Government protects its own
Do you need more proof that "some animals are more 'equal' than others"? Look no further than passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO, Sergeant Richard Guzman.
I have mentioned his glowing example a couple of other times, even going so far as to mention that by pulling over and trying to "sleep it off", he did the responsible thing (which is "illegal" at this time). Would he have arrested a non-badged person for doing as he did? I'd be willing to bet real money (silver or gold) that he would have without a second thought.
Now a judge has once again shown that a conflict of interest prevents justice from happening under government-owned courts. Judge Sandra Engle denied the motion for Guzman to be fingerprinted and "booked", calling it "premature."
Would you or I get that kind of professional courtesy? Don't count on it.
***********************
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Seasteading: Let's get to it
Seasteading: Let's get to it
Seasteading- it is already being done by the rich. Let's look at ways it might work for the rest of us. Yes, the "high seas" are a lot different from the high desert around Albuquerque, but a change of scenery isn't always bad. This is just my own brainstorming session, and certainly not the only possible way the project could play out.
First of all, I'm sure there either are some of those gigantic cruise ships for sale somewhere, or soon will be. A huge container ship might even be purchased and retrofitted for the purpose. Either way, it is not impossible to do, and becomes more imperative to try with each new governmental violation of basic human rights.
The only "law" on a "libertarian seastead" would be the Zero Aggression Principle and the related "principle of zero initiated deception". Nothing else would be "enforceable" or expected, because there would be no "authorities". Each person would "enforce" a respect for rights and liberty in their own sphere. Nothing other than mercy would protect bad people from the consequences of their aggression, theft, and fraud. In an absence of government, being an aggressor or thief would be a very, very foolish choice.
In my thought experiment, it wouldn't necessarily "cost" you to live aboard unless you were among the "idle rich", since you would probably run your own business of some sort, rather than having the on-board shops and restaurants owned by the ship's owners (whoever they might be). Nothing would prevent or stifle competition among the residents. If there is already a barber shop, open a better or cheaper one.
Each part of the ship would be private property, including "common areas". How would that work? I'm not sure. Perhaps each person would own the hallway in front of their quarters, along with the privileges and liabilities that go along with it, unless they choose to sell it to someone else. The captain and crew would be employees. The ship itself, such as the engines and hull... who would "own" it? Maybe the residents could each own specific parts or, if people really think it works well (I don't) they might own "shares" in the things such as the engines. How would fuel and maintenance be financed? There could not be "taxation" in the traditional sense, since theft is forbidden for everyone. Maybe "utilities" and services would include the cost of running the ship. Most businesses or residents might be willing to donate money toward fuel and maintenance since that would make it much easier to get goods and travel where they want to go. There would undoubtedly be "free riders", but that is not a real drawback unless you want it to be.
If wealthy people want a luxurious suite, they have that option. There would still be plenty of room for suburbs and even "slums". There might even be "tent cities" below deck. People who didn't have much need somewhere to start, and someone might be willing to rent out large chambers for such a purpose.
There would be no "official currency"; people would be free to offer payment, and accept payment, in whatever form they preferred. If they choose to do business off-ship, it might be good to have things that are accepted in port, as well. Private banks on-board might provide a valuable service in this case.
True medical freedom could be found in such a situation, unlike anywhere on land under government "supervision". Even people who might not agree with the operating principles of the community might seek treatment from the doctors on board, and provide an infusion of outside wealth.
Food could be grown on board and harvested from the ocean. Metals might even be separated from seawater or collected from the ocean floor by entrepreneurs on the seastead. And, of course, sunken ships could be found and "mined" as well.
Security would be up to the individual. If you wish to have a metal detector at the door of your business, that is up to you, but don't count on getting many customers. If a port has a prohibition on personal weaponry, then only those willing to take the risk would disembark. Perhaps if the ports did not wish to have an armed ship even docked, there could be shuttles that would make the run to and from the ship, to bring goods and passengers.
I think a gunsmith (or three) would find it a very liberating environment. The next John Moses Browning might find this the perfect situation to experiment without an ATF agent or other parasitical vermin breathing down his neck. Real weapon innovation could once again be tried. Mourn any pirates who try to take over or loot this ship.
To be honest, I have lots more thoughts on this, but this column is getting too long already. Perhaps there may be a "part two", but regardless, let your own imagination run wild. Every "problem" has a solution that does not require coercion. It is just a matter of thinking of it.
Seasteading- it is already being done by the rich. Let's look at ways it might work for the rest of us. Yes, the "high seas" are a lot different from the high desert around Albuquerque, but a change of scenery isn't always bad. This is just my own brainstorming session, and certainly not the only possible way the project could play out.
First of all, I'm sure there either are some of those gigantic cruise ships for sale somewhere, or soon will be. A huge container ship might even be purchased and retrofitted for the purpose. Either way, it is not impossible to do, and becomes more imperative to try with each new governmental violation of basic human rights.
The only "law" on a "libertarian seastead" would be the Zero Aggression Principle and the related "principle of zero initiated deception". Nothing else would be "enforceable" or expected, because there would be no "authorities". Each person would "enforce" a respect for rights and liberty in their own sphere. Nothing other than mercy would protect bad people from the consequences of their aggression, theft, and fraud. In an absence of government, being an aggressor or thief would be a very, very foolish choice.
In my thought experiment, it wouldn't necessarily "cost" you to live aboard unless you were among the "idle rich", since you would probably run your own business of some sort, rather than having the on-board shops and restaurants owned by the ship's owners (whoever they might be). Nothing would prevent or stifle competition among the residents. If there is already a barber shop, open a better or cheaper one.
Each part of the ship would be private property, including "common areas". How would that work? I'm not sure. Perhaps each person would own the hallway in front of their quarters, along with the privileges and liabilities that go along with it, unless they choose to sell it to someone else. The captain and crew would be employees. The ship itself, such as the engines and hull... who would "own" it? Maybe the residents could each own specific parts or, if people really think it works well (I don't) they might own "shares" in the things such as the engines. How would fuel and maintenance be financed? There could not be "taxation" in the traditional sense, since theft is forbidden for everyone. Maybe "utilities" and services would include the cost of running the ship. Most businesses or residents might be willing to donate money toward fuel and maintenance since that would make it much easier to get goods and travel where they want to go. There would undoubtedly be "free riders", but that is not a real drawback unless you want it to be.
If wealthy people want a luxurious suite, they have that option. There would still be plenty of room for suburbs and even "slums". There might even be "tent cities" below deck. People who didn't have much need somewhere to start, and someone might be willing to rent out large chambers for such a purpose.
There would be no "official currency"; people would be free to offer payment, and accept payment, in whatever form they preferred. If they choose to do business off-ship, it might be good to have things that are accepted in port, as well. Private banks on-board might provide a valuable service in this case.
True medical freedom could be found in such a situation, unlike anywhere on land under government "supervision". Even people who might not agree with the operating principles of the community might seek treatment from the doctors on board, and provide an infusion of outside wealth.
Food could be grown on board and harvested from the ocean. Metals might even be separated from seawater or collected from the ocean floor by entrepreneurs on the seastead. And, of course, sunken ships could be found and "mined" as well.
Security would be up to the individual. If you wish to have a metal detector at the door of your business, that is up to you, but don't count on getting many customers. If a port has a prohibition on personal weaponry, then only those willing to take the risk would disembark. Perhaps if the ports did not wish to have an armed ship even docked, there could be shuttles that would make the run to and from the ship, to bring goods and passengers.
I think a gunsmith (or three) would find it a very liberating environment. The next John Moses Browning might find this the perfect situation to experiment without an ATF agent or other parasitical vermin breathing down his neck. Real weapon innovation could once again be tried. Mourn any pirates who try to take over or loot this ship.
To be honest, I have lots more thoughts on this, but this column is getting too long already. Perhaps there may be a "part two", but regardless, let your own imagination run wild. Every "problem" has a solution that does not require coercion. It is just a matter of thinking of it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
'Criminalizing' our way to Utopia?
'Criminalizing' our way to Utopia?
"Laws" will never make the world a better place, and long ago actually started making it worse. Each day we see more and more things criminalized. For what? Usually because someone, somewhere was upset that something unfortunate happened. Yet, unfortunate things will continue to happen no matter how many "laws" are dreamed up.
If you have been reading my thoughts for long, you will recognize my term for this situation: "law pollution". And it is a real threat that grows more critical by the day.
At this point in the history of civilization each new "law" only means that another "danger" will rise up to take its place, once again threatening the small number of people who might actually be saved as a direct consequence of the new prohibition. That is because the world is not static, and neither is human behavior. When you add in the number of people killed in order to finance and enforce the new "law" you have entered negative territory; you are losing ground. Each new "law" results in more people harmed than the "problem" it was (supposedly) intended to fix. Don't pretend that "laws" are not the direct cause of death, because every one of them is.
Just one example (out of an almost infinite number) is the "texting and driving prohibition" nonsense. Innocent people have been harmed and killed by irresponsible people texting and driving (and not only in cars) all over the world, and Albuquerque is no exception. I don't dispute this fact. What I do dispute is the magical thinking that believes that enough "laws" can eventually be passed to make innocent and/or fearful people mostly safe. It can't happen because it violates the way the Universe really operates and pretending it can happen is delusional in the extreme. Do I think people will die as a result of being "legally prohibited" from texting and driving? No. Sensible people will ignore the counterfeit "law" if they need to. But the tragedy is that in today's world, every encounter with a LEO is a potentially lethal situation. Anything that gets a cop's attention and makes him notice you can get you killed. LEOs and all other governmental employees are paid with stolen money- stolen from those in society who produce something of value. Resist or try to keep your own property for your own use and eventually, at some point, as agents of the government continue to escalate the coercion and violence with each of your refusals to be willingly stolen from, you will be killed.
It is time to start thinking from a new direction about solutions for the real dangers that exist. New technology can ameliorate many of them. Removing governmental coercion and minding your own business can get rid of many more. In other words, when you are heading the wrong direction it is time to stop and turn around. Continuing on your suicidal path is not "progress". Life is not safe, nor will it ever be. "Safety" and "living well" have never been compatible.
"Laws" will never make the world a better place, and long ago actually started making it worse. Each day we see more and more things criminalized. For what? Usually because someone, somewhere was upset that something unfortunate happened. Yet, unfortunate things will continue to happen no matter how many "laws" are dreamed up.
If you have been reading my thoughts for long, you will recognize my term for this situation: "law pollution". And it is a real threat that grows more critical by the day.
