scale of the Universe, it isn't even a stretch to say that your existence is impossible.

Yet, here you are.

What's more, the atoms that make up your body are the very same atoms found in the stars.  You are literally made of Stardust!  And every single cell in that body is replaced once every 7 years.  No part of your physical makeup that was present when you were a child is present now.  Every cell has been replaced, multiple times if you're a more seasoned traveler.

So the next time you can't seem to get out of your head; can't quite shake that dark mood, just remember: You are a ghost driving a self-regenerating organic vehicle made up of the stars.  Your very existence in this time and place is a miracle of unimaginable magnitude.

And smile.  As with all situations and objects that have ever existed, this, too, shall pass.

What, exactly, did you expect would happen?

It's starting to happen all over the United States.  Stories are starting to spring up on a daily basis.  In the last few days alone:

"Dallas sniper attack: 5 officers killed"

"Not just Dallas: Attacks in three states target cops"

"Police say officers have been targeted in Missouri, Georgia, and Tennessee"

"Chaos in St. Paul - Police Injured"

"Gunfire hits San Antonio police headquarters"

"Report: Cop, Bailiffs Shot at Courthouse"

"Sunday Slaughter Baton Rouge: 3 Cops Dead; Nation Tense"

If we are being realistic, we should expect these headlines to continue to crop up in the coming months.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I do not, in ANY way, condone the use of deadly force against people who have not wrongfully harmed others.  This will always hold true, whether the wrongfully harmed is a police officer or just another civilian.  This is, and will continue to be, a life-shattering tragedy for the families being destroyed.

But if we actually take an objective look at the history - especially more recent history - of policing in America, can any of us truly say we are surprised it has come to this?  After all, you can only kick a dog so many times before he snaps and rips your throat out.

What we are seeing today is a involuntary, almost compulsive reaction by people who have been pushed beyond their limits.  People who look at the way things are and feel sick to their stomach. People who shake their heads and say "This is wrong, and it can't be allowed to continue."  Their methods might be wrong, but they feel like they have to do something, and nothing they have tried within official channels has changed a damn thing.

For the last 45 years, "law enforcement" has used the horrendously immoral War on Drugs as an excuse to commit endless unspeakable acts of aggression against people who would never have harmed anyone.  No-Knock drug raids are frequently employed, and too often on the wrong house.  Innocent homeowners who try to defend themselves against these aggressive and unannounced  invasions are gunned down in cold blood.  Flash bang grenades have been lobbed into the cribs of sleeping toddlers.  Countless millions of non-violent people are routinely brutalized, caged, and killed in the name of a war which was started by a power-drunk politician as nothing more than a means to suppress political dissent.

Another invention of the unconscionable War on Drugs is Civil Asset Forfeiture.  This allows police to "legally" seize peoples' property on the mere suspicion that the property (usually money, but often vehicles, homes, and more) was intended to be used to buy, sell, or produce drugs.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is then flipped on its head: You can't get your property back unless you prove in court that it was not going to be used for the reasons suspected.  Using this method of legalized robbery, police now steal more property from individuals than all private sector criminals combined.

It seems like almost every other day we see yet another story in the news about police activity that results in the death of (often) non-violent or otherwise innocent people.  In 2015, police were involved in the deaths of at least 1,200 people.  Granted, not all of these were unjustified, but far too many of them were.  Just last week, police executed a man who they had pinned to the ground.  And this week, an officer shot a man 4 times during a tail light stop, apparently because the man was licensed to carry a firearm and informed the officer of this before he reached for his Driver's License (as requested).  The man's girlfriend and her 4-year old daughter were in the car as he bled out.

At face value, it should be natural to assume that it is wrong to do these things to people.  But rather than being held accountable for apparently wrongful actions, police are almost universally internally investigated and determined to have operated "By the book."

People who defend the institution of policing claim that it's "just a few bad apples."  However, it is difficult to swallow this line when you consider what happens to the few GOOD apples.  Case in point: An officer who refused to make an illegal arrest was promptly relieved of his employment and black listed.  Crossing that "thin blue line" is one of the very few things that will get a cop fired.

People need to stop holding uniformed personnel to different standards than everyone else.  Any "officer-involved shooting" that was not done out of self-defense should not be called an "officer-involved shooting."  It should be called by its real name: Murder.  Taking peoples' property on the suspicion it was related to drugs should not be called "civil asset forfeiture," it should be called armed robbery.  Ticketing a driver who had caused no actual harm to anyone should not be called "traffic enforcement," it should be called extortion.  The list goes on, and encompasses any agent of the State on any level you want to imagine.

