Ray Bradbury said, ""

Confused cops swarm woman after birth

KETTERING, Ohio (Reuters) - A woman rushing to a hospital to give birth hit a few stops along the way — first at a gas station where she delivered the baby herself, then when confused police ordered her out of the car at gunpoint.

Debbie Coleman, whose 3- and 4-year-old daughters were asleep in the back seat, pulled over at a gas station just after midnight Tuesday.
"I asked if she needed help, and she just leaned back in the seat, hollered a little, and I looked down and there was the baby's head," said station co-owner Lloyd Goff, who was alerted to the emergency at pump No. 7 by a customer.

Goff said Coleman "threw her leg over the steering wheel, groaned once, and the rest of the baby came out.

"She caught that baby, put it to her chest, gave me a look, like, 'I gotta go,' closed the door, put the van in gear and away she went."

A customer at the gas station in suburban Dayton tried to give police a heads-up about Coleman's situation, but a mix-up involving the license plate number had them thinking the van was stolen.

As officers went looking for her, Coleman headed for the hospital, naked below the waist and with the baby boy in her arm. His umbilical cord was still attached.

"I kept pulling over, making sure (the baby) was all right, breathing," she said.

Meanwhile, police had straightened out the license plate issue. But another caller mistakenly reported someone trying to throw a baby from a van.
Coleman said she noticed several cruisers following her before one cut her off. With guns drawn, officers ordered her out of the van with her hands up.

"I opened the door and said, 'I just had a baby' and just let them see everything," she said.

Officers sent Coleman on and let the hospital know she was coming.

Coleman was discharged Wednesday. Her 6-pound, 8-ounce son, Richard Lee Coleman Jr., remained in intensive care.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 31, 2005 18:40 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
odd news

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Yet another blog-switch post

 Still trying to work out how to juggle the paradise that is Motime with the decrepit shack that Blogger is becoming.

After hours of being unable to log into Blogger, it finally opened. This is unacceptable.

I had been thinking about posting at Blogger, and reposting them here, but now by necessity I will have to post here, then repost to Blogspot when it's not broken.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 31, 2005 17:20 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Terri has died

The "right to die" crowd has had its way. An innocent woman has died in a manner which would be illegal if I were to do it to one of my cats.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 31, 2005 16:37 EST | Permalink | comments |
culture of death

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

What to do...

Motime is far superior to Blogspot, yet my other blog is part of the Ecosystem, the Alliance, etc.

I should specialize this blog.

I'll figure something out.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 31, 2005 05:46 EST | Permalink | comments |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

The land of blog opportunity

 Ah, I'm falling in love with Motime.

It is as if I were a poor immigrant marveling at how everyone in America gets to wear shoes. "Back at Blogspot, we had to wait hours in the snow to get a single cup of rice!"

I will do my damnedest to make this blog bigger than my other blog. This blog is my land of opportunity.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 31, 2005 05:32 EST | Permalink | comments |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

The Hamburgler gets a new job...

SAN DIEGO - The hunt is on for a turd burglar. Police in San Diego are searching for a gunman who swiped a bag of poop from a woman out walking her dog.

The woman told police that she was out walking her dog, Misty, on Monday night when a man in his 20s ran up behind her and grabbed the bag she was holding.

When the gunman discovered what was in it, he threw it down in disgust, pointed his gun at the 32-year-old woman and demanded money, San Diego police detective Gary Hassen said.

He then aimed his .22-caliber semiautomatic at Misty and pulled the trigger twice but the gun didn't fire, Hassen said.
The robber ran to a waiting small, silver car and fled the scene, police said.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 31, 2005 05:19 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
odd news

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Famous pick-up lines

 "Hey babe, wanna defy the will of Allah with me?"

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 22:56 EST | Permalink | comments |
humor, islamomisia

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

"We can't risk privatization!"

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 22:14 EST | Permalink | comments |
economics

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

More motime goodies!

 Oh! And Photobucket photos!


My cat Ash

Catblogging without the hassle!

