Main menu

Opening the Cage (Part 3 of 3)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/26/2007)

(Note: Regarding my last message, don't confuse rights with
abilities. Even when completely justified, having a shootout with
the cops is almost always hazardous to one's health. My prior
message wasn't a suggestion; it was a statement about moral
justification. As long as most people insist on believing that the
collective owns them--via "government"--it will be really dangerous
to be one of the crazies who thinks he owns himself. The other
sheep don't take kindly to those who resist being fleeced.)

Dear Subscriber,

Almost everyone is a part-time collectivist. Most people have a few
things which THEY want imposed on everyone else via "authority,"
but when something they don't like is imposed upon THEM, they get
all self-righteous and indignant about it. Well, to paraphrase (and
slightly mangle) the "golden rule," if you don't want other people
doing it to you, DON'T DO IT TO THEM!

If I go around randomly killing people, others have the right to
stop me by force, not because they own me, but because they own
THEMSELVES, which logically implies the right of self-preservation.
But if I'm not stomping on someone else's self-ownership, NO ONE
has the right to use force to control me. If I want to smoke pot (I
don't), have a rifle (I do), wear women's underwear (I don't), eat
cheeseburgers (I sometimes do), marry an aardvark (I don't), say
nasty things about politicians (I do), or hit myself in the head
with a baseball bat (I've felt like it on occasion, but haven't
yet), no one has the right to forcibly stop me. And calling the
control "law" makes exactly NO difference to whether the control is
justified. If the "government" doesn't OWN me, it has exactly ZERO
right to do a thing to me, unless it's defending someone ELSE'S
self-ownership (in which case, anyone would have the right to stop

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent,
it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful
liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits
drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within
the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will,
and always so when it violates the right of an individual." [Thomas

Sadly, people rarely think from principles, so they play both sides
of the fence. Your average "liberal" will holler about his rights
to smoke pot if he wants to, and then turn around and advocate the
robbery of almost everyone in the country, in order to fund things
HE likes (art, welfare, whatever). Meanwhile, the average
"conservative" insists that he has a right to own firearms and
drink his beer, but wants the "law" to forcibly stop someone else
from doing LSD.

"Boo hoo! My rights are being infringed!" Well, if you're
advocating that anyone ELSE'S rights be infringed, serves you
right! If you think it's just fine for the "legal" thugs to kick
down doors, drag people away, and put them in cages, because they
had a LEAF the politicians don't approve of, then when those same
thugs rob and control YOU, don't whine about it. Or, to quote a far
more eloquent expression of the same sentiment:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without
at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."
[Frederick Douglass]

Sadly, things are discussed in terms of legislation so often these
days that most people have a hard time differentiating between
"That's a bad idea" and "That should be illegal." There are LOTS of
choices people make that are stupid or dangerous (physically or
otherwise)--everything from eating too much junk food, to snorting
coke, to skateboarding, to sitting in front of a computer too much
(that's me), to sleeping around, to watching too much TV, to
drinking too much beer--the list goes on and on. Acknowledging that
you have no right to use VIOLENCE to stop those things is worlds
away from saying you CONDONE such choices. But if you want to be
allowed the responsibility to make your own choices, and you don't
want to be a complete hypocrite (and a fascist), you have to also
allow other people to make choices you think are stupid.

My advice: Treat everyone as if he owns himself. Because he does.
Don't advocate that he be forced, "legally" or otherwise, to do
ANYTHING, except for refraining from infringing on someone else's
self-ownership. And if you do advocate using non-defense force,
don't pretend to believe in freedom; and when you then find such
unjustified force aimed at YOU, you damn well deserve it.


