The Ten Commandments of The Neocons and Modern Day Christian Republicans

1. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Unless that idol happens to be a political figure such as Lincoln or Roosevelt. In that case, have all the false idols you want.

2. “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” This is the only commandment modern day Christian Republicans (or Neocons same thing) seem to defend vigorously anymore. The State can rob and kill till the end of time and they will defend such immoral acts if they can somehow rationalize it’s for the common good. However, say Jesus Christ or God Dammit and they come down on you like plague of locusts. I am sure God believed that robbing and killing was a far less agregious act than using his name in vain if you believe modern day Christian Republicans of the John McCain variety.

3. “Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.” In the case of the Neocons and unfortunately far too many Christians this day has been replaced by Election Day where by they submit to their God, The State.

4. “Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you.” This has been supplanted by honor those who kill in your name, meaning the Military and Police. Oh and of course honor all that plunder your property, Government officials.

5. “(Roman Catholic) You shall not kill / (Lutheran) You shall not murder” This is clearly optional for Neoconservatives and Christian Republicans alike so long as Government declares a war which is really a form of mass murder, but hey why quibble with minor details like thou shalt not kill? That’s such an anarchonistic belief anyway. Just go work for the Government and not only are your sins not acknowledged they are encouraged and you are given immunity from your criminality to (jack)boot! WHAT A DEAL!

6. “Neither shall you commit adultery.” This one needs no explanation as to where the neocons come down on this. Two words, Newt Gingrich.

7. “Neither shall you steal.” This is also clearly optional for Christian Republicans and the Neocons who worship the State. I am sure God didn’t believe that stealing was wrong per se, so long as the collective good benefits. If the collective good benefits then by all means plunder to your hearts content. If you haven’t the cajones to directly steal from your neighbor then by all means hire someone else to do it, meaning a State. After all, in the bizarro world of modern day Christian Republicans and Neocons it says that YOU should not steal. It doesn’t forbid you to hire other people to loot for you. See how easy this moral relativism is?

8. “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.” Unless you think your neighbor is a Terrorist or harbors the wrong beliefs. Then by all means! Accuse! Accuse! Accuse! Locking up people in Guantanemo is so much more efficient than permitting people to defend themselves against potentially false charges now isn’t it? That freedom stuff is so complex and messy and we can’t have our God the State look bad now can we? They might lose faith in it and abandon it! GASP!

9. “Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife.” I am sure most politicians in Washington haven’t the foggiest idea what this commandment means. Just watch the evening news.

10. “Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” In the case of modern day Christian Republicans and Neocons you ABSOLUTELY not only desire but support the taking of any and all things that do not belong to you or the State would not exist since it’s lifeblood is taking the property of others.

In conclusion most of these morally confused principles embraced by both Republican Christians and Neocons could apply to the American Left so spare me any tirades about how this blog posting was Anti-Religious.

To the contrary, I am trying to show how the Neocons and modern day Christian Republicans have turned the Ten Commandments to God on it’s collective head and turned them into the Ten Commandments to the State.

Re: On Anarchists

“The state is an institution which excels at nothing except the violation of rights.”–Manual Lora

 

Over at Written In Red Blog, Yvette has written a fascinating piece discussing her arrival to Anarchism and some difficulties she encountered with Anarchists and along the way expressed what I believe are some misconceptions of hers about a couple of things.

What I will be doing in this piece is quoting some of the parts of her piece and after each quote I will discuss if I feel her assessment is correct or IMO a misconception which is somewhat common to people who have recently arrived to Anarchism.

Before I get to analyzing her piece (and let me stress it’s an excellent piece) I would tell her that if she is new to Anarchism (which the piece clearly suggests) then the first thing she should do is: READ! READ! READ! There’s alot of material out there (believe it or not) written by Anarchists and some of it is ok but alot of it will just blow her away with it’s reasoned approach. I would strongly encourage her to start with lewrockwell.com and strike-the-root.com and branch out from there.