At this point in the history of civilization each new "law" only means that another "danger" will rise up to take its place, once again threatening the small number of people who might actually be saved as a direct consequence of the new prohibition. That is because the world is not static, and neither is human behavior. When you add in the number of people killed in order to finance and enforce the new "law" you have entered negative territory; you are losing ground. Each new "law" results in more people harmed than the "problem" it was (supposedly) intended to fix. Don't pretend that "laws" are not the direct cause of death, because every one of them is.
Just one example (out of an almost infinite number) is the "texting and driving prohibition" nonsense. Innocent people have been harmed and killed by irresponsible people texting and driving (and not only in cars) all over the world, and Albuquerque is no exception. I don't dispute this fact. What I do dispute is the magical thinking that believes that enough "laws" can eventually be passed to make innocent and/or fearful people mostly safe. It can't happen because it violates the way the Universe really operates and pretending it can happen is delusional in the extreme. Do I think people will die as a result of being "legally prohibited" from texting and driving? No. Sensible people will ignore the counterfeit "law" if they need to. But the tragedy is that in today's world, every encounter with a LEO is a potentially lethal situation. Anything that gets a cop's attention and makes him notice you can get you killed. LEOs and all other governmental employees are paid with stolen money- stolen from those in society who produce something of value. Resist or try to keep your own property for your own use and eventually, at some point, as agents of the government continue to escalate the coercion and violence with each of your refusals to be willingly stolen from, you will be killed.
It is time to start thinking from a new direction about solutions for the real dangers that exist. New technology can ameliorate many of them. Removing governmental coercion and minding your own business can get rid of many more. In other words, when you are heading the wrong direction it is time to stop and turn around. Continuing on your suicidal path is not "progress". Life is not safe, nor will it ever be. "Safety" and "living well" have never been compatible.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Stop looking so hard for disagreements
Stop looking so hard for disagreements
We who love liberty should not be forced to join together in order to survive. After all "to each his own" is at the foundation of our values. The simple reality is that there is strength in numbers, and as individuals we are easier to surround and defeat. As long as a majority of people believe coercive, external government is acceptable, this will always be a danger. I am not saying liberty is necessarily more elusive for the individual who has no one watching his back, but it is nice to have others you can count on in a pinch. Yet, disagreements over the word "libertarian" and issues like abortion continue to keep us divided. This prevents us from mounting an effective defense against the Orcs of statism. This is very unfortunate.
A big part of the superiority of libertarianism is that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that each individual is valuable. This is not just a trite saying, as it is with authoritarians who parrot the idea, but is deeply thought out and lived with consistency. We know that "groups" are only as good as each member treats each other member and non-member, and deserve only as much respect as they each, individually, give to every other individual. This clashes with the authoritarian mindset which values the collective over the individual and ignores the fact that without the individual, there is nothing. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only has merit if each one of those "few" comes to that conclusion on his own, and not through intimidation or coercion. Otherwise, it is a philosophy of death and destruction.
You, as an individual who understands and loves liberty, have plenty of opposition without trying to look for reasons to disagree with other "libertarians". I want to look for reasons to agree; not to argue.
We who love liberty should not be forced to join together in order to survive. After all "to each his own" is at the foundation of our values. The simple reality is that there is strength in numbers, and as individuals we are easier to surround and defeat. As long as a majority of people believe coercive, external government is acceptable, this will always be a danger. I am not saying liberty is necessarily more elusive for the individual who has no one watching his back, but it is nice to have others you can count on in a pinch. Yet, disagreements over the word "libertarian" and issues like abortion continue to keep us divided. This prevents us from mounting an effective defense against the Orcs of statism. This is very unfortunate.
A big part of the superiority of libertarianism is that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that each individual is valuable. This is not just a trite saying, as it is with authoritarians who parrot the idea, but is deeply thought out and lived with consistency. We know that "groups" are only as good as each member treats each other member and non-member, and deserve only as much respect as they each, individually, give to every other individual. This clashes with the authoritarian mindset which values the collective over the individual and ignores the fact that without the individual, there is nothing. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only has merit if each one of those "few" comes to that conclusion on his own, and not through intimidation or coercion. Otherwise, it is a philosophy of death and destruction.
You, as an individual who understands and loves liberty, have plenty of opposition without trying to look for reasons to disagree with other "libertarians". I want to look for reasons to agree; not to argue.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Ron Paul shows 'the system' is broken
Ron Paul shows 'the system' is broken
Dr. Ron Paul is the only decent person in congress, or in any of the three branches of the fe(de)ral government for that matter. That isn't to say he is right on every issue; he's not. He is also irrefutable proof that "the system" does not work.
You can't convince me that his district in Texas is the most "libertarian" district in the nation, yet even with his largely libertarian stance he keeps getting re-elected.
Nor is he the most libertarian candidate who has run for national office. The others can't seem to get elected. I seriously doubt he is just the perfect "balance" of libertarian and authoritarian that "the voters" prefer. If he ran for office anywhere else in the country, such as in Albuquerque, especially against the local incumbent, I doubt he could win. This is the negative chaos that I have spoken out against that comes from allowing a government to exist.
I'm not saying it is bad that Dr. Paul got elected, I am just saying it shows a flaw in "the system". In the swamp of "red state/blue state" nonsense, there is no "gold (libertarian) state" where someone who rejects the authoritarian status quo can expect to win office, yet he did. The system is broken beyond redemption.
Reminder: Don't forget my books as tools for learning about, and spreading, Liberty.
Dr. Ron Paul is the only decent person in congress, or in any of the three branches of the fe(de)ral government for that matter. That isn't to say he is right on every issue; he's not. He is also irrefutable proof that "the system" does not work.
You can't convince me that his district in Texas is the most "libertarian" district in the nation, yet even with his largely libertarian stance he keeps getting re-elected.
Nor is he the most libertarian candidate who has run for national office. The others can't seem to get elected. I seriously doubt he is just the perfect "balance" of libertarian and authoritarian that "the voters" prefer. If he ran for office anywhere else in the country, such as in Albuquerque, especially against the local incumbent, I doubt he could win. This is the negative chaos that I have spoken out against that comes from allowing a government to exist.
I'm not saying it is bad that Dr. Paul got elected, I am just saying it shows a flaw in "the system". In the swamp of "red state/blue state" nonsense, there is no "gold (libertarian) state" where someone who rejects the authoritarian status quo can expect to win office, yet he did. The system is broken beyond redemption.
Reminder: Don't forget my books as tools for learning about, and spreading, Liberty.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Abortion: This Libertarian/Anarchist's Opinions
Updated 2-22-2010
Abortion is an issue that is only good for one thing: dividing people. I have read libertarian positions on both sides that were absolutely adamant that their position was right, and that the other side were monsters. The libertarian debate centers on just a couple main points: is the embryo a human being with all its rights intact, or is it a part of the mother's body, or is it a human being, but if not wanted, a trespasser? I am convinced that if abortion is wrong, it would still be wrong even in cases of rape or incest. The embryo had no choice in the matter, and many really good people began in horrible ways.
First off, I will say that no one, including me, knows for certain if abortion is right or wrong, they just think they do. That is because there is not enough scientific data to make a truly rational decision. Emotions on both sides cloud the mind and make coherent thought difficult.
Still, a few thoughts occur to me. I can not tell a human fetus from the fetuses of several other creatures by looking at them. I would bet that even the experts would have a very hard time telling a chimpanzee from a human until late in the pregnancy. A fertilized egg is life, but not a separate life. There are religious ideas of when the embryo becomes a separate life-form from the mother, but not really any convincing scientific proofs. I do know that once a baby is born it is a separate life-form, a person, with all its human rights intact. I can't remember anything that happened to me before I was around 2 or 3 years old. I went through some traumatic experiences that I can't recall at all, so it really doesn't concern me that they occurred. I would not care if I had been aborted. I wouldn't miss me at all.
Almost no one claims that a simple fertilized egg is a person, and almost no one claims that a full-term baby isn't one. The true dividing line is somewhere in between those extremes. No one knows for sure where it is, though many people "believe" they know where. In case of doubt I would tend to side with the mother, whom I can easily recognize as a complete, sapient human being who undoubtedly has all her rights functioning.
I feel that when the day comes that embryos can be transplanted or put into an artificial womb at any stage of development it will make abortion, as a divisive issue, fade away. So why do "pro-life" activists not spend their time, money, and talents on designing this technology? I think it is because they prefer to tell others how to live their lives instead. It is harder to use unwanted pregnancies to condemn a person's sex-life if the pregnancy is not a burden. In a great many cases, and from personal experience, I do think a desire to demonize sexual activity lies behind much "pro-life" activism".
This brings us to the religious objections. Almost all objections to abortion are at the core religious objections, which is fine until you try to impose your religion on someone else who does not share your religious views. Murder is wrong, but opinion is divided if abortion qualifies as murder. Not that "majority opinions" should decide any issue for anyone. It seems to come down to whether or not you believe humans have "souls". And if they do have souls, are those souls installed at conception or sometime later?
The issue of souls brings up another question in my mind. Just say that the conservative Christian claim that humans have souls and that they get those souls at conception (which is the claim I was raised with) is correct. Then assume for a moment that their other claim is also correct and that there is only one very specific way for those souls to go to Heaven. I was also taught that aborted and miscarried fetuses, babies, and young children got a free pass into Heaven because they did not yet understand "right and wrong", so were still innocent. That would mean that almost everyone (based on percentages) in Heaven would be one of these "free pass" souls. Aborted babies would almost certainly end up in Hell if they weren't aborted, considering that parents who would abort would not train their children in the proper way (once again, according to the conservative Christian position I was raised with). So, it seems a bit cruel to send all those people to Hell just to promote your agenda.
I would not use public funds to finance abortions or any other medical procedures, because there is no such thing as "public funds"; it is all stolen ("tax") money.
I think the best intellectual exercise for thinking about this is what L. Neil Smith asks: Say you are right and abortion is murder. How do you propose to regulate it? Do you make all pregnant women register to make certain that their pregnancies are not terminated? What if you can't yet tell by looking that they are pregnant? Should all women and girls of reproductive age submit to a monthly pregnancy test to keep tabs on them? Where do you come up with the new bureaucracy, "The Department of Reproduction", to regulate pregnancy? Who pays for it?
I am not a woman and can't get pregnant, so for me to pretend that I am an expert on pregnancy or abortion would be dishonest. I do have another thought that does concern men even more directly, though. As long as abortion is legal, men should be able to legally terminate any financial or parental responsibility for a child that they do not wish to father. After all, that is what abortion does for women. If it is right for one person, it is right for everyone.
I would never send government or its agents after a person who seeks an abortion. Mostly, it comes down to my attitude of "keep your filthy government off of my life!"
