Saturday, September 15, 2007


Stick it to the Man

There's nothing more annoying than looking at some pompous jerk who proudly displays his "I voted" sticker in which he sports. He walks around with a confidence that he just did something that immediately resulted in lives being saved.

Every thing's fine and dandy until someone approaches this man who isn't wearing this sticker. The second Mr. didn't-vote expresses an opinion of his own, something that he deeply believes in, Mr. sticker gets all uppity and arrogant and snidely remarks "If you didn't vote you have no right to say anything."

Then from out of the blue, Cody O'Connor comes along to save the day.

First I'd like to remark in all the rage I can muster, eff you! I can talk as much and as long and as loud as I damn well please as long as I have larynx to produce words, and no whiny douche like you is going to stop it. Now listen very carefully as I explain to you a few simple concepts you were never taught. You don't have to be part of the system to change it!

Maybe this notion has yet to cross peoples minds, but voting is a very poor way to make change. First of all, most people are too dumb to vote for anyone who doesn't have a commercial without a catchy jingle or slogan, so chances are some simpleton negated your vote. So go ahead, vote all you want, but don't expect democracy to save the planet.

Second, I know politicians have nice smiles and look very friendly, and say really cool things like 'create a new America' 'vote for change' and 'save the whales' and all of that nice garbage. But guess what? They're just trying to get elected, moron! 99% of the time they will pull all kinds of lofty things out of their ass, but when elected will simply make decisions based on what will make them rich. If you think the government plans on fixing the government, I'd like to see your car breakdown and watch you wait for your car to fix itself.

Having an "I voted" sticker definitely won't get you out of that mess.

Sure, once in a while you get someone like Ron Paul who actually could decrease the size of the government from the inside, and voting for him is great, but dammit, stop telling me that voting is the only check and balance on the power of government!

But they keep bitching. "You have no right to anything. If you have all of these ideas, then you should run for public office!"

Screw that! Did you ever ask me if I wanted to be a bureaucrat? Sorry, but personally I couldn't live with myself knowing that my paycheck came from other people's pockets. But since I'd rather spend my life in the private sector, you don't think I'm allowed an opinion? The right for people to petition their government? Out the door. Now apparently you can only have an opinion about the government if you're part of the government. You can only complain about the system if you're part of the system.

Well I have morals and principals that you don't have about conforming to the system. So no, I don't think I will be a part of it, because I think it's wrong. But you aren't going to shut me up because of that, because believe it or not, me and many other people can make a difference without playing your little government game.

There's mainly two checks on government power that people seem to miss. The first is civil disobedience. Politicians love power, but their power is derived from consent of the people, and if you refuse consent, then they lose power. Let them legislate all they want but when masses of people ignore their silly little laws, then they'll start to realize how powerless they could really become.

60% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Why aren't 60% of Americans in prison? Answer, because the government doesn't have the resources to imprison 60% of Americans. Why don't they have the resources? Because 60% of Americans don't pay income taxes! It all comes full circle. If you don't give them money, they won't be able to afford a gun to oppress you with.

Sounds a lot more effective than voting, which essentially is just asking your government to listen to you, not obligating them to. Hold tax money above their head however, and they're all ears.

Second, someone needs to watch the watchers. Every time you hear of some scandal breaking out, you didn't hear it because the other party found out about it. Trust me, they're too busy receiving bribes themselves to say anything about other politicians doing it. You heard it because the media told you. The media collectively keeps watch on the government and immediately informs the public when it's not doing a good job. To avoid social ostracism from everybody, because everybody consumes media, they are forced to act accordingly. Because if they don't, then the civil disobedience really begins to kick in.

The Constitution as you know, was a document to make sure the government didn't become too powerful. There's a reason why freedom of speech was the first amendment. It's the most effective way of keeping your government in line. A right to vote isn't even in the Constitution. I kid you not.

That is why I have no time for people telling me I can't speak simply because I didn't vote. Me speaking is making a much bigger difference than your stupid little vote. And when you tell me to shut up, you're only allowing for our country to continue on the wrong path.

Get off your high horse so you can look at me in the eyes. Let me tell you that I do a lot for us as a nation. I write, I podcast, I tell people what's wrong with our government, I go to protests, and yes, I do engage in civil disobedience. I do a lot for us. And you? Oh, yeah, you voted. That's just wonderful. You did nothing, you've made no difference. Maybe I should be the one telling you not to speak, because by following the system you're doing a great job at making things worse.

The only thing that an "I voted" sticker is good for is a bad wax job.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, April 13, 2007


Libertarian Talk at it's Best! A libertarian podcast.

