Recent comments

Ghandi's autobiography is well worth a read by anyone and certainly by those of a similar propensity toward liberty like us. However, I do think the quote is very much out of context for an otherwise good message: be prepared to defend yourself and have a working knowledge of guns. To my mind, the proper context for that quote from Ghandi regards colonialism and the specific societal relationships of the period. In many other writings from Gandhi (and in his autobiography) he advocates the total abolishment of weaponry COMPLETELY, whether by a state or by global movements. I think very few of us would agree to that proposition as we know that great force and coercion would be brought by the state for such a dictate. Ghandi is not going to be a Voluntaryist "mascot." Agreed? His non-violent resistance to the state is commendable as was his humanitarianism (i.e. rightfully treating "untouchables" as complete humans and living along side them), but to make him an advocate of gun ownership based on him quoting propaganda he was using at the time to advance the British Empire is, I think, a bit much of a stretch.

Enlightenment dispels fear.

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1803)

I wrote an article (far more racy than what I write here) for "A Voice for Men" about prostitution, and I linked to an article from The Independent Institute that shows rape and homicide rates compared to the availability of sex per country. The general trend is: the more sex taking place in a specific country, the more likely that country is to see a downtrend in both rape and homicide. It isn't an exact corollary each time, but almost. When prostitution, or any other good or service that people want, is made illegal, when the government initiates coercion in any free market matter, the end result is death. With the softly coercive stigma against prostitution (and the male sex drive in general), the result tends to be the same: more rape and more murder. I am in no way excusing rapists and murderers, but we're talking about cause and effect. You want less of the effect? Don't be the cause. Leave Craigslist alone.

Fan-friggin'-tastic. It's wonderful to see this movement taking hold. Sadly, a lot of homeschoolers would send their kids right back into the arms of government tomorrow if they got rid of sex education, put The Bible back in the classroom, and forced the kids to wear uniforms. That's why homeschooling runs a distant third for me. The first and greatest choice, in my opinion, is freeschooling. This ensures that the child directs his own learning if and when he chooses, and also has ample opportunity to socialize with kids of various ages. It also removes some of the stigma of being a weirdo parent in the eyes of outsiders. You're just sending your kid to a special school. The second choice is very close to the first, and that is unschooling. The article brought up an issue which may have some validity, in that unschooled kids may have trouble with socialization. If an unschooled child has exposure to the surrounding community on a daily basis, however, the one reservation I and others have may be moot. Great article.

The Gates example is flawed (he wouldn't have gotten rich without the existence of intellectual property), but the point is still well taken. Gates "gives back" so as not to get pies in his face. As soon as he started his charitable giving all the anti-Gates rhetoric disappeared. Why is that? The "counter-dominance instinct": http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/evolpsych.html Why do we have an instinct for exploiting the rich, especially those without power? "Because that's where the money is." We have lots of instincts for using violence when it suits us. Sometimes they often come with justifications, like "He didn't really deserve that money. He got lucky. He took it from us. We need it more than him. He's greedy. He committed a crime." Thus the seeming compassion of the redistributionists is no different from the rationalization that goes on in the head of a simple thug. Gates is simply paying protection money. I give this article only a 5 because it points out the obvious (to libertarians), without identifying root causes or offering solutions.

Ghandi was not advocating gun ownership. That quote is probably the most misused by gun advocates. It has little to do with citizen ownership of guns, everything to do with government control of guns. Ghandi was urging Indians to serve with the British Army in World War I. From M.K. Ghandi, An Autobiography, "I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.' " For a pacifist, Ghandi was remarkably willing to have native sons sacrifice their lives to serve the British Empire, so certainly the man wasn't infallible. Like any man, his ideas evolved and changed throughout his lifetime. If you consider the caste system, clearly Ghandi (at the top) wouldn't advocate gun ownership for the "untouchables." I'm content that some people like (understatement) guns, but certainly beyond a simple matter of utility (defense) many of us just don't have much use for the things. An armed revolution? Pssh. No thanks. Hasn't worked throughout our history and I'm ready to try another path.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." The emphasized second part of that sentence explains the only way that "all men are created equal". That was "indicated by necessary connotation though not expressed directly", i.e. understood. Every individual, (unless he has forfeited[1] them), has a natural right, i.e. a "just claim", to his own life, liberty and lawfully acquired property, (and no one else's). But to believe that all men are equal, literally, is completely irrational, and to try to forcefully make all men economically equal is immoral, because it violates the natural right to justly acquired property. Footnote [1] FOR'FEIT, v.t. for'fit. [Low L. forisfacere, from L. foris, out or abroad, and facio, to make.] To lose or render confiscable, by some fault, offense or crime... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "Attack another’s rights and you destroy your own." ~ John Jay Chapman

