Currently in Pakistan there are hundreds of thousands of people up to their necks in diseased infested waters; but over in New Hampshire the Free Keene cultists having been getting their panties in a bind about a paper cup.

I must of got it wrong in that its not that hundreds of thousands of people suffering from one of the worse natural disasters in recent years that’s important but a row concerning a fucking paper cup. Yep it’s a paper cup which is more important then anything else going on in the world, what’s going on in the city of Keene which is more important then anything else. Its New Hampshire where thousands of people are dyeing because….. Oh wait I’ve not got my priorities screwed up; it’s just the Free Keene cultists who have their priorities screwed up. I think the general populous would agree that thousands of people drowning & dying of disease is far more important to the cause of individual liberty then a row concerning the destruction of a paper cup

Okay some involved with the whole Free Keene movement get that the row surrounding the destruction has been blown way out of proportion; but I’ve got say that there’s something seriously wrong with Free Keene cultists simply based on the amount of time they’ve seemed to of spent debating something so trivial & fucking benign.

I already pretty much know what the response of Ian Freeman & his Free Keene cultist cohorts will be to the floods in Pakistan…what do expect us to do about it? I also know that they’d respond by saying who am I to say what’s important & not important. Well as I say I think the general consensus will be that thousands of people drowning is far more important thing then a row about a paper cup or whether somebody is free to drink a beer in the local park.

I often get the impression that Ian, Sam & the other Free Keene cultists have somewhat sociopathic tendencies; they very much want to impose natural law (law of the jungle) & well if your drowning then that’s your problem buddy not theirs. If its not sociopathic tendencies they have then its aspects of Aspergers which they might be suffering from. Aspergers Syndrome might very well explain why they seemed to be very much locked into their own little world & have no regards to the kind of shit which is going on else where, it might explain why so many of the Free Keene cultists seem to think the world revolves around them & why there’s such obsession about trivial matters.

Ian Freeman the spearhead of the Free Keene movement often goes on about how people need to care & love one another, so why is it on his nationally syndicated radio talk show (Free Talk Live) he hasn’t said a peep about the floods in Pakistan & yet has spent at least half an hour or more in the past week talking about a row concerning the destruction of a paper cup. He’ll of course say that his show is open phones therefore he doesn’t set the show’s agenda….BOLLOCKS! Ian will bring up topics he thinks are of interest when it suits him & being as Free Talk live is his show he can set whatever format he wants for his show.

Often on free Talk Live you’ll hear Ian as well as many callers into the show bemoan how oppressed & persecuted they are in the United States. Geez I just can’t take seriously the Free Keene cultists when they say they are being oppressed & persecuted, they’re predominantly a bunch of spoilt brats compared with the hardships many have to endure around the globe. Might I suggest that if they really want to see oppression & persecution they go live in Zimbabwe where people have been killed for opposing the regime of Robert Mugabe.

I totally agree it’s wrong to be prohibiting people from drinking a beer in the local park but to say that prohibition is oppression or persecution is making a mockery of those around the globe who truly are being oppressed & persecuted. If a bunch of what are essentially spoilt brats think they are being oppressed & persecuted because they can’t get their own way when they stamp their feet then there’s something seriously wrong their perception of the world.

Writing this has kind of been a waste of time in respect to the Free Keene cultists because they’re cultists. They seem to think their perception of the world is absolutely right & if you don’t agree they get more then hostile & start slamming you as an evil statist etc. They’ll carry on doing what they do regardless of what I or anybody else might have to say & in doing what they do they’ll carry on damaging the cause of liberty & making a mockery of the hardships others have to enduring.

Still I feel to conclude this rant by yelling….

FREE KEENE CULTISTS NONE OF YOU ARE CURRENTLY DROWNING BUT THOUSANDS ARE RIGHT NOW IN PAKISTAN…GET A FUCKING LGRIP!!!!!

Yesterday I informed one of the so called support workers who supposedly is meant to be supportive that yet again the idea of killing off the disabled had resurfaced in the mainstream media. But the support worker who’s supposedly meat to be supportive seemed more interested in gossiping about what she was going to be doing with her boyfriend this weekend & more preoccupied about having new radiators fitted in her very middle class type house.

If the likes of me are killed off then social workers & their ilk wouldn’t be able to afford to replace radiators in their middle class ivory towers. Okay minus  my personal cynicism that social workers can live a middle class existence from misery of the disabled; I’d of thought that social workers would care that people are propagating the potential extermination of the disabled, I’d of thought a social worker might care because I’m always being told how much social workers care. I’m always being told how much social workers ‘care’ & yet no social worker nor anybody else seems to care that there have been people proposing to exterminate the likes of me on the fucking BBC!

Libertarians are always banging on about the egregious actions of government towards individual liberty or that people are proposing that government enacts what could be egregious to individual liberty. But in the hub of libertarian activism they’re currently getting their panties in a bind about….A FUCKING PAPER CUP! I guess I shouldn’t expect anything better from the Free Keene cultists who seem to think the world revolves around them & if you’re disabled then hey that’s your problem buddy. Some libertarians (the Free Keene cultists in particular) do illustrate to me worrying sociopathic tendencies with that whole law of the jungle stuff they want all to live by. But despite that personal criticism I’d of expected libertarians to be advocating in defence of individual rights on this issue, I’ve though heard not a peep from any libertarian on the issue; as I say they’re more interested in the benignity of a fucking paper cup!

