Sunday, September 03, 2006


Religion as a whole is something that Immanuel Kant would be delighted to talk about, in modern society though it's a hot button that we try to avoid. Granted I am a relativly neutral being, but still I do have some belief system, to which I'd rather not devolge here. In terms of the three main religions in our world Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we see grand similarities until a seperating point and that point is the "messiah" I'm not going to lecture you over what or who the messiah is, as this is mostly universal, and it would only serve as a redundancy to post this here. Now I've been reading the Qur'an lately and have been studying mythology for quite sometime, my views on religion as a whole is still rather grey.

For example we cannot physically prove or disprove the existence of any diety, or any sets of religious texts as they are all a leap of faith. Since we do have this faith and it is usually a strong one depending on the individual we see an adherance to this faith. Not that it is a bad thing but for the most part closes the mind of the individual, making it harder for them to truly see what religion truly is, and that is inspiration. All religions teach the same goals, the same principles for humanity, we relate this as the golden rule, each religion has similar stories (I.E The myth of the Deluge) so what makes religion hostile towards each other and itself?

I believe it's a factor of the unknown, because we cannot prove or disprove religion we have conflicting opinions instead of fact, this breeds of course hostility as arguments flare up. But all these people fail to realize that they are indeed similar! Muslims are no different than Christians, Jews no different than Buddhists, it's just what they bleieve to be their "saviour" and the stories that follow that saviour which leads to this hostility.

I believe God is universal as he is presented to be in all religious texts, this driving force would be the father/mother/figure of all creation and therefore all religions would be it's creation. There is no right religion just as their is no wrong, there is only the faith and the trust you put into the religion you follow, and how you deem to praise God. Really it's simple but as it's once been said "simple things are usually simply over shadowed by complications"

So follow your faiths and adhere to their code, and remember the only thing that seperates you from your neighbor is simply an ideology which can be over looked so stretch out that hand of friendship and embrace!

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Friday, August 11, 2006

Oh what fun! Death to the herd mentality!

You are a

Social Liberal
(85% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(93% permissive)

You are best described as a:



Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Freedom on a Leash

Freedom On A Leash
by Anonymous

There is a lot of talk here about whining for 'rights'. Here are a few thoughts on this...


A lot of people who talk of their 'freedoms' (eg Freedom Of Speech) are really just talking about the length of their leash. There's a difference between being free and being granted a certain amount of clothesline by an authoritarian keeper. Particularly, those who have it deeply engrained in them (via psychological pressure, etc.) to obey can be given more leash (the leash has been internalized). But the leash is still there.

The principle of freedom requires an entity called an "individual". No one else can grant you freedom, they can only grant you an amount of leash (an amount of limitation), for in the act of 'granting' they are assuming control, and you are assuming an obedient role. Only you can grant yourself freedom, by acknowledging whatever strengths and resources you possess, acting according to your own individual values and aspirations, and facing the consequences with whatever is at your disposal. This same principle applies to an organization which seeks to be free - it all depends not on what others grant them, but what they assume for themselves. With freedom implicitly comes responsibility.

The etymology of the word 'right': Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out

If you are granted a 'right' that is proof that you are NOT free, that you do not possess liberty. Liberty is not, cannot be a right. That is an oxymoron. Whether the writers of the American constitution understood this I cannot say. But you can understand it if you choose.

If you ask others to grant you rights, at least acknowledge that you are granting them the right to dictate to you, to lord over you. You are abdicating your liberty and acknowledging their lordship. There are benefits to having an overlord, which is why people abdicate their liberty in some circumstances. But if it is liberty you seek, then assume it, seize it; make your own decisions, obey your own values. You may ask others to respect your individuality and personal sovereignty, but don't ask others to give you liberty.

Liberty requires two ingredients: freedom and power. Liberty is the employment of freedom.

Consider those who are granted "Freedom Of Speech". Are they permitted to speak whatever they wish? Of course not. There are exceptions, qualifications, subtle and implied limitations. Say the wrong thing and the leash gets shorter, or the master comes to move you to different accommodations (ones less visible and with fewer rights). Those granted "Freedom Of Speech" like to show us how splendidly long their leash is, polishing it with pride and making speeches about it, but they are mistaken in calling it freedom.