Getting on to my analysis. Yvette says the following:

“After admitting to myself that I held similar ideals as anarchists was myself an anarchist who chooses to work within the system, but hopes for small communities that are self governed, I decided to poke my head into some anarchist forums and meet some others like me.”

The problem is she has not defined Anarchism but Minarchism. A Minarchist basically has convinced himself that working within the system will achieve his goal of a Nightwatchman State. Actually most people fall into this category EXCEPT Anarchists and the numbers that believe in working within the system is even smaller than the number of people who call themselves Anarchists so I can understand why she may have found strong hostility towards this point of view. Anarchists are for the vast majority ANTI-System so joining an Anti-System group and then trying to defend the very system they want abolished is arguably the equivelent of joining Gun Owners of America and telling them you want all guns banned. You aren’t exactly going to be welcomed with open arms. That being said I think we Anarchists harm our own cause when we struggle to discuss things with people who haven’t fully embraced our view of things but more about that later.

A little further down in the piece she states:

“The first forum I joined, turned out to be an “ancap” forum, basically anarchists who still want capitalism but no government to regulate said capitalism, which seems like a horrible idea to me.”

Now Capitalism as currently implemented is not anything remotely resembling a true Free Market (which is essentially unregulated capitalism) but rather State Capitalism which the difference is explained in an excellent piece here. I believe when Yvette states that an unregulated Market would be “a horrible idea” she doesn’t realize that the Market is and can be self-regulating. Essentially when a Free Market is allowed to work then businesses succeed or fail based on their own merits rather whether or not the business is politically connected to the right people. As a result good businesses drive out the bad and those that offer the best products with the right quality for the price as determined acceptable by consumers will stay in business. Those that offer inferior products will go out of business or at the very least will be patronized by fewer people. In State Capitalism if a business is politically connected it can freely engage in shady practices (yes I realize that some businesses not politically connected will still be bad) and worse yet can have their hides covered by their political friends if they are caught. A good example of this that happened recently would be the Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae debacle. This company should fail and would fail in a true unregulated Free Market but since we have a regulated State-Capitalist arrangement they will live another day to offer shady loans to people who cannot pay them. Now a better example of the Free Market would be Apple Computer. Granted this is not a perfect example, it is given some State priveleges to include Copyright Protection (you can read more about the opposition to IP here (no not that IP! This IP.) as I aint about to open up that Pandoras Box or this essay will go on for 10 pages! LOL) they are still better than the State-Capitalists like Freddy and Fannie who are given bailouts when they screw up.

For more information on how the Market can be self-regulating I encourage her to peruse Lew Rockwell’s archive here. Lew has written several very well written articles about this topic and does a better job explaining it than I do so I won’t try to explain it here. Suffice it to say the Market’s very fluid structure combined with constant feedback from consumers allows it to be self-regulating.

Later in the piece she states the following:

“These same people insulted me and called me a murderer and a rapist for wanting to vote. Wait, what? I agree that the government is a violent and exploitative system, but it can also be helpful and it’s what we’ve got right now, and my reasoning is I may as well use it, because voting doesn’t hurt but it may help.”

Now I have read more than one article stating voting is an act of violence and I can understand the reasoning. Basically since the State is essentially a violent entity (with all power being backed up at the point of a gun) by casting a vote you are giving your stamp of approval to it’s violence (and hence the results of voting could reasonably be construed as a violent act, albeit by empowering others to do violence) whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

However, there’s something even more problematic with the moral and ethical quicksand she has placed herself upon with the statement she has made.

Her statement is basically a complete nonsequitur. If she truly believes that Government is a violent and exploitive system then how can she grant this violent and exploitive system her approval by affording these acts as being legitimate (which is what I contend a vote symbolizes) and still contend that participating in an violent and exploitive system (by voting) is not exploitive? The answer is, if she truly believes this she cannot and remain true to her newly formed values.

