Wednesday, July 27, 2011

What's it gonna take?

In case you haven't noticed, I'm an anarchist. No, not one of those guys who runs around spraypainting circled "A"s on other peoples' property, smashing windows that don't belong to me, wearing black, and advocating socialism. No sir, I'm a REAL anarchist. I'm a man who believes that no man has the right to aggress upon another man.

I'm not alone here, I've got some pretty good company. Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ are a few notable anarchists. Note, when I say "Anarchist", I mean, a follower of the "Non-Aggression Principle". But what does not aggressing against another person have to do with a philosophy of not accepting a government? Well, it's quite simple...all governmental power is derived from aggression against someone.

At its basic level, we must understand what is necessary for government to operate. It cannot function without mandatory taxation, which is THEFT for any who do not consent to it. That is an aggression against property. Refuse to pay taxation? You're going to jail, which is an aggression against liberty. Resist jail using physical force? You're going to be dealt with violently, which is an aggression against life itself.

So there you have it...government, even at its most basic level, cannot exist without aggressing against life, liberty, and property of those subjected to it non-consensually. That's just dealing with taxation. Now look at laws geared toward dictating how people are allowed to act morally, financially, and physically...or, for that matter, laws dictating how one is required to act when speaking to a member of the "enforcer class".

Any law which carries a legally-binding penalty for non-compliance will ultimately result in death for anyone who resists the law to its intended end, provided that person is not captured alive and dealt with by the courts. Yes, even a minimum monetary fine for not wearing a seatbelt. If you refuse to wear a seatbelt, you'll be issued a ticket. If you refuse to pay the ticket, you'll have someone show up at your door and physically attempt to arrest you. If you resist arrest, you will be physically assaulted. If you resist assault with physical force, force will be escalated until you either succumb, or are killed.

Where am I going with all of this? Well, today, I read an article about the Republican Party of South Carolina's state-level leadership calling for the immediate resignation and/or other means of removal, of two members of the party's local-level leadership. This call was based solely upon their agreement with words expressed in an article "When Should You Shoot a Cop".

Yes, the title of that article is a bit shocking, and it was meant to be. It does, however, go forth and discuss basic logic.

A) The average person has an inalienable right to "X".
B) Often, law "Y" is written and passed, and infringes upon the inalienable right to "X".
C) The authority the enforcers of "Y" are granted, under color of law, is derived from document "Z" that recognizes inalienable right "X", and states that no agent enforcing "Y" may infringe upon "X".
D) If the enforcers of "Y" have no authority to infringe upon your right to "X", because such an authority is non-existent in "Z", then the enforcers of "Y" are in the wrong and would be assaulting you if they attempt to infringe upon your right to "X".

Now let's look at something here...a man wearing a badge has no more authority to infringe upon your right to speak your mind freely on a public street, than a convicted felon has the authority to rob you in a back alley in the middle of the night.

The difference? Well, if you were confronted by a man wearing a ski mask in an alley and he wielded a club and told you he was going to beat the shit out of you unless you handed him your money, the grand jury would laugh and high-five each other as they no-billed you for putting a 9mm slug through his face.

Now on the other hand, if you were confronted by a man wearing a badge on a street corner, and he's wielding a club and telling you that you're going to jail if you continue to speak your mind (and he's going to whip your ass if you resist being arrested), the grand jury would be begging the court system to fast-track you to the Huntsville death chamber if you put a 9mm slug through his face.

So please, for the love of Jodie Foster, can someone tell me the difference? I'll tell you what the difference is. If you're unarmed, the difference is about two minutes. That's about how long the cop is going to argue with you, before physically assaulting you for resisting his false authority...whereas with the thug in the alley, he's going to start beating your ass immediately. Either way, you're going to lose all of your money. The kicker is, unless you're carrying several hundred dollars in cash, you're going to lose LESS money when you get robbed by the thug in the alley.

What really bugs me about the police is not that they are protected agents of the state, which requires them to physically aggress upon my fellow man. It's the fact that they've been doing it for two hundred years in this country, to the point where people seem to think it's somehow okay...or that it's somehow "different" when they do it (as opposed to an ordinary criminal without a badge), or that it's even actually necessary for society to function!

I've always found my fellow Texans to be a strange breed, when it comes to their general unwavering support of the "Public Servant". The same people who rail against "government oppression" when "liberals" take office, bitch about how "oppressive" helmet laws are, etc. would have a conniption if someone were to get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and answer a request for "license and insurance" with a hollowpoint slug. These people also seem to be the most vocal opponents of gun control, for reasons I can't truly fathom. Maybe the 2A has something to do with shooting skeet?

