A better dream of freedom

It's amazing how often you'll hear an idea for a new law from someone who claims to be in favor of freedom. Of course, usually these self-proclaimed sons and daughters of liberty have already been elected to office, so they've already made some adjustments to their views of what freedom is.

It's still true that the US of A is a place where you can criticize The Powers That Be without being shot or imprisoned — most of the time. Of course, you can't do it in the presence of the Big Boss. Yikes, shouting "You lie!" to the emperor while he was giving a speech. That sort of thing just isn't done.

America is the place where your rights are fully protected as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights — like the right to smoke-free air, the right to free health care, and the right not to be exposed to someone else's religious beliefs. Your property is your own to do as you please with it — as long as you get the proper permits and inspections and pay the property tax. You can travel at will all over this great nation — after your person and luggage have been examined and ransacked. Unlike past empires, we have no ambitions to impose our will on conquered territories — pay no attention to the hundreds of military bases established all over the world.

Some of us have a better dream of freedom: "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor ... advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else." I know, good luck with that. I still think a society based on that principle would be a lovely one to live in. The tricky part? By definition no one can be forced to live that way.

For some time I've been working, in fits and starts, on a novel about the creation of such a society — even put out a couple of chapters I have since set aside. The novel is starting to come together at last. No promises, though — I've done that before and missed the target.

That's not my main point today, anyway. Rather, it's just a reminder to beware of anyone who proclaims a devotion to liberty while advocating for a new restriction on liberty. Yes, I know I'm reminding you to beware of people you encounter pretty much every day. That's how pervasive the assault on freedom is. That stuff about "eternal vigilance" isn't far from the truth.

But in the end, the Zero Aggression Principle is about a very personal kind of freedom. You don't have to wait until some utopian society is created. You simply live it. And no one can take that away from you.

Trying men's souls all over again

Writes Thomas Paine in the eighth of his Letters to the Citizens of the United States:

The independence of America would have added but little to her own happiness, and been of no benefit to the world, if her government had been formed on the corrupt models of the old world. It was the opportunity of beginning the world anew, as it were; and of bringing forward a new system of government in which the rights of all men should be preserved that gave value to independence.

Even as the ink began to dry on the Declaration of Independence proclaiming a break from the tyranny of European-style government, a faction began plotting to re-forge the chains and re-establish Europe in the new world.

When Thomas Paine returned to the United States in 1802 after a decade and a half abroad, he saw the leftover effects of a presidential administration who didn't trust the people to exercise the blessings of liberty appropriately. The ongoing influence of that thinking was evident 20 years later when that president's son was elected president himself, as if one family had the right to the keys of power like a European monarchy.

Into the 21st century the tug-of-war continues. Some find it altogether appropriate to eye a candidate for leadership simply because he or she bears the name of Kennedy, or Bush, or Clinton. Senators and congressmen's sons and daughters, wives and husbands, succeed to their position as if it were a family heirloom. And each succeeding administration finds new ways to clutch remaining bits of liberty from the hands of the people. But that's not the new style of government Thomas Paine and his fellow patriots envisioned.

These Letters to the Citizens of the United States, and Particularly to the Leaders of the Federal Faction strike me as more relevant than ever — and so I offer them as a free eBook or, should you prefer someone else to do your printing and binding, as a book for sale.

Click on the eBook image to download these important words — and see the context of what I wrote about here and there and again of late. Click on the words book for sale for more about the dead-tree edition or click on the Richardson & Bluhm logo for our full line of lovely editions.

What good is freedom of the press when the presses go silent?

Good comments, and to the point, to my observation the other day that I can't find nationalization of banks in the U.S. Constitution. JN helped me out when he said, "You're reading the wrong document. You'll find what you are looking for in the 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto, comrade."

Whoop! There it is:

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

So, although the government buying ownership stakes in banks is not found in that "goddamned piece of paper," the idea is not unique in history. That helped explain my uneasiness with the concept.

While I was reading, my eye was caught by the 6th Plank, which got me to thinkin' — always a dangerous thing:

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Here is the think: The print media is in a hellacious condition right now. You can buy stock in newspapers for a song compared to a couple-three years ago, but not many people are buying anyway. Papers are cutting support staff, cutting circulation staff, and cutting reporters and editors to keep the profit margins respectable. Some papers are doing things like canceling the Monday edition, or cutting back to once or twice and week and putting all their content online instead. They're still profitable businesses — for now — but the actual product is a shadow of what it once was, and there's no end in sight.

