Technology in the service of liberty
Drunk driving arrests at illegal (no matter what the complicit courts may claim), unethical "checkpoints" in Albuquerque are down from previous years.
It may be due to people being more responsible; it may be due to people being scared of being kidnapped and altering their behavior; it may be due to bars watching their customers more carefully; or it may be due to freedom-enhancing, tyranny busting technology.
I'm betting it is a combination. The one to celebrate the most is the technology, only because "drunk driving" has been defined down to the point that "responsible behavior" is no longer possible as a significant factor.
No matter what the thugs of The State may decree, technology has always managed to foil tyranny in the end, even while the statists try to monopolize technology in the service of tyranny and oppression. In the arms race between liberty and government, liberty is smarter, more adaptable, and quicker. This is, obviously, good news for liberty.
*
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
When 'normal' is perverted
When 'normal' is perverted
Some situations are tangled and difficult to ever sort out. And, sometimes, the people involved understand it is not in their interest to help The State sort it out. This is one reason The State shouldn't impose itself on anyone (or in any situation) without the consent of some of those involved.
An Albuquerque woman "frying panned" and stabbed a man; initially claiming self defense. Her boyfriend was also injured, probably by the stabbed man. The stories have changed and now seem to center around jailhouse sex and embarrassment, and "honor" of some twisted type. The stabbed man is in the hospital with a tube down his throat and cops are waiting until he can speak to try to get him to incriminate himself in some way.
If these people were smart, which seems extremely unlikely given the circumstances, they would all refuse to speak to The Law. In a free society the matter would end there unless some of them sought restitution from the others involved, and then arbitration would be hired. Yet, this is not a free society and The State must get involved and find someone to punish. And most people think this is "normal"?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Will you help fugitive slaves?
Will you help fugitive slaves?
I wasn't aware that the "Fugitive Slave Law" was still in force in Albuquerque. Yet, I see a report in the news that indicates it is. Those who harbor slaves who have managed to evade those who believe themselves to be the masters can be punished and the slaves will be returned to the plantation.
In this case, just as in the 19th century case, "the majority" sees nothing wrong with the slavery. They blame the slaves and those who help them avoid the slave- overseers. They claim this is for the slave's own good. They believe themselves to have a righteous cause- to be the "good guys". They are not.
This time around, the excuse is "education". The real goal is conformity and indoctrination into statism. Fortunately, kids are strong enough that the conditioning is not 100% effective. Let's help them avoid the fate the state would impose on them and those who help them. Education is much too important to let government have anything whatsoever to do with it.
I wasn't aware that the "Fugitive Slave Law" was still in force in Albuquerque. Yet, I see a report in the news that indicates it is. Those who harbor slaves who have managed to evade those who believe themselves to be the masters can be punished and the slaves will be returned to the plantation.
In this case, just as in the 19th century case, "the majority" sees nothing wrong with the slavery. They blame the slaves and those who help them avoid the slave- overseers. They claim this is for the slave's own good. They believe themselves to have a righteous cause- to be the "good guys". They are not.
This time around, the excuse is "education". The real goal is conformity and indoctrination into statism. Fortunately, kids are strong enough that the conditioning is not 100% effective. Let's help them avoid the fate the state would impose on them and those who help them. Education is much too important to let government have anything whatsoever to do with it.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Are you stimulated yet?
Are you stimulated yet?
The governor is using federal economic stimulus money, taken by threat of force from you and me or counterfeited by the "Federal Reserve", to ramp up enforcement of a state ban on cockfighting.
How is this use of the ill-gotten money stimulating the economy in any way? Sure, the enforcers will benefit and have more loot to spend. Why just hand it to them, though? Let them actively work to steal the money like their brethren in freelance coercion rackets do.
Rather, isn't this doing the opposite of "stimulating the economy"? I'm assuming money would be wagered in these fights, since that is the whole point. If people come from out of state and then spent their winnings in local Albuquerque stores, that would help the local economy.
Banning an activity and sending enforcers out to kidnap or kill those engaging in that activity seems unrelated, at least as an enhancement, to economics.
I'm not saying that cockfighting or dog fighting is a nice thing to do. I find both disgusting. So, I don't participate. Nor would I willingly associate with those who do.
I ask again: How is this use of the "stimulus" money stimulating the economy in any way? It seems a clear case of fraud to me. Taking money under one pretext and then using it for some other purpose. Maybe the governor should be "arrested".
* * * *
Filed under "Do as I demand; not as I do": This morning, on a street that runs alongside an elementary (government indoctrination center) school, I watched as a police car passed in traffic. I had a very good view of the driver. The cop inside was looking down and texting while driving instead of watching his surroundings. I wish I'd had a video camera.
The governor is using federal economic stimulus money, taken by threat of force from you and me or counterfeited by the "Federal Reserve", to ramp up enforcement of a state ban on cockfighting.
How is this use of the ill-gotten money stimulating the economy in any way? Sure, the enforcers will benefit and have more loot to spend. Why just hand it to them, though? Let them actively work to steal the money like their brethren in freelance coercion rackets do.
Rather, isn't this doing the opposite of "stimulating the economy"? I'm assuming money would be wagered in these fights, since that is the whole point. If people come from out of state and then spent their winnings in local Albuquerque stores, that would help the local economy.
Banning an activity and sending enforcers out to kidnap or kill those engaging in that activity seems unrelated, at least as an enhancement, to economics.
I'm not saying that cockfighting or dog fighting is a nice thing to do. I find both disgusting. So, I don't participate. Nor would I willingly associate with those who do.
I ask again: How is this use of the "stimulus" money stimulating the economy in any way? It seems a clear case of fraud to me. Taking money under one pretext and then using it for some other purpose. Maybe the governor should be "arrested".
* * * *
Filed under "Do as I demand; not as I do": This morning, on a street that runs alongside an elementary (government indoctrination center) school, I watched as a police car passed in traffic. I had a very good view of the driver. The cop inside was looking down and texting while driving instead of watching his surroundings. I wish I'd had a video camera.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Problem? Solved!
Get it before you can buy it? My newest book is called "Problem? Solved! Libertarian solutions for the real world".
It isn't officially available for purchase yet. That should happen sometime in the next week or so. BUT- It is available as a free download even before you can buy it.
Just go to My Books and download away!
