We Are As Slaves On A Prison Planet

Many people are fond of embracing the lie that slavery had been abolished by the forces of good.  This fact befuddles me most perfectly.

Let us be clear: slavery is abolished on paper only and, practically speaking, only in certain forms and by certain parties for certain other parties.  Let us be further clear that those certain parties of the first part reserve for themselves every privilege of the slave master while the proletariate are denied such latitude.  They hypocrisy alone is staggering, much more so the wild criminality that this represents.

Slavery is alive and well in the human world. 

Starting at the bottom, there is all manner of sex trafficking going on all over the globe. Muslim nations openly conduct slave trade of all forms. Then, at the supposed "top" of the heap are Europe and America, both of which are metastatic with the slavery cancer. Sex trafficking is the obvious case, but the far deeper cancer is that of taxation and generalized "state" tyranny. "Governments" enact violative statutes that address no crime, yet falsely criminalize the acts in question, whether it be purchasing the services of a prostitute, buying/possessing/using "illicit" drugs, possessing a firearm without some arbitrary permission, or what have you. They then have the brass to call those statutes "law", which is one of the biggest lies ever told by tyrants, who make up any phony baloney nonsense as their caprice might move them.

Americans, and in general we are become an appallingly stupid race, believe they are "free". To that, I will tell anyone that if they truly believe that biggest of all lies, then do and by all means stop paying your property tax. In time, you will receive a nicely worded letter reminding you of your alleged delinquency. In more time you will receive a series of other letters, each new one less friendly than the last. Finally, a sheriff's deputy or two will come to evict you from what is supposed to be your property, which of course it is not. If you resist, they will become violent. Resist enough, and they will murder you.

Does that sound anything like freedom? If it does, then you stand in deep need of lessons in what actually freedom is.

The ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY is up to its eyeballs in slavery, make no mistake about that. That you are in some places afforded an expansive cage makes no difference to the fact that you are indeed a slave because you are by no means free to exercise your rightful prerogatives as a Freeman, but are only given permission to exercise a comparatively very limited set of choices as per the deign and whim of the Tyrant, who eternally reserves the right to rescind any and all rights any time he pleases, with or without cause.

The enlarged cage of the pretty slavery that has been foisted upon the world is now mistakenly conflated with actual freedom. That is the saddest joke of all recorded human history.

Civilization has proven itself liberty's undoing and the utter destruction of our freedom, in point of practical fact. Setting that first stone at Sumer was perhaps the greatest error ever made by anyone. But now that we are here, it is in fact possible to institute a free architecture and to dispose of all tyrants and with them, their tyrannies. The only question that remains is whether the human race will ever cough up enough self-respect to make it happen. At this juncture, that prospect appears grimly unlikely, which is a terrible shame because the human world could be ever so much better than it is, were it not for the deep and intransigently abiding corruption of the Mean Man.

Humans.

Give it all a think and, until next time, please accept my best wishes.

War Should Be Hell, Part Deux

Why have all these wars in which America has been involved since Korea gone so miserably wrong? Two main reasons.

Firstly, involvement in wars of foreign aggression are FAIL as matters of fabric.

Secondly, if you are warring, then war. The ROE (Rule Of Engagement) should be one and only one: kill the enemy until he becomes a footnote in the fart-can of history, or he capitulates without condition. You kill them until there is no more warring going on from your enemy's side. America could have "won" in Viet Nam in about eight weeks, had we gone in with the intention of fighting an actual war. But no, we were there to "help", and got our asses handed to us, and rightly so, given point the first, above.

And so it has gone ever since. War is hell, and it ought to be. It should be so unspeakably horrifying that nobody even considers making the first move unless circumstances are so dire that one engages only with the greatest reluctance, and only as the last of all last resorts. When war happens, civilians should be indiscriminately murdered by the millions, pursuant to victory, if that is what it takes to achieve it. This goes for all sides. Let the horror, the real deal, no playing around terror of that thought sink into the minds of every human being on the planet, and we would suddenly see a whole lot less of this greatest of all wastes of time and the best in men.

The globalists try to make war sanitary, and therefore passably palatable in the eyes of people such that Theye can get away with waging it... at little to no risk to themseles. Theye are the first people who should be killed in war, along with their entire families. Erase their genetic lines in the most sadistically gruesome manners which most people cannot even imagine. Let the spectacle leave every man deeply injured in his soul in the way even holocaust survivors cannot comprehend. Erase Themme from the earth and let we who remain take that hard and horrific lesson to heart as we witness first hand the butchery of one human being by another on scales that leave men quaking and vomiting in fear and disgust, their souls weeping and wailing uncontrollably at the sight and the memory of it. Leave that in the minds of men and then maybe we humans would change our ways, though I remain to be convinced that it would become so.  

Nothing short of this sort of brutality to the minds of men will put war to its minimums because the average human being responds intelligently to nothing better.  The average man is willing to tolerate the worst outrages committed against some people by other people, so long as they are not the ones whose lives are being extinguished. 

Therefore, make us all the victims of the truth of what war actually means. Let us learn to properly fear war and regard it as something to be avoided at almost any cost, but not to the extent we renounce our claims to freedom. Indeed, the whole idea behind my grizzly design is to get people to better understand the value of life and of our inherent liberties. Nothing else appears to work these days, so I say for the sake of that greater good over which the communist/socialist/forced-collectivist ants so vociferously rant and rail with interminable devotion and rage, embrace the lesser evil - the one that steers us from the greater dishonor and the destruction of all that is good between men.  

Let the nightmare spectre loom forever in the minds of men, lest they once more run headlong into the breach which is the greatest of all wastes and shames and felonies of humanity.

Does this seem horrific?  Does the thought repulse you; fill you with repugnant disgust and fear?

Good.  That should tell you that you are a decent sort, but are you decent enough to become as steadfastly opposed to warring as you might be revolted by my design?  Let us hope so.

I'm not a fan of such actualities, but when the alternatives are far and away worse, I prefer sustainable injury to annihilation.

Please forgive the directness of this work, but given where we humans appear to be heading, which is nowhere good, I see no viable alternative than to suggest such gruesome measure for the sake of even worse outcomes.

Be well, God bless you, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Blaming "Religion"

In another forum, someone was going off on "religion" as some universal evil for which men would be well served to stamp from existence.  Forgetting the practical problems associated with this ill-considered idea, I would address the logical and philosophical issues.

Blaming religion, or any other non-substantive entity such as "government" or "the state" for the evils of the human world is a bad move because it is tantamount to excusing the individuals who are the actual culprits of vile, wicked, and dishonorable acts.  Such people, and these are common as dirt, use their personal versions of whatever beliefs they claim for themselves as the basis and, perhaps more significantly, the justification of, or even excuse for their actions, however atrocious.  This has been done countlessly over our recorded history, a most notable and comparatively recent example being those Germans who, during their trials at Nürnberg, claimed that they were "only following orders".  One of the greatest blows to freedom, and a grand opportunity missed, was our collective failure to hold the Soviets and communist Chinese to account and pay for the decades of murder, oppression, robbery, disease, and leaden misery each had foisted upon their own people, but were sadly and tragically allowed to skate when their reigns of terror were called out for what they were and, at least ostensibly in one case, came to ends.

Worse still are the cases of both America and Europe, each of which know better, yet are so hopelessly corrupted that their respective people knowingly and willfully decline to bring the hangman's noose to bear upon those so richly deserving that fate, we humans being our own worst enemies.  This is especially infuriating in the face of all the claims of a moral high ground, not to mention those of being "free" people.  The absurdity sits heavily as concrete on the mind.

Blaming "belief" is not unlike calling organically-intact people "stupid" and excoriating them on that basis, in that it implicitly excuses the bad choices made by those not suffering the faults of actual, clinical stupidity. One cannot hold a truly stupid man responsible for what he does, precisely because he is too stupid to understand the nature of his actions. But the intact man who willfully and knowingly chooses to act pursuant to some idiocy that produces an evil result may be justly held to account for what they have done.  This is especially the case for those in "government", for they occupy positions of Special Trust such that when they violate that confidence and fail to make full amends with interest, they should be punished most harshly for both the crimes they have committed against those to whom they swore their oaths of good faith and competent service, and to serve as the most ghastly warnings to all others who presume to bear the mantle of the Public Trust.

Let us be clear: religious doctrine in sé does nothing. It is one's choice to subscribe to a set of beliefs, its attendant values, and to behave in accord with those dictates that is the problem when evil results.  It is a problem of the individual choice of action, and not one of the notions and commandments themselves. So long as I fail to act, it matters no whit how wildly stupid or dangerous a notion I may choose to entertain.  Such specifications have no effect whatsoever if people ignore them, much like the commands of a dictator, military commander, mayor, cop, or evil stepmother. 