Larken Rose

Opening the Cage (Part 2)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/25/2007)

[Note: As I've mentioned before, there are now TWO e-mails lists I
send stuff to: one about the 861 evidence, and one about politicial
philosophy. If you just want to hear about the tax issue, you can
unsubscribe from this list (instructions below) and you will NOT be
unsubscribed from the 861 list. You can be on either, both, or

Dear Subscriber,

Once again, let's peek out the open door of the "authority" cage,
and see what there is to see out in the world of "I own me." It's
drastically different from how the world looks from inside the
locked cage. "Countries" are but one concept that falls apart once
we accept that we own ourselves.

In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass (former slave) described
how a lot of slaves back in those days were completely convinced
that slaves are what they SHOULD be. Many, if not most, would even
look down upon any slave who would be so despicable as to try to
run away. To the radical like Mr. Douglass, however, who realized
that no amount of whips, chains, or cages could change the fact
that he rightfully owned HIMSELF, the world looked drastically
difference. To him, the supposed "owner" was the enemy--an evil
thief committing both assault and theft on a daily basis.

The world looks very different depending upon one's ideas about who
he belonged to: himself or someone else. In hindsight, most of us
look back at that time and sympathize with the lawless, disobedient
"slaves" who were willing to break the LAW in order to assert their
rights to be free. But most people refuse to accept the same
principle as it applies today.

It was not too many years ago that, when I heard the term "law
enforcement," it had a positive connotation for me. The cops were
the good guys, enforcing "the law" against those nasty criminals
(defined as anyone who disobeys the "law"). However, now that I
realize that I own myself, and that the same is true of every other
individual, "police" appear to me as what they really are: people
who commit evil far more often than they commit good. I'm not
talking about when they break the law, which happens often, too--
I'm talking about when they enforce an immoral, unjustified "law,"
which is MOST of the time. The number of "laws" which simply
formalize the use of inherently justified defensive force (such as
"laws" against theft, murder, assault, etc.) are far outnumbered by
the so-called "laws" which ADVOCATE theft, murder, and assault.

(Warning: If you like your view from inside the cage, you may not
want to continue reading.)

I own me. You own you. Every person owns himself. If some guy wants
to fry his brain, it is HIS to fry. So long as he doesn't go around
messing with someone else's self-ownership--whether out of malice
or negligence--NO ONE has the right to use force to stop him from
frying his brain (though we have every right to try to talk him out
of it, to call him a moron, etc.). And calling violence "law" has
NO bearing on whether it is justified.

When someone hiding behind the label of "authority" or "law
enforcement" forces his way into someone's home, with the intention
of catching the homeowner with an unapproved LEAF (e.g.,
marijuana), in order to drag that person away and put him in a cage
for several years, the leaf-smoker has the absolute right to use
any means necessary, including killing the intruder (the "cop"), to
protect himself.

The same holds true of the victims of ALL non-defensive "law
enforcement." For example, Ed and Elaine Brown up in New Hampshire
have the absolute moral right to use any means necessary, including
deadly force, to prevent the authoritarian thugs from taking them
hostage and putting them in cages. Even if they were guilty of the
"crime" of "tax evasion," which I believe they are NOT, the Browns
would still own themselves, and still have the absolute right to
defend their self-ownership from thieves and terrorists, regardless
of whether the theft and terrorism is "legal" or not.

Surely I'm not defending the "cop-killer" mentality?! Actually, I
am doing precisely that, when the so-called "cops" are the ones
doing the robbery, assault, or kidnapping. Despite how radical that
may sound, it was not at all an usual attitude among those who
started this country. The Declaration of Independence says that the
only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the unalienable
rights of the individual, and when it "becomes destructive of those
ends," it is both the right and duty of the people to overthrow it
and start over. Here are a few other radical things Thomas
Jefferson, author of the Declaration, also said:

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal
rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to
restrain him."

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as
are injurious to others."