So, what is my personal opinion? I don't really like abortion, but would not forbid it to people who feel differently than I do about it. I do not think abortion is a good first choice for birth control. There are so many other options that are easier and cheaper. I have obviously never had an abortion, nor have I ever encouraged anyone to have one, even in cases where it would have been very bad for me if a pregnancy had occurred. In this way I have done my part to not add to the number of abortions. Keep your own house in order and mind your own business. It's the way of Liberty.
____________________________
Abortion is an issue that is only good for one thing: dividing people. I have read libertarian positions on both sides that were absolutely adamant that their position was right, and that the other side were monsters. The libertarian debate centers on just a couple main points: is the embryo a human being with all its rights intact, or is it a part of the mother's body, or is it a human being, but if not wanted, a trespasser? I am convinced that if abortion is wrong, it would still be wrong even in cases of rape or incest. The embryo had no choice in the matter, and many really good people began in horrible ways.
First off, I will say that no one, including me, knows for certain if abortion is right or wrong, they just think they do. That is because there is not enough scientific data to make a truly rational decision. Emotions on both sides cloud the mind and make coherent thought difficult.
Still, a few thoughts occur to me. I can not tell a human fetus from the fetuses of several other creatures by looking at them. I would bet that even the experts would have a very hard time telling a chimpanzee from a human until late in the pregnancy. A fertilized egg is life, but not a separate life. There are religious ideas of when the embryo becomes a separate life-form from the mother, but not really any convincing scientific proofs. I do know that once a baby is born it is a separate life-form, a person, with all its human rights intact. I can't remember anything that happened to me before I was around 2 or 3 years old. I went through some traumatic experiences that I can't recall at all, so it really doesn't concern me that they occurred. I would not care if I had been aborted. I wouldn't miss me at all.
Almost no one claims that a simple fertilized egg is a person, and almost no one claims that a full-term baby isn't one. The true dividing line is somewhere in between those extremes. No one knows for sure where it is, though many people "believe" they know where. In case of doubt I would tend to side with the mother, whom I can easily recognize as a complete, sapient human being who undoubtedly has all her rights functioning.
I feel that when the day comes that embryos can be transplanted or put into an artificial womb at any stage of development it will make abortion, as a divisive issue, fade away. So why do "pro-life" activists not spend their time, money, and talents on designing this technology? I think it is because they prefer to tell others how to live their lives instead. It is harder to use unwanted pregnancies to condemn a person's sex-life if the pregnancy is not a burden. In a great many cases, and from personal experience, I do think a desire to demonize sexual activity lies behind much "pro-life" activism".
This brings us to the religious objections. Almost all objections to abortion are at the core religious objections, which is fine until you try to impose your religion on someone else who does not share your religious views. Murder is wrong, but opinion is divided if abortion qualifies as murder. Not that "majority opinions" should decide any issue for anyone. It seems to come down to whether or not you believe humans have "souls". And if they do have souls, are those souls installed at conception or sometime later?
The issue of souls brings up another question in my mind. Just say that the conservative Christian claim that humans have souls and that they get those souls at conception (which is the claim I was raised with) is correct. Then assume for a moment that their other claim is also correct and that there is only one very specific way for those souls to go to Heaven. I was also taught that aborted and miscarried fetuses, babies, and young children got a free pass into Heaven because they did not yet understand "right and wrong", so were still innocent. That would mean that almost everyone (based on percentages) in Heaven would be one of these "free pass" souls. Aborted babies would almost certainly end up in Hell if they weren't aborted, considering that parents who would abort would not train their children in the proper way (once again, according to the conservative Christian position I was raised with). So, it seems a bit cruel to send all those people to Hell just to promote your agenda.
I would not use public funds to finance abortions or any other medical procedures, because there is no such thing as "public funds"; it is all stolen ("tax") money.
I think the best intellectual exercise for thinking about this is what L. Neil Smith asks: Say you are right and abortion is murder. How do you propose to regulate it? Do you make all pregnant women register to make certain that their pregnancies are not terminated? What if you can't yet tell by looking that they are pregnant? Should all women and girls of reproductive age submit to a monthly pregnancy test to keep tabs on them? Where do you come up with the new bureaucracy, "The Department of Reproduction", to regulate pregnancy? Who pays for it?
I am not a woman and can't get pregnant, so for me to pretend that I am an expert on pregnancy or abortion would be dishonest. I do have another thought that does concern men even more directly, though. As long as abortion is legal, men should be able to legally terminate any financial or parental responsibility for a child that they do not wish to father. After all, that is what abortion does for women. If it is right for one person, it is right for everyone.
I would never send government or its agents after a person who seeks an abortion. Mostly, it comes down to my attitude of "keep your filthy government off of my life!"
So, what is my personal opinion? I don't really like abortion, but would not forbid it to people who feel differently than I do about it. I do not think abortion is a good first choice for birth control. There are so many other options that are easier and cheaper. I have obviously never had an abortion, nor have I ever encouraged anyone to have one, even in cases where it would have been very bad for me if a pregnancy had occurred. In this way I have done my part to not add to the number of abortions. Keep your own house in order and mind your own business. It's the way of Liberty.
____________________________
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Statist brainwashing still works
Statist brainwashing still works
Recently a person wrote to me to disagree about how government has impacted liberty in America. He made a couple of statements that I think reflect the perceptions of the majority of the people around us. I'm betting that if you have spoken to many people about liberty you have heard the same statements. He starts off with this assertion about freedom of travel:
That just isn't true, as much as I wish it were. Passports, the TSA, "highway patrol", driver's licenses, "checkpoints", and other such government nonsense have destroyed true freedom of travel in America. That other places around the world may be worse does not change the reality of what travel in America has become. Government now views travel as a privilege to be granted or denied at its whim.
The same goes with jobs, concerning which he says:
Yet that isn't true either. I once needed a job, and wanted one I would enjoy. I applied at a business I really wished to work at, and that I could see really needed the help. They said they couldn't afford to hire anyone. I offered to work "under the table" for less than "minimum wage", but they were too afraid of getting in trouble with the government to agree to it. Licenses, permits, taxes, certifications, and red tape have destroyed true freedom to work where you want, doing what you want, in America. Once again, other countries may be worse, but that is still no excuse to allow it here.
Both examples are what I call the "Fire ant/lava parable", which goes like this:
Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants. While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be. All the while, west of you is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice). If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are Utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it. Don't be complacent about "OK" when "better" is within reach.
He also parroted many of the justifications for government, as well as some of the half-hearted criticisms that are common. Such as "they" want to destroy our freedom, and government protects "us" from "them".
Government and its actions are the only credible threat to our liberties. The US government and its local co-conspirators are the only force "that may want to alter or change the way we are allowed to live and the freedoms we enjoy" (and, they have in fact done so relentlessly); not Arabic goat herders living in caves.
Without a government to "take over" it is useless to even invade a country. Invaders, even if they win the war, need a centralized government and its bureaucracies already in place which they can then co-opt in order to "take over" the country. Having a government puts "us" at risk. It is the same with home-grown socialistic politicians. Remove the legitimacy that they seek through a "vote" and they are no danger to America any more.
Democracy is the opposite of Liberty, for the very reasons he outlined. No group has more rights than any individual because rights are not additive. They are individual. As long as a person is not attacking the innocent nor stealing or defrauding no one has any right (or authority) to tell them how to live their life.
Government education, and the "dumbing down" he also spoke of, is another example. It is not an accident, but by design. Statists need people to believe what "the authorities" tell them, and not be smart enough to figure out the truth.
As you go about your life, whether in Albuquerque NM, Meshoppen PA, or anywhere else in America, remember that this is how most people have been brainwashed to think about America, government, and "freedom".
Recently a person wrote to me to disagree about how government has impacted liberty in America. He made a couple of statements that I think reflect the perceptions of the majority of the people around us. I'm betting that if you have spoken to many people about liberty you have heard the same statements. He starts off with this assertion about freedom of travel:
"I can travel anywhere I want, at any time I want, without fear of being
detained."
That just isn't true, as much as I wish it were. Passports, the TSA, "highway patrol", driver's licenses, "checkpoints", and other such government nonsense have destroyed true freedom of travel in America. That other places around the world may be worse does not change the reality of what travel in America has become. Government now views travel as a privilege to be granted or denied at its whim.
The same goes with jobs, concerning which he says:
"I can work where I want, doing what suits me to earn a living, without
government interference."
Yet that isn't true either. I once needed a job, and wanted one I would enjoy. I applied at a business I really wished to work at, and that I could see really needed the help. They said they couldn't afford to hire anyone. I offered to work "under the table" for less than "minimum wage", but they were too afraid of getting in trouble with the government to agree to it. Licenses, permits, taxes, certifications, and red tape have destroyed true freedom to work where you want, doing what you want, in America. Once again, other countries may be worse, but that is still no excuse to allow it here.
Both examples are what I call the "Fire ant/lava parable", which goes like this:
Imagine you are standing in a bed of fire ants. While looking east you see a crater filled with lava. You should be very grateful that you are not in the lava. If you only look toward the east, you might truly believe that your situation is the best that there can be. All the while, west of you is a green meadow filled with Twinkies and butterflies (or your pleasures of choice). If you are surrounded by a chorus of voices telling you that your fire ant bed is the best place there is, and that you are Utopian or stupid for thinking that there might be a better life, you may believe it. Don't be complacent about "OK" when "better" is within reach.
He also parroted many of the justifications for government, as well as some of the half-hearted criticisms that are common. Such as "they" want to destroy our freedom, and government protects "us" from "them".
Government and its actions are the only credible threat to our liberties. The US government and its local co-conspirators are the only force "that may want to alter or change the way we are allowed to live and the freedoms we enjoy" (and, they have in fact done so relentlessly); not Arabic goat herders living in caves.
Without a government to "take over" it is useless to even invade a country. Invaders, even if they win the war, need a centralized government and its bureaucracies already in place which they can then co-opt in order to "take over" the country. Having a government puts "us" at risk. It is the same with home-grown socialistic politicians. Remove the legitimacy that they seek through a "vote" and they are no danger to America any more.
Democracy is the opposite of Liberty, for the very reasons he outlined. No group has more rights than any individual because rights are not additive. They are individual. As long as a person is not attacking the innocent nor stealing or defrauding no one has any right (or authority) to tell them how to live their life.
Government education, and the "dumbing down" he also spoke of, is another example. It is not an accident, but by design. Statists need people to believe what "the authorities" tell them, and not be smart enough to figure out the truth.