Before I go further, I want to be upfront about something. I wish no harm upon anyone. I'm not a violent person, and I'm certainly not advocating violence upon cops based solely upon the fact that they happen to be cops. I grew up with about half a dozen of them locally, and there's a few that have been close to my family since before I was born.

That said, let's look at the modern world-wide history of homicide within the past hundred years. Obviously, battlefields had quite a bit to do with racking up that number. Then, there's religious fanaticism. So-called "terrorist acts" and "organized crime" add further still. Interestingly, these four categories are so inter-related it makes gathering statistics about it rather difficult.

Then we get into the biggest killer in modern history. Government-sponsored genocides. Hitler had about 9 million (that "six million" figure you hear about were just the Jewish folks he doesn't include the gypsies, cripples, retards, homos, etc). Stalin wiped out somewhere around 20-25 million. The Khmer Rouge took out somewhere between 1 and 3 million, depending on whose estimate you use.

Do you realize what is necessary to kill a million people using small arms? It takes a LOT of cooperation by people willing to serve the state, for various reasons. It may be fear, it may be financial compensation, it might be a genuine belief that he's doing the right thing, or it might even be the status one receives from the community when one wears a special insignia on his shirt.

Wow. That sounds a lot like many of the cops out there on the street right here in Texas. Do you know the difference between an SS officer dealing with the "Jewish Question", and a Texas cop telling someone he can't speak his mind on a public street corner?


Tuesday, July 19, 2011

When in the face of extreme adversity...

I often find myself comforted by reading Daniel, Chapter 6. Most people (even those who aren't very religious, or for that matter, have any religious belief at all) have at least an inkling of recognition regarding the story of Daniel being thrown into the lion's den.

A great many people, however, do not know the back story to this event. To put it into a generalized perspective so that even my secular readers may grasp it, there was a wise man named Daniel. He was a fine upstanding man who lived according to the non-aggression principle, and he was well-known in his community. Within his community, there was a group of government officials known as "satraps".

They were jealous of Daniel and his position upon the moral high ground, but could find no fault within him, for the purposes of destroying his position within the community. They convinced King Darius to pass a law which went against the non-aggression principle, and made the penalty for such a transgression to be death by lion.

You see, Daniel had done no wrong to any man, but continued upon his path as he found to be righteous. The bureaucracy found fault with this, and created a law to destroy him, because he was not one of their own.

Daniel held his position, and did not yield or change to what he knew to be righteous. His punishment was to be thrown into a den of lions, with the assumed goal of him being killed and eaten in a most violent manner. The next day, the king called out to Daniel. Daniel answered, in Chapter 6 Verse 21, that he was still alive. God had spared him from an unjust punishment, which had been meted out for the act of violating an unjust law.

To put a modern spin on this story, let's fast-forward from the time of Daniel to a few years ago. That's back when everyone was still using MySpace as the social network of choice. In 2006, I was injured in a motorcycle accident, and I spent a couple of weeks at my father's home. I couldn't walk because the scabs on my knees would start bleeding after taking a few steps, so I spent a great deal of this time either on my couch or on the computer.

After getting bored with all the random nonsense of MySpace, I started digging around a bit and found some of the political forums on there. It was there where I met Riley O'Neil, founder of the MySpace Libertarian group. I also met Jim H. (and don't forget his wife B...first names have been redacted to protect the guilty!) of "Jim's MySpace Republicans"...a group started when he got thrown out of the main Republican forum. Me and Jim had (and still have) quite a few debates, but I think I've finally brought him over to the dark side! Along the way, I've become acquainted with quite a few people within our movement. A few of them, notably Catherine Bleish and Adam Kokesh, have become quite famous...Cat has been listed by the SPLC as an "extremist" and has appeared on Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory", while Adam has his own television show on RT America.

I also stumbled across a website known as, which was dedicated to a non-aggressionist "voluntaryist" (i.e. the "real") form of anarchy. Reading up on the goings-on there taught me quite a bit, and I came to learn of the people I write about today.

Several months ago, while forking over ransom money (read: BAIL) for a friend accused of some harmless "crime" that had no nameable victim, Pete Eyre and Adam "Ademo Freeman" Mueller were arrested for having the audacity to film the interaction. They were in a public place that had no reasonable expectation of privacy (trust me, there were CCTV cameras in the place, recording the incident), and they were filming people who earn their living on the taxpayer's dime. There was no reason whatsoever that they should not have been allowed to film the interaction.

Furthermore, there was no law stating that they could not film there, there was no sign stating that recording was prohibited, nor was there any written policy that prohibited filming in that area.

Nonetheless, the two were arrested under New Hampshire's "wiretapping" law. Keep in mind, this law was designed to prevent private individuals from being recorded during private conversations. It was used, in this instance, for the purposes of incarcerating and intimidating people known to be "enemies of the state" for having the intelligence to record their interactions with those who purport to serve them...with, or without, the consent of those being "served".

