Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Friday, November 28, 2014

Your Papers, Citizen...

The image above is from Mike's place, here.  It should be a daily stop. (The below post has NOTHING to do with Mike or his site.)  He simply posted a great graphic - his site is full of great stuff - that I am able to use to make a point.

It illustrates my point about Voter ID - but first you must remember the old Soviet Pig Farmer logic.  A Pig Farmer had 2 pigs, and his neighbor had three.  So he calls the KGB and demands that they come and kill one of his neighbors pigs.

Same-same with ID requirements in this country.

The knee-jerk argument most people on the political Right (and the flawed thinking runs deep even in the Liberty Movement) is that since you need photo ID to do all those everyday acts listed on the left side of the graphic, you should therefore be required to show State-issued Photo ID to vote.

Do you see the Pig Farmer logic at play?

Take a moment and look at the long list of actions that require you identify yourself to the State, with State-issued papers, and apply this simple premise: Should I have to show my papers to: Buy alcohol, buy a firearm, drive my car, ride on an airplane...etc.

If the answer is no to those things, then you must conclude that to apply that standard to voting fails.

The word is "precedent". When you bend knee and accept the argument that you must have a state-issued permit to exercise your inalienable Right to locomotion, or self defense, or feeding yourself with a fishing pole, you set the precedent that you are willing to bend knee.  It is that simple.

The answer is not to once more bend knee and produce your state-issued papers when you want to vote.  The answer is to move everything in the left column to the right, and stop bending at the knee - period.

There are ways to exercise the franchise without surrendering to the notion that the State has the Authority to issue papers to you and that you must comply and produce those papers on demand.  I thought one of the things we are fighting against is Iron Curtain controls.  Right?

If you think we should be required to produce State-issued papers to do anything on the lists above, I strongly suggest you sit in a quiet room and think hard on the topic.  Because if you do agree, then you have not yet truly broken free of the Statist shackles upon your mind.

They don't do it for the fucking children, folks.



  1. I write about this every so often when the Statists start screaming about "drivers licenses" for "illegal immigrants"- No, I don't want them to have "drivers licenses", nor anyone else. Travel by driving isn't a government-granted privilege- it is a fundamental human right. Even if I were violated I don't advocate for your violation. That's just evil.

    1. I dont want illegals to have a license either. I want their ASS out of our country. If a license was only used for the purpose of showing the owner had passed an test, proving they were somewhat knowledgeable of basics rules of safety, instead of an ID, I'd say no harm,no foul. But it's not a perfect world is it? Driving a fundamental human right, Not hardly. Free travel within these borders, you bet.You need to rethink your argument, cuz it's flawed. Let's just give elementary kids a 747 jet, or an 18 wheeler for Christmas, since it's a fundamental human right. You must live in Colorado, POTHEAD.

    2. Anon- You don't understand rights very well, do you.

      I have a fundamental human right to own and to carry any weapon I choose, in any way I like, everywhere I go, without asking permission of anyone. But that doesn't mean you are obligated to give me a Tommy gun. I still have to buy it for myself. And, if I don't use it properly and I cause harm to an innocent individual or private property, I still owe restitution. So, a kid has every right to own a 747, but if he doesn't know how to fly it he will kill himself and others if he tries. Rights come with responsibilities. But a kid could own a 747 and have someone else fly it for him.

      You also seem to have wandered dangerously close to the collectivist trap that results in things like ObamaCare. I have a right to healthcare- of whatever kind I can provide, buy, or negotiate for myself- free of meddling from the DEA, FDA, or government regulations or licensing of any sort- but you aren't obligated to pay for it on my behalf.

      There is no such thing as an "illegal" person, and when property rights are actually respected, there is not even any such thing as "immigration"- you are either where you have a right to be, or you are trespassing. And there is no such thing as "public" land, either. I agree it's not a perfect world, but you don't get closer to one by promoting socialist concepts like government authority to violate property rights, "public" lands, licenses for travel. Also, your obvious support of Prohibition (by your juvenile attempt at an insult) shows you are a raving statist in liberty-lover drag.

      You can stand up and stop licking that hand now- Master has got the message.

