The Final Penalty is Death

Have you ever stopped to consider what would happen if you refused to submit in any way to even a small injustice on the part of the state? Let’s take a parking ticket, for example. Without bothering to create a specific scenario, let’s assume that you received the ticket in error and were not in violation. That’s the premised reality for this make-believe situation. You violated no established code, but received a citation for a violation just the same, and now you're unjustly bound up in the system—if only to a minor degree that’s little more than a troublesome annoyance.

Now, you waste more time and endure more annoyance to run through the established "due-process" to contest the citation. It falls on deaf ears. The citation stands. You refuse to pay. Eventually, a warrant to seize your vehicle is issued. One day, you’re returning to your car and there’s a tow truck in the process of hoisting it, and a cop standing guard.

You run to the car, and ignoring shouts of “HALT!…HALT!…HALT OR I’LL SHOOT!” you jump in the car, fire it up, and attempt to extricate yourself from the tow truck. The cop runs over and points a gun at you as you reach for the gun you keep next to you. BANG! You’re dead.

You’ve just paid the ultimate and final penalty for defiance of the state: death. The sate will not be defied, you see, for as sure as it’s your nature to be free, it’s the state’s nature to enslave, command obedience, and extinguish any who will not ultimately submit. Let’s not forget who initiated aggression in the above scenario. The state did. The state initiated aggression with the original citation and enforced it at every step while you were defending your right to not be tread upon at every step.

“But that’s an outlandish and fanciful story,” you protest. We’ll, sure. Most people would not risk their lives for the sake of a parking ticket. In fact, most won’t even take Patrick Henry’s wager: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” People will allow themselves to be unjustly locked up, even sentenced to death. Such is the pernicious power of master over slave.

The resolve of the state to kill those who will not bow to its will is not so exaggerated as you might think. Should I go on in attempting to convince you, or is a picture worth a thousand words?

elian gonzalez2
Elian Gonzalez

John Lopez at No Treason! Posts commentary about this article.

...As I was just sayin’ yesterday at the end of this post.

So, the next time you refer to America as a free country, take a moment to stop and reflect about what an idiot you are for saying such a patently stupid thing.

Now, for those of you waiting, asking, "Ok, so how do you propose to organize civil society if the state can't enforce its laws, to the death if necessary?" Hey, I'm no engineer of utopias. Smart libertarians get over devising ways to engineer the human species through the maze of life early on. My purpose is to point out how our rights are violated every day of our lives, and the biggest violator is the state. I don't require that you have an alternative way of getting through life. I require that you stop being party to it.

Because I Was One

Perhaps it's that philosopher and professor Kieth Burgess-Jackson was a liberal that he's so razor sharp effective at deconstructing them.

There is no reason to think there is a conservative conspiracy to thwart liberalism. There’s no need for a conspiracy. Liberalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. It denies the moral relevance of such things as desert and responsibility. It thinks in terms of groups rather than individuals. It is guilt-ridden to the point of incapacitation. It naively believes that human beings are infinitely malleable. These beliefs are so detached from reality—as given to us by science—that they ensure that liberalism will never get a grip on the popular imagination. Deep down, liberals know that they can secure the power they crave only by misrepresenting themselves to the American people. The American people, however, are too smart to be taken in by such dishonesty. Instead of acknowledging and accepting this, liberals persist in thinking that they fail because—and only because—of a conservative conspiracy.

The Power to Beg for the Whip

What's Billy Beck spewing venom about now?

In other words, you can all have your stupid opinions, out there. You get to have your ridiculous say. You can gang-up as you please and see what you can gouge and scratch out of each other. And then, we'll all get to deal with the increasingly disastrous consequences for a couple of years until the next Great Public Conspiracy after the next Peak of Cannibal-Pot Hysteria.

You rotten assholes. Americans. I used to really admire you. And if I came across a bunch of assholes at the end of your driveway getting ready to take a vote on whether to violate your rights, I wouldn't be telling them that we'd have to agree to disagree or any such weezily rot, like I hear all you bastards equivocating all the time while you're excusing yourselves for getting ready to gang-up and violate each others' and everybody else's rights, this November.

[bah] What on earth could be the point? They're all going to do it again this year: they're going to line up at the polls and endorse this rule of their lives, just like animals suddenly come upon the power of begging for the whip.