So what about the disability rights people? You’d expect disability rights organizations to be outraged about the very suggestion of sterilizing the disabled? But no there appears to be no outrage in fact they don’t seem to have anything to say on the matter period. Geez what good are disability rights organizations if they aren’t even going to get proactive on the most fundamental human right of all, the right to life! It might be because irony of ironies many organizations that advocate for the disabled are funded one way or another by government & therefore are dictated to according to the government’s agenda for the disabled. In other words those organisations that advocate for disability rights advocate disability rights according to what rights the government think the disabled should have.

People are of course telling me not to take this personally; I swear I’m tempted to rip out the throat off the next imbecile who says that to me & so they can find out what its like not to be able to breathe. What is so hard for people to understand when it’s pretty obvious as to why I would take the extermination of the disabled kind of personally. But here’s a reminder to those imbeciles who don’t seem to understand; its pretty simple I’m physically as well as emotionally disabled & there are people suggesting the likes of me should be exterminated & I don’t want to be exterminated etc. Okay the government orchestrating the mass extermination of the disabled might not happen to tomorrow but by people propagating the idea in the mass media is seeding an idea that could flourish.

There’s a part of me that thinks I should take myself out to the woods & blow my fucking brains out, because its pretty obvious that nobody cares nor takes what I’m saying seriously. If somebody on the BBC suggested sterilizing Muslims they’d be more then an outcry from liberals, but somebody suggests on the BBC sterilizing the disabled & I hear no protest from anybody. To say I’m disgusted is an understatement but I guess when I think about it I’m not that surprised. The disabled are such a minority that our concerns don’t matter in the scheme of things & liberals probably secretly think breading us into extinction might not be such a bad idea.

Originally published @ The Bastard

About a month ago there were reports first surfacing in the alternative media that there were people who’d been suggesting as a means of cost cutting the sterilization of the disabled on a government website. When I was made aware of that these suggestions had been made I of course launched into a rant about how repugnant such suggestions were & that with the current perception many have of democracy, I felt there was a real possibility that the tyranny of the majority could seriously make such suggestions a reality.

Its funny that to find out what some people had been suggesting the government should be doing with the disabled, I had to listen to a radio show broadcasting an ocean away & a radio show that many would describe as kooky because it propagates conspiracy theories. But what with people taking a leak on blocks of stone, people throwing cats in the trash & of course X Factor, there’s more then more then enough for the British media to be obsessing with; people suggesting the extermination of the physically disabled & mentally ill just isn’t important enough for the mainstream media.

As it goes Terry the Troll a guy who has stalked me around the various blogs I’ve written for called me a liar when I first published my rant in reaction to finding out that there were people wanting to kill the likes of myself off. Terry the troll has stalked me around the various blogs where articles of mine have featured, because he’s got something of a chip on his shoulder about the opinions I espouse due to him being somewhat of a nationalistic bigot. Obviously Terry being a nationalistic bigot just refused to believe that the British people would ever suggest killing off the disabled & the mentally ill; this of course was until I showed him the Mail Online report which had picked up on the story there was a government website where people had been suggesting the sterilization of the disabled & the mentally ill. Of all the mainstream media it was the online edition of the Daily Mail which had picked up on this story & had called the suggestions of sterilizing the disabled as wacky, because even for the management of the Daily Mail such suggestions were beyond the pale. Funny enough the suggestions weren’t beyond on the pale for the Daily Mail readership; many commented on the Daily Mail’s website that in fact they thought sterilizing the disabled & alike wasn’t such a bad idea.

Many libertarians will tell all how much there is to fear from government; what I personally fear isn’t government itself but who controls it. Okay Terry the Troll along with Johnny Little Englander & Tracy Chav might not necessarily think killing off the disabled is a good idea, but they’d go along with it as docile masses would because they think democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. More & more I’m hearing from your typical man on the street the attitude that if 51% vote for etc then etc must be enacted, because whatever the majority happens to vote for happens to be morally justified simply on the basis that the majority says it its morally justified. The mindset of people like Tracy Chav & Johnny Little Englander is the espousal that it would okay if 51% of people voted to eat the other 49%, he attitude of Terry the Troll is that the highest law of the land should be the tyranny of the majority. Bollocks to respecting human rights such as the right to life, its might is right & if the majority of people think its okay to kill off the disabled then the will of the majority must be respected.

Benjamin Franklin must be turning in his grave at thought the masses now do think that democracy is two wolves & a sheep voting what’s for dinner. I shit myself in the fear at the thought that I could end up in my grave before my time because people think democracy is two wolves & a sheep voting what’s for dinner.

Of course Terry the Troll is a proponent of direct democracy & the very thought churns my stomach particularly some of the ideas the Daily Mail readership has been known to support.

Representative democracy isn’t any better…

It was representative democracy which gave a platform to a man who proposed sterilizing the disabled & the mentally ill, his regime went much further & just orchestrated the mass extermination of whoever didn’t fit into how he viewed society should be. It was parliamentary democracy which have Hitler power & we all know what he proceeded to do in regards to the treatment of the disabled & mentally ill.

Good Enough For Hitler….Professors To Debate Sterilizing “Mentally and Morally Unfit” On BBC Radio

Yet again it’s the alternative press which has made me aware that on a national radio show broadcasted by the BBC, a bunch of eminent professors intellectually masturbated about a policy Hitler would be proud of.