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 17:02 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
cats

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Motime! You will spoil me!

 Motime is impressive! I feel like a Russian who has just seen his first toilet that doesn't require three people and a mule to operate!

• my posts are published within 5 seconds! It takes me about 5 minutes on average at Blogger, and even then it freezes inexplicably.
• the text-edit box gives way more buttons than Blogspot. These buttons have many more options.
• categories!
  

That said, I have three suggestions:

• Include a Previous Posts section in the sidebar listing the last 10 posts.
• Include an email alert for comments
• Include several linklist sections rather than one. These linklist sections should have three text fields: the title, the link addition, and the javascript Blogrolling code. This way a linklist could contain either manually entered links, or house a Blogroll that would be more easily modified with CSS.

I'll spend a while putting up links from my old manual blogroll.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 15:59 EST | Permalink | comments (1) |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

A Response to the Response to the First Lesson

(Remember: this is a repost from my other blog)

TVD responded to the Response, and said:

Remember Mises's argument against government intervention:


In our case, it is similarly not a matter of coercion versus a utopia of no coercion. It is a question of coercion by whom. All acts of force require both the person who uses it, and a victim. There can be only two options: the use of force by those who seek to violate the rights of others, and the use of force against those thieves, rapists, and murderers. I would rather that the government only levy force against those who rape, rob, murder, and defraud others.

If you disagree with this, then you disagree with me about who is justified to use force. You disagree with me that the only justified use of force is against those who have first used it to violate the rights of others.


I would first point out that no one owns women. Then I would point out that in a society ordered on equal freedom, it is precisely these rapists, thieves, and murderers who have something to fear from individuals within and outside the government.


 The government is a smaller group of people entrusted with the power to enforce the right of self-defense of each individual in the larger group that makes up the rest of society.

 Instead of having to take weekly karate courses, buy elephant guns and landmines, security alarms, and guard dogs, to maximize our time and effort we delegate this function to a smaller group of people who may continually enforce our rights.

Since my freedom depends on your not being able to rape, rob, murder, or defraud me, I have quite a vested interest in making sure you are unable to do that.


 The government is a smaller group of people entrusted with the power to enforce the right of self-defense of each individual in the larger group that makes up the rest of society.

 It is composed of individuals. These individuals, like all other humans, both require the absence of force against them to survive, and are limited by the equal rights of all other humans from using force against innocents. An individual in the government who uses force against innocents is just as much a criminal as if he were a private citizen.

In a society ordered on equal freedom, the government is limited in its power by a constitution. The government official who acts beyond those limits becomes a criminal as surely as if a private citizen performed that action.

 In all of human history, government has been eager to enforce its edicts on citizens. It is only with the development of a constitutional republic that the government is required to enforce the individuals within it as well as the rest of society.


 I am sure my other three readers would be glad to fisk your last couple sentences for me. You other three: fisk well, and I'll post your arguments.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 15:35 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Another Response to the First Lesson

(Remember: this is a repost from my other blog)

TVD responded the First Lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism:

 This is not Madden's error. Madden argues that the only purpose of government is to protect the right of humans to form voluntary associations so long as they bring no harm to others. Think about it this way: your mother's freedom exists only in the restriction on every other human from initiating physical force against her. Do you believe that the prohibition from robbing, raping, murdering, or defrauding your mother is a serious restriction on your "freedom"? There is no such thing as "freedom to."

Freedom only has meaning when it refers to the absence of force.


 You are falling into the "Salurian Fallacy." Freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wishes.

 Freedom is the absence of coercion.


 What do you mean?

Do you mean that your requirement not to be coerced in any significant way limits me?

That I am not "free" because I cannot rob or murder you?

Do you mean that my requirement not to be coerced by you in any significant way limits you? That you are not "free" because you cannot rob or murder me?

 Do you mean that a society ordered on the principle that law exists only to ensure that no man initiates physical force against any other man, is "anarchy"?