Yesterday, my friends Pete and Ademo entered a New Hampshire courtroom, facing years of imprisonment and a felony criminal record that would follow them for the rest of their natural lives. They didn't take a plea. They did not set up a "legal defense fund" for the sake of hiring a high-priced lawyer. They didn't try to get off the hook by focusing on technicalities.

Instead of taking the "easy way out", they took it on the chin. They stood before a jury of their peers, and stated their case, ready to face the consequences of their actions...knowing that instead of celebrating a victory today, they might be informing people like me where to send money for their commissary as they begin a stint in state prison.

There are, however, two things that really irk me about the situation that unfolded today.

First and foremost, is the "Blue Wall of Silence" in this ordeal. I grew up with quite a few people who grew up to be cops. A great deal of them are, in spite of the badge, still relatively decent people. One of my greatest friends happens to be a deputy sheriff on the verge of retirement, and he's one of the most morally-upstanding people I know. That said, I've heard absolutely nothing from the Law Enforcement community condemning the actions of the people involved in this case, which is a crying shame. You cannot build the public trust when there exists a "wall of separation" between the people the police are paid to serve, and the people themselves. On a regular basis, we see video of police misusing and abusing their authority. There's a possibility that it may be a rampant problem with police in general, and there's a possibility that it may be "a few bad apples". If it's "a few bad apples", then shouldn't the 'boys in blue' be trying to do something about it? Rogue cops on an authoritative rampage does nothing but sully the good name of decent cops, and I know there are still a few out there.

My second issue with this ordeal is the fact that there is absolutely no recourse for the lost time and money involved with Pete and Adam, short of hoping that a federal court would hear a civil rights lawsuit. I normally bitch about the expense of federal government, but this is one of those instances where I'd gladly pay. You see, when a man is accused by an officer of the law and takes his case to trial, he stands to potentially lose everything. If he wins, he loses slightly less. Unlike a civil trial, where the loser has to pay the winner's attorney fees, a criminal defendant is still going to lose every bit of the money he spent on a legal defense. He's going to lose every bit of the money he lost because he was defending himself, instead of earning a living. This does not count, of course, the cost of lost sleep, depression, anxiety, and paranoia that comes with facing quite a bit of time in jail.

And yet, Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller took it like free men. They said "No! We do not accept your artificial authority!" At great personal expense to themselves, they fought the powers that be...and in the tradition of Daniel, they exclaimed, "Yes! I am still FREE!"

Monday, July 11, 2011

A Declaration of Separation...

Before going any further, I'd like to say that this is not an "original" idea per se, but rather a slightly "individualized" twist on something I found this afternoon that has apparently been circulating since ca. 2008-2009. You may read the original version at, or find any of the myriad repostings of this letter by searching the phrase "Declaration of Separation".

Regardless, I've made it individualized, as this is something I find necessary for a document such as this. It appears to be what I've been thinking all along, put into words in a better manner than I could have done on my own.

I would give credit to the author of the original version, but it was disseminated anonymously. Think what you will of it...

To The Governments & People of Earth:

I claim the right to exist, and I will defend it. I do not seek to overthrow anything. I do not seek to control anything. I merely wish to be left alone. All I ever wanted was to live in peace with my friends and neighbors. For a long, long time I bore insults to my liberty; I took blows, I did what I could to avoid injury and I worked through the system to get the offenses to stop. That has now changed. I no longer see any benefit in working through the world’s systems. At some point, working within a system becomes cowardly and immoral; for me, that point has arrived. Regardless of the parties in power, their governments have continued to restrict, restrain and punish me. I hereby reject them all. I hereby withdraw from them all. I hold the ruling states of this world and all that appertains to them to be self-serving and opposed to humanity. I now withdraw our obedience and reclaim the right to strike back when struck. I will not initiate force, but I do reserve the right to answer it. I did not choose this – it was forced upon me.

To The Governments of Earth:

You are building cages for all that is human. In the name of protection, you have intruded into all areas of human life, far exceeding the reach of any Caesar. You claim ultimate control of my property and my decisions, of my travels and even my identity. You claim ownership of humanity far beyond the dreams of any Emperor of any previous era. Understand clearly: I reject your authority and I reject your legitimacy. I do not believe that you have any right to do the things you do. You have massive power, but no right to impose it upon me, and no legitimacy. I have forsaken you. I am no longer your citizen or your subject. Your systems are inherently anti-human, even if all their operators are not. I am not merely an angry young person. This is not a burst of outrage; this is a sober declaration that I no longer accept unearned suffering as my role in life. For long decades I sat quietly, hoping that things would turn around. I took no actions; I suffered along with everyone else. But after having my limits pushed back again and again, I have given up on your systems. If my fellow inhabitants of this planet wish to accept your rule, they are free to do so. I will not try to stop them. I, however, will no longer accept your constraints upon me. – From now on, when you hurt me, I will bite back. If you leave me alone I will leave you alone and you can continue to rule your subjects. I are happy to live quietly. But if you come after me, there will be consequences. You caused this because of your fetish for control and power. The chief men and women among you are pathologically driven to control everyone and everything that moves upon this planet. You have made yourselves the judge of every human activity. No god-king of the ancient world ever had the power that your systems do. You have created a world where only the neutered are safe and where only outlaws are free.