In the past I’ve witnessed libertarians intellectually masturbate about whether there’s any moral justification to prohibit cannibalism if somebody consents to be killed & eaten or if a child consents to be buggered then should be laws prohibiting paedophilia….its like just don’t go there people! I often get the feeling with intellectuals that they’re not quite in touch with reality & well they don’t seem to understand how many could perceive their debate. I’m not saying taboo subjects shouldn’t be openly debated in fact far from it; but those who indulge in the intellectual masturbation of those subjects that people generally find repugnant need to be aware of how their debates could be interpreted.

The problem I have with the idea of sterilizing the disabled & mentally ill is it’s a rather repugnant idea which seriously contravenes the human rights of the disabled & therefore needs to be killed off when still a seed of an idea. Do you think that if the government did openly start to sterilize the disabled it would end there? Remember it didn’t stop with sterilization with the Third Reich.

Breeding out the disabled isn’t just a kooky idea of the far right. This is often forgotten but back in 1974 Keith Joseph who’d been a member of Edward heath’s cabinet gave a speech where he suggested sterilizing women of a lower income & I’m pretty sure he’d of gone along with sterilizing the disabled. Luckily this speech put paid to his ambitions to be leader of the Conservative Party. More recently John Redwood who’s also had ambitions to be Tory leader has floated the idea of eugenics as means of cutting the welfare bill.

Breeding out the disabled isn’t just an idea being floated by the far right & loony Tories. Its an idea I’ve heard moderate leftists advocate, but obviously they spin it a bit differently. Lefties of course spin breeding out the disabled with their typical ‘we care about people’ & genetic engineering could help to elevate disease & disorders. When you start objecting then leftists get all sanctimonious with you saying that how dare you wish ill of people or just because your disabled how dare you wish others to be. I’m not saying that there haven’t been times when being a physical spastic & emotional retard has not been a curse upon my life, but any pain I’ve suffered has given me a unique perspective. I might not wish pain on any person but I’m aware our flaws are our strengths & pain is what makes us human. If you don’t understand what its like to receive pain then you’d not understand pain & ask yourself what are the consequences of that?

It should be stated that the left of the political spectrum has a longer association with the ideas of eugenics then the right of the political spectrum. At the turn of the 20^th century HG Wells was advocating the ideas of eugenics such as selective breeding which equates to sterilizing anybody deemed unfit such as the disabled & the mentally ill.

As I say the pain I’ve suffered has given me a unique prospective & well I consider that prospective a gift which I’m able to utilize. I look around & well I genuinely don’t have a bad quality of life. But here I sit aware that doctors are now telling pregnant women to have abortions if the foetuses show any abnormalities.  With the advancement of medical technology there’s already parents choosing the colour of their children’s eyes & the colour of their hair, how long is it before the government start telling parents what colour eyes & what colour hair their children should have?

Typically there will be people who’ll say that I’m taking this all too personally; yeah you’re the kind of people who’d of told Jews in 1920s Berlin that they shouldn’t take what those wacky Nazis & their nutty ideas too personally or you’d of told them not too take them seriously. Of course I should take this personally wouldn’t you if somebody wanted you dead because of what you are, I’m going to take it fucking personally I’m fucking disabled & I can’t fucking help it & people want to kill me due to something I can’t fucking help. People who say I’m taking things too personally really need to brush up on what Martin Niemöller wrote.

It might start off with sterilizing the disabled then proceed to exterminating the disabled, but it will end up with whoever holds the whip of power killing off anybody they don’t like the look of?

It might sound very  positive for government to subsidise to subsidise the expansion of broadband to rural areas, but in regards to individual liberty it’s a very bad idea to have government involved with the infrastructure of the internet.

Firstly having government subsidise the roll out of broadband infrastructure is a corporatist ploy; basically the government subsidises the roll out of broadband & then the internet service providers profit for the government paying for broadband infrastructure. Put another way the tax payer would cough up for what the internet service providers would profit from.

I know some might say that with more & more business being conducted via the internet, the British economy would benefit as a whole from superfast broadband being expanded. I’m not denying that the expansion of superfast broadband wouldn’t benefit the British economy, but if there’s market demand then it’s the market that should pay. If industry & business are demanding the roll out of superfast broadband then it should be industry & business that pays for it! It shouldn’t be the taxpayer that pays for it whilst business & industry profits from it.

But my objection to government subsidising the expansion of broadband is not that its corporatist but also concerns regarding civil liberties.

The internet over the past two decades truly has been a bastion of freedom & governments around the globe have hated it for being so. Naturally to keep control of the masses governments around the globe have wanted to regulate & control the internet & subsidising the roll out of broadband is not an opportunity they’d pass up.

First there was the great firewall of China & people said it was nothing but kooky paranoia to think anything like that could happen in a liberal democracy. Well it did in Australia with the great firewall of Rudd, sure it doesn’t block as much as the Chinese firewall but its been blocking out more then the Aussie government claimed it would. Sure its blocking out repugnant things such as child porn sites & alike, but weirdly its also been blocking out websites that contain what could be perceived as anti government propaganda.

As I say governments want to control the masses & what the masses think, no way does government want the masses to find out that hey there are alternatives to the system that governs over them & such ideas have of proliferated due to the internet being the bastion of freedom which it has been.

Now that the Australian government has successfully initiated a national firewall it looks as if Indian government might implement their own. But there’s not only the Indian government, but there’s been talk about the US having a national firewall coming out of the Obama administration. Remember the US government has already initiated an internet kill switch, so anybody the US president is fed up of the criticism they’re getting online that’s it they shut down the internet. Here in Britain its been a member of Liberal Democrat (the party that supposedly supports civil liberties) who attempted just before the recent general election to introduce a bill in parliament to set up a national firewall.