 Do you mean that my claim to freedom is a tyrannical imposition to your claim to freedom, and vice versa? Please leave me another comment and explain why you think anyone should feel constricted by another person's liberty.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 15:29 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

The First Lesson and "Pre-Futurism"

(Remember: this is a repost from my other blog)

Pastorius at Cuanas responded to my First Lesson in Pooklekufr Constitutionalism. I will here respond to his response.

Pastorius, you must remember that all action beyond throwing feces and masturbating is based on thought. There is no freedom to act if there is no freedom to think- they cannot be separated.


The whole of human history is a record of people trying to deny this lesson. All of human history is a record of the fight to acknowledge that man's nature is not such that he can live under threat of force.


Toward the end of the 19th century, a change in political and philosophical terms began to occur. The word "liberty," once used to describe the state in which a man was not being coerced, grew to mean "free from want" or "power to do something." The word "brotherhood," once used to describe men acting in voluntary relationships, grew to encompass a system of society regulated by force.

 In the 1920's, this process was particularly apparent in Germany, as documented by writers such as Hayek and Mises who had lived through the Linguistic Perversion. They witnessed the ability to think erode under the influence of words perverted to mean their antonyms. You cannot argue for freedom with Hitler if you use the word in the same sense he did; the perversion of words about the nature of man benefits only the evil.

Under this assault on the very language of freedom itself, opposition to fascist programs such as the National Socialist agenda and the New Deal was rendered impotent. When freedom is perverted to mean only a man who is well-fed, relaxed, and happy, having gained these luxuries at the expense of another undernourished and weary man, no opposition is possible unless the word is wrestled away from this false meaning to its proper meaning.

Post-Modernism was the result of this shift. When language was assaulted in one area of thought, all areas of thought were assaulted. What had started out as an attack on the need for freedom, encompassed all areas of knowledge. Denial of Man's need for freedom led to a denial of his nature as an individual, which led to adoptations of collectivist biological theories, which led to the "atheist physics" of Soviet Russia and the medical experiments of Mengele. All knowledge came under the attack of the dissolution of meaning. Post-modernists embraced this attack, and embedded in academia, spread ripples of meaninglessness throughout all branches of knowledge. The 1960's mark the high-point of this movement: no political principles, no moral principles, and no artistic principles. The mistakes of the 1960's and 70's tempered this movement slightly, as is natural when men realize their path must lead to death.

The "End of Irony" marked a new shift in the language of freedom. No longer could the false, pro-coercion definitions of liberty be so convincingly accepted. Roosevelt might convince a nation that there existed a "right" to recreation (one of the points in his Economic Bill of Rights), yet such a fantasy is destroyed by acquaintance with societies that embody such perversions. 9/11 provided the refutation of meaningless discourse. What the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of fellow rational beings could not do, the threat of moral and physical destruction at the hands of irrational savages partially accomplished.

At what time were humans not laden with decisions about their future? As I pointed out above, the nature of our decisions is the same as it has always been: life or death, freedom or slavery. Now the question has merely been reposed in a different formulation. Instead of Mercantilism versus Economics, Communism versus Capitalism, moral relativism versus deductive morality, we have in essence sanity versus the insanity of Islam.


 You understate your case. 170 million humans were killed by their governments in the last century in an assault on the freedom to think. Perhaps billions have been killed by Islam in the 1400 years of its existence. Compared to the inestimable suffering and misery imposed throughout all of human history by the denial of this principle, a rise in traffic accidents is insignificant.


This is the principle called the extension of lethality. In the stone ages, a man could perhaps kill one or two others before being clubbed to death himself. With the invention of the bow and arrow, he could kill a dozen or so. With the invention of the gun, he could kill hundreds before being killed himself. With the invention of the nuclear bomb, one man could exterminate the whole human race.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 15:25 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

The Third Lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism

(Remember: this is a repost from my other blog)

Woo hoo! I submitted my Responses to First Two Lessons of Pooklekufr Constitutionalim post to the Carnival of the Capitalists, and it was accepted. Protagonist's post on the role of bankruptcy laws was also accepted. In my post, I said

To the degree that it is believed that the good of some groups is more valued than the harm it will bring to other groups, more and more egregious examples will occur. This is natural: when it becomes politically expedient to claim your "greater good" outranks others, what else is to be expected but the injustice will rise along with the claims?