More about the moral and ethical problems with voting can be read here.

Further down in her piece she says:

“The anarchist crowd may be full of a disturbing amount of angry people who just want to smash things and hate, hate, hate anyone they disagree with, but there are those of us out there who really want to work hard towards a better future. Some of us are willing to work with the state, some of us aren’t–some of us want a communistic type of community, some want primitivism, some want capitalism…but at least we’re (mostly) respectful of each other and willing to actually be constructive and work for it.”

Well I will have to agree with her here. Many Anarchists come across as angry and I think we as Anarchists do ourselves a disservice when we aren’t patient with those who are still working on a fuller understanding on what it means to be an Anarchist. While Anarchist approaches to dealing with the State and their arguments against the State are about as diverse as there are colors in a Crayon Box I think there is one thing that all Anarchists (or the vast majority at least) can agree on. Coercion is wrong. However, there is disagreement on what constitutes coercion. While the majority think that State coercion is wrong there are some that regard private property ownership is coercion so they want to smash the Free Market as well. I would say that this will only ensure disorder when property becomes a free for all which is what the typical Anarcho-Communist (and other types of Anarchists) advocates. I align myself with the Anarcho-Capitalists who advocate a spontaneous order based on the mutual voluntary exchange of the Marketplace.

I think the main point that created tension between her and other Anarchists was her statement she said above about,”working with the State”.

I think that as Yvette starts exploring both the theory and principles of Anarchism she will find that not only can she not work with the State, but that the State has no interest in anything other than expanding it’s power over her life. The most likely thing that will happen is that those in power will convince her over time if she continues to participate in the system that indeed coercion IS good if used towards a good end. A true Anarchist realizes that the ends NEVER justify the means even if the ends desired ultimately may benefit some.

So keep exploring the ideas of Anarchism Yvette and I wish you all the success in your continued desire to reach “a sense of personal power and conviction.”

But I implore you to not sacrifice your principles for the sake of Political expediency by engaging in voting or otherwise participating in the zero sum game that is the Political process.

Patrick Sovereign

Against Coercive Authority

You have absolutely NOTHING to worry about…NOTHING at all…And then there were these stories…

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.”~ Frederick Douglass

As the title suggests and in response to my most recent post about all the evils going on around us. You know minor stuff…Like Kidnapping, East Berlin like Checkpoints, Government monitored communications…You know….MINOR stuff. The conclusion of at least one person (and I have no doubt others would concur) was that all these things are not only not ominous but they were both necessary and possibly desirable? Yikes! After all, since more people are billionaires than in the past then we needn’t worry about these things. This obviously means these measures aren’t the LEAST bit oppressive to those at the other end of this treatment. Uhh…Yeah…Right…

From the same people that brought you the ever creepy full body X-Ray:

And then there were these stories…

Comes this so wonderfully oppressive idea…

“Just when you thought you’ve heard it all…

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers (video also shown below).

This bracelet would:

• Take the place of an airline boarding pass

• Contain personal information about the traveler

• Be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage

• Shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

The Electronic ID Bracelet, as it’s referred to, would be worn by every traveler “until they disembark the flight at their destination.” Yes, you read that correctly. Every airline passenger would be tracked by a government-funded GPS, containing personal, private and confidential information, and would shock the customer worse than an electronic dog collar if the passenger got out of line.

Clearly the Electronic ID Bracelet is a euphemism for the EMD Safety Bracelet, or at least it has a nefarious hidden ability (thus the term ID Bracelet is ambiguous at best). EMD stands for Electro-Musclar Disruption. Again, according to the promotional video, the bracelet can completely immobilize the wearer for several minutes.

So is the government really that interested in this bracelet?

Apparently so.”

Creepy…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/aviation-security/2008/Jul/01/want-some-torture-with-your-peanuts/

What’s even more creepy if not RETARDED is one of the responses to this truly sick idea:

“The prior posters simply do not value their lives. Your liberalism has polluted your most basic humanistic nature of self preservation. The radical Islamists have made it abundantly clear that they hate you and would like to kill you.”

