If a rule doesn't do this, or actually makes things worse, either because of the rule itself or how it is enforced, then a change is necessary. Either change how the rule is enforced so it doesn't make things worse, or eliminate the rule entirely.
I'm not opposed to rules. I'm opposed to bad rules. Harmful ones. Stupid ones. Punitive ones. Rules that make life worse.
And I'm opposed to anyone who enforces such rules.
When I point out that inflation is strictly caused by government counterfeiting money, they'll say "Yeah, but even if it didn't, greedy people would still raise their prices." You see what's wrong with that, right?
It keeps playing out the same, no matter the topic.
No matter what evidence they are presented with, they always have a "yeah, but" ready. It doesn't matter how delusional the excuse is, as long as they keep believing it.
And, at their foundation, they still all come back to fear.
They are afraid of living without being governed.
They are afraid of what will happen if other people aren't governed.
They are afraid of what will happen if "those people" get control of the government.
They never consider that the main problem is people, like them, who believe government is necessary, or even good.
They just can't let go. They can't admit it was a scam and has proven to be a complete failure in doing the minimum used to justify it, over and over, throughout ALL of human history, no matter how it is designed or run.
I am afraid when I encounter a situation I don't feel adequate to handle, and when the consequences seem too big to bear. Medical situations cause me fear more often than any other situations do. This fear doesn't inspire me to violate others, though.
Unlike what I see happening around me, my fear doesn't come from not having the ability or right to control other people.
I can see how it might happen, as in an active shooter situation. But seeing armed people- as long as they aren't wearing a badge or acting aggressively- doesn't cause me fear, or even stress. There has to also be that credible threat. And I can take measures so that I don't feel quite the helplessness others might. Which means I do have the ability or right to "control" bad guys in this way, so there's less fear than if I were helpless.
I'm not scared of people who are doing what they have a right to do.
I wonder why other people seem so afraid- afraid to the point that they want government there to protect them (even though it can't, or doesn't, do so).
They must be engulfed in feelings of inadequacy and helplessness. They must feel like Big Brother is the answer to their fears.
I wish I had the power to calm their fears. But pointing out that they have options, and that fear doesn't have to rule them, only seems to make them angry. As though they enjoy their fear and don't want to lose it.
There are better, healthier ways to enjoy fear than imposing a government. Ride a roller coaster- if that's not enough, make sure you're not secured in the seat. Or watch a scary (or gory) movie. Or jump off of bridges- tied to a bungee if you like. Fly a Tesla Roadster over a canyon. None of those fear-inducers violate others. Using your fear to justify a government does. Don't do that.
When I comment, usually taking the side of liberty and against the police state, there's this petti old karen who scolds me, saying I don't live in Clovis, so I need to mind my own business.
She treats the site as her own little fiefdom, threatening to ban anyone who expresses an opinion she doesn’t like- especially one about cops.
She is an unrepentant copsucker; apparently on a first-name basis with the police chief and whichever officers make the news on any given day. She reposts all the press releases the cops put out, as though it's her mission in life. She praises the cops whenever they do anything, and thanks them individually in her posts. She completely ignored the cop who recently caused a traffic accident and lied about it (but was found out and disciplined for lying)- as though it never happened. She defends Flock spyware relentlessly, because "crime". She gets angry and encourages people to report people to the cops for having any fun she doesn't approve of- and there's an awful lot she doesn't approve of. And, of course, she's afraid of almost everything she doesn't like or understand (which is nearly everything).
She's a busybody of epic proportions, inserting herself into almost anything, whether it's her business or not. It seems like the things that are none of her business excite her the most.
She's a really nasty piece of work.
Usually I ignore her, because she's not worth my time. (I've tried to mute her so I don't see any of her posts, but that hasn't worked.)
Recently, she got her panties in a wad because there's a "pot farm" next to the hospital, using "major water". (She's probably upset she can't report them to the cops!) I'll bet she doesn't have an issue with any Big Government project using even more water. Fortunately, several people knocked her down a notch, but I chimed in anyway.
I asked, "Why is this any less legitimate than anything you do with water? There’s nothing unethical about farming."