    3. Anon - you really don't think driving is a fundamental Right of a free man? You think the State has the Authority to tell you how you may travel from Point A to Point B? Do you think, therefore, that the State has the Authority to restrict your travel itself, not simply the modality?

    4. "Do you think, therefore, that the State has the Authority to restrict your travel itself, not simply the modality?"

      Great, great question...gets right to the heart of it. Now there's just one tiny step---understand that when it comes to ANY human action that doesn't forcefully impose on another, the answer is the same.

      So the real question is, "Do you think, therefore, that the State has the Authority to restrict?" It doesn't matter what follows...the answer, if you believe in Rightful Liberty, is "No."

      Just read the words, plain and simple---"Rightful Liberty is UNOBSTRUCTED action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.." There are no exceptions for the State, and Jefferson explicitly clarifies this exact point in the very next sentence.

      A person is either with Rightful Liberty or against it. AND every person makes a choice, whether they want to or not. That includes you, Alan, so stand the fuck up and declare your position. After you're done with your childish little fucking name-calling, that is. We can wait.

      On Authority---"Power only becomes authority when the victim grants it legitimacy."

  2. Yes,everything in the left column should be moved to the right column.
    Using hunting and fishing licenses as an example-the justification is that the license and tag fees support the state fish and game agencies,wildlife conservation efforts,and pay the staff's salaries-including wildlife biologists who set the limits on how many of each animal of fish can be taken and still leave a sustainable population of the fish and game.

    Remove the license and tag requirements,remove all the game wardens,all the support staff at the state fish and game agencies-and there is no need for a state fish and game agency as currently set up.

    If/when fishermen and hunters decide there needs to be management of fish and game populations,it could be done by volunteers-there is no need for a full time staff.
    There is no need for licenses and tags.
    If hunters want pheasants or quail to be stocked-that can be done by volunteers as well,same with stocking fish.

    There is simply no legitimate need for hunting and fishing licenses.

    1. i know a guy up here who stocked his land with several types of hunted fowl... inevitably, some will migrate over time... i plan on doing similar on mine... it can be handled... so can poachers and tresspassers..

  3. Mmm... I'm understanding the logic. But I also know that in the beginning voting was not a universal franchise. Among other things the owning of land was a prerequisite as well as a certain number of acres. I think it obvious then that there was some cross reference between voting rolls and real estate records for identification. Then again, I'm willing to bet that the men who actually did the voting were well known in their communities and were recognized on sight.

    1. Exactly right - they used methods other than State-issued papers. Obviously the universal right to vote is a perversion of our Founding and we need to get back there - and when we do, we need to be rid of the State-papers aspect as well.

      More voting locations (with fewer legitimate voters) is part of the answer. Another part of the solution (though not directly related to voting/ID) is proper representation - the artificial limit of 435 Reps is obscene. The House should have representation ratios near what they were at our Founding.

      But any serious fix will require a major paradigm shift...

    2. Any serious fix will require a major amount of death...There fixed it for you;) We can talk all we want of what's right and how it would work when we follow Rightful Liberty but the hurdle to overcome is all those that won't follow that concept...

    3. That won't be a difficult hurdle to overcome, with the mindset of we that converse here on such circumstances. It's a given that most people are a waste of air, the percentage is varied based on the individual and which category they can be identified by, obviously, but a waste nonetheless.

    4. "how it would work when we follow Rightful Liberty but the hurdle to overcome is all those that won't follow that concept..."

      Ahem, that's why it's pretty important to nail down the concept, which means "understanding that to which it refers."

      That's why "moon" isn't synonymous with "green cheese"...because the moon isn't green cheese.

    5. Come on Grog if it wasn't a difficult hurdle to.overcome don't you think that we would all be living under RL by now...JK if you can't understand that by concept I meant RL I don't know how else to explain it to you...

    6. Got it, I read your words too literally, I've been doing that recently with my change in perspective concerning near future events. I'll try to be more adept in deciphering your comments in the future. :)

    7. Oh, I know what you mean. You don't even know this, but you solved the whole ball o'wax in a now-closed thread at the other place. Things are moving pretty fast now, so hopefully it'll come again up before Christmas.

      I just ain't got the bucks to buy you a nice physical gift. I gotta good line on rough-sawn lumber, though. Amish, so a one-by is actually 1" by. How weird is that?