I will now expand upon this point.

 In a society respecting equal freedom, the individual is recognized as the basis of all society. It is by the voluntary actions of all the individuals in a society that everything from pencils to charity drives are produced. There is no other unit of society, nor can there be. The most elaborate social organization, the most elaborate bureaucracy or corporation, is nothing but a group of humans who all require for their survival the absence of coercion in their thoughts and actions.

When the principle of equal freedom begins to dissolve, the individual ceases to be looked upon as the fundamental unit of society. Invariably, the role of the individual is denigrated- whether he be a pawn of "inevitable historical forces" or the "volkswirtschaft" or Allah. Somehow, a "greater good" arises which cannot be bound by the concept of equal freedom. The will of each man to do as he wishes without harming others, is circumscribed by this "greater good."

Pooklekufr Constitutionalism does not care at this point about the nature of this "greater good" beyond its claim to surpass the requirement of humans for the absence of force. This "greater good" by definition overcomes all other goals set by individuals- it crushes Gandhi as surely as Galt. This is why the First Lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism is so simple: whether you are an Objectivist or a Catholic or a Wiccan, you must acknowledge that humans cannot survive under the threat of force. It matters not whether you are selfish or altruistic, by religion or by philosophy. So long as you accept that humans cannot survive under the threat of force, Pooklekufr Constitutionalism is set upon a solid base which no sophistry can overthrow. To those who reject the First Lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism, there can be little hope, beyond uniting them with fellow savages and allowing them to tear each other apart safely away from the rest of us.

Whether this "greater good" be invoked by phrases justifying the initiation of violence toward others for their own sake or for the sake of oneself, the "greater good" cannot recognize a society that is not built upon force. Whether it be a society molded in the image of Marquis de Sade or ascetic monks, force will be used to limit the non-violent behavior of men. There is no other way to achieve this "greater good" that somehow transcends the most basic requirement of man.

When people begin to think of other humans as pawns to be manipulated to conform to this "greater good," they will picture a society based in their image, or the image of those who share their goals. Ask such a man what his utopia is, and it is guaranteed to be a hell for all others living in it.

While there is still a modicum of respect for equal freedom in a society, one man's daydream would only be a mildly uncomfortable life for his neighbor. Rather than seek to oppress his neighbor under a "Hegelian Absolute," a man may just want his neighbor to have to buy his goods for more than he would voluntarily. And here ends the Third Lesson in Pooklekufr Constitutionalism. In the next lesson, I will go into how these daydreams escalate toward genocide.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 15:08 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Responses to Pooklekufr Constitutionalism

(Remember: this is a repost from my other blog)

Woo hoo! I got some responses to my first 2 lessons in Pooklekufr Constitutionalism. Pastorius commented to the first lesson,

Hi My Friend,It's 3:21 in the morning where I am. I should be asleep. But, I just wanted to say, as silly as your name is, "you are doing good work." Your statement, "Humans require the freedom to THINK and act without coercion," is a succinct way of putting an idea that I have been trying to get across on my website. I have stated the idea that humans need a "zone of privacy", or prayer, in order to be "creative". I believe we need to be creative in order to act.I believe that when it says, in the Bible, that we are "created in the Image of G-d, it means that we are created to be Free and Creative as He Is.This requires a "zone of privacy", or prayer, or, as you say, "freedom to think".Those three simple words (freedom to think) are more important than most people ever imagine, and they will become ever more so, as technology pervades every aspect of our lives in the coming century.Keep up the good thinking, my man. You are on to something important beyond your wildest dreams.