Gangland kidnapping in ABQ results in one hostage and one wounded gang member
Gangland kidnapping in ABQ results in one hostage and one wounded gang member
An Albuquerque gang member has been shot in the leg while committing an early morning kidnapping with other members of his gang. The kidnapping succeeded. I have zero sympathy for someone who gets hurt while initiating force. It is simply a reasonable consequence of aggression.
The injured individual is a member of the gang known as SWAT, which is a branch of the infamous "Police"; the largest and most violent gang in America- responsible for more aggression and theft than all the other gangs combined.
SWAT "teams" were established under the lie that they were needed and would only be used to handle extreme situations, such as hostage rescues, where military weaponry (illegally prohibited to the rightful bearers), military tactics, and shockingly over-the-top violent responses might help get the hostage out alive. Or at least end the situation decisively. That they have been co-opted to handle mundane cop work, like serving warrants, exposes the uselessness of their existence and the "mission creep" inherent in all government agencies. The teams exist, they have a budget, so they will be used even if this escalates the situation.
Added to this fact is that, in this case, the warrant was being served for a victimless NONcrime, a consequence of the inexcusably stupid and evil "Drug War". No one needs another shred of evidence that SWAT is nothing more than another disgusting branch of the US Gestapo.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
'Just give 'em what they want'
'Just give 'em what they want'
Albuquerque cops have some fatal advice for you. "Your life is not worth just a wallet. Just follow their demands. Be the best witness you possibly can."
Sure... it sounds reasonable- as long as you don't think too much. But, if what the bad guys want is to make sure there are no living witnesses who can identify them- then what? I'm sure they'll not notice you looking them over for identifying features and decide they don't want to risk you being "the best witness" they ever mugged.
This deadly "advice" comes after an early morning mugging spree by a pair of thugs. Three muggings in about 20 minutes. Those should be fatal odds for muggers in New Mexico. Yet the cops and "laws" have managed to make sure bad guys like these have a steady supply of compliant, disarmed victims.
Dare to be different. Be the last target your mugger ever tries to rob.
***********************
Cop's justification in shooting still under investigation
Cop's justification in shooting still under investigation
A cop who shot a man in Albuquerque last year is getting another paid vacation as a result. (Hey, it isn't the police department's money they are handing out.)
There is still some question as to whether the cop shot the man in the back with at least one shot. That would conflict significantly with the official story. Now, cops lie. That much should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, nonsensical legalities aside, if a person is trespassing inside a home, and is KNOWN to be the trespasser rather than someone who has legitimate business inside, I don't care if he is shot in the back or between the eyes. He had no business being there, and you can't assume he means you no harm.
This is also why I remain somewhat unconvinced about "proportional response" when an innocent person is attacked. The moment of the attack is not a good time to be second-guessing how much force is appropriate. If you don't want an "unproportional response" to your aggression, theft, or trespass, don't do it. I have no pity for thieves who end up caught in the consequences of their bad choices. It would be better for liberty and justice if the home's resident had shot the invader, of course, yet I'm sure such a justified shooting would have been scrutinized much more closely than the LEO's shooting has been. It just shows how badly "the system" is broken.
A cop who shot a man in Albuquerque last year is getting another paid vacation as a result. (Hey, it isn't the police department's money they are handing out.)
There is still some question as to whether the cop shot the man in the back with at least one shot. That would conflict significantly with the official story. Now, cops lie. That much should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, nonsensical legalities aside, if a person is trespassing inside a home, and is KNOWN to be the trespasser rather than someone who has legitimate business inside, I don't care if he is shot in the back or between the eyes. He had no business being there, and you can't assume he means you no harm.
This is also why I remain somewhat unconvinced about "proportional response" when an innocent person is attacked. The moment of the attack is not a good time to be second-guessing how much force is appropriate. If you don't want an "unproportional response" to your aggression, theft, or trespass, don't do it. I have no pity for thieves who end up caught in the consequences of their bad choices. It would be better for liberty and justice if the home's resident had shot the invader, of course, yet I'm sure such a justified shooting would have been scrutinized much more closely than the LEO's shooting has been. It just shows how badly "the system" is broken.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Do you have what you must lack to be a cop?
Do you have what you must lack to be a cop?
I have decided, after much corroborating evidence, that cops are the least-principled people possible. They have to be in order to "do the job" without committing suicide from guilt over what they have done. In just one recent post from a cop (on another site) I read all these opinions:
The "laws" are not their fault, they just enforce them. Government doesn't impose "laws"; "The People" do. "Laws" are a result of "The People ... violating human morals and trust". ..."Times have changed and you MUST roll with it!"... "We must do our job wether (sic) people want us to or not, to keep the peace."
OK, can I gag now? As I have said before, LEOs vastly overestimate their importance to society. Just give one the chance and you will be regaled with fairy tales as to how we'd all be stealing, killing, and raping one another without the cops' big brotherly oversight. In reality, they are as important to civilization as ankle-weights are to an eagle.
In Albuquerque news: A couple of adult brothers have been charged with "negligent child abuse resulting in death". Apparently they were in their mom's yard fighting over money, after drinking, and the 3 year-old daughter of one of the men got upset and ran into the street and was hit by a car. Neither man was driving the car. Neither man chased or threw the child into the street. Was no other adult present? What about the driver of the car? If so, why would some of these other people not be charged as well, as long as bogus charges are being filed? The more victims that can be punished, the better for the State, right?
I'm not saying that they weren't stupid for drinking and fighting over $20. What I am saying is that the facts of the incident do not show "child abuse" by either man by any stretch of the imagination. This is just another example that The State feels the need to criminalize every tragedy.
I have decided, after much corroborating evidence, that cops are the least-principled people possible. They have to be in order to "do the job" without committing suicide from guilt over what they have done. In just one recent post from a cop (on another site) I read all these opinions:
The "laws" are not their fault, they just enforce them. Government doesn't impose "laws"; "The People" do. "Laws" are a result of "The People ... violating human morals and trust". ..."Times have changed and you MUST roll with it!"... "We must do our job wether (sic) people want us to or not, to keep the peace."
OK, can I gag now? As I have said before, LEOs vastly overestimate their importance to society. Just give one the chance and you will be regaled with fairy tales as to how we'd all be stealing, killing, and raping one another without the cops' big brotherly oversight. In reality, they are as important to civilization as ankle-weights are to an eagle.