The internet has stayed a bastion of freedom & that’s largely due to the lack government interference there’s been in regards to the internet. But now more governments are getting involved in regulating the internet its pretty obvious that no longer will it be the bastion of freedom & the benefit to humanity its been for being that bastion of freedom.

Originally published @ The Bastard

Liberia is one of only three countries in the world where imperial measurements are still predominately used. This is a useless fact but one I’ve been reminded of in the last week due to the war crimes trial of Liberia’s former president Charles Taylor. The media’s attention of Mia Farrow’s & Naomi Campbell’s testimony at Taylor’s trial hasn’t just reminded me that Liberia predominately uses imperial measurements, its reminded me of the atrocities that have been committed in places such as Liberia & Sierra Leone during the 1990s.

Meanwhile about a week ago, in a backwater town in the United States, a bunch of anarchists were arrested for protesting against the town’s ordinance against open containers.

In places such as Liberia & Sierra Leone, people have truly been oppressed & persecuted. In the recent past, in places such as Liberia & Sierra Leone, people could find themselves dead for an accident of birth such as being born into the wrong tribe or for not fighting for the local warlord or for a multitude of unjust reasons.

One thing I know is that being arrested for contravening the local ban on having a beer in the local park isn’t being persecuted, its not right, but its not persecution. Another thing I know is that getting arrested as a consequence of being a member of a bunch of rabble rousing agitators at a local council meeting isn’t being persecuted, its not right, but its not persecution.

The word persecution to me means a group or individual conducting a campaign to exterminate people because of their religion, race, or beliefs etc.

Its apt description to what has happened too many living on the continent of Africa, but it’s certainly what’s happening to a bunch of anarchists in the city of Keene in the US state of New Hampshire.

For many in their locality & too many looking on from afar, the activism of those who’ve attached themselves to the Free Keene movement is not in fact political civil disobedient activism but a bunch of spoilt brats acting up because they can’t get their own way.

Free Keene is a movement spearheaded by radio talk show host Ian Freeman (real name Ian Bernard) & affiliated with the Free State Project. The Free State Project is a movement to get 20,000 libertarians to move to the state of New Hampshire to campaign to downsize government. Most Free State Project participants work with New Hampshire’s political & governmental system & do so in a respectfully diplomatic manner…but then there’s Free Keene who don’t.

I’d equate Free Keene with the type of people who gatecrash a party demanding the right to get wasted on whisky & smack, when people already attending the party are quite content buzzing on beer & weed.

Its not to far off the mark to call Free Keene a bunch of rabble rousing anarchists & neither is it to far off the mark to describe Free Keene as cultish, in fact I’d go as far to say that if your looking for an equivalent to radical Islam with in libertarianism then Free Keene would be it.

Ian freeman denies he’s the leader of the Free Keene movement & also refutes that Free Keene is a cult. My reasoning in describing Free Keene as a cult is that Ian’s attitude often seems to be he’s right & everybody else who doesn’t agree with him is wrong…this includes flatly denying all accusations or deflecting all criticisms that come his way no matter if they have any substance. Much of Ian’s attitude is reflected in the Free Keene movement & at the core of my accusation that Free Keene is a cult is a reflection of Ian’s attitude to what is & isn’t libertarian. Ian has somewhat appointed himself the arbitrator of what is & isn’t libertarianism & has a very rigid perception of libertarianism & if your interpretation of libertarianism doesn’t fit in with his then he can become more then a tad hostile.

Ian & his Free Keene cohorts believe that libertarianism to be the non initiation of force but they believe this absolutely. Smaller government isn’t good enough for Ian because that still involves some coercive force; even if the force used is for the greater good. I’m of the mindset that government uses far too much force & coercion upon people doing no harm, however sometimes I do believe force is justified for the betterment of all as in ‘for the common good’. Ian has said on more then one occasion that marijuana smokers are being persecuted for being thrown in jail. Considering that I’ve spent 20 years campaigning for the legalisation of marijuana I certainly don’t think its right to be throwing marijuana smokers in jail, but I think it’s a bit melodramatic (if not incorrect) to say marijuana users are being persecuted. I’m not denying that they’ve been way too many incidences where the police have been egregiously heavy handed with incidences like sending SWAT teams into marijuana grow ops & shooting innocent people, but its not like every marijuana user is being taken into the street by the police & being put to death.

Ian’s perception as well as his Free Keene cohorts perception of persecution seems to derive from government not allowing them to live their life as they want to. Of course Ian & his cohorts spin that they just want to be able to live their life freely & want to do so peacefully, but its not how others interpret the way those involved with Free Keene go about living their life. If people want to smoke pot on their own property then fair enough, but if you want to smoke pot, drink beer & have ladies go topless in the local communal park then that’s a different matter. I’ll admit that any local community can be a bit strident & inflexible towards individualism & individual liberty, sure I’d advocate that any local community as well as society as a whole was less so; but one can’t live their live totally regardless to the wishes of the local community. Personally I don’t believe that it’s right to arrest somebody for having a beer in the local park, but if you’re part of group of rabble rousers with the intent of disrupting the local council meeting then the least you should expect is to be expelled from the vicinity.

