|
|
|
|
|
A Different Kind of Tea Party |
 |
 |
 |
|
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 06:28 |
This Independence Day, July 4th, in downtown Philadelphia, there
will a different kind of "tea party." As you may know, a lot of
groups and organizations have been trying to exploit the attention
which the various "Tea Party" events have been generating. Everyone
from Republican politicians, to conservative talk show hosts, to
groups pushing this or that legislative agenda, to patriotic
Constitutionalists, and lots of others, have been vying for control
of the "Tea Party" phenomenon.
Well, this July 4th, in Philadelphia, there will be a very
different sort of "Tea Party" going on. I've heard that Michael
Badnarik, outspoken Constitutionalist, will be one of the speakers.
But the speakers will also include myself and Stefan Molyneux--with
both of us being devout anti-statists. (If any of you are not
already familiar with Stefan, get to this event if you possibly
can. Aside from being a very entertaining speaker, he is one of the
very few people who really understand what freedom means, and who
all the way advocate freedom.) I'm not yet sure what the order of
talks will be, but the talks will be some time around 3:00 to 5:00
p.m. My topic will be "You're Not the Boss of Me."
I'll give more details about the event as I get them, but as I
understand it, the event will be held outdoors, maybe even as a
sort of picnic thing. This will NOT be your usual substance-free,
mindless flag-waving fest. You will hear raw, unabashed advocacy of
individual liberty to a degree that is extremely rare these days in
this supposed "land of the free." And if there is any day on which
average Americans might be able to begin thinking about what
liberty REALLY means, it has to be July 4th. So I want all of you
pro-freedom "extremists" to do whatever you can to drag along as
many "normal" Americans as you possibly can to this event. You'll
be glad you did. They might even be glad, too.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
(P.S. Feel free to forward this note where ever you'd like.)
|
|
You're Not the Boss of Me! |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 07:40 |
As you probably are aware, this Saturday is July 4th, Independence
Day. As you may also know, on the afternoon of this July 4th, I'll
be one of four speakers at Independence Mall, in downtown
Philadelphia, at the "Tea Party" event there. My topic will be
"You're Not the Boss of Me!" and this article is a sort of
introduction to that rant.
The Declaration of Independence basically amounted to a bunch of
guys telling their king, "You're not the boss of us anymore." The
Declaration was an act of treason, written by a bunch of tax cheats
and lawbreakers. It wasn't merely some people whining or
petitioning the government to do something different. In fact, the
Declaration describes how they had already tried that, and it
hadn't worked. So they resorted to open disobedience. And it wasn't
just one protest or demonstration, to make a point or try to
convince their masters to change; it was a declaration that they
were completely and permanently denying the right of the standing
regime to rule them at all, ever again. And that's a pretty darn
radical thing to do.
For all the parades, fireworks, picnics, and other events which
will happen on July 4th to celebrate "Independence Day," how many
Americans today do you think are capable of even contemplating the
possibility of engaging in "illegal" resistance against
"authority"? Not many.
What would the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence look
like today? Well, we would have a lot MORE to complain about than
the colonists did, with far higher taxes, far more intrusive
regulation, and a much higher level of oppression all around. But
what would the conclusion be? It wouldn't be, "So you better change
those laws!" It would be more like this:
"Dear Federal Government, you're fired! We're not paying your taxes
anymore, not obeying your laws ever again, and from now on we will
resist your thugs when you try to enforce your will on us."
How many Americans would dare to even THINK such a thing, much less
say it out loud, or write it down and send it to the feds? Very
few, indeed. The truth is, the spirit of resistance is all but dead
in this country. Even among those in the pro-freedom movement, the
vast majority of efforts revolve around begging the masters to be
nice, petitioning for or against this or that legislation, arguing
over WHICH politician should run our lives and take our money.
"Write your congressman and tell him to oppose ... "
"Promise to vote against any candidate who doesn't support ... "
"Sign this petition, to push legislation which will ... "
I have a better idea. How about if a few million of us send one
message--and only one message--to those pretending to be our
"representatives," those who claim to have the right to rule us.
That message should be this: "Legislate whatever you want; I will
not obey. And when you send your thugs to punish me, I will
resist." THAT is the message of the Declaration of Independence.
But on this July 4th, how many Americans do you think would even
dare to THINK such a thing--even quietly and to themselves?
What this country needs is not a change in legislation, or a change
of parties or candidates. It doesn't need another election, or
another protest or demonstration, or another group lobbying the
government for this or that. What it needs is a people with a
fundamentally different mindset. What it needs is a population
capable of saying, "You're not the boss of us!" But NOTHING the
people ever hear from the mainstream media, or from those in
government, or from the talking heads and political pundits, will
ever endorse such an attitude. On the contrary, the only message
you'll ever hear in the papers, on the radio or on the TV, from
academia or from the government, will boil down to this: "You can
whine and complain about what the government is doing to you, and
you can beg your masters to change, but you must never disobey!"