In Albuquerque news: A couple of adult brothers have been charged with "negligent child abuse resulting in death". Apparently they were in their mom's yard fighting over money, after drinking, and the 3 year-old daughter of one of the men got upset and ran into the street and was hit by a car. Neither man was driving the car. Neither man chased or threw the child into the street. Was no other adult present? What about the driver of the car? If so, why would some of these other people not be charged as well, as long as bogus charges are being filed? The more victims that can be punished, the better for the State, right?
I'm not saying that they weren't stupid for drinking and fighting over $20. What I am saying is that the facts of the incident do not show "child abuse" by either man by any stretch of the imagination. This is just another example that The State feels the need to criminalize every tragedy.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
What 'offends' you?
An Albuquerque local family was offended that they found newspapers with some ads featuring female nudity (some of which was even blurred out) stuffing a piñata they had bought for their two year-old daughter's party. It wasn't that any of the children noticed the ads- they didn't since the candy filling was all they focused on- just that ... "what if...".
Yeah? What if? Two year olds are not shocked or offended by nudity. They haven't had time to be perverted by culture in that way yet. The "adults" need to act like adults and laugh and get over it. Instead they look at this as an opportunity to be offended and make some weird "moral point".
I happen to be offended by things that "the majority" doesn't find offensive at all, while things the majority does find offensive don't bother me at all. It gives me a different perspective. I'm surrounded by offensive stuff that no one else seems to notice at all. Of course, I would never think of forbidding possession or production of the offensive materials either. It is just the difference between the libertarian and authoritarian mindsets, I suppose.
I think it is more productive to point out the absurdity of accepting as "normal" some of the offensive (and harmful) things our culture accepts. I am offended by mindless support of "law enforcement", and by "flag-waving" support of military invasions and occupations by the US government's hired thugs. I am offended by the punishmentality that has infected our society. I am offended by the view that I don't have the right to defend myself from attack unless I beg permission first. I am offended by the delusion that every problem can be solved if only "the right law" is passed or enforced. Yet, these views surround us in society today.
It's a matter of real harm versus imaginary "what ifs", and the authoritarian side- the wrong side- is offensive to me. I know that it would be pointless to make an issue every time something offends me since everyone who is not offended by it would think I was being silly. Just as I do when others are offended by unimportant things. Like newspaper ad nudity.
For example: An Albuquerque eye doctor has fallen victim to government thuggery in a case that is offensive to me from multiple angles. Harming people "for their own good" is disgusting and very offensive to me.
Yeah? What if? Two year olds are not shocked or offended by nudity. They haven't had time to be perverted by culture in that way yet. The "adults" need to act like adults and laugh and get over it. Instead they look at this as an opportunity to be offended and make some weird "moral point".
I happen to be offended by things that "the majority" doesn't find offensive at all, while things the majority does find offensive don't bother me at all. It gives me a different perspective. I'm surrounded by offensive stuff that no one else seems to notice at all. Of course, I would never think of forbidding possession or production of the offensive materials either. It is just the difference between the libertarian and authoritarian mindsets, I suppose.
I think it is more productive to point out the absurdity of accepting as "normal" some of the offensive (and harmful) things our culture accepts. I am offended by mindless support of "law enforcement", and by "flag-waving" support of military invasions and occupations by the US government's hired thugs. I am offended by the punishmentality that has infected our society. I am offended by the view that I don't have the right to defend myself from attack unless I beg permission first. I am offended by the delusion that every problem can be solved if only "the right law" is passed or enforced. Yet, these views surround us in society today.
It's a matter of real harm versus imaginary "what ifs", and the authoritarian side- the wrong side- is offensive to me. I know that it would be pointless to make an issue every time something offends me since everyone who is not offended by it would think I was being silly. Just as I do when others are offended by unimportant things. Like newspaper ad nudity.
For example: An Albuquerque eye doctor has fallen victim to government thuggery in a case that is offensive to me from multiple angles. Harming people "for their own good" is disgusting and very offensive to me.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Cops coming? Don't stick around
Cops coming? Don't stick around
LEOs in Albuquerque responded to a report of a stabbing, but could find no victim. I don't blame the victim for running off. Maybe he has heard what happens to victims of aggression or theft when the Bad(ge) Guys show up. The original attack is just the beginning.
Sure, it could be argued, with good reason, that the victim was probably involved in some activities that he didn't want the cops to know about. He probably has a "record". Maybe because of activities that were actually wrong ("mala in se"); maybe they were only "illegal" ("mala prohibita"). Either way, had he stayed around he would still be wounded (cops can't undo that), and probably would have been "arrested" on top of that.
No good can come of staying around to talk to "The Law". Not for the stabbing victim and not for you. It's a lesson we should all learn.
Note: Sorry about the late posting, and the lack of an introductory paragraph. Now, I am unable to share my Examiner columns elsewhere using any tool provided by Examiner. As of today I can't even put a link on here until an hour or so after I publish the column. And by that time I'm usually not hanging around the computer. Examiner's cascade failures are getting frustrating for me. I'll still post the entire columns here after a week of trying to milk all the page views I can get.
LEOs in Albuquerque responded to a report of a stabbing, but could find no victim. I don't blame the victim for running off. Maybe he has heard what happens to victims of aggression or theft when the Bad(ge) Guys show up. The original attack is just the beginning.
Sure, it could be argued, with good reason, that the victim was probably involved in some activities that he didn't want the cops to know about. He probably has a "record". Maybe because of activities that were actually wrong ("mala in se"); maybe they were only "illegal" ("mala prohibita"). Either way, had he stayed around he would still be wounded (cops can't undo that), and probably would have been "arrested" on top of that.
No good can come of staying around to talk to "The Law". Not for the stabbing victim and not for you. It's a lesson we should all learn.
Note: Sorry about the late posting, and the lack of an introductory paragraph. Now, I am unable to share my Examiner columns elsewhere using any tool provided by Examiner. As of today I can't even put a link on here until an hour or so after I publish the column. And by that time I'm usually not hanging around the computer. Examiner's cascade failures are getting frustrating for me. I'll still post the entire columns here after a week of trying to milk all the page views I can get.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
"The Right's" favorite whine to libertarians
"The Right's" favorite whine to libertarians
I have previously touched on the most irritating comment I encounter from "The Left". Now "The Right" gets equal time.
