Hate Crimes, Free Speech and Property Rights

Politicians in Britain love to swan about talking about how we have “freedom of speech” in Britain. That it's a right that we in these isles cherish. Disturbingly a great deal of the public believe in this myth – and let's be clear, free speech in Britain is a myth. But how could that be? Well I can give you two words that prove we have no free speech in Britain - 'hate crime'.

Before I go any further let's just be clear, I'm talking about hate crimes that only involve words and not actual violence. Initiating force for no reason against someone is inexcusable. I'm talking in this article about verbal or written abuse only.

For me freedom of speech means exactly that, the freedom to say whatever you like, regardless of who gets offended. In the distance I can hear you crying “But what about offending ethnic minorities and women and gay people and everyone else on the huge 'hate crime' list?” Well, free speech goes both ways don't cha know. If someone offends you with their free speech then your completely free to defend yourself and explain why they're a fucking idiot with your own free speech! There's no need to go crying to the authorities like some child in a playground, running to find a teacher because someone said mean things to you. But this becomes even more troubling when we find that property rights become affected by this also.
 

Many people in Britain will remember the case of the Christian couple in 2012 who owned a B&B in Berkshire. They refused a gay couple a double room in their establishment and what happened? Well the gay couple were awarded £1,800 each in court for “injury to feelings”. This hasn't happened just once either the Bull's who ran a B&B in Cornwall also had a similar experience and even lost a supreme court battle and had their lives ruined. Now, anyone who has read my writing (fiction and non-fiction) will find it strange that I'm defending Christians because I make no secret of the fact that I am not a Christian whatsoever. I also have no problem with homosexuality, I personally don't care what consenting adults do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. What disturbs me when thinking about this is that the B&B owners in question's property rights were being trampled on by the state. The state should respect property rights – end of story. Those owners have the right to have whoever they want under their terms in their own property. Look, if my wife and I went to a B&B run by a gay couple who said we couldn't have a double room because we're straight and they don't like that then I would be like fine, fuck you then, if you're going to be intolerant of my lifestyle I'll go stay somewhere else where I'm wanted. I wouldn't feel the need to go crying to Daddy government to make it all better in the form of a cash payment. That's what bothers me, if the gay couples had like posted online or whatever (using their free speech) about how bullshit it was that they weren't wanted as guests just because they're gay then I would say that there's nothing wrong with that. It's the fact that they had to go to the state whining that gets me.

Those B&B owners are ignorant in my opinion. I don't see how it's their business how other people live, however property rights are important and must be respected. We've become accustomed to the state wading in and telling people what they can and can't do on their own property – like the smoking ban. It's none of the states business if people smoke or not in someone's establishment, that should be up to the owner.

This is becoming very dangerous. The state has no business telling you what you can and can't say and what you can and can't do on your property – that's freedom folks (not enough British people understand that tricky freedom word). Unless of course we want Britain to descend into an Orwellian shit-hole because whether you think I'm overreacting or not the facts are the facts. Submit to state control over your words and property or grow the fuck up and try freedom because some of us don't want to be controlled.

Greening Out - Libertarian, Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk


Links

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/27/christian-bnb-gay-couple_n_4348385.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424983/Christian-B-B-owners-refused-gay-couple-close-business.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

Creationists, Apes and Aliens

It's the question humanity is forever asking and arguing about. We've long heard the arguments between creationists and evolutionists. Even recently with the interesting work of the late Lloyd Pye and his intervention theory we have been offered a third possibility of humanities origins, that we are the product of alien intervention – but this possibility (fascinating as it is) is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is the interesting way in which creationists think.

Personally I am not 100% convinced by any of these theories of humanities origins. However the one I reject completely is the creationist who takes the Bible literally. Leaving aside the fact of the evidence we have to support the fact that the earth is much older than the creationists would have us believe, it is not my intention to disprove creationism. It's more their mental attitude that interests me

I have always wondered why if creationists think that god is all-knowing and all-powerful he could not have set evolution in place like some kind of grand plan? Surely if he is the most intelligent being imaginable then this would be no mean feat for him? Another aspect that interests me is that many creationists – when you mention evolution – immediately say things like “I didn't come from no stinkin' ape!” and “Do I look like a monkey to you?”. As I stated earlier I'm not fully convinced by Darwinian evolution either, it's plain to see that it has holes in the theory, however if it was proven to be true to me then I wouldn't really care if I was evolved from an ape. They're incredible animals and if one was an extremely distant ancestor of mine I simply wouldn't care. It would have no effect on me whatsoever. It seems to me like many of these creationists want to believe that they are divine and somehow special as if they're not an animal walking the earth. Almost as if every other animal apart from the human animal is somehow below the divine human in some bizarre way. True we are king of the animals but as a biology teacher I once had (in a Catholic school no less) said “There are two types of things that are alive on the earth, plants and animals.” So I have no problem in describing myself as an extremely advanced animal.

But this makes me think further, I have personally yet to discuss Lloyd Pye's theory of alien intervention in humanity with creationists but I wonder if I would get “I didn't come from no filthy intergalactic entity!”

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I don't understand the creationist view at all. God could have started evolution if he wanted. He could have created the aliens that created humanity as we know it, who knows? But I take issue with the idea that we can find complete truth within the pages of one book. To take the Bible literally misses the fascinating esoteric knowledge encoded in it and for me reduces the true weight and meaning of a text that scholars are still trying (and will be for some time) to understand fully.

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Lloyd Pye and Intervention Theory

Arthur Schopenhauer and The Absurd Crime That Is Suicide

The assisted suicide debate has gone a little quiet as of late. But to me it has always seemed a little strange that there was even any debate at all? If we start from a place of property rights (if you think there is no such thing and I steal your car then you may change your mind just a little bit) then the only conclusion is that we own our own body and if we voluntarily wish to kill ourselves then who can -with any real authority – say nay?

I understand the argument that it would be dangerous if we could just kill people who are disabled or who are mentally ill, but if we apply libertarian principles such as the non-aggression principle (don't initiate violence against another for no reason) then those people who kill someone who is not within their 'right' mind will be violating that principle. So now you're thinking that not everyone thinks like me. True, but I don't think it would be hard to say that the person who wants to commit suicide must declare that and be assessed to be what we accept as being sane.
 

Who do the so-called authorities think they are telling people what they can and can't do with their own body? The great philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in his “On Suicide” essay (not to leave out my fellow Scot David Hume but I'm more familiar with Schopenhauer's thought) makes the point that if you find out that someone who you know murders someone then you feel “a lively sense of indignation and extreme resentment” whereas when you find out that someone you know has committed suicide then (in Schopenhauer's words) “you will be moved to grief and sympathy; and mingled with your thoughts will be admiration for his courage, rather than the moral disapproval which follows upon a wicked action.”
 

Now, I recommend the reading of Schopenhauer's full essay but even from these quotes we can see that to treat suicide as a crime is simply absurd! People have extremely different emotional reactions to a murderer or one who commits suicide. Now, I will go one step further than Schopenhauer and say that we should also legally protect people who willingly help someone who wants to commit suicide but can't for whatever reason.
 

Another fascinating point that Schopenhauer makes us aware of us that Christians are very much against suicide but did Jesus not voluntarily commit suicide himself? He was put to death but he knew it was coming and welcomed it. Also what about the many martyred Christians who knew they would be killed for their beliefs but somehow martyrdom and suicide aren't quite the same thing. Many people who kill themselves do so for their own philosophical beliefs just like the Christian martyrs. We should also not forget how the ancients thought of suicide, who can not be moved by the portrait of Socrates surrounded by his friends about to heroically drink the hemlock?

I would like to finish by again quoting the great philosopher who inspired this article Schopenhauer. He goes on to say in 'On Suicide' where he tackles the religious and legal issued surrounding our topic: “I am rather of opinion that the clergy should be challenged to explain what right they have to go into the pulpit, or take up their pens, and stamp as a crime an action which many men whom we hold in affection and honor have committed; and to refuse an honorable burial to those who relinquish this world voluntarily. They have no Biblical authority to boast of, as justifying their condemnation of suicide; nay, not even any philosophical arguments that will hold water; and it must be understood that it is arguments we want, and that we will not be put off with mere phrases or words of abuse. If the criminal law forbids suicide, that is not an argument valid in the Church; and besides, the prohibition is ridiculous; for what penalty can frighten a man who is not afraid of death itself? If the law punishes people for trying to commit suicide, it is punishing the want of skill that makes the attempt a failure.”

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

 

Arthur Schopenhauer - "On Suicide" Full text (Within "Essays on Pessimism")

The Catholic Church, Authoritarianism and Property Rights

In my many conversations, recent and historical with the many Catholics I know one thing that has struck me is that most of them (the more devout ones) seem to be under the impression that the whole world is obsessed with sex. Well, okay maybe it is but they seem to leave out the fact that they themselves are also obsessed with sex, just in a different way.

So what do I mean? Well every time you see representative of the Catholic Church on some god awful talk show (hilarious, right?) they are always trying to tell everyone what to do with their own bodies. Don't masturbate, don't have sex before marriage, don't use birth control, don't have abortions and their all time favourite don't have sex with someone of the same gender as you. I believe everyone has heard such ranting's from the church but why do they feel the need to impose their own morality on the rest of us?

Well the Catholic Church is an extremely authoritarian organization. So when some seemingly celibate bishop or priest begins telling women what to do with their own bodies then the faithful will listen. Here is our first problem, you have to be extremely authoritarian if you as a celibate man think that somehow you have the authority to tell thousands of women what to do with their property and by that I mean their bodies. But you see this idea only seems bizarre to people who have either broke away for the Catholic Church or people who have never been involved in it in the first place. Because the foundation of the Catholic Church is authoritarianism and control.

Now before I go on I'm only picking on the Catholics here because it's what I know, I was brought up Catholic so I can only go by my own experience. That said we can now return to our topic, the authoritarianism within Catholic thinking goes right up. God is total authority, then the pope, then the cardinals, then the bishops, then the priests. Like each one is each others boss and they're all your bosses. So we can easily see that the whole institution rests on authoritarian thinking.

This is why Libertarian minded people like me float away from the church. A Catholic would say that god owns my body outright so I have to do what he wants me to do with it and just in case I don't he has sent loads of people who will tell me to my face what to do with my body because somehow god being the top man in the organization he's above speaking to me personally. But the problem is that I feel differently. I feel that if we accept there is such a thing as property rights (if you think there isn't and I steal your phone you may then suddenly think differently) then logically (and with the absence of some metaphysical being talking to me directly) then you must own your own body therefore no-one regardless of what costume they wear and how many people call them 'your grace' or whatever can tell you what to do and what not to do with it.

If Catholics want to play out their little hierarchy system within their own group then fine, I believe in complete freedom of religion, but to all the Catholics I say think twice when telling the rest of the world how to treat their own property. Even if you are right and sinners like me are going straight to hell without passing go or collecting a communion wafer. Well then did god not give me the free will to choose that? It seems to me like it's done of your business. You may enjoy telling others what to do but less people than you think enjoy hearing it.

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Embracing Artificiality - A Philosophical Look At RuPaul

Many people whom we refer to as 'awake' (and myself included) have been railing for years about the sheer artificiality of modern mainstream culture. You can imagine the stereotype I'm thinking of, unneeded plastic surgery, no sense of real purpose or appreciation of real art of natural beauty. It does seem like we've been cast into a hyper real hell of material distraction for which we can safely blame the mainstream media. There seems to be less of a place for philosophy or real beauty in our modern world. But something has hit me recently which is making me question my position slightly.

I was watching a show with my wife called RuPaul's Drag Race. For those unfamiliar RuPaul is a famous American drag queen and he hosts a reality TV show where aspiring drag queens compete to be the next big thing in the drag world. I watched this show with curiosity as this is a world I am unaccustomed to personally and after a while something really struck me. Everything about RuPaul seems artificial, when he is in drag he sports outrageous wigs and gowns. Even his music features heavily in the show and let me tell you it has a bland disco pop feel with his voice so auto-tuned it's almost unbelievable.
 

So what am I actually getting at here? Well, RuPaul seems like an intelligent and savvy individual who is wholeheartedly embracing artificiality by choice. He embraces it to such a degree that his artificiality is simply larger than life. This led me to revise my opinion about the whole matter. When I see deluded mainstream masses who live their artificial existences unaware of the fact that their lives are artificial I see lost people who don't seem to have any awareness, they just go along with the culture because that's normal and people like me are weird. But when I look at RuPaul I see someone who had consciously embraced artificiality and to his great success and I can't see anything wrong with it.
 

What I have concluded is that it's not an artificial versus an authentic lifestyle. It's the level of consciousness a person brings to their lifestyle and if someone freely chooses to live such a life then I say good luck to them. I think we have to get away from how a person lives and what their tastes are and look deeper to see if they bring a high level of consciousness to what they do and (I don't know RuPaul personally you'll be shocked to learn) but to my eye that's what he seems to be doing and to him I say condragulations!

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings And News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Legalize All Drugs!

We have all heard about the so called 'war on drugs' and other such schemes that governments tell us are for our own good. We are told that if these dangerous substances were to be legal then everyone, their gran and their dog would be lying on the streets with needles sticking out of their arms and the entire fabric of society would collapse! However, anyone who thinks about the problem logically and from a perspective of personal freedom can only come to one conclusion – to legalize all drugs immediately.

Keeping Drugs Off The Street? Impossible

When thinking about the topic of drug prohibition the first thing that springs to mind is the sheer impossibility of the task. No matter how inventive law enforcement become in detecting smugglers or growers or drug lab's only a fraction of what is either produced or brought into the country is actually seized. Drug's aren't terribly difficult to find on the streets. The only measure that could stand a chance of keeping so-called illegal drugs out of the market would be to lock down the entire country with a massive police state but I still don't feel that that would work either. Why not? Well let's think of prisons, supposedly the most locked down place in society. Well guess what, the prisons are full of drugs! If they can't keep them out of locked down buildings then what chance do they have of taking them off the street completely? Absolutely none.

 

Vices and Crimes

One has only to look at the great Lysander Spooner's 1875 work 'Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty' to see what seems obvious. That vices and crimes are two separate things. We have to understand that for a crime to be committed we must have a victim. For example if I walk down the street and decide to punch you in the face for no reason then I have committed a crime, I have assaulted you – you are the victim. Now, if I walk past you on the street smoking a joint (which is considered a 'crime') then who is the victim? There isn't one, however some disagree.

Some people when thinking of the above scenario would say “Well there is a victim. You yourself are the victim because you're damaging your body.” Fair enough, although if we are to pursue that logic then we must arrest anyone who drinks alcohol, smokes a cigarette, drinks a soft drink or eats a cheese burger. This should not seem ludicrous because it is using the exact same logic. If you accept that each individual person owns their own body then if they're only hurting themselves then it's none of your damn business.

You might say that the victim of a drug user is their family. For a start not all drug users are hopeless junkie's. But that aside we have to pursue the same logic again, there are thousands of alcoholic's in Britain, many people die of smoking related illnesses and even certain morbidly obese people are a great burden on friends and family. But we're not all clambering to outlaw any of these things. The other argument I will mention here is that a small minority steal from people to pay for their drugs, this argument I will tackle later in the article.
 

What I am getting at here is simply that we have to draw a line between vices and crimes. A vice is something which may seem morally repugnant to some such as using drugs or visiting a willing prostitute but ultimately has no victim. Whereas a crime has a victim who has been wronged by the act.

Crimes Caused By Prohibition

 

Organised Crime

We only have to look at the disaster of alcohol prohibition in the US which lasted from 1920 to 1933 to see how gangsters like Al Capone can profit from prohibition of various drugs. If drugs were legalized tomorrow then every drug dealer, smuggler and cartel would go out of business. When drugs are prohibited then organised gangs are able to corner the market through violence and intimidation. Also one of the ways prices of the drugs are pushed up is by the cost drug gangs pay to bribe police and customs officials and as we shall see high prices lead to genuine crime.

'Junkie' Crime

I mentioned earlier that when I say that using drugs is a victimless crime some will say that people are more likely to rob people to pay for their drugs, so those people are the victims. Fair enough, but if you read Professor Walter Block's 'Defending The Undefendable' you start to see the picture a little differently. If drugs were legal then the prices would be much lower than they are now. More people would be producing them and they wouldn't have the overhead costs of bribes and revenue lost through seized merchandise. It follows then that there would be more drugs available which would drive down the price so people would have less need to steal to feed their habit.
 

Another aspect to this is the fact that every time that drugs are seized by the authorities then the supply is lower so (this is basic economics) the price will go up. Now, when the price of drugs goes up then drug addicts don't simply say “Well, darn it I guess I'll just have to give up now.” That's not how it works, of course then they're going to turn to crime to pay the inflated price. Granted some people will commit crimes to pay for drugs anyway but I would argue that a lot less people would feel the need to steal if drugs were plentiful on the market.
 

Drug Safety
 

It is immensely upsetting to hear of young people dying from bad drugs which have been cut with all sorts of chemicals and god-knows-what. The reason this happens is because these drugs are illegal. Producers are free to mix whatever they like with their drugs so they can double the amount and the profit. If drugs were legal though this would be a very different matter altogether. If I ran a company that made ecstasy and people began to die from my product then you can bet that not only would someone analyse my tablets to find out what I had been cutting the tablets with but I would go out of business very quickly not to mention the fact that I'd be arrested (and maybe even lynched). In this way we can see that if drugs were manufactured above board by reputable companies then they would be immensely safer than they are now and we could avoid many needless deaths.

Conclusion
 

I think it's clear to see that the case for drug legalization is a strong one when looked at from this angle. We tolerate certain drugs in society like alcohol, tobacco and let's not forget caffeine. But somehow we think that they're okay but other drugs are somehow evil and more dangerous. Marijuana remains illegal despite the fact that no-one has ever died from using it whereas thousands die world-wide from alcohol and tobacco related illnesses. We have to change our perception of drugs entirely. If drugs were made legal society would not collapse, we would be able to put many violent criminals out of business and since people are going to use drugs anyway they would be a lot safer.

Greening Out - Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News

http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk

Scottish Independence: What It Is And What It Isn't

I continue to be surprised by the continuing ferocity of the Scottish 'independence' debate. But what no-one is telling the people exactly what it is a debate about and what it is not about. So right off the bat let's get one thing straight, it is not about independence for Scotland. For me independence means just that, free from central control or coercion. In this article I will examine what it is people are arguing about. First, let's start with the general types of people I have come across in Scotland lately.

The Three Types of Scot
 

First is the die hard independence fans who are usually- but not always -SNP supporters. This kind of person believes that what is currently being sold is true independence for Scotland. Some of the more optimistic of this lot even believe we may eventually detach from the British monarchy and that we're going to write some kind of constitution that will solve all of our problems, they also tend to believe that we'll all be rich from North Sea oil money and that the EU is really no bar to freedom. I have found these nationalist people to be incredibly (and some may even say naively) optimistic. Which sets them apart from the second type of person – the unionist.
 

I have found unionists to be a gloomy and unimaginative lot. They tend to scare-monger that all sorts of economic disasters will haunt us if we detach from the Westminster government. Some even go further and scare-monger about guards patrolling the border between Scotland and England and that you'll need a passport to visit your aunt in the Lake District. The unionist gloom seems to me to be about people who are resigned to state control and have accepted their political and royal rulers (some are even suffering from severe Stockholm syndrome) and fear that any radical change (even one as UN-radical as so-called Scottish independence as it's been presented to us) will upset the only way of life they want to know.
 

These two common types of Scot with the nationalist normally being wildly optimistic and the unionist being wildly pessimistic tend to give rise to the third common type of Scot – the undecided voter. The lack of common sense and vision in the pro and anti independence camps leaves the undecided voter highly confused and unable to distinguish what exactly an independent Scotland -as presented to them -would look like.
 