The migration of newspapers to the Web is seen as inevitable, and supposedly that's because fewer and fewer people want to read words on paper anymore. First, that's not my experience. Everywhere I turn, I find people who are unhappy with how their favorite newspapers have devolved and wish they would come back.

My think is about what happens if this trend continues to its logical conclusion. Here's the think: Long ago the federal government declared that a radio transmitter is not a printing press, and so freedom of the press was not extended to the electronic media. The Federal Communications Commission (see Plank 6) was created to regulate speech on the airwaves. Generations have now grown up to believe that you can print the word "f#@!" on paper but the government has the right to fine you if you broadcast it on the radio or television.

More serious, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine declared that you can slant your newspaper left, right, up, down or outer space and that's your right, but you can't slant the political debate on your radio or TV. Talk radio, once a vast vanilla wasteland where no one dared to take a stand lest they be forced to give equal time to the other side, has thrived since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. And as you know, the idea of the Fairness Doctrine still has more than a little support.

The Internet is also an electronic medium. The feds have set a precedent that electronic media are different from presses and can be regulated. Another disadvantage of electronic media is that you can pull the plug.

If we abandon our presses, in other words, we probably abandon our freedom of the press. Our rulers have declared that freedom of the press applies only to presses, not to the dissemination of information in general. And for most of the history of electronic media, few have challenged that declaration.

I plan to spend the rest of my time in this earthly plain on two missions with regard to this subject. One, to preserve news and political speech in print, so that as our rulers increase their stranglehold on electronic expression, we still have an alternative. Two, to get people to start thinking of radio and TV transmitters, and the World Wide Web, as the modern equivalent of the printing press. If the First Amendment has any meaning at all, there's no reason why the electronic press can be regulated any more than the printing press.

If we fail in mission #1 before a tipping point of people grok #2, and if news in print disappears, then the government has set the precedent that it controls the content of the remaining means of communication. It can't easily reverse centuries of tradition that we can print without government interference or regulation. But the momentum is on the side of the belief that government interference and regulation in the realm of electronic expression is appropriate, and so the decline of newspapers and print news in general is a good thing for Big Government.

I don't know that our rulers are consciously communist. Calling someone a commie is so fifties. But those 10 planks work just as well if the goal is a totalitarian government that gives nothing more than lip service to liberty. And we're well on our way to that place.

Free market vs. The Empire

It's kind of interesting to have been reading about this for years, in places like Empire of Debt and its authors' Daily Reckoning site, but it's still a little startling to see it reported on the BBC:

"The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over... The American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated."

"In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed ...

It's a silly stretch for anyone to describe the American economy in recent years as "free market," but the gist of the observation is still compelling. Is this the end of the era of the American empire? Time will tell. The U.S. government's attempted solution is anything but free-market-friendly. Central planning and top-down micromanagement continue to be the hallmarks of the Washington, D.C., mentality. If anything, the new law is an attempt to consolidate imperial power even further.

The current situation doesn't feel like a defeat for free markets. It reminds me more of the climax of Atlas Shrugged. Did Congress just pass the Steel Unification Plan? How do I find that gulch?

F—IW

UPDATE: Second link fixed. Thanks Joel!

It was long past time I read Eric Frank Russell's classic novella "And Then There Were None," and if you haven't yet, go do so. Here is one easy way to do it.

A military ship carrying an ambassador of the Terran empire lands on a remote planet that was settled about 400 years ago and hasn't had any contact with the empire since. The ship's mission is to bring the planet into the great imperial fold.

Things go awry from the start, beginning with the farmer who, asked to bring them to his leaders, doesn't seem to understand the concept of a "leader."

First published in the June 1951 issue of Astounding Science Fiction, "And Then There Were None" is a great glimpse at an alternative way of managing human interaction. You may recall (and if you don't here's when I said it) that I thought Ayn Rand copped out in Atlas Shrugged when she justified her superior rational woman blowing away an indecisive minion who couldn't decide whose side he was on. Without giving too much away, Russell offers one of the best explanations I've ever encountered regarding why, six years later in Rand's novel, the oh-so-rational Dagny Taggart committed an irrational act.

The theme of violence vs. nonviolence as a response to tyranny is central to my novel in progress, The Imaginary Revolution. I've hit several roadblocks as I attempt to bring the concept into focus in an entertaining way. Now I see Russell has already walked that path for me. Encountering "And Then There Were None" was like bumping into a fellow who, as I'm trying to thrash a path through thick brush, pulls me aside and shows me the trail through the jungle that he's already cleared.

The missing name and, again, the missing word

In a couple of nights of speechifying last week, Barack Obama and Joe Biden did everything they could to tie John McCain to Emperor Bush. In a couple of nights of speechifying this week, McCain and Sarah Palin said the word "Bush" just once. And when it came up, it wasn't tied to "George W."

"I'm grateful to the president for leading us in those dark days following the worst attack on American soil in our history, and keeping us safe from another attack many thought was inevitable," is what McCain said Thursday night, adding: "and to the first lady, Laura Bush, a model of grace and kindness in public and in private." The Elephant Branch of The Party was not going to use the incumbent emperor's full name.

Clearly, the major players in the race for emperor sense that people who live in the US of A have had enough of the old regime. "Change" is the major theme of the day. Exactly what will they change? They'll put a new face in the Oval Office. They'll rearrange a deck chair or two.

But as with the Donkey Branch speakers a week ago, once again the proposed leaders of these independent states did not use the words freedom or liberty in their remarks. Peruse the texts and you will find neither McCain or Palin said "freedom," and you'll find McCain mouthed the word "liberty" only in the context of protecting and advancing the empire: "Today, the prospect of a better world remains within our reach. But we must see the threats to peace and liberty in our time clearly and face them, as Americans before us did, with confidence, wisdom and resolve."

And as he closed, he urged his supporters to "fight for the ideals and character of a free people." A free people, not free men and women. A collective, not individuals.

Freedom and liberty have become catchphrases, echoes from another era that are rolled out because they still resonate deep in our souls. After this ritual that the Donkeys and Elephants are performing now, the victors will retire to their chambers to pass more laws and new restrictions of our liberty.

I am grateful that I am allowed (for now) to write these things, to use the word emperor to describe the position that is often described as "leader of the free world," or to point out that The Party is a single monster with two heads, without being arrested or imprisoned as government critics in many places have been.

This freedom isn't free, however, because freedom has a cost: It is mine only as long as I consent to the seizure of one-third to one-half of my earnings to maintain the empire. And the rules may be changed at any time.

I do not delude myself by imagining that replacing Augustus Caesar with Tiberius will make any substantive difference. The central struggle of our day is not between the Donkeys and the Elephants; it is between the State and the Individual. I have no need to beat the State; I just want to be left alone. That's not likely to happen.

The missing words in Obama's speech

In his speech accepting the Democratic Party nomination for emperor Thursday night, Barack Obama used the word "freedom" twice, if the text I found online is accurate.

The first came as he spoke of "America's promise" —

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Notice the structure: The promise says we are free, but. Each of the next several paragraphs gives an example of a freedom that exists but has limits established by a powerful central government. Most telling is his list of things he does not believe Americans can do for themselves:

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

We need the government to protect ourselves from harm, educate our children, invest in new science and technology? I believe a strong argument can be made that government intrusion hinders, not helps, each and every one of the things on this list.

The second and final time he mentions "freedom" came in the context of restoring a positive image of the American Empire as it pursues its vision of the world.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

A search of the text for the word "liberty" came up empty. In the 21st century, these are concepts that are subordinated to concepts like security and our obligation to the state and to the collective.

While packaging himself as something new, Obama like most every politician before him believes the force of the state can be utilized as an agent of positive change. But change effected by force can only be described as oppression.

Obama gives a good speech that feels inspiring, until you start to think about the words. Words do mean something, and sometimes much can be learned by thinking about what words are missing.

'Ordered liberty' - oxymoron?

Being one who views philosophical discussions more as a somewhat necessary evil than an entertainment, I had never knowingly encountered the phrase "ordered liberty" until I spent a few minutes in the car Aug. 1 and caught some of Rush Limbaugh's 20th anniversary show. There I was, innocently driving along, when suddenly:

"Rush, it's Rich Lowry at National Review. I just want to give you the hardiest congratulations. You've been an affliction to liberalism for 20 years and to the rest of us, you've been an inspiration, a joy, a comfort, an education and a friend. You long ago joined the annals of conservative greats, the defenders of ordered liberty, our civilization's highest accomplishment. I know how proud Bill Buckley was of you. I know he's proud even today from his celestial seat. Rush, it's been an inspired 20 years. Now we expect 20 more. Take care, and God bless."

I tried wrapping my brain around the concept of "ordered liberty," but instead the word oxymoron kept bouncing between my ears. A search suggested it's synonymous with the more familiar phrase "liberty under law," but I couldn't shake an ominous feeling that descended over me when I heard "ordered liberty, our civilization's highest accomplishment."

Is ordered liberty simply a phrase that compresses Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous thought, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins"? Or is something more sinister than that? The latter seems more possible because Google associated the phrase most often with people who advocate using Big Government force to control personal choices such as who may marry whom or what substances or medicines an individual may ingest.

I buy Holmes' proverb wholeheartedly; I'm not so sure I could endorse "ordered" liberty. It seems to me liberty is often a spontaneous and disorderly celebration, and that is a good thing. I seek greater understanding of this bizarre combination of words.

Russ Feingold catches another reason not to fly

The definition of "search" has been expanded so that airport screeners are allowed to turn on your laptop computer and browse through the contents. Now, since I wrote a novel where a computer program can power spaceship engines and weapons, I probably shouldn't be suggesting it's ludicrous to search a computer's contents looking for weapons. But I also don't think technology has unraveled the tenets of imaginary physics yet, either, so yes, I'm saying it's ludicrous to allow airport screeners to "search" laptop computers in this fashion.

The definition of "seizure" is still the same — government agents steal your stuff on the pretext of their searches, however flimsy it may be.

Sen. Russ Feingold is no friend of the First Amendment — he's the co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection and Repeal of Free Speech Act — but he has read the Fourth Amendment, and he's raising the alarm about airport screeners who have been confiscating laptop computers from non-terrorists.

Feingold's statement says when he asked about this, the response from the Secret Police Department of Homeland Security made reference to a 2007 policy that has not been revealed publicly — "and the policies that have been revealed are truly alarming."

The policies allow DHS to evade the probable cause requirement for seizing a laptop by blurring the distinction between a search and a seizure – defining a “search” to include detaining laptops for an unspecified period of time, taking them off-site, and taking written notes on their contents that can be retained indefinitely.

The policies contain no restrictions on DHS agents’ disclosure of personal information learned through these searches.

Feingold deserves credit for drawing attention to the many ways that civil liberties are being violated in the name of liberty. His critics have a ready answer: Freedom is slavery not free.

'We need rules' - hang on a second

Let's take this one first. The director of Fatherland Homeland Security said at the "Aspen Ideas Festival":

“We’re going to live with risk for a very long period of time. We need to develop a set of rules that are somewhere between complacency and hysteria.” – Michael Chertoff

Our rulers prefer us hysterical — we're easier to control that way — but they must appear to us as reasonable, so they make statements like this one. What exactly is the point between complacency and hysteria?

Complacency is a state of being utterly unprepared for the one-in-a-billion chance that a terrorist is going to try to board an airplane today. Hysteria is a state of such utter fear that innocent travelers are pulled aside and their bodily cavities searched for weapons. If the goal is a point "somewhere between" complacency and hysteria, why does the status quo tilt so merrily toward hysteria?

I recently stumbled onto a lovely piece of rational thinking I somehow have overlooked for almost a year. It's called "I Am Not Afraid" and is available from James Leroy Wilson and the Downsize D.C. folks. A cogent sample:

Here's what it means to not be afraid, here's what it means to fight a real war on terror, and here's what it means to win that war, instantly:

* It means that you do not participate in the public hysteria when terrorists attack, but instead react proportionally, placing the terrorist act in its proper place in the vast scheme of crimes, accidents, disease, natural disaster, and generic tragedy that is man's lot on earth.

* It means that you do not permit the politicians to feel terror on your behalf. It means that you discourage them from fomenting and exploiting hysteria to expand their own power at the expense of traditional American principles.

* It means that you view terrorism as a matter for international police work, under the rule of law, and not a justification for bloated government programs, reckless wars, or the shredding of the Bill of Rights.

That reference to the Bill of Rights is important, because it's the name of a very handy "set of rules that are somewhere between complacency and hysteria" that served us well long before there was a Department of Fatherland Homeland Security. If Chertoff and his handlers ever read the thing, their actions show utter contempt for it.

Duty to the state

“We have to change the definition of citizenship so you can't pat yourself on the back for paying your taxes, obeying the law, taking care of your family, and being a good voter. You have to be a public servant as a private citizen. The interdependent world demands it.” – William J. Clinton (July 5, 2008)

"The truth is we are growing more isolated in our communities because we are living more and more only with people we agree with. And we are growing more isolated in our political debates because we have access to more information than ever before, but we look at the television news and we read the Web sites of people who confirm what we think already. This is not good in a democracy.” – William J. Clinton (July 5, 2008)

“We’re going to live with risk for a very long period of time. We need to develop a set of rules that are somewhere between complacency and hysteria.” – Michael Chertoff, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (July 3, 2008)

“Make achievement the constant and time the variable. If you look to other nations, this is what they’re doing. To achieve success, you’ve got to have longer school years. – Cory Booker, mayor, Newark, NJ (July 6, 2008)

“Public attitudes about our courts, they’re not good. … One-third of Americans can’t name the three branches of government. How are we going to solve our problems if we don’t know how the government works? We have to use technology to teach our young people about our government structures.” – Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (June 30, 2008)

Quotes culled from a press release about this year's Aspen Ideas Festival, June 30-July 6. In their words, "For more than 50 years, the Aspen Institute has been the nation's premier gathering place for leaders from around the globe and across many disciplines to engage in deep and inquisitive discussion of the ideas and issues that both shape our lives and challenge our times."

I hope to start commenting once I get my breath back. "We must be public servants as private citizens." Whew. "Rules that are somewhere between complacency and hysteria." Hey! Cut it out, I'm trying to breathe here ...

Independence Day

"This Friday, fly the Gadsden flag." — W. Conger

"The best miracles happen when you stop trying to force things into line." — W. Bluhm

Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me a hundred times ... ?

Having once been a rabid attack-dog Republican, I am tempted to give Bob Barr the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he really has rethought his positions about the war on drugs, gay rights, freedom of religion, and all of the other areas where he once was as libertarian as Barack Obama or John McCain ... as John Roberts notes ...

Though he has softened somewhat with regard to the drug policy reforms so popular with Libertarian activists, for instance, Barr was once an ardent critic of medical marijuana and an over-the-top advocate for militarizing the "war on drugs."

Barr has also been a big-government man when it comes to restricting abortion rights (he's 100 percent anti-choice), marriage rights (he sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act) and freedom of religion (he once pressured the Pentagon to bar the practice of Wicca in the military).

When Barr was booted from Congress in 2002, Libertarians ran television ads condemning him.

Now he's their candidate.

Now, 10-12 years ago I may have held some positions that seem foolish to me now, so I will not spend any time questioning whether Bob Barr is sincere or just looking for a side road to the White House. After all, the next Libertarian presidential candidate to win the election will be the first one, so either he's sincere or he's insane enough to commit political suicide.

But there are some crystal clear facts about life. One of them is that states exist to suppress individual rights, even those states based in documents that assert states are created to "secure those rights." That's why 18th-century individualists insisted on another document that spells out some of the rights that the state is not allowed to suppress. That even seems to work from time to time, although most rulers feel free to ignore those documents with impugnity.

Another crystal clear fact is that going to a polling place operated by an oppressive state lends a false sense of legitimacy to that state. Barr is welcome to campaign for president, and he certainly offers a better statist alternative to those offered by the two branches of the major political party. Again, though, the least of three evils is still evil.

Liberty will be advanced outside of this political process, which has been corrupted beyond recognition. Freedom will be advanced one nonviolent individual act at a time, including the act of rejecting the charade that free people choose our leaders. Free people lead our own lives.

Once upon a time we thought of choosing representatives to represent our political views in the halls of government, but those representatives inevitably confused themselves with rulers. Give it a try if you wish, Mr. Barr. Just don't come to this corner looking for aid or comfort.

Your help urgently requested

Don't take my word for it, here's Sunni to tell you all about it with the proper links and all.

Now tyranny is getting somewhere

RALEIGH (AP)- A judge has upheld North Carolina's high standard requiring tens of thousands of signatures to be collected before a group is officially recognized as a political party, ruling there's no fundamental right for the party of a voter's choice to be on the ballot.

The Libertarian Party sued the state in 2005, arguing requirements to get on the ballot and stay on it are too onerous, violating party members' rights to freedom of speech and association. The Green Party of North Carolina later joined the lawsuit.

Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood, who heard the case in a non-jury trial earlier this month in Wake County, ruled late Tuesday that the "state has a compelling interest in requiring a preliminary modicum of support before recognizing a political party and placing its candidates on the ballot."

Hobgood wrote that the state has an interest "in avoiding confusion, deception and even frustration of the democratic process in the general election."

Every four years, the ballot swells with races for president, Council of State, the Legislature and the courts in addition to local races. The more parties on the ballot, Hobgood added, "the greater chance there is for ballots that are so long as to be unwieldy."

This year, under the law, groups had to collect nearly 70,000 voter signatures to receive official party status — one of the highest thresholds in the country, according to the party leaders and candidates who sued.

"We're deeply saddened by this ruling," Barbara Howe, chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, said in a release Wednesday. "Not only did the judge support the state's power to take away our right to choose who represents us, he also upheld the state's assertion that North Carolina voters are not smart enough to fill out a so-called long ballot."

Read the whole article here.

Unwieldly and Catch-22 requirements like the 70,000-signature threshold have long been used to restrict third-party and other less visible candidates from gaining traction. You need a "modicum of support" to participate, but the means to gaining a modicum of support are blocked — no invitations to debate, no ballot access. The tyrants are not usually as bald-faced as Judge Hobgood, of course.

So the state moves another step closer to institutionalized one-party rule, with voters' choices restricted to the two branches of the Big Brother Party. In a perfect world North Carolinians would rise up and impeach Hobgood, but in a perfect world candidates would not have to wedge themselves into the straitjacket of a party organization. In a perfect world we would have dozens, perhaps scores of choices.

Oh hell, in a perfect world these charades wouldn't be necessary as perfectly capable individuals run their own lives in concert with an abiding respect for the lives and the rights of others. But too many people believe their neighbors are too stupid to run their own lives, and too much time and energy has been invested in fanning the flames of that belief.

We have become a world of people afraid to live in freedom, who turn over control of our decisions to less capable individuals who don't respect our lives or our unalienable rights. Hobgood's onerous decision is just another step down that road.

Running with the mute-ants

OK, for a while I've been less prolific and wondering if I was just too busy with the day job and such, or if something else was going on. Then I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what Taran Jordan is experiencing ... some excerpts:

It’s an odd thing, but for months now, I have felt very little desire to speak out on issues, or get into debates with sheeple. Even, or maybe especially, about freedom ...

Now, too, when I hear of abuses, I don’t get het up with anger or outrage anymore either, the way I used to. (And it was that energy of fed-upness and violated justice that motivated a lot of my writing.) I do often feel for the victims, if true innocent victims they are.

But the feeling I now experience toward the perpetrators is a cross between indifference and quiet resistance. And I think it’s that quiet aspect that has me not talking or writing about my thoughts, concerns or plans.

It’s a struggle within, because one voice in my head says, “But these issues are vital and should get some exposure, and you can give them that!” The other voice, though, counters, “Those who care at this point are already aware. The rest aren’t interested in being preached at by you. Let reality educate them, as it soon will.”

No coincidence, then, that last week, heavy into this mood, I decided to reread Atlas Shrugged.

I can't say I feel exactly the same — I'm not ready to do the gulch thing and I continue my plans to race into print this summer to speak out with a collection of thoughts called Refuse to be Afraid — but I feel Lightning's pain, if pain is the right word to describe it.

The voice of freedom these days is a lonely voice crying in a wilderness. The statists who declare man and woman to be herd animals have long held the upper hand, to the extent that we who seek to live on a little land in a wooded area find ourselves fighting a nagging feeling that we are guilty of a selfish something called "urban sprawl." Why would a good little human want to separate from the herd and inhabit an area larger than a comfortable little lot surrounded by other good little humans, after all?

But then there's the bigger nagging feeling, the one that feels like The Real Me yearning to break out, the one that says man and woman are not dogs, not pack animals. You cannot define me by the color of my skin, my sex, the ethnic history of my family, the region of the world I have chosen to inhabit, or even the philosophy I have have adapted and adopted as my own, because there has been no one quite like me in the history of the world and never will be again — I am, in short, a unique individual, and you cannot lazily define me with words like "white man" or "libertarian" or "journalist" or "Scandinavian American" — and this is the most important part: Every soul I encounter today is just as unique, even (perhaps especially) those whose eyes are glazed over and are running with a pack, and I cannot dismiss them as anything less than a distinct individual.

Atlas Shrugged portrays a nightmare world where the herd mentality has won the day, but those chosen as shepherds have had enough of perfectly capable humans expecting them to be sheep herders, and they separate themselves, leaving those who believe themselves part of a herd to fend, unsuccessfully, for themselves.

In the memorable dystopian TV fantasy The Prisoner, our protagonist screams, "I am not a number, I am a free man!" even as he is forcibly kept captive in a jolly village and always addressed as Number Six — we never learn his given name. I understand Taran's feeling of quiet resistance, just as I understand the gulchers in Atlas Shrugged, but I don't think her weariness is indifference. I think it's just weariness. Rest a while, mute-ant friend, and see what comes next. Seems like for all this quiet, a novel is chugging its way along the rails of your soul, for example, a novel that addresses many of these themes — so you're not as indifferent as you might believe. You're just quiet, and resisting.