As you go about your life, whether in Albuquerque NM, Meshoppen PA, or anywhere else in America, remember that this is how most people have been brainwashed to think about America, government, and "freedom".
From Loss to Activism
I was just sitting around today thinking about how I went from a quietly "anti-government" individual to a somewhat outspoken advocate of individual liberty.
It is an evolution I would like to share with you.
All my life I have been characterized by those who knew me as "anti-government". I didn't make an issue of it, but I wouldn't always keep my mouth shut when confronted by "governmentism", either. Mostly I just went about my own business of living as free as I could and kept my opinion to myself unless pressed.
An acquaintance (who later went into government "work") once informed me that I was "conservative" because I did not like or trust government "solutions". For years I accepted this without really examining his contention. I did keep noticing that "conservatives" acted no differently than the "liberals" once elected. They were just as quick as the "other side" to stab me in the back with their every action. This kept me confused for several years. My observation eventually made me forget about looking for solutions from any political party or politician. Once again I was content to ignore the world of politics, except when a new "law" injured liberty in some way that I noticed. I would be irritated, but not surprised. Through it all, and involved in my own little world, I stayed quiet. My attitude was "Who would listen to me anyway?"
That all changed in late December 2003. Without going into gritty details, my life (which was already barely balanced on a worn tightrope) fell apart when my Significant Other left me. At this point I had nothing left to lose. In my grief I jumped feet-first into the first online libertarian group I ran across. I had already found L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action", which put a label on my deep-seated sentiments, a couple of years before. The internet allowed me to find, and interact with, people who felt the same basic way about individual liberty that I did. It made me feel somewhat less alone and lost.
For a few years I tried to hang on to my anonymity, until my presidential campaign made that impossible. Now I am "out". I am no longer anonymous, and am easily found. I am "on record" with a lot of very unpopular statements and opinions.
If I could change the past, would I? I don't know. Some days, I know I would. Other days, I think I might not.
The remaining chapters are yet to be written. I would love to live out my life unmolested by agents of hatred and "governmentism". Maybe I will; maybe I won't. I hope that from my own heartache I have contributed something to the discourse concerning liberty. At least, in that way, it wasn't suffered in vain.
It is an evolution I would like to share with you.
All my life I have been characterized by those who knew me as "anti-government". I didn't make an issue of it, but I wouldn't always keep my mouth shut when confronted by "governmentism", either. Mostly I just went about my own business of living as free as I could and kept my opinion to myself unless pressed.
An acquaintance (who later went into government "work") once informed me that I was "conservative" because I did not like or trust government "solutions". For years I accepted this without really examining his contention. I did keep noticing that "conservatives" acted no differently than the "liberals" once elected. They were just as quick as the "other side" to stab me in the back with their every action. This kept me confused for several years. My observation eventually made me forget about looking for solutions from any political party or politician. Once again I was content to ignore the world of politics, except when a new "law" injured liberty in some way that I noticed. I would be irritated, but not surprised. Through it all, and involved in my own little world, I stayed quiet. My attitude was "Who would listen to me anyway?"
That all changed in late December 2003. Without going into gritty details, my life (which was already barely balanced on a worn tightrope) fell apart when my Significant Other left me. At this point I had nothing left to lose. In my grief I jumped feet-first into the first online libertarian group I ran across. I had already found L. Neil Smith's book "Lever Action", which put a label on my deep-seated sentiments, a couple of years before. The internet allowed me to find, and interact with, people who felt the same basic way about individual liberty that I did. It made me feel somewhat less alone and lost.
For a few years I tried to hang on to my anonymity, until my presidential campaign made that impossible. Now I am "out". I am no longer anonymous, and am easily found. I am "on record" with a lot of very unpopular statements and opinions.
If I could change the past, would I? I don't know. Some days, I know I would. Other days, I think I might not.
The remaining chapters are yet to be written. I would love to live out my life unmolested by agents of hatred and "governmentism". Maybe I will; maybe I won't. I hope that from my own heartache I have contributed something to the discourse concerning liberty. At least, in that way, it wasn't suffered in vain.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Joe Stack's kamikaze mission to the IRS
Joe Stack's kamikaze mission to the IRS
By now everyone has heard of Joe Stack and his kamikaze mission to the IRS. So much has been said and there is little I can add. The thing that has surprised me is that most of the commentary I have read has been in at least partial support of his actions. I never expected that.
I can understand the sentiment. The IRS is an agency established solely to conduct theft and fraud against innocent people on behalf of an illegitimate, coercive "government". Dealing with the IRS can be very frustrating for the average person because these thieves are backed by the armed agents of government and keep getting away with their fraud and aggression, case after case, decade after decade. There can be no "justice" when the courts are owned by the same thugs who direct the IRS. There comes a point where a person recognizes they can not act in a civilized manner and expect to come out ahead, or even in a draw. The option of simply agreeing to disagree is not available. Not only that, but the simple act of initially standing up for what is right marks a person as a target for "official" harassment and intimidation for the rest of his life.
Some people, when subjected to this kind of pressure, snap.
An act like this is unequivocally wrong. There is a chance that innocent people could have been in the building, and "collateral damage" is always wrong, whether committed by government agents or by freelance aggressors like Mr. Stack. It is what makes "us" different, and better than, "them".
I read a comment posted elsewhere that claimed that Joe might have been justified in his actions, except for the fact that "the IRS doesn't kill people over unpaid taxes". Really? If you think the IRS doesn't kill people over "unpaid taxes" I have a lot of examples I could point you to. If you are interested in correcting this misconception, you might be interested in reading "The penalty is always death." But Joe wasn't face to face with his attackers when he struck. To me, that makes a world of difference.
Reading over Joe's "manifesto" I can't honestly tell for sure if he had ever been a friend of Liberty. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Especially when they just don't seem to get the fact that there is no excuse for ever turning your back on the Zero Aggression Principle. I can't help but wonder; if he had been my friend, could I have gotten through to him and made him see things in a different perspective?
By now everyone has heard of Joe Stack and his kamikaze mission to the IRS. So much has been said and there is little I can add. The thing that has surprised me is that most of the commentary I have read has been in at least partial support of his actions. I never expected that.
I can understand the sentiment. The IRS is an agency established solely to conduct theft and fraud against innocent people on behalf of an illegitimate, coercive "government". Dealing with the IRS can be very frustrating for the average person because these thieves are backed by the armed agents of government and keep getting away with their fraud and aggression, case after case, decade after decade. There can be no "justice" when the courts are owned by the same thugs who direct the IRS. There comes a point where a person recognizes they can not act in a civilized manner and expect to come out ahead, or even in a draw. The option of simply agreeing to disagree is not available. Not only that, but the simple act of initially standing up for what is right marks a person as a target for "official" harassment and intimidation for the rest of his life.
Some people, when subjected to this kind of pressure, snap.
An act like this is unequivocally wrong. There is a chance that innocent people could have been in the building, and "collateral damage" is always wrong, whether committed by government agents or by freelance aggressors like Mr. Stack. It is what makes "us" different, and better than, "them".
I read a comment posted elsewhere that claimed that Joe might have been justified in his actions, except for the fact that "the IRS doesn't kill people over unpaid taxes". Really? If you think the IRS doesn't kill people over "unpaid taxes" I have a lot of examples I could point you to. If you are interested in correcting this misconception, you might be interested in reading "The penalty is always death." But Joe wasn't face to face with his attackers when he struck. To me, that makes a world of difference.
Reading over Joe's "manifesto" I can't honestly tell for sure if he had ever been a friend of Liberty. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Especially when they just don't seem to get the fact that there is no excuse for ever turning your back on the Zero Aggression Principle. I can't help but wonder; if he had been my friend, could I have gotten through to him and made him see things in a different perspective?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The 'Sleep it off' bill
The 'Sleep it off' bill
The passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO should have waited a while. He and the deputy who gave him "Only One" treatment might have avoided a lot of trouble if they had waited until Senate Bill 151 passes.
The bill would once again make it "legal" for a drunk person to "sleep it off" in their parked car. Rational people have already pointed out that this is the responsible thing to do when you realize you are not sober enough to drive, but the current "law" makes it seem better to take the chance to get home rather than risk the almost certain fate of being arrested for recognizing you shouldn't be driving. After all, a sleeping person is a stationary target.
The bill would also stop LEOs from "arresting" people who are "under the 'legal' limit". Obviously, they shouldn't be doing that anyway. If they had any sense, that is. It is sad that people think there is a need to pass a "law" to stop LEOs from doing something that is already wrong for them to do. LEOs should discover the difference between right and wrong on their own. I know. It won't happen; they are too far gone.
As I have advocated before, the solution to this manufactured problem is to abolish the counterfeit "laws" that make this new "law" seem necessary. "Potential to cause harm" doesn't pass muster. No harm; no victim; no crime.
The passed-out-drunk Albuquerque LEO should have waited a while. He and the deputy who gave him "Only One" treatment might have avoided a lot of trouble if they had waited until Senate Bill 151 passes.
The bill would once again make it "legal" for a drunk person to "sleep it off" in their parked car. Rational people have already pointed out that this is the responsible thing to do when you realize you are not sober enough to drive, but the current "law" makes it seem better to take the chance to get home rather than risk the almost certain fate of being arrested for recognizing you shouldn't be driving. After all, a sleeping person is a stationary target.
The bill would also stop LEOs from "arresting" people who are "under the 'legal' limit". Obviously, they shouldn't be doing that anyway. If they had any sense, that is. It is sad that people think there is a need to pass a "law" to stop LEOs from doing something that is already wrong for them to do. LEOs should discover the difference between right and wrong on their own. I know. It won't happen; they are too far gone.
As I have advocated before, the solution to this manufactured problem is to abolish the counterfeit "laws" that make this new "law" seem necessary. "Potential to cause harm" doesn't pass muster. No harm; no victim; no crime.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
'Glass control'- can it be far behind?
'Glass control'- can it be far behind?
Let's pretend for a moment that the government has gotten its way and guns have been banned and are all gone (except for those "owned" and carried by government agents who enforce the "laws" against the rest of us, of course).
How much will an absence of guns slow down truly bad people? According to this story about a disgusting "piece of work" in Albuquerque who shoved broken glass in his girlfriend's mouth, then covered her mouth with a rag and made his dog attack her, it won't slow them down much. How is that better than if he had shot her? The truly delusional hoplophobe may try to point out that "at least he didn't kill her" with the weapons he used, yet guns are not universally fatal either.
Someone like this monster can always find weapons to use against other people; weapons such as glass, a dog, and a rag. Or hands, rocks, dog leashes, or water (oh, wait, that's a government-approved weapon in certain evil hands).