As long as obedience to authority is taught as the highest
principle--and it absolutely is almost everywhere in the country--
this will be a nation of pathetic slaves perpetually yet
fruitlessly whining at their sadistic, power-happy masters. Maybe
this country should be something better than that.
If you're one of the few who would like to hear a drastically
different message--one that is NOT premised on the assumption that
we all have an obligation to bow to those who claim to be our
masters--then be at Fifth and Market in downtown Philadelphia on
the afternoon of July 4th. (The talks start at 3:00, and my rant
might be first, so make sure you're there before that.) And while
you're at it, bring along some obedient, unthinking flag-wavers, to
see if they can handle some REAL advocacy of freedom. Let's see how
they respond when their indoctrination as obedient subjects
collides with the concept of true liberty.
Or, if you can't make it to Philly on the Fourth (or even if you
can), order a few copies of "The Iron Web," and start "corrupting"
the people you know by exposing them to the radical idea that they
own themselves, and that they don't NEED the permission of tyrants
in order to be free. Yes, understanding freedom requires a dramatic
shift in mindset from the statist conformism that now plagues this
country. On the other hand, it's getting downright embarrassing
watching all the robbed, regulated and restricted American slaves
wildly cheering about how free they are.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
(P.S. The event in Philly will be videotaped, and I'm sure it will
be posted online fairly quickly. I'll at least be posting my rant
on my YouTube channel very soon after.)
|
|
Not My President, Either Way |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 01 July 2009 07:16 |
I like saying things that are so anti-statist that they even rile
up those in the freedom movement. I suspect this will be one of
those times:
Who cares if Obama is eligible to be President?
There has been much speculation, conjecture, and assertion about
whether Barack Obama is a "natural-born citizen," and therefore
Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. My
response is, "Who cares?" He's not my president, either way, nor is
he yours. Nor is anyone else.
To get slightly Monty-Python-esque here, suppose that a neighbor of
yours claimed the right to rule you, based on the claim that the
Lady of the Lake happened to fling a certain scimitar (Excalibur)
at him. You might, for very good reason, dispute his account of
things. But ultimately, who cares? Whoever was or was not
distributing swords whilst lying in ponds, what does that have to
do with the right to rule you? Not a thing. Likewise, whether or
not Obama fit the criteria laid out in the Constitution, he has no
right to rule me. Period. To argue over procedural technicalities
implies that, if he did meet all the criteria, then he would have
the right to rule me. He wouldn't.
You see, as radical a concept as this may seem, pieces of parchment
cannot make men into gods, any more than farcical aquatic
ceremonies can. Neither wig-wearing dudes who died two hundred
years ago, nor lots of people pushing buttons in booths, nor all
manner of other pseudo-religious political rituals, can bestow
super-human rights upon a mere human being.
The Constitution asserts that the bunch of crooks calling
themselves "Congress" have the right to forcibly confiscate money
from people. Sorry to all you Constitutionalists, but that's utter
bull poop. Yes, the Constitution puts various limits and
restrictions on the power to "tax," but it's still the power to
forcibly take money from someone who earned it--a right no mere
mortal has, and a right which therefore no one could ever give to
anyone else.
And so it is with all "government" power, constitutional or
otherwise. How did Obama, or any of the other god-complex crooks in
D.C., acquire the right to do anything which you don't personally
have the right to do? Assuming they are humans--which gives them a
benefit of the doubt they might not deserve--they weren't born with
such rights. And since you and I never had such rights ourselves,
they couldn't have gotten them from us. So what's left? From whom,
and by what means, did the politicians acquire extra rights??
Yes, I know it's almost universally accepted that "government" is
legitimate, that we should respect its "laws," and that obedience
to "authority" is a virtue. But, universally accepted or not, it's
all bunk. I have as much moral obligation to obey my cat as I do to
obey all the politicians in Washington combined. And no political
document or ritual will ever change that.
If tomorrow, Barack Obama produces not only a certified birth
certificate from Hawaii, but also holds aloft Excalibur, it won't
make one shred of difference to me. He is not my President. No one
is my President. I, and I alone, own myself. And you, and you
alone, own yourself. Once you grasp that, you'll probably stop
arguing over the citizenship of one narcissistic megalomaniac.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
P.S. Notwithstanding all of the above, I must admit that it's
sometimes entertaining to watch the tyrants' own rules being used
against them, and to watch them squirm when caught in a lie. That's
what the 861 evidence was all about. But never let them lying about
their own rule books make you forget that their entire game, top to
bottom, is 100% bogus.
P.P.S. If some of the verbiage above sounds really weird, you might
need to go watch "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Here's the
short version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI
|
|
Thursday, 02 July 2009 12:31 |
When I raise the idea of abandoning the "authority" myth entirely,
and understanding that each of us owns himself, I invariably get
responses asking how this or that would be handled without
"government," how disputes might be resolved peacefully, and how we
would deal with all the "gray areas" in life, where people have
fundamental disagreements about certain things.