I guarantee you that if she responds, she will be snotty about it and have some excuse about "the children", or that it used to be illegal, that she believes it's immoral, or that her cop buddies don't like it. (Even though the cop I knew best used to steal it from people and smoke it with his friends.)
I just can't relate to people like her. She disgusts me in almost every way possible. People like her are the reason America doesn't have liberty.
It didn't work. Government has become the primary violator of those rights.
Abolish it.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary", but somehow we're to imagine that those same non-angels become better individuals when given the power to "legally" violate others with very little risk to themselves.
That doesn't work. The worst people among us are drawn to positions of government power. Government isn't necessary, but is clearly contraindicated under the same conditions used to justify it.
Abolish it.
"But if you'd just read this treatise, laying out why government is good and essential, you'll see why you have to accept it and work with it to get whatever scraps of liberty it is willing to let you have."
No. Delusional people writing down justifications for their delusions hold no interest for me. Liberty is superior to any system seeking to violate it. Even if it's a government you like and want to excuse.
Abolish it.
I know, abolishing government is hard. Maybe impossible (for now). So, in the meantime, at least stop pretending it has any legitimacy. Treat it as you would treat any freelance criminal gang. Do what you must to avoid being murdered by it. Protect your property from it in whatever way you can. Exercise your liberty in secret if it's too dangerous to exercise openly.
And don't buy the justifications that the statists are trying to sell you. It's fraud. It's a scam. Buyer beware.
(Story about some dire consequence of the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.)
Drug abuse is stupid; prohibition is evil. Anyone supporting this has lost their compass.
“Your solution to such societal blight and expense upon the taxpayer for crime and welfare costs is what?”
Stop taxing people, and there’s no more expense upon the taxvictims.
End welfare for the same reason. (Charity works; welfare destroys.)
And what do you consider “societal blight”? I think if the stupid and evil War on Some Drugs is ended, a lot of the worst addicts will die off. The rest will either figure out how to be productive while abusing substances, or they’ll have to stop.
There’s really no downside unless you’re addicted to government and its “solutions”.
“You're an idiot and your village wants you back.”
That’s exactly the kind of response I expected. Thank you for confirming my hypothesis.
“You're living proof of your low IQ. Clearly you're told that often.”
And…
“Nothing to respond to. Your options are not logical or based in reality.”
-----------------
You be the judge.
Unless someone brings up government (or other career archators), especially in a fond way, they'll never know. I just don't think, or care, about it that much.
Other than writing to try to break people out of the spell, I mean.
It's only when someone starts trying to impose it on me- or on bystanders- that I express my opinion on the matter. And that is often only after I've tried to change the subject.
It's like a form of self-defense. Or an immune response.
That happens more than I'd like. But don't say dumb things, and it won't come up. There are so many other things I'd rather talk and think about. Literally thousands of better topics! I can't figure out why so many people try to make everything political. It's a sick way to live.
That doesn't sit well with me.
So, I sometimes get in trouble for openly rejecting the social lies. I've even made other libertarians mad this way.
It's worth it.
If you can't be the one saying "The emperor has no clothes", then what good are you?
It doesn't mean you have to call out every lie. That would be exhausting. But when you are expected to repeat a social lie, or to nod along when the lie is told, don't. Sure, you could say it's not true, and that would be the most powerful thing to do, but it's not always necessary. Sometimes your silence is enough to shock a social liar into fumbling with his train of thought. I've seen it happen.
This Age of Lies is an opportunity for the hero who values the truth, wherever it leads.
The picture I posted above was making the rounds without the second line, saying "Landlord is not a job". Well, that's not true!
I may not always like all landlords, but I've seen how hard a job it can be. I've always done my best not to be a problem renter. I've had great landlords, and I've had terrible ones, but the problem isn't that they are landlords. Sometimes the trouble was that the property was difficult to maintain. It happens.
So anyway, I had Grok add the second line to the picture above, and then I posted it in comments under some of the posts. I got a lot of agreement.
But I had a few people jump on me for it- but not from the side you'd think. In every case, they just skipped the word "not" and thought I was making the argument that landlords are lazy. That's the opposite of what I was saying. I corrected them, pointing out that I'm on the same side, with a comment about reading comprehension, because I'm not perfect.
