The Militant Libertarian

I'm pissed off and I'm a libertarian. What else you wanna know?

Saturday, June 19, 2004

"Voting is Force and Fraud"

Recently, in an email forum, I chimed in on the tired old "voting is force and fraud" debate. Here's the post I responded to followed by my response.

Rubbish. When a libertarian votes, he *plays the force-initiator's game*.

"DC? We're having a vote to steal you stuff!"

DC: "Uh, OK. I vote 'no'."

Now, are you going to *abide by the results if you lose*?

Why do you play games that you *know* are rigged against you? Is it genetic stupidity? I'm at a total loss figuring out why libertarians still play the vote game when it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the mob votes in excess of 90% for commie redistributionist candidates in EVERY ELECTION.

The only proper, moral response to an election in which your rights are to be submitted to mob-approval is "stuff your 'vote'."

STOP voting and START organized civil disobedience.

10,000 disobedient libertarians -- when will I see the day?

This is the oldest, dumbest, and by the far most lame-assed debate topic in all of libertarian/archistic thought.

Anarchists all say "don't vote." That's to be expected - voting implies government, anarchists don't believe in government. Libertarians tend to vascillate, depending on whether that libertarian is a closet anarchist or not.

To not vote in today's system is to say "to hell with it, let them do what they will to me, my children, my family, and everyone else." I see fraud being perpetrated there. The fraud being that you're telling people that if they don't vote, they can somehow "opt out" of the system because they "aren't part of it."

Go ahead, opt out of the next election and when the new laws come down on your head from those you didn't vote for, don't obey those laws. I'm sure the judge will love your argument and you'll get plenty of the "kook" and "wacko" who thinks that since he didn't vote, he gets to disobey "the Law."

Real intelligent there.

Here's what I'm doing: I vote in every election, every primary, and I attend the conventions and caucuses of every viable political party (meaning "on the ballot") in my area. I insinuate my libertarian ideas into those meetings and choose the candidate who best exemplifies what I'd like to see. Then I vote.

I also keep in practice with various military-style weapons and keep myself up-to-date on national and world news. I write letters to the editor (that get published!), work in community activism, etc. I keep friends around me who think the same way and do the same things.

All of this means I'm informed, active, and dangerous to the establishment.

We disdain "libertarians" and "anarchists" who sit around gabbing about the fine points of their respective philosophies and do nothing more than "what if" about the future. We DO something about the future. Do you?

Voting isn't just a duty, it's self defense!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Friday, June 18, 2004

Our rights do not come from the Constitution

by Bob Smith

One of the pivotal keys to understanding our nation and our government is a clear, basic understanding of our Constitution. To our own shame, most Americans know little or nothing about the document that established the relationship between the citizenry and our government. That relationship had, throughout most of history, been undocumented, because those in power held power through force, or divine right, or both. If one has a secure right to rule, no discussion or documentation is needed.

Understanding why the U.S. Constitution was written, and what it set out to accomplish is much simpler when we consider the mind-set of those who wrote and passed it. It makes little difference who wrote the words... 38 representatives of 12 states accepted it and signed it, and not without a lot of disagreement. Remember, the people of the colonies uniting to form the United States had been British subjects, who, for reasons we might consider trivial today, had denounced their King and declared themselves independent. They were willing to take on their own powerful nation to form their own. What they wanted was quite specific... a government that was subservient to the will of the people. That the Preamble of the Constitution begins with "We the People", written oversized, is of immense significance.

The Constitution established how the new government would be organized, and places restrictions on what that government could do, but the great significance of it, and what made it unique in the history of man was that RELATIONSHIP... that we, the people, are voluntarily establishing a government of our design and choosing... a government that is to be controlled by the citizens of our nation.

That was a radical idea, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and then carried over into the Constitution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Government are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Unalienable rights... "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred"... rights that PRECEDE government of any kind... natural rights of men, whether there is government or not.

Then, the single purpose of our government is stated... "to secure these Rights", we the people are creating a government. The government is being created simply as a means to PROTECT the rights the people already have. It goes on to be very clear that government has powers only with the "Consent of the Governed", and that we retain the natural right to alter that government or to abolish it.

These early founders of our nation were very suspicious men. They understood the downside of government... the natural tendency toward corruption and power-mongering. Their clear intent, in the Declaration and Constitution was to try to insure that this new government would never get out of the control of the citizenry.

These founders were not perfect but certainly wise. They could have written a Constitution that contained a list of actions prohibited to government, but they knew that would not prevent new actions not on the list. They took a different approach. They wanted a limited government, so they specified what that government could undertake. These things, and no more. That was further emphasized in the 8th and 9th amendments:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

An unfortunate number of Americans are ignorant of how revolutionary and significant the foundation of our government was. It inspired freedom movements around the globe. If I had to choose one single criticism of our school systems, it would be the complete failure to present the wonder and uniqueness intended for our citizen/government relationship. But then, to be fair, should we expect schools increasingly controlled by our bloated governments to teach that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes public education?