How can we be expected to teach our children to trust someone in uniform when you look at the situation objectively?  How are we supposed to differentiate between the "good apple" who will just let us know we have a tail light out and go on his way versus the one who just might murder you (and your dog) in front of your family at the drop of a hat?  How are any of us supposed to feel secure in a system that clearly holds its agents in infinitely higher regard than its subjects?  This is a system that objectively identifies law breaking by its own top agents, and then promptly dismisses the very idea of bringing charges against them.  Police now fill the role of the mafia goon in an objectively and abjectly corrupted system.  They have to.  Their very livelihood depends upon their willingness to "just follow orders," and "not make the law, just enforce it," no matter how disgustingly destructive that law might be to the clear-eyed witness.

It should be pretty obvious by now: People have lost respect and gained mistrust for law enforcement, and increasingly, this entire system of government.  If you can't see why by now, it is only because you don't want to see.  At this point, I don't know what can be done to regain that respect and trust.

At the very least, the following would need to happen:

• The war on drugs must be ended IMMEDIATELY.  This would be the single biggest good-faith measure that law enforcement personnel could make to show they want to bring an end to hostilities.  The roughly half of all prisoners now behind bars on non-violent drug charges should likewise have their families made whole.

• The "vast majority" of good police need to start aggressively weeding out the bad ones, and in the most public manner possible.

• Politicians who flippantly break laws need to be publicly and permanently removed from office.

• Government employees need to be treated like they're actual human beings and not some God-like entity with their own special set of rules (or lack thereof).

• All law enforcement activities whose only purpose is revenue generation must be stopped.  Any time an officer interfaces with the public the only purpose of this interaction should be the protection of non-violent people.

• Police should start functioning like the fire department - we don't need them proactively patrolling the streets.  Realistically, you cannot "prevent crime."  All cops can do is show up in time to chalk the body and write a report.  We can still have them do this without them aggressively seeking reasons to take more money from people, either through tickets or civil asset forfeiture.  STOP STEALING OUR STUFF.

Even if these and other actions were taken, I don't know that it would be enough.  Personally, I will never trust someone who wants to be in a position to "legally" use violence against me in the name of conformity.

Politicians might be beyond hope at this point, but things don't have to be the way they are between the police and public.  We are being artificially pitted against one another by an authoritarian system that only cares about its own power.  To people like Hillary Clinton, we are all just disposable pawns.

Obviously, it would be reasonable for anyone to defend themselves from an attack.  The people who are currently targeting police should fully expect return fire.  I want to urge both sides to stop killing one another.  To the enforcement arm: The power-elite at the top will not give you the "go ahead" to take the necessary actions to end this fighting.  It will be up to you as an individual to choose to end this.  Stop looking to your superiors for the "wink and nod."  You have to look into your own conscience to decide what is right or wrong here.

Unless and until there are some serious overhauls to the way things are done now, violence between cops and the public will be inevitable.  He might have held it together admirably well for a long time, but the repeatedly kicked dog seems to have reached his breaking point.  Calling his lashing out "unprovoked" and saying there is "no possible justification" for it is more than a little bit disingenuous.  It may be true that the recently fallen officers did not personally harm innocent people, but they wore the mantle of those who do so on an alarmingly regular basis.

When is it acceptable to shoot a cop?  No sooner or later than the moment it would be acceptable to shoot anybody else.  If you think it is never okay to defend yourself against an officer, I want you to take a long hard look at the line of reasoning behind that thought.

"You always have to follow the lawful orders of police!" - German Gestapo circa 1939

Violence vs. Voluntaryism: There's Always a Better Way

Have you ever examined the basic mechanisms of the society in which you live?  From my perspective, there are two basic ways to organize society: Voluntary cooperation, or violence and coercion.

Most of us experience some mix of the two.

In our interpersonal lives - usually up to the neighborhood level - societies are largely based on voluntary cooperation, or at least the Non-Aggression Principle.  In other words, on this level, people know it is unacceptable to initiate violence against one another to force desired behaviors.  People know that if they do start a fight, the person they are starting it with is completely justified in using aggressive defensive force.

In America today, this is where civility and voluntary cooperation end.  There is still a thin veneer of civility; some illusion of the absence of violence underpinning the functions of society.  But that's all it is - an illusion.  From the town level on up to the Federal, the rest of American society has its basis completely in coercion and threats of violence, up to and ultimately including deadly force.

Don't believe me?  Try not paying property taxes.  Or refusing to comply with local government workers who order you to stop doing construction on your own house without their holy permission.  Or refusing to pay income taxes to the IRS.  Or consuming a plant deemed "dangerous" by the FDA.  The initial contact by government workers on all levels might start out civilly enough, but if you don't comply with their demands, it won't be long before they show up with an armed person to forcibly extract your wealth or put you in a cage.