First of all, our Governments Foreign Policy is going to get more people killed than anything some two bit rag tag bunch of terrorists will be able to accomplish.

Secondly, Hey Jackass…

What good is your precious life if you live it like a convict in a prison??

Moving onto my next story which is equally as disturbing but according to some, NOTHING to worry about:

“The full scale of Bush’s assault on our civil liberties may not be known until years after he’s left office.

At the moment, all we can do is get glimpses here or there of what’s going on.

And the latest one to come to my attention is the dispatching of police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and utility workers as so-called “terrorism liaison officers,” according to a report by Bruce Finley in the Denver Post.

They are entrusted with hunting for “suspicious activity,” and then they report their findings, which end up in secret government databases.

What constitutes “suspicious activity,” of course, is in the eye of the beholder. But a draft Justice Department memo on the subject says that such things as “taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value” or “making notes” could constitute suspicious activity, Finley wrote.

The states where this is going on include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.

Dozens more are planning to do so, Finley reports.

Colorado alone has 181 Terrorism Liaison Officers, and some of them are from the private sector, such as Xcel Energy.”

http://www.alternet.org/rights/90829

Electronic Bracelets on airline passengers to keep them in line?

Americans hired to spy and snitch on other Americans?

Didn’t they do this in the old Soviet Union? Oh yeah, they did….

“At home, the K.G.B. can order all Soviet citizens to report on everything they know about all foreigners. It can order Soviet citizens to carry out specific intelligence-gathering missions about foreigners in the Soviet Union and to take positions in foreign embassies, and offices. It does not rely simply on K.G.B. payroll agents for information on foreigners in the Soviet Union but on the totality of the Soviet society it polices.”

Above is example of Soviet style creepyness but actually this picture appears on Baltimore to DC Commuter trains.

But as we all know this creeping oppression noted above is NOTHING to worry about. NOTHING at all.

Yeah…uhh huh…right…Pass the salt…

A Fresh Look at Holidays by Butler Shaffer

“I have long been a critic of the state’s co-option of holidays to serve governmental purposes, thus negating the messages these holidays originally served. July 4^th – designed to celebrate independence from the state – has been refashioned as a holiday for revelling in the state’s favorite activity, war. Television treats us to a seemingly endless supply of John Wayne films, urging us to embrace the contradictory idea that submitting ourselves to increased state power is the way to promote our liberty! It is such twisted thinking that leads those who refuse to examine the content of their minds to bleat about the soldiers who “fight for our freedom.” What nonsense. Shall we next be told that Sunset Boulevard hookers are peddling virtue?”

“Just how far we have contorted our thinking about “independence day” is reflected in most people’s thinking about fireworks. Like private gun-ownership, our personal use of fireworks represents too much power in the hands of individuals. And so, we confine ourselves to the absurdity of having the state celebrate our liberty and independence for us!”

Read the rest here.

July 4th In Bizarro World by Manuel Lora

 

What follows are just a few of the July 4^th lies and errors that we are supposed to blindly accept:

• The military is glorious, its heroes heroic, and our support is patriotic
• Freedom is about authority
• The police keep us safe and have a duty to protect us
• We are better off now than when the war on drugs started decades ago
• Continually increasing prices is a product of the market and thus the central bank must control credit and the money supply
• With proper reform, government can become efficient, especially if we elect the right leaders
• The Constitution gives people rights
• The government has been formed by the consent of the governed
• Without the state regulating/subsidizing/taxing/prohibiting activity or industry X, said industry or activity would be produced in quantities and/or qualities that are too high or too low; or would run rampant, cartelize and monopolize the market; or would not survive in a predatory competitive environment
• The more politically democratic things are, the better for everyone
• No matter what the cost to the public, protecting the children/our veterans/our senior citizens/our teachers is always the number one priority
• The free movement of goods and people destroys jobs and threatens our standard of living
• Businesses have no incentives to keep their customers safe; licenses ensure fair practices
• The law may occasionally be wrong, but it should nonetheless be followed always
• We must forever give up essential liberties to guarantee safety: it’s for your own good

Read the rest here.

