"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Tuesday, February 26, 2008


Here is a quote by the Evangelist Billy Sunday, speaking upon the advent of the prohibition of alcohol (a true narcotic drug that the anti-alcohol religious people, lobbying Congress, got made illegal, thereby getting their version of religion made legal in the United States . . . 1920 to 1933).

"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corn cribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and children will laugh. Hell will forever be for rent."

And, of course, the present prohibition of other drugs has made the United States a better, more safe, place to live, with fewer people in prison, and so forth, too . . . yawn.

During the prohibition of alcohol, the murder rate skyrocketed and official corruption was at an all time high. But the laws could not prevent the making and sales of alcohol because too many people wanted it, therefore, making and selling it became extremely profitable, since it was illegal. This is just the same as the so-called war on drugs today. But we must remember, however, that both the prohibition of alcohol and other drugs today actually violate the inalienable rights of adults to non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that, in and of itself, does not violate the rights of other. . . and that should be very, very un-American.

See below

Since the blog site doesn't seem to think that a title could be more than a preset number of characters, I will put my title here:


(a) Do it yourself.
(b) If you can't do it yourself, does it really need to be done?
(c) If it does need to be done and you can't do it yourself, hire someone to do it for you.
(d) If you can't afford to hire someone to do it, does it really need to be done?
(e) If it really needs to be done and you can't afford to hire anyone to do it, find others who think like you and also want to get done whatever it is that you want to get done, then, as a group, get it done.
(f) If you can't find enough others who think like you to get it done, does in really need to be done?
(g) If what you want to get done violates the rights of others who are not, themselves, violating the rights of others, including you, don't do it. You have no right to violate the rights of others, no matter how immoral or wrong you think they may be. That is a religious concept and we, in the United States of America, are supposed to have secular government. Move to the Vatican City or anyone of several mid-East countries if you want to live under a religious government.

You see, if after trying (a)-(f), above, and you still can't get it done and you turn to the government to do it, the government will merely extort (by force or threat of force) enough money from all of those you couldn't get to do it because they didn't think it needed to be done. (Basically, the government will, with enough persuasion, have no problem violating the rights of those whose behavior does not violate the rights of others, but merely irritates them or that those others find to be immoral--a religious concept.) The government will then get it done, but poorly, at a much greater financial cost than if done by private (free)* enterprise, and also at the cost of more precious liberty, by passing laws, regulations, or rules to support that which the people obvioulsy didn't want in the first place.

Behave towards others as you would have others behave towards you. If they are not committing acts that violate your rights or the rights of innocent others (such as: assault, rape, murder, larceny, willfull defacing or destruction of your property or the property of others, or obvious negligence leading to the harm of others or their property) then leave them alone. Non-violent, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not violate the rights of others should not be considered criminal behavior. To do so is to believe in rule by religion, not secular reason. If we are ruled by religion, we are ruled by the whims of emotion rather than the principles of logic.

* It is my firmly held belief that in the United States, today, we no longer have "free" enterprise. The very wealthy people and the corporations that they run also run Congress, at least to some extent, and get laws passed that help them at the expense of the rest of us, and at the expense of truly free enterprise. Truly free enterprise exists only when the government does not interfere with or intercede for any person or business, except as the U.S. Constitution, strickly interpreted, allows. Basically, the business of government is not business. It is the protection of the rights of all citizens and the protection of this nation as a whole entity. Corporations are run by people who are citizens, but corporations are not citizens, no matter what the legal fiction is as to their status.

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Why the rights of those you disagree with are important

We are still involved in the longest, most socially destructive war in America's history: the so-called war on drugs. A large majority of the citizens of this once great nation are in agreement that the government has the legitimate power to violate the inalienable rights of those whose drug behavior does not violate the rights of their fellow citizens. Why? Is it that the average person is stupid? Is it that the average person can't be bothered to think . . . and to think logically? Is it that the average person believes that the government knows best how to control his or her life? Or is it that because the "common wisdom" is that the use of addictive and dangerous drugs in a recreational, non-medical manner is bad, so therefore the rights of those people who do use said drugs can be legitimately violated?

I believe it is a combination of all the above, but with the emphasis on the last question. But let's discuss this issue logically. Alcohol and tobacco are accepted drugs of recreational, non-medical use; tobacco less so, but still not completely unacceptable among the social majority. That fact is proven by tobacco's legal-to-adults status. Yet, those two substances are the two most harmful non-medical substances in our society. Further, almost all of the violence and much of the harm to the health of the users of the presently illegal drugs comes, not from the mere use of those substances, but rather from their illegal status. (Violent street gangs, violent drug cartels, and terrorists would have a hard time financially without the illegal status of those substances.)

If we (logically) agree that the government was given the legitimate constitutional power to stop behavior that is harmful to ourselves (which I emphatically disagree with)--that is, violate the rights of people whose behavior we may not agree with but which does not violate the rights of innocent others--then why can't the government prohibit the intake of excess calories and "empty" calorie foods? Why can't the government, using the same rationale used in the so-called war on drugs, make all of us go on a calorie restricted and healthy diet for life?

Think of all the lives we could save. It has been estimated by the Center for Disease Control that there are 300,000 premature deaths from obesity every year. That is between 15 to 30 times more such deaths than is caused by all the illegal drugs (depending on whose drug death statistics you agree with). I think we need to have a national movement to get the government to force all those overeaters to go on healthy diets. I think that there needs to be national food ration cards and government clinics to check up on all of us, even the skinny ones, just in case. Yes, let's violate the right of all the citizens and force them into National Socialist Bureaucratic way of thinking just so we can save the lives of those who won't control themselves--their weight and their health.

If the logic works for the, overall, much less harmful presently illegal drugs, how much more will it work for alcohol, tobacco, and poor diets. Let's give the government all our power over our lives so that it can keep us safe from ourselves. In the alternative, let's give all adults back their inalienable rights and only criminally prosecute those who violate the rights of others (the true definition of a crime). Then, and only then will we have a more free and liberty-loving society, if that is even what "the people" now want. Then and only then will the United States, the so-called land of liberty, stop being the world's largest jailer. And only then will the "drug" problem be put into its proper perspective, as a personal problem like obesity; to be tolerated but not causing a never-ending, rights-violating, multi-billion-dollar-per-year "war".

One last warning: The power you give to the government--when you give up certain inalienable rights--to control behavior that you disagree with, but which does not violate your rights or the rights of others, can and eventually will be used against you or your children. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America knew and said that the greatest threat to the freedom and liberty of the people was their own government. Many of us have either forgotten that or never learned it.

Monday, February 04, 2008


I had a friend many years ago who had been the mayor of a resort town in the mountains of Northern California. He gave me a definition of a politician. I don't know if it was original with him or not. I've always remembered it, because I am cynical and I liked it. It goes like this:
A politician is a person who looks to see which way the herd is running, makes his way to the front of the herd and, while running in the same direction, yells over his shoulder, "follow me!"

I seriously believe that it doesn't matter who gets elected President of this once great nation because the very rich and influencial people and corporations are pulling the strings. I also seriously believe that any politician who stays in office for more than one term becomes corrupted, no matter what his beliefs and principles were when he first began--although, I believe that many of them begin with a wish, not actually to help their fellow citizen but rather, to aggrandize themselves.