Ayn Rand’s Last Public Lecture: The Sanction of the Victims

FREEDOM IS THE ANSWER: What’s the question?

FREEDOM IS THE ANSWER:  What’s the question?

Martial law in Boston
misinformation prevails
order out of chaos.
manufactured travails.

Some weird oddities
just don’t add up,
sense is uncommon,
reason is bankrupt.

Confusion by design
false reports abound.
Who’s behind the veil;
only frauds are found.

Life in 2013,
a marathon of madness
We are spirits
in bodies of sadness.

The masses sleep walking
their routine lives,
as every mis-leader
jukes and jives.

This world of lies
imprisons our soul,
Our jobs are bars…
security the only goal.

The bloodline elite
suck energy and life
from decent beings—
with war and strife.

What shall we do—
just play it cool…
or fight for liberty,
living the golden rule?

The answer is freedom-
The question matters not.
Without choice- no voice–
no life; it’s one big psy-op.

—dea

What Constitutes a Weapon? – William Watner

What is a weapon? Does it have to be big? Sharp? Powerful? Does it have to be something you can grab? Something others can destroy? What is a weapon? A weapon can be grasped, but it also can be ungraspable. Weapons are very useful when not used as weapons. A weapon is a tool. A sheath knife can be a very effective weapon in the hands of a trained user, and can also be used to clean deer. Almost all weapons have a double ‘existence’, guns particularly. Major Smith and the rest of the crew have been saying: your best survival tool is the one between your ears. I would like to add to that. Your best weapon is the one between your ears.

A weapon generally has the capability to destroy in some way. Therefore a baseball bat can be classified as a weapon. A golf club could be just as lethal. For that matter a cast iron tea kettle would be extremely effective at close range. The Netherlands is a good example of where the seed of weapon confiscation has bloomed and blossomed, and where it ultimately leads.

The Government of the Netherlands is asking for the voluntary turn-in of weapons (those that turn in guns don’t face risk of prosecution). This includes baseball bats, CO2 pistols, and alarm pistols (from the journal of the NRA, THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, Feb. 2001, p. 73). Where will they stop? Where can they stop? They really can’t coercively confiscate all sport items, or can they?

One of the most interesting weapons, and effective at the right time, is non-violent resistance. It is a weapon, but not a violent one. It takes more guts to stand firm than to fall back on your animal instinct to fight. It means not cooperating with what you think is wrong or evil. Which brings to mind another weapon, a very valuable weapon, one which can’t be taken away without your consent:

It is your spirit; the flame that burns within each and every one of us. This, along with your brain, constitutes the two weapons that nobody, even if they have complete power over your physical body, can steal or put out. “But can’t they kill me?”, you say. Yes, they can. But all that does is entomb your spirit in history and eternity forever. When you are dead, your spirit is even further beyond their grasp than before. Look at Jesus as an example for a spirit never caught, a flame that will never be stamped out.

As Jungle Jim said recently, there are entities in the world that are trying to dumb down our spirits and our brains. ‘They’ are trying to make our flames burn low. Instead of trying to draw up the lowest flame to the highest (which can only be done voluntarily, not coercively), ‘they’ try to beat the highest ones down to the lowest. They’ are trying to make our brains follow them, the State, unquestioningly, and not even to think about morals or right or wrong.

So what does make a weapon? To make it short and sweet, I would say it is anything that can be used in any way against your enemy. As the last word, my advice is: Use your body—your spirit–your brain—and whatever tools you have, to your best advantage, whatever your situation.

[This article originally appeared in THE HOMESTEADER (No. 10, Spring 2002), published quarterly by Major Michael Smith.]

Penn & Teller: Gun Control – Bullshit

The Tale of Two States – Michael Suede

Source: LibertarianNews.org:

There once was a man named John who lived in a place called A.  The country of A was a rather dreary place.  Some 200 years ago, a majority of the people of A decided that they should be able to impose their will upon a minority of citizens for the good of all.  So the majority got together, pooled their resources, and then set about arming groups of young men to go out and collect money from all the business owners in order to fund “protection and welfare” services for the country.

The people of A held elections for their leaders, but the elections were soon corrupted by the largest businesses.  The business owners realized that they could keep out new competition from the markets by having the state create regulations which made start-up costs prohibitive.  Some businesses also realized they could make a healthy profit from government contracts and subsidies without the risk of a competitive market.  It was easy for them to get the public to go along with whatever regulations they proposed, because it was all done in the name of public safety.