So, if you read something and think you disagree, read it again more carefully, just to be sure before you make an angry comment. It could save you embarrassment.
Then, even though I'll admit their superiority, I'll still usually prefer the appearance of the old materials and designs. There's just something classic about them.
If there's a brass and glass version of something that's now usually made of various types of plastic, I'll probably prefer the brass and glass version unless the plastic version is a whole lot better. And some of them are.
I'm a big fan of my polymer and steel guns, but for style, they can't hold a candle to my wood, steel, and brass guns. I understand the pros and cons of each. But I like what I like, and not always for rational reasons.
One thing that bothers me is when they try to make plastic look like wood and brass- that's lying, and it looks bad. At least they don't do that with guns as much as they do with other products (although I do have a 1940s shotgun with an original "wood-like" plastic stock). I hated the old TVs that had a plastic case that had a "wood-grain pattern"- if you're going to make it out of plastic, just do it and don't try to make it look like something else. When they stopped doing that and just left the plastic black, it was an improvement.
I don't even mind honest modern reproductions of old things as long as they are made of the real materials and work like the originals did. (I'd prefer an original, but that's not always practical.)
Liberty is the original original. It existed from the beginning- long before crooked, power-hungry humans invented the warped idea that someone should govern others. None of the modern plastic substitutes for genuine liberty are worth anything. They are cheap (yet excessively expensive), ugly, and broken from the beginning. They are not an improvement on liberty.
Statists seem to assume I haven't already heard all their justifications for government, and to believe that if they can just bring up the right one, I'll suddenly see the error of my ways and love Big Brother like they do.
No.
Maybe if they could come up with something new, but not when they just dredge up the same ones I first considered and rejected decades ago. And many times since.
Repeating the same excuses isn't going to make me change my mind. Especially when those excuses can't stand up to scrutiny.
Maybe it's really an acknowledgement that they've got nothing, so they go ahead with their weak arguments, knowing they're firing blanks. Just to appear to others in their tribe like they at least tried.
Refer a friend and you’ll both get $35 in ammo credit. That’s a $10 bump, now through December 31.Join through my referral link (also at the top right of this blog's desktop webpage), spend at least $20, and you and I both get an additional $35 in ammo! It's a good deal; they actually follow through, and I've gotten free ammo from past deals. It adds up. Give it a try.
I like some individuals in both groups, depending on how they present their views and how they propose to act on them.
Disagreement isn’t an automatic nail in the coffin.
Weirdly, I dislike some who basically agree with me on everything important, but their personality grates on me for some reason. That's a problem with me more than them.
I'll readily support what they do and say because they are correct. I certainly don't wish them ill. I just probably won't be going to a picnic with them.
I don’t mean this the way statists usually do.
What I mean is that I understand that liberty comes at a price. It’s dangerous.
You can stand for the right to own and carry guns and get killed by an evil loser with a gun.
You can oppose mandatory vaccination and die of a disease.
You might oppose prohibition and sobriety checkpoints and lose a family member to an impaired driver.
You can oppose mass surveillance and be the victim of a crime that could be solved with more spyware.
You can oppose censorship and get called rude names.
Statists will laugh, because they don't get it. They can't see past their ignorance.
Bad guys aren't violating you because of liberty. Liberty doesn't include the "right" to violate others, and it doesn't shield you from random bad things happening. Life and death happen. The Universe isn't fair.
The price of liberty is that if you're consistent, you might find yourself facing a situation that slavery might have made less likely.
So? Liberty is always worth the cost.
They should pay the full price; not the tax cattle.
Or, if you believe in punishment/revenge as a facet of justice, they should be subject to whatever someone else, not working on behalf of any government, would face if they'd done the same sort of thing.
A government "job" doesn't absolve a violator of their responsibility or guilt. It never has. It's weird that anyone would believe otherwise.
I know that's not shocking news to anyone.
Plus, when I see what passes for "normal", I'm not sure fitting in is a good thing. What others view as "normal" is nightmare fuel to me. Murder, war, revenge, slavery, obedience, surveillance, theft, and all the other things we're expected to accept as a normal price of living in a "civilized society". Yuck!
It's like that saying: "Your 'boos' mean nothing; I've seen what makes you cheer."