But you already have the freedom to say what you wish. Can you not operate your own mouth, your own pen? What this so-called Freedom of Speech right really grants is a promise that, within limits, your keeper will not attack you for what you say, and will stop those who would attack you. (Whether this promise is kept is another issue.) Thus you are granted the right not to be attacked by your master, and you are granted his (promise of) protection (or often merely his promise of retaliation which is far less useful). In other words you are not given anything, merely promised that you will not have something stolen from you. And this makes sense, because the keeper is not really in a position to grant freedom, merely to take it away, to limit it. He does not possess your freedom so he cannot give it. You possess your freedom.

Can your freedom be stolen? In fact no. Your goods can be stolen, you can be beaten, killed. Your resources, means, power, liberty can be diminished. But freedom cannot be stolen. At best others can convince you to obey them, to lend them your freedom, your obedience, usually in return for something.


Two examples of laws:

1) A driver may not drive faster than 100 kph.

2) Light does not exceed 3 x 10^8 meters per second.

What is the difference between these two laws? They both imply limits. However the first is a decree, an order given by one to another which is to be obeyed. In fact it is false, in that a person may choose to drive faster. This law conveys a desire and a will to enforce.

The second is a natural law - a limitation. It's not that a photon disobeying it will be pulled over, racially harassed, and ticketed. He is free to go as fast as he can. The law doesn't set the limit or attempt to usurp freedom, it merely reflects an observation of behavior. It is unenforced.

To be more natural like the second law, the first law could be rewritten:

1) If a driver drives faster than 100 kph, hungry police may attempt to catch him and attack his wallet, and he may be stigmatized with demerits which may affect his (granted) rights.

Unfortunately some live as if a law (decree) really does represent an impossibility, a natural limitation, saying such things as "I can't do this" or "I have to pay my taxes". Their habits of speech reveal how they have been conditioned and how they condition themselves - how they have removed the possibility of choice from their consideration. Tucking those facts away as impossibilities, they then consider themselves free and possessing individual liberty.

I think is it important to remind ourselves of the difference between things we really believe we cannot do, such as drive 10000 kph, and those which we are told by an authority we must or must not do. In fact we should say "I choose not to do this to avoid attack (what some call 'punishment', although I fail to see a distinction), instead of saying "I must do this". The difference is the difference between choice and obedience. Responding to a force out of necessity and consideration of its potential or merit is different than obeying a force which you regard as your lord.

How Power And Freedom Are Often Confused

Earlier I stated that an individual's freedom cannot be granted or stolen, merely forgotten or dismissed. Does this then imply that a person who has acknowledged his freedom and does not look to others to grant him rights is able to do anything he likes? No. Just as a light wave cannot propagate faster than c, individuals have natural limitations, based on resources, wit, courage, wisdom, their position relative to others and their environment, etc. Their power.

In contrast to the case of a person who looks to others to grant him rights, a free-minded individual evaluates his own power, strengths, limitations, and needs, and takes actions which _he_ deems suitable. Likewise he takes responsibility for those actions, and deals with their consequences.

The state of freedom can be a very subtle one to realize. In a sense it is an 'anything goes' policy. But while some would claim this leads to chaos, in fact people do have values, and they do have limitations. This is as much a part of them as are their destructive tendencies.

Now let's consider what might happen if everyone were free, as I have claimed they intrinsically are. Some, due to their nature, would live in peace, but others, due to their nature, would seek to subjugate the will of others, would steal and plunder. People would probably form into groups, based on their beliefs, skin color, or location. They might choose as leaders people with charisma and energy, and they might be betrayed by brutal leaders who assume power.

Groups might set decrees setting forth certain expectations, and individuals would be expected to obey these decrees, or would be attacked by the group. Many individuals would become accustomed to being controlled from without. The group might use psychological propaganda and misinformation on young people to deeply engrain habits in them at a young age, or might even attempt to convince them that freedom is a thing which only the group can bestow - a right.

Groups would often conflict with other groups, waging war to attain supremacy, attempting to assimilate the losers.