(In other messages I'll explain why even "legitimate government" is

And when "government" force is used, not to defend those rights,
but to infringe upon them, then what? Then, according to me and
Thomas Jefferson, we have the right to FORCIBLY RESIST. Oddly,
almost everyone agrees, when they're talking about some "authority"
they DON'T worship, but they believe it's the ultimate blasphemy to
suggest the same regarding the "authority" THEY bow to. For
example, it was ILLEGAL in 1940's Germany for the various
"undesirables" to hide from the Nazis. Those who did were law-
breakers; those who found them and dragged them away were "law
enforcers." And those "law enforcers" all deserved to have their
damn heads blown off. And us modern Americans don't mind saying
that out loud, and in public. How about Stalin's "law enforcers"?
How about Mao's? How about the "law enforcers" of King George III?
We dang near deify the lawless, traitorous rebels who resisted
George's laws, and don't mind at all the idea of his "law
enforcers" getting gunned down. Heck, we have a big celebration
about it every July 4th.

How about today? When thugs and terrorists put a MILLION people in
cages for possessing a SUBSTANCE, who should we be cheering for? It
depends who owns the individual. If each individual owns himself,
then those horrible "drug dealers" are the GOOD GUYS, and the
"cops" are the BAD GUYS. (If the drug dealers happened to also have
committed a REAL crime--the kind with an actual victim--like theft
or murder, then they are the bad guys, too, but NOT because they
had some "illegal" stuff.)

I warned you, if you accept the idea that you own yourself, the way
the world looks changes drastically. Most people don't like to
think, and don't like to face disturbing truths, so they look for
excuses to REJECT the idea that they own themselves. They revere
"authority" and "the law"--superstitions which serve as a sort of
philosophical crutch to help people not have to think and judge for
themselves. Again, they see the open cage door, and they back away
from it, thus guaranteeing their perpetual enslavement, in body and
mind. (Those people then vigorously and passionately argue in favor
of their own enslavement, which I find rather depressing.) But some
of us choose something else. It's called freedom.


Larken Rose

Only Two Options

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

It never ceases to amaze me how people change what I say in order
to be able to rebut it. Some people "advocate" anarchy, meaning
they suggest doing away with government altogether, abolishing it,
and forming a free society. That is NOT what I am suggesting, any
more than I am suggesting that Santa Claus be abolished. I am
arguing about what IS, not what SHOULD be. The only "should" I'm
suggesting is that people "should" accept open their eyes to
reality, accept the truth, and throw away the insane, self-
contradictory, horribly destructive superstition upon which ALL of
the political beliefs of 99.9% of the population rest. I don't want
to CHANGE reality; I merely want people to RECOGNIZE it, and then
deal with it as they see fit. When people tell me that they don't
think my idea will "work," or aren't "practical" or "realistic," it
tells me that those people aren't reading what I wrote. About 90%
of political discussions I have with people amount to this:

Me: "Santa Claus isn't real. He doesn't exist."

Other guy: "But Christmas would never work without Santa! We can't
do away with him! You're being too idealistic. The people would
never get Christmas to work without Santa! They're just not
charitable enough. Sure, there should be limits on what Santa is
allowed to do, but we can't have NO Santa. That would never work!
Your idea is too extreme. We need Santa to do SOME things!"

Let me break this down to something which is both amazingly simple,
and yet which hardly anyone ever thinks about (and which you will
NEVER hear discussed in any mainstream politic debate, or in any
"educational" institution):

Fred and Bob are hungry. There is one sandwich on the table in
front of them. They both want it. Who gets it? It depends upon who
"owns" it--who has a rightful claim to it? To whom does it belong?

The concept is pretty darn simple. Now try this: Who owns me? Do I
own myself, or does someone else (an individual or a group) own me?
At this point almost everyone responds by saying that I own me--but
almost NO ONE actually believes it.

What does it mean to own something? It mean to have the exclusive
right to use it as you see fit, to dispose of it if you wish, to
give it away, to sell it, whatever. For any given thing--including
me--SOMEONE has to have the "final say" on what is done with it. So
the question is, who has the ultimate say over what is done with

I do. And from that one simple statement, ALL of my political
beliefs can be inferred. Trouble is, most people never bother to
consider what all logically follows from that one simple statement.