Tyrants are effective not because of innate power, but only due to what is granted them by the obedience of those who do their bidding.  Those, who by force of will choose to do as they are ordered, through the cumulative inertia of a critical mass, end up enthralling and enslaving themselves through their grossly misguided obedience to false authority, becoming cogs in a self-reinforcing network of imprisonment. 

Obedience to false authority is the greatest of all traps.

Had nobody heeded Henry, would Anne Boleyn or any of his other unfortunate wives have lost their crowns to the headsman's axe?

Have I mentioned that we are our own worst enemies?

It is our obedience to the non-authority of men no more gifted with the power of actual authority than you or I, that brings endless suffering and catastrophe to humanity's abode.  It is decidedly not "religion" or "political philosophy", or any other conceptual entity that causes the troubles we all suffer.  It is naught other than our own physical selves, acting as the voluntary instruments of wills clearly set against our own better interests that are responsible for the disasters and other miseries of our reality, ninety nine percepf of which are purely synthetic and would disappear in an instant, were we to come to our senses.  Our thoughts can direct our hands only with the decision to make it so. Barring that, we are impervious to misapplication and morally abhorrent command.

If we are to act as our own worst enemies, aiding and abetting the destruction of the rights of our fellow men, not to mention our own, we should at least show the decency to own up to our culpability in those decisions.  

We should enough of us be better than that. How much improved would our world be.

Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

Intolerance Of The Intolerable Is Virtue

Allow me to begin with the following assertion:

One of the most important things the Freeman must do pursuant to his Liberty, and that of all his brethren, is to adopt a mindset of stern and defiant, intransigent intolerance for all ideas and actions that thwart or otherwise disparage, and thereby violate, the freedoms of men.

This may seem obvious to some, yet until is it articulated in clear and unequivocal fashion, the notion lays latent in open sight before the eyes of vast legions of humanity.


Since at least the 1950s there has been an assault upon the people of the world, mounted in the war of ideas that has been raging for millennia, but which has, through the agency of twentieth-century technological developments, taken on a whole new dimension, hue, and intensity.

One of the spearheads of this assault, and there exist many others, has been the relentless and ever intensifying assertion of the notion of "tolerance". The use of the word has been hijacked by elements inimical to individual liberty. Pursuant to an agenda intent on foisting authoritarian collectivism on the entirety of humanity, the word now commonly carries tacit implications that tend to drive the mind toward a collectivist view. What has been done pursuant to that objective, has been to strip away any impulse to consider the notion of "intolerability". To leave such a notion as intolerability undisturbed and available to the thinking mind, is to reduce the violence and venom against the notion of "intolerance" as a universal, absolute, and utterly abhorrent option in the minds of people. Intolerance in any form, for any reason, save perhaps a small handful of a few very carefully chosen exceptions that facilitate the migration of mind and world-view toward the collective, is to be railed against with the greatest possible emotional bile and violence, crossing the barrier into the physical when "needed"†.

According to the orthodoxy of ever-so-ironically named "progressivism", the philosophy that underpins the tyrannies to which Theye subscribe themselves, is that all intolerance is the purest evil... that is, unless we speak of notions such as sexual preference, for example. In that case, intolerance of intolerance is not only acceptable, but mandatory as matters of pure faith, never to be questioned in any way, by anybody, for any reason whatsoever. Death is quite literally too good for anyone who questions the orthodoxy and those who hail as "progressive" will eat their own in such cases. The example of Harry Potter author, J. K. Rowling serves as a fine instance of this sort of cannibalism. The moment the hard-left author raised so much as the mildest question regarding so-called "transgenderism", her own tribe and worshippers turned on her, wishing her dead, threatening her family, and embarking on a wild campaign to destroy the entire Harry Potter franchise.

I would also point out that the progressives' diprotically (hypocritically) inconsistent position on intolerance seems to go unnoticed by the vast plurality of humans, who seem merely to take it all on faith for no other reason than it has all been shouted at them with such frequency and intensity for so many decades, that it all becomes normalized in their minds. In this way do these deeply poisonous alterations of basic notions become truth in the minds of those incapable of, or uninterested in, discovering actual truth in favor of the lies that either don't matter to them, or perhaps serve the purposes of their individual corruptions pursuant to their goal of the proverbial "free lunch".

Considering the question of what, precisely, is tolerable v. intolerable, is one of the thought pathways that Theye endeavor to cut off or otherwise thwart at nearly any cost. It is, of course, an element of critical thinking, which must be discouraged with the greatest possible non-unequivocation and prejudice.

But in order for one to develop a well-balanced ability and habit of thought, one must be able to consider ideas from many angles, lest he fall into the error of opinions born of some form of tunnel-vision, the condition commonly called "narrow-mindedness" against which the progressives so vehemently shriek and rail. Oh, the irony of it all; the gross internal inconsistency of it. The clarions of open-mindedness who trumpet its mandatory nature, its central importance to all that is good in the world, turn out to be the most hopelessly closed-minded of us all. Did I mention irony?

Therefore, in order to understand certain categories of proposition, and here I speak of those political notions that touch upon, and possibly interfere with, the rightful praxeological and philosophical prerogatives of Freemen, one must consider those things which are indeed tolerable, versus those which are not. Contrary to the tacit implications of the progressive orthodoxy, the vistas open for consideration in such questions often tend to be expansive. Even in the most restricted cases, the landscape may be found to be considerably broader and extensive than Theye who would presume lordship over you, would have you believe. The narrower your world, the more easily controlled you become. And yet, this narrowness is peddled to the Meaner as broad. The tenets of modern-day, technologically-enabled tyranny, as set forth in Orwell's "1984" have been precisely and identifiably implemented by the authoritarian collectivists, and they are working so very well in corralling the minds of enough of the people to allow themselves to succeed in such wild measure as I suspect they never thought possible.

Pursuant to my infinitesimal and insignificant, yet forthrightly offered, effort to be a thorn in Theire sides to the greatest degree and extent to which I may successfully apply myself, I assert that a knowledge of what is tolerable, vis-à-vis what is not, is essential to a proper knowledge of the political world. This is especially important in a time such as this, where knowledge and understanding are being intentionally destroyed on a daily basis, the ultimate goal of which is to destroy the individual capacity for astute analytic thought.

When one has come to the correct sifting of tolerable and intolerable, he is then able to properly apply his attitude of intransigent intolerance of those things that lead to the degradation of life, in favor of that which edifies it.

Let me be clear on a very crucial point: very little of the terrors and horrors of the human world which we see today, exist of necessity. Nearly none of them are "organic". Rather, they are the results of synthetic conditions that have been set into place, whether by design, or the happenstance and outcomes of rank ignorance of unintended consequence. In other words, there are no inherent reasons why the world must wallow in the vile filth of misery, poverty, diseases both physical and of thought, and ultimately death. Sure, there will always be some of those sorts of things, but the degree to which they now dominate our daily existences is the product of our own hands. I further assert that that which we set into place, can be removed. We have every resource at out disposal. What we lack, is the sense, drive, and integrity to eat the bitter that would get us to that better land. The current state of the world cannot be wholly blamed on the "politicians", any more than the sidewinder can be blamed for biting the fool who attempts to cuddle up with him by the campfire at night. Onus rests mostly with we, the seeley and abused people whose conditions have arisen precisely because we have allowed it all to be made so. We are the true culprits in all this misery and ruin, and yet the door remains wide open to us to make all necessary amends to Liberty. The world is, in fact, our oyster. We have but to take it.

Therefore, I bid every man who wishes or otherwise presumes the status of Freeman, endeavor to learn and distinguish the tolerable from its antagonist. Bring yourself to the pride that enables you then to stand tall as a free being, submissive to no other man, and work as you are able to make clear that which may be accepted and that which must be resolutely rejected.

Finally, I bid that one and all  please accept my best wishes.







† Needed by whom, and for what reason?

So-Called "Statism" Is NOT A Mental Illness.

Just moments ago, a fair and intelligent friend posted on a social media page an article whose headlines boldly proclaimed, "Statism is a self-accommodating mental illness".  I have yet to view the article, but felt immediately compelled to respond to the headline, which itself alone merited a reply. To that headline did I produce the following.

"It is not a mental illness. It is a WILL TO CORRUPTION.

I understand the drive to discount the notion of "statism", as it is eminently worthy of disparagement. But to falsely attribute the willfully chosen position that we tend to label as "statism" as a mental illness is as statist as one can possibly get.

