The Libertists

notes for my latest book on politics and life. ...it is imperative to continually point out that people are not property. There is no other truth. The majority of people are mindlessly on the side of "people AS property". They don't even know it. So they let a litany of insanity rule their lives. Ask someone why they think speeding is a crime and they'll say "well that person could cause an accident that could kill your family. You WANT YOUR FAMILY DEAD?!?" … their answer: - besides the fact they always seem to assume the worst in people - government has the authority to stop you from possibly, maybe, in the future, causing someone else harm . In other words: pre-crime. Then ask this same person if they believe government should mandate what time you should get out of bed, shower, eat breakfast, and leave the house.  They will, of course, say, "NO THAT'S SILLY"...because by this point they are screaming; people stop listening.

When I say to people that they are property, I get that haunting express of disbelief and sometimes the sense that they think me to be crazy. It is possible, true, that I have little sense of intellect and might well be as defined by Webster's: crazy. But this does not negate the reality of my statement: You are the property of the State*. Do not accept this as truth? Fine. Here in California the current legislative process has allowed the State to pass a number of edicts. One such edict requires that an individual inform the state of the transfer of a firearm to another individual. In California the law normally requires that you take a firearm to a dealer where both of you must undergo a background check. At the end the State has their paperwork. Thus, any additional law that further requires the individual to tell the state the whereabouts of a firearm would be redundant, nay? That is because it is not aimed at sales and transfers with in the legal entity called Califor

Why can't my kid ride their bike to school anymore?" Most people when they think on that question would say that the reason why you need to drive up to the school to pickup/drop off your child is because the world is less safe. That between the time when we were children and now the world has gone off the deep end; become immoral, unfair, "Not the world I grew up in". This is poppycock. In point of fact, the statistical data from organizations that keep such data indicates that crime has been steadily failing since 1993. I have a theory on that that involves the 'war on drugs', but that would be for another time. Let's stick to the original question about bikes and school. If it were truly a more dangerous world, would we let our children ride bikes at all? Would we allow them, not during school hours, but after school and on the weekends, the right to go outside and play? If the world were more dangerous would we give our children, on their own t

I am basically paraphrasing Von Mises here. I, therefore, cannot take credit for the ideas or concepts of this paper. I'm merely writing it as a means to explain to those that have not been exposed to Ludwig Von Mises his core idea: only the individual owns the authority to the right of the means of production. I will illustrate this point below. Let's say that my friend comes to me and says that he and a few people are getting together to form a kind of commune. They plan on eliminating money. He tells me that he really wants me to join and tells me that I can be whatever I want in his new commune. I tell him I'll join if I can be an artist that paints with oil paints. He suggests that such would make him very happy because his new commune is going to need artists (more than he knows in fact!) I show up on day one and ask where my studio is. It isn't built yet, because, my friend tells me, that they are building the houses for people to live in and it would be a re

----The Letter I sent to Sheriff Ward---- To the Honorable David M. Ward, Sheriff 485 No Court Avenue #6 Burns, Oregon 97720-1524 2016.01.28 Sheriff Ward, I saw you on youtube today. You had released a statement that was played on CNN. In this statement, about the tragic death of LaVoy, You said a couple of interesting things. First, that you believe such things shouldn’t happen in the United States. Although I don’t know you, apart from the fact you are a member of a governing agency that is epistemologically in opposition to individual rights, I have to assume that you and I understood that statement the same way, because I must believe that being we are both human beings, we share some basic love for humanity and individual lives. I have to assume that you didn’t mean simply the death of a human was a tragedy. For me the reason it cannot happen here is because that the nature of Liberty precludes such; only the individual own the authority to determine the va

How the vote works Nigel: Hi I'm Nigel. Joe: And I'm Joe. Corrina: Why are we here? Nigel: We have decided to form a collective. To pull our resources and define our individual identities as a single unit. Joe: Right, and we intent to equalize the three of us so that we all have, equal, fair lives. For the good of all of us! Nigel: Exactly. Corrina: Um, okay. Joe: That's consent! Let's go! Nigel: Before we start, though. I'm a little peckish. Is there any food? Joe: No, but Corrina has a purse. Nigel: Ah! Then to our first order. I proposed we establish a bill that requires those whom have purses, when the rest of us do not, share the contents. That the percentage that they share is 60%. They keep 40%. Joe: That doesn't sound fair to Corrina. We'd be taking more than half. Nigel: Oh, no, no, no. We'd split that 60% and each get 30%. She'd still get to keep 40%; the largest of the three shares. Joe: Right! Okay. Corrina: