It's hard to imagine, but I've read that back during the barbaric era of government, people in need actually relied on government to steal money to pay for the things they needed, or to force people to provide those things at their own expense against their will! Food, housing, and medical care were considered to be legitimate reasons to steal and enslave!
I can't even wrap my head around something so awful!
I suppose when the people have so much of their money stolen in order to support governments, it makes sense that they'd be too broke to be able to afford such basic things, or to be able to support charities to help others. And, if the people already put up with the theft and aggression inherent in government, it's not much of a stretch to push it to the limit.
I can barely imagine the dependency that "system" created in its victims.
The price in self respect and dignity must have been enormous, not to mention the feeling of being at the mercy of bureaucrats and their whims. Who would have wanted to subject needy people to that?
Fortunately, now everything is so much more affordable without governments meddling and stealing, and people have plenty of money to contribute to charities. It's better all around.
It's natural that I want my neighbors to be healthy. Who wants to be surrounded by sickness and injured people who can't get the care they need? Or people so hungry they can't function, and who think about stealing to feed their kids? I guess this means charity is selfish, in a way. It's still better than the alternative.
Whatever the reason, I'm willing to help support the charity fund at my favorite healer's practice. In the same way, I help support food banks and I give away produce from my garden to people I suspect might need help. And such is the case with the vast majority of the population. It's the right thing to do, it is civilized, and it is also self defensive in some ways.
And if someone doesn't feel they can afford to help, or just doesn't want to for some reason, that's their business, not mine. At least if they keep their own money they are less likely to seek charity for their basic needs. It's a win-win, as are all expressions of the economic means.
.
Showing posts with label Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Friday, June 23, 2017
Security services
There is obviously no such thing as a "police force" in Libertopia. We learned our lesson from those last few chaotic years before the collapse of the State. It's a mistake, and body count, we won't repeat!
What we do have, almost everywhere, are security services. What would have been called "private security" back during the government era. Now, since everything is "private", the distinction is meaningless.
Of course, there are many variations in security providing services-- just about any variation you can imagine.
The services they provide vary. The majority are simply there to help train people in defense. Everyone can benefit from expert advice and tips.
A few will actually take on the job of defending their clients; mainly the very old, the crippled, and those whose personal beliefs make them prefer to pay someone for defense rather than doing the job themselves. However, new defensive tools make even those with physical difficulties perfectly capable of defending themselves, if they care to (and most do).
But, of those who take a more active role, the services offered are fairly standardized. Some will help stop attacks and theft. Some will act as bodyguards. Some as night watchmen, for homes or businesses. Sometimes a customer may request something more out of the ordinary-- which, as long as there is no aggression or property violations requested, the sky is the limit. The price may go up depending on the amount of effort the job entails.
The ways security service employees dress vary-- although, as far as I know, none seek to replicate the look of the police uniforms of old. That would be a way to go out of business in a hurry; the negative memory is still too sharp, even after all these years. If you want to be shunned, appear in public (outside of Halloween or a costume party) dressed as "law enforcement" or other type of government extremist.
Most dress in a way which keeps the tools of the job close and handy. Two or three guns, restraints, video recorders, a communication device (to instantly let the customer know of an incident, and call for help of whatever kind might be necessary). Penetration-resistant clothing is common, although rarely necessary. It is so inexpensive there's really no reason to not use it. Generally, bright colors are chosen for the clothing, to identify a person as security services. On the very rare occasions when stealth is prudent, color-changing clothing is preferred so that the identity of the security provider can be known as soon as possible- as soon as dark clothing is no longer necessary. Identity-concealing masks are never worn-- the good guys don't dress like losers.
To get a job with any of the security provider companies, it is necessary to pass a thorough examination to demonstrate a non-aggressive personality, an understanding of non-aggression/Voluntaryism, and to make sure there is no tendency to try to weasel out of accountability if something goes wrong and force or property violations occur during the performance of the job. The bar for accountability is set very high for a reason-- there is no room in security services for cowards/bullies, trigger-happy liars, or anyone else who is seeking an opportunity to use violence against the innocent. If your security provider violates anyone during the course of his employment, you can be held accountable for hiring an unreliable person, and the cost of restitution can be very high. No one wants to risk it.
Security services are available just about anywhere, but they are never very large companies. Most people don't want to pay for something they can do for themselves so easily. It's a niche market, and a decent job opportunity for those who like to feel useful while doing a rather boring and safe job.
.
What we do have, almost everywhere, are security services. What would have been called "private security" back during the government era. Now, since everything is "private", the distinction is meaningless.
Of course, there are many variations in security providing services-- just about any variation you can imagine.
The services they provide vary. The majority are simply there to help train people in defense. Everyone can benefit from expert advice and tips.
A few will actually take on the job of defending their clients; mainly the very old, the crippled, and those whose personal beliefs make them prefer to pay someone for defense rather than doing the job themselves. However, new defensive tools make even those with physical difficulties perfectly capable of defending themselves, if they care to (and most do).
But, of those who take a more active role, the services offered are fairly standardized. Some will help stop attacks and theft. Some will act as bodyguards. Some as night watchmen, for homes or businesses. Sometimes a customer may request something more out of the ordinary-- which, as long as there is no aggression or property violations requested, the sky is the limit. The price may go up depending on the amount of effort the job entails.
The ways security service employees dress vary-- although, as far as I know, none seek to replicate the look of the police uniforms of old. That would be a way to go out of business in a hurry; the negative memory is still too sharp, even after all these years. If you want to be shunned, appear in public (outside of Halloween or a costume party) dressed as "law enforcement" or other type of government extremist.
Most dress in a way which keeps the tools of the job close and handy. Two or three guns, restraints, video recorders, a communication device (to instantly let the customer know of an incident, and call for help of whatever kind might be necessary). Penetration-resistant clothing is common, although rarely necessary. It is so inexpensive there's really no reason to not use it. Generally, bright colors are chosen for the clothing, to identify a person as security services. On the very rare occasions when stealth is prudent, color-changing clothing is preferred so that the identity of the security provider can be known as soon as possible- as soon as dark clothing is no longer necessary. Identity-concealing masks are never worn-- the good guys don't dress like losers.
To get a job with any of the security provider companies, it is necessary to pass a thorough examination to demonstrate a non-aggressive personality, an understanding of non-aggression/Voluntaryism, and to make sure there is no tendency to try to weasel out of accountability if something goes wrong and force or property violations occur during the performance of the job. The bar for accountability is set very high for a reason-- there is no room in security services for cowards/bullies, trigger-happy liars, or anyone else who is seeking an opportunity to use violence against the innocent. If your security provider violates anyone during the course of his employment, you can be held accountable for hiring an unreliable person, and the cost of restitution can be very high. No one wants to risk it.
Security services are available just about anywhere, but they are never very large companies. Most people don't want to pay for something they can do for themselves so easily. It's a niche market, and a decent job opportunity for those who like to feel useful while doing a rather boring and safe job.
.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Theft in Libertopia
If I remember correctly, April 15 used to be a day to celebrate thieves or something. We don't do that anymore.
It's not that there is no theft in Libertopia- the thieves just no longer have the luxury of calling theft "taxation". And, "taxation" was always the most common excuse for theft back during the "Age of Authority".
How is theft dealt with in Libertopia? Quite handily, thank you.
In fact, there are lots of people who get their inspiration from the Robin Hood of legend. He's the guy who retrieved stolen property and returned it to its rightful owner- even though I have heard that truth was perverted into "he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" for a time. But not anymore.
Our robinhoods retrieve stolen property and return it to its rightful owner, and only ask for a small percentage of the value of that which is returned. And they only ask for that in cases where the owner can afford it. Although most people are so grateful to get their stuff back that they'd pay the robinhood even if he didn't ask.