Were it not the Soviets and Communist Chinese, in their ultimately statist modes and positions who, so very full of grasping avarice for absolute and total control over the minds and lives of every cockroach and housefly on the planet, who labeled any view on any matter imaginable that varied in the least way from that of their demented orthodoxies as "mental illness"? Was it not those self-same characters who decided that, having labeled an individual as mentally ill, anyone who was suffering from such illness was justifiably a candidate for any treatment whatsoever that the mighty, all-knowing, and infallible "state" might deem appropriate?  Did we, those who were, or might have become, the victims of those wildly and dangerously, murderously corrupt individuals, not learn the lessons they so graphically presented the world?  Apparently not.

There is a double-edged sword here - the edge that discounts those who disagree with the official line of the state because they are "mentally ill", by far the more dangerously razor-like periphery.  The other edge is that of the just and appropriate treatments which are forgone due to the use of the misdiagnosis such as found in the former, which perforce leads to unjust and most often horrific treatments that fall far beyond any punishment we might view as proper justice, even when such punishment is the removal of life from a criminal. There are, as I hope we all know, fates worse than death, many of them far more so.  With too-casual an examination, one might be tempted to ask what is the practical difference if the result be effectively same? There is a huge difference, even if it is a mite subtle for the average intellect, though I find little subtlety there because the consequences of making this error are far reaching and potentially very severe.  The result is nothing less than the corruption of the minds of men into believing a falsehood whose effects may grow as a cancer inside those minds, leading men to eventually accept as just and valid the most unspeakable evils imaginable.  Our very souls and that of all human posterity hang in that delicate, precarious balance.  This is the stuff of which man's worst nightmares are made: civilization gone wildly wrong, and that is precisely where we are heading today.  It needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, and forthwith before every remaining shred of basic sense has fled the last mind of the last man to possess it.

In the case of mental illness as the judgment, anyone so adjudged can be simply whisked away for any amount of time, treated in any manner whatsoever, including "medical" experimentation, the potentials of which nobody should need pointing out, given the educational examples we have at hand,  courtesy of the likes of Dr. Mengele. Furthermore, the practice leaves the door wide open for indefinite "treatment", along with confinement, because someone unaccountable for his actions, a "doctor" in whom full latitude is given within the expansively broad boundaries of his "professional opinion", is given free run to keep and treat such people in any manner they may see fit for as long as they deem the "patient" as remaining in a state of illness, leaving the door further open to the wildest and most unimaginably sadistic and cruel abuses. Do recall the practice and brute violence of the frontal lobotomy, always carried out with the gentle smiles of the well-intending "doctor".  God save us all from the good intentions of men.

No sir. As much as I see "statism" as a threat to everything that is good between men, I in no way or degree will accept the "mental illness" approach as ever being acceptable in any way or measure, just because some vaguely defines symptom has manifested in an individual. Such individuals may deserve shunning, a good beating, lecturing until they pray for death, prison, or even being executed in the most severe cases.  But by God they will be brought to their treatments honestly and justly, not just for THEIR sakes, but for OURS, that we do not become that which we proclaim to hate, a circumstance to which we are far more easily arrived than the vast plurality of humanity ever believes, and history proves me absolutely and in every way correct.

We must attribute such beliefs correctly or we become as hopelessly lost as those whom we would presume to hold accountable, not for the beliefs per sé, but for the criminal actions they take pursuant to those beliefs, and in satisfaction thereof.

To punish someone who is truly non compos mentis is itself an evil act. The man with brain lesions who murders his neighbor in a fit of uncontrollable rage cannot be justly held responsible for the act itself, though he may be justly separated from the company of his fellows for the sake of the future safety of his brethren. But that is an objectively identifiable cause of action, and not the fog-shrouded notion of "mental illness", itself a myth for reasons I will not go into here.  Slippery is the slope and razor-thin the edge we tread, when we accept the utter bullshit notion of "mental illness" as rot cause, that being precisely my point here - how presumably well intended remedies so rapidly and stealthily turn into the most quietly subtle, and thereby wildest evil that people see as just and proper.  The Devil ain't red with a bifurcated tail, horns, pitchfork, and spewing flaming brimstone from his nostrils.  He most often seems the loving and trustworthy elder uncle in whose lap one so willingly reclines and feels so safe.

So in the endeavor not to devolve into evil, we shun such punishment in favor of restriction of those who for whatever identifiable PHYSICAL conditions are rendered unsafe for the company of their fellow human beings. This may look like punishment, but it is not the same thing, and it is carried forth with nothing but the greatest reticence, sorrow, and compassion, whereas just punishment should be carried forth with a proper degree of disgust and anger for that which the criminal has committed, all idiotic presumptions of the neutrality of an automation notwithstanding and preferably to be tossed into the dustbin.

But when we properly consider the murder in our example as having been undertaken pursuant to very specifically "statist" objectives (perhaps the neighbor was against a welfare state, and so "had" to be eliminated in the opinion of the murderer), we properly endeavor to PUNISH one who has committed such a heinous crime with the aggravating factor of statist intentions. In such cases we may engage in such punishment with a valid and justifiable sense of anger that underpins the similarly justifiable desire to punish, rather than the current hokey stupidity of "rehabilitation", which is nobody's responsibility but that of the criminal, and which comes about purely as the result of an individual's desire to reform his ways and sin no further, rather than the obsequious solicitations and cajoling of... <DRUM ROLL>... the "STATE".

So let us dispense with the nonsense and call statism what it is: a will to corruption by the individual pursuant to the corrupt goals of obtaining that to which he is not entitled, using the brute force of the fiction we call "the state" or "government", to wrest by brute force and threats of imprisonment and even death, from the hands of some men the fruits of their labors, or even those associated with one's First Property, what we commonly call their very lives, whether that be their time, energies, or life itself.

This places proper onus upon the individual, allows for proper punishment or other treatments pursuant to crimes and misdemeanors committed for the virtue of fulfilling such corrupt beliefs and the wishes that derive therefrom, and leaves we, the people, free of the false notions that, when accepted as true, lead us to the most disastrous outcomes. The history of the twentieth century should serve as all the proof of my veracity of my assertions, and to understand just how precariously tenuous is the most basic nature of human relations, the principles of which drive all human interaction. Get the principles wrong, and everything that follows thereafter will be wrong.

Thought is everything, and where mind goes, Brother Ass follows most immediately and with perfectly slavish obedience. Think wrong, act wrong. Wrong words lead to wrong thought, leading to wrong action. The significance and severity of this cannot in any way be over-stated.

Words are important; they are the single most important things in any man's life, whether or not he realizes it."

Be well, God bless you all - even those who disagree with my views - and as always, please accept my best wishes.

Do We Need "Government"?

Certainly as currently constituted, we by no means need "government". We do, however, need governance. The main form of governance, of course, is that of the individual over himself, which is the ideal. We all know, however, that this fails plenty often enough to have long ago become a serious issue.

When one fails to govern his own behavior properly, it then falls to others to govern him in his own stead. This is a most dolorous and taxing necessity, placing a clear and deleterious drag on "society". We might call it a "bad behavior tax". In many cases, individuals take care of the problems that arise from such failures to self-govern by any of several means. Shaming and calling out such behavior is one way, and it used to work quite effectively, at least in the less severe cases - but it seems to have lost much of its power as people have lost their senses of proper shame for committing acts meriting such mortification. Nonetheless, it remains effective in at least a small proportion of instances, most often by parents instilling such senses into their children.

Then there is the good old-fashioned ass-whooping. Sometimes a human being needs to have the crap smacked out of him when he behaves atrociously. A well chosen beating, whether serious or a mere smack in the head, can work minor miracles.

Finally, we come to the far more serious and regrettable levels of correction and defensivee actions in which nobody with a lick of sense wishes to engage and which often leads to catastrophic injuries and even death. The felon, in the commission of his crime, is rightly thrashed to within an inch of his life, or even killed outright when his actions threaten the integrity of another's justly held properties, most significantly his First Property, which we commonly refer to as his "life".

There are, however, many cases where not only is the criminal thwarted in his designs, but he actually survives his felonious stupidity, and having been apprehended alive, the commission of which must be addressed for any of several reasons of accountability and equity.

