Quotes

I’m con­stantly amazed at peo­ple emu­lat­ing fic­tions against which they rail for per­pet­u­at­ing injus­tice, but through which they seek to admin­is­ter jus­tice instead of just being. I don’t deal with fic­tions. They are actors play­ing a role in a game I choose not to engage. I don’t need a supe­rior court to respond to con­trivances. I can respond on my own terms with my own mouth and actions with­out resort­ing to tom­fool­ery that lends cre­dence to the pre­sump­tion that we are a bunch of nitwits falling prey to the trap which they have laid for us. Free peo­ple do not need to resort to fab­ri­cated courts to respond to gov­ern­ment. That is why we were sup­pos­edly endowed with con­science, rea­son, morals, and will, to resist tyranny. My actions are my “writs” and my “court” is my life; and it is not supe­rior to any other man’s, but equal to all oth­ers who seek refuge in cul­ti­vated rea­son and knowl­edge. Courts do not derive from nature, but from delu­sions and pre­tenses of sys­tems of con­trol. A free indi­vid­ual need only sub­mit to the juris­dic­tion of nature wherein all the means of liv­ing or dying are at our dis­posal; as well as the means of answer­ing unjust aggres­sion when it comes to sub­ju­gate. Despots to not sub­due us by resort­ing to nature, but by dis­tract­ing us from it.

Some peo­ple jus­tify their sub­ju­ga­tion as being an expe­di­ent for liv­ing in an “imper­fect world”. I posit that the world is not imper­fect, but exactly the oppo­site. It is per­fect in the respect that it con­forms to the laws of nature set down by the Cre­ator, with­out devi­a­tion or hes­i­tance. Man, by his nature, is imper­fect; for he pos­sess the choice to be what he is; whereas nature is a slave to the law. It is imper­fect men who chal­lenge us to sub­mit to imper­fec­tion. We may choose to either suf­fer under the imper­fect demands of other men, or work towards being more-perfect indi­vid­u­als. I do not acqui­esce to the pres­sure of imper­fect men for it impedes my pro­gres­sion towards being the indi­vid­ual I choose to be.

There is not a more piti­ful sight than a man who has for­saken his own human­ity to pur­sue the fan­tasy of believ­ing him­self supe­rior to other men by virtue of the office bestowed upon him.

There is no badge big enough to con­ceal a cow­ard who seeks its protection.

You say I am tilt­ing at wind­mills. This gov­ern­ment is the “best” in the world, by com­par­i­son. We need author­ity and con­trol to pre­serve soci­ety. Such were the cries over the ages in sup­port of monar­chy and dic­ta­tor­ship, and with the enlight­en­ment of man, those insti­tu­tions have slowly crum­bled; only to have their pieces gath­ered, pol­ished, and con­structed into the new leviathan we now suf­fer under and call freedom.

Gov­ern­ment is an insult. It says to soci­ety, “Not only do I not trust you, but I think so lit­tle of myself as to sur­ren­der a part of my nature in sub­mis­sion to an exter­nal author­ity. I will set aside rea­son, per­sua­sion, tol­er­ance, and enlight­en­ment so I may sum­mon a crea­ture which expresses the base, vul­gar, and vio­lent aspect of my nature and do to oth­ers that which I could not oth­er­wise allow myself to do.”

Noth­ing says, “I love you” more than a statu­to­rily cre­ated busi­ness arrange­ment pro­mul­gated under the aus­pices of an admin­is­tra­tive author­ity designed to over­see the equi­table dis­tri­b­u­tion of the fruits born pur­suant to a union of peti­tion­ing sub­jects desir­ing to exer­cise priv­i­leges derived from the exchange of nat­ural, inalien­able rights.

I have just com­pleted an exhaus­tive analy­sis of two of the worlds most-read lit­er­ary tomes, the Bible and Pent­house Let­ters, and has awarded the title of “Most fac­tual, authen­tic, and enter­tain­ing” to Pent­house. Although the Bible greatly out­ranked Pent­house in sex­ual ref­er­ences and deviant acts, Pent­house was redeemed by the cre­ative use of phal­lic euphemisms like “throb­bing mem­ber” and “say hello to my lit­tle friend”.

With respect to “soci­ety”, I am com­pletely out of “con­trol”. With respect to my “con­science”, I am the con­sum­mate “conformist”.