As Mark Twain said, "I can live for two months on a good compliment." Thank you, Pastorius! Plutosdad responded to the Pooklekufr Constitutionalism quiz:

I don't know "why" people think that way, but they make me sick. One friend of mine even side "well the Communists throught spreading Communism was the right thing to do too" I could not believe it. I believe every person and even animal on earth has an inherent desire for freedom. But many on the Left don't believe it, even though they call themselves liberal.Of course, these same friends say Bush is evil because 16,000 people died, yet they all have books on Che Guevara on their bookshelves.I actually have come to believe the statement from Star Trek that so many socialists believe "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" is wrong, and really probably always wrong. I think now "the good of the many depends on securing the good of the few, because they are one and the same". i.e. there is no choice and they are wrong to even see them as two different "goods".Issues such as abortion can be seen as protection of liberty of the few (the fetuses, or babies to pro-life people).

Pluto's Dad, you got it. A group of people is nothing but a bunch of individuals, all of whom require freedom for their survival. There can be no such thing as "collective good" that overrides the individual good of all the people in the "collective." It is this principle, the harmony of justly understood self-interests (self interests that don't require the violation of the rights of others), that allows men to survive without continual bloodshed. It is also the principle by which government is limited in its ability to play different constituencies off of each other in a game of privilege seeking.

Each individual and group of individuals also possesses irrational self-interests which can only be obtained by force. It is in your rational self interest to respect the equal rights of others (their requirement of freedom); it is in your irrational self interest to rape every woman that comes along, burgle a few elderly people, rob some banks, and steal some Jaguars (the car, not Seigfried and Roy's).

 In a society respecting equal freedom, the principle that law exists only to protect the equal rights of each individual, your action can only be done illegally and you will be imprisoned for it. More importantly, if you attempt to use force against others by proxy of the government, both you and the government official who has violated his oath of office by performing a crime, would be imprisoned. The government in a society respecting equal freedom could no more rob some to pay others than could you.

But not all cases of the violation of the rights of others are so blatant as rape and armed robbery. It is similarly in your irrational self interest to demand that people who want to buy your goods pay more than they would pay voluntarily- by such a demand, you declare that you wish to violate the rights of some, to protect yourself. This demand can only be accomplished by force- you must threaten your customers somehow. In a society respecting equal freedom, a man who hires a gang to threaten his customers would be imprisoned.

As you can see, the irrational self-interests are only able to be achieved by force. In a society repecting equal freedom, they are crimes.

But what if a society begins to reject the principle of equal freedom? What if, as you said, some people come to think that their goals outrank the freedom of others, and so believe they have a right to force others to do their bidding for the "greater good" beside which freedom pales?

At first, such a society will find the very mildest impositions of irrational self interest expressed. The corn or wheat farmers will claim that they only want their customers to pay a little more, renters will claim they only want their rents a little lower, shop-keepers and maids and dog-groomers and parents and non-parents will also present their minor impositions of the rights of their neighbors.

Every single group has irrational self-interests that would require harm come to all other groups. Each of these groups will make a convincing case for the good that will come to them from this legislation, for it will be true: in the short-run, they will in fact benefit. What else is to be expected from robbery, but that the robber will indeed benefit from his actions until he gets caught, or people begin arming themselves?

One of these requests, the one which is most politically expedient to grant, will become a law. The group may be a ethnicity that demands special privileges, or an industry viewed as vital for the national economy, or it may just be the combined voices of many people. It will become politically expedient for the government to help one of these groups by proxy. In effect, the privileged group will have hired a gang to force others to do its bidding. Rather than use the gun itself, the privileged group lets the government hold it to the heads of its consumers.

As long as the society holds a modicum of respect for equal rights, such acts of violence by proxy will be hindered. But to the degree that it is believed that the good of some groups is more valued than the harm it will bring to other groups, more and more egregious examples will occur. This is natural: when it becomes politically expedient to claim your "greater good" outranks others, what else is to be expected but the injustice will rise along with the claims?

Eventually, as respect for equal rights dissolves, the claims of "greater good," and the impositions of physical force, spiral higher until the claims are in inverse proportion to the injustice they produce. In searching for utopia, the society will produce a hell on earth. As LGF poster JustDanny said, "They want Utopia but aim for Somalia."

