When I was an Objectivist, I had an ambivalent relationship with anarchy. When reading Rand I was never comfortable with the idea of a government, especially when John Galt himself said, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” I didn’t see a reason why any man or group of men should have power over anyone else. However, when I thought of anarchy I thought of gang warfare, no better than the way our governments work now. Then I thought of my own life, and thought about the lack of unchosen relationships, the lack of violence, the lack of any sort of real control in my own life and wondered why that couldn’t work on a world-wide scale.

I ask you to at least read the first chapter, and if you like what you read, keep going! It’s free and short, so there are no excuses!

You can find the PDF and Audio here.

Let me know what you think! And thank you Stefan Molyneux for releasing this book for free.

Look what I just found:


From Crackle: Penn Says-Introduction to Penn Says

Here’s the RSS:  http://crackle.com/rss/media/ZnU9MjMzNjA…

‘Penn Says’ Exclusive New Unscripted Web Series From Penn Jillette to Debut on Sony Pictures’ Crackle January 9th

Outspoken Comic’s Videos Showcase Unique Point of View on Issues from Politics to Celebrities to Religion

SAUSALITO, Calif., Jan. 9 /PRNewswire/ — Crackle, a Sony Pictures Entertainment Company, announces the premiere of Penn Says, the first unscripted series created specifically for the Internet by outspoken comic, magician and pundit, Penn Jillette. Emblematic of Crackle’s cutting-edge style, Penn Says takes a raw look inside Penn’s life as he records daily rants on subjects ranging from politics to celebrities to the hottest news events of the day. No topic is safe as the larger loquacious half of the comedy-magic team Penn & Teller opens up to audiences with a mic and video camera in hand.

“Big badass Crackle has given me the chance to talk directly to you about anything I want, anytime I want. I mean anything. I mean any time. When something gets my goat, or I want to get someone else’s goat or other farm animal, I’ll flip on my camera and rave about it. Half-cocked, from inside my head, electronically to inside your head in minutes. No script, no thinking, so I might be wrong. I’m counting on you to keep me honest with videos right back to me,” said Jillette.

Beginning January 9, 2008, Penn will deliver his distinctive riffs and rants at least four times each week in new one-to-three minute videos on Crackle. Viewers have the opportunity to respond and to receive Penn’s feedback by posting their video reactions or comments on the site. This series marks the first truly interactive experience Crackle is creating for its audience.

In full cinema verite, Penn will turn on his camera whenever and wherever the inspiration hits him — whether it’s backstage at the Rio in Las Vegas, in a famous friend’s living room, or out on the road. The immediacy of his posts will allow Penn to tackle events as they happen, giving viewers a regular supply of current observations to which to respond.

“Penn Jillette has exactly the type of raw, edgy and honest voice we want to present on Crackle,” said Tony Liano, vice president of content and programming at Crackle. “Crackle is about giving audiences content that pushes the envelope and entertainment they can’t find from other sites or traditional media. Penn will shepherd in a new form of entertainment for our audiences, one that is active and engaged and challenges our audience to respond.”

Penn Says was created by Penn Jillette and is a 10-in-1 Production, distributed by Sony Pictures Television.

For examples of some never-before-seen episodes check out:
 http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says…

 http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says…

 http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says…

Crackle, Inc.,

Crackle, Inc., a Sony Pictures Entertainment Company, is a multi-platform video entertainment network and studio that distributes work from the hottest emerging talent on the web and beyond. Crackle’s addictive channels and shows reach a global audience across the Internet, in the living room, and on devices including a broad range of Sony electronics. Crackle, in on-going collaboration with Sony Pictures Entertainment and other leading partners, discovers and promotes the stars of today and tomorrow. Visit Crackle’s site at crackle.com.