With regard to my pri­vacy and the apolo­getic sycophant’s jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for gov­ern­men­tal intru­sion into my affairs in sup­port of their feigned per­cep­tion of secu­rity under the pre­tense that if I noth­ing to hide, I should have noth­ing to fear, I say this; I will aver that I have noth­ing to hide, but only upon your affir­ma­tion that it is I who will set the terms, time, and sub­ject by which I will disclose.

In the search for truth, it is not most impor­tant that one arrives at the answer, but rather be capa­ble of com­pre­hend­ing the question.

I believe that life is merely the ges­ta­tion of our death. Just as a mother’s life impacts upon her fetus, so our life impacts upon our true being, notwith­stand­ing this wretched and loath­some flesh-bound vehi­cle. If this mate­r­ial world be the true sum­ma­tion of “exis­tence”, then I beckon for a hasty depar­ture and bid a adieu to the ephemeral delu­sion. Oth­er­wise, the flesh is noth­ing more than sen­sory dis­trac­tion to “I”.

One has to won­der if, after see­ing how mankind treats itself, if we truly are the supe­rior species. The pow­ers we pos­sess may not be by virtue of our being supe­rior in the ani­mal king­dom, but a pre­req­ui­site for God, know­ing what fools we were to become, merely endowed us with noth­ing more than the abil­ity to suc­cumb to an elab­o­rate joke. We may be noth­ing more than the cos­mic equiv­a­lent of “look, your shoe’s untied”.

No peo­ple have been harmed in my refus­ing to coop­er­ate with arbi­trary edicts of var­i­ous leg­is­la­tures and agen­cies but man, some bureau­crats sure got their panties in a bunch! You’re wel­come, society.

I say to gov­ern­ment: I will strike you down, snuff you out, kill you, burn you, anni­hi­late you, destroy you…. WAIT! ….you are not real, you are a fic­tion, a way­ward synapse, a hope gone awry. I need not raise a fin­ger. It is enough that I merely… IGNORE you. You inspire the oaths of oafs, the flags of fools, and the beliefs of the beguiled. Rea­son­able men should shun you and sub­mit to their con­science. Be gone!

I say that vio­lent resis­tance to gov­ern­ment is wrong. Vio­lent resis­tance to men, who would com­pel your obe­di­ence and vio­late your con­science, is moral and jus­ti­fied. It is not our bur­den to rec­on­cile when men dis­guise them­selves as “agents” or “offi­cers”. The con­fronta­tion is man against man, and no fic­tion can absolve a man of his actions. Gov­ern­ment is a con­trivance of those who seek to sub­due others.

I am an Anar­chist – not in that I favor dis­or­der, but in that Nat­ural Law is the only order. I am an Athe­ist – not in that I deny god, but that I deny any god other than mine. I am a free man – not in that my flesh may not be con­fined, but that my mind will not. I am – not in that I require approval or per­mis­sion, but that I per­sist in spite of it. We are labeled by oth­ers, but defined by our selves.

Who has any legit­i­mate author­ity to dic­tate the actions of another? Who has any legit­i­mate author­ity to demand obe­di­ence to their will? If there exist such author­ity, why then do not such peo­ple exer­cise that author­ity in their proper per­son rather than elect­ing ver­min, thugs, and scoundrels as their proxy, and mask­ing their tyranny as “gov­ern­ment”? Those unfit to gov­ern them­selves have no author­ity to gov­ern others.

I am so tired of explain­ing to peo­ple that gov­ern­ment has NO legit­i­mate author­ity over any­one unless they con­sent to that author­ity. I have NO oblig­a­tion to vote if I feel gov­ern­ment has noth­ing to offer, or if what­ever ben­e­fit they may pro­vide is off­set by harm or injury; not only to myself, but to oth­ers. I have NO oblig­a­tion to obey the arbi­trary edicts of a leg­is­la­ture. I have no use for such foolishness.

My rebel­lion is an expres­sion of my con­science to bring myself into har­mony with nature. As in tun­ing an instru­ment, the pitch of nature is dis­cernible to every ear that would but lis­ten. When force or author­ity attempts to strike a note using our will for its cacoph­o­nous din, we attempt to bring our­selves into tune with the melody com­posed by the Grand Mas­ter of the Universe.

Upon reach­ing a cer­tain age we begin to real­ize the child­ish­ness in hav­ing make-believe friends, then fol­low­ing years of pub­lic edu­ca­tion we go on to cast votes for them.