You can read the whole post here.

The reason I no longer participate in the vote has nothing to do with any individual's vote being relatively ineffectual. I don't vote because I don't believe in unjust coercion. The fact that you gang up with others in your effort to force your will upon those who do not see things your way—when they've done nothing to harm or threaten anyone—does not make your act of voting any less coercive. To the extent that such coercion is initiatory, i.e., not in legitimate self defense against unjust aggression, it is immoral.

I wonder if any who subscribe to the sanctity of the vote stop to realize that in all national elections to date, the non-vote has always “won.” There are about 210 million eligible voters. For national elections, about 110 million votes get cast nowadays; and they’re cast in roughly a 50/50 split for President. So, that’s 55 million votes for one Godfather, 55 million for the other mobster, and 100 million for nobody at all. None of you ever looked at it that way even once in your lives, did you? You can just barely claim majority support for your "right" of voting. What will you do when the turnout drops from 55% to under 50%? Talk about self-contradictory. I used to call it the tyranny of the majority, but upon realizing that the "majority vote” calls for nothing and nobody, I'll need to just call it the "tyranny of a mob" from now on.

Hey, Citizens! Step Right Up!…I’ve got a great deal for you: for today only; become a voter and you can have an entire 1/210,000,000th say in what values will be available to you throughout your life. BUT WAIT! If you act now, you can also spend up to 50% of your time and money in the service of the ideals decided upon by you and the other 209,999,999 people from here out! NOW WHA'D'YA SAY!?

This is the bargain you’ve purchased with your God-given liberty, Mr. & Mrs. Voter. Yes, you’ve been swindled and should indeed feel quite foolish about it.

Politicized and Tribalized

A friend alerts me in email that Alan Bromley gets No Holiday From Hate.

"Screw you!" someone shouted from across the porch. My daughter's head swerved to the yelling miscreant, then back to me, somewhat fearful of my reaction.

I said: "And to you sir, may I ask, don't you see the irony of the Democrats using 'restore trust' as their slogan. Did you not see their lineup of speakers?

"Let's count: we had Ted Kennedy, who lied about trying to save Mary Jo Kopechne. We had Hillary Clinton, who lied about her billing records, about her commodities trading prowess, about kissing Arafat's wife right after Arafat accused the Israelis of poisoning Palestinian children. We had Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley fame, who later incited an anti-Semitic riot in Harlem with fatal consequences--funny how you blindly embrace these leaders of liberty, isn't it?

"And then we had your sweetheart, President Clinton, who never saw a big hairdo or a little lie he couldn't resist. We had John Edwards, who made his fortune convincing juries of the evils of doctors, and finally, Kerry himself, who is living the biggest lie of all--marrying rich, then richer, and feigning empathy for the downtrodden as he jets from home to home to home. Are those the men and women in who's hands and hearts you want to place, if not restore, trust?"


"Let me ask you something," I said to those with grimaces. "Are you happy the employment figures were dismal? Are you happy that we are having more troubles than anticipated in Iraq?"

"Speaking for myself," the Philly wife declared, "any news that helps defeat Bush makes me happy." Hubby nodded, as did a couple of others swinging on the veranda.

"So let me get this straight: Without offering a remedy for perceived economic woes, or a plan to win the war in Iraq, it's OK with you if a couple hundred thousand additional Americans are unemployed, let's say for a year or so. Your liberal 'scales of justice, of humanity' say that's a beneficial scenario--presumably because it's their sacrifice, not yours. And if we continue to move slowly in Iraq, costing additional American lives, not to mention the lives and freedom of Iraqi's, you will be satisfied as long as President Bush isn't re-elected?"

"You're a fascist! We're leaving!" the husband shouted.

"Your freedom of speech, to preach hatred of President Bush and to hope for American setbacks, even if it costs Americans their lives and livelihoods, is fine," I said to their backs, "but my questioning of your shallowness is offensive, right? Enjoy your trip back to the City of Brotherly Love. I'm sure your neighbors will be happy to see you return."

It's a bit of a coincidence, but a quote from an email I wrote just this morning applies here. It was written to a hang-gliding discussion list about a long-time acquaintance of mine who publishes a hang-gliding-related daily e-zine, the Oz Report and gets blamed for just about every bad thing that happens in hang gliding, the world over.