Thanks, Robert, for your post. While it is true that Christianity CAN co-exist with freedom if it is based on a voluntaryist/libertarian substructure, it is rarely the case that its proponents interpret it in a way that makes this likely. The left-Christians have interpreted the sections of the Gospel that address selling one's possessions as "musts," which is something that Christ never intended to be imposed -- especially on non-Christians. Similarly, the right-leaning Christians are often too enamored of the "authorities" to see the despotism of which they are guilty (and which allowed them to murder Christ). They conveniently worship these authorities even though Christianity often demands refusal to obey. And that's just the beginning of the nonsense as you pointed out. I really wish that Christians (whether of the protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox varieties) would practice their beliefs as a suggestion that can be added to the substructure of a voluntary society. But they never do. Take a peek at the Lewciferians at LewRockwell.com -- always encouraging expanding populations and development even though both of these phenomenon are currently driven by state-sponsored market interventions, which Mises himself recognized as having serious negative consequences. The Lewciferians would like to ignore these statements by Mises, but they are there in Human Action and go on at great length (STR will soon feature an article of mine that explicates them). Sadly, folks like Theroux and Rockwell have a particular understanding of both Catholicism and of Christianity that are not necessarily true throughout the history of that organization. Furthermore, leading Christian thinkers such as Augustine have contaminated Christianity with the idea of persecuting heretics and hating the human body and the physical world -- positions that are not necessarily part of Christianity (as Thomas Aquinas noted). I wish these people would stop trying to create nonsensical "causes" that claim that freedom is the result of Christianity. This is a weak reed to build a theory on, and they claim far too much for Christianity and Catholicism. Once Christianity left the confines of Christ's direct example and his direct followers (of whom Paul was not one), it soon fell victim to the self-perpetuating despotism and social vices of all "organizations."

Another unfortunate side effect of this whole business is that it depends upon and then increases the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. What drugs should be banned? What drugs should be legal? Trust your government, who will ensure that the best doctors testify, that the best pharmaceutical corporations exist, that the best science gives us the answers. We have computers now, and better schools. Errant science is a thing of the past. If a scientist says the globe is getting warmer, then it's getting warmer. If a scientist says that a drug is dangerous, then it's dangerous. If a scientist classifies what seems to be just one more ordinary aspect of your personality an abnormality, then it's an abnormality. It goes on and on, thanks to the regulation, officialization, and institutionalization of education. We musn't be trusted to think for ourselves. We must trust in scientists who are called scientists by other scientists who have gone to the same official institutions. I just read an article today that quoted Barack Whoever that "blind faith" in the market is what got us where we are. Seeing as the free market is nothing more than individuals who choose to relate, what this Barack dude was really saying is that "blind faith" in humanity is dangerous. And he should know. He went to all the right institutions, so he must know what he's saying. I guess drugs really are bad. When they say they are. Except when they change their minds.

Yeah, like when I thanked them for killing my friend while he slept, and like I thanked them for breaking into my home, nor once, but 3 times, and holding me at gunpoint while they ransacked the place and took what they wanted. Like I thanked them for stealing my car and pojnting assault weapons at my grandchildren. If the FBI kept track of atrocities committed by police against the people, violent crime rates would be through the roof.

"Do you not agree that promoting the liberty of the individual and the maintenance of his or her inalienable rights is conductive[sic] to the general welfare of society?" ~ Michael Kleen Yes, Michael, I do agree that promoting the liberty of the individual and the maintenance of his or her inalienable, [i.e. natural rights], is conducive to the general welfare of society, but I do not believe that promoting altruism, defined as "selflessness", which is precisely what the collectivists do, is "conducive to the general welfare of society". This is why Ayn Rand's view seemed extreme. "...it is important for the individual to learn...that he or she will sometimes need to shoulder burdens or work for the well being of others". ~ Michael Kleen Yes, but what you describe there is not altruism, at least not as it is understood today, i.e. "selflessness", because by working for the well-being of others, he knows, perhaps way down deep inside, that he is helping himSELF. "First, they came for the Jews. But I was not a Jew, so I did not speak up. Then they came for the communists. But I was not a communist, so I did not speak up. Then they came for the trade unionists. But I was not a trade unionist, so I did not speak up. And when they came FOR ME, there was no one left to speak out FOR ME." ~ (attributed to) Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

I think Rand's view of the subject is particularly extreme and perhaps even misanthropic. But in any regards, you can rest assured that I was not using the term "altruism" in a way that endorses those extreme interpretations.