There are no bad cops, only bad men. Police are fic­tions of a delu­sional sys­tem of con­trol, and men who resort to that sys­tem for admin­is­ter­ing their per­sonal jus­tice are the dregs of human­ity; for they won’t stand in their own per­son and com­mit their atroc­i­ties to be judged on their socio­pathic actions. Con­versely, there are no good cops, only good men. Bestow­ing acco­lades on an insti­tu­tion that har­bors, nur­tures, and pro­motes vio­lent acts by way of the ten­u­ous con­nec­tion to moral men, does not assign moral­ity to that insti­tu­tion. It is men who sully them­selves with the garb of that insti­tu­tion, even though their beliefs be mis­guided, who do not suc­cumb to the evil fes­ter­ing therein, and act vir­tu­ously despite asso­ci­at­ing with brigands.

Though my flesh be bruised and bloody, my prop­erty vio­lated, and my body stilled, I per­sist. I am the most dan­ger­ous brand of indi­vid­ual. Not that I pos­sess supe­rior strength or force, but because I can­not be made to trem­ble, or fear vio­lence. That alone dis­arms most tyrants, for it is the sta­ple in their arse­nal of intim­i­da­tion.
My spilled blood is the license by which I will exer­cise my pre­rog­a­tive to self-defense.

Unin­formed gov­er­nance is irre­spon­si­ble and dan­ger­ous. Those who vote with­out invest­ing them­selves in main­tain­ing order and account­abil­ity in that crea­ture which they cre­ate are just as respon­si­ble for any tyranny as if they were them­selves oppressors.

Gov­ern­ment is like a large vehi­cle. It is con­structed for a par­tic­u­lar and spe­cific pur­pose, and if not prop­erly con­trolled, may cause harm and injury. Those who are elected take the posi­tions of oper­a­tor. How­ever, the proper anal­ogy for our present times is that vot­ers do noth­ing more than toss a brick upon the accel­er­a­tor of an unoc­cu­pied vehi­cle. The vehi­cle goes into motion, but with no con­trol. It is want to col­lide with peo­ple and prop­erty who have no care for nor need for such a vehi­cle, but by the care­less­ness of some who thought it their “civic duty” to cast a vote and shut their eyes to the ensu­ing polit­i­cal car­nage; they are as those who cast their brick and send the vehi­cle on its destruc­tive course.

I would trust an hon­est athe­ist over a hyp­o­crit­i­cal Christian.

Gov­ern­ment is not the stan­dard by which our lib­erty is mea­sured, it is the stan­dard by which free peo­ple accept despo­tism.
It is not required that one tilt at wind­mills to defeat tyranny, it is merely that we erect our­selves to live by our principles.

Gov­ern­ment is so far removed from the con­cept of moral­ity that it is absurd to even try to com­pre­hend it from an anthro­po­mor­phic per­spec­tive. Gov­ern­ment is more often than not the tool of oppres­sion wielded by the major­ity who will by edict or force assign their de facto def­i­n­i­tion of what is moral or immoral. Some­where there will always be a fal­li­ble, imper­fect, poten­tially cor­rupt­ible, unlikely rep­utable, indi­vid­ual bang­ing the gavel or sign­ing the mala pro­hibita procla­ma­tions that creep into the pri­vate actions of peace­able peo­ple who hap­pen to be different.

Gov­ern­ment is the last resort when tol­er­ance, rea­son, and inde­pen­dence succeed.

I choose to take my chances and flour­ish, or per­ish, under the dic­tates of my con­science and abdi­cate noth­ing to any man.

I earn a liv­ing by my indus­try and labor through pri­vate con­tracts and receiv­ing com­pen­sa­tion by way of valu­able con­sid­er­a­tion as exchanged in the mar­ket­place in an occu­pa­tion of com­mon right.

I pay all taxes I am law­fully required to pay.

Every war should be fought with spoons, and only by the polit­i­cal lead­ers of those war­ring nations. Let them invest them­selves in wrench­ing the life from their enemy while the peo­ple live their lives peace­ably and pros­per­ously. Good riddance!

I take lit­tle offense at any­thing, notwith­stand­ing vul­gar insults or phys­i­cal assault. Even the vul­gar insults are eas­ily dis­missed once one under­stands the sources of such gut­tural flat­u­lence. I am always open to con­struc­tive crit­i­cism and debate.

