meet the vigilantes

the dollar vigilante blog

The Weekend Vigilante September 15th, 2012

Hello from Acapulco!

Last week I wrote to you from San Diego. And I'll be in Panama all next week. But, at least for a few days, I was able to return to one of my favorite places on Earth.

And boy was I happy just to get back to Mexico. Gary Gibson and I are very similar when it comes to our views on government and freedom but very, very different in terms of adaptability to new cultures and even the desire to do so. As a child, I didn't like my own culture very much and couldn't wait to get older and go see the world. Gary, on the other hand, would probably have happily stayed on his quiet, treelined street in Minneapolis for his entire life if it weren't for the government oppression, violence and theft and the chaos that will happen there when The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI) comes into full fruition. So, when we went to San Diego for a conference last week, Gary was in a substantially happier mood than I was. He missed the US style and culture. I, on the other hand, could go the rest of my life and never return to Canada or the US and would be the happier for it.

As I almost always do when I am in the US or Canada, I snapped. This particular time it was Sunday evening at 1am and the area where we were in Carlsbad was like a ghost town. After having a fun day and evening at the conference I was still wanting to keep on going. But Carlsbad said "No, you can't." So we began driving to San Diego, figuring there'd be something going on. We arrived at 1:30 and tried to enter an establishment and I heard that word I dislike so much but which I hear constantly in the US: "No."

I was confused... it was only 1:30. Why can't we go in? "It's last call guys."

"At 1:30?" I exclaimed. "You know when bars close in Mexico," I asked.

The bouncer shrugged, not really caring.

"When the last person leaves," I said, trying to make a point about how a business would operate in a free market.

"If you like it there so much, why don't you go there?" he retorted.

I paused for a second and wondered why I didn't think of it first!

"Great idea, thank you!" I said and hopped back in my rental car. I dropped Gary Gibson off at fellow TDV contributor Justin O'Connell's place and after having a drink and a smoke and some nice conversation I bid them all adios at about 3am.

I drove south. I just repeated in my mind, “go south, go south”. After about 30 minutes I drove up and past a hill and, all of a sudden, the horizon was lit. It wasn’t just lit. To me it was like a Christian seeing baby Jesus! When I saw the lights of Tijuana I had a spiritual moment. Gracias Dios. Hallelujah.

The best part came next. As I drove up to the border I could see the two hour long line waiting for permission to enter the US on the other side and I winced, recalling how I had to sit in that line just a few days prior. As I pulled up to the Mexican side I rolled through at about 40 miles per hour as a woman just waved me through. No passport check. No anything check. It's a beautiful thing!

That's probably the funniest part about Americans who say they hate Mexico... Mexico is what the US says it is, but isn't.

The US says it is the land of the free... but it is now one of the least free places on Earth. Only North Korea and Cuba markedly give the US a run for its money. Just ask this mother of two who was kidnapped and put in a cage in La Porte, Texas, for allowing her kids to play outside. Note that it wasn't necessarily the police that were the only problem. Her neighbor called the men with guns from the government to come take her away. Slave on slave action.

And so, as I entered into one of dozens of bustling clubs at 4am until dawn in Tijuana and never heard the word "no" once, I thanked god Mexico was so close to where I was.

SELF SUSTAINING COMMUNITY

It is because of what is going on in the West that I and my partners have been searching the world for the best place to start up a completely self-sustaining community... in a place where no one would ever think to call the police for letting your kids play outside! And we believe we have now found it. It is in South America within an hour drive of the most modern city on the continent with direct flights from North America, Europe and Asia... and also an hour away from posh oceanside resorts. It's also less than two hours away from world class skiing. The property includes its own fresh water supply where we will also generate our own electricity for the entire community. Fresh water... electricity... and we plan on having an organic farm on the property. Water, power, food.

And, it will be far, far cheaper than any similar community you've ever heard of. If all goes well we should be able to announce to subscribers first, within 1-2 months (yet another reason to subscribe to TDV). We are also, at this time, making available a small "Founder's Club". This will be for those who want to invest in the project as well as getting first selection of lots. It will only be a very small and select group accepted. If you have interest in finding out more, please write in to TDV@dollarvigilante.com and give us some information on yourself and why you think this may be something you are interested in.