How has this "man" managed to keep his neighbors and girlfriend fearful for so long? I could be wrong, but I'll bet if there are any neighbors who are properly armed, they are not afraid of this creature. They may be afraid of what his actions will make them do, and the inevitable "imperial entanglements" that will result from true justice being dished out, but if they are properly armed there is no reason for them to be afraid of him. Never let a bully intimidate you. Not an independent one, nor one backed by the force of government. Once you let one get away with it, the bullying never stops.
Let's pretend for a moment that the government has gotten its way and guns have been banned and are all gone (except for those "owned" and carried by government agents who enforce the "laws" against the rest of us, of course).
How much will an absence of guns slow down truly bad people? According to this story about a disgusting "piece of work" in Albuquerque who shoved broken glass in his girlfriend's mouth, then covered her mouth with a rag and made his dog attack her, it won't slow them down much. How is that better than if he had shot her? The truly delusional hoplophobe may try to point out that "at least he didn't kill her" with the weapons he used, yet guns are not universally fatal either.
Someone like this monster can always find weapons to use against other people; weapons such as glass, a dog, and a rag. Or hands, rocks, dog leashes, or water (oh, wait, that's a government-approved weapon in certain evil hands).
How has this "man" managed to keep his neighbors and girlfriend fearful for so long? I could be wrong, but I'll bet if there are any neighbors who are properly armed, they are not afraid of this creature. They may be afraid of what his actions will make them do, and the inevitable "imperial entanglements" that will result from true justice being dished out, but if they are properly armed there is no reason for them to be afraid of him. Never let a bully intimidate you. Not an independent one, nor one backed by the force of government. Once you let one get away with it, the bullying never stops.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Space Shuttle thoughts
I know the NASA space shuttle program is scheduled to have 4 more missions, but I keep having this feeling that it will suffer another disaster and be cancelled before the final 3 are flown. I hope I am wrong.
Being a government program, I don't find this particularly surprising, and even when the shuttle program began I kept wondering how the inevitable disasters would be handled, but I hate to think of the wasted lives and lost scientific data. After all, my money has been taken against my will to pay for it. (However, if my feelings are borne out by future events, and some govgoons are looking for someone to beat up as punishment and they run across this blog, I have neither the inclination nor the know-how nor the opportunity to sabotage any space mission. Nor would I assist anyone who did, since that would be as distasteful to me as assisting government. Just so you know.)
Until and unless government either gets out of the way, or people advance the science in defiance of government, space exploration will continue to be stalled where it sits now. I should be writing this blog from the moon or an asteroid by now. Or, at least have that option. Government keeps guarding the gates of the future, keeping humanity trapped in the solved problems of the past. That is inexcusable.
Being a government program, I don't find this particularly surprising, and even when the shuttle program began I kept wondering how the inevitable disasters would be handled, but I hate to think of the wasted lives and lost scientific data. After all, my money has been taken against my will to pay for it. (However, if my feelings are borne out by future events, and some govgoons are looking for someone to beat up as punishment and they run across this blog, I have neither the inclination nor the know-how nor the opportunity to sabotage any space mission. Nor would I assist anyone who did, since that would be as distasteful to me as assisting government. Just so you know.)
Until and unless government either gets out of the way, or people advance the science in defiance of government, space exploration will continue to be stalled where it sits now. I should be writing this blog from the moon or an asteroid by now. Or, at least have that option. Government keeps guarding the gates of the future, keeping humanity trapped in the solved problems of the past. That is inexcusable.
'Choice' makes all the difference
'Choice' makes all the difference
Let's imagine two scenarios. In both a dollar of your money is going to finance something you don't like.
In the first scenario you choose to do business with a company which supports a cause that goes against your principles, but for some reason you continue to do business with them. You may grumble, but you have decided the value of the product or service you get from them outweighs the objections to how they are spending a percentage of the money they get from your business.
Now lets imagine the same dollar going to support the same personally-objectionable cause, but in this case the money is taken by the city of Albuquerque, the state of New Mexico, or the Federal government through taxation, in other words, under threat of death. Even if you are still under the impression that the penalty for keeping the fruits of your own labors falls short of death (it doesn't), the fact that you are given no choice in the matter should make the loss of that dollar less tolerable. There is a monopoly that you are compelled to "do business with" in this case.
Isn't the earlier scenario more palatable to you? After all, if at some point you finally decide that you can do without that company's product or service- maybe a competitor opens for business- you can vote with your wallet. Government forbids that choice by "law", although it still happens.
Let's imagine two scenarios. In both a dollar of your money is going to finance something you don't like.
In the first scenario you choose to do business with a company which supports a cause that goes against your principles, but for some reason you continue to do business with them. You may grumble, but you have decided the value of the product or service you get from them outweighs the objections to how they are spending a percentage of the money they get from your business.
Now lets imagine the same dollar going to support the same personally-objectionable cause, but in this case the money is taken by the city of Albuquerque, the state of New Mexico, or the Federal government through taxation, in other words, under threat of death. Even if you are still under the impression that the penalty for keeping the fruits of your own labors falls short of death (it doesn't), the fact that you are given no choice in the matter should make the loss of that dollar less tolerable. There is a monopoly that you are compelled to "do business with" in this case.
Isn't the earlier scenario more palatable to you? After all, if at some point you finally decide that you can do without that company's product or service- maybe a competitor opens for business- you can vote with your wallet. Government forbids that choice by "law", although it still happens.
Monday, February 15, 2010
'Rape prevention' or 'rapist protection'?
'Rape prevention' or 'rapist protection'?
The story was about the New Mexico National Guard teaching "rape prevention" in Albuquerque. What disgusts me is the person who was quoted as being against women fighting back. Well, that and the fact that the "rape prevention" training did not include informing women of the One Tool that can actually give them the best chance of avoiding being harmed during the "encounter". And both of these "experts" were supposedly on the women's side.
This is the comment I posted, preserved here in case it doesn't meet the "politically correct" criteria and gets deleted:
If this just gets to one woman, or anyone else for that matter, and makes them think about doing something to protect themselves and then actually put it in action, it will be a good thing. And it will be a bad day for the aggressors out there.
The story was about the New Mexico National Guard teaching "rape prevention" in Albuquerque. What disgusts me is the person who was quoted as being against women fighting back. Well, that and the fact that the "rape prevention" training did not include informing women of the One Tool that can actually give them the best chance of avoiding being harmed during the "encounter". And both of these "experts" were supposedly on the women's side.
This is the comment I posted, preserved here in case it doesn't meet the "politically correct" criteria and gets deleted:
Anyone who tells a person to not fight back against an attack is just as bad as
the attacker and should either be ashamed or shunned to death. Fight back
with everything you have! Never assume that a rapist "only" wants to rape
you. He may also want to kill you afterward. And for goodness sake,
get a gun and learn how to use it- and keep it with you at all times regardless
of any "law" prohibiting you to do so. There is no other tool that is as
effective in the hands of the small and weak at letting them defeat the big and
strong with less chance of being hurt. None. If anyone tells you
otherwise they are lying to you. No one ever wants you disarmed except to
help them do things to you which you wouldn't permit if you had the tools to
prevent it. No one who wants you disarmed is your friend and they are
never giving you the bad advice "for your own good".
If this just gets to one woman, or anyone else for that matter, and makes them think about doing something to protect themselves and then actually put it in action, it will be a good thing. And it will be a bad day for the aggressors out there.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
'Laws' spawn 'crime'
'Laws' spawn 'crime'
The authoritative voice coming from my car radio informed me that "most of the crime in our community is drug related". Well, duh. And if you outlaw breathing the majority of the crime in Albuquerque will be oxygen related. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, although it apparently does take a statist to be blind to that fact. This voice then encouraged me to become a snitch for the badged goons. Sorry; not gonna happen.
If you attack or steal from a person you are doing wrong. It doesn't matter if your "drug" habit or your government job is the excuse you use. Wrong is still wrong. As long as someone is not initiating force and is not stealing it is not within anyone else's authority to forbid them from doing anything they want to do. They can burn their brains up with harsh chemicals or statist delusions. It makes no difference which to liberty-loving people once the line of coercion or theft is crossed. Authoritarians and their governments cause more real harm to innocent people than all the "drugs" combined and then added to all the other freelance aggression in the world.
Who is the real menace?
**************
The authoritative voice coming from my car radio informed me that "most of the crime in our community is drug related". Well, duh. And if you outlaw breathing the majority of the crime in Albuquerque will be oxygen related. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, although it apparently does take a statist to be blind to that fact. This voice then encouraged me to become a snitch for the badged goons. Sorry; not gonna happen.
If you attack or steal from a person you are doing wrong. It doesn't matter if your "drug" habit or your government job is the excuse you use. Wrong is still wrong. As long as someone is not initiating force and is not stealing it is not within anyone else's authority to forbid them from doing anything they want to do. They can burn their brains up with harsh chemicals or statist delusions. It makes no difference which to liberty-loving people once the line of coercion or theft is crossed. Authoritarians and their governments cause more real harm to innocent people than all the "drugs" combined and then added to all the other freelance aggression in the world.
Who is the real menace?
**************
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Citizens and 'serving your country'
Citizens and 'serving your country'
I do not claim to be a "citizen" although the US government would label me in that way. I emphatically assert that I do not belong to any government. I did not consent to be "represented" or ruled. I don't buy into the lie of "implied consent". I did not sign any constitution so I do not agree to be "governed" even if a government actually obeyed that document. I do not need governmental protection from anything. There is nothing in it for me or for anything I value, and there is nothing I am willing to voluntarily give any government, anywhere on this planet or any other. Nothing, that is, except the cold shoulder, or if pressed, contempt. If anything, I am a denizen. I happen to live where I live. That is all.
I love America because this is where most of my friends live and this is the land I am most familiar with. I love its wildlife and its foods. I even love a lot of the cultural frivolity. What fun is life if you don't allow yourself to enjoy it? I do not love America because of the government that infests its every shadow and crevice. No, I love America in spite of the US government and its more local Mini-Mes.
This exposes the ridiculous notion of "serving my country". I know a lot of people who truly serve, maybe not "the country", but the immeasurably more important cause of individual liberty, yet none of them wear a uniform of any sort. They singlehandedly do more for liberty than the entire payroll of the US government put together. People like Claire Wolfe, William N. Grigg, L. Neil Smith, Sharon Harris, Wendy McElroy, and so very many more.