The way this usually works is that arbitrators will put out a list of those who have refused to abide by the outcome of arbitration- or have refused arbitration at all. This list is used to inform others of people who they may want to shun, or publicize as untrustworthy. Some, such as the robinhoods, take a more active approach.
Robinhoods will look at the list and decide if any of the cases would be something they'd like to pursue. Most robinhoods limit themselves to stolen property cases, but some will take on other types of damage that resulted in a monetary judgement- that's just up to the individual.
In cases of stolen property, the robinhood will try to get the actual property back. If that's not possible, he will try to get something from the thief of equal value. This is then turned over to an arbitrator- preferably the one who oversaw the original dispute. The arbitrator then contacts the interested parties and facilitates an arrangement between them. The property may be sold and the theft victim paid, with any amount above that going back to the thief. Robinhoods try to be very careful to not go too far, lest they find themselves on the wrong side.
Sometimes the robinhoods will still find themselves called into arbitration on accusations of theft or trespassing, but unless the robinhood was unusually "zealous" in carrying out his job, the case doesn't normally go far.
As you may see, theft doesn't pay here unless you can hide what you have done so well that even people with expertise in solving the case can't find you. And that is extremely rare.
It's not that there is no theft in Libertopia- the thieves just no longer have the luxury of calling theft "taxation". And, "taxation" was always the most common excuse for theft back during the "Age of Authority".
How is theft dealt with in Libertopia? Quite handily, thank you.
In fact, there are lots of people who get their inspiration from the Robin Hood of legend. He's the guy who retrieved stolen property and returned it to its rightful owner- even though I have heard that truth was perverted into "he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor" for a time. But not anymore.
Our robinhoods retrieve stolen property and return it to its rightful owner, and only ask for a small percentage of the value of that which is returned. And they only ask for that in cases where the owner can afford it. Although most people are so grateful to get their stuff back that they'd pay the robinhood even if he didn't ask.
The way this usually works is that arbitrators will put out a list of those who have refused to abide by the outcome of arbitration- or have refused arbitration at all. This list is used to inform others of people who they may want to shun, or publicize as untrustworthy. Some, such as the robinhoods, take a more active approach.
Robinhoods will look at the list and decide if any of the cases would be something they'd like to pursue. Most robinhoods limit themselves to stolen property cases, but some will take on other types of damage that resulted in a monetary judgement- that's just up to the individual.
In cases of stolen property, the robinhood will try to get the actual property back. If that's not possible, he will try to get something from the thief of equal value. This is then turned over to an arbitrator- preferably the one who oversaw the original dispute. The arbitrator then contacts the interested parties and facilitates an arrangement between them. The property may be sold and the theft victim paid, with any amount above that going back to the thief. Robinhoods try to be very careful to not go too far, lest they find themselves on the wrong side.
Sometimes the robinhoods will still find themselves called into arbitration on accusations of theft or trespassing, but unless the robinhood was unusually "zealous" in carrying out his job, the case doesn't normally go far.
As you may see, theft doesn't pay here unless you can hide what you have done so well that even people with expertise in solving the case can't find you. And that is extremely rare.
-
Monday, September 12, 2011
Immigration in Libertopia
A little fact about Libertopia that you may not be aware of: it does not encompass the entire planet. Yet. There are still struggling pockets of State here and there.
Most of them have serious immigration and emigration "laws".
The Rulers of these dying States don't want any Libertopians moving in and giving their new neighbors dangerous ideas. Thus the immigration "controls". I doubt it's necessary- who would move to a State? But it was a good justification for putting the infrastructure in place to control the "borders".
Because, even more, they want to keep the residents (the States would call them "citizens") they have from escaping- it's hard to tax people who leave if they go somewhere without a government to help you track and control them. It is also hard to rule when you are alone.
