Old Latest Blog

And for the record, Glenn Beck IS NOT a libertarian. He destroys the meaning when claiming to be such. Go get 'em Connor !

This is truly amazing...

I don't think so. The idea that God would actively punish us for not finding Him has never sat well with me. It doesn't seem like a quality worthy of worship. On the other hand, He could passively punish us, as in, He shows us how awesome existence would be following Him, and by us not doing so, we punish ourselves. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside, they say. A friend just shared this Joseph Smith quote that I found enlightening, "‎What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed [the Lord's] commands." (History of the Church, 4:554-555) That very much follows my own thinking on the matter. That we punish ourselves. That are wailing and gnashing of teeth is motivated by our own stubbornness not to do what God asks us to do in order to live with Him. I don't think he's going to hold a lighter up to our feet like a sick psychopath and torture us. I think His awesomeness will draw us toward Him, but when we realize

Bradley Silverman leaves out of his analysis of Ron Paul the centralist-decentralist principles of libertarianism, and concludes that because Ron Paul doesn't want to centralize more power in Washington (and away from the States), he must not be a libertarian. Hogwash! His support of the We the People Act (does he?) should not be construed as support for State tyranny over homosexuals. That's a misleading distortion of Ron Paul's principles. He most certainly is a libertarian, and a decentralist libertarian at that, and clearly Bradley Silverman is not. Update: John Priest makes the same mistake as Silverman.

See Mike Rozeff on a very interesting comparison between Afghani jihad and the US Constitution.

The so-called "Sovereign Citizens" movement is 9x less likely to murder someone than your average American, yet they've made the FBI's terrorist watch list. Say what?

I love seeing young people make the intellectual and spiritual move to principle-based anarchism or voluntaryism. Simply beautiful! Of course, my kids will be thoroughly indoctrinated on the principles of the free society, non-aggression, self-ownership, open-mindedness, unschooling, and reason.

Here's a very interesting essay by Roderick Long on the claim that the medieval Icelandic Commonwealth's privatization of government led to it's collapse. The collapse was due to the opposite, he explains.

I was asked by a good friend of my wife about our unschooling, what my kids do all day, and about grown unschoolers and what they've accomplished. Here is my response .

Whose positions are more compatible with Latter-day Saint prophetic counsel, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul? This beautiful chart proves it's... Ron Paul!

He would have to violate every principle he's held the last 30 years in office in order to serve as a glorified Romney front-man , and I don't think he will. Nor should he. He should continue his interruption of things by running as an independent if he fails to get the Republican nomination. If he accepts a Romney invite for veep, he'll lose his entire libertarian base, include yours truly. The thought makes me sick, really.

Hugh Nibley lays it down beautifully, as does Connor Boyack. "Renounce war, and proclaim peace", says Christ. I hope my fellow Latter-day Saints will pay attention.

In public schools, by forcing kids to chant the American state's oath and covenant every day. As if kids didn't feel pressured to anyway, from their teachers, peers, and even worse, their parents and church leaders. My kids won't be learning this idolatrous practice from me, and they'll be counseled against it. (Along with saluting idolatrous banners or singing idolatrous hymnals .)

Utah's walking the only path it seemingly knows, that of the interventionist. Mises explained this path well.

For veep . That's what I've been saying!!

Give them a taste of their own medicine, apparently:

...misses the mark , but it is a better, fairer, approach I think. Why should someone not willing to donate be placed above someone who is? A question, does a last-minute change of willingness make a difference? It doesn't seem to, that is if patients are ordered as they're admitted, before it's even known if they'll need a transplant or not, and based on their registration of being an organ donor.

Steven Landsburg has an interesting conversation with the LORD.