Sick of resorting to crapcasts for your libertarian alternative to the left/right media? The Cody O’Connor Show’s got you covered. Prepare yourself for the most fast-paced, cutting-edge libertarian podcast on the net! With a perfect blend of righteous anger and comedic wit, you will be both informed and entertained. Be sure to get involved by shooting your e-mails to

How does The Cody O'Connor Show beat out other libertarian podcasts and internet radio shows? For one thing, these guys sound like the belong behind a microphone. Other hosts just don't have the personality. They all sound monotonous, and lethargic. We're different. We are peppy, confident, and happy to be here. The show covers the politics, but we're also funny and entertaining, because that's important in a radio show too.

And we're here more often too. Most podcasts will give you a half hour a week, or less. The Cody O'Connor Show does an hour and a half LIVE every Wednesday and Sunday night from 7-9 PM EST. To listen live, go to and find the link to our SHOUTcast server there.

The production quality is professional. No crappy mics, annoying ambiance, horrible leveling, or low quality bit rates. The show sounds as professional as the hosts.

So what are you waiting for? Go here where you can stream, download, and subscribe to the best libertarian podcast on the internet!

Labels: , , ,

Monday, March 26, 2007


The Cody O'Connor Show Studio

Saturday, March 17, 2007


Pretty Words = Pretty Wrong

Whether they know it or not, the left has a tendency of using "pretty words" to describe their positions. Their language can be deceptive, and sometimes make outright lies to convince people to support their beliefs. By using language as a mask, they have successfully managed to make their Big Government and Socialist agendas seem reasonable. I'm gonna try to go through all of them.

Let's start off with taxes. Ask a Liberal what taxes are and what will they say? "It's when the government asks people to give their fair share to society."

The first lie is that the government is asking, and you are giving, and the entire process is voluntary. That's not the case. Try not paying your taxes, what happens? Maybe you'll only get fined, but go on, keep avoiding taxes. It may take time, but eventually you'll see the gun in the room. At the end of the day, you either pay your taxes, or you spend time in the pokey.

What are taxes really? Theft, stealing, mugging, looting, need I go on? How can you compare taxes to anything other than being mugged? Some guy sticks a gun in your face and says "give me money or else," and it's considered stealing, but when the IRS sticks a gun in your face and says "give me your money or else," it's called taxes?! Give me a break!

But the left will always jump to say that you benefit from taxation. My first reaction, so what? If a mugger takes your money and buys you a Slurpee it's no longer stealing? And what if he got you a blueberry Slurpee, and you wanted a strawberry Slurpee? Shouldn't you have been left to decide what you wanted to get with your money? But worst of all, what if he took your money and got someone else a Slurpee?

Are you seeing the benefits here? I'm not. It seems to me that the government is taxing you because they think you can't be responsible with your money. No, if you want to buy a product or service, then you should choose to do so on your own account. Why does government think they have the right to do so for you? Do you even trust them with your money? I don't. They'll either get you an inefficient service, or an inefficient service for someone else entirely. Again, where are the benefits? How do I benefit from having half of the money I make taken from me? Don't you think if everyone was taxed less, we'd be better off?

Think about how much better things would be if people had more money. Companies could sell products for less, up their wages and hire more people. That means people will have more money, be able to afford the products or services they want and overall live a better life.

Oh, and isn't having more jobs a better solution to poverty than welfare? I should think so.

Back to that quote though from the beginning though.

The second myth is that you somehow owe something to society; some kind of a debt, and you must contribute your end. This insinuates that you didn't actually earn the money you have. You were just fortunate, or lucky (the liberal words for hardworking and successful). Isn't that insulting? You work, and work, and work, and as soon as you reap the benefits of it, the government thinks it's fair to take that from you. No, there is nothing fair about taking money from someone who worked for it, to give to someone who didn't. They didn't deserve that money. There's nothing fair about it. It's unfair.

Its punishing success, and rewarding failure. What do you think this does to people's drive to better their lives? You think they want to work hard now? Nah, they'll take the free ride. Who wouldn't take free money? Which is exactly what welfare is by the way.

Every time the government steals from you, they put some fancy smanchy word in front of it.

When you buy land, it's supposed to be yours right? Well, when the government makes you pay money to live there, or they seize the property, what do you call it? I call it renting property from the government. They call it property tax.

When you work and a portion of your salary goes to the government, what do you call that? I call it slavery. They call it the income tax.

When you die and 80 percent of your wealth goes to the government, what do you call that? I call it grave robbing. They call it the estate tax.

Why all of these taxes? Their answers are again pretty words to describe something that is very ugly. They say it is "pooling your resources to provide for the common good. It's cooperation over competition."