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 15:04 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

A Fluffy Kitten and a Quiz

As promised, a fluffy kitten and a quiz


 A review of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism so far [Warning: some of the links below lead to horrible images. If you disagree with the basic premise behind Pooklekufr Constitutionalism, get used to them, because they are your goal]:

Law exists to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property. It can do no more, for every act of government benevolence first requires an act of robbery: a government cannot give that which it has not already taken. It cannot privilege except at the expense of a victim. It cannot protect a man by privileging him in one sense and violating him in another sense. It cannot protect the right to life by violating the rights to liberty or property.

 170 million humans were killed in the last century in attempts to disprove the first lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism.

 Answer me this: why do so many, who would never think of denying the first lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism with regard to themselves and their loved ones, think their attempted alternative to freedom will produce effects any different than all other attempts?

(Oh- this image is on a Blogger server. If Google FUBARS Blogger,  I'll have to put it up somewhere else. Do you know another free image hosting service?)

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 14:58 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

Second Lesson of Pooklekufr Constitionalism

I find myself more hurried this week than I thought, so instead of writing another lesson , I will provide some excerpts from one of the greatest and funniest defenders of liberty in history, Frederic Bastiat.

Tomorrow, I will provide more excerpts expanding upon this idea. I will extend the course in Pooklekufr Constitutionalism probably until the 23rd.

First Selection: Frederic Bastiat's The Law

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.


What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder -- is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few plunder the many.

2. Everybody plunders everybody.

3. Nobody plunders anybody.

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).

You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.


Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals -- the farmer wastes some seeds and land -- to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea -- the fruit of classical education -- has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man -- and a principle of discernment in man's intellect -- they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.

Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?

Law is justice. And let it not be said -- as it continually is said -- that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 14:45 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

The First Lesson of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism

I will repost my little lecture series on Pooklekufr Constitutionalism here.

All of Pooklekufr Constitutionalism is derived from one simple lesson: humans require the freedom to think and act without coercion. To repeat: humans require for life, that they do not have guns held to their heads, electrodes held to their genitals, chains on their feet, or pliers held to their teeth. In other words, I am free if and only if you are not "free" to initiate force against me, and vice versa. This is a very simple lesson. Various justifications are given for this fact of nature, from Objectivism, to the will of G-d, to the simple fact that no society that has ever ignored this lesson has ever avoided famine and monumental bloodshed. This does not concern us for now, for neither you nor I need worry about why a man thinks it wrong to force other men to do his bidding. James Trenchard and Thomas Gordon summarized this lesson in Cato's Letter #62:

By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labour, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man's honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property. A character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent.

So ends the first, short lesson on Pooklekufr Constitutionalism. Some further reading:
The Freedom Quiz by Russell Madden. Take it and drop me a comment on how you did. Bonus points if you can tell me where Russell Madden errs. Extra-extra bonus points if you can explain why he shoots himself in the foot.
Taking Freedom Personally-Russell Madden.
One Freedom- Russell Madden
The Law- Frederic Bastiat
 A few of Cato's Letters

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 14:43 EST | Permalink | comments |
pooklekufr constitutionalism

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

I am Tom Pooklekufr, the Wandering Blogger

 I am Tom Pooklekufr, of Pooklekufr: the Kafir Constitutionalist.

Let me tell you of my blog woes.

A little over two months ago, I opened a Typepad account. I had it for six hours, then it froze on me and would not let me access it. I moved to Blogspot, where I blogged happily for about 2 and a half months. Blogspot began to decay before my eyes. It quickly devolved to a savage beast which double-posted, froze while republishing, ate parts of my template, and in general behaved very rudely to me. Today, it froze up entirely and would not let me enter Dashboard, giving the following error message:

             Error

So I switched to Motime. I named the blog after a name found in the Random Band-Name Generator, because I do not want a proliferation of Pookles.

May Motime be a better blome than Blogspot and Typepad were to me!

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at March 30, 2005 13:31 EST | Permalink | comments (6) |
blogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.