I am paid in what­ever man­ner agreed upon between myself and those with whom I con­tract. I don’t under­stand what “under the table” means or implies. IF it is meant to imply that I don’t inform “gov­ern­ment” of every­thing that I choose to make my prop­erty through pri­vate con­tracts and the fruits of my labor then yes, I do not inform ANYONE or ANYTHING of what prop­erty I pos­sess. Is there a rea­son why I should; why am oblig­ated to; or of whose busi­ness MY labor and prop­erty are of any sub­ject or inter­est? To dis­close one’s prop­erty to would-be rob­bers can be said to be insane. To dis­close one’s prop­erty to gov­ern­ment is called patri­otic.
I am not employed. “Employ­ment”, “employee”, “employer”… are statu­tory words that do not define my pri­vate labor in the mar­ket­place. I have a num­ber of tal­ents that pro­duce streams of com­pen­sa­tion for me that I do VERY well with. I could be “con­sid­ered” employed by the casual out­side observer, but that deter­mi­na­tion is made from igno­rance and pre­sump­tion and not upon fact or context.

I know of no debt to soci­ety since I place no bur­den upon soci­ety, have received no demand for pay­ment by soci­ety for any per­ceived bur­den placed there­upon, ask noth­ing of soci­ety which ben­e­fits myself indi­vid­u­ally, know of no per­son or entity that has iden­ti­fied itself to me as “soci­ety” or has evi­denced any bur­den placed upon it by me.

I don’t care what gov­ern­ment does for oth­ers, I ask such gov­ern­ment to do noth­ing for me. I am not oblig­ated to any­one but myself and those with whom I’ve made myself morally oblig­ated and duty bound. I take advan­tage of noth­ing, although the majority’s pub­lic and will­ing dis­play of igno­rance and greed pro­vide ample fer­tile ground for an oppor­tunis­tic indi­vid­ual to exploit. If one cares to make a claim against my per­son or labor then let them bring what­ever armed brig­ands they may see fit to sum­mon for their aid and exploita­tion and take what they think is their enti­tle­ment. Oth­er­wise, save the col­lec­tivist blather for them and their ilk. I say many have not the courage to face any­one on their own, but rely upon the vio­lence and despo­tism of will­ing gov­ern­ment actors to serve as their evil proxy.

If one admits to a gov­ern­ment by the “con­sent of the gov­erned”, and the inca­pable, col­lec­tivist ilk want to form such a gov­ern­ment and con­sent to IT being the source of their rea­son, con­science, moral­ity, sus­te­nance, knowl­edge, health….etc., then the inca­pable, col­lec­tivist ilk can form, and con­sent to, such a gov­ern­ment. The inca­pable, col­lec­tivist ilk CANNOT morally con­script oth­ers like myself to par­tic­i­pate in, or con­sent to such a government.

I don’t believe that soci­etal inequities can be reme­died by gov­ern­ment, but should be allowed to work them­selves out in the arena of pub­lic and pri­vate com­pas­sion, dis­cus­sion, and respon­si­bil­ity. the ques­tion is not whether gov­ern­ment should cor­rect these prob­lems, but we should not allow gov­ern­ment to pro­hibit, reg­u­late, or inter­fere with what­ever soci­etal solu­tions we may choose to exer­cise. Gov­ern­ment has made these issues their domain and there­fore con­trols the suf­fer­ing and lim­its the compassionate.

There are plenty of sources of rev­enue if gov­ern­ment chose to exploit them. How­ever, most of these sources are big cor­po­ra­tions, big cam­paign con­trib­u­tors, and ensconced oli­garchs. For the less for­tu­nate who do not have the means to, or access for, pri­vate edu­ca­tion or healthy liv­ing, the priv­i­leged cor­po­ra­tions that oper­ate at our expense as pro­tected enti­ties have a moral duty, if such a con­cept can be applied to a legal fic­tion, to give back to soci­ety for the exer­cise of their priv­i­lege and ben­e­fit. They do NOT have free speech, are NOT “per­sons”, and do NOT have any con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tions. They, nev­er­the­less, are the new aris­toc­racy and source of polit­i­cal power.

Gov­ern­ment is a tool for the intol­er­ant, narrow-minded, inse­cure, igno­rant, and dom­i­neer­ing. Where it was orig­i­nally intended to pro­vide for the pro­tec­tion of indi­vid­ual life, lib­erty, and prop­erty, it now caters to cor­po­ra­tions, spe­cial inter­ests, asso­ci­a­tions, and all which grease the palms of malfeasing, self-ordained oligarchs.