If you bug them enough about it, they'll admit that it's a Collectivist mindset, and if you didn't already know, Collectivist is the pretty word for Communist.

I apologize for the pun in advance, but "pooling your resources" means the fruits of every one’s labor are going into one big basket. Johnny Appleseed put in more fruits because he spent more time picking them, but everyone gets to take out the same amount. Do you think Johnny still has an incentive to pick so many fruits? No matter how many he picks, he still gets the same. Now, when everyone realizes this, what happens? No apples are picked, and everyone goes hungry because of this Communist mindset.

The fact is that Capitalism is what's best for the so-called common good, because more people are better off. Cooperation is just an excuse to place your burden on society, and when everyone does this, nothing gets done.

But the madness doesn't end here, I've got plenty more pretty words for you.

When the left calls for the nationalization of a service, or support an existing nationalized service, do you think they use the word "nationalize" on you? Bah, why do that when we've got pretty words, right? Public, free, universal, you've heard all of these before.

Public education is really government-run education. Universal health care is nationalized medicine. Public property is government owned property. Not so pretty any more, huh?

And stop telling me that these government services are free. They steal from you to pay for it. Once you get that through, then you may have opened your mind up to a free market solution, but the issue of efficiency is the final nail in the Socialist coffin.

Contrary to popular belief, in competition people win. Companies compete for your money. How do you become the company that gets to sell the product? By producing a product that is of good quality and low price. In competition, the consumer always wins, plus, the company that loses isn't necessarily out of the game (unless they really suck). Now they have an incentive to work harder to please the consumer.

When the government owns industries, things don't work this way. The government is the one and only option, it is the monopoly. It doesn't have to compete for your money; in fact they force you to buy their product. Do you think the government has a motivation to grow if people will always buy their product? Of course not. This is why government bureaucrats get lazy. Their job is secure, they don't have their assess on the line like private workers do. They can expect their paycheck no matter what, so why work? What's the point? You're always going to get that paycheck. This is the reason why the nationalization of industries reeks in inefficiency.

Ah, but the left will go even further and say you have a right to these so called free services. Umm, no. You have the rights to life, liberty, and property. You don't have the right to free housing, food, and medicine. Why? Because these liberties are at someone else's expense. Someone else is paying for that free sandwich you hold in your hands, and my guess is that they didn't choose to do so voluntarily.

The intentions for helping the poor are great, don't get me wrong, but this is not what helps the poor. Again, if people are taxed less for this free money, companies could afford to open new jobs and hire more people. Now the poor have a way of escaping poverty. Living off the government just keeps them alive; it doesn't throw them into the middle class or something because they're not working.

Last but not least is their use of the word Democracy, which is mob rule. Hey, power to the people sounds great, but what powers are you talking about? They believe the majority can enforce any policy, no matter how wrong it is. They believe the majority has the right to vote for laws that restrict your natural rights to life, liberty, and property.

This is why we have a Constitution, and this is why we should have a stronger Constitution. The people should never have the right to vote away your freedom. Remember, what's popular isn't always what's right. Think about it this way, if we were a Democracy during the Civil War we'd still have slaves. Just because slavery was popular, doesn't mean it was right.

So the next time you talk to your Liberal buddy, make sure you listen to the language he uses, and tell him what the reality is of what he's saying. Sure, accuse him of using pretty words, and he'll accuse you of using ugly words. But here's the thing, you're looking at reality, and reality is pretty ugly.


Saturday, March 10, 2007


Involuntary Compassion

Society. It's you, it's me, it's everyone. And all people have a different perception on how the people in their society behave. Some people say that life is nasty, brutish, and short if we don't surrender ourselves to the leviathan called the government. Others believe that people are generally good, and they will contribute to society if given the chance. I happen to agree with the latter. Generally, people are compassionate.

Every day in life we hear people say. "Oh, the pollution! Oh, the poverty! It must be stopped!"

Have you ever met a single person who likes pollution or poverty? No, people care! They want to see the problems in our society be fixed. But there's one question that must be asked. How? How do we fix these problems?

Well, there's a government solution, and then there's a free market solution. So, which one works? And which one is unnecessary?

It's unequivocally clear that it's the government solution that is unnecessary. Why? Because people don't need to be forced to care. They will choose to care.

Now, I already have a moral problem with the government stealing, ahem, taxing you for services that can be handled by the free market. But instead of philosophy, let's look at this in a pragmatist manner.

Why would one propose the government tax you to help people in bad situations? It's quite simple, really. They think you're a slime ball! They think you don't care about the sick, or the poor! They think you wouldn't donate a cent to save your mother's life! Not to mention they actually think the government is efficient compared to the free market.

