I can't believe I'm protecting Traveller Gypsies...

So the big news story in the UK recently is the eviction, by the County Council, of Irish gypsy travellers from Dale Farm in Essex. The whole operation will cost over £17 million (and this is a conservative estimate). Now in my whole life so far, I have never said a positive word about these gypsies. They are widely known as the lowest lowlives in England (sorry for the generalization, but that's just how it is). Some of their hobbies include: beating people up, robbing people, stealing people's cars and blowing them up, and, recently, keeping and selling slaves. The one positive thing I can say is that their children don't go to government schools (on the down side, the children don't go to any school at all and spend their time vandalizing local communities). But here in Dale Farm I have to stand up for the rights of the poor gypsies. And I don't mean any 'human rights' of decency or whatever the lefties have been going on about for the last couple days. I mean their private property rights!
I have always said that government land - land owned by any organ of the government, whether national or local - is illegitimately owned. No homesteading process took place when the state acquired that land. In England it can be argued that some property is owned by the Queen and the Royal Family, but the Shire Councils have no long-standing history of ownership or homesteading in any area (as far as I know). Now these gypsies simply found an empty field and settled there with their families. They didn't harm anyone in the process, nor did they steal anyone's property. No one was living there or using the land. Now, many years later, they are being forced out.
I would like to remind the Her Majesty's Government that this state (the UK) is supposed to be founded on Liberal principles as explained by the likes of John Locke or Lord Blackstone. The travellers may not the be the best of people and the police may have reasons to go after them, but that is to be done on an individual basis. The police have no right to evict the gypsies from legitimately homesteaded property. Homesteading is a principle I have envoked many times on this blog, and I will continue to do so. It is the process upon which all property rights are based. If the Council wants to evict the settlers, they have to present proof that the land was being used and occuped by some of their agents who 'mixed their labour' with the land before the travellers built their homes.

So, as Locke wrote about Man: "The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
Who was the one mixing his labour with the land in this case? I can't be exactly sure, but on the face of it all I see is a settlemend being torn down by aggressors...

Best US Presidents Ever!

At one time I picked (in response to a horrible leftist survey) my five favourite Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. I picked liberal politicians who preserved liberty and the rule of law against protectionism, militarism, socialism, or intolerance.
Now it's time for the United States, where that most famous and influential office is that of the President (or at least that's how it was before the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve took office...). Of course I don't know if these men are actually the best - we will never know that in practical terms because we don't know what others might have done in their place. But on rhetoric and action, I believe these five are my favourite US Presidents:
5.Martin Van Buren
Why Van Buren? He tackled an economic crisis with free-market reform, such as lowering government spending and taxes. Although he was the first President to be born am American citizen, he was, in my humble opinion, the last of the true liberal generation in the US. He also tried to participate in the setting up of a Third Party (the Free Soil Party, which campaigned for liberal issues such as curtailing slavery and advancing free markets).
4.Andrew Jackson
Vetoed the Second Bank of the United States - need I say more?
3.Thomas Jefferson
Probably the greatest Founding Father and the man whose writings introduced me to classical liberalism back in my teen years. The author of the Declaration of Independence. His only mistake was that awful change in the Holy Triad of Liberalism - why in the world did he change 'property' to 'the pursuit of happiness'? And he really can't go higher on the list - despite being a great visionary and philosopher, he wasn't really a good politician.
2.Ronald Reagan
The greatest American in recent decades. Grover Norquist thinks he is the greatest American President, and that is quite an endorsement in my book. He resurrected the Libertarian Republican tradition and made it a force to be reckoned with (at least in rhetoric). Nowadays you can hardly find a Republican who takes an anti-Reagan line and doesn't support small government (although as we know, most Republicans say one thing and do the opposite). President Reagan managed to get his Goldwater roots firmly planted into the Republican political scene, and we are reaping the fruits of that now with the Ron Paul Revolution. And he lowered taxes - always a plus.

1.Calvin Coolidge
President Coolidge is a little-known man. In fact, barely anyone who was educated in public schools even knows he existed! And for me that is one of the best indicators about a politician. It means he did not pursue glory - personal or national. In fact, Coolidge was known as "Silent Cal" - the quiet guy who never spoke up, but his votes and actions spoke for him. Coolidge is the only Libertarian to be President in the 20th Century. He worked tirelessly to lower taxes and prevented government bureaus such as the ICC from regulating the US economy. In an act of defiance against majority opinion, Coolidge heroically vetoed all bills which included subsidies - most famously those for the farming industry. He championed civil rights and equal rights in America for Blacks and Catholics decades before this issue really came to a head. He kept out of any foreign alliances or interventions. I can hardly think of a better portrait of a President. After the end of his Presidency, Coolidge retired from politics and lived out the rest of his life quietly and in peace.
Let's end with a quote from President Calvin Coolidge: "I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of the Government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form."