That is the state of our igno­rant soci­ety. The Amer­i­can ver­sion of blonde-hair, blue-eyed, Aryan sheep.

When you strip away the pre­cious pre­con­cep­tions, icons, idols, edi­fices, and con­trivances peo­ple tena­ciously cling to with nary a mod­icum of self-investment, research, intel­lec­tual dis­cern­ment or critical-thought; push­ing them out­side their com­fort zone, you can read­ily observe how much peo­ple act upon what they’re told as opposed to what they know.

Yes, I do love myself. I am my best friend. I am obsessed with me! I am smart, con­fi­dent, knowl­edge­able, hon­est, blessed, tol­er­ant, com­pas­sion­ate, fair, rea­son­able, con­scionable, just….but most of all, unafraid.

Why should love of one’s self  be viewed as self­ish­ness? I spend every wak­ing and sleep­ing moment with me. Why would I want to lie to myself by act­ing con­trar­ily to what I know to be the truth? Why would I want to be afraid of any­thing, and have to look myself in the mir­ror and address a cow­ard? Why should I suc­cumb to igno­rance, threats, vio­lence, or tyranny? Since I trust in a higher author­ity; one that has given me all the won­der­ful gifts that I enjoy with no hes­i­ta­tion; those gifts which are mine and mine alone; and know­ing that some day when I leave this earth and mor­tal shell, no mat­ter how much I might oth­er­wise scream and cling to this tem­po­rary life; I’ll return to that author­ity and with pride say that I did not aban­don my faith or abuse my gifts and tal­ents which I owe to that author­ity; and say that in the face of all the igno­rance, intol­er­ance, vio­lence and evil I had faced that I did not feed that dark­ness by giv­ing it my fear and doubt­ing the jus­tice of the Creator.

I love myself, and some iden­tify and are attracted to good, decent peo­ple, and that gives me hope and joy, inspir­ing me to be char­i­ta­ble and giv­ing with shar­ing my gifts with oth­ers who may like­wise be doubt­ful or search­ing as I once was. I love myself because I was given the choice by my Cre­ator to love, or hate, myself. The power of hap­pi­ness lies within me, not depen­dent on out­side influ­ences. I make me happy or sad. Nobody can affect me in a way I choose not to be affected.

Every­thing I do because I want to. If I do some­thing moral it is not that I do it for moral­ity, it is that I do it morally. I have to wade through igno­rance and intol­er­ance daily. I even learn from the igno­rant. I learn that some find it com­fort­able, anes­thetiz­ing, bliss­ful, and sim­ple. How­ever, it is a lot of work. When faced with truth all around, how tax­ing it must be to keep turn­ing away, shut­ting an eye, cov­er­ing the ears, sub­du­ing the rea­son….. Some work harder at not know­ing than know­ing and fac­ing the truth.

What I have come to know is because I chal­lenged much of what I was “told” and when they fell silent I knew that I was either right, or they didn’t know more than me. I’m not a genius, or don’t con­sider myself a genius. What I know, no mat­ter how flawed or mis­taken it may be, is what I have learned on my own and have come to under­stand hon­estly and through my own edu­ca­tion. It is my truth. It may not be everyone’s truth. But until I’m shown oth­er­wise, it is the stan­dard by which I peace­ably live my life. I also make sure that I err on the side of cau­tion and, if act­ing out of igno­rance, only expose myself to injury instead of oth­ers. Unfor­tu­nately, I know of many would rather I act, or rather advo­cate not act­ing, on my own volition.

I don’t believe when I hear that a “law” has been passed. An Act has been passed by the leg­is­la­ture, but I would stop short of call­ing it a “law”. Just because a num­ber of peo­ple vote “yea” on some­thing does not make it bind­ing upon any­one who wished not to be bound by it. Can a major­ity of peo­ple pass “laws” that deprive any­one of their rights? How can a law that deprives one of their rights be a just law? How can a law be any­thing but just? If all rights are equal, and a law is passed that deprives a right for the sake of another, the depri­va­tion of that one right nul­li­fies the entire law. If the “law” is merely the will of the leg­is­la­ture then what recourse have we against such a body that devolves into despo­tism? Are we then denied relief because no claim of vio­la­tion can stand when rebutted with our accept­ing despo­tism as law?