The most personally annoying comment I have encountered from the right is something along the lines of: "You talk bad about cops now, but just wait until you need them. Then you'll be crying for their protection!" Sure. Just like I'll "need" MS-13 if I am victimized by a lone mugger in an alley.
I have long said that there is no situation so terrible that it can't be made worse, by orders of magnitude, by bringing in "law enforcement". To pretend otherwise is to ignore a growing body of evidence, and almost daily lethal examples.
Sure, if you haven't thought it through you may reflexively call the cops in case of a crime against you. That's what you have been conditioned to do. If you are even aware of the tragedies that often result, to the innocent, you may believe it could never happen to you. And you would be wrong.
You may believe that "I've done nothing wrong- I have nothing to hide". How sure are you that you have not violated even one of the 5 or 6 million federal laws that even the federal government admits it can't keep track of? How sure are you that you are not openly violating some state or local "law" that you weren't aware of? Do you think responding LEOs will ignore your violations just because you were the victim of some crime? It didn't work out that way for an Albuquerque man recently.
The Right is so trapped in their "punishmentality" that they can't wait to see someone taken down by the cops- until it happens to be themselves or a friend. Then, suddenly, it is a case of "The Left" passing "laws" that "violate their God-given freedoms". The hypocrisy is laughable, yet so sad.
I'll take my chances with the freelance thugs. What you choose to do if you fall victim to aggression or theft is none of my business, but just be aware that "The Law" has no interest in justice. They only want to not be bothered with you or your troubles. Maybe they will take their frustration out on the bad guy; maybe not. Is it really worth the risk anymore?
I have previously touched on the most irritating comment I encounter from "The Left". Now "The Right" gets equal time.
The most personally annoying comment I have encountered from the right is something along the lines of: "You talk bad about cops now, but just wait until you need them. Then you'll be crying for their protection!" Sure. Just like I'll "need" MS-13 if I am victimized by a lone mugger in an alley.
"The urge to defend police for their criminality will always render the
rightwing completely unable to understand and defend liberty." - Anthony Gregory
I have long said that there is no situation so terrible that it can't be made worse, by orders of magnitude, by bringing in "law enforcement". To pretend otherwise is to ignore a growing body of evidence, and almost daily lethal examples.
Sure, if you haven't thought it through you may reflexively call the cops in case of a crime against you. That's what you have been conditioned to do. If you are even aware of the tragedies that often result, to the innocent, you may believe it could never happen to you. And you would be wrong.
You may believe that "I've done nothing wrong- I have nothing to hide". How sure are you that you have not violated even one of the 5 or 6 million federal laws that even the federal government admits it can't keep track of? How sure are you that you are not openly violating some state or local "law" that you weren't aware of? Do you think responding LEOs will ignore your violations just because you were the victim of some crime? It didn't work out that way for an Albuquerque man recently.
The Right is so trapped in their "punishmentality" that they can't wait to see someone taken down by the cops- until it happens to be themselves or a friend. Then, suddenly, it is a case of "The Left" passing "laws" that "violate their God-given freedoms". The hypocrisy is laughable, yet so sad.
I'll take my chances with the freelance thugs. What you choose to do if you fall victim to aggression or theft is none of my business, but just be aware that "The Law" has no interest in justice. They only want to not be bothered with you or your troubles. Maybe they will take their frustration out on the bad guy; maybe not. Is it really worth the risk anymore?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Asking permission is begging for punishment
Asking permission is begging for punishment
Need more proof that government has no business being involved in anyone's marriage? An Albuquerque man is facing felony bigamy charges because he did what most humans do at some point- he moved on to the next mate.
His mistake was in allowing government to "officially recognize" his relationship with the previous mate, and then neglecting to ask government to officially recognize the end of that relationship. Then, because he also allowed government to "officially recognize" the next relationship, he is facing criminal charges. He wasn't actually with them both, as "husband", at the same time. And his previous mate, in an act of evil, used the State and its counterfeit "laws" as a weapon against this man because she held a childish grudge. I see no claim he was harming her in any way- she simply knew of a way to hurt him, and she took advantage of it.
Government has no business sanctioning marriage (or anything else). Asking permission from government for your relationship is like pouring sewage in your well. What you've got, if it is good, is good. It needs nothing added. This applies to homosexuals and the polyamorous just as much as to heterosexuals.
Of course, "laws" giving perks to governmentally-recognized relationships are probably one of the main motivations for this foolish act. Actually, it isn't "perks" so much as a reduction in the penalties for existence that government piles on each individual. It is understandable that people try to reduce this burden in "legal" ways by jumping through hoops for the amusement and enrichment of the meddlesome Rulers.
Rather than seeking to be as equally violated as the next person, stop asking permission for your relationships. Force government to remove the penalties for existence. And never ask permission to do that which is your human right to do.
Need more proof that government has no business being involved in anyone's marriage? An Albuquerque man is facing felony bigamy charges because he did what most humans do at some point- he moved on to the next mate.
His mistake was in allowing government to "officially recognize" his relationship with the previous mate, and then neglecting to ask government to officially recognize the end of that relationship. Then, because he also allowed government to "officially recognize" the next relationship, he is facing criminal charges. He wasn't actually with them both, as "husband", at the same time. And his previous mate, in an act of evil, used the State and its counterfeit "laws" as a weapon against this man because she held a childish grudge. I see no claim he was harming her in any way- she simply knew of a way to hurt him, and she took advantage of it.
Government has no business sanctioning marriage (or anything else). Asking permission from government for your relationship is like pouring sewage in your well. What you've got, if it is good, is good. It needs nothing added. This applies to homosexuals and the polyamorous just as much as to heterosexuals.
Of course, "laws" giving perks to governmentally-recognized relationships are probably one of the main motivations for this foolish act. Actually, it isn't "perks" so much as a reduction in the penalties for existence that government piles on each individual. It is understandable that people try to reduce this burden in "legal" ways by jumping through hoops for the amusement and enrichment of the meddlesome Rulers.
Rather than seeking to be as equally violated as the next person, stop asking permission for your relationships. Force government to remove the penalties for existence. And never ask permission to do that which is your human right to do.
Even if in the monority, dare to speak up
Even if in the monority, dare to speak up
What if you, a generally "libertarian" person, have a position on some issue that is at odds with the position of other "libertarian" people? Should you keep your opinion to yourself? What if it turns out that you are wrong?