Most of the residents of these States were in favor of the immigration controls. At least at first. What the residents of these States failed to realize was that any policy or agency that can keep "them" out, can be turned around and be used to keep "us" in. Cages and "borders" work both ways.
Libertopians living near these unilaterally-declared "borders" are usually more than willing to help people escape an oppressive State (Yeah, I'm repeating myself there). The more people who are free, the better it is for everyone. It is the new "Underground Railroad", and it is killing the last few States.
It is funny, though. No one in Libertopia worries about immigrants moving in and using up all the welfare. There is no welfare. No one worries about immigrants taking all the jobs- they are just as likely to create jobs. No one worries about what language anyone else speaks. There can be no "official language"- you communicate however you can. No one worries about their culture being destroyed by exposure to another culture. That would be an admission that your culture isn't worth saving. Yet all these excuses, as unbelievable as they sound to me, are actually used in those dying States!
Without a government to co-opt or take over- either by voting or by having more offspring than someone else- people don't seem to worry too much about who is moving where. At least as long as the new neighbors don't initiate force or steal. And if they do, where they came from is the least important piece of information you could possibly worry about.
.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Cat Lady
Recently a woman here in Libertopia was discovered to have over 100 cats living in her house. Yuck! Conditions were filthy and many of the cats were malnourished. The woman also had some health problems that were probably related to living in a house full of cats and their waste products.
Her house is her property, as are her cats. So no one has the right to interfere unless she wants them to. Your "help" is not help if it isn't wanted.
A person who abuses animals may not be a person I would trust, and may not be a nice person, but they are within their rights. You would also be within your rights to shun an animal abuser, of course. However, in her mind she may have been loving those cats rather than abusing them. And even if she dies due to her choices, that is her right. Your life is yours to do with as you please, even to the point of destroying it. Her neighbors were not even aware of the abundance of cats, so no one claimed she was harming their property in any way. No one had a right to lift a finger to make the woman change her life in any way. Still, people being people, some were concerned for the woman and the cats.
So what happened?
Well, the person who discovered the situation asked the woman if she really wanted that many cats in her house. She said she did. So he asked if she had enough food for them and for herself. She admitted she was having to stretch food to make ends meet and keep everyone fed. He asked if she would like some help providing for the cats. She said she would.
He asked if she would mind if he asked around to see if people might be willing to help her with some food, and she agreed to the suggestion. So word went out. People donated cat food and made meals for the woman. A few even stayed to help her clean up a little, after making sure she didn't object.
As it happens, she has now given away about half of the cats to various willing adopters. People who would come to her home to deliver food they were donating would see a particular cat they really liked, and the woman would usually let them leave with that cat. The extra human interaction seems to be reducing her "need" for so many cats, too. Her house is a lot cleaner, by comparison to what it was before. Her health problems have cleared up, and she is seeing a doctor once a week right now. He comes to her home every Thursday afternoon to check her progress. A local veterinarian even donated feline birth control. The woman's life, and the lives of her cats, looks to be improving.
A couple of concerned neighbors still feel the woman may have mental health problems and are trying to keep in touch with her more than they had been before. If she asks for help, help is there. If she doesn't ask, and if she rejects it if offered, then no one has any right to judge how she lives and what makes her happy. I wouldn't have it any other way.
.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Case of the dead little girl
Recently, here in Libertopia, there was a young mother who was suspected of killing her little daughter. A tragic case no matter how you look at it. Friends and family noticed that the girl just disappeared and the mother had no good explanation that held up to scrutiny over time. Plus her story changed several times before the daughter's body was found. No one really doubted that the mom was a little bit crazy, not a particularly nice person, and certainly not a good mother.
There were no witnesses to the death, of course, or there would have been more than "suspicions". There was also no concrete scientific or objective observational evidence that could tie any particular person to the girl's death. So, what's a free society to do?