What the leg­is­la­ture may pass as so-called “law” deprives me of noth­ing. It may frighten me into not exer­cis­ing my rights, but I am in full pos­ses­sion of all my rights at all times. They are as much a part of me as my thoughts, my bones, and my spirit. They can­not be taken away, only sur­ren­dered through inac­tion or fear.

The “law” does not pre­vent me from exer­cis­ing my rights. Only I deter­mine when and where I will exer­cise my rights. If I allow myself to believe that a law has power over me then it is through that erro­neous belief that I choose not to exer­cise my right out of igno­rance or fear. Nobody has deprived me of my right but me. The exis­tence of a “law” has no bear­ing upon my actions. Only a charge aris­ing out of a vio­la­tion of the “law” can move the actors in gov­ern­ment to seize my body in effort to restrict my exer­cise of a right, but my right to resist and defend such action is incum­bent upon me to what­ever end that may pro­vide. The law does not guar­an­tee me any­thing. It pro­vides a forum for redress of a vio­la­tion of my rights or an attempt at restrict my exer­cise of rights, or a con­tro­versy aris­ing from con­flict­ing claims of rights, but it guar­an­tees me noth­ing. Only I, myself, can guar­an­tee my rights by resort­ing to civil venues estab­lished by the con­sent­ing and mutual for­ma­tion of gov­ern­ment, or I can resort to a state of nature when faced with an unre­spon­sive or oppres­sive gov­ern­ment and take mea­sures to pro­tect my rights. Rights are not depen­dent upon law. The law does not cre­ate rights. Man cre­ates law. There­fore, it may be claimed that man cre­ates rights. If man can cre­ate rights then man can deprive rights. If man can do these things against the will of another man then that is tyranny. Tyranny and law are exclu­sive of one another. Where one exists the other does not. Law is the pro­tec­tion of life, lib­erty, and prop­erty, but not the orig­i­na­tion or guar­an­tee of them.

Those who whis­per dis­parag­ingly my name as being a rab­ble rouser and non­con­formist, while bap­tized in the blood of the inno­cent whose lives were taken by the col­lec­tivist, vio­lent state, and who forego crit­i­cal thought and auton­omy in favor of being left alone by author­ity, will gen­u­flect before their earthly mas­ter and swear to sub­mit to idol­a­try. I say that not ONE of the naysay­ers have a mod­icum of courage or con­vic­tion; nary an inkling of prin­ci­ple; no con­cept of self; but instead are defined, reg­u­lated, ruled, and sub­ject to despo­tism, tyranny, and evil. The only refuge of such peo­ple is igno­rance, vio­lence, and oppres­sion. Yet, I live my life as I wish, obey no one, harm no one, and speak out auda­ciously, bel­liger­ently, vocif­er­ously, and con­fi­dently that cow­ardice and intim­i­da­tion can­not pre­vail against courage and hon­est con­vic­tions. I prevail.

I believe that some, if not most, peo­ple either want or need an exter­nal author­i­ta­tive source for main­tain­ing order. If they so choose to sub­mit to being gov­erned by such author­ity, and also abdi­cate what respon­si­bil­ity they have for safe­guard­ing their rights under such a sys­tem and in return con­sent to the oli­garchy that will man­i­fest by indus­tri­ous and enter­pris­ing few who are adept at exploit­ing and cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the igno­rance, greed, and pruri­ent base moti­va­tors of the masses then that essen­tially con­sti­tutes consent.

How­ever, for an indus­tri­ous, enter­pris­ing, rea­son­able, moral, and respon­si­ble few who have no need for such a sys­tem; as it, by its very nature oper­ates as a bar­rier and sup­pres­sor to the progress of mankind by those few, by appeas­ing and pla­cat­ing the wants of the many at the expense of the few, then the few should be allowed to live their lives unim­peded and unreg­u­lated, notwith­stand­ing tor­tu­ous and crim­i­nal acts which result in harm or depri­va­tion of other’s like-rights, and are thereby be free to enjoy to the fullest extent their liberty.