Funny thing about freedom, though: It's hard to stay quiet. You know everyone has a Real Me screaming to get out, and sooner or later you have to get up, run to the window and urge people to start yelling. We are free men and women, after all.

'Evil Genius' takes on evil

In the latest edition of Evil Genius Chronicles, Dave Slusher lets loose his despair over the differences between the ideals he remembers about the US of A and the reality. A sample:

We are willing to torture. That is now the final straw for me in this nation — the fact that we are soft on fucking torture. If that is the case, what do we stand for? If we are willing to undo, to roll back from the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence on — human rights have no meaning when we are, as a nation, willing to torture humans and then lawyer about our ability to do so. Morality has no meaning, civil life has no meaning, political life has no meaning if these are the tradeoffs we're willing to make for it ...

If we are willing to sacrifice the fundamentals of human rights because we are scared ... That is so opposite the philosophy of this nation, when people stood together and they said, "For standing together we can all be subject to death — we can be hanged from the neck for treason for getting together and saying we don't believe the monarchy controls us — we believe that there are human rights and human ability. It does not matter whether you were born inside the borders of this nation or not; it does not matter whether you stand within the borders of this nation or not — these are inalienable, and these cannot be taken away." And yet we argue about this ...

... When we are a nation that tortures, anything we say about human rights, anything we say about torture is a fraud.

I wanted to stand up and cheer when I heard this podcast, and wave to people and yell "Listen to this!" but I had to keep both hands on the wheel at the time. So I'm doing it now: Listen to this. It's not kid-safe or office-safe; Dave uses some of "those" words to make his point. But these are good words, 53 minutes well spent. As the lady says to open every show, "Now you should listen to this, 'cause this concerns you."

'Yep,' or something like that

It was a long journey. I remember talking with a friend along the way on the side of a big, sandy hill. It was a sunny day. He was for resolving it violently, and I argued that would not do.

Then I was in a meeting room, with tables set up on a faded solid-wood floor. People were sitting at the tables, back to the wall, facing the center of the room, and I was walking back and forth in front of them, stopping to talk to one old friend in particular. (Come to think of it, the room reminded me of the small rural town hall where I have been known to vote during waking hours.)

Then, in the corner of the room, I picked up a piece of parchment with writing on it, and my emotions began to well. Through the haze of the dream and my emotion, all I could see were the three big words at the top of the page: "We the People ..." I walked swiftly back to my friend and set the parchment down in front of him.

"This is it," I said with a huge smile. "This is what we worked so hard to achieve." "Yep" (or something like that), he replied, and he bent over to sign the document. I signed, too, and then my emotions got the best of me. I knelt in the middle of the room, overcome with joy, relief and satisfaction. (It was almost, but not quite, as joyful as I felt about 12 years ago when I — a tall, scrawny, unathletic person as a youth who never competed on a football field — vividly dreamed of catching a long bomb for a touchdown.)

I emerged from la-la land and found myself in a warm bed with a small old dog dozing next to me (No, no, she was awake and up; I'm talking about a real dog), leaving myself back there, crying with contentment on the old wooden floor. I decided not to remind my dream self that the spirit of the well-intentioned men who signed that document is endangered in my waking time. It was too good a dream to spoil.

No Jack Kennedy

John Kennedy's inaugural address featured the famous false dichotomy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." It took me many years to realize those are not the only two choices, but it made for a great applause line, and that's all that politicians are really angling for in these speeches anyway.

Just for grips and grins the other night, I ran a line down the middle of my legal pad and made two columns: "What you can do for your country" and "What your country can do for you." I figured keeping score would help keep me awake during the State of the Union address, which was more or less a work assignment.

Now, I write cynical stuff about the nanny state all the time, but even I was a little shocked after filling a page and a half with notes on one side and nothing - nada, zero, etc. - under "What you can do for your country." I guess that column is more implicit than explicit. What you can do for your country is take it: Stand or sit there quietly while the state extracts a significant portion of your income before you ever see it. Stand or sit there quietly while you're treated as a suspect, with all of your personal information, your property and your body subject to search at any time, not because you committed any crime but, well, just because.