One possible conclusion is that you get blamed for everything negative that happens in the market (the demise of the Millennium; the lackluster market performance of other CBRWs; etc.), but get zero credit for any good things that happen in the market, such as the tail on the ATOS and other developments. How about the continually improving software in some of the comp varios you've tested and reported on? Also, haven't heard of any spins on RWs in a long time. I wonder if your reporting drove home the notion that you can't just throw the bar anywhere you like on a rigid as you can on most flex wings.

Such is the politicized, tribalized world in which we live now. Everyone has a side, a team, an agenda. And when you're not of the correct tribe, everything you do is suspect, and you can certainly do no good. No lie, no deception, no out-of-context manipulation is beyond use against you, for you are the embodiment of evil.

Hoist By Their Own Petard

(Alternate title: The Law of Unintended Consequences)

I truly adore this political mud slinging by independent groups ("527s") that's arisen in the wake of "Campaign Finance Reform" plugging up a few outlets for private contributions. Of course, the very same money just found its way to other outlets, and when those are plugged, it will find its way to yet other outlets. Will all this evidence cause people to doubt the intellectual and “problem”-solving abilities of John McCain and his allies in the relentless struggle to "reform" political campaign finance?

Of course it won't. When new laws don't work, or work opposite of their intended goal, the solution is nearly never to get rid of the law. The [political] “solution” is always to spend more money, to add more complexity, to bolster it with more regulators and bureaucrats.

Want proof? See here.

President Bush wants to work with Republican Sen. John McCain to go to court against political ads by "shadowy" outside groups, the White House said Thursday amid growing pressure on the president to denounce attacks on John Kerry's war record.

"We want to pursue court action," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to New Mexico. "The president said if the court action doesn't work, that he would be willing to pursue legislative action with Sen. McCain on that."

So, there you go. This is what happens when you allow yourself to be guided by "good rules of thumb," rather than by principles. Here we have the President of the United States teaming up to get the government itself to silence political speech he disagrees with.

So, the next time you refer to America as a free country, take a moment to stop and reflect about what an idiot you are for saying such a patently stupid thing.

It’s a Start (Maybe)

In a striking admission, George W. Bush said the other day that that ''We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be [called] the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.''

From an article by Daniel Pipes in the Chicago Sun-Times entitled, ‘Terrorism’ battle is really fight against Islamism. You know, I said as much on September 11, 2001. Islam has not undergone an ideological and cultural renaissance as has Christianity and Judaism. That means, it has not undergone the transformation from taking doctrines and ancient texts literally, to taking them metaphorically—symbolically. Yes, I understand there are a lot of Christians who profess literal belief in the Bible and every word of it. But, alas, they too have been infected with some degree of rationality and reality, for few of them actually practice the literalness they preach. They’ve been infected with the American Spirit, which runs starkly contrary to every tenet of their dogmatism.

Perhaps herein lies the root cause of the reluctance to peg this conflict for what it really is—and what it really is—is a fight to the death. The human being is an animal with a unique propensity to fight to the death for ideas, for beliefs—correct ones or incorrect ones. What’s worse is that the most evil of false beliefs typically involve totalitarian regimes that compel citizens by the thousands and millions, if necessary, to die for the false official ideology. That happened in Nazi Germany; it happened in the USSR and China; it happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, and still happens in Palestine.

At least hundreds of thousands will die before this conflict is over. Observe how many millions died to effectively expunge the Nazi ideology and how many millions have died at the hands of the communists—a war that is by no means over. The USSR may be gone and China appears to be evolving, but the communist ideology is still alive and well all over the world. In many places, it’s most alive where your college-age kids are being formed.

Returning to the point I began to make about the root cause of the reluctance to peg this battle for the ideological, life & death struggle that it is, could it be that nations of predominately Christians and Jews are reluctant on a couple of grounds? …To wit:

1. It’s difficult to go too far in pronouncing religious beliefs ridiculous when proponents of your own belief system carried out similar campaigns just a few centuries ago.