I think it is better to express yourself. Perhaps you are seeing the issue from a different angle that other people are not considering. Maybe you are misunderstanding the issue completely. How will anyone know or learn if no one speaks out?
Recently I have been following, in a cursory way, a libertarian disagreement over "intellectual property". While I see the point that each side is trying to make, (here, here, here, and here) I agree it could have been handled in a more friendly way. After all we are all in this together.
Still, I think it is good to get these disagreements out in the open where all sides of the issue can be aired. I doubt anyone involved will change their minds, but people on the sidelines, who may not have thought it over yet, can see all the arguments and decide which position (if any) has more merit. Then, possibly, in the future it may be self-evident which side was really supporting individual liberty and which was not. Or a third way may be seen as the truth while the current battle of words will be seen as arguing over angels and pinheads.
What if you, a generally "libertarian" person, have a position on some issue that is at odds with the position of other "libertarian" people? Should you keep your opinion to yourself? What if it turns out that you are wrong?
I think it is better to express yourself. Perhaps you are seeing the issue from a different angle that other people are not considering. Maybe you are misunderstanding the issue completely. How will anyone know or learn if no one speaks out?
Recently I have been following, in a cursory way, a libertarian disagreement over "intellectual property". While I see the point that each side is trying to make, (here, here, here, and here) I agree it could have been handled in a more friendly way. After all we are all in this together.
Still, I think it is good to get these disagreements out in the open where all sides of the issue can be aired. I doubt anyone involved will change their minds, but people on the sidelines, who may not have thought it over yet, can see all the arguments and decide which position (if any) has more merit. Then, possibly, in the future it may be self-evident which side was really supporting individual liberty and which was not. Or a third way may be seen as the truth while the current battle of words will be seen as arguing over angels and pinheads.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
ABQ drug-thieves-in-uniform strike again
ABQ drug-thieves-in-uniform strike again
An Albuquerque man has been "arrested" for making and selling steroids. What I can't find anywhere in the news story is an indication that any of his customers felt they had been defrauded or harmed.
The "brave" drug warriors made a big deal out of the fact that he was using "cattle medications" as raw materials for his product. So what? Chemicals don't know whether they are "cattle medications" or "human medications". After all, take extremely toxic sodium and combine it with extremely toxic chlorine and you get table salt which is necessary for life. The beginning raw materials have no bearing on the final product. Was he selling what he was claiming to be selling?
Now, I think steroid use for "muscle building" is incredibly stupid. The risks, to me, are not worth the supposed benefits. That is my choice and I have no right to force others to go along. If, because of abuse of the steroids, his customers become prone to "'roid rage" and attack me, I have the right to fight back however I see fit, just like I do in any case of an attack under any circumstances.
The LEOs were not content to just kidnap the man (and his wife), though. They also set to work immediately to make sure everyone heard what a bad man the independent chemist is.
Supposedly the drugs, including some for personal use rather than inventory, were within easy reach of children in the home. Were the children suspected of ingesting any? If not, maybe they knew better than the man or his customers.
There was also a stolen gun in the house, which is the only thing I find really wrong in this scenario. However, did he know it was stolen? Did he steal it himself or know it was stolen when he bought it? And if he knew it was a stolen gun, how is that different than the cops buying things with money they know was taken through threats and coercion from the people who rightfully earned it? Theft is theft and benefiting from stolen goods is still wrong, and it doesn't matter what silly hat (or haircut) you wear.
An Albuquerque man has been "arrested" for making and selling steroids. What I can't find anywhere in the news story is an indication that any of his customers felt they had been defrauded or harmed.
The "brave" drug warriors made a big deal out of the fact that he was using "cattle medications" as raw materials for his product. So what? Chemicals don't know whether they are "cattle medications" or "human medications". After all, take extremely toxic sodium and combine it with extremely toxic chlorine and you get table salt which is necessary for life. The beginning raw materials have no bearing on the final product. Was he selling what he was claiming to be selling?
Now, I think steroid use for "muscle building" is incredibly stupid. The risks, to me, are not worth the supposed benefits. That is my choice and I have no right to force others to go along. If, because of abuse of the steroids, his customers become prone to "'roid rage" and attack me, I have the right to fight back however I see fit, just like I do in any case of an attack under any circumstances.
The LEOs were not content to just kidnap the man (and his wife), though. They also set to work immediately to make sure everyone heard what a bad man the independent chemist is.
Supposedly the drugs, including some for personal use rather than inventory, were within easy reach of children in the home. Were the children suspected of ingesting any? If not, maybe they knew better than the man or his customers.
There was also a stolen gun in the house, which is the only thing I find really wrong in this scenario. However, did he know it was stolen? Did he steal it himself or know it was stolen when he bought it? And if he knew it was a stolen gun, how is that different than the cops buying things with money they know was taken through threats and coercion from the people who rightfully earned it? Theft is theft and benefiting from stolen goods is still wrong, and it doesn't matter what silly hat (or haircut) you wear.
Psst. Hey buddy, wanna buy a corpse?
Those automated ads on Examiner (and lots of other places) sure do come up with some bizarre things they think people are in the market for.
Here's the ad that was there while I was checking my Examiner column for new comments.
As if that isn't something I could manufacture for myself if I needed one bad enough. Or, maybe it's an ad for a psychic who "helps" the cops find missing people. Or, perhaps they provide freshly-unburied cadavers for home dissection (or re-animation experiments).
It's almost enough to make me click on the stupid ad. But not quite.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Rearranging bus stops on the Titanic
Rearranging bus stops on the Titanic
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I guess we all do it sometimes, but when government does it (and we therefore pay for it) it is worse than pointless- it is actually harmful.
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department is considering moving school bus stops around Albuquerque in an effort to "avoid registered sex offenders". This has so many things wrong it is hard to know where to begin.
First off, not all "registered sex offenders" are actually a danger to kids or anyone else. Many are registered for doing perfectly non-violent consensual things that the State just happens to prohibit. The "list" is a bad joke that destroys lives while it protects no one.
Second, most real, dangerous sexual predators are probably not registered, or even known. To feel otherwise is placing a lot of faith in a flawed process.