Last week Ian & some of his Free Keene cohorts set out with the very intention of being disruptive at the local council meeting (of course they’ll deny this). They sat at the back of the Keene council meeting conducting a drinking game (explained here) water or non alcoholic beverages from containers that could be mistaken for beer bottles & etc.

There’s in fact a video of this incident….

Let me state right here that people have a legitimate right to protest, so long as their protest doesn’t disrupt the business of others & in this incidence that was intention. Oh but of course to Free Keene participants disrupting the business of local government is legitimate because all government is unjustified force & coercion no matter the common good, yes that’s because the world revolves around the fucking wishes of Ian Freeman & his Free Keene buddies.

Whatever Ian & whoever else involved with Free Keene might say, their intention was obvious enough & that was to disrupt the council meeting. Of course if their protest against the city ordinance banning open containers of alcohol in public had been ignored they’d of whined that the council had ignored their protests. The thing with these EXTREMIST libertarians who are extremely manipulative & will attempt to force you (usually in a passive-aggressive manner) into thinking like they do; if you don’t agree with their logic then your wrong or evil or fascist or nazi.

Once a week on a Saturday, a city of Keene councillor hosts a local radio show, where residents of Keene are invited to phone in to talk about local issues. Week after week Ian & his Free Keene chum Sam phone in & at times harass this councillor who goes by the name of Cynthia.  The other week Ian phoned in & said that many people had bemoaned that those involved with free Keene hadn’t got involved in the political system & well here he was asking Cynthia to ask about repealing the city ordinance on the prohibition on open containers.  In the manner Ian was saying this it was almost as if he expected Cynthia to jump on his command. It really did sound that because he had requested the ordinance to be repealed that his will must be done.

As it goes Cynthia had been thinking about looking into possibly repealing the ban on open containers but after Free Keene’s protest at the council chamber she has changed her mind.

To quote from the local Keene paper….

‘City Councilor Cynthia C. Georgina said Saturday she had been considering writing a letter to the City Council questioning section 6-29 of the city’s code of ordinances, which prohibits open containers.

Following Thursday’s meeting however, she will not bother.

“I just wanted to send it in and, if nothing else, make sure it was what people still wanted,” Georgina said. “Now I wouldn’t do it on a bet.”

It appears that Ian & Free Keene’s protest backfired as the article that quote was taken from is entitled.

There does seem to be a growing number of people living in the Keene vicinity who are fed up with the antics of Ian & Free Keene, maybe Ian should listen to some of the callers into that local talk show Cynthia hosts, because he’d hear that people are more then irritated by him & his Free Keene buddies.

Its not just a growing number of Keene natives who have grown tiresome of the antics of Ian & his Free Keene buddies, there appears to be a growing number with in the Free state Project who are fed up with the antics of Ian & Free Keene, in fact the Free State Project founder Jason Sorens has called the antics of those involved with Free Keene ‘childish’.

If there isn’t a growing number of Free State Project participants who are fed up with the antics of Ian & his Free Keene buddies, there’s definitely a growing number of libertarians who don’t want to be associated with the activities of Free Keene & will make a point of saying so. The activities of Free Keene are obviously having a detrimental affect upon Free State Project participants particularly in the Keene vicinity; but that negative affect is probably going to spread further out, particularly if Ian & his Free Keene buddies don’t curtail their activities.

I don’t expect Ian & Free Keene friends to curtail their activities, I don’t expect them to take on board any constructive criticism, I especially don’t expect Ian or his Free Keene buddies to take note of anything I’ve expressed here. Ian & his buddies aren’t going to listen to anybody other themselves & their logic, I knew this before I set about writing this & so some might ask why have I bothered to write 2000 odd words if the people those words are aimed at aren’t going to take note? The answer is simply that I want to say that there are libertarians unlike Ian Freeman & Free Keene; I want to say not all libertarians are fucking jerks like Ian & his Free Keene buddies.

I guess with all that’s going in the world why I really care about a bunch of lunatic anarchists in some backwater town in the United States, because after all don’t I live in Britain an ocean away. I do live in Britain & there are libertarians here & there are libertarians who listen to Ian Freeman’s radio show Free Talk Live via podcast & are stupid enough to be influenced by Ian.

I should say in closing that really the Keene city council drinking game & its consequences are of no great importance considering the real persecution going on in places such as Africa.

As an African I despair at the crap goes on there & I despair as a libertarian of the crap that goes on in Keene.

Written August 2010 first published @ The Bastard

The Online marketplace Craigslist has come under pressure over the “adult services” section of its site. Over the years critics have accused Craigslist of promoting prostitution & some are now accusing it in assisting in ‘sex trafficking’. The recent pressure upon Craigslist in relation to promoting prostitution came about after two women placed a paid-for advert in The Washington Post making an to close the site’s adult section, saying it had wrecked their lives.

“My memories are of making my own arrangements on Craigslist to be sold for sex,”

My first response is that by the sounds of it these women were not forced into placing adverts on Craigslist offering sexual services. The impression I get is that these women willingly placed adverts offering sexual services but regretted doing so because of some of the rough treatment they received from offering sexual services. The major reason contributing tie the levels of abuse there happens to be in the sex industry is due to sectors in the sex industry such as prostitution being prohibited from being legitimately regulated.

Particularly in Britain prostitution is not totally illegal but neither is it legal & this has created what is often described as a grey market. Whenever there is a grey or black market the market is unable to legitimately regulate itself & when the market can’t legitimately regulate itself criminality will step into the void to regulate usually with violence.