If this works out as we have planned, it will be a truly exciting and revolutionary place where freedom lovers from around the world can congegrate and live free.

Shrug time, anyone?

HUMANITY IS CHANGING

It's hard to see, sometimes... but humanity is changing, and changing very quickly. I realized that when I came across this newspaper clipping from the 1950s.

How quickly attitudes can change. Sure, many people still beat their wives but it certainly is not seen as societally normal as it was even 60 years ago.

And now, slowly but surely, parents are beginning to learn that using violence on your child is just as unseemly. Sure, there are still many who do, but many are waking up to what a crime this is as well. Violence should never be used on anyone unless in self defense. Seems like such a basic concept, right? But look at how people used to believe in using violence against their wives. And how some people today still believe in using violence against innocent children. But it is all changing quickly. Imagine if one day it became totally unacceptable to ever use violence against anyone?

That is called anarchy. And it would be a beautiful world. And it may be closer than you think.

UNTIL NEXT WEEK

It's my little girl's sixth birthday and, in Mexico, that means a giant extravaganza and drinking (not her, us) and dancing (she'll do that!) all day and all night.

So I am off! Until next week from Panama, to your freedom!

Anarcho-Capitalist. Libertarian. Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks. Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast. Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

Comments (8)

mava (not verified) - 35 weeks 4 days ago

Willy,

I may have misread your post in haste. No, they no longer legally have that right, as I have long ago declared my independence. I was on my own by 16. From there on, I, on my own still extend that right to them by my own choice. Why?

Because, if I live honestly, then for everything I gain, I lose something else. This principle works both ways. In this case, by giving that right to them, I deny the state that which can not be in two hands.

At the root, it is an Anarchist in me that insists on parents having that right, again, because not only it is just, but also because it denies the state any say on the matter.

Had I stopped short, and not defined this outrageous right, then presumably, it would be up to the state to define it. I firmly believe in an American principle that the proper place of the state is to be a servant at my feet. So, here again, to deny the state any rights, I must either assume all rights over my life, or give it to someone else.
To assume it completely as my own, would not be entirely honest. I did not create myself. Thus, I can only have what has been given to me. You will see, that if it comes to nothing else but this, then the state would insist that it is your own right, not your parents. Why?

Because, they want you at the very least to remain a little bit dishonest. The way of victory says that if there is nothing else that could be done over ones adversary, then one should at least offer a small unfair advantage to his adversary. By accepting it, he pollutes his own strength, and now his soul is incomplete. He had therefore reached his peak, and will begin his descent. The time, which is what you had to begin with, is now on your side.

So, in accordance with this rule of war, the state at least will offer you an undeserved independence. You will be tempted to accept, as it is, very much in your own interest. Once you accept, you have created a breach in your own system of principles, and will never ever be able to re-balance it. So, this is yet another reason to accept that you don't have the right over something you did not create, because it is just, but what you gain instead is now a freedom to remain just.

Great Britain used this rule profusely. You can see the states they created all over the place. Had any of them achieved peaceful life? No. How come? Because, they accepted their independence as a small favor, unjustly. They are now forever bound to dishonesty and injustice.

Remember 300? What did the Persian diplomats offer to Spartacus as the very least? They offered him to control over other independent states for nothing, for only a passive acceptance of Xerxes authority. That is the approach of a true king. Had he accepted this unjust advantage, he would become a slave to Xerxes.

So, defy any offers of favors as long as you can. In Russian prisons, the simple unwritten principle that can save you, which is being spoken from an older inmate to a newcomer is this: "Don't trust, Don't fear, Don't Ask". Don't ask refers to the above and means both, don't beg and don't accept. Very few are paying attention, of course.

Finally, the reason to always take an outrageous example, is that once the big is decided, all the small things are assumed. Not the other way around. This is the reason that the bad guys always threaten you with your life (and so does the government), - so that once you acknowledge their right to end your life, then you submit in every other smaller matter too. The church cuts the penis of your son for the same reason. If you so much of a sheep that this is what you allow to be done, then there is nothing else you will stand for. He too, is therefore branded for life. They choose the part of flesh that is arguably insignificant in public, and they also made sure to have several layers of excuse, but the truth is that in your own psycho, you know what you have done. And so does the church. These are simply the ways to achieve submission in soul.