As a response to a thread on reddit, I offered the following to a question about someone homesteading part of a river, and someone else upstream dumping in pollutants, as in: What's happened here? Is there a crime? My answer: What about this: Bill Murray doesn't appropriate the water, he appropriates the land, the riverbed, and simply allows the water to flow over it, and appropriates whatever water he can capture before it leaves his riverbed boundary. If David Spade upstream drops pollutants into the water, it will eventually trespass over Bill Murray's riverbed. This would justify retaliation by some level of aggression. Trespass is a violation of the NAP, and David Spade is causing pollutants to trespass Bill Murray's riverbed, is he not? It would be akin to air pollutants trespassing over your land, into your house, etc. If David Spade drops pollutants into the river, but then takes them out again before they reach Bill Murray's boundary, then there's no h

I am a big fan of the many services a state provides (roads, police, safe drinking water, protection from other states), but I'm not a fan of monopolies and robbery. The state uses the latter to enforce the former. Just because I oppose the state, that doesn't mean I oppose the services the state provides. On the contrary, I'm such a big fan of them, that I want greedy entrepreneurs competing for my business with promises of quality and efficiency, and bankruptcy when they fail to deliver either. Monopolies lack both, and are rewarded after failure. Monopolies for greedy capitalists are as dangerous as monopolies for "benevolent" and "enlightened" statists.

Bravo to those who sacrifice everything to give themselves and their families a better life. That we would emulate their righteous example, if need be, I pray.

The love of money is the root of all evil, so says the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, but the love of money by one capable of violence is an even greater evil, so says Nic Hooton of the Utah Liberty Alliance.

Can we claim citizenship to a school of thought? If so, I'm a proud Austrian, so take that Andy Duncan !

Bureaucracy needs to go. Legal monopolies need to go. They're wastes of resources. Here's why .

I had a cordial exchange with a progressive Democrat, who shall remain nameless, read it here .

Speak the truth. Judge Napolitano is favorite of mine. I absolutely love his principles and his personality. They make for a terrifying combination, that is if you're the gunvernment. Here one reason of many why his show, FreedomWatch, got cancelled:

Bravo to this guy .

I was asked by a friend my thoughts on punishment. I haven't given punishment for punishment's sake too much thought. Justified punishment, as in "proportionality" I have. I like Kinsella's approach, the estoppel approach . My gut reaction... restitution, of course... and for me personally, forgiveness after restitution. I think it should be up to the victim as far as whether or not to "punish" or to seek restitution. How far can punishment go? It can't exceed proportion, but I think it's justified, in theory. In practice, it's more difficult because although a victim may be 100% certain of his offender, those enforcing a punishment can't be, so I don't know if they would be justified in doing so. Maybe as an agent for the victim? I wouldn't want that job, for sure, because of the uncertainty, etc. I like considering non-violent forms of punishment as well, such as social ostracism, blacklisting, reputation smearing, etc. I th

Senator Lamar Smith, lead sponsor of the currently dead SOPA bill you’ve heard so much about, has another bill in the works that uses Child Pornography as a screen to push through an amendment that’ll have your internet service provider tracking all of your financial dealings online. Each time you use a credit card, each time you read your bank statement, all of your IP information and your search history will be required by your ISP to be stored for 18 months at all times. This bill is H.R. 1981 and will have more dire consequences than SOPA or PIPA ever had the potential to have. by Chris Burns, read the rest .

This important message is spreading, especially among young people. Recently, college students and others who visit Wikipedia on a daily basis were met with a 24-hour blackout. The blackout in question was in protest of two pieces of legislation related to the Internet, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act. The bills had several draconian punishments that outraged many Americans (Wikipedia clearly included). Many of the bills’ opponents stated that, if passed, the laws would effectively kill the Internet as we know it, potentially prosecuting any companies or sites found to be “facilitating” in copyright infringement. However, there’s a much more fundamental aspect of this entire issue that needs to be discussed more openly. Hopefully, public outrage over these particularly atrocious laws will provide a platform for the message that really needs to be heard. The time has come to abolish intellectual property. by Jason Byas, read the rest .

Write Jay Miles , Me: Am I free to assemble a protest of peaceful peers? Government: Only with a permit. Me: Am I free to travel? Government: Only with a passport. Me: Am I free to pursue my own ideas of happiness? Government: Only within these constraints. Me: Am I free to start a business? Government: Only with a license. Me: Am I free to marry who I wish? Government: Only with my consent. Me: Am I free? Government: I'm legally obligated to say that you are. Government: Stop asking so many questions.