Being a Criminal

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 23 May 2009 14:09:17 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Larken Rose asks whether you're ready to be called a "criminal". If you're not, then you're not really part of the freedom movement. He's not asking you to hurt people or steal their stuff. That would be wrong. But he's reminding you that doing anything contrary to authoritarian "laws" will make them call you, and treat you like, a criminal.

With all of the lobbying in favor of or against this or that legislation, or in favor of or against this or that politician, the supposedly pro-freedom "movement" is constantly reinforcing the notion that we need the PERMISSION of tyrants to be free. If we have unalienable rights, then by definition, we don't NEED any "law" or any "government" to bless our freedom. If, for example, we have the RIGHT to say what we think, then we have the right to use outright force to stop anyone from trying to silence us. If we have the RIGHT to be armed, then we have the right to shoot any "law-enforcers" who try to disarm us. If we have the RIGHT to not be randomly stopped, interrogated, searched, and so on, then we have the right to forcibly RESIST when the American fascists try to do those things to us. And the fact that open resistance to tyranny is "illegal"--as it always has been throughout history--doesn't make a speck of difference.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

Criminal vs outlaw

Submitted by Arto Bendiken on Sat, 23 May 2009 17:03:31 GMT

I agree with the sentiment, but I would use different nomenclature.

To me, a criminal is someone who violates the zero-aggression principle. (That includes all politicians and servants of the state.) Based on that definition, I'm not willing to be a criminal.

However, I'm perfectly willing to be called an outlaw, which better describes a proper disregard for the arbitrary and ridiculous laws enacted by true criminals.

Edit comment