This discussion was my clever way of demonstrating that people are in fact already free, and always have been. Freedom does not imply omnipotence or omniscience. It alone does not imply liberty. It merely indicates a will to choose. What many seek while claiming to seek freedom is more power.

A free-minded person does not have to be a rebel, his house filled with machine guns, explosives, and Crays. In fact he may be a peaceful law- abiding citizen. The difference can be very subtle. He may obey a law only because he understands that if he doesn't he will be attacked by the group. This does not mean he is not free, for he is consciously making his choices based on his environment. It does mean his power, and thus his liberty, is limited.

Likewise, a rebel may not understand freedom at all. He may rebel against governments and people because he believes they possess his freedom. He may break laws only because the action is forbidden. He merely reacts. He may be just as bound as one who obeys unthinkingly. He has power but cannot employ it freely, he can only apply it in opposition.

Now my reader may say that most are like the law-abiding, free-minded individual, just obeying to avoid punishment, but in fact that is not the case. Government has become a deeply engrained religion of sorts, and people have become dependent on the security (illusory and otherwise) which the group mentality provides. They see presidents, governors, soldiers, policemen, and pieces of carefully printed paper as holy and sacred. They believe deeply that rights granted are freedoms. Except when encouraged to do otherwise, they assume that the law is right, and that which breaks the law is wrong. They rarely question the basic fabric of their beliefs. It is unthinkable.

Further, even aside from the influence of their governments proper, people are greatly influenced by the subtle pressures and taboos of their neighbors. They sacrifice themselves and their liberty to blend in, not merely because they fear the consequences of being different, a reasonable fear even for a free-minded individual, but because they honestly come to believe themselves to be wrong, broken, sick. They come to hate themselves as others do.

The difference between those who are free at heart, yet lack liberty, and those who are deeply conditioned to believe in authority, cannot often be clearly seen in times of peace. Those who have forgotten freedom will often claim they are free, ironically pointing to their leashes, their rights, as proof. But when the opportunities for change come, as they always do eventually, these people will cower and try to retain 'the system'. They have grown dependent on it. They will respond to those who welcome change with violence and hatred, much like a trained dog on a leash angrily barking at a stranger. Others will welcome change, and will struggle through it, still able to see that greater things can be accomplished.

I believe most of us would like to put ourselves in the second category, believing we are just putting up with the system for awhile, and have not forgotten that we are free. But that is wishful thinking, and the truth is not black and white. We have all been trained to think we are not capable, trained to believe freedom is bestowed. And this training takes constant vigilance to challenge.

Pleading for rights, while perhaps valuable, will not make you free, will not give you liberty. It will only make you a more powerful dog, a more effective tool. Liberty requires a much deeper commitment than begging others to grant you rights, or attempting to become one of the rulers rather than the ruled, and it requires a great deal of patience for the genuine changes to occur. I see many grabbing for rights while still clinging to an entire system hinged upon obedience and oppression. It is not freedom these people seek, it is merely power.

At first, freedom must be cultivated internally, by realizing that rights granted by an authority are not freedoms. Until you take your destiny into your own hands and stop whining to others for rights, for privacy, for power, you will not comprehend the nature of freedom, or the nature of freedom in motion - liberty. We all have some power, no matter how large or small, no matter whether we live in the wilderness or in a jail cell. It is how we use that power which we have, or in despair fail to use it, that determines whether we live as free individuals or as automatons. Power and wisdom work in tandem. If one has more power than wisdom, he uses it poorly and looses it. If one has more wisdom than power, he uses what little he has wisely, and thus gains more power. Power alone is not liberty. One may be powerful but not free. One may be free but not powerful.

Freedom is choice, independence. Liberty is the free use of power - not power over one's environment or fellows, but power in harmony with them.

Thank you for reading.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Hey mom! I'm going to Labour Camp!

What do all prisons have in common?

A) They are over crowded
B) They waste valuable tax money
C) They are full of criminals!
D) They spend to much on rehab programs
E) All of above

If you picked any answer you are CORRECT! Bonus points if you picked E!

Now our prison system is full of hardened criminals which we as a society have to pay for so they can watch cable get three meals a day, and basically lay around and do nothing productive. They become over crowded and therefore cost us more money to increase capacity so we can contain the scum of society! So how do we fix this you might ask?