And those are perfectly rational questions ... sometimes. But I
immediately wonder WHY the person would ask such questions, and I
see two very different possibilities: 1) They are reserving the
right to regress back to the belief in "authority," if I can't
assure them that everything will be okay without it, or 2) They
have given up the "authority" superstition for good, and are just
genuinely curious about how society is likely to function without
it. The latter is reasonable. The former is looney.
I compare it to the belief in Santa Claus. Someone who had just
given up such a belief could rationally ask, "But how will
Christmas work without Santa?" However, whatever the answer was, it
would NOT be rational to then respond with, "Well, I don't think
that will work, so we'd better stick with the Santa plan." Santa
Claus isn't real. He's not an option. Either Christmas will work
without him, or Christmas won't work. "But what if some good kids
don't get presents? What if some bad kids get lots of presents?
What if poor folks can't afford to get their kids presents? What
if, what if, what if?" Bad things might happen. Deal with it. Santa
isn't going to magically appear because the world might be unfair
without him.
Likewise, it is completely irrational to revert back to the self-
contradictory delusion of "government," once someone understands
the truth, even if a stateless society sounds scary or
unpredictable. The right of one person to rule another (a.k.a.
"authority") does not and cannot exist, whether society "works"
without it or not. Whatever scary scenario you can image, whatever
problems you think might occur, that doesn't change reality.
Choosing to be delusional because facing reality scares you is
insane.
Rational people can and will disagree on all sorts of things,
including treatment of animals, pollution, owning land, parental
rights, environmental issues, abortion, and so on. The trouble is,
people are accustomed to viewed things from an authoritarian
mindset, with the question always being about how "the law" and
"government" should deal with such issues globally and forcibly. As
a result, admitting the obvious truth--that no one knows how every
dispute will be settled--sounds like no solution at all to most
people. And that's because there IS no magic solution, with or
without "government," that will always make the good guys win and
justice be served.
And so, when people ask me things like, "Under your system, how
will ... ," I respond with, "I'm not proposing a system, but what
would YOU do about it?" This usually baffles people, because
they're not at all accustomed to thinking of THEMSELVES as the ones
who would have to decide what to do, and the ones who would have to
do it. They're used to imagining a giant, all-powerful state making
things right (or rather, saying it will make things right, and then
making things horribly wrong).
As I've said before, anarchism is not a complete philosophy, nor
does it pretend to offer answers to everything. In fact, it is the
opposite. It is the assertion that there is one particular solution
("authority") that should NOT be in the equation. And that's all it
is. If you want to understand what it means to be an anarchist,
picture this: A certain doctor has an odd habit of using a baseball
bat to bash the knees of everyone who walks into his office. The
anarchist is the guy who says, "You shouldn't do that." The
anarchist doesn't claim to be able to cure all health problems. He
doesn't want to be the new doctor. He doesn't claim to know
everything, and can't tell the future. All he does is point out
that bashing everyone in the knee is a bad idea.
The concept of "government" is self-contradictory, delusional, and
horrendously destructive. It goes directly against both free will
and individual rights. In addition, the cult-like belief in
"government" has been the catalyst for the vast majority of
injustice, suffering, oppression and murder in the world. The
anarchist recognizes this, and says, "Stop believing in government."
Does that then oblige the anarchist to solve all the problems of
the world? No. Does it imply he has to know everything, and be able
to explain everything and solve every problem and dispute? No. Does
it mean he must dictate anything to anyone, or propose some grand
"solution" to replace the "authority" myth? No. Does it obligate
him to describe a world where nothing ever goes wrong and injustice
never occurs? No.
The trouble is, people are so accustomed to hearing the promises of
megalomaniacs, who offer centralized "solutions" via top-down,
micromanaged authoritarian programs, that it's the only thing a lot
of people can even contemplate. By definition, the anarchist
doesn't have a global, authoritarian solution to be imposed upon
society. (He wouldn't be an anarchist if he did.) Instead, he
merely points out that ONE particular type of "solution"--solution
via "authority"--is insane, inherently immoral, and destined to
fail horribly.
So when people ask how this or that will work "under anarchy," I
guess I could make some predictions, or could offer some
suggestions, but ultimately the only truthful answer I can give--
the only truthful answer anyone can give--is, "How the hell should
I know?"
But that's not what people want to hear. They've been spoon-fed
centralized "solutions" for so long that, even though such
solutions never actually work, they make people feel comfortable.
In short, people want to think that someone ELSE is taking care of
everything, so they don't have to take on the responsibility of
learning the facts, understanding the truth, and taking action on
anything themselves. And that's why the concept of "anarchy"--a
society without a giant nanny running the world--scares them to
death. They'd rather be told lies, and have a security blanket that
suffocates them, than face the uncertainties of reality. The fact
that their savior and protector, "government," has murdered more
people, stolen more property, attacked, harassed, terrorized,
tortured and oppressed more people throughout history than any
private band of crooks and thieves ever has or ever could, doesn't
seem to dissuade them. They still prefer the empty "guarantees" of
the slave-masters to the unpredictability of freedom.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
|
|
|
|
Upcoming Events
No current events.
Your Cart
Your cart is empty
|