In the places where prostitution has been fully legalised such as Holland, the Australian Capital Territory & the US state of Nevada; health & safety standards have become standards which prostitutions operate by & individuals offering sexual services in those locations can do so in far greater safety.

Of course you’ll always get those who’ll tell you that prostitution or legitimising prostitution just encourages human trafficking. I’m not going to deny that there aren’t young girls forced into prostitution due to human trafficking but prostitution isn’t the root cause of human trafficking. The root cause of human trafficking is people wanting a better life & the anti immigration policies of various governments. Because individuals can’t come to places such as Britain legitimately criminal gangs are willing tio smuggle people across international borders in hidden containers for a price & that price has be paid, hence young girls being forced into prostitution by the very gangs (or their associates) who have smuggled them into the country.

Human trafficking is nothing but the modern version slavery & something I find it utterly repugnant, but its not Craigslist which is encouraging human trafficking its the anti immigration policies of governments which is. Craigslist is just being used as a scapegoat by the moralist authoritarian prudes who always link prostitution with human trafficking but neglect to mention that human trafficking has been linked to sweat shops & agriculture.

The moralist authoritarian prudes haven’t just been busy jumping on the bashing Craigslist bandwagon; they’ve been showing their influence with the bew government here in Britain.

The Conservatives make up the majority of the new government & they do get support from a moralist authoritarian constituency that in return has to be pandered to you. Last week the government banned adverts in job centres for vacancies associated with the sex industry. It wasn’t like any madam was advertising for girls to work in her brothel; the kind of jobs being advertised were typically IT related jobs with internet based sexual services.

Its not as if anybody with a moral objection to the sex industry was being forced any job centre official into working for a company providing internet porn. What if somebody actually wanted to work in the sex industry? I’ve often pondered whether anybody in government has ever thought that there might be people who actually want to work in the sex industry. Its quite possible that some unemployed person visiting a job centre might In fact want to take up an opportunity to work in the sex industry if there’s a vacancy being advertised.

There’s something the mass media don’t tell you & that is the vast majority of people who work in the sex industry do so because they want to not because they’re forced into doing so. Granted that there are a good number of individuals who turn to prostitution because of poverty, debt or addiction, but I think if a survey was conducted it would be established that the vast majority of people who offer their bodies for sex do so because they want to.

The bottom line is that individuals own their own bodies & if one wishes to use their body to offer sexual services then its their fundamental human right to do so. If that individual & another enter into a voluntary contract where nobody is getting harmed then what happens between consenting adults is their business & their business alone.

Last week a federal judge overturned California’s ban on same sex marriages on the grounds that the ban was unconstitutional & who said in their ruling that there was no legitimate state interest justified in treating gay and lesbian couples differently.

It appears that the judge in question came to the very rational conclusion that there’s no harm in people whatever their sexual orientation confirming their love. Oh & the judge presumably ruled the ban on same sex marriage as unconstitutional because there’s nothing in the US constitution prohibiting same sex marriage.

There really isn’t any legitimate opposition to same sex marriage & there’s nothing in the US constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, but despite a federal judge making a rational ruling in adherence to the US constitution, the opposition of bigotry dressed up as irrational supernatural dogma haven’t done bitching, barking or bullying.

The Christian Right are now attempting to bully the judge in question to reveal whether they’rea homosexual; because obviously a federal judge whose heterosexual wouldn’t of versed themselves in US constitution but the bible, because obviously a federal judge who’s heterosexual couldn’t of thought the ban on same sex marriages was unconstitutional as they’d of realised they were living in Bible Literalism Land & not the fucking United States of America.

The Christian Right who’ll constantly tell you that the US is a Christian nation, I know that its going to come as a shock to the Christian right but no the Us isn’t a Christian nation but a nation that’s secular. The founding fathers most of whom were deist if not atheist enshrined the US as a secular nation in the constitution with the separation of church & state. Here’s something else which is going to come as an even greater shock to the Christian Right, there are heterosexual who also support same sex marriage & in fact there are heterosexuals who believe in God who support same sex marriage as well as outright equality for gays & lesbians. Probably the most outrageous thing for the Christian Right to have swallow is that there are Christians who support equal rights for gays & lesbians like Al Sharpton & he’s also heterosexual!

Of course the Christian Right will allege that if the judge who overturned the ban on gay marriage in California happens to be gay then they had a conflict of interest. Hmm I wonder if the judge in question happens to be Christian or has any religious belief, because if they do it must confuse the fuck out of those in the Christian Right. It must be near impossible for any Christian fundamentalists to understand that there is somebody who’s possibly Christian who doesn’t believe in the literal word of the bible or uses the bible or any other holy book to bash gays & lesbians.

It should be remember that there are substantial number of rational Christians who like any atheist such as myself find the prospect of living in Bible Literalism Land according to the Christian Right nightmarish if not repugnant. There are plenty of Christians when it comes to the bible who have read past the book of Leviticus nor take the word of the bible literally other then when it comes to the stuff in the New Testament about peace & love. In my time I’ve met plenty of decent moderate Christians with liberal sensibilities but I can’t ignore the coincidence between religious dogma & hatred of sexual minorities. I’m not going to let anybody forget that the basis of the Christian Right’s opposition to same sex marriage is due to some stuff written in a book which they take as the word of god, in other words their basis of their opposition to same sex marriage is the fucking supernatural! Yeah well some of us don’t want to live by the dictates of supernatural despotism, but instead want to deal with reality & the realism is a far better thing that man loves his fellow man then hates his fellow man.