It's simple... Labour camps! Or Gulags if your old school!

Private companies bid on these prisoners to do industrial labour, since we revoke their rights they work for pennies a day, won't complain about overtime (if they do just beat them)so you can work these desolate pieces of garbage 16 hours a day digging up copper from mines, or other dangerous tasks. This generates huge profit for the companies because I don't have to hire a unionist at 8 bajillion dollars, and deal with their whining about taking 60 minute breaks and health coverage. Prisoners are expendable in a sense there's millions of them and thousands more born each day, it's a untapped resource!

You ask how will I get them to work? Besides the beatings, if they don't work they don't get food, they don't get shelter, and they get beat again for being "lazy" so the initiative is basically work or we'll kill you! But of course they might do a horrible job at working how would I solve this? Simple, required amount of work, if they don't fill the cart by 5 o'clock they keep working until they do they don't get food and water or shelter... If they don't complete before next days work they ADD another cart and probably a fire hose on them or something.

It saves everyone money, tax payers, governments, and businesses, and it puts a very practical use to our very impractical members of society. These prisons will no longer be crowded, because companies always look for cheap solutions, and no longer will we have to worry about your kid getting in trouble because if he does it's off to the mines!

If your prisoners don't look like this:

Or this:


Saturday, August 05, 2006

Interesting story...

I shamlessly stole this from my "College Libertarians" group, but it perfectly desribes the socialization of property in America and the decline of society itself. The Ant being the capitalist, one who saves, earns and keeps the wealth, the grasshopper being a lower class citizen in our society.


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filledwith food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share."

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Libertarian

Sexx laws (I don't mean Beck!)

Personally all laws regarding sex and marriage are absolute bullshit minus a ban on pedophila which is wrong to the child in the first place and not a issue of sexual freedom as much as abuse. Now we prohibit gay marriage, which liberals are in arms over this issue as they feel it should be about "love" or some ridiculous notion like that.

What I say to these liberals is STOP BEING A PUSSY! For one gay marriage should be legalized, I also think polygamy should be legalized, incest should be legalized aswell and if a man or woman wants to fuck an animal so be it. Actually as long as people are consenting why should we stop them? I'm also in favour of lowering the consent age to have sex, wake up and smell the coffee 16 should be the age limit all around, because about time your 16 you've been laid more times than I can count on my hands!

Want to masturbate in a movie theatre? Go ahead! Unless the theatre has some private policy against it (no pun intended) I see no harm in this. Infact if you want to fuck in the park on top of the picnic tables go right ahead, why should you deny something natural and primal? Morality seeks to ban these practices absed on Judeo-Christian ethics, despite EVERY Jew and Christian has sex, and probably has a kinky fetish like BDSM or something like that.

The fact is as long as they are consenting and there is no physical harm to anyone else there should be no laws against this. In my opinion liberals won't back this because like I said they are pussies and rather play around than actually progress society out of 1960's ethics.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Stop the House, not the mouse!

ocial network sites face US ban
US school buses, Eyewire
Many schools have already banned social network sites
Children in the US could be banned from using social networking sites in schools and libraries by a new law.

The Deleting Online Predators Act tries to limit the access paedophiles have to the networking sites which have become hugely popular with minors.

The act has already been approved by a large majority in the House of Representatives.

Critics say the act is too broad and could mean a huge number of websites are cut off from users.

It is not in the governments constitutional right to forbid site access to anyone through the internet, by limiting what we can search on the internet we are disallowed our very fundamental rights! The worst part is they want to ban these sites in school and library's a haven for knowledge, and discussion of ideas, the staple of the rights we enjoy. If the site usage becomes a problem that should be left to the parents and the administrators to decide, it's no place for the U.S Government to make broad decisions on what we may do on the computer. By passing this bill the entire government could over reach it's authority, if they ban these sites, what's stooping thme there? PRetty soon they'll start blocking the entire internet for the public, based on moral conscious, or perhaps the fear of terrorism?

We can't let the government
limit our personal freedoms by denying access to certain webpages at school. Remember guys, it starts here we don't know where it will end...

That's your decision