    8. No worries Grog...JK how big of cabin will build for ya;)

    9. Is your comment for me, Jim?

    10. Sorry, Grog, it was to lineman; he likes talking about cabins. I was thinking of leasing out "survivalist plots," like by the week or month. Might be interesting in the winter. For a buck extra, I'll throw in a book of matches.

  4. "Obviously the universal right to vote is a perversion of our Founding..."

    Sure, if you ignore the self-evident truth that all men are created equal.

    Why not? Alan likes to ignore the self-evident truth that all just power arises from the consent of the governed.

    That leaves the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness tripe. Who's stepping up for that one? What the hell...just throw the whole damn thing out; all that matters is that we SAY we believe in the Founding Principles, right?

    After all, enlightened people know what's best for the unenlightened. Must be so, since the commie-libs say it all the time.

    1. Sorry - you seem to be taking the position that the group of people entitled to vote in America, under a properly respected USC, are able to vote to subjugate those who are not permitted the vote - and that is just plain incorrect.

      Nothing in the USC, when properly respected, gives FedGov or voters the Authority to break a leg or pick a pocket of non-voters or anyone else. Nothing in the USC, when properly respected, gives FedGov or voters the Authority to infringe the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of anyone else.

      Here's a bit of reality too many people in the "Liberty" movement like to try and ignore: Just because little Johnny's mommy and daddy decided to fuck and drop little Johnny from the birth-chute on CONUS, and little Johnny grows up and decides he doesn't like the way the system is set-up - the rest of us DO NOT have to scrap the system because little fucking Johnny chooses not to "consent".

      Little fucking Johnny may choose not to consent - and little fucking Johnny can take a boat, a plane, mule or follow his feet to some other country where he chooses to "consent".

      But we do not need to re-ratify the Founding documents with every new fucking Johnny who bounds out of a vagina in America. Johnny can consent, or Johnny can work through legitimate means to change the system, or Johnny can take a fuckin' hike.

      Sorry folks, but being born does not make you the center of the Universe.

    2. Me? Caring about who votes?? Now THAT'S funny!

      And of course, the claim is not that any particular person is the center of the universe.

      The claim is that EVERY person is the center of the life that's owned. "Own" MEANS that it's in a social context. Ownership alone on an island wouldn't mean very much, would it? Property, control, estate, soverignty, rights...it doesn't matter how you SAY it; it matters what it IS.

      It begins with SELF-ownership.

      So if anyone seriously thinks any of that might be false, they should offer what's true. How it feels might be interesting in other times, but we're in the middle of a War.

      May we agree that living a good life at least involves accepting the truth? Hmmph...epistemology.

    3. Little fucking Johnny. :-D You're being to kind. Call them for what they are K. Little fucking anarchist.

    4. Wow, that's scary when you add the "fucking." Hey, you can call me a "little fucking consensualist" or even "voluntarist" if you want. That make you happy or something?

      This may come as a shock to you, but I've known self-described anarchists for decades, and I can't even think of one of them, that would possibly give a hoot what you think or what you call them.

      Maybe get it through your thick skull already---that's the point.

    5. I really don't care what you think.

      Maybe you should get that through your thick skull.


    6. "I really don't care what you think."

      That's it! That's the spirit! Now just stop pretending that you'll get what you want by thuggery--not defense, but thuggery--and we'll have it all wrapped up.

      One step at a time. You'll get there.

  5. Little fucking Johnny is free to do as he pleases, so long as he doesn't violate the rights of, or cause injury to another.

    1. Exactly. While he must be protected from infringements, he must also live to that standard. That is the definition of Rightful Liberty.

      And if he doesn't like the way his State imposes upon its citizens to meet its USC obligations, he has many other "States" to which he can move that may do things differently. He can even move to a State that chooses to secede entirely from the Compact.

      All of this is predicated upon people who respect the Founder's Intent. Everyone else needs to go...

    2. "And if he doesn't like the way his State imposes upon its citizens to meet its USC obligations, he has many other 'States' to which he can move that may do things differently."