Have a Happy Waterboarded and Spied Upon 4th!Sober Reflections of an Independence Day Living Under the Watchful Eye of an Increasingly Tyrannical State

“The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored – just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.”

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: “Is America a Police State?” My answer is: “Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching.” The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

“When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.”

Ron Paul speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives June 27th 2002

What is so frightening about both the photo above and the quotes by Congressman Paul is that the Police State is fast becoming the accepted way of a supposed free people to live.

While we all fasten on our red,white, and blue glasses and wildly wave our American Flags chanting mindlessly USA! USA! USA! it is about time for some sober reflection on this 4th of July 2008 to just what being an American is starting to mean.

Does it mean engaging in barbaric behavior that would make Chairman Mao blush? As has been reported recently, apparently it does:

“WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

“What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1215136911-/wnVF6RGI2k/IPram8OrEA

Keep in mind that these people have never been charged with any crime, only accused and have never had their day in court and many have been held indefinatelywithout charge. This is the conduct of Soviet style justice and should be frightening to anyone with a shred of humanity.

“Are we becoming a Police State?” Dr. Paul asks….

While the tools of one may not have hit small town America yet…..

Can they really be that far behind?

Wikipedia defines a Police State as:

“…a state in which the government exercises rigid and , in many peoples’ opinions, repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.”

Is this not what we saw in the raid on the Polygamist compound?

“SAN ANGELO, Texas — Police wore body armor, toted automatic weapons and were backed by an armored personnel carrier for a raid on a West Texas polygamist retreat, photos and video released Tuesday show.”

Is this not totalitarianism as described by Wikipedia above?

Of course not, according the citizenry who have pretty much surrendered any sense of individuality and are gleefully herded through the airport like cattle.

According to the new class of Americans, the Obedient American, those people at that compound got what they deserved! Meaning a person should be subject to being hurried away at gunpoint if there is merely a possibility of wrong doing? Guilty until proven innocent. Is this not a hallmark of a Police State? Well isn’t it?

Recently it was reported that in Washington DC the Police want to setup checkpoints and people who want to enter and leave a particular neighborhood must produce ID or will not be admitted or face arrest for failure to obey and face the very real possibility of being shot for disobeying.

“D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence. Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.”

Disobey or we will kill you. Is this not another hallmark of a Police State? Well isn’t it?

Our Government has made no bones about letting us know it will listen in on our phone calls and monitor our Internet activity and has frighteningly been moving to absolve private companies from liability so they can be a willing co-partner in this Tyranny of Surveillance:

“From the company that brought you the C programming language comes Hancock, a C variant developed by AT&T researchers to mine gigabytes of the company’s telephone and internet records for surveillance purposes.”–AT&T Invents Programming Language for Mass Surveillanceby Ryan Singel

Is this not an example of a tool of social control which is common place in Totalitarian regimes? People cannot speak freely as they do not want to garner unwanted attention from the authorities who are constantly keeping tabs on them?

What’s probably the most frightening about all that is discussed above is the reactions of the average American when faced with the facts of what is going on all around them.

They are either ambivalent or they harshly admonish the person presenting them with the information.

The ambivalent American will say,”If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide.” Which only deserves one reply:

If you are doing nothing wrong then you DON’T NEED TO BE WATCHED!

Hence the real goal of surveillance is exposed. A Totalitarian tool of social control. You will conform! Or you WILL be dealt with! This has nothing to do with safe neighborhoods and don’t believe what they are selling this as for a second.