I frequently make people hate me in arguments. No, I don't enjoy that. But, that is the only way to go. An example. I argue about charity. I always identify myself as someone immensely rich. This is the way to assume the weakest station. He who is rich, can only cry injustice, but never the need. Once you have to fight from the weakest station, then there can be no doubt what was the cause of your victory, - it is the principle you argued, not the circumstance which may have caused others to keep something unsaid. Or, when I argue about communism, I always declare that I have no desire to help anyone, nor any empathy towards anyone. This removes my armor, and leaves me with the truth, naked otherwise, if it is, indeed, the truth. In an argument about property rights (in my interpretation, those are absolute), I claim to be dirt poor. This way I can be immediately accused of being the suck up to the rich. And so on.

So, here you can see three things guiding me. I hope you understand and not take the offense. The principle of justice, - I honestly do not see the matter in any other way. The drive to deny the state anything and everything I possibly can, by any means necessary. And finally, the gargantuan approach, which leaves no doubt as to the less significant matters.

willy - 35 weeks 3 days ago

Mava, if someone is going to kill his child I hope there is some courageous neighbour to stop him no matter what before he goes on killing more of his offsprings. By denying parents the right to kill their children I do not give any right to the state or government. That’s it for me. I am not interested in discussing your weird ideas in more detail.

mava (not verified) - 35 weeks 4 days ago

Willy,

You're right. I hoped that too, for my own sake! Fortunately for me, they didn't. Because they didn't want to.

I understand it was all different for you? Your parents didn't kill you simply because it was an illegal thing to do? Sucks to know that! At least, you know the truth. But, the life goes on, man! Always look on the bright side and move on. One thing you can do is to treat your children better than you were treated, no matter what the dictatorship of drones is saying.

willy - 35 weeks 4 days ago

@Mava, You said: "Like Tucker, I believe that the child could be legally killed by a parent.That which gives a life, can take it back also". I hope (in your interest) your parents don´t read that and decide to execute the right they posess (in your opinion) and better take back by killing it the creature they once gave life to.

mava (not verified) - 35 weeks 5 days ago

Well, I went there and read a bit. Not all, but enough to recognize where she is coming from. I am happy to admit that she obviously belong to a category of those who I said "munch on the commonly held beliefs", and not in the category of those who define gray areas out of malice.

I am surprised to find myself being in the proud company of Tucker and Rothbard. I did not read their opinions, but am very happy that we agree, or I would be very disappointed.
Like Tucker, I believe that the child could be legally killed by a parent. "That which gives a life, can take it back also". Like Rothbard, I believe that the only right the child does have is the right to leave the parent's jurisdiction any time he wishes. I am, therefore pro-abortion.

I can see where Wendy errs on this matter. Like so many, she disregards the life of all others besides herself. She is concerned with having it "nice", the reality be damned.
She also wants to satisfy everyone, again, to be nice, so she calls for a gray area. A very typical approach. But not unlike the bitch from the movie "The Beach", she will have to murder someone in the end.
That is the danger of the gray area. Her lack of awareness that such an unfortunate matter should be decided beforehand, does not provide us any escape from the reality, but instead, it compounds the matters, as someone will have to be killed anyway, but now without knowing that it is the result of an action that was undertaken. Last thing she should be doing is writing her opinions on anything.

She is afraid, that conforming with Rothbard means, that there is an accepted slavery. What is wrong with slavery? The only thing that is wrong with slavery to me, is that the slavery is usually involuntary! It begins with violence and is supported by the violence. Rothbard, on the other hand, means the slavery by choice, with which I have absolutely no quails. Or, we can call it dependence. The dependence is slavery by choice.

A free man must have a freedom to be enslaved, if this is what a free man desires. Without such right, he is not a free man. This means that the slavery, or dependence, can come by contract (citizenship), default, or accident. A birth is dependence by accident. A child needs the protection, or he will die. But he is still free to declare his separation, and face his chances. Marriage, to me, is a slavery by contract. If you and I ever find ourselves in a free land, don't expect me to care how you threat your wife, nor tolerate a similar inquiry from you.