I think it’s time I lay out the truth as I see it. If you want a detailed explanation on how I came to this truth, I suggest you pick up a copy of On Truth (Tyranny of Illusion), UPB and listen to Freedomain Radio. Yes, these are all links to the same site, one created by Stefan Molyneux, whom I owe a great deal of thanks to for being patient in my journey from Objectivism to a more active minded look at philosophy. I was originally directed to these ideas by my active minded girlfriend, so I have her to thank as well. Of course I have plenty to owe to Objectivism to getting me to a point where I was actually able to think for myself, but since I disagree with some key points in Objectivism, I no longer refer to myself as an Objectivist. Call me a philosopher. Call me a thinker. Don’t label me under a blanket philosophy though. It is unfair to call me a libertarian, market anarchist or anarcho capitalist as well, because each of these do not encompass what I think about philosophy. Yes, I do agree that we should be as free as possible, but those labels (anarchist, etc) come with several problems. For one, they come with a lot of assumptions about what I think and I don’t want anyone assuming what I think. Two, I don’t want to get stuck in the “club” mentality again because I see this as a form of dogmatism that can only lead to a blank out when considering other ideas.

I do not think that anyone who reads this blog would disagree that life should be lived by this statement: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. That said, I agree with Ayn Rand’s axioms when it comes to metaphysics and epistemology. I agree with many of the conclusions she made with ethics, but can not agree with all of the conclusions or all of the ways they were derived. The one major disagreement I have with her ethics is the need for a state of any type. I think that the existence of a state is a direct contradiction with the non-aggression principle because it puts the power of the state above the individual. It implies that men can not be trusted to be rational, and must be forced (at the point of a gun) to arbitrate their disputes in a court. It also implies that men can not be trusted to protect themselves against irrational men (or groups of irrational men).

Our goal as philosophers should be to spread rational ways of thinking. I think that our mistrust in men to become rational is what has lead to our trust in god, trust in the state, and even trust in our non-chosen relationships of any sort. I think the only way to introduce long lasting change into this world is to demonstrate the change in your own life, and the relationships you have with other people. I think men have the capability to become rational.

I think it is unfair to my rights as an individual to be born into a state just as I think it is unfair to any individual to be subjugated to the will of other human beings. Of course we must rely on our parents to feed us, clothe us, give us shelter when we are young, and teach us right from wrong* but once we are able to sustain our own lives, no other man should have a right over it. I see a government as a slap in the face to humanity and a slap in the face to rationality, just as I see religion and abusive relationships as a slap in the face to humanity and rationality.

*Our parents can lead us astray when it comes to right and wrong, and I think this is the root of where change will happen.

I know this begs the question, “How can anarchy work?” I think this is a cynical question that implies a lot about your trust in humanity, but I will answer it anyways: I do not expect to see my ideas come to fruition in my lifetime. I expect to live my ideas by creating my own anarchy. One where I choose my relationships, one where I make decisions on what I am obligated to do or not to do and one where I demonstrate my ideas so others can see it is possible to live my ideals. I expect these changes in ideas to slowly spread, like many other ideas have in the past. I expect the future to be bright and free of gods, government and unchosen obligations. Only once a majority of men accept these ideas as true and stop participating with the state, with their church and with their abusive relationships, will these ideas become reality.

If you wish to believe that men can not achieve this level of rationality, by all means, keep on thinking and living the way you do. If you are afraid to face the reality that you will have to slough off your abusive relationships, unchosen or not, and live a life where most people think you are nuts, then do not explore these ideas. I know that ignorance can only lead to neurotic behavior, not bliss. I also know that breaking free of the chains that you have control over is not bliss either (but the result may be). Your education to freedom will be pain, because you will have to make a choice between your ideas and those who are against your ideas. It will be pain because you will realize that most people around you think that it is right for you to be forced into a prison for not paying your taxes, forced to love people who abuse you and forced to love a being that does not exist.

That leads to more questions I am sure… Do I pay my taxes? Yes. Why? Because the gun is still against my head, and I value my life more than I do fighting against a group of individuals that literally out-gun me. The rest of the questions are up to you to ask, and not to assume anything about me. I’ll answer them, but only voluntarily. If I see a sign of an individual supporting force against me in any manner, I will refuse to participate in their charade, and not answer their question.

I am being patient now with the readers of this blog. I want to help you understand why government is force and why your support for any form of government implies force against me. This patience can only go so far, so please explore this idea on your own. Don’t take my word for it, but please, do think about it.