2. Islam worships the same God of Abraham as Christianity and Judaism. Jesus Christ is one of their prophets.

3. There is simply no intellectually honest way to rail against Islam as primitive and whacked out, in need of serious reformation, without casting a woefully skeptical light on you own religion, recognizing that it too was once just as whacked out and those whacked-out beliefs constituted the original beliefs. I.e., if the foundation is so damned corrupt, then what does that say about the veracity of what it has evolved to?

4. This is quite unlike similar religious battles, such as Protestants vs. Catholics of times past. This battle is not and can not be over them "corrupting our doctrines." It is necessarily about declaring the fervent religious beliefs of millions of people evil.

Of course, as a non-believer with none of this baggage, I had no problem seeing the reality of the matter from day one.

Let me put it bluntly: This is a choice between whether hundreds of thousands, or even millions of fervent believers in Islam die, or whether you, loved ones, countrymen and allies die by the hundreds of thousands, or millions. These people will not stop until you are dead, enslaved and converted, or they are dead. I’d rather it be them, so let’s get on with it, shall we? Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about imposing religious beliefs or attempting to eradicate theirs. I'm talking about forcing their hand, but on our terms—just as we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq, and need to expand and continue.

(link and some inspiration via Greg Swann)


The opening voiceover in the HBO special Band of Brothers said:
I'm not a hero, but I served with a bunch of heros.

John Kerry's message is: 'I'm a hero, and I served with a bunch of war criminals.'

That was Lee Rodgers, during this morning's show on KSFO.

UPDATE: See Heroes Don't Shout. Via Michelle Malkin.

Las Vegas Monorail

Some testimony and commentary regarding my weekend trip to Las Vegas and riding the new Monorail, via Greg Swann at Pressence of Mind.

Then why not try freedom?

Yea, here’s a ringing endorsement of western European socialism. Seems former east Germans aren’t able to find enough essential differences between their current and past standing to realize that they’re “better off” now than they were under communism.

There’s a spiritual lesson here, folks. Human beings are born to be free. A cage with a lot of nice trappings is still a cage. America is becoming more productive and individuals are attaining a “higher standard of living,” but are individuals more free in the important ways that count? And if not, are they truly better off?

It reminds me of what I said to a taxi driver last evening during the drive from my hotel to the airport in Las Vegas: “I love Vegas because it’s the last bastion of freedom in America—it’s an illusion, of course, but I’ll take it for now.”

(link via Bruce McQuain, with a different take)

What’s worse: being a phony, or falling for one?

It's been my keen observation that one of the reasons conservatives generally have it tougher in American politics than liberals—in terms of media portrayal and public "persona"—is that conservatives have more of a tendency to be straight up. They are sooner to tell you, unabashedly, how they stand. Often, I sense that they sometimes even delight in stating a position they know someone else is likely to disagree with. On the other hand, I've observed liberals to have a greater propensity to tell you whatever it is they believe you want to hear if they sense you’re liberal, or if not, they stick to banal “crowd pleasers.” Next time you're at a social gathering talking with strangers, give off various telltales in matters of politics. If you investigate, you will find that the ones who parrot what they think you want to hear are generally liberals while the ones who tell you what they think in spite of the telltale are generally conservatives.

So, assuming you have some stake in a given matter, would you prefer to deal with someone with whom you have some disagreements, but who's straight up with you? Or, would you prefer someone whose statements amount to the equivalent of whispering sweet nothings?

A lot of people who would see Thomas Sowell walking down the street would assume him to find intellectual communion with the 90%+ of the black population who automatically—and seemingly instinctively—think in lock-step with one another on political issues. Of course, they would be wrong.

In this article, he explains why liberals have little choice but to be phonies. An excerpt:

You can't run on that platform and win a national election. Moreover, you cannot frankly state the underlying assumptions behind the liberal vision of the world, such as the notion that the liberal anointed need to impose their superior vision on the masses.

Politically, you have to pretend to be one of the people, even though the whole basis of your vision is that you are vastly superior to the people. Even when you are a pompous elitist who looks down on the average American, you have to project a political image as a regular guy by being photographed with a baseball bat or a hunting rifle in your hand -- or eating at Wendy's.

Disinformation is where it's at, if you are a liberal. Weakness on military defense, for example, has to be camouflaged by constantly using words like "strong," "strength," " tough" and the like, while clenching your fist and using a bombastic tone.

(link via Keith Burgess-Jackson)