If you click only one link on my blog in your entire life, let it be this link.

Could it be any simpler? The Philosophy of Liberty.
(You need flash player to view this, but it is VERY MUCH worth it.)

I don't think there is any way to refute any of this... it is all so simple and right.
Now everyone become a libertarian (or anarchist if you realize that all government is by definition coercive and illegitimate).

I think this flash movie was made for children, but I think it lays out libertarian principles very clearly and simply -- there is definitely no such argument for statism, socialism, nationalism, or any of the other popular political philosophies out there today.

Police are worthless (and dangerous), our courts are worthless (and completely retarded), and we should get rid of both of them.
I'm sure everyone has had a suspicion that our courts were completely ridiculous since fat people started suing McDonald's for selling fatty food, and winning. It seems, however, that these absurdities are nowhere near the most terrible acts our wonderful government has perpetrated. Enjoy these articles, and next time you see a cop, lawyer, judge, or any other government official, hit them in the kneecaps with a bat.

Police Are Criminals, Liars, and Cowards
Abusive Cops
More Abusive Cops
We Would All Be Better Off Without Cops
Our Federal Government Is a Terrorist Organization

Here's the meat of the articles (although I strongly suggest you read them in their entirety):

Police think that they are above the law: In one case, the Times wrote that a "deputy caught in a ‘romantic relationship with a 17-year-old Explorer Scout’ was suspended for 15 days."

Police are murderers: According to a retired California police officer, 11% of killings by policemen are found to be wrongful, while only 2% of killings by the general population are found to be so.

There's much more as well... read the articles.

None of this should be surprising. All government services are inefficient at best, and criminal at worst. This is because the government has absolutely no incentive to do things properly. They extract their revenues from the public under threat of violence (you get thrown in jail or killed for resisting if you refuse to pay your taxes), and they stand to gain nothing from being reasonable, kind, or fair human beings. Police are guaranteed their salaries so long as they are not too extremely oppressive or crooked so as to be fired, however this is hard to do.

Imagine you worked in a department store that made the same amount of profit no matter what its employees did (as is the case with all government services). Would you be surprised if nothing was ever in stock or if the employees were discourteous to customers? These inconveniences of a badly run department store are nothing compared to the atrocities committed by our armed policemen on a perpetual power trip.

Keep in mind that not all police abuse their power and do more harm than good, however the institution of public law enforcement as a whole has caused more than enough death, pain, and suffering to be completely abandoned. The only exceptions to these trends of abuse are those police who seek to enforce only logically sound libertarian principles that actually protect individuals and their freedom. These police, however, are few and far between.

One of the most slandered labels in all of politics is that of anarchism. When one imagines anarchists, one thinks of rebellious, anti-capitalist, blood-thirsty youths bent on destruction. However, within America there has arisen a reasonable, freedom-oriented, distinct brand of anarchism that draws its conclusions not based on idiotic Marxist misinterpretations of economics, but on logical analyses of capitalism and the nature of government.

Today, some very interesting and provocative reading on market anarchism (also known as libertarian anarchism or anarcho-capitalism) and the illegitimacy of the state monopoly on violence:

Why Government Must Be Abolished

Why Abolishing Government Would Not Bring Chaos

The Problem of Corporate Greed

Private Law

I understand that for many these ideas will seem very counter-intuitive and possibly dangerous to many readers, but I have found that the unpopularity of these ideas seems to come mainly from the fact that (1) they are not immediately obvious and (2) they have been so thoroughly slandered by our government and media. They are not immediately obvious in the same sense that vaccination is not obvious -- it seems dangerous to inject disease into our bodies -- yet few would doubt the usefulness of vaccination. They are slandered simply because they threaten the illegitimate structures of power in our world, and seek a society free of coercion and prosperity. Quite obviously the powers that be do not look kindly on the prospect of losing their power.

We are all used to government, and we have been raised to fear the prospect of uncertainty; government gives us the illusion of certainty by embracing what seems obvious and what is comforting. I believe, though, that the harder one looks, the more one finds that these obvious answers are more often than not misguided, harmful, and/or completely wrong. These ideas of market anarchism, which seem almost absurd at first glance, upon sufficient consideration haven proven in my opinion to be extremely profound and insightful.

Those interested in further reading are encouraged to investigate these excellent sites:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Lew Rockwell

Strike the Root

The Molinari Institute

Anthony Gregory

It has taken quite a long time, but my patience with the writers at National Review has finally run out. The constant black-and-white over-simplifications, the complete refusal to admit any wrong on the part of our leaders, the fallacious analogies and the ignorant hard-headedness... it has become too much. The time has come once again for me to deconstruct and expose their foolishness for what it is. Today we will consider "The Great Debate" by Natan Sharansky.