American Christianity is a phenomenon that must be understood deeply and clearly if one is to get along with living on this land mass. Every atheist, agnostic, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Deist, etc. must understand the sweeping and overwhelming influence of American Christianity, and how it impacts even the most minor details of one's personal life, if one is to live and breathe here. I can remember a great many good things about my religious upbringing, but the long-term effect it has had has been largely negative. I appreciate this article very much, and I intend on reading it again. However, there were some things that were said that I think deserve more comment. First off, do we want libertarianism to be the foundation of "American Exceptionalism" as is stated in this article? Why does America need to be "exceptional"? Hasn't this led to a great many bloody mistakes, like the one we are forced to pay for now in the Middle East? "Christian libertarians made exactly the same argument [the desire for all to act morally or immorally], but with the added proviso that the Bible contained the lessons that would persuade everyone of faith to decide to use their ‘freedom to act morally.’" Maybe I'm interpreting this passage wrong, but it reminds me of what I was taught in my church: We are free to choose to act right. When The Bible threatens an individual with unending torment, making the "opposite" choice isn't too appetizing. "But that complacency was shattered in the fall of 1949 by two international catastrophes. First, the discovery that the Soviets now possessed the A-bomb, and presumably the means to deliver it within the borders of the United States, destroyed the illusion that America was safe from physical destruction." World War II hadn't done that? Why, then, were innocent Japanese children imprisoned in camps in Utah, a largely Christian state? As we now know, the Cold War was largely based on unreasonable fears. The Soviet system was bound to collapse economically. Millions of American Christians fell for the nonsense that the millions of individuals wandering around on the land mass of Russia were somehow dangerous. I don't think much of Soviet leaders to be sure, but American Christianity was a big booster to the hysteria, much like the hysteria over Islam in our day. What was that crap about "Love your enemies"? "Consideration was also given to the proper application of the moral lessons contained in scripture to the just relationship between the State and the individual..." There is no "just" relationship between the State and the individual, much less a "moral" that can be proven to exist. Once again, the canard that government is a necessary evil, and that somehow it is negated when it goes past its "basic functions." God, how much longer must we suffer with this? The most basic function of a government is to initiate coercion by saying, "We are your government, and you have no choice in the matter." Death begins immediately afterward. "The CFF urged a return to: the Gold Standard..." Why, when the individuals on this land mass want to play the great game of Monopoly (otherwise known as the free market), must the government come along and say, "You can't play the game unless I play, and I will not play unless I get to be banker. Oh, and I have a gun."? Why didn't "Christian libertarians" not see the perfidy of such an arrangement? Probably because they are conditioned to follow an authority, and because so many of the Founding Fathers would mention God time and again, why then, God must have created it all for us. "I may not have voted for him, but he is our president, and we should all..." "Rowe continued the article’s explication of the importance of individual free-will by pointing out that the 'Bible is replete with evidence of free agency on the part of God and man alike.'” Like Genesis 38: 9-10, where God strikes a man dead for having sex with his brother's wife, and then ejaculating outside her body? Or the part about stoning faggots (Leviticus 20:13)? "...[S]ince then constitutionalists (adherents of the ‘original intent’ of the document)..." The original intent of the document was, in part, to ensure the continuance of slavery. Another intent of the document was to ensure that the ruling elite and their posterity got what they wanted. The document was largely successful with at least two of its original intents. There is no such thing as an "unconstitutional amendment." "The example of Jesus’ life was central to the doctrine of individual freedom because He inspired people to follow the road to salvation, and 'men with (such) faith gradually come to believe that God is just as much interested in others as in themselves.' With that realization came an understanding of the dynamic of Christian theology; that when mankind is guided by the Golden Rule in their conduct to each other, then they 'can no longer exploit and enslave his fellows.' And when they no longer desire to exploit one another because they do not want to, not because they fear to, only then can all mankind be free." This I largely agree with, and when people no longer believe in the biblical threats of hell for disobedience, perhaps they will no longer want to exploit one another, either. The Golden Rule is central to an understanding of individuality, and I think that The Four Gospels should be required reading for all. I don't agree with everything in them, since I no longer believe in Jesus's divinity, and I no longer believe one should be subjected to the idea of superior being/inferior being (part of the source of the problem at hand), but a lot of what Jesus actually says (not how it's interpreted by the various faiths, or even how some of it is interpreted in this article) points directly inward, which is where I would prefer every goddamned politician look instead. The main thought that comes to me from reading this is that, eventually, the Christian churches of America came under the sway of getting involved in politics, and why shouldn't they? Most religions are softly coercive insitutions, which would undoubtedly attract the hardened coercive institution of government, and vice versa. A cancer that wants to grow is going to attach itself to whatever host is available. It is the love of or "need" for the state that so many Christians (libertarian and otherwise) have embraced to varying degrees that has led to the demise of libertarian thought among Christians. What puts it in your heart to coerce? Is it the superiority/inferiority dichotomy? Is it childhood hurt and pain? Is it belief in some eternal punishment, like Guantanamo on steroids? Get rid of it.