The self-righteous and denying American moves to try to silence the person speaking out which once again is what happens under Totalitarian societies. Those who speak out are branded outlaws and for not being a “good citizen” which now means obeying whatever Government tells you to do and not questioning any of it.

Does anything I have described thus far sound like a Free country?

It sounds more like a conformist and cowed citizenry if you ask me.

If we witnessed this in any other country we would call it despotism and it is our future if our sheepish obedience continues….

Have a Happy Waterboarded and Spied Upon 4th!

Patrick Sovereign

Against Coercive Authority

“You can’t flush your toilet, fuel your car, buy groceries, or do anything but lie in your bed and think private thoughts without the central government having a hand in the activity. Is that an American ideal? To the contrary, America itself – the government and the sheeple who promote and obey it – are the ones being un-American.”–Columnist Brad Edmunds from a column entitled, “Why the 4th of July Is My Least Favorite Holiday”

Do smokers have rights? Well, Yes….and No….

The controversy of smoking in public places has reared it’s ugly head again. However, I will not be speaking about the current controversy here but would like to talk about smoking in general in regards to the notion of “smokers rights”. Do smokers have rights? Well, Yes…and No…

But before I discuss this though I think we need Property rights to be clearly defined. See this country has unfortunately for some time now been infected by Socialism/Communism/Fascism and ultimately by the mother that gives birth to all of these evil ideologies Statism. Just what does all this mean? Well most people have little if any understanding how property rights is SUPPOSED to work. As opposed to how it’s currently implemented.

Here is how property rights SHOULD work. First and foremost, the 1st property you own is yourself. This is a VERY powerful statement since this essentially means no can justly interfere with your personal choices when it comes to your own body. I know I know! You hear a BUT coming and you would be right. Here’s the caveat to that statement above: Provided you do not infringe on the equal rights of others.

Now this statement when viewed in it’s totality sounds muddled but it really isn’t. Let me set up a hypothetical of smokers engaging in smoking as the example.

Can you smoke on your property? Yes….Can you smoke on someone elses property? If THEY allow you to. See the key to property ownership is control. He who controls the property is the TRUE owner.

Now everything described above sounds rather clear cut and understandable.

Unfortunately, the people who muddle everything up for everyone are the Statists. When people say that when an establishment such as a bar or club (or whereever not owned by the smoker) not allowing smokers to smoke is somehow violating a smokers rights they are DEAD wrong. What is actually going on in regards to the smokers ordinance in regards to Austin recently (and just about everywhere else) is a violation of the rights of the business owners to determine what they will allow on “their” property.

However, not even saying that the business owners rights are violated clears things up totally and once again we can thank the Statists for this muddled mess. Since a large part of the downtown Austin area (specifically the business district, aka 6th st and the Warehouse district) is from what I understand leased out property by the City of Austin then the City of Austin basically can interfere (not justly as I don’t think any Government should own property, but I digress) with the decision making of the business owners and therefore can ban smoking.

Can you now see why Governments having any influence on the decision making ability of property owners only makes things worse?

Then just how do you reduce conflict in society in regards to disputes such as this?

Well, for starters we need more of this and less of this.

However, what we REALLY need is abolition of Government since contrary to popular mythology they are the chief contributors of chaos in society.

What’s in a name? How I came up with the name for my blog….

If you are visiting this blog for the first time the first thing that you might ask is,”Just how did you come up with the name??”

Well unfortunately the name I had used at my other blog on blogger was already taken. sigh…

Although I just did a search on wordpress for the name and it came back with no results?!?! arrg! Oh well…

In any event, I decided on the name,”Against Coercive Authority” because I felt it best captured the Anarcho-Capitalist (or Free Market Anarchist if you will) Philosophy.

Basically, and if a Ancap happens to read this and feels I am betraying the spirit of the Anarcho-Capitalist creed feel free to verbally pummel me, Anarcho-Capitalists do not reject ALL Authority as such. Far from it. What they reject is people who attain their authority by threat of violence, meaning The State and some might include religious institutions as institutions of coercion but I do not as I can choose to be part or not be part of a religion. I have no such freedom to not choose a State.