So particularly to you the confused and undecided citizen let me use this article to paint a vision of a Scotland which is actually free and independent and serves the people. Unlike the nationalist I don't think that we will see this truly radical vision for Scotland materialize in my lifetime and unlike the unionist I do not think that it will never be so. I present this vision so that my children or grandchildren or even great-grandchildren may live free in this beautiful country.

Why It's Not Independence
 

I find it bizarre that many in the pro independence camp fail to see very clearly how the vision presented of an independent Scotland by the SNP in particular has virtually nothing to do with freedom. Let's start with the obvious then – the fact that the SNP will keep the monarchy.

It never ceases to amaze and confuse me how many people are suffering from extreme Stockholm syndrome in Britain in general. An institution as backwards and useless as the monarchy are praised and worshipped by thousands. These people have no legitimate right to their position. Just because you are born into a certain family does not make you any better than anyone else and anyone who thinks it does is either mentally ill or horrifically brainwashed. In my “The Facts About The British Monarchy” article I dispelled the myth that the monarchy are good for Britain in any way. For a start they violently steal your money through taxation to fund their ridiculously lavish lifestyle. Furthermore they don't even give back to the country. The myth that they bring in tourists is easy to debunk just look at the VisitBritain website and you'll see that Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers and that's just England! They do nothing for Scotland's tourism. As for representing us abroad, well one only has to look at the racist comments made by Prince Harry calling someone a “Rag-head” and a “paki” or the many many many racist remarks that have come out of Prince Philips vile mouth. Even the SNP were once dead against the monarchy? Anyone remember that? It does seem like such a long time ago. Now we can say that they're only in favour of keeping the Queen to bolster support for so-called independence. That sounds a lot like trading principles for votes for me.

But the monarchy isn't the only way that the Scottish people would be shackled to a violent and coercive gang of thieves. It is simply ludicrous to talk of independence while wanting to stay part of the European Union. It's just madness. You can't talk of independence and then hand over power to make laws and regulate immigration policy to a collectivist bureaucratic nightmare such as the EU. But it not only has the power to make a percentage of our laws, it also has the power to override the judicial system through the controversial European Court of Human Rights. More worryingly what we have seen throughout the history of the EU is that it's doing what every other government does by it's nature and that is growing and exerting more control over it's member states. It's all very well talking about detaching from England and Wales only to find them as fellow states subject to a Brussels- based government in the United States of Europe.
 

There is of course yet another aspect to this debate and that's about currency. First the SNP wanted join the Euro (which in itself shows deep economic ignorance) then when the inevitable happened in the Eurozone in countries like Greece and Spain they decided on a bizarre policy of keeping the British pound. If a country is to be truly free then there can be no central bank involvement. Fractional reserve banking is one of the many ways that governments control the people. Printing fiat currency that is backed by nothing simply creates mountains of debt that is impossible to pay off. What do I propose instead? Well I am a believer in the free market so I would not be afraid of individuals setting up competing currencies. Also with the rise of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Litecoin we are seeing new ways to look at the issue of currency.

Conclusion
 

It concerns me deeply that we are debating something that's so far removed from actual independence and freedom for Scotland. With the big three control mechanisms in place (the monarchy, the EU and the Bank of England) it seems clear to me that this is really about some more measly powers for the Scottish parliament dressed up to be something that it clearly is not. So to our pro-independence friends I say fine, vote yes but know that Scotland will only be truly free if it becomes a stateless society. We can write all the constitutions we want, the Soviet Union had one. The US apparently has one although it didn't take very long for politicians to violate it. Also to our frightened Unionist friends don't worry, if there's a 'yes' vote then all the authoritarian control that you so badly crave will still be right there with it's boot where you like it – firmly on your face.
 

Don't worry, I haven't forgot about you my undecided friends. There is a way to achieve true freedom and liberty in Scotland but it takes courage. The most courageous thing the Scottish people could do is to remove all traces of authoritarianism, statism and that means all state control from this country, then and only then we will be truly independent.

Greening Out- Libertarian Podcasts, Writings and News
http://www.greeningoutpodcast.co.uk


Links

Visit England 2012 Report

Republic

No2EU

Fractional Reserve Banking