"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." ~ Excerpted from the Ayn Rand Lexicon Read more on altruism here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

I think there has been some effort made, but I would question how "tremendously influential" any of these organizations have been. The homeschooling movement is growing, but its overall effect is minimal. I wish libertarians spent even a quarter as much time and energy on the subject of education as they do on economics.

If you still have friends who are frustrated with what is wrong with America and what should be done about it, they may want to read this essay. Talk about 'telling it like it is', I was impressed.

"We" are not against altruism? altruism noun ...2. Ethics the doctrine that the general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual's actions ~ http://www.yourdictionary.com/altruism These indoctrination centers do teach the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, at least their version of them. What they avoid, like the plague, because it would "strike at the root" of the state agenda, is teaching, especially from an early age, a rational understanding of our Natural Rights and the responsibilities that accompany them. "Among the natural rights of the colonists [of all men] are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." ~ Samuel Adams (Sept. 1722 - Oct. 1803) These indoctrination centers also fail to teach, (for the same reason stated above), that the only way one can lawfully lose his natural rights is through forfeiture; it is the penalty for not recognizing and respecting the natural rights of others. "Attack another’s rights and you destroy your own." ~ John Jay Chapman

"It cannot be denied that a child’s formative years are of the utmost importance for instilling values of any sort, yet libertarians, individualists, and anti-Statists have all but yielded the educational realm to their opponents." Do you really think so? I don't have that impression. For example, the man who started the Advocates for Self Government (which hosts the "world's smallest political quiz") was Marshall Fritz, who also founded the Separation of School & State Alliance, tremendously influential in getting people to start questioning the state's role in education.

"More drug arrests" ... A prescription for further tyranny.

Nice article Mike...as always. The teachers unions are killing public education, and betraying the very children they feign to protect. Kids today are being socially engineered by former terrorists (like Ayers), but God forbid they learn about the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. Good stuff brother! -Steve

Gee, it's hard to think, Suverans2. If every reader of STR were as knowledgeable and experienced as you, I guess it was all a waste of time. But you never know, perhaps there was someone reading this idea for the first time. In fact, if there wasn't - if STR consisted only of people like you - we'd be in pretty deep trouble. However if there was, (s)he may like to take another step and learn more. The bio at the foot my my article contains some clues about how and where.

″Always remember that there are people around you who worship the religion of statism and will have no problem sacrificing you to their god.″ ~ Darrell Anderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Anderson http://www.simpleliberty.org/essays/hell_no_we_wont_go.htm

It's all about jurisdiction, which is the "extent or range of administrative power". Although many, (if not most), people believe that jurisdiction is limited only to place or territory, that belief is incorrect. "Jurisdiction, is limited to place or territory, to persons, or to particular subjects."[1] The limitation we are concerned with from that list is that of “persons”. The reason for that concern can be plainly seen in the following Maxim of Law. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 2136 And a deeper understanding of that word can be found here. American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: "This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings[2], it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition." "...at whatever cost..." WOW! Must be pretty important! As we can see by the above two witnesses, this is more than just “patriot mythology”. [1] Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [2] It is important to note that this did NOT say, “...and also natural beings”. For this to be a correct statement the authors had to add the word “apparently”.