Gossip being what it is, most people formed their opinions concerning her guilt or innocence based purely on whether or not they liked the woman, which was based on what other people said about her. Almost without exception, without knowing anything about her from first-hand experience. Yeah, that still happens here and is probably just a part of human nature that won't go away anytime soon simply because it's ridiculous.
Restitution being impossible, and without even definitive evidence of the ZAP being violated or a debt being incurred, the matter dropped. People chose to either shun the woman or not. Those who believed she had killed her daughter refused to deal with her in any way from this day forward. They could refuse to sell her food, or repair her vehicle, or hire her, or anything. Those who felt she was innocent were free to continue to do business with her. In this case, that number of supporters is rather small.
However, human nature being what it is, if she gets herself into another fishy situation anytime in the next several decades, her base of supporters would probably be too small to keep her housed, clothed, fed, and fueled. No person is an island and no one is truly independent, as is abundantly clear even in Libertopia. And without The State to meddle, there is no one to save bad people from the just consequences of their actions.
.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Museum of Government- Constitution
"There once was a document that was widely believed to protect liberty. Unfortunately, it established a government; the opposite of liberty, as we all know. The document was called 'The Constitution of the united States of America'.
"This is one of the only surviving original copies. As you see here, it has no weapons with which to kill tyrants, so it couldn't actually protect liberty in any way. It didn't even spell out the penalty for violations by government agents. Therefore, the government became more and more coercive until it collapsed.
"That 'united States government' ignored the Constitution when it was inconvenient, which was anytime it would have impeded the growth and power of the government, with one criminal president even making some rather profane remarks about it when it was pointed out he was operating outside its authority. It was, as his fundamental point reminded Americans, just a piece of paper which did nothing to actually rein in his abuses. He forgot that it was the basis for any authority that he or his government had ever had, and once violated, 'the deal was off', as they say.
"That turned out to be a very good thing for individual liberty in the long run, but it did lead to some pretty bad short-term difficulties. When the government refuses to obey the laws that apply to it; the highest law of the land as it were, the people realize that they are no longer obligated to obey any of the 'laws' that the criminal government imposes upon them. When they have not been taught self-responsibility, bad times are sure to follow.
"A large number of ignorant aggressors, both former government and free-lance, died before a peaceful anarchy settled in. Such things always happen in order to allow the fit to survive. It is the way of nature and can be cruel, but in this case, the 'darwinized' individuals had a choice, they were even marginally educated about it if they survived more than a few weeks, and still they chose aggression and doom. Weep not for them, but celebrate our survival and our true liberty."
"This is one of the only surviving original copies. As you see here, it has no weapons with which to kill tyrants, so it couldn't actually protect liberty in any way. It didn't even spell out the penalty for violations by government agents. Therefore, the government became more and more coercive until it collapsed.
"That 'united States government' ignored the Constitution when it was inconvenient, which was anytime it would have impeded the growth and power of the government, with one criminal president even making some rather profane remarks about it when it was pointed out he was operating outside its authority. It was, as his fundamental point reminded Americans, just a piece of paper which did nothing to actually rein in his abuses. He forgot that it was the basis for any authority that he or his government had ever had, and once violated, 'the deal was off', as they say.
"That turned out to be a very good thing for individual liberty in the long run, but it did lead to some pretty bad short-term difficulties. When the government refuses to obey the laws that apply to it; the highest law of the land as it were, the people realize that they are no longer obligated to obey any of the 'laws' that the criminal government imposes upon them. When they have not been taught self-responsibility, bad times are sure to follow.
"A large number of ignorant aggressors, both former government and free-lance, died before a peaceful anarchy settled in. Such things always happen in order to allow the fit to survive. It is the way of nature and can be cruel, but in this case, the 'darwinized' individuals had a choice, they were even marginally educated about it if they survived more than a few weeks, and still they chose aggression and doom. Weep not for them, but celebrate our survival and our true liberty."
.
Museum of Government- Travel
"This next exhibit shows what happens to the right to travel freely when government gets its hairy paws on it.