Even Arnie seems supportive of Gay marriage & he’s a Republican! Arnold Schwarzenegger probably hasn’t been the greatest governor of California but he has stated in the aftermath of this ruling on same sex marriage that he wants the state to resume conducting same sex marriages.

There isn’t a prohibition on same sex marriage in the US constitution & that’s because the founding fathers probably thought it should not be the state regulating marriage. The fact that the state does regulate marriage is at the root of the problem, because as long as the state regulates marriage there will various interested parties fighting over regulating marriage in the manner they see fit. But in my personal opinion so long as the state does regulate marriage then it shouldn’t discriminate against anybody whatever their sexual orientation from confirming their love for another.



Written August 2010 first published @ The Bastard

On Wednesday a federal judge declared California’s ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, the judge stated that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently.

This judge is bang on there is no legitimate opposition to same sex marriage & when you strip the opposition down the only opposition to same sex marriage is bigoted.

I’ve never understood why there should be any opposition to gay marriage being as who can say it’s a bad thing that two people whatever their sexual orientation confirm their love for one another. It really seems ridiculous to me that there is any opposition & what opposition there is tends to be bigotry dressed up as ‘religious belief’ or as it really should be referred to ‘religious mumbo-jumbo’.

How ridiculous is it that the opposition to same sex marriage is based upon supernatural despotism?

However the religious zealots might spin it they’re basically using ‘religious belief’ their ‘belief in god’ as a front for hate & spite to discriminate against a section of society. What’s utterly sickening is the hypocrisy of the devoutly religious is they’re bitch no end when government or some associate purposely discriminates against their ilk. Plus I’d highlight that you choose what you believe religiously or otherwise, but believe me one does not choose their sexual orientation.

Just because the Torah, the Koran or the Bible says etc does not make etc the word of god nor does it make etc morally right! As far as I’m concerned God does not exist & religious books are the cruellest joke man has played upon his fellow man. Maybe society should try living the basic natural law that if people aren’t harming one another leave them be & homosexuals getting married ain’t harming anybody.

It’s pretty obvious that I’m pretty libertarian on this issue but ironically if there is a non religious opposition to same sex marriage to be found then it can be found with in libertarianism. The majority of libertarians like myself would take the position that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals; however there is a sizable minority of dogmatic libertarian extremists who object to same sex marriage not due to any homophobia, but because they believe government shouldn’t be regulating marriage period & therefore legalising same sex marriage would give government greater control over marriage etc. There is a serious point to make that as long as government regulates marriage then there will be various interest groups attempting to get government to regulate marriage in the manner they deem proper etc. I doubt that government will cease regulating marriage anytime soon, so I believe its only fair homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals & that libertarians should oppose all those who’d use government to prohibit equal rights to whatever section of society.

Obviously there are plenty of non religious people who oppose same sex marriage but typically they’re conservative males who are insecure about their sexuality. Of course there are many who believe in god who don’t object to gay marriage & in fact support equal rights for the GLBT community, but I’m not going to ignore the coincidence between religious dogma & hatred towards the GLBT community.

Written August 2010 & published @ The Bastard

The case of Stephanie and Samantha Wolf is genuinely tragic.

Stephanie Wolf was a 66 year old fulltime carer for her 29 year old daughter who was paralysed from the neck down.

This past weekend both mother and daughter were discovered dead at their home in Wheathampstead Hertfordshire. It appears that both had died up to six weeks ago. Its presumed that Stephanie Wolf had died in her sleep and that Samantha had starved to death.

If all this is not tragic enough the media are now spinning that Stephanie Wolf is to blame as she had refused help from social services in caring for her daughter.

I have heard several reports via BBC News on this tragedy, all of which have pretty much spun it as “Well this is what happens when you do not accept state help!”

I also heard a debate on BBC radio this morning where the radio host (who is a BBC journalist) seemed to be pushing that maybe its time that people were forced to accept help to avert incidents such as this from happening. In the same debate as I heard a BBC journalist say that people should be forced to accept state help there was a local councillor (who happened to be a Lib Dem) who had visited the Wolf’s home, strangely enough when he was campaigning for re-election. But at least some credit is due for this politician as he pooh-poohed the idea of forcing people into accepting help from government.

From all there’s been in the media it sounds as if no one other then the government cared about Stephanie and Samantha Wolf.

The deaths of Stephanie and Samantha Wolf were discovered due to somebody delivering pizza leaflets who smelt something off and saw that there were flies round the letter box. For many that probably does seem a statement of an uncaring society. I guess many people would be asking why a social worker wasn’t visiting rather then the pizza boy. Personally the fact that many people might ask why a social worker wasn’t visiting is evidence to me of an attitude which has arisen due to the size of the welfare state we have in this country.

I accept that for many the welfare state provides them with food on the table and roof over their head. I would not not denounce anybody for getting as much help as they can get from the government; in fact I would advise anybody with any severe problem to get as much assistance as they can if it will help them cope better with whatever problem is inhibiting them living their life. I might accept the welfare state might do some good in preventing some of the most vulnerable from dying, but at the same time I can not ignore that it is encouraging an attitude which encourages tragedies such as Stephanie and Samantha Wolf to happen.

As a disabled person myself, I have observed that the welfare state has in fact alienated disabled people rather then help to integrate them. I know the logic of giving many severely disabled people assistance will help them live as normal life as possible, but in fact its possibly building a barrier preventing disabled people from living a normal life. I have witnessed a growing attitude towards disabled folk that people in the community surrounding them need not care because there is a social worker or doctor to do that.