There are four guys, including me, in a room. I want to play the
piano. They want to play doubles dominoes, which they can't without
four people. Now, they have the right to try to talk me into
playing, or pay me, but when it comes right down to it, who has the
RIGHT to decide whether I play the piano or play dominoes? Me.

There are 22 guys, including me. I want to draw dinosaurs, and they
all want to play official-rules football (which requires 22
people). NOW who has the ultimate right to decide which I do? They
can beg, persuade, try a guilt-trip, bribe, bargain, etc., but in
the end, I AND I ALONE have the right to decide what is done with
me. Why? Because I own me, and they don't.

If this seems so self-evident and so obvious that you're wondering
why I would bother explaining it, that's a good thing. Hold onto
your brains as we compare that painfully simple concept to the
authoritarian indoctrination we've all been exposed to.

If I own me, then I own what I produce. (The owner of the cow is
also the owner of the milk.) If I build a chair, with my own time
and effort, it belongs to me. And if I decide to trade my chair for
someone else's basket of apples, then the apples become mine. They
belong to me, every bit as much as I belong to me. If I instead
trade my chair for a few silver coins, the silver belongs to me. No
one else. Me. I own me, so I own it.

Okay, I think I've about beaten that point to death, and at this
point hardly anyone would disagree--at least, they don't THINK they
disagree. Do you think I own myself? If you say "yes," try this
little test: If I want to spend all the silver I got from selling a
bunch of chairs, to buy a boat from someone else, do I have that
right? If I own me, I certainly do.

Oh, but wait. Some guys decided they get a cut of what I earn,
which they call a "tax," in order to do stuff and buy stuff THEY
think is important. Is that okay? How about if it's only a 1%
"tax"? Then is it okay?

If you answer "Yes," you do NOT believe I own me; you believe that
"government," or the collective, or my neighbors, or something else
owns me, but that I don't own myself.

As with the sandwich, SOMEONE has the ultimate right to say what is
done with it. If anyone, or any group of people--whether wearing
the label of "authority" or not--has the RIGHT to take what I
earned--essentially, the right to take a piece of me--and I do not
have the right to overrule them, then THEY OWN ME. It's no more
complicated than that.

Ownership is digital: either I own me, or someone else does. It
can't be both. When there is a conflict of ideas about what should
be done with me, ONE side--the side which OWNS me--has the final
say. If we disagree, whoever has the moral RIGHT to enforce his
decision is the rightful OWNER of me. If you believe in "taxation"
at all, in any form and to any degree, you believe that someone
ELSE has the final say, which means THEY own me, and I don't.

As you ponder that thought, don't be tempted to rant about what we
"need," or what "works," or what is "practical" or "realistic."
There are two options here, and ONLY two options: 1) I own me, or
2) someone else owns me. So which is it? Don't tell me what you
think is "necessary" for civilization, or how society has to be
arranged, or whether my philosophy would "work." Don't bother
fishing for excuses for your answer, and don't try muddling the
waters with rhetoric about "consent of the governed," or "giving up
some of our rights," or what will happen to society if people don't
accept your answer, or any other evasions. (In other words, don't
parrot the obfuscations and bunk that has been force-fed to all of
us in order to obscure and mangle what should be a painfully simple
concept.) Just tell me, WHO OWNS ME? (At the same time, you will be
answering another question: "Who owns YOU?")


Larken Rose

Opening the Cage (Part 1)

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/20/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

If one accepts the fundamental truth that each of us owns himself,
and ponders all the things which logically follow from that simple
concept, the way the world looks suddenly changes drastically.
Concepts like "government," "law," "authority," "countries," and so
on, fall apart like a house of cards. Because that scares the heck
out of people, however, many go to great lengths to DENY that they
own themselves. The ramifications are just too weird, and too
scary, for most people to even think about.