I believe that those few will exhibit and set a stan­dard that oth­ers may aspire to, while oth­ers will sim­ply tire at the thought of such exer­cise of indus­try and opt for servi­tude. Why should the inde­pen­dent, indus­tri­ous peo­ple be con­scripted to the sti­fling yoke of col­lec­tivism when they choose to carry a bur­den of their choos­ing and not of their assign­ment? I believe that I am one of those few who do not need, or want, the lim­its pre­scribed by man when I can excel if left to my own devices.
If I choose to engage the sys­tems which are designed to equal­ize cer­tain activ­i­ties where a priv­i­lege or ben­e­fit is being derived, then I will sub­mit to such reg­u­la­tion. In my thoughts, words, and actions I am sov­er­eign, and myself, ulti­mately responsible.

I, liv­ing as one of those indi­vid­u­als who acts accord­ing to my will, have no need to jus­tify through logic or law what I do. My actions are based on MY rules and guide­lines. If my actions appear to con­form to the man­dates, laws, rules, and reg­u­la­tions pro­mul­gated by gov­ern­ment, then that cor­re­la­tion does not find its ori­gin with gov­ern­ment, it just so hap­pens to be in har­mony with two sets of stan­dards, mine being the ori­gin and author­ity for the gen­e­sis of my actions. I do not act on pre­scribed moral­ity, I act upon MY moral­ity. Because gov­ern­ment may have a set of rules that com­port with my moral­ity is not that gov­ern­ment dic­tates my moral actions.

I do not sub­mit to the judg­ment of the masses. I can­not be bound by the judg­ment of oth­ers when their moral­ity may not be in har­mony with my moral­ity. If it is the way of the world that all of us are sub­ject to arbi­trary rule by a major­ity then I reserve my right to resist at all costs being forced to suc­cumb to arbi­trary rule.
If the peo­ple exer­cise their pre­rog­a­tive to not pur­chase from a mar­ket that does not cater to their needs then that mar­ket will suf­fer. Gov­ern­ment inter­ven­tion in the mar­ket does noth­ing besides fos­ter pro­tec­tion­ism, monop­o­lies, costly reg­u­la­tion, and dis­in­cen­tives to true entre­pre­neurs. Gov­ern­ment is the one ben­e­fit­ting eco­nom­i­cally, but more so thor­ough retain­ing power, by manip­u­lat­ing prices, labor, and com­pe­ti­tion. Our choices are lim­ited by gov­ern­ment, because only those who have demon­strated a will­ing­ness to coop­er­ate with gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion may have access to the government’s “human resources”.

Let me ask you, what if I did not elect that gov­ern­ment? What if government’s con­cept of “good” does not com­port with my con­cept of “good”. Gov­ern­ment may leg­is­late for the good of ITS peo­ple, that being, those who con­sent, engage, pro­mote, and desire such gov­ern­ment. But those who do not can­not be morally bound to obey or sub­mit to such gov­ern­ment. The ques­tion is, WHO deter­mines what is good for who? Again, the argu­ment boils down to being forced to sub­mit to col­lec­tivism under the threat of force. I do not ask gov­ern­ment to do any­thing for my good, or to under­take my responsibilities.

Tell me, if my actions are not based on MY rules and guide­lines, can you tell me whose rules and guide­lines I pat­tern my actions after when I peace­fully inter­act with other human beings?

I fail to find in nature, in moral­ity, in the law, where ordi­nary men who take an oath to no one and who’s only power and author­ity exists at the behest of men also exer­cis­ing arbi­trary power, where police have been blessed with the abil­ity or power to deter­mine who in-fact is good or bad, and then be morally and law­fully entrusted with the author­ity to treat them in a man­ner con­sis­tent with their adjudication.

Some men, who serve in the capac­ity of police­men, are good men; but it is always the per­son, and not the office, that does us harm. Police is just a mask, a per­sona. It is the peo­ple act­ing in that role that harm us and no amount of pomp or rhetoric can cast evil men in a noble light because they hap­pen to wear a cos­tume and carry a badge.

“Why didn’t you go to law school?”, I am asked. Let me tell you… After all the hours invested in read­ing and research­ing I chose to not invite a bunch of aca­d­e­mic mon­key train­ers focused more on diplo­matic con­fis­ca­tion of the rabble’s sweat equity through legal con­trivances than actual jus­tice, to pee in my pool of k…nowledge. It’s like ask­ing a skilled sur­geon, “Why don’t you stick your hands in a wood chipper?”