First and foremost is the question of primary consequence for having committed, or attempted to commit, a felonious act. We do not simply dust the criminal off and send him packing with a stern word about sinning no more. There must be a significant price to be paid for his choice of action as both punishment, as a warning that we, the people, are quite serious about our intolerance of such behaviors, and in some cases as a practical measure for dealing with those who have demonstrated themselves unfit to be in the company of their fellows. There is also the compensatory angle. Despite having been foiled, or by other means called to account for his actions, the criminal may have in any event succeeded, however temporarily or otherwise partially, in depriving another of his freedoms and/or the rights that derive so naturally therefrom. Perhaps he injured his victim directly in a physical manner, or perhaps financially. Regardless of the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, the criminal must do everything possible to make his injured party once again whole. In cases where it is not possible to do so, or where the criminal is unwilling, the latter must then pay with the currency of highest value known to men: his time in the form of occupying in a prison cell.


For example, if he break the arm of his victim, he must accept and repay all medical expenses incurred to restore the victim's arm to proper function. But once broken, an appendage can never recover quite 100%, and for that irredeemable aspect of his crime, the felon must pay with his time, and plenty of it.

So the question really comes down to how do we, as a collection of individuals we tend to call "society", institute governance in the cases where criminals need to be called to account and be punished for their vile and unjust acts? Are we to leave the various compensations for crimes up to each victim or his chosen agents? Ideally, that would seem the best course, but in practical terms it will not fly well, human beings being what they tend. A kid tosses his baseball through your costly plate-glass living room window: do you execute him as your notion of necessary repayment? Let us hope not. But the little darling must be held accountable. What to do? How about courts? Seems like a decent idea, but there are problems, as we are all able to readily see.

There is talk in libertarian, anarchist, and similar philosophical circles, of "private" courts. The way this idea is peddled tends to emotional appeal, but I can assure you that such courts would be no different that those of the so-called "state". Why? Glad you asked. Because humans. We have "government" courts, and in far too many cases we see the various corruptions in those dens of the crapshoot, whether it be incompetence, malice, the avarice of blind ambition, revenge, or some other bias that sets men's hearts afoul of the good and the just. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that private courts would play out any better, all else equal, once again because humans.

The answer lies not in whether the courts are public or private, but whether and how they are held accountable for their actions. For example, if a prosecutor is compelled by Law to produce to the court all exculpatory evidence, yet fails to do so, there are currently few consequences of any significance to be risked. But if the punishments be truly draconian, how many prosecutors will be willing to risk them for the sake of winning a case they know is bad in the first place by virtue of such evidence? Very few in my estimation, and when the injured parties of such perfidy are free to bring charges against such a prosecutor and the courts are given no choice but to try them, perhaps prosecuted by a party of the victim's choice, justice is likely to be best served, if even then imperfectly.

This is but one aspect of governance. Perhaps there are others, but by all means this is the bulk of it.

The advantage here is that every walking and breathing individual human being holds an equal stake in the institution, as well as equal power and authority, assuming equal risks for any improprieties they commit. Properly architected and administered, each man holds equal power in that institution, most particularly where injustices and crimes are committed. Imagine that ANY man or group thereof may call to account any other individual or group who, in their capacities as officials of governance (police, officials of the court including judges and prosecutors, etc.) have committed crimes either of malice or blunder. Imagine how different would be our daily reality. Gone would be the fear of saying the wrong thing or exercising a right in a way that would allow a rotten cop to drag you to the station in cuffs, to face an uncertain fate at the hands of a prosecutor and/or judge whose intentions and competence are not up to proper snuff. When all those in the chain of justice, including defendants, face grave consequences for the commission of errors and acts of malice or other corruptions, the landscape is cleared of the minefields into which the innocent so often and ignorantly wander today, often with terrible results.

Consider the case where a man shoots and kills an attacker. If he innocently admits that he shot the aggressor with the intention of killing him, even if for the sake of saving himself from being killed, rather than of "stopping the attack", he will likely face murder charges. It is precisely this brand of insane and wild corruption on the part of prosecutors that must be put to its proper and abrupt end, the same to be said for all such acts on the part of those who swear oaths of good faith and competent service to the people. The Law is not supposed to lie as a trap in wait for innocent men, yet that is precisely what it has become, having made a mockery of itself and the justice it is supposed to represent.

Make this one fundamental correction and the issue of whether we need "government" evaporates into the aether, as if it had never existed in the first place. By this means and for all practical purposes governMENT is removed, replaced with nothing but the conditions under which proper governance may be implemented and administered. This is the way of an optimally free and civilized society.

We humans are of a sort always to press the boundaries of that with which we can get away. That which we tolerate, we get more of precisely because the perpetrators are always pushing that envelope. This is one of the certainties of life, up there with death and taxes. Therefore, onus rests with each and every one of we who draw breath to define the borders and enforce them with a single minded and dare I say vicious intolerance that leaves the criminals in no state of confusion as to what will be their fate if they trespass. This goes for all criminals, but must be trebly emphasized for those in so-called "government" because the tendency to push boundaries is greatest where the temptations are greatest. Those in "government" live with the greatest temptations of them all, and must therefore be held on the shortest possible leashes, to taste the whip most bitterly when their behavior exceeds their office.

"Govenment" is just a label. There is not such thing in actual, material existence, but only in virtual terms. Never forget this and always bear it in the forefront of your awareness. It is the people bearing that label who must be addressed in terms of their behaviors and how we respond to excursions beyond their duly constituted authority. They must be treated with grim reprehension and retribution that when we are done with them, they will never again hold the least inclination of be otherwise able to make an encore performance. This way, we enjoy the benefits of the protections of those dedicated to such, while minimizing or even eliminating the felonies of abuse, whether by intent or accident. This is the design intent of the 28th Amendment to the Consititution of the United States of America. It is meant to empower every American citizen pursuant to maximizing the individual's ability to stave off the "state" and prevent it from running amok in the ways now so commonly encountered by those agents thereof who believe themselves to hold the authority to commit all manner of heinous crimes against those to whom they have sworn their oaths.

We have the power to crop "government" abuse by vast proportions. Making it so, however, is wholly up to us. There is no cavalry coming to your rescue, so the time is here for you to decide what it is you want, and it it is proper service by those whose jobs it is to protect your rights, then you need to start moving your asses, an Article V convention of the states being the righteous means to that end. We are far from having exhausted our options and civil war is in fact not the only remaining path to liberty as I had erroneously assumed in my frustrations of days and years past. No, ladies and gentlemen readers, the AVC is the answer and i contend that we must endeavor to pressure our state officials to ratify the call that we may, as architects of America's future, correct the errors that time has revealed in our current scheme of governance. The system is broken and it is up to every last one of us to step up to the Good Endeavor pursuant to our statuses as Freemen and for the sake of our freedoms and those of our posterity. The worst we can do is to sit idly in wait for the cavalry to arrive, because they aren't coming. YOU are the cavalry. YOU are the means by which this blessèd land has fallen into such deep troubles, and out of which it must be lifted. Only we, as lovers of freedom, can bring about recovery and actual improvement. We do this by coming to understand liberty; coming to love it in spite of all the scary and difficult bit therein, and becoming the bigger men by forgiving the sins of those whose views with which we do not agree.

By intent or otherwise, those in power have us at each other's throats and it suits them well enough to keep it so. Don't fall for the bait, regardless of how you identify politically. There is an enemy of all humanity: the tyrant and his enforcers. Let us come together in sufficiency to stop him dead in his tracks and ensure that his kind can no longer rise to power. He will always exist, and so it is to the dirt to which we much relegate him, and it is in the dirt to which we must ensure he remains forever. After that, if we want to return to the back-biting, then so be it. But for now, let us be at the very least, strange bedfellows acting in common to displace and render impotent those whose aim is to bring us all to wrack and ruin. We can do it, but we must have the will to do so and to set aside our differences, at least for the time being.

God bless America, God bless our freedom, God bless you, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Diprotisy (Hypocrisy) Is The Root Of All Crime

Words never cease to amaze me, not only in their meanings, but in the dangers they pose when their semantics vary over time, most often from mis- or abuse, intentional or otherwise.  

My purpose here is to demonstrate how hypocrisy is the basis of all crime, yet the original meaning of the term makes references other than that which I intent. To wit, Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1785 defines hypocrisy as "dissimulation with regard to the religious or moral character."  Dissimulation, in turn, is "the act of dissembling; hypocrisy."  Do note the circular definition. Dissemble: "to play the hypocrite; to use false professions; the wheedle."  Note again the circularity.

The Oxford etymological dictionary defines hypocrisy thusly:

 c. 1200, ipocrisie, "the sin of pretending to virtue or goodness," from Old French ypocrisie, from Late Latin hypocrisis "hypocrisy," also "an imitation of a person's speech and gestures," from Attic Greek hypokrisis "acting on the stage; pretense," metaphorically, "hypocrisy," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" (see hypo-) + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (from PIE root *krei- "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The h-was restored in English 16c."