People are scared by the word, slavery. A boogeyman. This is especially true with women. First, they want to be marry, then they want to be independent. Huh? Can't they chose what they want?

Slavery got a bad rap, due to the violent slavery that was in the recent past. This is only a mental reflex, we are trained by our handlers to salivate of the words slavery.
But, there was a time when this was not so. Today, were are similarly trained to accept rape. Tomorrow, may-be we will be told explicitly that it is not ok to be raped. We will look back, and wonder why didn't the stupid people of the past rebelled.

What I mean by rape today is many things, examples of which I am sure you are all too familiar with. But let me mention one. Advertisement.
No, not the kind where is it not forceful. The kind where people are undressing their mind and allowing the action, in turn of getting the free stuff. Such as the advertisement on TV. To get their slimy worthless entertainment, we must spread our mental legs and allow the dirt to be injected in to our brain. I think of this as of voluntary rape. Like where a woman agrees to be raped in exchange for bread. Except, in good old times, a woman would sleep with someone, to earn some bread for her child. Today, a woman puts that very child on the panel. No? She puts him in front of the TV, so that the child can get raped in exchange for the entertainment.

So, yes, this world is very funny in their judgments. Very few have a genuine judgment. Like Rothbard. Most simply regurgitate what they been injected with previously.

JeffBerwick - 35 weeks 5 days ago

Further, no, I do not think you own your child. A child owns itself. While it is a very gray area, Wendy McElroy said it better here than I ever could: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/09/11/the-grayness-of-childrens-rights

JeffBerwick - 35 weeks 5 days ago

Mava: I love your comments on bars in a free market. On your comments on children, I am confused. You support beating children? Then I am the one who is disappointed. As for your example of a young child burning a Jaguar to the ground... that is a ridiculous example... but let's say it happened. You are going to beat him and/or put him in a cage? I would suggest him paying it off with interest over the course of his young working life.

mava (not verified) - 35 weeks 5 days ago

Ha! This very fact used to piss me off about Orange County! All these "Last Calls", what do they mean? That the business does not want to continue making money, when it is the easiest time to do so? Instead, this business owner believes, he'd rather open in the mid-day again, and sell matches to an occasional passer-by?

Before, I would have guessed, that the business owners know their city. They know that it makes no business sense to be open at those hours. It's their business, - they are open when they want to be open.

But, as I have seen some secret side of America, which is a nasty socialist dictatorship behind a shiny facade of capitalism and freedom, I would not be surprised to find out that there is actually a regulation that makes the bars close or makes it really unprofitable to stay open all night.

This country is no different from others, in terms of available hate and jealousy. The prostitution is prohibited. This means that those getting paid in complicated ways do not allow the competition to get paid in a more direct manner. I find this disgusting.

So, may-be jealousy is involved at the bar thing too? I don't know.

The world without violence is great, Jeff. But, here is the thing. If a child does something wrong, then who takes responsibility for his actions?

Let us say that a kid was playing with matches and burned down neighbor's (yours) new Jaguar. Who are you going to take to answer? A kid or his parent?

If you are going to take his parent to the answer, then you are acknowledging that that kid is a property of that parent. In such case, this is none of your business if he beats the crap out of his kid or not.

But, perhaps, you'd rather prohibit the parent from disciplining his children the way he believes will be most sufficient. In this case, if I were a judge, I could not find that parent responsible, and I'd tell you to take it out on the kid. Either you eat the Jaguar damage, or the kid drops the school and goes to jail until the Jaguar is paid off.

I don't believe, absolutely, in you limiting the ways someone can deal with his own responsibilities. If he is responsible, then I am sorry, but you and I have no say about it.

Violence of not, - is not our damn business.

I know, people would rather not look at it this way. They want some miracles performed, some magic done: They want parents to be responsible, but they also enjoy raping those parents through their legalized violence system, telling them that violence is a no-no, while themselves having ZERO liability for those same parents.

Extremely disappointed with you views on this subject. Unless you meant do what you want with your child, but in your private opinion, violence is not the solution.