Here is just one example:

I own me. Imagine that the me I own is standing ten feet south of
the border between Montana and Canada, looking at the nifty
scenery. While I stand there, some people way over in Washington
think they have the RIGHT to rule me: to impose taxes, regulations,
commands, requirements, prohibitions, and so on, which (they think)
I am obligated to obey. But I own me, and they don't, so I have
exactly ZERO obligation to obey any of their proclamations and

(I do, however, have an obligation to refrain from doing anything
which would impinge upon someone ELSE'S self-ownership, such as
robbing, defrauding, murdering, vandalizing, assaulting, and so on.
But that obligation does not come from any "legislation," nor could
any "law" or "rule" alter that obligation one bit.)

Now, if I step over that imaginary line, into Canada, then a
DIFFERENT set of megalomaniacs imagine themselves to have the right
to tax me, regulate me, command me, control me, and so on. (In
fact, they also think they have the right to prohibit me from
stepping over the line in the first place.) Their claim is equally
bogus: I own me no matter where I am. What I am obligated to do
doesn't depend one bit upon who thinks they have the right to rule
me. None of them do.

That being the case, what is the significance of that border to me?
What difference is there between one "country" and the next, if I
actually own myself? Yes, what might HAPPEN to me in different
places will be different (many foreign megalomaniacs are a lot more
overtly vicious to the noncompliant than the ones here), and what
the people there will think, and how they will behave, will be
different, but what I am OBLIGATED to do, and obligated to REFRAIN
from doing, doesn't change one bit.

Some people have asked me, without borders, how could we have a
country? I gave them the disturbing answer: we shouldn't have a
country. No one should. (Please don't be so silly as to read that
as an agreement with the "New World Order" fascists.) Today,
"countries" are defined solely by WHICH group of megalomaniacs
claim the right to rule a certain piece of dirt. Sure, cultures and
places are real, and I can see feeling a loyalty or attachment to
that. But imaginary lines drawn by people who believe they own me?
Why on earth should I care about that?

When I walk from the place in Montana, to the place that looks
exactly the same in Canada, what did I leave behind? Why should I
feel any differently? What actually changed? Did morality CHANGE,
because a different set of tyrants claim to be in charge here?
Unless you think that politicians outrank nature, the universe, or
God (or whatever you believe to be the origin of right and wrong),
the "law" cannot possibly ALTER morality. If I still own me, what
difference does a "border" make?

Again, people often go flying off to all sorts of tangents when
faced with these concepts. They start pontificating about what we
need, what works for society, all the nasty things that will happen
if we don't all bow to an authority, and so on. But again, I'm just
talking about what IS. If I own myself--and I do--what possible
meaning can "countries" have to me? I might like a group of people,
or a place, or a culture, but that is NOT what a "country" is. (I
bet everyone on this list can think of a LOT of places in the U.S.,
and a LOT of people in the U.S., who they feel no attachment to and
no comradery with.)

The path to accepting freedom is really disturbing to almost
everyone (it sure was to me), which is why most people desperately
fish for an excuse for NOT going down that path. "THERE WOULD BE
dire predictions or emotional tantrums can alter the painfully
simple logic involved: either I own me, or I am the property of
someone else. And if I simply accept that I own me, the world looks
like a VERY different place.

The feeling is exactly like that of an animal that has been in a
small cage all its life, suddenly being shown a vast expanse of
open wilderness (like Montana, for example). Unfortunately, most
caged animals, when they catch a glimpse of freedom, cower into the
back corner of their cage, and snarl and whimper until the door is
shut again.

How about you?


Larken Rose

(P.S. If you're wondering why I chose Montana, I have no idea. I
haven't been there for about 20 years, but as I recall, it's pretty
darn cool.)

Illegal People?

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Well, it's time for me to make some more enemies.

So much of most peoples' political beliefs, including among people
who consider themselves to be pro-freedom, stems from false
assumptions, and from the belief in that mythical beast called

We now scoff at the old belief in the "divine right of kings": the
notion that, by an accident of birth, someone had more rights than
other people, and had the right to forcibly control those other
people. Silly, huh? Well, that ridiculous belief is back, and it's
called "illegal immigration."