But what the Decider says your country can do for you: Lower your taxes and/or prevent the automatic tax increase that will come if the tax cuts of a few years ago expire on time. Provide tax-free state bonds to help you refinance your mortgage. Make your health care more affordable and accessible. End junk medical lawsuits. Empower you to demand results from your children's schools (Oddly, I thought you already could make such demands, but apparently you need the state's permission or something.) Reduce the number of high school dropouts. Open up new markets for your products overseas. If you've lost your job, your country can teach you new skills and help you find a new job. Give researchers and developers the money to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. This is my favorite: Your country can slow, stop and eventually reverse the flow of greenhouse gases. Make donations to faith-based schools and organizations. Help Gulf Coast states rebuild stronger and better than before. Preserve entitlement programs so your children and grandchildren will be able to get government checks, too. Secure our borders and establish a program under which foreign workers can cross the borders legally. Spread the hope of freedom around the world. Deliver justice to our enemies. Expand access to child care and educational benefits for military families.

We don't have to ask what our country will do for us; it'll just give it all to us without our asking. The only thing it will not do is the best thing it could do for us: Leave us alone. Let us live and let live.

"So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure and the state of our union will remain strong," Mr. Bush said as he concluded. But that's the problem, you see: He and the rest of the ruling class do not trust the people, and so we struggle from paycheck to paycheck, our liberty is under attack from the very people we are told will secure it, and the state of our union can only be considered strong if you define "the union" as our central government, which attempts to keep us under its thumb.

Good thing our lives don't depend on the government. But sssshhhh, don't tell the government that, it hates to hear the truth.

The Meme - and My Answer

Sunni asked me when she interviewed me for her Salon - lewlew tagged me with the meme - and Wally tagged me for good measure. The question is:

What motivated you to start looking into anarchist/libertarian thought?

You know what? In my case, that's two questions. When Sunni asked me "what and who led you to the freedom philosophy," I said:

Well, growing up and living in Jersey is an essential building block, I think. Living there just makes you scream, I have to be free of this! [laughs] I was your typical geeky awkward teenager, reading comics and science fiction and hanging around with the smart kids. I think reading Orwell as a teen was huge for my eventual transformation—1984 and Animal Farm scared the bejeebers out of me, and as I slooooowwwly started figuring out that they were coming true before my eyes, I started coming around to a vision of something better. Gotta admit I got sold on Ronald Reagan—Reagan the talker who said government is the problem, not Reagan the president who compounded the problem. Not that I grokked it fully at the time—I actually was a loyal little Republican for longer than I care to admit. I think I started becoming vaguely aware of libertarianism and Libertarians in the late '80s.

The last year, and communing with folks like Wally Conger and you, has really helped me crystallize not just that Big Government is the problem, but that I'm not the only one who thinks reasonable people can do without government just fine. It's been a chance to put together disjointed and seemingly unconnected thoughts and try to make them a coherent whole—Reagan the talker not the president, Marrou, Orwell, Bradbury, Heinlein, Gandhi.

Oddly, I forgot to mention my father, who taught me about taking responsibility for my life and was not afraid to tell us kids about the follies of the government in general and Democrats in particular. He maintains some faith in the Republican Party well into his 80s, but even he seems skeptical of late. I would not relish liberty as dearly had he not instilled it in me.

I didn't explicitly tell Sunni that my path was set the night I heard Andre Marrou speak, during his 1992 run for president as the Libertarian Party candidate. "Both major parties want to be your parent," he said. "The Republicans want to be your daddy, and the Democrats want to be your mommy." The tumblers clicked into place in my mind that night.

Not long afterward I stumbled across Liberty magazine, which for many years was my lifeline to the movement. Bill Bradford's journalism and coverage of Libertarian Party conventions led me to the unpleasant realization that the LP was like any other political party, which was a good thing, which led me to the second half of the question - how did I start thinking about life without government altogether?

It began with the chance re-connection in 2005 with my childhood pen pal, Wally Conger, the California teenager who had corresponded with my New Jersey teenager self. Most folks who visit here know who Wally is, so they know how I started reading people like Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov and, finally recently, Ayn Rand. Funny, because I'm told it usually starts with Rand, but my awakening seems to be concluding with her. More on that in a few days. (I'm almost at the 60-page speech, guys! But I must admit I'm getting a little weary of speeches. I GET it, Ayn, I GET it, now get on with it!)

Tag someone else? Nah, I'm going to do what Roderick Long did - I tag everybody! On second thought, if kyfho and John Newman want to add their answers in my comment section, I would be most intrigued by what they have to say.