Anarchism and Voting

I have decided to boycott the upcoming Polish Parliamentary elections due to the fact the party I supported was not allowed to participate in countrywide elections (despite this being unconstitutional). So far I have always maintained that despite being anti-State, anarchists should exercise their privilege to vote (or, as the democrats like to say, the 'right to vote') for the purpose of self-defense. This was also Lysander Spooner's argument - voting can be used legitimately as a form of self-defense, protecting yourself from hostile aggressors (i.e. other voters). The great Herbert Spencer argued likewise. He thought voting was legitimate because there is in fact no way to show your disapproval of state policy in any other way. Whether I would vote for one party, another party, or refuse to vote at all, most democratic demagogues would argue that I have consented to the state and that the government over me is legitimate. As Spencer puts it: "So, curiously enough, it seems that he [the citizen] gave his consent in whatever way he acted - whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this."
Obviously this is a difficult choice to make and I think it is a personal one. Any pacifists among us, for example, cannot vote because of their belief that even self-defense is not legitimate (or ill-advised). Over the past couple weeks, however, I have been leaning in the direction of boycotting all elections myself. I think that choosing a political party could potentially be an aggressive act against the portion of the population who did not vote. They did not use the voting mechanism against me, so I should not use it against them. Democracy puts us all in a very difficult position. The democratic creed is "attack others, or be attacked yourself". The Democratic state is where we really see the famous Hobbesian 'war of all against all'. Especially in today's age when pretty much every caveat of our lives has been politicized. Democratic elections end up deciding about what happens not only on public property, but also on private property and even (alas!) in our own bodies! How much more dangerous and invasive can democracy become?
I am therefore leaning more and more in the sceptical anti-pragmatic direction of ignoring all elections and politics in general.

It seems redundat to remind everyone of those famous words by Lord Acton, who said that "the one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
So let's think for a moment. Is egoistic self-defense and unjust democratic peace worth putting ourselves in the position of being those tyrants in the majority?

The Münchausen syndrome in Politics

The Münchausen syndrome is a psychiatric disorder which causes someone to fake illness in order to be cared for - it is sometimes described as an addiction to hospitals or other types of care. But there is also a version of the syndrome very common among women known as "Münchausen syndrome by proxy". The afflicted woman simulates a disease for her child - she often will actually cause damage to the child in order for it to appear sick or vulnerable. The goal of this type of behaviour is to appear very caring and devoted in the eyes of others. Such a mother gets self-esteem from others telling how well she is taking care of her very sick child, while in reality she is the one keeping the child sick, often through very dangerous means. You can read an example here.
My point is that this is more or less how democratic politicians do their work. First they create all kinds of problems in society, and then they attempt to 'fix' them for us. Many people get tricked into believing that these problems are actually natural and that the politicians are actually curing them and performing a necessary task! Many of the politicians are tricksters (they know they are doing harm on purpose just to seem like celebrities later) but I am also sure many politicians come from the part of the population who are either stupid or naive, and they really believe they are actually doing good. The great Polish publicist and writer, Stefan Kisielewski, used to say that "Socialism is the system under which people bravely combat problems not present under any other system!" And he was essentially correct, democracy is a mild form of communism after all; democracy is the socialization of political power (where extreme political equality prevails over natural ability and rights).
I strongly suggest putting all politicians through thorough psychiatric evaluation. If any of them want to legislate anything above the Natural Law, their doctors should strongly suspect some deficiency, either in intelligence, or just pure megalomania (i.e. the type of Münchausen syndrome by proxy I just described above). Either way, the best thing we could do is just stop any of these people from getting power - so let's END DEMOCRACY NOW!

As H.L. Mencken wrote "Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." These imaginary hobgoblins are threats created consciously by power-hungry politicians. And the real hobgoblins (few and far between) are all created by legislation through our political class.

Fights and Duels - Legalize them please!

Today I found outrage again on some Polish forums. This time it was due to the opinions of a certain candidate for the Polish Sejm from the political party I support. This relatively young candidate, whose chances of being elected are below absolute zero, has been endorsed by some football fan associations because he is one of the hardcore fans and supports certain practices which are part of what is considered in the mainstream as "hooligan behaviour". Namely, he has spoken in support of legalization of ustawki. These are pre-arranged meetings of groups of fans who then beat the living daylights out of each other in some remote location (the location has to be remote so that they don't attract police attention). This kind of thing is still popular in Poland and many Eastern and Central or Southern European countries. An example can be seen here. As we see they are teams of equal numbers with captains, coaches, and tactics. It is all pre-arranged and the rules are agreed to beforehand.
So, why shouldn't this kind of thing be legal, even if society at large finds it outrageous? It's completely voluntary for all participants, and the doctrine I subscribe to Voluntaryism, would seem to not be violated. When I started arguing with some people that this is in no way different from boxing (an accepted and widely popular sport in Poland) people started calling me names (this I am already used to) and using stupid arguments. One of the most common arguments used was that boxers have 'medical help' available to them, and the hooligans do not. They could get hurt! First of all, this seems strangely hypocritical, since most of these commentators say they would want the "primitive hooligans" dead anyway. Secondly, this is completely illogical. Medical help does not make something moral. In war, soldiers on both sides have medics, but most wars are immoral because they consist of aggressors and defenders. Introducing medics onto the battlefield does not make the battle moral!
Another argument used is that boxing or MMA fights are essentially controlled by regulations and external third parties (such as referees) who can stop the fight at any time. But this is a doubly-wrong argument. First of all, the regulations and third parties (such as referees) only exist there because the two fighters agreed to it in the first place. If they agreed to not having refs, there would be no refs! Nobody is allowed to force third parties into a voluntary agreement (this is the second rebuttal). For example, if I find you in bed with your wife, I cannot arrest you on the charges that your common marital bed does not meet my specifications for a husband-and-wife couple. That would be ridiculous.
Equally as ridiculous as stopping behaviours such as ustawki or one-on-one duels. Even anti-liberal Alexander Hamilton would agree with me.