"When I say 'travel freely' I don't mean you don't pay for the services you may use, but that you are not subjected to the whims of someone who has no interest in allowing you to move about from one place to another. While someone else may own the vehicle or the path, they don't own you.
"As you probably know, back during the "Era of Government" almost all roads were owned and maintained (poorly) by government of one form or another. This was taken as 'authority' to demand that people carry a license that was used as identification and for tracking purposes. The Nazis had started this practice, but the governments of the early 21st century took the concept and expanded on it greatly.
"Counterfeit 'laws' were passed insisting that cars have a visible registration number to allow the state's enforcers to identify the drivers. People were targeted for extortion if they were not wearing a restraining belt while they travelled, or if they travelled faster than the enforcers dictated, or... well, it was a very long list. The 'highwaymen' of earlier times were rank amateurs compared to the 'mobile extortion units' employed by the state. The entire business of travel became a huge windfall for the authoritarians.
"Unfortunately it did not end there. Peoples' safety was thrown aside in order to allow government to have even more control. Airlines were not openly owned by the government, but in practice it was a different story. Passengers were disarmed and subjected to 'state-rape' before being allowed on airplanes. Here you can view a slide show of the excuses for the abuses spouted by the authorities... and the debunking of each and every one. For other kinds of travel, the oppression was the same. People were kidnapped and robbed by enforcers for carrying tools of self defense on their own person through zones where you were 'legally' required to die peacefully when attacked. It was never about 'safety'; it was always about 'control'.
"Most people were so thoroughly conditioned to the lies of the statists that they couldn't even imagine the world we live in now; where roads are privately owned (although that is redundant since that is the only kind of ownership that has ever been real) and only marginally necessary, and people do not give up their rights simply because they leave home. The whine "But who will build the roads?" was one of the biggest barriers for some otherwise rational people to let go of the fiction of government. As you see, it was a non-problem that was solved simply once our 'conditioning' was overcome.
"Now, please turn around for the next exhibit."
"When I say 'travel freely' I don't mean you don't pay for the services you may use, but that you are not subjected to the whims of someone who has no interest in allowing you to move about from one place to another. While someone else may own the vehicle or the path, they don't own you.
"As you probably know, back during the "Era of Government" almost all roads were owned and maintained (poorly) by government of one form or another. This was taken as 'authority' to demand that people carry a license that was used as identification and for tracking purposes. The Nazis had started this practice, but the governments of the early 21st century took the concept and expanded on it greatly.
"Counterfeit 'laws' were passed insisting that cars have a visible registration number to allow the state's enforcers to identify the drivers. People were targeted for extortion if they were not wearing a restraining belt while they travelled, or if they travelled faster than the enforcers dictated, or... well, it was a very long list. The 'highwaymen' of earlier times were rank amateurs compared to the 'mobile extortion units' employed by the state. The entire business of travel became a huge windfall for the authoritarians.
"Unfortunately it did not end there. Peoples' safety was thrown aside in order to allow government to have even more control. Airlines were not openly owned by the government, but in practice it was a different story. Passengers were disarmed and subjected to 'state-rape' before being allowed on airplanes. Here you can view a slide show of the excuses for the abuses spouted by the authorities... and the debunking of each and every one. For other kinds of travel, the oppression was the same. People were kidnapped and robbed by enforcers for carrying tools of self defense on their own person through zones where you were 'legally' required to die peacefully when attacked. It was never about 'safety'; it was always about 'control'.
"Most people were so thoroughly conditioned to the lies of the statists that they couldn't even imagine the world we live in now; where roads are privately owned (although that is redundant since that is the only kind of ownership that has ever been real) and only marginally necessary, and people do not give up their rights simply because they leave home. The whine "But who will build the roads?" was one of the biggest barriers for some otherwise rational people to let go of the fiction of government. As you see, it was a non-problem that was solved simply once our 'conditioning' was overcome.
"Now, please turn around for the next exhibit."
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