"Serving your country" is detrimental to freedom. Being a willing tool of a government is not service to anyone except those in government, who universally misunderstand, hate, and fear liberty. Such "service" is harmful for freedom, rights, and liberty. You can not "protect freedom" by working for the goals, and at the direction, of the most dangerous enemy of freedom that has ever existed. No one and nothing except government has been a credible threat to liberty in recent history. Even the boogeyman of "terrorism" is only a threat to liberty because government gives it a target to try to extort changes from and then reacts by giving the terrorists exactly what they would do if they ran the government. Government "protects freedom" by imposing things like the Patriot Act, gun control, and airport Pedophile-o-vision. You might as well celebrate life with a murder/suicide. It is just as disingenuous and delusional.
If this hard truth offends you, you need to really reexamine your premises instead of having a knee-jerk reaction, but I know from past experience that saying that is like begging my computer not to crash or the wind not to blow. So, to those who would judge people who refuse to help government kill liberty, you go your way and I'll keep going mine. I'll not let you cast a shadow over my enjoyment of today.
I do not claim to be a "citizen" although the US government would label me in that way. I emphatically assert that I do not belong to any government. I did not consent to be "represented" or ruled. I don't buy into the lie of "implied consent". I did not sign any constitution so I do not agree to be "governed" even if a government actually obeyed that document. I do not need governmental protection from anything. There is nothing in it for me or for anything I value, and there is nothing I am willing to voluntarily give any government, anywhere on this planet or any other. Nothing, that is, except the cold shoulder, or if pressed, contempt. If anything, I am a denizen. I happen to live where I live. That is all.
I love America because this is where most of my friends live and this is the land I am most familiar with. I love its wildlife and its foods. I even love a lot of the cultural frivolity. What fun is life if you don't allow yourself to enjoy it? I do not love America because of the government that infests its every shadow and crevice. No, I love America in spite of the US government and its more local Mini-Mes.
This exposes the ridiculous notion of "serving my country". I know a lot of people who truly serve, maybe not "the country", but the immeasurably more important cause of individual liberty, yet none of them wear a uniform of any sort. They singlehandedly do more for liberty than the entire payroll of the US government put together. People like Claire Wolfe, William N. Grigg, L. Neil Smith, Sharon Harris, Wendy McElroy, and so very many more.
"Serving your country" is detrimental to freedom. Being a willing tool of a government is not service to anyone except those in government, who universally misunderstand, hate, and fear liberty. Such "service" is harmful for freedom, rights, and liberty. You can not "protect freedom" by working for the goals, and at the direction, of the most dangerous enemy of freedom that has ever existed. No one and nothing except government has been a credible threat to liberty in recent history. Even the boogeyman of "terrorism" is only a threat to liberty because government gives it a target to try to extort changes from and then reacts by giving the terrorists exactly what they would do if they ran the government. Government "protects freedom" by imposing things like the Patriot Act, gun control, and airport Pedophile-o-vision. You might as well celebrate life with a murder/suicide. It is just as disingenuous and delusional.
If this hard truth offends you, you need to really reexamine your premises instead of having a knee-jerk reaction, but I know from past experience that saying that is like begging my computer not to crash or the wind not to blow. So, to those who would judge people who refuse to help government kill liberty, you go your way and I'll keep going mine. I'll not let you cast a shadow over my enjoyment of today.
Friday, February 12, 2010
LEOs and the Zero Aggression Principle
LEOs and the Zero Aggression Principle
"Zero Aggression Principle...good luck with that"
That was a comment that was posted on the local newspaper's website in response to an earlier comment I had made stating that because I adhere to the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), and because I will not lower myself to live on welfare, I would never consider being a modern LEO.
It just shows how incredibly stupid some people are. I don't need "good luck" with abiding by the ZAP because it always works, in real life, in the real situations that present themselves. The commenter obviously had no clue what I was even talking about (and the comments don't allow links), nor did he bother to do any research at all to find out.
These are the people we are surrounded by, and yet the ZAP still works in the face of such blatant ignorance and hostility. That shows its strength.
Every single day the news is full of LEOs in Albuquerque doing things we all know to be wrong when done by you or me, but mostly excused and justified when done by cops. When you consider the whole country, the number of examples are overwhelming. That is downright disgusting and positively delusional.
This brings up the question: Can you be a LEO and live by the ZAP? Enforcing "laws" that attempt to regulate or control anything other than actual aggression, theft, or fraud is a violation of the ZAP. I would not enforce such "laws" no matter what, so I would not last long as a LEO. I will not accept stolen money as payment for goods or "services" unless I had no clue the money was stolen, so that eliminates the option of any job that is funded by taxation.
Are there any ZAP-compliant options? I have stated in the past that I would accept a job as a real old-style sheriff- in other words just there to keep aggressors at bay and (mainly) to keep the feds and other LEOs away from the peaceable people who hired me, and make certain no counterfeit "laws" are enforced against anyone I worked for... as long as I was only paid with voluntary and anonymous contributions. Could I do such a job without violating my principles? I think so, but as soon as it became apparent I could not, I would resign. All LEOs should have the integrity to do the same.
"Zero Aggression Principle...good luck with that"
That was a comment that was posted on the local newspaper's website in response to an earlier comment I had made stating that because I adhere to the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP), and because I will not lower myself to live on welfare, I would never consider being a modern LEO.
It just shows how incredibly stupid some people are. I don't need "good luck" with abiding by the ZAP because it always works, in real life, in the real situations that present themselves. The commenter obviously had no clue what I was even talking about (and the comments don't allow links), nor did he bother to do any research at all to find out.
These are the people we are surrounded by, and yet the ZAP still works in the face of such blatant ignorance and hostility. That shows its strength.
Every single day the news is full of LEOs in Albuquerque doing things we all know to be wrong when done by you or me, but mostly excused and justified when done by cops. When you consider the whole country, the number of examples are overwhelming. That is downright disgusting and positively delusional.
This brings up the question: Can you be a LEO and live by the ZAP? Enforcing "laws" that attempt to regulate or control anything other than actual aggression, theft, or fraud is a violation of the ZAP. I would not enforce such "laws" no matter what, so I would not last long as a LEO. I will not accept stolen money as payment for goods or "services" unless I had no clue the money was stolen, so that eliminates the option of any job that is funded by taxation.
Are there any ZAP-compliant options? I have stated in the past that I would accept a job as a real old-style sheriff- in other words just there to keep aggressors at bay and (mainly) to keep the feds and other LEOs away from the peaceable people who hired me, and make certain no counterfeit "laws" are enforced against anyone I worked for... as long as I was only paid with voluntary and anonymous contributions. Could I do such a job without violating my principles? I think so, but as soon as it became apparent I could not, I would resign. All LEOs should have the integrity to do the same.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
City proposes new registration scheme
City proposes new registration scheme
How does theft solve theft?
Because of theft at construction sites, the city of Albuquerque wants all construction equipment in the city to be registered with them.
I have questions. Is it mandatory? Will it eventually become mandatory? What are the penalties if a construction company doesn't wish to participate? How long until this program is embedded like "driver's licenses" or other intrusive programs? It is claimed that the program costs the city "very little" (of course, it actually costs "the city" nothing since cities have nothing of their own), but what happens when the front money from the Construction Industry Crime Alliance runs out? And just who gets to define "costs very little"?
Where does the money come from that pays for the time the LEOs spend administering the program? It is stolen through "taxation" from us all. The theft of even one cent or one minute of a person's time is inexcusable. This is a case of theft being used to "combat" theft. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is always an option that does not involve coercion or theft. Always. You just have to sit back and think how it would be solved if there were no government and no "legalized" theft at all.
If this is a real problem, why can't this be done by the market? It can. Why can't the Construction Industry Crime Alliance accomplish the same thing without getting government involved? If it is that important to their members. Or, if they have no stomach for actually solving problems there are other ways to approach it. Is construction equipment insured? Then let the insurance companies catalog and track the equipment for their customers. That way the cost would be added to the cost of doing business and would be paid by the customers of the construction companies rather than being charged to everyone including people who never use their services. If the equipment is not insured, then the money that would otherwise be spent on insurance could be saved toward the cost of replacing stolen equipment, plans and devices to prevent theft, and security for the construction sites. And not one cent or one second stolen from the innocent people who did not commit the thefts. It really is that simple.
How does theft solve theft?
Because of theft at construction sites, the city of Albuquerque wants all construction equipment in the city to be registered with them.
I have questions. Is it mandatory? Will it eventually become mandatory? What are the penalties if a construction company doesn't wish to participate? How long until this program is embedded like "driver's licenses" or other intrusive programs? It is claimed that the program costs the city "very little" (of course, it actually costs "the city" nothing since cities have nothing of their own), but what happens when the front money from the Construction Industry Crime Alliance runs out? And just who gets to define "costs very little"?
Where does the money come from that pays for the time the LEOs spend administering the program? It is stolen through "taxation" from us all. The theft of even one cent or one minute of a person's time is inexcusable. This is a case of theft being used to "combat" theft. Two wrongs do not make a right. There is always an option that does not involve coercion or theft. Always. You just have to sit back and think how it would be solved if there were no government and no "legalized" theft at all.
If this is a real problem, why can't this be done by the market? It can. Why can't the Construction Industry Crime Alliance accomplish the same thing without getting government involved? If it is that important to their members. Or, if they have no stomach for actually solving problems there are other ways to approach it. Is construction equipment insured? Then let the insurance companies catalog and track the equipment for their customers. That way the cost would be added to the cost of doing business and would be paid by the customers of the construction companies rather than being charged to everyone including people who never use their services. If the equipment is not insured, then the money that would otherwise be spent on insurance could be saved toward the cost of replacing stolen equipment, plans and devices to prevent theft, and security for the construction sites. And not one cent or one second stolen from the innocent people who did not commit the thefts. It really is that simple.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Drunk Albuquerque cop gets preferential treatment
Drunk Albuquerque cop gets preferential treatment
A sergeant with the Albuquerque police department who was found, not just "impaired", but passed out drunk, in his vehicle on the side of the road was given special treatment by a Bernalillo County sheriff's deputy. After being taken to the command center and failing a Breathalyzer test, he was sent home. Of course the drunk cop couldn't be put in the jail with "the general population" (who might have had a grudge against this particular "bad apple"). He might get hurt by people he had previously harmed in the course of his "job". The deputy has "discretion in these matters" and it isn't "uncommon", according to the sheriff.
My suspicion is that if it really is common practice, this means Albuquerque area LEOs run across a lot of drunk cops, because you can bet they would never exercise that "discretion" if it were you or me. They would fall all over themselves throwing us in a cell.