I do not know if Stephanie Wolf was prickly towards the local community helping her out, but its more then likely that the local community took no notice because people in the local community who might of known about Stephanie and her daughter Samantha probably thought well its social services job to help.

The point I am attempting to make is that I believe the current size of the welfare state here in Britain is actually putting people off from helping and caring about disabled people in particular. I am only moderately disabled and even in my experience I have often found people unwilling to help me out with the one or two tasks I am unable to do. The usual response I get when asking for help is why do not I have a social worker or a home help? It seems to me that too often the welfare state and the expectation its caused is encouraging people generally not to care about disabled folk or not care about them in a natural way as they would care for somebody they know who is not disabled.

I fear if the welfare state was dismantled tomorrow many disabled people would perish due to the absence of support the welfare state provides. One explanation as to the root problem is that anytime an advocate for the disabled appears in the media its always what the government should be doing not what the community should be doing. I’d never say that any disabled person should refuse help from government but if those advocating for a better life for the disabled are always going to argue government is the solution then government will always be the solution.

Stephanie Wolf is being demonized by the media for thinking government was not the solution for the plight of her and her daughter. This media spin is just perpetuating that the only solution for the severely disabled is the government and the welfare state.

Published @ The Bastard

I’ll admit land reform isn’t the sexiest of issues where libertarianism is concerned. Land reform is definitely not in my usual repertoire of topics which I typically write about. Land reform is certainly as sexy as guns, drugs, hoes & the police state, but its land reform which is the basis of geolibertarianism. Being as land reform is the basis of geolibertarianism its land reform I must write about & more specifically the geolibertarian perception of ownership of the land.

Geolibertarianism is not the easiest of concepts to explain because its in fact a marriage of two philosophical concepts of Georgism & Libertarianism. Typically the anarcho-capitalist variety of libertarianism believes that the marriage of the two concepts conflict somewhat & typically geolibertarians believe that you can’t have one without the other. In my experience its worth noting that the left of the political spectrum (but not exclusively so) happens to be far more open to the concept of geolibertarianism then the better know concept of royal libertarianism otherwise known as anarcho-capitalist. For reasons I’ll explain this is because geolibertarianism fits in with the concept of modern liberalism.

Geolibertarianism is very much like royal libertarianism in arguing for far greater individual sovereignty, but with one crucial difference & that difference being ownership of land & resources. Geolibertarians believe for a multitude of reasons that no one person owns land & the natural resources of the world & therefore we all commonly own it. My own personal justification is that man can not lay claim of ownership to what man does not create. I’d also justify geolibertarianism by pointing out that when the natural resources aren’t commonly own it leads to conflict & exploitation. I’ve a geolibertarian friend who’d probably explain that due to the various land grabs by the ruling classes that have occurred here over the last millennium has unjustly impoverished many & it’s this which gave rise to Marxism & the welfare state.

The easiest way to institute geolibertarian ideas on land ownership is via the Land Value Tax which is then divvied up equally amongst the population as the citizen’s income. As with royal libertarians geolibertarians want to see an end to tax upon labour or any tax on what man has created, but geolibertarians believe that though no man should be taxed for any house built but they should be taxed for the undeveloped value of the land which house or property is built upon. Some royal libertarians will make out that geolibertarians don’t in fact believe in property rights, this is an unfair assumption as geolibertarians believe in property rights just as much as any royal libertarian, an instance being if somebody trespasses upon your property you’d have every right to eject them.

I’d defend the idea of the citizens income by pointing out that its in a way of compensation to individuals not having full access to the land or natural resources. In fact idea of the citizen’s income does attempt to levitate poverty & therefore does fits in somewhat with the modern liberal perspective of liberty. The modern liberal perspective of liberty is pretty much that people should be free as possible; but to assist in giving the means to those in poverty to be free who might not be as free without that assistance. The ideas of geolibertarianism don’t just attempt to tackle poverty but also environmental protection or a decrease in exploitation of the environment. An oil company would still be able to profit from pumping, refining & distributing oil, but would have to pay levy for the use of the oil being as it’s a natural resource & the same would apply to logging & fishing & etc.

Though in the British Liberal Democrat party as well as in the US Democrat party you’d find individuals advocating for georgist & geolibertarian principles, the party which in fact has adopted more georgist ideas then any other happens to be the Greens. The Greens do advocate for a policy of land tax to fund a citizen’s income, however it should be stated that no way are the Greens anywhere near geolibertarian because they want to ban pornography, have stricter weapons laws etc. As it goes with royal libertarians, it’s the same with geolibertarianism when it comes to guns, drugs, hoes & of course the police state.

It was the American political economist Henry George who can be credited for the fruition of the geolibertarian concept as he was the most influential proponent of the land value tax, ironic in a way because in general most American libertarians don’t seem to get geolibertarianism; though prominent American libertarians such as David Nolan founder of the US Libertarian Party are supposedly supportive of geolibertarianism.

In fact there have been many political & economic philosophers who have given support to geolibertarian ideas; Milton Freidman, F.A Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, amongst others have shown appreciation for the geolibertarian argument. The grand daddy of modern liberalism John Locke once said that which you apply you labour to you is your own but natural of which you build (ie the land you build whatever upon) is held in common. Perhaps the best summary of geolibertarianism is Thomas Paine’s assertion that “Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.”

Written July 2010 not published