All of the several other sources I consulted provided no improvement on these results, a "hypocrite" being one whose true opinions or virtues, do not conform with those professed publicly or privately, particularly with respect to religious or moral issues.  This original sense of "hypocrite" has little semantic relation to what one can only conclude is a modern mangling of the original, the relationship between the two being apparent, albeit in a somewhat tortuously stretched, tenuously thin, and overly-subtle way.  

The sense to which I refer is that of the "double-standard", a term that somehow does not hold the same oomph as "hypocrisy", not to mention that its first known usage dates back only to 1872, a mere 151 years from the date of this writing.  It was my hope to discover a far more ancient term that would convey the sense of a double standard with a singular and unambiguous force, yet I have been unable to identify such a word that met the requirement in a powerfully satisfactory way, which I find perplexing and somewhat disturbing.  How, I ask, would a man of the tenth century have described that which many today is known as the double standard?  I can't find it.  The various thesauri list terms such as:

biases
favoritism
partisanship
unfairness
favoritism
nonobjectivity
inequity
discrimination
prejudice
favor
illiberality
tendentiousness
inequality
tilts
bigotry
injustice
one-sidedness
prepossession
preconceptions
unjustness

None of these words carry the double-standard meaning or implication, save in the most obliquely indirect senses, many of them being either elements of a double-standard, or an effect or result thereof.

Therefore, I shall coin the term "diprot", from the Greek διπλά πρότυπα (diplá prótypa, literally "double standard").  Its form shall be as follow:

diprot, n.  A double-standard.  

 "Governmental monopoly on force is the most heinous of all diprots."

diprotisy, n.  Instance where a double-standard is present.  Synonymous with the same, mistaken and modern sense of "hypocrisy", as distinguished from the proper sense of not being as one presents himself.

 "The diprotisy of his vote on the bill left him untrusted by voters."

diprotor, n. 1  A hypocrite in the sense of one who judges by, or employs a double standard that either releases an individual from a stricture that is to apply to others, or confers a right or privilege denied to others, in all cases where no just, logically valid, or truthful basis exists for so doing. 

 "Commonly known as The Great Diprotor, the judge was hated throughout the land as a tyrant for her uneven treatment of defendants for the same crimes."

diprotorous, diprotical adj. 1 Of or relating to a condition, action, or thing having the quality of a double standard. 

"The diprotorous government edict lead to violent revolution."

diprotical, adj.  1 Of, or relating to a double standard. 

"Stanley's resentment arose from his mother's diprotical treatment of himself and his younger brother."

diprotorine, diprotoresque, adj. 1 Having a quality or character suspiciously reminiscent of a double standard.   

"The diprotoresque specter of the proposed legislation lead to violent protest in the streets of the city."  

"His diprotorine acts eventually left him with little trust from others."

diprotorize v. To imbue with or lend the character of an invalid double standard. 

 "If you diprotorize the Law, you will be despised by everyone in town."

diprocate, diprocation v. To act as a diprotor, the act of one who diprocates.  

"His diprocation on punishment for Congressmen's crimes backfired on him wildly." 

I find it somewhat surprising that a term dedicated to the double-standard sense of "hypocrisy" is not to be found, since the concept is central to many issues that relate to our innate freedoms, not to mention all other manner of human transactions.  Whether this new and dedicated term catches on, only time will tell. Being dedicated to the concept of double standards, unlike hypocrisy, for which that sense is a relatively modern bending of a word, "diprotisy" is dedicated to that notion in its origin and derivation, and therefore cannot be reasonably taken as relating to anything else.

Getting to our ultimate point, the purpose here is to make clear that diprotisy is a foundational characteristic common to all crime.  It is safe to assume that no robbers wish to be robbed.  The likelihood of rapists wanting to be raped, is vanishingly small, as would be the case for murderers being murdered.  Child molesters are most likely to resent being molested, likely were, and by that means became molesters themselves.

The criminal, in the commission of his crime is saying "I can do to you, but you cannot do to me".  Is this not the very core of so-called "government" operations?  Is it not the very essence of the master/slave relationship?  All such relationships and events employ invalid double standards, and as such are in themselves despicable, prima facie.  In the case of crimes, they are plainly felonious.

For the sake of clarity and completeness it must be pointed out that there are valid double standards.  A fine example of this would be that of parent and child, where the former may admonish the latter with "do as I say, not as I do."  The parent may consume alcoholic beverages and smoke cigarettes, yet the child is validly forbidden from such activity for any of a number of self-evidently just reasons.  Judging different things based on standards appropriate to each, those standards are perforce going to be different where such differences are relevant to the judging.  One does not, for example, judge the flavor quality of an apple using the standards used for similar judging of oranges.  

In issues of sameness, however, such as those of the common innate freedoms of all human beings and the rights that derive therefrom, the standards of measurement and judgement must be mostly and perforce identical across all lines of consideration.  To do otherwise, most particularly where disparagement of the rights of an individual or group thereof is the result, constitutes a felony of the highest order, meriting severe consequences.

There is no case of crime where diprocation has not served as an elemental, overarching, and dominating factor.  In such senses, diprotisy stands as an utter evil.  To act as a diprotor is an utmost cause for shame to be avoided at nearly any cost.  To be labeled as a diprotor should be viewed as grand mockery, a grave accusation, and as such one should use the word with due care in consideration and discretion.

May you find this discourse of some practical value, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

 

The Only Solution

Anything in terms of economies that are non-trivial in size and scope constitute as matters of their very natures, large miulti-variate systems, the characteristics of which render them generally nonlinear. Therefore, while possibly predictable (and I contend it is often not so) in trivial microcosm, size not only matters, it fundamentally alters the nature of the beast such that economists can howl and shout about how things shall be, and the system may nonetheless do something entirely contrary.

But one thing has proven itself time and again over the thousands of years men have convened civilized marketplaces: freedom is ALWAYS and universally the condition that allows for optimal efficiency to reign, thereby delivering the greatest prosperity possible in any given world. This is the most basic truth that tyrants and wannabes refuse to accept, leading thereby and invariably to war, poverty, disease in all forms, misery, and death.

Liberty is not just the best solution to the challenges facing humanity; it is the *only* solution.

Blessings be upon one and all and do accept my best wishes.

Handling Media For Interviews Redux

In "A Strategy For Handling The Mainstream Media", we examined a simple method for protecting oneself from the skullduggery in which interviewers now so commonly engage for the purposes of defaming the people they interview.  Ambush interviews are now common enough, and regardless of an interviewers intentions, even his bumbling ineptitude and/or that of his editors and other handlers can turn into a nightmare, especially for public figures such as office holders, candidates, and other people of public interest.  The damage to reputation can prove very costly, as can be the task of proving one's case in civil court.  Best to properly set conditions upfront, prior to damage done such that you retain the power to forestall such catastrophes.

However, as suggested in the previous article, arriving at an interview with one's own camera crew might prove impractical for some.  There are two additional approaches to achieving the same end that we shall briefly discuss today.  The first is to simply bring one's own recording equipment and set it up in a manner suiting the interviewee's needs.  Good quality video recordings are now easily producible with the common cell phone.

Of utmost importance is an interviewee's setting of the conditions for granting the interview in the first place.  A short and likely incomplete list of conditions might look similar to the following:

1. A full, unedited copy of the interview is to be given over to the interviewee no less than 24 hours prior to broadcast.
2. The final broadcast edit is to be made available to the interviewee no less than 24 hours prior to broadcast.
3. Neither the interview, nor any portion or other edits thereof, may be broadcast without the explicit, written permission of the interviewee, who shall reserve the final authority to grant or withhold permission to broadcast, in what form, how many times, etc.  Interviewee holds ultimate editorial authority over the interview.
4. The interview remains the property of the interviewee in equal measure to the ownership interests of all other parties for a period of not less than 99 years from the date of interview.
5. If interviewer and/or his agents/superiors/employers choose to reject interviewee's requirements for broadcast, all copies of the interview are to be placed into the physical possession of the interviewee within 24 hours of rejection, and all property rights to the interview transfer solely to interviewee and/or his agent(s).
6. Interviewer holds 100% responsibility for the security of all interview materials, regardless of form, until such time as broadcast or other publication has been affected, or those materials have been securely returned to the interviewee.
7. The interview agreement must be put into written, contractual form, and perfected by all parties.