Now, don't misunderstand me; I have no problem with drunk (or otherwise sick or incapacitated) people being helped off the road and taken home or to a hospital until they recover. Not just passed out drunk LEOs. I think everyone who is "arrested" for "drunk driving", but who has not harmed anyone, is the target of an irrational vendetta and is an easy mark due to the statist brainwashing that has been going on for decades. This just goes to illustrate the "Only Ones" attitude that has taken over the "law enforcement" gang.
A sergeant with the Albuquerque police department who was found, not just "impaired", but passed out drunk, in his vehicle on the side of the road was given special treatment by a Bernalillo County sheriff's deputy. After being taken to the command center and failing a Breathalyzer test, he was sent home. Of course the drunk cop couldn't be put in the jail with "the general population" (who might have had a grudge against this particular "bad apple"). He might get hurt by people he had previously harmed in the course of his "job". The deputy has "discretion in these matters" and it isn't "uncommon", according to the sheriff.
My suspicion is that if it really is common practice, this means Albuquerque area LEOs run across a lot of drunk cops, because you can bet they would never exercise that "discretion" if it were you or me. They would fall all over themselves throwing us in a cell.
Now, don't misunderstand me; I have no problem with drunk (or otherwise sick or incapacitated) people being helped off the road and taken home or to a hospital until they recover. Not just passed out drunk LEOs. I think everyone who is "arrested" for "drunk driving", but who has not harmed anyone, is the target of an irrational vendetta and is an easy mark due to the statist brainwashing that has been going on for decades. This just goes to illustrate the "Only Ones" attitude that has taken over the "law enforcement" gang.
Monday, February 08, 2010
The illegality of cars and the re-birth of freedom
The illegality of cars and the re-birth of freedom
I'll let you in on a secret you may not be aware of: cars are illegal in America. Don't believe me? Then just try driving around Albuquerque, or any other populated area, in a car and see what happens when you are found to be in possession of that car. Not a "licensed and registered car", but just a car. Even if you pay the State all the demanded fees, simply being in possession of a car is an excuse to be stopped and searched by enforcers at any time without any warning. Anything as heavily regulated as a car can not honestly be considered "legal" anymore.
Most people are complacent in their ignorance. They may grumble a little bit about all the fees that are extorted from them yearly for the "privilege" of "owning" a car, but they fail to see that the situation illustrates a harsh truth. They don't want to see it because it would mean that their freedom has been destroyed and their rights have been violated by a government that is their mortal enemy. A government that far too many see as a "necessary evil" or even as a friendly father-figure.
I used to think that people would finally rebel when guns are outlawed, yet the realization that they have allowed their transportation to be outlawed, except within narrow boundaries and at the cost of thousands of dollars a year in governmental extortion, and done nothing makes me realize people will tolerate anything if it is presented to them dishonestly enough. This realization has had a positive effect on me.
It is up to individuals, who will be painted as "sociopathic cranks", to live their own liberty in any way they can. I read a question just the other day that keeps sticking in my mind: "What happens if millions of people just took off their license plates one day?" I don't know, but Liberty in America depends on something like that happening very soon.
You may think the current economic situation is grim, and it is more grim than people know if they listen to government hacks, yet unless a great many more people get serious about asserting Liberty, in spite of, and in open defiance of, government at all levels, the coming dark ages of tyranny will completely overshadow the economic collapse. You have been warned. Now what will you do?
This is a time of great opportunity for those who are willing to face the facts and then roll up their sleeves and get dirty to build a more free future for themselves.
**********************
I'll let you in on a secret you may not be aware of: cars are illegal in America. Don't believe me? Then just try driving around Albuquerque, or any other populated area, in a car and see what happens when you are found to be in possession of that car. Not a "licensed and registered car", but just a car. Even if you pay the State all the demanded fees, simply being in possession of a car is an excuse to be stopped and searched by enforcers at any time without any warning. Anything as heavily regulated as a car can not honestly be considered "legal" anymore.
Most people are complacent in their ignorance. They may grumble a little bit about all the fees that are extorted from them yearly for the "privilege" of "owning" a car, but they fail to see that the situation illustrates a harsh truth. They don't want to see it because it would mean that their freedom has been destroyed and their rights have been violated by a government that is their mortal enemy. A government that far too many see as a "necessary evil" or even as a friendly father-figure.
I used to think that people would finally rebel when guns are outlawed, yet the realization that they have allowed their transportation to be outlawed, except within narrow boundaries and at the cost of thousands of dollars a year in governmental extortion, and done nothing makes me realize people will tolerate anything if it is presented to them dishonestly enough. This realization has had a positive effect on me.
It is up to individuals, who will be painted as "sociopathic cranks", to live their own liberty in any way they can. I read a question just the other day that keeps sticking in my mind: "What happens if millions of people just took off their license plates one day?" I don't know, but Liberty in America depends on something like that happening very soon.
You may think the current economic situation is grim, and it is more grim than people know if they listen to government hacks, yet unless a great many more people get serious about asserting Liberty, in spite of, and in open defiance of, government at all levels, the coming dark ages of tyranny will completely overshadow the economic collapse. You have been warned. Now what will you do?
This is a time of great opportunity for those who are willing to face the facts and then roll up their sleeves and get dirty to build a more free future for themselves.
**********************
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Calculated miscarriage of justice in shooting incident
Calculated miscarriage of justice in shooting incident
To be filed under "someone has to be charged with something" is the example of Kenneth Therell and Billy Williamson.
In their home near Albuquerque, they fought and Williamson shot Therell, who then took the gun and killed Williamson, his attacker. OK, so maybe it isn't quite that cut and dried, but once someone shoots me, the pain and adrenaline would likely cloud my judgment and make me empty the gun into my attacker. After all, it was a .22, not a more effective caliber, and one shot with a .22 is unlikely to stop the attack. This all would be considered by reasonable people.
For the "authorities" to preemptively crow that Therell will be charged with "murder" when released from the hospital is arrogant, ridiculous, and unjust. It illustrates once again that government can not be trusted with the "justice system" since they have no clue how to wield it.
This is one of those cases where the true facts will probably never be known. In such a case the actions of the person defending themselves from an armed attack should not be second-guessed.
Will this let guilty people get away with murder? Yes, just like the current "charge anyone who survives" strategy does. It is better for an infinite number of guilty people to escape justice than for one innocent person to be punished by the State. Guilty people are likely to attack again, and when the State stays out of the way, there is a very good chance they will not survive their predations for long. The State makes it dangerous to protect yourself from attackers, and in doing so, makes it safe to be a thug. This is the opposite of "civilized" and "justice".
To be filed under "someone has to be charged with something" is the example of Kenneth Therell and Billy Williamson.
In their home near Albuquerque, they fought and Williamson shot Therell, who then took the gun and killed Williamson, his attacker. OK, so maybe it isn't quite that cut and dried, but once someone shoots me, the pain and adrenaline would likely cloud my judgment and make me empty the gun into my attacker. After all, it was a .22, not a more effective caliber, and one shot with a .22 is unlikely to stop the attack. This all would be considered by reasonable people.
For the "authorities" to preemptively crow that Therell will be charged with "murder" when released from the hospital is arrogant, ridiculous, and unjust. It illustrates once again that government can not be trusted with the "justice system" since they have no clue how to wield it.
This is one of those cases where the true facts will probably never be known. In such a case the actions of the person defending themselves from an armed attack should not be second-guessed.
Will this let guilty people get away with murder? Yes, just like the current "charge anyone who survives" strategy does. It is better for an infinite number of guilty people to escape justice than for one innocent person to be punished by the State. Guilty people are likely to attack again, and when the State stays out of the way, there is a very good chance they will not survive their predations for long. The State makes it dangerous to protect yourself from attackers, and in doing so, makes it safe to be a thug. This is the opposite of "civilized" and "justice".
Friday, February 05, 2010
Snow, messy roads, and who's responsible
Snow, messy roads, and who's responsible
I don't know about the roads in Albuquerque, but here on the Llano Estacado the recent snows left the roads pretty messy. I heard some people complaining about the government road crews and saying "why don't they clear the snow off?"
The thought had never even crossed my mind. Snow is not much of an impediment. I've driven through much, much worse. That's what 4-wheel drive is for, although I haven't always had it. If you don't have the proper vehicle for the conditions, why not? Is it because the State leaves you with barely enough for the inadequate vehicle you have now? Do taxes and regulations cripple the automobile industry keeping real innovations slow in coming? Do fuel requirements, due to government meddling, keep better, more effective and efficient vehicles from being put on the market? Or do you assume that the government will take care of the roads so making sure you are able to travel is not your responsibility?
That doesn't even begin to address the innovations that could make roads obsolete, but that are stifled by government protection of the status quo (or even the scaling back of technology "for safety").
The state steals enough of my money and I really would rather hold on to what's left instead of letting them buy more road-clearing equipment that wouldn't even be used once a lot of years. Remember that what government does with your money, it does with incredible inefficiency and waste. You are paying for streets of gold, but getting, well... what you currently have.
As I have thought for many years, and stated many times: Someday people will be amazed we ever settled for government-owned roads. Don't fool yourself into thinking you aren't already paying to drive on roads. Private road companies would not collect fares if their roads were impassable, and would be liable for damages if poor maintenance led to accidents and vehicle damage. If businesses financed the roads that serviced them, they would refuse to pay if the road conditions did not permit customers to reach them. This might mean heated roadways, or 24-hour road maintenance crews, or things we can't even imagine now.
So, dear highway department, Don't clear the roads on my behalf. I'll make my own way.
**************************
I don't know about the roads in Albuquerque, but here on the Llano Estacado the recent snows left the roads pretty messy. I heard some people complaining about the government road crews and saying "why don't they clear the snow off?"
The thought had never even crossed my mind. Snow is not much of an impediment. I've driven through much, much worse. That's what 4-wheel drive is for, although I haven't always had it. If you don't have the proper vehicle for the conditions, why not? Is it because the State leaves you with barely enough for the inadequate vehicle you have now? Do taxes and regulations cripple the automobile industry keeping real innovations slow in coming? Do fuel requirements, due to government meddling, keep better, more effective and efficient vehicles from being put on the market? Or do you assume that the government will take care of the roads so making sure you are able to travel is not your responsibility?
That doesn't even begin to address the innovations that could make roads obsolete, but that are stifled by government protection of the status quo (or even the scaling back of technology "for safety").
The state steals enough of my money and I really would rather hold on to what's left instead of letting them buy more road-clearing equipment that wouldn't even be used once a lot of years. Remember that what government does with your money, it does with incredible inefficiency and waste. You are paying for streets of gold, but getting, well... what you currently have.