      I am virtually certain that you didn't mean that as it reads, though I've been virtually certain and wrong before. I'm confident you're busy, but could I trouble you to clarify that sentence? TIA

    3. What part of that sentence is confusing?

      The States are responsible in a few circumstances to satisfy obligations to FedGov under the USC. Voting is a State-defined activity. Kicking money to FedGov is a State activity, and they have (under the Founder's Intent) the latitude to determine how they pay their bill to FedGov.

      If Johnny doesn't like the way New York treats him, he can move to Texas. If he doesn't like any of the States, he can move to a place that has seceded or he can work for secession. Or, he can go live in Wherever-stan.

    4. "The States are responsible..."

      Category error. States are not the sort of entities to which responsibility attaches. You can call that trite or obvious, but it may be the most important error going.

      As you and Mr. "Let's go backwards" are fully aware, it's the essence of the problem, everywhere. That's why looters and moochers always put it off to the State. You guys don't, but you still make the same misidentification, that category error.

      That's why you both know it's not about the parchment, but the individuals abiding (or not abiding) the parchment. That part's great; what's not so great is how you both fantasize that it may change.

      Thugs must be stopped, but everyone else must choose.

  6. "While he must be protected from infringements,"

    That's interesting. Who must protect him?

    "he must also live to that standard. That is the definition of Rightful Liberty."

    Maybe I'm too senile, but I missed it. Where and how does "unobstructed action according to our will but within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"...address any standards?

    I think that's the definition, unless you're using a different one.

    1. Under a properly respected USC, where many people have consented to abide the system of governance laid out by the Founders (Governance is NOT a dirty word - 'governance' does not mean "Rule") then the people who have agreed to live within the system should look out for one another and ensure that if any member of the group is being infringed, the group stomps the snot out of the infringer. It is a system of mutual defense agreements between individuals who choose to be part of the group.

      If I want Rightful Liberty and you want Rightful Liberty, it is in my interests to help you defend yourself if anyone tries to infringe you. That's just practical.

    2. No duh. Notice that it's not me who wants to add more to that.

      Sure, the moral is the practical. Thing is, when you pretend that the means becomes the ends...well, I already tried to clue you in to your biggest enemy by far, Pragmatism.

    3. BTW, I thought you knew why I've NEVER, not even once, called myself an anarchist. The word looks crazy to me for the reason you said...of course we're all governed, and by precisely the same thing.

    4. Oh, for the love of God, Klein, you're a fucking anarchist. There is no other conclusion to draw from the drivel you write.

      You also might want to quit debating with Kerodin. You're outclassed, Bud. He kicks your ass in a most obvious manner.

      And while you're considering, you might want to consider leaving this blog. You are not in congruence.

      Just sayin'.

    5. Wow...did you take the blog from him? K knows I stop on request. Civil people are like that, see.

      Not in congruence, eh? You seem to have your hands full speaking for yourself; maybe you ought to focus on that.

      Or as some say, "Who died and made you King?" You really think you're gonna power your way there, don't you? Ho hum, just another mistake. Face it...they're piling up on you. Sorry.

      Have a nice evening, Alan; glad to see your new interest in geometry.

    6. Alan- Jim may not claim the title "anarchist", but I do. Without shame. Because I have NO KING, and that's all the word boils down to. No one rules me but myself. And that is exactly what Rightful Liberty means. I don't even care if someone else worships the Constitution as long as he doesn't try to rule me. I will fight for your Rightful Liberty because I understand that mine depends on me respecting and defending yours.

      Hate me (or Jim) if you wish, but I promise you you are driving a wedge where it will damage Rightful Liberty.

  7. Here's what they don't get, Kent...that the "without shame" is the primary there. It's automatic to you, but that's down-deep Egoism. It's the craziest part of the whole thing...not the politics, but the WHY of it all. And just like they pretend that "individualism" means "alone," they pretend that "egoism" means "being bad."

    It's the simplest of contradictions, which is why no 3 or 4 year-old ever EVER falls for it. It says your goal in life should be to be a good person, AND that recognizing oneself as a good person is evil. So you can either be bad by being bad, or by recognizing yourself as good. But any way you cut it, every individual is bad.

    Gee...no wonder everyone who listens to that bullshit is dizzy, eh?


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.