I have burned the flag, burned the Bible, and burned the Con­sti­tu­tion. These things which are but anchors for the mind. They are not sub­stance. My beliefs, opin­ions, and knowl­edge were left untouched, almost enhanced. I real­ized it is the con­ve­nient con­structs which con­fine the mind from explo­ration and dis­cov­ery of tr…uth in favor of com­fort­able illu­sions. If it is not to be found within, then sadly you are without.

I was asked, “By what right do you dis­obey the laws of this State?” By what right?! By the right that I existed before the State; antecedent to an army of pre­hen­sile pros­e­ly­tiz­ers of saga­cious hege­mony sup­plant­ing my rea­son with notions of alle­giance, patri­o­tism, and sub­ju­ga­tion to men and a tat­ter of cloth. My first c…oncept was that of self, of I. By that right, I need not dis­obey the State, but dis­avow it.

When soci­ety bears fruit, the seeds of mutual pro­tec­tion, com­merce, knowl­edge, and peace are cast upon the fer­tile loam of mankind. Then the State, like a nox­ious weed, takes root in the minds of the intol­er­ant where it chokes the soil with its wars, vio­lence, con­trol, and coer­cive­ness. Tend to your gar­den. Your blood …and tears are not the impe­tus for Sta­tism, they are the com­post for freedom.

On this Memo­r­ial Day, it begs the ques­tion, when are the mem­o­ries of the inno­cents revered? Is a memo­r­ial befit­ting only those garbed in the trap­pings of the State and draw­ing blood in sup­port thereof? Is flesh and blood sub­or­di­nate to polit­i­cal and impe­r­ial aspi­ra­tions? If I must, in good con­science, find a perch with…in my mind for which to accept ‚as right, any vio­lent death, let it be for usurpers and tyrants.

Every bit of knowl­edge I per­ceive myself to acquire, or hope to acquire, through my expe­ri­ence in this life is pre­emp­tively eclipsed by the breadth and scope of my ignorance.

Mir­rors are the way by which we view our per­son, con­science is the way by which we view our spirit, soci­ety is the way by which we view our human­ity, and gov­ern­ment is the way by which we shut our eyes.

I am begin­ning to believe that gov­ern­ment is needed… but not nec­es­sar­ily that we need gov­ern­ment. Anar­chy calls for peo­ple of integrity, morals, con­science, and rea­son for mankind to flour­ish and let’s face it, most are not up to the task. There­fore, gov­ern­ment is needed for some to be con­trolled, but should not be a…llowed to touch the lives of those who don’t require it’s crutch.

In the search for truth, it is not most impor­tant that one arrives at the answer, but rather be capa­ble of com­pre­hend­ing the question.

Free­doms to not derive from texts, Bills of Rights, or Con­sti­tu­tions. Free­dom of speech, free­dom of thought, and free­dom of deed are not the prop­erty of Amer­ica. Amer­ica was merely a place whereby a col­lec­tive means of pro­tect­ing such was acknowl­edged and embod­ied in polit­i­cal texts. Free­dom belongs to all, regard­less …of bor­ders. Even though we may fail to exer­cise our own, we must respect those of others.

Where there is inten­tional harm to another – no right can exist.

I have a right to kill you. I have a right to steal from you. By con­triv­ing the req­ui­site cir­cum­stances and fram­ing a “legal” argu­ment sup­ported by “statutes”, I could “legally” take your life and worldly pos­ses­sions. Such is the power of the State and its leg­isla­tive machinations.

By aban­don­ing every­thing I have been taught it became pos­si­ble to pos­sess every­thing I know.

You can take the low­est sort of indi­vid­ual, place him in soci­ety, and for per­sonal gain will resort to lies, theft, and vio­lence to meet his needs. The com­mu­nity will come to know him, and at first fear him, until a point is reached where they will come together to destroy him. He is a petty, lonely man who can only find kin­ship with those of equally ema­ci­ated morals.
You take the same indi­vid­ual and cast enough votes for him, and he becomes a leg­is­la­tor, a judge, a police­man. For per­sonal gain, he will resort to leg­is­la­tion, tax­a­tion, and enforce­ment to meet his needs. The com­mu­nity will come to know him, and at first love him, until a point is reached where they will suf­fer under the tenure of his office hop­ing for a chance to vote him out. He is a petty, pop­u­lar man, who has no trou­ble find­ing kin­ship with the igno­rant who vote him into exis­tence, or those of equally ema­ci­ated morals who bask in the con­fis­cated wealth of those who are now deprived of their soci­etal remedies.