Abortion
Agencies, Federal
Answering absurdities
Cash
Civil rights
Computer Security
Drugs
Economy, The
Education
Foreign Policy
Health Care
Immigration
Law Enforcement
Metric System
Passports
Postal Service
Social Security
Taxes
Veterans
Welfare
In the News
Editorial, The Telegraph, 22 July 2010
Reason 13 July 2018
Don’t agree with me. Agree with what I say.
Email:
Your next Congressman wants to know what you think.
polls
survey tool
Letter from Darryl W. Perry ... Decision
On 6 December 2000, state representative Tom Alciere introduced his son, Louis, to Governor Jeanne Shaheen.
Louis is running as a Libertarian for state representative in Hillsborough District 37, Hudson and Pelham.
Libertarians need to stop watering down our message. Plenty of folks don’t realize that there are candidates who support liberty, because too many libertarian candidates work very hard to resemble “normal” Republocratic candidates. Many Libertarian Party candidates are scared that the masses will learn where they stand on the issues! Of course, during a drug raid, obviously the innocent drug dealer is justified in using any necessary means to resist law enforcement. All real libertarians agree with that, but many are simply hoping that the reporters will not ask. Well, I just let the cat out of the bag. They will ask us, and we need to tell it like it is.
Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
—2007 Ron Paul 55:6
—Congressional Record
The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
—New Hampshire Constitution, Part the First, Article 10
Abolitionists made a big mistake. They thought they could get somewhere trying to reason with crazy people. It is impossible. How can we be required to change their opinions whilst respecting their right to hold wrong opinions? Abolitionists got the Compromise of 1820, and thirty years later the Compromise of 1850. What does your credit card say to do if the card is lost, stolen or compromised? Compromise is not a good thing. Libertarians are getting nowhere trying to reason with crazy people. Libertarians have been doing this for decades without success. It does not work.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
—Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.
Patrick Henry, 23 March 1775
On 19 June 1865, Major General Gordon Granger marched into Galveston, Texas. Let us picture the scene:
Slave driver: Are you suggesting we just let all these Negroes just walk off their masters’ premises? Are you out of your cotton-picking mind? They’ll take jobs away from White folks!
Granger: Ain’t suggesting nothing. I’m telling it like it is. They are free as of now, and that’s all there is to it. Any objection? Objection overruled. Anybody who has a problem with that can tell somebody that cares.
That is the only way to deal with the crazy people. It helped that he had thousands of federal troops to back him up. We don’t.
What we do have is the Officer Down Memorial Page. Most of those cases have nothing to do with anybody fighting back against injustice, but a few do. We need to sort those out and we need to put the blood of the dead cop on the hands of politicians who voted to make it necessary. If they are tough on drugs in order to win elections, they bought those votes with cops’ blood. If you voted for them, you didn’t pull the trigger, but you did pull the lever.
We are up against a very evil force in this country. It is called democracy. Make no mistake: Gang rape is a democracy. Five persons say “yes,” one person says “no,” and the majority rules, electing one of themselves “sheriff,” to handcuff the victim. One vote is useless, and so is campaigning to those potholes, who do not give a fire truck about somebody else’s rights, but killing the sheriff might work. If he didn’t want to get himself killed, he shouldn’t have accepted the job; and if they didn’t want him to get himself killed, they shouldn’t have voted wrong.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
—President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 13 March 1962
We must not water down our message. Unalienable rights, by definition, preempt the Rule of Law whenever the two things conflict with each other. Except when the cop has a just and valid excuse for the proposed arrest, the right to resist arrest is as absolute and as sacred as the right to resist being raped. By putting the blood of the slain cops on lawmakers who voted to make it necessary, and on voters who elected them, we will send out a powerful message to voters: Vote for candidates who support liberty, even if your TV didn’t spoon-feed you any information about them.
Remember how the crazy people think. They never gave a fire truck about Johnny Junkie when bullies were picking on him at school. They keep re-electing candidates who support public school. They don’t care when he cannot find a job or get a date. When he starts messing around with harmful drugs, now they suddenly use that as an excuse to pretend they care. They feel a duty to care. After all, he could die of an opioid overdose! They care so much, they prevail on their lawmakers to use gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to intimidate him into living a healthy, drug-free lifestyle. If he resists arrest and manages to capture the enemy officer’s gun as a prize of war, using it to settle the matter out of court, suddenly they openly hate him so much, they want him to die of a Sodium pentothal overdose! That’s because they never cared about him, they only wanted to punish him and control him, to feel superior.
We need to find that elusive set of chess moves that provokes them so much, they give up caring about him, without hating him so much they want to punish him. By putting the blood of slain cops on their hands, by vowing never to render aid to enemy officers in distress, and by pointing out that if they had left us alone we might have died of overdoses ourselves and we wouldn’t be here, telling them off, looking for every opportunity to make them wish they had left us alone, we can do this. We need to tell them: You don’t win by saving their lives if they will spend every waking hour for the rest of their lives looking, like merciless, analytical chess players, for every opportunity to mete out payback.
In 2008, I spotted one such opportunity. Thousands of bureaucrats from all over the U.S.A. descended upon Nashville, Tennessee for the annual get-together of the now-defunct Underage Drinking Enforcement Training Center, to learn the latest techniques for how to intimidate Mr. and Mrs. Twenty into abstaining from alcoholic drinks. Since liberty is an unalienable right which no government can justly infringe, we orthodox libertarian extremists did not accept Prohibition when it was imposed under the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and we do not accept underage drinking laws. Governments cannot acquire authority by manufacturing documents.
In reviewing the schedule on the UDETC website, I noticed it said the visitors could tag along and watch the local cops do alcohol sting operations. I observed an opportunity to punish the enemy. I phoned many licensees to warn them, “Thought you might like to know that the Metro Nashville Police will be doing alcohol sting operations on August 21st from 6 p.m. to 8:30.” Together with a youth rights activist in Nashville, we sabotaged an enemy operation, and I am proud of it. Enemy goons lost opportunities to arrest innocent merchants, and the visitors watched a forewarned exercise, not a candid one. This isn’t to minimize the benefits of the drinking age, mind you. Just think, had law enforcement not dedicated so much of its precious, limited resources to combatting underage drinking, somebody under 21 could have walked right into The Pulse nightclub in Orlando, and had a beer.
I also find other opportunities. I have asked many candidates, “Do you want to legalize drugs now, or do you still want to wait until more cops get themselves killed in shoot-outs first?” I asked that question of Kelly Ayotte, former New Hampshire Attorney General, when she was running for United States Senator, and I could tell by her faltering voice that I annoyed her. Enemies of liberty tend not to want to face responsibility for the consequences of their own malicious wrongdoing.
Links
Are you comparing the candidates before you vote? Good for you!
Justin O’Donnell
Joe Aldrich did not file.
Tom Alciere on the Project Vote Smart site
Also view my website, Ron Paul Quotes