Few media organizations will go for these conditions, at least at first.  In order for a potential interviewee to win at this strategy, he must be willing to forgo all interviews for as long as it takes to find an interviewer willing to accede to these reasonable conditions.  But if enough of the truly interesting interviewees engage in this strategy, media outlets will then be faced with the choice of accepting such conditions, or no longer providing one of the major elements of broadcast journalism: the interview.  In time, I am confident that the networks would have little viable choice but to agree to such a set of conditions, all designed to keep the journalists honest.

So long as we play by their rules, they get to do almost anything they please.  The moment a critical mass stands tall and uses the leverage it possesses, the game will change and either the media will begin to pale in terms of their offerings, or they will toe the line of reason and straighten up their acts to align more closely with the fundamental ethics of their occupation.

Don't allow them the latitude to play you for a chump.  You have what they want, and by that virtue you can force the choice between conducting an upright interview, or doing without.  The other side of that coin rests with your obligation to be equally ethical in how you comport yourself throughout the process.

We don't have to allow these sorts to get away with that which we now witness on a daily basis.  Empower yourself discovering and developing ways and skills for countervailing the chicanery of scurrilous people.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Passivity V. Tyranny = Suicide

Jean-Paul Sartre:

"Understand finally this: if violence were to begin this evening, if neither exploitation nor oppression had ever existed in the world, perhaps concerted non-violence could relieve the conflict. But if the whole governmental system and your non-violent thoughts are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity only serves to place you on the side of the oppressors."

It is our passivity, regardless of our motives, that is killing liberty. I have been telling people this for thirty years, yet they reject active non-equivocation based in the extreme prejudice of knowing what it right between men, v. what is evil.

Passivity in the face of tyranny is tantamount to a self-imposed death sentence, whether it be the death of one's freedoms and the rights that evolve therefrom, or actual physical death at the hands of the butchers.  This is one area where the so-called "lefty" or "progressive" seems to hold an understanding superior to those who claim themselves far more broadly as champions of freedom and the liberties man's natural state of being implies.  I have found it astonishing that this might be the case, given that in reality those of a progressive ideology, are actually in favor of the very societal/governmental elements that lead to the destruction they claim they wish to avoid.  The irony is so thick there, one cannot cut it with a well-sharpened saw.

But when examined a bit more carefully, we see that one of the problems with left-looking individuals is threefold.  

Firstly, their conception of freedom is stilted in that it is ever so narrow in scope.  Leftists tend to see freedom as far more narrowly circumscribed than does, say, an anarchist.  For example, sexual libertinism sits at the forefront of the list of progressive priorities for individual prerogatives.  To be able to engage in whatever sexually-based action one wishes, regardless of its nature, is a very large part of how progressives view their very narrowly defined universe individual freedom.  Drug abuse is yet another, and while in principled terms they may be said to be correct on each count, the fact that these two issues constitute perhaps the majority of the corpus of what they view as valid human praxeological prerogative give clear indication of just how narrow is their world view.

Contrarily, the progressive views the right to keep and bear arms as non-existent, and that all arguments in favor of that right are invalid and should be met with utmost bile, venom, and in many cases violence of any sort needed to see their wills made manifest in terms of daily practice.

Secondly, the progressive view of liberty is perforce and by it's one-sided and unprincipled nature, hypocritical.  "Only our list of liberties is valid.  Nobody else's counts, save where and how they coincide with ours."  Progressives are champions of a very narrowly circumscribed view of freedom and are absolutely and most violently opposed to any deviations from the boundaries that have been defined for them and that which they accept with such blind intolerance of even the least variation.

Thirdly, the mean progressive paradoxically favors the application of tyrannical force pursuant to the imposition of his stunted notion of freedom upon the entirety of the human race.  He makes no allowance for the diverse interests of individuals and cultures, a truth made so ironic in the face of his never ceasing pulpit-pounding regarding "diversity, inclusion, and equality".

And yet, they well understand that refusing to actively defy and countervail that which they (often correctly) see as tyranny is the express-lane to the loss of all hope for achieving their utopian goals, such as they may be.  This is a lesson that all freedom-loving men need to learn, understand, embrace, and pursuant to which to develop the requisite habits of intolerance with respect to tyrannical acts, and how they choose to comport themselves with regard to those acts, both philosophically and as matters of daily practice, both as individuals and as members of a population whose fundamental daily goals includes the maintenance of proper individual liberty and the rights which follow therefrom.

To tolerate violation carries with it the implicit acceptance of the trespass.  This in turn implies that what would otherwise constitute a felonious encroachment upon the sovereign rights of Freemen, is with grave mistake elevated to the status of a valid act.  Few human follies rise to this level of wild and wooly danger.  Every human failure resulting in tolerating the intolerable serves only to bolster the tyrant's position and his arguments in favor of his perfidies.  It endangers not just the individuals against whom the crimes are committed, but by extension all humanity as such acts become rapidly normalized and deeply entrenched in the human psyche.  Our history is rotten with examples.

Passivity in the face of tyranny is death to one's freedom, not to mention culture.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Public Governance

It should be clear to anyone who has given careful thought to the notion of "government", that it is not the correct solution to the issue and challenges of general governance.  This is most especially true of the governmental architectures of the so-called "nation states" of what we may call the relatively modern era of, say, the past 300 or so years.  By their very architectures, "governments" thwart the natural propensities of men in ways the outcomes of which have shown to be detrimental to humanity as a whole.  Perhaps the greatest ways in which such thwarting has damaged the fabric of human civilization lies in the invalid prohibitions on behavior that are consensual, and therefore not criminal.

Take dueling, for example.  One's initial response to the notion tends to be that of revulsion and a feeling that we speak of a self-evident absurdity.  Even if we were all to agree that it is in fact so, that we agree on the matter, it does not follow that we are within our rights to prohibit such activities so long as the participants engage in it with informed consent, and bring no others to harm in the process.   This may be difficult for many to accept, and yet it is clearly true once one gets past the initial, conditioned response that was spoon fed them by the culture in which they came up.

We humans have an overwhelming propensity for falsely criminalizing non-criminal behavior that we find objectionable.  Some might chafe at homosexuality and wish it criminalized, which once it was and remains so in many jurisdictions around the world.  Others support the false criminalization of illicit drug possession, use, manufacture, and distribution.  The list of criminalized non-crimes is rather long, the prohibitions of which have served no demonstrable good, but have in fact rather damaged the social fabric.

Bear in mind also that just because we acknowledge the validity of public governance (v. "private"), it does not follow that we condone the notion of "government".  The general belief of many self-professed lovers of liberty is that anything non-private is "statist", the single gravest insult such people can hurl at another human being, in their eyes.  This amounts to presenting a false dichotomy that hog-ties the mind, thereby eliminating avenues of alternate solutions.  There are few hazards so grave as cutting off valid solution spaces, especially for some of the more serious problems, yet this is precisely what many self-described "anarchists", "voluntarists", and "agorists" do when they rail and rave at anyone who fails to toe their line of across-the-board privatization of the entirety of human existence.

What such people have failed to properly dope out is that the essential problem is not that of the evils of public governance, but rather the evil that is the very concept of government.  Governance is an activity, whereas conceptually speaking government is a thing, an object unto itself with an existence separate and independent from humanity itself.  The idea of government may not have originated with the intention of becoming this monobloc object in the minds of people, but it has largely become precisely that.  This is how many people view "government", along with the attendant and often tacit assumptions of its vast inherent powers and authority, not so much to govern, but to rule.  Consider the old saw, "you can't fight city hall", as just one example of how the notion of objectively real government has distorted human perception so wildly out of sound shape that we now as matters of average behavior tend to obey with great and timid compliance any any all edicts issued therefrom, regardless of how wildly idiotic, dangerous, and criminally violative of our rights as Freemen.

As I have written elsewhere, remove all people from the earth, and with them "government" vanishes without a trace.  Government is the root of the problem, along with the darker side of human nature, regardless whether public or private.  Private government, in fact, poses at least an equal threat to liberty, and make no mistake about it, whatever you call it, when people become unaccountable for their actions as agents of "government", a people are already well on their ways to being lost.

Therefore, it is imperative that human beings utterly reject the concept of the object: government.  Rather, they must embrace the notion of governance which, properly defined and administered, can but only produce far improved results where liberty is preserved and tyranny stamped out with brutal and cold indifference.  When we see people we now view as Merecogs in the machinery of "government", we tend to see them as unassailable because we tend to see "government" in the same way.  They become sacrosanct by extension and association, and why?  Because "government" says so.  A prime example of this is the fact that in most US jurisdictions, if you so much as place a friendly hand on the shoulder of a police officer, he is falsely authorized to arrest you and have you charged with a felony.  It is absurd, and yet it is a reality as common as dirt.