I have a hard time not recoiling at how horrible many people can be. ESPECIALLY when they get political. Especially when they let their feelings take the wheel. Especially when they get trapped in a false dichotomy. Especially when they form hard opinions based on a complete lack of understanding.
I don't fit in, and it sometimes makes me sad and lonely. But a little sadness is a small price to pay for not letting myself be a horrible person just so I'll be accepted by horrible people.
The ONLY ethical death penalty is carried out at the time and place of the attack by the intended victim or a bystander. I'd be thrilled if this were the outcome every single time.
Killing the killer later is revenge- it's even in the name: "capital punishment". Punishment is revenge, the opposite of justice. It's a capitulation to feelings, not rationality.
Restitution isn't possible in such a case, which feels unsatisfying to people who want revenge, but it's true.
It doesn't stop future murderers from murdering. They never think they'll get caught, or they act in the heat of the moment where conscious thought doesn't figure in. There is no preventative effect.
If you "execute" for the state, you are part of a conspiracy to commit premeditated murder. You are ethically identical to the person you murder. The threat has already been neutralized: they are in a cage. Murdering them won't bring their victim back. Legalistic word games like claiming "you can't murder a murderer" don't change the reality. (Try that line if you get caught doing it on your own and see how well it works.) Working for the state doesn't erase the individual responsibility.
I understand the lust for revenge- for punishment- because I've felt it myself. But I can't support it being institutionalized and made into a quasi-religious cleansing ritual of human sacrifice. Not on my behalf!
I don't trust government with the power to murder people. Unlike a lot of statists. Unlike some "libertarians".
I'm so serious about this that I don't even support this fate for politicians/police.
Just a few minutes of scrolling around on various websites has exposed me to many concerning opinions.
Many people want to:
Make it illegal to make "too much" money, and take the excess (or take it all) for government to use.
Limit how much you can own- of anything.
Punish success and subsidize failure.
Make sure no one but government has any effective weapons.
Track us all 24/7.
Punish us for any rule we violate.
Censor everything we say, write, and read.
Expand government's power in every area.
Make sure our vehicles (if we are allowed to have them at all) don't go "too fast" and don't allow us to do things with them that government would like to prohibit ("kill switches").
Make us all dependent on government handouts.
Control ALL money.
Allow only government to define and administer justice.
Turn the whole country into a big maximum-security prison.
Let government say where you are allowed to live, while it also imports people who want to kill you and forbids self-defense.
Keep raising the age at which people are still considered "children" when that benefits the government agenda, and keep lowering this barrier when that benefits the government agenda.
Marginalize normal human behavior as "outdated" and no longer acceptable.
Force racism and other bigotries into all our social and business interactions, in order to advance some and hold others back.
Pretend that one flavor of tyranny is good while the other flavor is bad.
Redefine "liberty", "freedom", "justice", "ethical", and whatever other concepts might become a problem for them.
Make us slaves to the whims of cops, ready to fall to our knees no matter what demand they make.
Pretend there's a way to v*te ourselves out of all this.
Statism is a disease. You can vaccinate your mind against it, but like a zombie virus, that only means you are less likely to catch it; not that you won't be devoured bit by bit by someone who is infected.
Yeah, things could get more interesting than you'd like. Since I don't expect people to get smarter, I'm preparing for the worst (while hoping I'm wrong). I'll also do what I can to vaccinate people against statism- even if it feels like a fool's task.
Which human nature would that be, specifically?
Are libertarians ignoring the nature of humans to be dishonest? I'm sure the solution to this is to create government "jobs" where dishonesty pays by orders of magnitude better than freelance dishonesty could ever dream of. And where it can be more easily hidden. And where, even if discovered, it rarely comes with restitution for the victims. This is a reality of human nature.
Are we ignoring the natural "sinful nature" of humans? I'm sure the solution to this is to set up an institution where they can harm, or even kill, others without much risk of being stopped in self-defense- since it's "illegal" to stop them in any meaningful way. Humans sin, so is it essential to put some of these sinful people in positions where their sins can harm a vast number of people?
If people were angels, no government would be necessary. Because they aren't angels, they can't be allowed to govern others. No one is qualified for this "job". And that's a reality of human nature.