And if you don't want to have your property stolen or to be kidnapped?  The person with a gun will shoot you dead.  This is the ultimate conclusion of every "law" now on the books.  This is the reality of how American society is now organized.  There is no element of voluntary cooperation - either you will do what your rulers say, or they will put you down.  In my view, this is an absolutely unacceptable way to behave towards other human beings.

Any human interaction that is not voluntary is inherently wrong.  If your ideas are good enough to be followed, you will not need to employ people with guns to force your neighbors into compliance.  And if you do need to employ such people, your ideas really sucked to begin with.  This is true whether you are homeless and on the streets or the President of the United States.

Bottom line: There is ALWAYS a better way to get things done than by using force.  The only time violent force is legitimate is when it is used in self defense or the defense of another.  Anything else is just plain wrong.

"The problem isn't the person who is sitting on the throne.  The problem is that the throne exists at all." - Larken Rose

Can We Agree?

I have a proposition for you.  Something I hope we can agree on.

It goes like this: I won't use violence against you if you won't use violence against me.  In fact, I won't even use some face in a suit who sits at his perch in the District of Criminals as an agent or excuse to use violence against you.  At least, that is, if you agree not to do the same.

Heck, I won't even use violence against your neighbor, even if they are a little bit inconsiderate sometimes.  They don't deserve to be harmed just because they're a bit of a prick.

Can we agree on this?  Because if we can, there's really nowhere we can't go.  And quite honestly, if we can agree to this, it really won't matter what the sociopaths who fancy themselves our "rulers" do.  They can make all the ludicrous demands they want - if you and I agree not to harm one another on their behalf, the fact that they want power and war and death and control won't matter.

If we can't: Why not?  Under what circumstances - other than self defense or defense of other - do you think it is okay to use force on one another?  I'm seriously open to suggestions.  These ideas would probably be interesting to contemplate.

“I'm not scared of the Maos and the Stalins and the Hitlers.
I'm scared of the thousands of millions of people that hallucinate them to be 'authority,' and so do their bidding, and pay for their empires, and carry out their orders.
I don't care if there's one looney with a stupid moustache. He's not a threat if the people do not believe in 'authority'.”  -Larken Rose

A Killshot to Corruption in the Legal System

I've written a lot about many of the problems facing people today.  I usually try to offer potential paths to resolving those problems.  One of the biggest problems still at hand is the unjust use of "law" by power-drunk bureaucrats for nefarious purposes.

Largely due to indoctrination that takes place in the public schooling system, most people believe the best way to "be a good person" is to do exactly as you are told by figures of authority.  To "follow the law," be a good "law abiding citizen."  Obedience is touted as one of the best qualities a person can possess.  The only problem with this thinking is that, far too often, the color of "law" is used to wrongfully devastate the lives of innocent people who have harmed nobody, and likely never would have.

The kinds of "crimes" to which I refer include, but are not limited to:

• Collecting rain water on your own property
• Adding to or removing from the structure of your own home
• Developing your own land to include such features as a pond
• Growing a garden in your own front (and often back) yard
• Walking down a sidewalk while not white, then refusing to comply with a "peace" officer conducting a "random" stop-and-frisk
• Selling individual cigarettes, even after paying taxes on the whole pack
• Driving a vehicle down the road with cash in your possession
• Putting "forbidden" substances into your own body
• Growing certain plants
• Possessing (not harming people with) dangerous objects
• Selling raw milk to a willing consumer
• Paying someone for the pleasure of company they can "legally" give away for free
• Refusing to pay taxes to a system whose operations are morally repugnant to everything you believe in
• Dancing at certain national monuments
• Selling products to willing customers without the holy permission of local government
• Passing out information pamphlets at a court house to inform people of their well-hidden rights as jurors

While some of these might not officially be classified as "crime," the end result is the same: Someone is wrongfully deprived of their life, liberty, and/or property.  You could probably think of another list at least this long with actions you don't think should land people in cages.  The root cause of this problem is that society allows a small group of people to decide what is "right" or "wrong" for the rest of us.  These people can then "legalize" whatever brand of aggression they think they need to use against us to get compliance.  What I call "Armed robbery, extortion, a protection racket, and slavery," they call "Taxation."  What I call "False Imprisonment with a side of assault and battery," they call "Making an arrest."  The list goes on.

This abuse of "law" by those in power is one thing the rest of us can directly fight, and we don't even have to step outside the bounds of their bizarre power cult to do it.  However, we do need to stop trying to get out of jury duty.  Serving on a jury can be the single most effective thing you can do to put an end to the mass incarceration and punishment of otherwise peaceful people.