In this way have we built our own prisons of thought and perception with indomitable walls that cannot be gotten over, under, around, through, or be sapped.

Also be clear on the fact that in a truly free land, governance is the first responsibility of the individual, the duty which he discharges primarily by governing himself in accord with the principles of proper human relations.  This is key, because the purpose of having agents of public governance is mainly to deal with those cases where self-governance has failed to meet the standard.  Murders, robberies, rapes, beatings, and other real and actual crimes are the purview of governing authority, and not the valid praxeological prerogatives of Freemen.  Without the proper comportment of what I will conversationally term the "vast majority" of a people, governing agents become necessarily either overwhelmed wherein they quit their now-precarious positions, or they turn to responses that seem uncomfortably close to those of tyrants.  Even this latter may be valid when grave circumstance leaves no choice in what we may call an existential crisis, but such powers may validly hold only for the shortest of periods until such time as people recover proper possession of themselves and return to the ways of proper behavior in the company of others.  History shows, as we are living through this very circumstance as of this writing, that once such emergency powers have been assumed, those who have taken those reins are often loathe to relinquish them.  But this is a problem more of human nature than of the architecture and implementation of proper governance in a free land.

The moment we strip away the false facade of "government", exposing it as nothing more than a collection of fellow human beings with no greater authority to act than your own, the pictures in our minds suddenly, radically, and somewhat indelicately change.  When you see the police officer in this way, he no longer stands as an irresistible monument of state-sponsored force against those over whom he lords.  Rather, he is at best a public servant beholden to serve you in all the theoretically proper ways, and at worst a murdering coward and felon.  This alteration of one's perrceptions, of course, does nothing to alter the behavior of cops.  Resist their predations and other felonies against you, and you stand to be violated in ways up to an including being murdered outright.  But this change in perception, while impotent to alter third-party behavior overnight, at least leads to the possibility of better times to come,.  If a critical mass of public awareness is reached, hand in hand with the necessary attitudinal changes by those same people such that public tolerance of tyranny wanes to a point where people become willing to put their lives, their honors, and their fortunes to risk for the sake of their own liberty, as well as that of all those for whom they hold love and affection, a deep transformational improvement cannot be far off.

With the right change in the perceptions of enough people, the tyrant and his agents are backed into a corner wherein the choice is foisted upon them: cease all malversation, or pay with your lives.  This is a reasonable path to change, and I daresay it is the only one precisely because so many people in positions of power tend to wander from the path of reason such that no message other than that of the threat of imminent personal destruction gets through to them.  Their positions lead them to behave as petulant, spoiled, well-armed children prone to pitching tantrums that know few limits when the proles fail to toe their lines.

Privatizing government does nothing to ameliorate this situation precisely because the minds of the governed remain saddled with the same baggage with respect to the ways in which government is perceived, and therefore regarded.  Furthermore, privatization invariably leads to diverse definitions of "proper governance", with nothing in principle to assure that any given jurisdiction will indeed govern properly with respect to the principles of proper human relations, which is what governance is supposed to be all about.  Furthermore, there is nothing in principle to stop such a private jurisdiction from running off the rails, especially when they have at their disposal a body of armed, able, and willing enforcers, a commodity syndicate all too easily obtained and bent to one's will, especially when imbued with the imprimatur of "authority", whether valid or false. In most cases, as may be readily seen, it is the latter.

The advantage of public governance is that in the minds of people there tends to be the trend toward seeing the propriety and necessity of a uniformly architected code of guidance and control (when needed) that is to be uniformly administered such that justice is fair and equitable across all social lines, regardless of status, purport to authority, or any other phony baloney exception or claim to immunity from being held accountable.

You might now wish to point out that this is what we currently have as you read these words, and I would be forced to agree.  You might then point out that despite this standard, we are awash in corruption, political falderal, deceit, lies, injustice, and outright tyranny.  Once again, I would be obliged to acknowledge the truth of the fact.  And finally, you might then ask, "if this be the case, then your theory of the benefit of public governance is disproved", to which I would have to respond by saying "not so fast!"

The problem is not public governance per sé, but rather the fact that we the people fail to hold accountable those who commit gross and criminal violations upon the people to whom they are in principle beholden by virtue of their sworn oaths of office.  I have attempted to offer a fair swag at a remedy for this most grievous and dolorous circumstance with my idea for Amendment XXVIII (28) to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Therein I set forth the notion and basic architecture for holding sternly to account every human being who has sworn their oath of good faith and competent service to the people of America.  To my knowledge, no modern nation-state has ever yet saddled their governing administrators with such requirements, threats, risks, and grave punishments.  As in the Amendment, I maintain that when those vested in the Public Trust quake in nauseated, sweating apprehension at the very thought of committing a violation against those to whom they swore service, malversation will for all practical purposes become a relic all but forgotten.  Those few cases that would on occasion arise to the attention of the public would be punished with extreme prejudice, thus serving as good reminders to the rest of what awaits them when they misbehave as agents of governance, sworn to uphold and protect the very rights upon which they had trespassed without cause or authority.

I have asserted and I maintain that the solutions to tyranny are simple: hold the criminals who transgress against the Public Trust accountable in such a manner that none but the most severely insane criminals would dare engage.  The small handful of psychopaths failing to comport themselves to the reasonable standard may be fed to the flames with a clear conscience as the elimination of the most grave of threats to humanity's inherent freedoms and the rights that issue therefrom stands as a vlid response to such threats, just as shooting the ghost from a rapist's carcass is a most appropriate response by the intended victim.  Nail their wicked hides to the church door in the town square that all may bear witness to the condign fate of tyrants and their minions.  In the matters of governance under the specifications of Special Trust, only the most brutally non-equivocating responses will keep the wolves at bay.  Anything less invites and encourages the disaster that is today's human world.  This reality is harsh and in many ways ugly, but ask yourself this: is it any uglier than the results of seventy five years of Soviet-style communism?  It is uglier than the ongoing tyranny that is the Red Chinese "government"?  Is it uglier than the Khmer Rouge picnic in Cambodia?  Idi Amin?  Hitler?  Any of the other grand butchers of human history who served only to sow death, disease, poverty, and misery unto all whose lives they touched?

What would you prefer, given there are no other practically effective alternatives: millions murdered in wars and under the various tyrannical purges of murdering lunatics, or a world that holds the tiny minorities of such people to account for their crimes in a manner that leaves the rest of us not just with reasonable feelings of assurance that we are protected from such people as a general rule, but that we are all give something about which to think as the hangman's rope snaps tight upon the neck of the man who would see your children relegated and reduced to abject servitude, and perhaps even extinction?

I, for one, am fully in favor of killing off smaller numbers of tyrannical administrators of governance, rather than allowing those same people to murder innocents by the boxcar load on trains that stretch for miles into the vanishing horizon.  It is not that I wish to see people brought to great harm.  It is precisely that I wish nobody to suffer such fates, while recognizing the irremediable nature of the tyrannical personality type.  I am willing to see evil for what it is, meet it head-on, and remove it as a threat to good and decent, and peaceable people who wish nothing more than to live their lives as they see fit while bringing no harm to their fellows.  This is not an ill-reasoned desire, but is the very essence of the lives of Freemen.  Do what thou wilt, but bring no unjust harm.

Thanks once again, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Private Governance Is Not A Solution

The problem with most anarchists and those of similar philosophial bents is that they categorically reject governance.  In their understandable desire to see the elimination of the evils of "government", they toss all dedicated public  governing activity to the winds with the claim that the "market" will act as the governing mechanism, as if by its own and seemingly magical accord.  This notion holds understandably strong appeal with those who love the notion of freedom, but does so in a way similar to the way in which the Star Trek franchise of low-quality science fiction appeals to its fans; the great benefits without having to do any real work.  What these presumed lovers of liberty have failed to calculate in this model are a few factors that arise as problems, at least one of them even greater than that of so-called "government".  

Allow me to explain.

Firstly and for example, when we speak of "private courts" as do so many anarchists, as being the free-market solution to issues of crime, tort, equity, and justice, there is the tacit assumption that those courts are to be beholden to those whom they ostensibly serve.  This notion is all well and good, so far as it goes, but it never goes quite far enough.  When such a private court goes rogue or corrupt in some other manner, and here it matters not whether it happens once, multiple times, or even becomes a habitual phenomenon, it matters no whit whether it is taken to task if the parties for whom injustice has been served have been irreparably damaged.  This is especially true in cases where significant time has passed since the beginning of a sentence and time has already been served.  How does one compensate those whose irreplaceable time has been stolen from them?