This notion is wrong, though. Remember the hurricane Katrina aftermath? While the Statist Liberals were too busy defending Ray Nagin, they missed out on a few important lessons. One, people care. Voluntary donations for hurricane victims were endless. Two, the free market is more efficient than the government. Which was more helpful? FEMA, Nagin, and Bush? Or the Red Cross and Salvation Army?

And it's not like people only give during a national crisis, however. People decide to give every day. You could argue that people aren't giving enough, but why could that be? A lack of compassion? On the contrary, people aren't more charitable because about half of their income is taken by the government in one way or another. Some people can't afford to donate if they're already being forced to.

But if you're not seeing a difference between donation and taxation, then you're forgetting the issue of efficiency. Private organizations have to persuade you to become a customer. The government forces you to be a customer. Because of this, the government doesn't have to compete and is therefore less efficient.

So, why is it unnecessary to enforce this coercive compassion? Because if given the chance, people will choose to be charitable. People care.

Why steal if people are willing to give?


Sunday, March 04, 2007



I should probably tell you that I'm back now. I've been back for a while, but the blog has been neglected. Ah, oh well, go check out the podcast.


Wednesday, February 14, 2007


Heads Up

Due to an unfortunate blizzard, I won't be able to update my podcast for about two weeks. What was going to happen is I was going to do a three hour show and intersperse the hours throughout the week while I go on a cruise. Unfortunately, there is a blizzard right now and I'm leaving tomorrow and there's no sign of the snow letting up before then so Robby and Mike wouldn't be able to make it here. I give you my deepest apologies for the inconvenience, but I assure you we'll be back on February 28. Go listen to the Liberators while you wait for us to return.

Oh, and if you haven't yet, scroll down and read my new column.


Thursday, February 08, 2007


That Pesky Little Document Called the Constitution

Isn't it a sad day when the Constitution of the United States is little more than scrap paper to the Nanny-State Left and the Neocon Right? I should think so, but unfortunately a good deal of the Democrat and Republican water carriers of America think they're upholding a good thing, and the thing I speak of certainly isn't the Constitution.

Every time the bureaucrats pass a bill that restricts our rights to life, liberty, or property, the water carriers jump to make this point: "We're not diminishing the Constitution, we're upholding Democracy. If the people vote for the representatives and the representatives vote on a bill, that bill cannot be subject to anything"

They say this like it was what the Founding Fathers wanted, when the truth couldn't be farther away. The Founders knew there is a problem with Democracy, and it's that popular opinion isn't always right, or moral. No matter how much support it gets, there is no justification for a bill that infringes on one's natural rights.

This is why we have a Constitution, and one that is not living and breathing, but set in stone as the supreme law of the land. It exists to prevent Democracy from killing itself a la Fascism.

Now, people voting for representatives and representatives voting for bills is a great system that our country runs on, but it can only be effective if all proposed bills are in accordance to the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the only document holding this country back from a bleak future where freedom and liberty are absent.

The most unfortunate thing is that the Constitution isn't holding bureaucrats back from destroying your freedom anymore, and most of the people of our country are too brainwashed by the RNC and DNC party lines to care.

This country is not and should not be a land of Democracy, but a land of liberty. It must be understood that you are meant to have many freedoms, but one of them is not the freedom to pass laws that restrict the freedoms of others, no matter what the majority consensus is.

Would you party hacks find it justified if the bureaucrats voted for no separation of powers, or no presidential term limits just because the majority think it's okay?

And though these examples are clearly rhetorical hyperboles, it is still safe to say that politicians are passing bills that are clearly unconstitutional.

For downloading a $1 song illegally, you can get a $750 fine. Sounds like excessive punishment to me, which is against the eight amendment.

Senator McCain wants to pass a bill that fines people $300,000 to people who don't snitch out child pornographers. Not only is that an excessive fine, but it is also coercion and involuntary servitude, which is against the thirteenth amendment.

What happened to the right to bear arms in California?

How about those warrant-less wiretaps by the NSA. That undoubtedly breaks the fourth.

Are these laws justified just because the majority supports them? Of course not. And I must add that this is only scratching the surface of a mountain of unconstitutional laws.

We're living in a world where liberty is no longer important to people. And I don't care if "the majority" is against me on this one, because guess what? That doesn't make them right.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007



We have a new podcast up. Make sure you subscribe to it on iTunes, you can find the link for that at By subscribing, more people will be able to find the show and help it grow.

Sunday, January 21, 2007


Podcast is up!

There are still a few bugs I have to work out but the podcast is now up on the web! You can check it out at

I'm doing another episode tonight by the way, it should be fun.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?