Enter Jury Nullification.  Did you know that you, as a juror, have the power to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the law itself, and its application?  If you find yourself being asked to help put someone in a cage, you owe it to that person to stop and consider whether you think they should be punished at all.  When you observe that about HALF of all incarcerated people in America are in prison on non-violent, victimless charges, it becomes clear that there aren't enough people stopping to consider this.

For me, the single most important factor in whether someone deserves to be punished is whether or not they caused actual harm to other people.  If there was no victim, how could there possibly have been a crime?  And even if you think the person on trial was the victim (as in the case of "drug" consumption), how does locking that person up make the situation right?

It is well within your power to make this world a better place.  Refusing to punish someone who should not be punished is one of the best places to start.

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Just like the Mafia, but worse in every way.

I'm not sure I've written on this topic yet, but I've got it in my head, so I might as well get it out on paper before it's gone.

Have you ever known anybody who hasn't "paid their fair share" of taxes (according to the letter of the IRS code, at least)?  Or maybe even somebody who ingested something deemed "dangerous" by the FDA, like raw milk?  Or who entered into a voluntary transaction with another human adult in which nobody was harmed or coerced into doing anything?

That last one can literally apply to any kind of transaction you want to imagine.

Have you noticed what happens to these people when the government learns of their mortal sins? Families stolen.  Entire life's work, taken (and spent on margarita machines for the local precinct - "Money from Heaven," they call it).  Lives lost to a cage.  For participating in actions that harmed no person involuntarily.

People are still crucified in this day and age.  And it is on an unimaginably pervasive scale.  If any one of us "normal" people were to try a tenth of the crap the government pulls, we could be sentenced to multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole.  This has happened again recently, when Ross Albrecht was convicted (corruptedly, unconvincingly) of operating a website. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not 100% sure about the parole part.

If you or I tried to collect taxes from our neighbors for the privilege of living in their own homes or working at their own jobs,  we would be (rightly) seen as robbers and extortionists.  If we tried to pull someone over and demand money from them because we noticed they weren't wearing their seat belt, that person would think we were a lunatic.  If we tried to put someone in a cage for collecting rain water on their own property, we might be committed to an asylum.  Yet somehow, it seems completely normal to most people when someone wearing a costume claims the right (a "right" which was given to them by who, again?) to do these things.

I keep coming across people who simply can't imagine life without an overriding parental figure to watch over them and guide their life.  Keep them safe from bullies.  They can't see past the obvious questions because they don't want to.  And I can't blame them for that.

Have you ever stopped and wondered what the difference is between the government and the mafia?  Both steal peoples' money.  Both give people rules to live by, and punish them if those rules are broken.  Both will ultimately use violence against you - up to and including murdering you - in order to maintain their power.  I honestly can't see any difference at all between the two.  The only thing that makes them different is someone's perception.  Most likely because of the 14,000 hours of their most formative years spent in public classrooms, a lot of people perceive the thuggish actions of their government to be legitimate and just.  It doesn't matter how demonstrably horrible the people in government are, in the eyes of the indoctrinated, they can never be on the wrong side of history.

We have to move past this point in our history. Nothing lasts forever, and our current way of life is no exception. Too many people choose not to think critically about some of the "essential" services provided by the public sector. And so, they can't imagine life without a central authority using violent, coercive force to steal money from peaceful people and provide these services. There is always a better way than holding a gun to Peter's head and demanding money to pay Paul. There's always a voluntary way to get things done.

Why don't we tackle just the most obvious one? "Who will build the roads?" When I think about it, I think: The exact same individuals who build them now. I don't believe it is a monolithic leviathan that magically wills roads into existence. I think it's the work of people - people who want to get paid. If I want a service, I'd much rather kick a few bucks towards the people doing the job than sending money to some intermediary who's going to keep most of it just to keep its fat face full and its bombs dropping.

Are you comfortable with being complicit in something like the United States foreign policy? Or even (and especially) its domestic policy? I would never voluntarily agree to pay for most of the crap these sociopaths want. As is, I don't have a choice in the matter. If I refuse to go along with this system - a system which is morally repugnant to nearly all the values I hold most dear - men with guns will eventually show up at my house to demand their tribute. And we all know what happens when you refuse to cooperate with a psycho holding you at gunpoint.

Until the world changes, remember to pay the blood money.  One way or another, they'll get their pound of flesh.

"America is at that awkward stage where it's too late to work within the system, but too soon to just shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

"So we keep on waiting....waiting on the world to change." - John Mayer