Yes, one can compensate with money, but that is a timid replacement for time, careers, opportunities, and family lost, as well as the rest of the grand miseries heaped upon the innocent without either just cause or authority.  And who is to say that the courts in question will be held accountable, or even that they can be?

There is an angle played by anarchists that says the competitive marketplace will handle such situations, but of this I hold grave doubt.  For one thing, who will establish the authority for a man or group thereof to hold a court accountable for its failures?  By what authority does such a man or body thereof claim the valid power to do so?  What is their standard of judgment, who gets to establish it, and by what authority do they do so?  Of one thing we may rest assured is that such a court will deny any such authority, which brings us right back to the original problem we face today: an effective "governMENT" having been established and having positioned itself above those whom it is supposed to act as a servant, but in point of practical fact acts as master.

Secondly, the next grand assumption is that there will be market competition whereby multiple courts act in a given market space to countervail the excesses, corruptions, and incapacities of the another; the good old idea of "balance of powers".   What of monopolies?  Consider the case where a court does better enough than the rest to put their competition out of business, thereby becoming, let us assume, a regional monopoly.  What is to stop them from pulling the Walmart trick whereby as the competition recedes into extinction, the prices are then gradually raised, leaving shoppers little choice, save perhaps to drive long distances to find better venues?  What is to stop such a monopoly from going corrupt, and once done, who will hold them accountable?  Bear in mind the wholly predictable human habit of seeking greater powers with a stern determination never to allow oneself to relinquish that power, once acquired.

What does one do when such a court comes into power and stands unchallenged?  What does a population do when such a court becomes practically unchallengeable by any means other than that of open warfare, replete with killing, maiming, terrorizing the innocent, and the destruction of all manner of valuable property?

Such issues are never to my awareness addressed by the proponents of these theoretically free-market driven societies in any detail, save to assert that the market will see to them, presumably in a fair, equitable, just, and non-violent manner.  I do not buy this for a moment, the reason being that the people of the United States of America have on their books every means of doing precisely this, and yet now suffer under one of the most virulently corrupt and dangerous governments on the planet at the time of this writing.

Let us imagine a group of citizens manages to overthrow such a monopolized court.  What then?  Does that population go without the benefit of a venue in which they may seek justice?  For how long?  What of the pending cases of the overthrown court?  What of the cases closed where people are in prison for crimes they may not have committed?  What of torts that never actually happened, yet for which parties had been held responsible?  What of equities imposed that were not at all equitable?  What of judgments that can now no longer be trusted in any manner or degree?  What of the records of such events?  What if no other private court steps up to fill the void?  How would such a court be held accountable for its actions?  By what standards and procedures would the new court take up its position? 

The litany of such queries is vast and many of those questions lead to mine fields of thorny issues that are not so easily solved.

Let us bear in mind here that these courts are privately established, privately held, and privately operated.  There is no principled mechanism by which such entities can be held accountable for their actions, save that the people break out the torches and pitchforks.  Each process of establishment of such courts would be private matters, technically beyond the question of the marketplace.  Granted, such establishments would almost certainly have to toe a line upfront.  But in time and as it gained effective power, such courts would invariably seek to increase their influences, even if done in very thin increments that do not arouse the suspicions and possible anger of the people served, which is precisely what commonly happens with so-called "governments" in universal fashion, if at varying degrees of advance.

And what of arresting those accused of crimes who have been brought before a judge? Under what authority does one human being appropriate the liberties of another man, effectively kidnapping him for judgment by others?  I cannot say that such authority does not exist, but that its application can run amok most wildly and in very short order, unless there are rules.  But who drafts them?  By what authority do they do so and by what standard?  Who holds them accountable to the integrity of the rules they pass into what we may call "effective Law"?

What of the arrestee who objects to the private court to which he has been taken, perhaps claiming his distrust of the ability to get a fair shake there?  What if there are no other venues in the given locale?  What of the difference of opinion on such matters of trust between arrestor and arrestee?  Will the private court have its own private enforcers to affect such arrests?  How would such enforcers, whether officers of the court in question, or ordinary citizens, be held accountable for their actions, most particularly in the case where the accused is found to have been innocent of the charges?

We could go on for days hammering out the various questions, not to mention the ways in which practical administration can go wrong.  Furthermore, by now we should be able to see that there stands a grand gorilla in this room that speaks to the need for a consistent and universal standard by which justice is best to be administered, however imperfectly at times.  Private means private, which means that within the bounds of the entity, what they say, goes.  Anyone not seeing the great and looming hazard there is either not paying attention, or suffers from some grave deficiency, mental or moral.

And so we come in a sense, full-circle, in that it can be seen that a public system of courts remains the best solution in this imperfect world.  But a proper public court system would differ from that under which we now suffer in some fundamental ways.  More broadly speaking, a proper system of governance would be public, yet very different, not so much structurally, but rather in terms of the nature of the powers of the parties in question, that is, the servants and those whom they are charged to serve.

Today, "government" stands as the de-facto master, the people being the serfs; the proles; those whose faces are effectively smashed with Orwell's proverbial boot.  In a properly formed and administered system of governANCE, the word "government" would be dismissed from service, once and for all time.  The powers of the people to regulate most directly the ways in which the servants of governance (we may call them SOGs just to be cute) comport themselves in the discharge of their duties, would be clear and unassailable in principle.  Making such powers practically invincible would, as in all cases, be left to the people.  Americans hold that power now, yet they have allowed themselves to be cowed into serfdom by forces that have consistently acted against their better interests: the interests of their status as Freemen.  The responsibility for this dolorous and rue-worthy outcome rests almost wholly on the people.  While it may be said that the so-called "politicians" had neither cause nor authority to engage in their felonious perfidies against the people to whom they swore their oaths, it can come as no surpriser that they have done so, just as it is no surprise that a man is bitten when he carelessly chooses to play with a sidewinder.  It is only to be expected that a political office holder or other agent of "government" is going to inevitably go wrong, left to his devices unsupervised.

Because this devolution is perfectly predictable in effectively all cases, there can be only one practicable solution: the people must hold and exercise the power to hold accountable all such agents of governance who stray from the narrow path that defines their duties, such as they may be in each case.  The people must be able to punish such violators of the Public Trust in ways brutal and cruel such that all who occupy positions of Special Trust (in other words, SOGs) are given the occasion graphic reminder of the tenuous nature of their positions and that they serve at the pleasure of the people.  I have outlined the basics of such powers and responsibilities in my Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution of the United States of America, a proposal I would see added to the document yesterday and made the Law of the land forthwith.

When the people are able, ready, and eager to bring violators of the Public Trust to justice, and to mete out grave punishments for those duly convicted of their crimes against those to whom they swore oaths of good faith and competent service upon their words and their honors, the face of the world will change to vast improvement in short order.

We suffer the slings and arrows not of the chances of outrageous fortune, but of the mostly synthetic machinations of other men, whether their actions are the products of blundering incompetence, good but wrong-headed intention, or outright criminality.  It is up to us to change this.  There is no cavalry coming to rescue us from the boogie-men of "government".  We must be our own cavalry.  We must insist upon the changes needed to wrest our freedoms from the hands of the most dangerous men on the planet, keep those liberties close to our bosoms, and guard them with Patrick Henry's jealously, the more greenly covetous, the better.

At the end of the day, what is required is knowledge and determination sufficient to the maintenance of liberty.  There will always be those who seek to take from you that which is yours without your consent.  The only way to adequately ensure agains this is an attitude of absolute intolerance for trespass in enough of a population to make the consequences far too ghastly to even contemplate.

The problem with "government" lies in the minds of men, and not in anything materially substantive.  There is nothing wrong with "government" as a concept, but the practice tends to be far removed from theory.  That can be remedied, but the cost is high, requiring a vast adjustment in the attitudes of most people.  When people take "government" as something that actually exists in itself, independent of humanity, they have sealed their fates as serfs and possibly even as slaves.  But when people recognize that "government" is nothing other than a collection of other people no different from themselves, everything becomes open to change in that they see their own authority to hold to account those in whom they have vested their belief that the agents of "government" will execute the functions of governance with competence and faith to that trust.

The solutions to the problems addressed here lie with you and you alone.  Get yourself educated; develop a love of liberty; learn to see the challenges and risks as blessings of freedom and not a curse. Finally, spread the gospel of freedom to everyone you know and have them do the same.  It is not too late to reclaim that which has been so wrongly and feloniously stolen away, but you have to act.  Waiting for someone else to come to the rescue will assure your fate as a less-than-human.

Be well my friends, and as always please accept my best wishes.