Is the human nature being ignored the nature of humans to fight- individually or in large groups- and try to take what's not theirs through wars? Statists think the solution is to gather large groups together, pay them with money stolen from the local population, go out and attack others, and then cry about needing to defend ourselves when the other groups fight back. Libertarians know that every individual has the right to own and carry weapons for defense against ALL violators, including governments who want to "tax" or "conscript" you, and that the human tendency to come together for mutual defense isn't created out of thin air by government. The warlords already took over, and they're lying to you; telling you their way is the best way, when they cause the problem they try to scare you with. This is human nature too obvious to ignore.
Do libertarians ignore the fact that humans can be really stupid? I'm sure the solution to that is to allow a group of stupid humans to make rules over things they know nothing about, and then use those rules to punish the people who know more about those things and wisely choose to ignore the dumb rules imposed by stupid people. Believing you know more about another's situation is human nature, and statists ignore it for their own twisted agenda.
Is this human nature that libertarians ignore the tendency of humans to work toward their own benefit? I'm sure the solution to this is to make it harder for people to help themselves by providing products and services that others want and need. Establish a system that punishes success. Libertarians know that when a system makes it possible to benefit yourself most by benefiting others, you've found a good balance. It's a reality of human nature that statists ignore because it doesn't give them power.
Maybe libertarians ignore the human nature to feel inadequate and beg for kings and presidents to take their burden of responsibility off them. It works so much "better" to give them what they want than to expect them to grow up and take responsibility for themselves. Next time a toddler wants a bottle of whiskey, you'd better just give it to her, because otherwise you're ignoring human nature to want to feel the buzz. Who ignores this human nature?
If you give people what they want, because they are lazy, fearful, or ignorant, and you expect nothing more from them, they'll keep fulfilling your low expectations. If you expect more of them, they'll disappoint you. But they'll either learn or be Darwinized out of the gene pool (and, empathy aside, this isn't a bad thing). And YOU won't be contributing to or perpetuating the problem.
Libertarians are the only ones out there paying attention to, and acting on, human nature. Despite what statists may endlessly parrot. As in so many other things, this is statists projecting their own character flaws onto others. Don't buy it.
"If you don't v*te for our side, the other side will win!"
Yeah, so? Both of you are the problem.
Both sides are socialists.
Both sides are authoritarian archators.
Both sides lie to get the v*tes, then do what they were always planning to do regardless.
Can they really be considered "sides" when they are no more different than they are?
Sure, there are differences. But they are both creeps who seek to rule. They both want to violate your individual sovereignty. They both want to impose their desires on you through counterfeit "laws". Both are despicable enemies of liberty.
I see what you DO, not what you SAY. It doesn't work to call your loyal opposition names- even if those names are accurate- while you behave in ways that are just as bad for liberty, but occasionally in slightly different ways.
It's not going to be different this time.
Yes, I hate the thought of "their guy" getting elected, but I hate the idea of "your guy" getting elected, too. I hate them both. I don't need to be governed, I don't need anyone else governed on my behalf, and I don't appreciate you forcing your chosen political criminals onto my back.
You statists could choose to not be the problem, but instead, you choose to whine that I don't support your creeps, and you fabricate the fantasy that this helps the other creeps. Statists are delusional.
Politics makes people stupid, and usually at least a little bit evil (UT7). This is never more obvious than when they are campaigning.
If it's unreasonable to demand that government not violate the very rights it supposedly exists to protect, then I'm unashamedly unreasonable.
If government doesn't do this bare minimum, then I want it abolished. If that's unreasonable, I'm OK with that.
If it's unreasonable to expect that natural human rights be respected, even if inconvenient, then I'm fine with being thought of as unreasonable.
If it's unreasonable to support the right of everyone to defend their life, liberty, and property from all violators, freelance and governmental, then I'm glad I'm unreasonable.
If refusing to go along with the weak and fearful crowd is unreasonable, so be it.
I've seen what passes for "reasonable" and I want no part of it.
If unwavering advocacy of liberty is unreasonable, then I'll be unreasonable forever.
Well, I've gotten 5.38" of rain at my house since Thursday morning*. Some places nearby have had 9" so far.
Year-to-date up until Thursday, I'd had 7.37", which was more than I thought.