To The People of Earth:

I seek nothing from you. I do not want to rule you and I do not want to control you. All I wish is to live on earth in peace. As always, I will be a helpful neighbor and generous acquaintance. I will remain an honest business partner and trustworthy employee. I will not, however, be a sacrificial animal. I reject the idea that others have a right to my life and my property. I will not demand anything from you, and I will no longer acquiesce to any demands upon me. I have left that game. I reject all obligations to any person or organization beyond honesty, fair dealing and a respect for human life. I will shortly explain what I believe, but I am not demanding that you agree with me. All I ask is that you do not try to stop me. Continue to play the game if you wish; I will not try to disrupt it. I have merely walked away from it. I wish you peace.

To Those Who Will Condemn Me:

I will ignore you. I welcome and seek the verdict of a just God, before whom I am willing to expose my innermost thoughts. Are you similarly willing? I would stand openly before all mankind if it were not suicidal. Perhaps some day I will have to accept slaughter for my crime of independence, but not yet. Your criticism and your malice are much deeper than mere disagreements of strategy or philosophy. You do not oppose my philosophy, you oppose my existence. My presence in the world means that your precious ideals are false. Some of you would rather kill me than face the loss of your ideologies, just as those like you have either hated or killed every sufficiently independent human. You present yourselves to the world as compassionate, tolerant and enlightened, but I know that your smooth words are costumes. Oh yes, I know you, servant of the state; don’t forget, I was raised with you. I played with you in the schoolyard, I sat next to you in the classroom. I watched as you had your first tastes of power. I was the boy standing next to you. I am not fooled by your carefully crafted public image.

What I Believe

#1: Many humans resent the responsibilities that are implied by consciousness. I accept those responsibilities and I embrace consciousness. Rather than letting things happen to me (avoiding consciousness), I accept consciousness and choose to act in my own interest. I do not seek the refuge of blaming others, neither do I take refuge in crowds. I am willing to act on my personal judgment, and I am willing to accept the consequences thereof.

#2: I believe in negative rights for all: That all humans should be free to do whatever they wish, as long as they do not intrude upon others; that no man has a right to the life, liberty or property of another; that I oppose aggression, fraud and coercion.

#3: I do not believe that my way of life, or any other, will make life perfect or trouble-free. I expect crime and disagreements and ugliness, and I am prepared to deal with them. I do not seek a strongman to step in and solve problems for me. I agree to see to them myself.

#4: I believe in free and unhindered commerce. So long as exchanges are voluntary and honest, no other party has a right to intervene – before, during or after.

#5: I believe that all individuals should keep their agreements.

#6: I believe that honestly obtained property is fully legitimate and absolute.

#7: I believe that some humans are evil and that they must be faced and dealt with. I accept the fact that this is a difficult area of life.

#8: I believe that humans can self-organize effectively. I expect them to cooperate. I reject impositions of hierarchy and organization.

#9: I believe that all humans are to be held as equals in all matters regarding justice.

#10: I believe that the more a man or woman cares about right and wrong, the more of a threat he or she is perceived to be by governments.

#11: I believe that there are only two true classes of human beings: Those who wish to exercise power upon others – either directly or through intermediaries – and those who have no such desires.

#12: Large organizations and centralization are inherently anti-human. They must rely upon rules rather than principles, treating humans within the organization as obedient tools.

My Plans:

I do not forbid anyone from having one foot in each realm – mine, and the old realm – although I demand that they do no damage to my realm. I are fully opposed to any use of my realm to facilitate crime in the old realm, such as the hiding of criminal proceeds. I expect to be loudly condemned, libeled and slandered by the authorities of the old regime. I expect them to defend their power and their image of legitimacy with all means available to them. I expect that many gullible and servile people will believe these lies. I will consider traps laid for me to be criminal offenses. Any who wish to join me are encouraged to distribute this declaration, to act in furtherance of a new society, to voluntarily excel in virtues and to communicate and cooperate with other members of the new society.

Free, unashamed men cannot be ruled.

I am Free and Unashamed.