Main menu

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