At least this area is mostly flat, with no streams to flood. The playas are all overflowing. All my rain catchment is overflowing. I'm hoping my cellar isn't a cistern now.
My house isn't in a low spot, and my parents' house is on the high end of town (an unnoticeable slope).
Streets in the area are the closest thing we have to streams. Or rivers. Coming back from Clovis Thursday afternoon, there were many stalled cars in the rushing waters. The streets were running about 18" deep- more in some spots. People were trying to drive too fast for the conditions, which is normal.
Has this affected the recent water crisis? Not really, as far as refilling the aquifer or making the town's wells work better.
Just before the rain started, I saw that one of the town's water tanks was completely full. I hadn't seen that before. I'm guessing no one is watering their yard now. The other one was down a couple of feet from where it had been hovering, but is back up to what I consider normal again. I haven't figured out exactly how they are all connected (and the city has admitted they are connected in a way they shouldn't have been). This rain should take the pressure off the system.
I now have water I could filter and use if needed.
We have more rain in the forecast over the next few days. Normally, it doesn't rain here even when the forecast says it will. We shall see.
*We got more rain overnight. Since Wednesday, we've had 6.16" in total.
I feel utter contempt for people who support the existence of government because it makes them feel "safe".
But... part of the reason I hate government so much is that I know it makes us less safe. It's the primary violator of our rights; therefore, having it around makes me feel less safe.
So, am I as contemptible as those who want to govern me so they'll "feel safe"?
OK. Fine. I will do so by refusing to v*te for one of your anointed, pre-selected political criminals.
In this way, I will cast my v*te for liberty instead of for the status quo.
I choose to reject your options, which amount to more of the same.
I refuse to give my consent to your bad guy as a way to stick it to the "other side's" bad guy.
I don't need to be governed, and I don't need you governed on my behalf; to protect me from what you might do.
The criminal institution known as "government" will declare someone or something the "winner", with or without my help or consent. Nothing I do will change that. That "winner" will work hard to make all our lives worse.
Whichever "side" gets the offices, Americans are screwed until government is abolished and our rights and liberty are respected again; something no government will ever do. Respected because we have the will and ability to defend them from ALL violators. This is the only way they'll ever be respected. Government and its "laws" have been abject failures in that department, and so will it always be. That's because no matter how bad freelance criminals are, government is always the Prime Violator.
So, if someone is going to consider a refusal to play their rigged game as a play in their rigged game, that's a problem with their brain. Do what you want, but don't accept blame that isn't yours.
I had posted:
"Killing in self-defense, or in defense of others, at the moment of the attack, is 100% ethical.
Carrying out an execution for government is murder. It makes the killer just as guilty as the person being killed by the state.
https://kentmcmanigal.blogspot.com/2022/03/i-oppose-capital-punishment-and.html"
Someone responded that while he believes that killing in defense of yourself, your children, your pets, or your property is the right thing to do, he believes that killing in defense of others, without their prior consent to do so, or their post-defense consent to have acted in their defense, is murder.
That's not the point I expected pushback on!
OK. People see things differently. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.
If you wait until you get permission to defend someone- or a whole mall full of people- from a credible threat, it's going to be too late.
No, I would just have to act and hope the people I defended are happy about it. If not, I'm willing to face arbitration.
I think we may be descending into a new Dark Age where the vast majority of people- especially young people- just don’t care. As long as they have entertainment, convenience, and the illusion of safety, that’s enough. They don't see any value in liberty. They are too busy dreaming up new ways to feel like victims. New mental illnesses to build their personalities around.
That won't last because it's unsustainable. But it has lasted too long already. Liberty has suffered as a result of this manufactured distraction.
The flame of liberty has been relegated to the corners of the room while all manner of anti-human ideologies and policies take center stage and get all the attention.
I think liberty will eventually rise again, in an upcoming generation sometime in the future. A generation that finally understands that the solution is never political. I wish we didn't have to wait.
If it turns out to be longer than a human lifespan before that new generation arises, I hope we can pass the flame on to a few holdouts so they can do the same when their time comes, just to give that future generation something to expand on. If not, I hope we leave a legacy they can discover and use to build upon. I hope I can contribute something to that future generation.