Much of this post was inspired by this video, so check it out when you get a chance.

I have a question for the Objectivist readers of this blog.  Say that decades from now, Objectivism has become a popular idea and the government is scaled back, taxation is voluntary, and the government only consists of a monopoly on protection and courts.  If I were to break my contract with another man, and refuse to pay any reparation associated with the contract, would you support the governmental use of violence against me?  If I were to break any other law, say robbery, would you support the governmental use of violence against me?

I want your honest answers and your reasons.  Thanks.

I’ve been giving more thought to my argument against state control. Paul McKeever made a good point about self defense and retaliation. I wasn’t differentiating the two, and therefore my argument about the non-aggression principle didn’t hold water.

First, term defining. Self defense is defined as a forceful action taken to protect yourself or your property in the immediate time that a violation of your rights is taking place. This means that self defense only goes as far as your ability to protect your life or property at the exact moment your rights are being violated. Self defense does not extend to what actions you can take after your rights have already been violated. Retaliation is any force/action taken immediately after your rights have been violated, in order to serve justice. For example, someone steals your bike and you are unable to catch them, but later find out who the perpetrator is. The actions taken after you find out who the perpetrator is are retaliation.

So, the question now is: Should government exist to regulate retaliatory force? For example, if someone steals your property, and you are not able to stop the violator with immediate force, do you have the right to retaliate or should an objective third party be brought in to judge the situation? Does this objective third party necessarily need to be a government with a monopoly on retaliatory force?

I await your responses as I think about my answer to the question.

I disagree that we need government control our lives what-so-ever. I do not endorse Ron Paul. However, I like what he said in this talk at Google. It’s worth a watch, even though I ultimately disagree with his conclusions that we need any government, even if it be minimal.

What I find most interesting about this is that ideas like this are becoming popular. I’m not sure what to think about libertarian ideas becoming popular. I hope that people will start to think more about individual freedoms and will begin to question more… but ultimately the change of ideas will take more time than one presidential term. The change of ideas will not happen until individuals apply them completely to their own lives. A change in political ideas is a start, but until no compartmentalization takes place I don’t think there will be a significant shift towards pure individual freedom.

…and then watch this:

It’s the Fifth of November.

*EDIT* I just found out about bill H.R. 1955.  I suggest you read it through, because basically it says that if you think the violent overthrow of the U.S. government is moral, you are a terrorist.

Drew Carey helped start a website called reason.tv.  Go check it out, it has some interesting video topics from a libertarian perspective.

This week has been extra busy for me because my family’s house was threatened by the fires in San Diego County. I was able to take advantage of the social networking power of the Internet and use my personal blog to keep local residents up to date on the progress of the fire. My personal blog received over 7,000 hits due to the posts I made about the fire.  I am happy to have helped my friends, family and (indirectly) people who lived in their town stay up to date with the progress of the fires.

If it wasn’t for residents defying evacuation orders in my parents neighborhood, our house would have most likely burned. Once my parents decided to return to their neighborhood, against the continuing and unnecessary evacuation orders, they were able to help put out spot fires on neighbor’s properties and help prevent any further damage. Although the local fire department was helpful in putting out major fires, the residents in their neighborhood had more impact on saving houses. Not only that, but those who stayed behind were able to protect properties from looters.

Today the national guard stopped residents from returning to their homes in the city of Ramona, under the guise of protecting the residents from danger and protecting the homes from looters. After thousands of cars piled up, and residents began to act like they were going to riot, the national guard finally let them go through.

The point of this post is to convey that private citizens are better able to take care of themselves than the government, under any situation. People will generally act in their best interest in these situations, which leads to a more efficient and mutually beneficial situation for all. Of course there will always be people trying to take advantage of emergency situations, but even then private citizens are much better at protecting their property than any police force. If anything, the police and national guard hinder the protection of private property.

My dad is going to install a pump in their pool, so if this ever happens again he can fight the fire himself. I encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own properties, defy evacuation orders (unless you are in true danger and/or being forced at the point of a gun off your property) and stop relying on the government to protect you. They prove time and time again to be inefficient and ineffective at doing anything to help anyone but themselves.