Thus, the relationship between the citizens and their government has been so distorted that we have come to think of ourselves again as "subjects", at the mercy of that which was created to protect our natural rights. Almost all that occurs in Congress and the White House is far beyond the limitations imposed by the Constitution. Those we've elected understand that they're ignoring the Oath of their offices, and they don't give a damn. They're not eager to concede limitations on the power they've acquired.

This article was triggered by an email from a reader, incensed by the misrepresentation tossed into a StarTribune editorial to justify a position I happen to agree with, that the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" was unconstitutional:

There's nothing especially mysterious about the U.S. Constitution. Written by James Madison and a host of fellow geniuses a few centuries back, it simply spells out the guarantees to which all Americans are entitled --including, as the preamble plainly declares, the "blessings of liberty."

The purpose of the Constitution was not to "simply spell out guarantees", but to define and limit the government. The "Bill of Rights" the first 10 amendments, added later as further protection, specifies some rights, but to characterize that as the purpose of the Constitution is to ignore the real purpose.

The editorial goes on to say:

Thanks to the "blessings of liberty" bestowed by the U.S. Constitution --and the wisdom of a San Francisco judge -- the question remains where it ought to be: in the hands of women and the doctors they consult.

The "blessings of liberty" are not bestowed (gifted) by the Constitution. Again, those "blessings" existed before the Constitution, and, as the Preamble clearly says - "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

We were not gifted with rights by the founders of the United States; on that point they are exceedingly specific. The rights we hold, we hold independent of government, prior to government, and those rights are inalienable. The distinction makes all the difference in the world. Our government cannot legitimately attempt to define and grant rights of any kind. It's purpose is to secure and protect the rights we had before government was created by us.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!


Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Under the Banner of the 'War on Terror'

When President Bush called Americans to enlist in his "war on terror," very few citizens could have grasped the all-encompassing consequences of the proposition. The terrifying events of 9/11 were like a blinding flash, benumbing the country with a sudden knowledge of unimagined dangers. Strong action was recommended, skeptics were silenced and a shallow sense of unity emerged from the shared vulnerabilities. Nearly three years later, the enormity of Bush's summons to open-ended "war" is more obvious. It overwhelmed the country, in fact deranged society's normal processes and purposes with a brilliantly seductive political message: Terror pre-empts everything else.

What this President effectively accomplished was to restart the cold war, albeit under a new rubric. The justifying facts are different and smaller, but the ideological dynamics are remarkably similar - a total commitment of the nation's energies to confront a vast, unseen and malignant adversary. Fanatical Muslims replaced Soviet Communists and, like the reds, these enemies could be anywhere, including in our midst (they may not even be Muslims, but kindred agents who likewise "hate" us and oppose our values). Like the cold war's, the logic of this new organizing framework can be awesomely compelling to the popular imagination because it runs on fear - the public's expanding fear of potential dangers. The political commodity of fear has no practical limits. The government has the ability to manufacture more.

Click here to read more!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

9/11 Commission Hearings Could Have Been Avoided...

Tuesday, June 15, 2004


I was going over the site statistics again for to see how we're doing. This site currently averages 108 unique visitors per day! WOO HOO!

Hopefully, that's 108 people who are reading thigns, getting pissed, and doing something about it. :)

Is it?

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Diebold Electronic Voting Machines...

Monday, June 14, 2004

Utah Freedom Activist Newsletter

My latest venture:

Introducing The Utah Freedom Activist Newsletter: a new publication for freedom activists all over the state of Utah. This publication is free to sign up for (via email) and very inexpensive in print!

The Utah Freedom Activist Newsletter (UFA) will publish bi-weekly and will feature opinion editorials with a freedom bent, a calendar of the next month's worth of freedom rallies, get-togethers, events, and more to keep you, as a political activist for freedom, up-to-date on where you should be and what you can be doing to promote freedom in Utah.

To learn more about us, visit for more information.


Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Avert Your Eyes!

Got comments? Email me, dammit!

Sunday, June 13, 2004

Release of Home Addresses Angers Concealed-Carry Licensees\Culture\archive\200406\CUL20040611a.html

( - A Second Amendment group says the sheriff in Shelby County, Ohio, had no right to release the home addresses of 87 people licensed to carry concealed pistols.

Aaron's Note: One more reason to NOT get a CCW "permit" and instead just exercise your right to carry - carrying concealed (or openly) is a RIGHT and by getting a "permit" you are conceding to the State that you do not consider it to be such.

Got comments? Email me, dammit!