As I have thought for many years, and stated many times: Someday people will be amazed we ever settled for government-owned roads. Don't fool yourself into thinking you aren't already paying to drive on roads. Private road companies would not collect fares if their roads were impassable, and would be liable for damages if poor maintenance led to accidents and vehicle damage. If businesses financed the roads that serviced them, they would refuse to pay if the road conditions did not permit customers to reach them. This might mean heated roadways, or 24-hour road maintenance crews, or things we can't even imagine now.
So, dear highway department, Don't clear the roads on my behalf. I'll make my own way.
**************************
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Liberty is in danger when legislature conspires
Liberty is in danger when legislature conspires
Looking over recent "work" by the legislature I notice a theme.
Senate Bill 55, sponsored by Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque, is supposed to help "missing people". Yet, its "solution" is not addressing the root of the problem. Missing people go missing for a variety of reasons. Some are taken against their will. Does this bill address why unwilling people are easily coerced? Does it make it less likely that an abduction would be successful? Does it remove "laws" against effective self-defense and the tools that make that possible? No, it only adds bureaucracy so that government entities can communicate with one another. What are the penalties if a government entity fails and someone goes missing, and stays missing until it is too late, anyway? What about people who choose to "go missing" for some reason?
Then there is a plan to steal more money from people who wish to buy things that taste good. "Taxing sugar". Remember, the state knows best, and you are a disobedient child who must be punished if you don't do as your "Mommy", the State orders you to do. That "Mommy" gets to make money off the deal is just unhealthy sugar in the icing on the cake. But, it's "for the children", don't you see?
More time is also being wasted, through SJM 29, passing nonsense, feel-good tripe that encourages congress to adopt "green energy" legislation. Never mind that no such authorization is anywhere to be found in the Constitution, and even if it were "authorized" by willfully-"misinterpreted" clauses, it would still be wrong. And of course, in spite of the lies to the contrary, this sort of "law" will only hurt the economy and individuals. Government does not "make jobs", but it destroys real jobs and replaces them with government parasites who suck up the stolen money without returning any value.
The legislators could be spending their time in productive pursuits, like repealing any and all "laws" that attempt to regulate, prohibit, or control anything other than actual aggression or theft. But then they would have to cease and desist from legislating, wouldn't they.
So the New Mexico legislative thugs are busy doing the only thing they know how to do: destroy liberty, and with it, America. It's a good thing their hubris and ignorance will soon render them a curious and tragic footnote in the history of civilization.
Looking over recent "work" by the legislature I notice a theme.
Senate Bill 55, sponsored by Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque, is supposed to help "missing people". Yet, its "solution" is not addressing the root of the problem. Missing people go missing for a variety of reasons. Some are taken against their will. Does this bill address why unwilling people are easily coerced? Does it make it less likely that an abduction would be successful? Does it remove "laws" against effective self-defense and the tools that make that possible? No, it only adds bureaucracy so that government entities can communicate with one another. What are the penalties if a government entity fails and someone goes missing, and stays missing until it is too late, anyway? What about people who choose to "go missing" for some reason?
Then there is a plan to steal more money from people who wish to buy things that taste good. "Taxing sugar". Remember, the state knows best, and you are a disobedient child who must be punished if you don't do as your "Mommy", the State orders you to do. That "Mommy" gets to make money off the deal is just unhealthy sugar in the icing on the cake. But, it's "for the children", don't you see?
More time is also being wasted, through SJM 29, passing nonsense, feel-good tripe that encourages congress to adopt "green energy" legislation. Never mind that no such authorization is anywhere to be found in the Constitution, and even if it were "authorized" by willfully-"misinterpreted" clauses, it would still be wrong. And of course, in spite of the lies to the contrary, this sort of "law" will only hurt the economy and individuals. Government does not "make jobs", but it destroys real jobs and replaces them with government parasites who suck up the stolen money without returning any value.
The legislators could be spending their time in productive pursuits, like repealing any and all "laws" that attempt to regulate, prohibit, or control anything other than actual aggression or theft. But then they would have to cease and desist from legislating, wouldn't they.
So the New Mexico legislative thugs are busy doing the only thing they know how to do: destroy liberty, and with it, America. It's a good thing their hubris and ignorance will soon render them a curious and tragic footnote in the history of civilization.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Happy Groundhog Day!
Today as families traditionally sit down to a table set with delicious roasted groundhog or groundhog stew, with all the fixin's, don't forget to thank the groundhog for his weather-forecasting abilities, which are never wrong. Or something like that.
What's YOUR favorite groundhog recipe?
What's YOUR favorite groundhog recipe?
Monday, February 01, 2010
'Give me your tired (of liberty-haters)...'
'Give me your tired (of liberty-haters)...'
Comparing America and England, and the respective dominant "cultures" of each, gave me an idea. Why not encourage all the gun-haters and otherwise self-hating, socialism-loving people to emigrate to England where guns are illegal and where self-defense is now routinely punished more harshly than aggression?
Then there would be plenty of room to encourage all the freedom-loving people of England to immigrate, with or without government "permission", to America. Let the conflicting cultures sort themselves out voluntarily through freedom of association. I would love to have men such as Philip A. Luty as my neighbor. Maybe with an influx of people who are knowledgeable on the subject of liberty it would be easier to overwhelm and crush the vermin of the BATFE and all the other anti-defense government agencies (and I guess that includes them all).
Of course, government would not "allow" that to happen, with all the "immigration" nonsense that is espoused. Once again, government and its sympathizers would be acting in ways that harm innocent people by their refusal to cooperate.
I'm not talking about any compulsory acts here; just encouragement. I have no obligation to make life easy for anyone who hates or fears liberty and guns (and the two are completely inseparable). Turn up the heat, and turn it up fast enough that the self-loathing frogs of statism jump out of the pot; while the liberty-lovers find the warm glow of real freedom a comfortable attractant.
Get rid of every single form of welfare, and every single gun "law". Those who don't wish to live that way would be completely free to go. They will make our lives better by leaving. No limits of how much cash they can take out of the country. Forget passports. Don't strip-search them at the airport. Nothing. Let them go. Then, similarly, put nothing at all in the way of those who wish to experience greater liberty here. Just get rid of any and all government rationing or regulation of immigration.
I would love to see the effect such a migration would have on the freedom of America, and on the decline of England. I'd even reverse destinations if it would make the logistics easier to accomplish.
Comparing America and England, and the respective dominant "cultures" of each, gave me an idea. Why not encourage all the gun-haters and otherwise self-hating, socialism-loving people to emigrate to England where guns are illegal and where self-defense is now routinely punished more harshly than aggression?
Then there would be plenty of room to encourage all the freedom-loving people of England to immigrate, with or without government "permission", to America. Let the conflicting cultures sort themselves out voluntarily through freedom of association. I would love to have men such as Philip A. Luty as my neighbor. Maybe with an influx of people who are knowledgeable on the subject of liberty it would be easier to overwhelm and crush the vermin of the BATFE and all the other anti-defense government agencies (and I guess that includes them all).
Of course, government would not "allow" that to happen, with all the "immigration" nonsense that is espoused. Once again, government and its sympathizers would be acting in ways that harm innocent people by their refusal to cooperate.
I'm not talking about any compulsory acts here; just encouragement. I have no obligation to make life easy for anyone who hates or fears liberty and guns (and the two are completely inseparable). Turn up the heat, and turn it up fast enough that the self-loathing frogs of statism jump out of the pot; while the liberty-lovers find the warm glow of real freedom a comfortable attractant.
Get rid of every single form of welfare, and every single gun "law". Those who don't wish to live that way would be completely free to go. They will make our lives better by leaving. No limits of how much cash they can take out of the country. Forget passports. Don't strip-search them at the airport. Nothing. Let them go. Then, similarly, put nothing at all in the way of those who wish to experience greater liberty here. Just get rid of any and all government rationing or regulation of immigration.
I would love to see the effect such a migration would have on the freedom of America, and on the decline of England. I'd even reverse destinations if it would make the logistics easier to accomplish.
Dog-nappings and purse snatchings: Here there be lessons
Dog-nappings and purse snatchings: Here there be lessons
It seems Albuquerque is experiencing a rather strange crime wave. Didn't the mayor just say he was wanting to declare a war on property crimes? Of course, I didn't hear him endorse the only thing that has any possible chance of actually reducing property crimes. That would be "unthinkable" for a confirmed, and unrepentant, statist.
I'm referring to the dog-nappings. I always have a small suspicion when it is claimed that any abducted animal, or person for that matter, is ill and possibly contagious and needs their medications immediately. It sounds like a ploy. I become more suspicious when the report quotes "officials". Still, theft is theft, and theft is always wrong. Unless you are reclaiming your property from the real thief, and it doesn't seem this was likely the case in either instance.
Even more dangerous are the purse snatchers who are working local parking lots. Stay armed, stay alert, and be aware. This is to say- stay ready. Don't look or act like a victim, but look like you can handle yourself. Look around you instead of watching the ground at your feet as you shuffle along. If nothing else, you will scare away predators because of your unusual behavior.
Thieves always deserve to encounter people who refuse to be victimized, but the state does all it can to protect thieves from the consequences of their actions. Too bad.
Obviously you can't guarantee you will never be attacked or have your property stolen. However, there are always things you can do to make your odds better; you will rarely hear them from those who depend on the proliferation of aggression and theft for their "job" security. Learn for yourself from those who have no horse in the race.
It seems Albuquerque is experiencing a rather strange crime wave. Didn't the mayor just say he was wanting to declare a war on property crimes? Of course, I didn't hear him endorse the only thing that has any possible chance of actually reducing property crimes. That would be "unthinkable" for a confirmed, and unrepentant, statist.
I'm referring to the dog-nappings. I always have a small suspicion when it is claimed that any abducted animal, or person for that matter, is ill and possibly contagious and needs their medications immediately. It sounds like a ploy. I become more suspicious when the report quotes "officials". Still, theft is theft, and theft is always wrong. Unless you are reclaiming your property from the real thief, and it doesn't seem this was likely the case in either instance.
Even more dangerous are the purse snatchers who are working local parking lots. Stay armed, stay alert, and be aware. This is to say- stay ready. Don't look or act like a victim, but look like you can handle yourself. Look around you instead of watching the ground at your feet as you shuffle along. If nothing else, you will scare away predators because of your unusual behavior.
Thieves always deserve to encounter people who refuse to be victimized, but the state does all it can to protect thieves from the consequences of their actions. Too bad.
Obviously you can't guarantee you will never be attacked or have your property stolen. However, there are always things you can do to make your odds better; you will rarely hear them from those who depend on the proliferation of aggression and theft for their "job" security. Learn for yourself from those who have no horse in the race.