Third, people don't necessarily stay in their own neighborhoods, where they are recognized, when they are intent on causing harm. Only a fool robs the bank next door to his house, where he is a regular customer. The same applies to sexual predators. Plus, the kids still have to get to the bus stops. Who knows what lies along their path? Just moving the destination changes nothing.
Fourth, parents need to teach their kids to be aware of their surroundings and to be prepared to defend themselves. Yes, because the children and other students are headed for a government facility it makes carrying an effective self defense tool a "crime". They still have potential improvised weaponry with them at all times and should be taught how to use them. Yet another reason to separate school and state.
Shuffling bus stops will only create a false security at best. False security is more dangerous than the paranoia that precedes it.
***************
Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I guess we all do it sometimes, but when government does it (and we therefore pay for it) it is worse than pointless- it is actually harmful.
The Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department is considering moving school bus stops around Albuquerque in an effort to "avoid registered sex offenders". This has so many things wrong it is hard to know where to begin.
First off, not all "registered sex offenders" are actually a danger to kids or anyone else. Many are registered for doing perfectly non-violent consensual things that the State just happens to prohibit. The "list" is a bad joke that destroys lives while it protects no one.
Second, most real, dangerous sexual predators are probably not registered, or even known. To feel otherwise is placing a lot of faith in a flawed process.
Third, people don't necessarily stay in their own neighborhoods, where they are recognized, when they are intent on causing harm. Only a fool robs the bank next door to his house, where he is a regular customer. The same applies to sexual predators. Plus, the kids still have to get to the bus stops. Who knows what lies along their path? Just moving the destination changes nothing.
Fourth, parents need to teach their kids to be aware of their surroundings and to be prepared to defend themselves. Yes, because the children and other students are headed for a government facility it makes carrying an effective self defense tool a "crime". They still have potential improvised weaponry with them at all times and should be taught how to use them. Yet another reason to separate school and state.
Shuffling bus stops will only create a false security at best. False security is more dangerous than the paranoia that precedes it.
***************
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Kidnapped over a plant- only 'reasonable' to the stupid, evil, or insane
Kidnapped over a plant- only 'reasonable' to the stupid, evil, or insane
Browsing through the Albuquerque news I saw the headline announcing that two Albuquerque women had been caught crossing the "border" with drugs. Then I read a bit farther, and .... oh, it wasn't drugs after all. It was marijuana. That's when it hit me: I don't even think "drug" when I think of cannabis.
It's a PLANT, people. That's all. All plants contain a multitude of chemicals, some more interesting than others. Some of those chemicals might reasonably be called "drugs" once they are processed and refined, but a plant is not a "drug". No matter what the State's drug warriors might claim in their flimsy lies.
To kidnap people for possessing a plant, even 500 pounds of it, is absurd. It would be laughable if the prohibition didn't destroy so many innocent lives. It is long past time for this nonsense to STOP.
Added clarification: The comments indicate I need to clear something up.
I am not showing favoritism to marijuana. The same would apply if it had been 500 pounds of poppies or coca leaves. Until the specific chemicals are isolated, purified, and refined the plant is not a "drug"- it is a plant. Funny thing though... I never hear of a "bust" of THC like I hear the drug warriors bragging about stealing quantities of cocaine.
However, it is just as wrong- just as evil- to kidnap people for possessing refined heroin, cocaine, meth, or any other substance the authoritards prohibit. There is absolutely no excuse for prohibition that holds up for consistent, decent human beings.
The War on Drugs is ridiculous in all its forms and is based on the pure evil belief that it is "good" or "necessary" to control what others do with their life and body. It needs to end. Now!
Browsing through the Albuquerque news I saw the headline announcing that two Albuquerque women had been caught crossing the "border" with drugs. Then I read a bit farther, and .... oh, it wasn't drugs after all. It was marijuana. That's when it hit me: I don't even think "drug" when I think of cannabis.
It's a PLANT, people. That's all. All plants contain a multitude of chemicals, some more interesting than others. Some of those chemicals might reasonably be called "drugs" once they are processed and refined, but a plant is not a "drug". No matter what the State's drug warriors might claim in their flimsy lies.
To kidnap people for possessing a plant, even 500 pounds of it, is absurd. It would be laughable if the prohibition didn't destroy so many innocent lives. It is long past time for this nonsense to STOP.
Added clarification: The comments indicate I need to clear something up.
I am not showing favoritism to marijuana. The same would apply if it had been 500 pounds of poppies or coca leaves. Until the specific chemicals are isolated, purified, and refined the plant is not a "drug"- it is a plant. Funny thing though... I never hear of a "bust" of THC like I hear the drug warriors bragging about stealing quantities of cocaine.
However, it is just as wrong- just as evil- to kidnap people for possessing refined heroin, cocaine, meth, or any other substance the authoritards prohibit. There is absolutely no excuse for prohibition that holds up for consistent, decent human beings.
The War on Drugs is ridiculous in all its forms and is based on the pure evil belief that it is "good" or "necessary" to control what others do with their life and body. It needs to end. Now!
Man takes responsibility for his own life and gets punished
Man takes responsibility for his own life and gets punished
An Albuquerque man has killed an intruder, being stabbed twice in the process, and for this the Albuquerque Police Department thanks him by charging him with a probation violation. Why do some people still call cops when attacked?
I was wondering why he stabbed the intruder rather than using a more adequate weapon like a firearm, but I suppose if he is on probation, effective weapons are prohibited to him, as the State sees no value in his life and safety. Fortunately for him he was able to get the intruder's knife away from him and serve justice with it himself.
I wonder what sort of offense has gotten him entangled in the government's "justice" system and resulted in probation, and what violation he was found committing when police responded to the attack. As is usually the case, the mainstream media has neglected to include this critical information.
I sincerely hope his act of justifiable and good violence in killing his attacker is not why the LEOs charged him with a violation. If he is being persecuted for a victimless act that the State calls a "crime", and then charged with violating his probation for a responsible act, then he is innocent and I hope he opts for a jury trial, and I hope the jury knows their responsibility to judge the "law" as well as the "facts of the case", regardless of any jury-tampering committed by the judge in his "instructions to the jury".
Don't forget my books, and find the new announcement on my website!
An Albuquerque man has killed an intruder, being stabbed twice in the process, and for this the Albuquerque Police Department thanks him by charging him with a probation violation. Why do some people still call cops when attacked?