The state of A had virtually unlimited funds, since it could go into unlimited debt or take as much as it pleased from its own citizens; the biggest businesses took full advantage of these deep pockets.  It soon came to pass that the largest businesses took most of the government contracts, subsidies and bailouts.  All of this government largess took its toll on the economy of A.  It also created a class of super-wealthy individuals who made much of their money from the state regulated banking system or by owning businesses that the state granted favors to.  The profit from these regulations and subsidies further cemented this super-wealthy class’s power over the political system.

Because the state had made creating a new business to be so burdensome, and because it had subsidized the largest businesses, huge corporations monopolized every area of the economy.  There were only a handful of large banks, large insurance agencies, large automakers, large healthcare providers and so forth.  Since these handful of large corporations were given so many advantages, they didn’t face any real competition.  This lead to huge economic waste and soaring costs as the markets began to fail.

Further, the majority of people in the state of A had decided that the elderly should be able to take money and resources from their grandchildren to fund their retirements and healthcare in old age.  These retirement and healthcare programs grew to become so huge that the annual cost of those two programs alone was more than the entire tax revenue collected by the groups of armed young men.

Of course, the state of A didn’t stop there.  The state set about banning drugs, guns, alcohol, pornographic movies and anything else deemed to be subversive by old men.  These bans created tremendous black markets run by the most brutal organized criminal gangs.  Many cartel leaders ended up colluding with politicians to ensure the bans stayed in place no matter how bad things got.  Eventually the state of A had 1 in 20 of it’s adult male population under some form of correctional supervision.

Our man John eventually found himself without a job.  His public high school education was essentially worthless, leaving him without any technical job skills after 12 years of education.  John thought he would be able to get a good paying factory job after high school like his grandfather had, but because the state had printed so much money, all of the industry had flowed next door to the land of B.  The land of A was now a “service” economy that didn’t produce anything of trade value.  The land of A didn’t need to produce anything, because for the time being, the land of B was still selling all of its goods to the state of A in exchange for A’s funny money.

John felt hopeless and worthless.  He couldn’t find a job.  His life had no meaning.  He spent his days drinking and smoking pot, scraping by on the welfare checks he collected from the state.   But then one day John found a website talking about the land of B.  It turns out that the people of B never created a coercively funded state like the people of A had.  In the land of B, people voluntarily paid security and insurance agencies to protect their property and health.  The vibrant markets in B meant the people hardly spent anything on security or healthcare, and the people got to keep all of the money they earned for themselves.  There was simply no such thing as bureaucratic waste in the land of B.

This lack of regulation was creating huge problems for the state of A.  Business were moving out of A and into B in order to avoid the heavy taxes.  Highly skilled labor was fleeing the country to a land of more jobs that paid with real money that didn’t lose its value.  Drug cartels were shipping in drugs from B with wild abandon, while shipping huge amounts of cash resources out.   Many of A’s middle class, who didn’t have insurance, found themselves frequently heading to B in order to get healthcare that was so cheap they could afford it out of pocket.

Eventually the people in control of A decided they had enough.  Too many people were leaving the state of A for a more comfortable life in the land of B.  The only people who were remaining in A were those who were completely dependent upon the state for their subsistence.  Obviously this infuriated the political class of A.

At first, the state of A used capital controls and tax regulations to make leaving the state of A incredibly difficult for its citizens.  But after a while, it became obvious these controls were not enough.  Eventually the state of A decided to build a huge wall around the country, along with making it illegal for people to leave.

While the state of A had decided that the land of B was causing it problems, the population of B also came to the conclusion that the land of A wasn’t being a very good neighbor.  B eventually grew tired of A’s money printing.  The population of B stopped buying A’s debt and accepting A’s currency in exchange for their goods.  This lead to A to the brink of a civil war.

You see, because A had engaged in so much money printing, and had burdened their manufacturing sector with so many regulations, the land of A hardly made anything of its own.  When the land of B finally stopped taking A’s funny money, the state of A imploded from hyper-inflation.  Things must be produced in order for money to have value.  It is the production of things that makes a society rich.  A’s indebtedness, driven by its own citizens’ greed, caused its downfall.

Of course, the state of A still remained because the men with guns still remained.  The armed gangs of young men, empowered by the state to loot the citizenry, set about taking the last scraps of food from the tables of A’s citizens.  While some industry still remained in A, the people of A could not afford any of their own products.  The manufacturers and farmers in A were now forced to export most their products to B in exchange for either gold or trade goods in order to keep themselves operating.

The  political and financial elite had divested themselves of their domestic assets and corporations, taking the lions share of resources with them to the land of B before the state of A imploded.  The common people of A were left to their own devices.  John was one of the lucky few who made it into the land of B before the state of A fell apart.