How, exactly, does someone born several THOUSANDS miles away, in
Alaska, have an inherent RIGHT to stand in El Paso, Texas, but
someone born in Ciudad Juarez, just across the river, doesn't
(without special permission from the tyrants in Washington)?

A lot changes when you lose the self-contradictory belief in
"government." A lot of concepts you accepted as self-evident
evaporate, such as country borders, citizenship, patriotism, and
nationalism. Take, for example, that imaginary line between Mexico
and the U.S. What is it? How did it get there? It is the boundary
between the dirt which one set of tyrants claims the right to rule,
and the dirt which another set of tyrants claims the right to rule.
You can wave the flag all you want, and talk about "your" country
and "patriotism," but the fact is, country boundaries are based
entirely upon the inherently bogus, arbitrary claims of the RIGHT
TO RULE made by various megalomaniacs.

You have no more "right" to be here than someone born in Zimbabwe,
or Budapest, or anywhere else. Therefore, you have no right to use
force to stop them from coming here, nor can you delegate to
someone ELSE the right to do so. To put it as bluntly as I can, ALL
"immigration laws" are 100% illegitimate, unjustifiable violence--
all of them, in every country, under any circumstances.

You can wave "laws" around, wave the Constitution around, and make
generalizations all you want, but if you forcibly stop someone who
only wants to walk from one piece of dirt to another, YOU are the
one initiating violence; YOU are the bad guy. (If, on the other
hand, the piece of dirt he wants to walk on is your own personal
property, you have the right to keep him off. But unless you
believe you personally own this entire COUNTRY, that cannot
possibly justify any "immigration" laws.)

Oddly, as often happens, in the case of immigration, FREEDOM gets
the blame for problems caused by TYRANNY. "But those dang Mexicans
come over here and get public benefits, and welfare, and free
schooling!" So which is the problem: them walking over an invisible
line, or YOUR "government"--consisting entirely of Americans--
forcibly robbing one person to give a handout to someone else?

If someone accepts stolen property, that's bad. And it's bad
regardless of where the person was born, or what imaginary lines he
has walked over. So why do Americans whine about "illegals" getting
government benefits more than they do about the millions of
American parasites doing the same thing? (I won't even bother
getting into the actual statistics on which demographic groups get
more government goodies, and which produce more for the economy,
because it's beside the point.)

And how backwards and fascist is it to have the attitude of: "Well,
you MIGHT apply for government handouts, so we're going to use
force to keep you out of this country"? Guilty until proven
innocent? Yep. Those who want to come here "legally" have to go to
great lengths to prove that they will be productive, and not a
drain on society. (Hilariously, they have to prove this to people
in "government," who themselves are nothing BUT a drain on

Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with "amnesty" for "illegals." The
only reason I don't, however, is that the people who have no right
to STOP people from coming here also have no right to give them
PERMISSION to come here, which is what "amnesty" means. People born
on this planet (or on any others, for that matter) have the right
to come here, just as much as you have the right to be here. It's a
little funny that so many people whose grandparents came here from
Europe, Africa, Asia, and so on, are now whining that Mexicans have
no right to be on this piece of dirt. (The Americans indians are
probably getting a chuckle out of that.) And don't whine about some
doing it "legally," because that makes exactly NO difference when
it comes to morality. The morality of an act does NOT depend upon
whether politicians have given it their blessing via "legislation."

As I've said before, the world looks very different when not viewed
through "authority"-colored glasses. On one hand, many things get a
lot simpler. On the other hand, you lose the intellectual cop-out
of mass violence via "government" intervention as the default
solution to all problems, whether it be poverty, crime, illiteracy,
substance abuse, or even those dadburn "furriners" coming here.
Deal with them WITHOUT initiating violence, or stop pretending to
be pro-freedom.