I was wondering why he stabbed the intruder rather than using a more adequate weapon like a firearm, but I suppose if he is on probation, effective weapons are prohibited to him, as the State sees no value in his life and safety. Fortunately for him he was able to get the intruder's knife away from him and serve justice with it himself.
I wonder what sort of offense has gotten him entangled in the government's "justice" system and resulted in probation, and what violation he was found committing when police responded to the attack. As is usually the case, the mainstream media has neglected to include this critical information.
I sincerely hope his act of justifiable and good violence in killing his attacker is not why the LEOs charged him with a violation. If he is being persecuted for a victimless act that the State calls a "crime", and then charged with violating his probation for a responsible act, then he is innocent and I hope he opts for a jury trial, and I hope the jury knows their responsibility to judge the "law" as well as the "facts of the case", regardless of any jury-tampering committed by the judge in his "instructions to the jury".
Don't forget my books, and find the new announcement on my website!
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Lower your expectations so you can declare success
This morning, on a trip to the zoo, my daughter latched onto another kid that she decided was her BFF the moment she saw her. So, having nothing better to do and no reason to object, I let her follow the girl and her mom around. The girl's mom was on her phone most of the time anyway.
The main reason I mention this, though, is that the mom was wearing a T-shirt that said (as near as I can remember): "President Obama- Mission Accomplished!"
Really? Talk about having low expectations!
I was shocked at Bushie's delusion during his "Mission Accomplished" photo op aboard the naval vessel back during the early days of the Crusades, Part Infinity. But, at least he had accomplished something he thought was vital (destroying Liberty in America and replacing it with despotism and Big Brother while invading scary places he couldn't find on a map and having his tools kill swarthy ferriners).
But I really have to wonder what "The Mission" was that was accomplished by Obama. Just becoming president? Breaking a record number of campaign promises in record time without any of his followers noticing? Getting a galactic-sized ego so fast without his head exploding? Or, maybe, just keeping so many of his followers fooled for this long. I guess that is quite an accomplishment. Lincoln has still done better on that account, though.
The main reason I mention this, though, is that the mom was wearing a T-shirt that said (as near as I can remember): "President Obama- Mission Accomplished!"
Really? Talk about having low expectations!
I was shocked at Bushie's delusion during his "Mission Accomplished" photo op aboard the naval vessel back during the early days of the Crusades, Part Infinity. But, at least he had accomplished something he thought was vital (destroying Liberty in America and replacing it with despotism and Big Brother while invading scary places he couldn't find on a map and having his tools kill swarthy ferriners).
But I really have to wonder what "The Mission" was that was accomplished by Obama. Just becoming president? Breaking a record number of campaign promises in record time without any of his followers noticing? Getting a galactic-sized ego so fast without his head exploding? Or, maybe, just keeping so many of his followers fooled for this long. I guess that is quite an accomplishment. Lincoln has still done better on that account, though.
Old Town's crime spike: the solution suggests itself
Old Town's crime spike: the solution suggests itself
There has been a recent increase in theft and vandalism in Albuquerque's Old Town. In response, APD has increased its horse patrols. It is suggested that "[o]fficers on horseback may look like part of the historical tourist attraction", but this would only be the case if they wore Old West style clothing rather than 21st Century Police-State uniforms.
So, I have a suggestion. Why not let them dress the part? The modern uniform adds nothing positive, while returning to a more respectable era, at least in appearance, might have a psychological effect on would-be bad guys. Then, adding to the historical nature of the neighborhood, encourage shop owners to wear sidearms as well.
Delusional merchants, showing a remarkable lack of awareness of reality, say that as long as they see the cops around, they feel safe. Instead of massaging their "feelings", why not actually increase their safety? Remind them that their safety, and their property, is their responsibility.
There has been a recent increase in theft and vandalism in Albuquerque's Old Town. In response, APD has increased its horse patrols. It is suggested that "[o]fficers on horseback may look like part of the historical tourist attraction", but this would only be the case if they wore Old West style clothing rather than 21st Century Police-State uniforms.
So, I have a suggestion. Why not let them dress the part? The modern uniform adds nothing positive, while returning to a more respectable era, at least in appearance, might have a psychological effect on would-be bad guys. Then, adding to the historical nature of the neighborhood, encourage shop owners to wear sidearms as well.
Delusional merchants, showing a remarkable lack of awareness of reality, say that as long as they see the cops around, they feel safe. Instead of massaging their "feelings", why not actually increase their safety? Remind them that their safety, and their property, is their responsibility.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Irritated at Examiner.com?
For those of you who have trouble with all of Examiner.com's pop-ups and ads and various other annoyances, I have good news.
I have finished copying all my older Examiner columns, in their entirety, to this blog. Everything older than a week old is here now. As I post a new column, I go ahead and copy the column from 7 days ago to this site to keep up.
If you don't mind, go ahead and click on the link that goes to my Examiner column to send a bit of coin my direction, but you don't have to bother to read it there.
****************************
I have finished copying all my older Examiner columns, in their entirety, to this blog. Everything older than a week old is here now. As I post a new column, I go ahead and copy the column from 7 days ago to this site to keep up.
If you don't mind, go ahead and click on the link that goes to my Examiner column to send a bit of coin my direction, but you don't have to bother to read it there.
****************************
APD entrapment scheme canceled
APD entrapment scheme canceled
Downtown Albuquerque LEOs have canceled their "abandoned backpack" entrapment scheme.
I have to admit, if I had found the Albuquerque Police Department's "abandoned" backpack I would have been "arrested" under the guidelines they were following. Because, while I would have tried to find the owner, I would never have considered taking the backpack to the ABQ police station, or handing it over to some anonymous cop I happened to see, except as an absolute last resort- if no owner information could have been found anywhere at all. If I found a lost backpack, it is my responsibility. Plus, if the backpack contained something "illegal" I would not want to expose the owner to possible punishment.
A few years ago I found a large brief case in the middle of the road in the very small town near where I lived. It seemed obvious to me that the brief case had fallen off someone's car. It had a combination lock but I didn't try to open it. I looked for any markings or names on the outside that would indicate who it might belong to. Since I was on my way to work, I left the brief case in my car until the end of the day. For this delay, I would have been arrested if this had been part of the APD entrapment program.