In our real world today, the land of B does not exist.  People don’t have the option of moving to a place that is free from a coercive state.  A-type personalities always demand that the B-type personalities submit to the mob or be imprisoned.  This is true all over the globe.  A-type personalities would never even entertain the notion that some small plot of land be given to the B’s, for they know they would lose all of their most industrious citizens to that land.  However, there are plenty of A’s who are presently feeling, or about to feel, the full consequences of their wicked ways.  Unfortunately, the B’s are going to be dragged along for the ride.

Keep playing an unfair game – Kent McManigal

From Kent McManigal:

Keep playing an unfair game

“That’s not fair!”

Every time I hear those words I smile because I am reminded of Scott Adams‘ assertion that “fairness” isn’t a feature of reality, but a concept invented so that stupid people could feel like they are participating in conversations.

Maybe that’s true; maybe it isn’t completely true.

However, “fair” does figure into playing games with agreed-upon rules.  When someone doesn’t play by those rules you feel it isn’t fair.  You can whine about it, you can keep trying to adapt to the “new” rules, you can “cheat” in your own way and hope to somehow win, or you can walk away.

Some people seem to think of The State as a kind of game.  They realize that the rules seem to only be applied in one direction- against individuals who are not a part of the government gang- but they still believe they should keep playing and try to win.  Or at least not lose.

What I don’t get is that so many of those people think whining about the unfairness will change anything.  As long as you keep playing, what incentive is there for any change?  You’ll keep playing, keep losing, and The State will keep teasing you with the promise of winning a little bit… someday.

When playing against someone who keeps changing the rules to benefit themselves, you are an idiot to not walk away.

Withdraw consent.

Endless War….And Where You Fit In

From EPJ:

By, Chris Rossini

It’s really sad to point this out, but if you’re an American, try to think of time in your life when the U.S. government was not militarily involved somewhere.

I know that in my life, I can’t think of a time.

If you believe you have a year, check it against this History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890. But get ready to use the scroll on your mouse. It’s not a short list.

Now, after looking at that horrendous list, some questions must be asked:

Why?

Who gains from constant war?

And where does your life, freedom, and property fit in?

Seasoned libertarians have undoubtedly read or heard of the following quote from Randolph Bourne: “War is the health of the State”.

But what if you’re new to the liberty movement, and that statement is just too broad for you? You need more details….some specifics.

Well, the following should hit the spot. It was written by a man named Bernard Baruch on Aug. 7th, 1918, during World War I (also known as “the war to ends all wars”).

Baruch was Chairman of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s War Industries Board. He spells out exactly where you fit in. He wrote:

“Every man’s life is at the call of the nation and so must be every man’s property. We are living today in a highly organized state of socialism. The state is all; the individual is of importance only as he contributes to the welfare of the state. His property is his only as the state does not need it. He must hold his life and possessions at the call of the state.”

“Enforced and involuntary service for a private master is and has been clearly and repeatedly defined by our Supreme Court as slavery. A soldier serves the nation directly. There is but one master in the case and that master is America. He serves to profit no one but the country as a whole.”

Is it any wonder why a small group of men would want keep war alive?

That huge list of military interventions doesn’t just fall out of the sky. That takes effort.

But look at the prize…Everything is at their disposal.

And with each passing year, it really keeps creeping toward literally everything. We all see the headlines….warrantless spying, warrantless searches, warrantless…….

The next time you’re at the airport, waiting in line for a shot of government radiation or to have your genitals grabbed by a government employee, think back to the above Baruch quote.

Then ponder the thought that just maybe, the target of endless war is your freedom.

Ben Swann looks at “Lone Wolf” shooters

Phila. police tie construction-site arson to union sabotage

December 30, 2012|By Inga Saffron, Inquirer Architecture Critic

The site where Chestnut Hill Friends Meeting is building a new meetinghouse was damaged by arsonists during Christmas week, and police are now “absolutely” sure the attack was the result of a dispute between members of a Philadelphia construction union and the project’s nonunion contractor.

Although no suspects have been identified in the Dec. 21 incident, Lt. George McClay of Northwest Detectives said Friday that he was certain the small Quaker building on East Mermaid Lane was targeted because it is being built with nonunion labor.

“I absolutely think it is a union issue,” McClay said.

If union members were involved, the attack would be the second violent incident in Philadelphia this year related to the use of nonunion construction workers. This spring, union protesters clashed with nonunion workers renovating the former Goldtex factory tower at 12th and Wood Streets for Post Bros., an apartment developer.

Continue reading…

The Case for Legalizing All Drugs