Larken Rose

Hit A Nerve

(originally launched into cyberspace on 08/18/2007)

Dear Subscriber,

Wow, did I ever hit a nerve with some people with that last e-mail,
about the bogus concept of "illegal immigration." A few people even
unsubscribed, which I always find interesting: at what point does
someone not want to HEAR opposing views? And why? Anyway, just in
case I wasn't clear enough, I'll jam the knife into that nerve
again, in a more detailed manner.

Let's use a specific scenario, instead of sloshing around vague
generalities: Juan is an American citizen (of Mexican ancestry) who
lives in El Paso, and owns a restaurant. His cousin, Carlos, lives
just across the river, in Mexico. Juan wants Carlos to come live in
his big house, and work at his restaurant. Carlos wants that too.

Question: Do you personally have the right to take a gun, go to
Juan's house, and tell Carlos that he CANNOT live in that house,
and CANNOT work in that restaurant?

Answer the question, at least to yourself, before you continue.
Once again, you can hide behind various "authority" mythology, like
"Constitutions" and "laws," but what it comes down to in reality is
that if you forcibly chased Carlos away, YOU are the one initiating
violence; YOU are the one oppressing someone who has done nothing
to harm you or anyone else; YOU are the bad guy. And if you ask
someone ELSE to do the thuggery for you (like "government"), you
are still the bad guy.

If you want to disagree with me, I welcome your comments, though I
make one request: prefaced your criticisms with a specific ANSWER
to the above question: Do YOU, yourself, without any assistance of
the cult of "authority" or "law," have the right to forcibly evict

Interestingly, those who think it's okay to use violence to keep
people from crossing the invisible line--including most of the
people who wrote e-mails to me disagreeing with my last message--
like to CHANGE the question, to try to justify their position.

"They come here and rob us!" Oh, really? Every one of them? Robbing
you is a crime, and you have the right to use force to stop someone
from doing that (and the right to hire someone else to do it). If
by "rob" us you mean accepting "government" goodies, that's bad
too, but no worse than the millions of Americans who do it. But
what if, like the hypothetical Carlos above, the person just wants
to come earn a living? Then what excuse is there for forcibly
stopping him?

Trouble is, real freedom can be really inconvenient, because it
means letting OTHER people be free, too. For example, it would be
rather inconvenient for me (and lots of you) if a thousand non-
English-speaking Mexicans moved into my neighborhood. I wouldn't
understand them, couldn't communicate with them, I would have very
little in common with most of them, and would probably have very
different political, religious, and other beliefs than they do.
Does that give me the right to FORCIBLY keep those people out?

In response to my last message, a couple people used the bogus
logic that is often used to try to defend drug prohibition: if you
don't want it forcibly combatted, you must LIKE it. That does not
follow. I think that frying your brain repeatedly is a really bad
idea. But I have no right to use FORCE to prevent you from doing
so. In case you're wondering, I've never used narcotics, or even
alcohol, so this isn't just a case of me wanting to be allow to get
wasted--it's a matter of principle. The same is true of
"immigration" issues: I wouldn't want my neighborhood overrun with
people completely unlike me, but I have no right to FORCIBLY stop
them from buying property here, or getting a job here.

Incidentally, a few people tried to blame my "extremist" view on
the "immigration" thing to my own treatment at the hands of
"government," or my imprisonment. I hate to deprive anyone of their
easy excuse to get out of thinking about things, but I have
believed this for years. As ALL of my "political" (or anti-
political) beliefs, it's simply a logical deduction based on the
radical idea that every individual owns himself, and no one owns
anybody else.

So many political discussions hide the stark reality under piles of
euphemisms, rhetoric, and authoritarian-speak. (The ultimate
intellectual cop-out is, "But it's the law!" So? ANYTHING can be
made into "law." That doesn't make it right.) When the
indoctrination and thought-mangling is stripped away, and the plain
truth is stated, it scares the heck out of people. While I got a
few rational disagreements in response to my last message, I got a
lot more emotional tantrums. Why? Because I took the discussion in
a direction they didn't WANT to think about.