Although one could systematically refute every illogical and absurd assertion made by Sharansky, it will suffice to point out the ridiculousness of the analogy upon which he bases most of his argument. Sharansky opens (like oh so many NR articles) with a completely inappropriate reference to the Berlin Wall falling and proceeds to consider the wonders of the fall of Soviet Russia. Like all neo-conservatives, Sharansky cannot tell the difference between 2004 and the Cold War. He asserts that the situation today in Iraq and the Middle East is analogous to the diametrically opposed views of the Soviet Union and the US in the 1980s. He argues that "the doubters" (those who question Bush's foray into Iraq) are the same people who doubted the USSR would ever fall. He claims that the "power of freedom" is what transformed the Soviets, and that this same power would change Iraq into a democracy.

Let's analyze this parallel between the invasion of Iraq and the collapse of the USSR. President Bush invaded Iraq claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction -- in fact, Hussein did not have any form of weapons even sufficient to put up a resistance during the war itself. The Soviet Union was a massive nuclear power, and had the second greatest nuclear arsenal in the world (after the US). No one has ever doubted that the Soviet Union was a great threat -- they openly made themselves a threat on many occasions. In this respect, Iraq and the Soviet Union are practically opposites: one (Russia) necessitated serious defensive measures, while the other was decidedly unable to attack us at all.

Secondly, whereas the United States used political and economic pressures, (which were without a doubt very important in bringing about the demise of Communism), and did not in any way invade Russia, in Iraq political and economic pressures were denounced as "appeasement" by the neo-conservatives, and the use of force was initiated relatively quickly. In addition, the arms race between the US and Russia was essentially a race for military superiority -- superiority that the US unquestionably had over Iraq long before the use of force was considered. Again, the policies adopted by the US toward these two enemies are almost completely opposite.

Even if we were to assume that Iraq had WMDs or posed a threat to the United States, Sharansky's reasoning is completely backwards. He draws a parallel between the two nations and then claims that our actions toward the Soviets prove that our almost completely opposite actions in Iraq are necessary. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Sharansky then continues on about the mystical "power of freedom" which he assumes is somehow expressed by the invasion of another nation and the imposition of a democratic government (yet one decidedly subservient to the US and US interests and thus not purely free or democratic). He also ignores the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed from within itself, was not invaded, and ultimately fell by the actions of its own citizens. The people of the Soviet Union demanded freedom. The people of the Soviet Union destroyed the Berlin Wall -- not American soldiers. Sharansky conveniently ignores the facts again here, and asserts that the fall of Soviet Russia (from within) is essentially the same as the invasion of Iraq and the imposition of a democratic system on its people.

In his entire article, Sharansky fails to put forth a single solid, logical argument. In typical neo-conservative style, he acts as if every occurence in the modern world will follow the same path as the Cold War. He ignores the facts, he draws false parallels, he comes to false conclusions, and accuses everyone not in agreement of being "appeasers" and as not "believing in freedom and democracy." This is all garbage. Why, oh why, National Review, do you have to publish this filth?

The Washington Post reports that President Bush's second inauguration will have "unrivaled security", with thousands of police from across the country, as well as "a military contingent that could include a combat brigade of up to 4,000 troops."
I find it rather hard to believe that no one in Bush's administration has ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a fundamental, binding law that prohibits the use of military for law enforcement purposes. What is absolutely certain, however, is that President Bush has made plans to violate a federal law. What is also certain is that in the United States of America, people who break laws go to jail no matter who they are.
This utilization of a "military contingent" for law enforcement purposes is the most blatant and dangerous violation of federal law by a president that I have ever heard of. If George Bush violates this law, he should be locked up. It is that simple -- that is how the law works, but in this case we can be almost certain that the law won't work. Impeachment is not an option, since there is no way 67 members of the Senate will vote to remove Bush from office, even when there is absolutely no question that he has violated a federal law and is a criminal.
The fact that Bush holds such contempt for the laws of our nation that he openly announces when and where he will be violating a law makes the entire ridiculous situation even more infuriating. I don't care if you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist, or a Monarchist -- there is absolutely no way to get around the fact that if Bush breaks a federal law, he should go to federal prison. There is no way to justify such a double standard, and Bush has no legitimate claim to immunity. This situation is completely intolerable, and the fact that such utter madness will most probably be allowed to occur without provoking mass revolt completely undermines the most basic ideas of limited government and rule of law.
If and when Bush proceeds with this serious criminal action, every person who dares call himself an American or a patriot must demand that Bush be held fully accountable.