Anarcho-Capitalists certainly recognize that authorities will arise in areas of expertise just like we have today. Microsoft is recognized as an authority in Operating Systems although some would vigorously disagree. Walmart is acknowledged as an authority in discount merchandise although once again some may disagree.

I could go on and on but I won’t. The important thing to understand here is unlike Government “goods” and “services” these authorities like Microsoft and Walmart became regarded as authorities by satisfying a large part of the public with quality goods and repeat purchases among other reasons.

I can get rather long winded (ask the owner of the IT Pilgrimage blog) so let me just summarize things thusly:

Anarcho-Capitalists reject coercive authority as destructive to liberty and evolutionary progress but acknowledge and accept voluntary authorities that would develop absent a State as they do now. They also believe that every activity that is currently performed by the State (Roads, Police, Law, Military, Space Travel,etc) would be better provided for by the voluntary sector, (i.e. The Free Market).

Well I hope I didn’t bore you to tears and I will be writing more about the evils of State power soon.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

My solution for Illegal Immigration: He who owns the property makes the rules….

“If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.”–Ludwig Von Mises

One of the most contentious issues today even among Libertarians is that of Illegal Immigration.

Some people suggest the way to solve this problem is to build a wall on the border between the US and Mexico. I refer to these people as the Berlin Wall people.

Others suggest we should limit the number of people entering the country.

Still others suggest that people who hire Illegals should be punished for doing so as a way of curbing Illegal Immigration. These same people further suggest that people should be punished
for offering housing to Illegals.

Yet another way that is being suggested as a way of curbing Illegal Immigration is to not allow Illegal Immigrants access to any Public services such as Welfare or Hospitals.

What is lost in all these arguments though is what should be the only argument that really matters (and sadly even Libertarians seem to overlook this) and that is of private property.

If you truly own your property (yes I know and I can already hear Libertarians screaming,”BUT YOU DON’T OWN YOUR PROPERTY!!!” but lets put this aside for a moment)
then only you can justly make rules over who is allowed access to it. Not the Federal Government, not the State of Texas, not the Citizens of the US or Texas but you. You are also the only one who can justly distribute it.

Therefore, when someone says you cannot pay someone with the property YOU have earned simply because they have not been granted a privilege known as Citizenship (which is really Government claiming ownership over your life but I digress) then what you are really saying is the Government has a higher claim to an individuals property than the rightful owner does.

This is not a recipe for freedom but Socialism!

The same can be said for someone who offers someone somewhere to stay in exchange for money. The only person that justly make such a decision is the property owner.

“But they’re stealing jobs from us Americans!”

I am simply amazed at how many supposedly freedom loving Libertarians have uttered such nonsense.

First it assumes that an economy is some finite piece of pie that at some point reaches full distribution and then anyone left over gets screwed!

Only with Statist distribution does this take place. Been in a Traffic Jam lately?

Second, this suggests that much like Health Care or Public Schooling or Housing that people are entitled to a job and that you can therefore use guns to force people to hire you instead of who they choose to hire regardless of status.

“But it’s just not fair that they hire a Mexican at a lower wage instead of hiring me!”

Well as I said to a friend that said this to me,”Your personal feelings don’t determine whether or not I get to use my property.”

So to summarize:

If someone comes here from Mexico by my invitation then you (either individually or collectively as one of the Citizens of the US or Texas) have NO say in the matter. If I further invite them to work on MY property then you have NO say in the matter. If I further offer them a place for shelter then you have NO say in the matter. This is how individual property rights is SUPPOSED to work which is why the Government is working so hard to SUPPRESS it.

So there you have it, my solution for the Illegal Immigration problem.

He who owns the property makes the rules.

Patrick Sovereign,
Enemy of The State