So let's state in clear, literal terms what the two "sides" of the
discussion are advocating:

1) Some advocate that violence be used to stop people from crossing
an imaginary line, or to send people back over that imaginary line,
based upon where those people were born, and upon whether they have
the permission of politicians to cross that line.

2) Some (including me) say that such force is unjustified.

So, would YOU feel justified, without any authoritarian
intellectual crutches to hide behind ("law," "authority," etc.), in
pulling a gun on the single mother and her two-year-old son who
just waded across a river to try to escape the political and
economic mess of Mexico? If you would do that, then at least you
can consistently advocate that "government" do it. If not, then
you're being hypocritical, and using the myth of "authority" to do
things you know to be wrong.

And don't try the over-generalization and/or guilt-by-association
excuse. "A lot of them come over and commit crimes, and rob us, and
murder us!" So do Americans, but you won't hear anyone saying that
we should ALL be deported because we fit in a statistical category
that includes some bad people. If individual people commit actual
crimes--the kinds with victims, not the made-up "legislative" kind--
then using force to stop them is justified. But you don't have the
right to use violence against someone because you theorize that
they MIGHT do something bad if you don't. (Think how much you
protest when those in "government" treat YOU as "guilty until
proven innocent.")

I prefer to be around people like me (all two of them). Almost
everyone prefers to be with their own kind, though their "kind"
doesn't necessarily mean their race: it can mean a religion, a
cultural background, a philosophical outlook, etc. In every major
city, you can see that a LOT of people engage in voluntary
segregation. People are more comfortable when they live among like-
minded people, and there's nothing particularly evil about that.

And THAT is the tendency which politicians exploit via the
"immigration" debate. They want Americans to have the attitude that
this huge piece of dirt (defined by an absolutely arbitrary line)
is "OUR" country, and that those dang foreigners don't BELONG here.
(Never mind that if you go back a few generations, 99% of us are
"foreigners.") The fear--whether real or not--of your town being
overrun by people NOT LIKE YOU is used as a tool to get you to
support "government" power, via "immigration law." But, like EVERY
"problem"--real or imagined--which "government" pretends to fight
against, those in power have NO intention of fixing anything. They
merely milk the problem for all it's worth, to get YOU to give them
power. And a LOT of Americans fall for it, just as they fall for
the tyrants' fear-mongering about poverty, and health care, and
terrorism, and every other problem imaginable.

Sadly, most pro-freedom people even fall back on insisting that "we
NEED government to do THIS thing..." And so the precedent is set:
if the people are convinced that authoritarian control, and a
corresponding loss of individual freedom, is "necessary," then it's
okay. Of course, ANY increase in state power can be--and will be--
deemed "necessary" by those who seek the power. As a result, once
we accept one INCH of the idea that "government" violence is
legitimate where it's really "needed," we're on a one-way road to
totalitarianism. If, on the other hand, we take the "extreme" view
that either YOU AND I have the right and responsibility to fix a
problem, or NO ONE does, then freedom survives. Once you let ANY
problem--real or imagined--scare you into surrendering your
complete self-ownership over to some tyrant masquerading as a
savior, then you have lost the only principle that matters, and
when YOU find yourself at the receiving end of some fascist's
"necessary" oppression, you will have no right to complain.


Larken Rose

(P.S. I oppose every politician's side of every dispute, as their
own power is ALWAYS their main--if not their only--priority. So
don't go trying to stick me in a political camp. The tyrants who
want "amnesty" for "illegals" want it so they can get more people
here to vote for them, and more people to tax. The other tyrants
want to scare the heck out of you, and get elected by promising to
combat "illegal" immigration. Whatever your personal opinions, if
you think ANY politician has YOUR interests at heart, you need to
wake up.)