As it ended up, I did take it to the town's chief of police (and only cop), whom I knew (and who would have probably simply kept any prohibited substances found inside without making an "arrest"). He asked me what was in the case and I told him I hadn't tried to open it. So, he tried the latch and it wasn't locked. He opened it and we went through it looking for a clue to the owner's identity. The contents were for a local business. He knew who it belonged to. A few days later he told me that the owner of the brief case was very grateful and wanted to give me a reward. I never did get the reward, though, and the man was murdered, apparently by his business partner, a few months later. Reward or not, I know I did the right thing.
How could the APD know that a person who finds an abandoned backpack and walks off with it isn't going to try to find the owner later, when they have the time to spend on the investigation? Assume the worst of people and they will usually meet your expectations.
Downtown Albuquerque LEOs have canceled their "abandoned backpack" entrapment scheme.
I have to admit, if I had found the Albuquerque Police Department's "abandoned" backpack I would have been "arrested" under the guidelines they were following. Because, while I would have tried to find the owner, I would never have considered taking the backpack to the ABQ police station, or handing it over to some anonymous cop I happened to see, except as an absolute last resort- if no owner information could have been found anywhere at all. If I found a lost backpack, it is my responsibility. Plus, if the backpack contained something "illegal" I would not want to expose the owner to possible punishment.
A few years ago I found a large brief case in the middle of the road in the very small town near where I lived. It seemed obvious to me that the brief case had fallen off someone's car. It had a combination lock but I didn't try to open it. I looked for any markings or names on the outside that would indicate who it might belong to. Since I was on my way to work, I left the brief case in my car until the end of the day. For this delay, I would have been arrested if this had been part of the APD entrapment program.
As it ended up, I did take it to the town's chief of police (and only cop), whom I knew (and who would have probably simply kept any prohibited substances found inside without making an "arrest"). He asked me what was in the case and I told him I hadn't tried to open it. So, he tried the latch and it wasn't locked. He opened it and we went through it looking for a clue to the owner's identity. The contents were for a local business. He knew who it belonged to. A few days later he told me that the owner of the brief case was very grateful and wanted to give me a reward. I never did get the reward, though, and the man was murdered, apparently by his business partner, a few months later. Reward or not, I know I did the right thing.
How could the APD know that a person who finds an abandoned backpack and walks off with it isn't going to try to find the owner later, when they have the time to spend on the investigation? Assume the worst of people and they will usually meet your expectations.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Drunk city employees face new policy
Drunk city employees face new policy
Apparently there is such a big problem with Albuquerque city employees driving drunk that the mayor had to conjure up a new policy to deal with it. And yet, he seems to have made certain to leave some wiggle-room for those "important" enough to warrant special treatment.
Supposedly, now if a city employee is arrested and charged with DWI, they won't be allowed to drive on the job for a while, and they might lose their job altogether. However, notice the "...and charged..." qualifier. As we have seen in some other cases, people with connections can be picked up by Law Enforcement, obviously drunk, and yet somehow the charges are forgotten, unless the incident becomes public.
If there is no harm, there is no real crime. If there is harm, then drunk or sober doesn't matter. Restitution is owed to the injured party or their survivors.
*******************
Apparently there is such a big problem with Albuquerque city employees driving drunk that the mayor had to conjure up a new policy to deal with it. And yet, he seems to have made certain to leave some wiggle-room for those "important" enough to warrant special treatment.
Supposedly, now if a city employee is arrested and charged with DWI, they won't be allowed to drive on the job for a while, and they might lose their job altogether. However, notice the "...and charged..." qualifier. As we have seen in some other cases, people with connections can be picked up by Law Enforcement, obviously drunk, and yet somehow the charges are forgotten, unless the incident becomes public.
If there is no harm, there is no real crime. If there is harm, then drunk or sober doesn't matter. Restitution is owed to the injured party or their survivors.
*******************
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
LEO haircut inspires laughter and well-deserved ridicule
You know that absurd "hair style" adopted by the new militarized breed of LEO? The little oval patch of short hair perched on top of an otherwise shaved head? It is nice they have chosen to identify themselves as parasites even when otherwise out of uniform so we don't accidentally mistake them for good guys. But it is hard to resist laughing everytime I see one of those ridiculous, and butt-ugly, hair berets. As you can tell, I have been thinking up names to describe it.
Some others I have come up with include:
Thug rug.
Scalp badge.
Swagger patch.
Taser doily.
Head pubes.
Cop top.
Some others I have come up with include:
Thug rug.
Scalp badge.
Swagger patch.
Taser doily.
Head pubes.
Cop top.
What makes downtown ABQ 'violent'?
What makes downtown ABQ 'violent'?
The question: Is downtown Albuquerque safe? The answer: Of course it is. The only danger is to people who are in downtown Albuquerque.
In spite of an admission of a "rash of violence" recently, the downtown LEO handlers claim "the current policing strategy is working". That's just funny!
If there has been a rash of violence, and that violence is not violence used in defense of life and property against credible threats, then obviously the current strategy is not helping the situation, if that were even the LEOs' goal.
Cops cause crime! More cops, or more visible cops, will never, ever solve the problem. Their presence makes many people shirk their own responsibility and think someone else will do their job for them. Wherever you are it is your responsibility to watch out for yourself. This involves being aware and armed. If you have it in you, you can also make it your responsibility to look out for those around you. A cop's job is to make sure you obey the State. "Sit down and shut up! Stop bothering Big Brother and hand over your wallet." This is antithetical to peace and liberty. The better way is in your hands.
The question: Is downtown Albuquerque safe? The answer: Of course it is. The only danger is to people who are in downtown Albuquerque.
In spite of an admission of a "rash of violence" recently, the downtown LEO handlers claim "the current policing strategy is working". That's just funny!
If there has been a rash of violence, and that violence is not violence used in defense of life and property against credible threats, then obviously the current strategy is not helping the situation, if that were even the LEOs' goal.
Cops cause crime! More cops, or more visible cops, will never, ever solve the problem. Their presence makes many people shirk their own responsibility and think someone else will do their job for them. Wherever you are it is your responsibility to watch out for yourself. This involves being aware and armed. If you have it in you, you can also make it your responsibility to look out for those around you. A cop's job is to make sure you obey the State. "Sit down and shut up! Stop bothering Big Brother and hand over your wallet." This is antithetical to peace and liberty. The better way is in your hands.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Thomas Jefferson's secession manifesto
Thomas Jefferson's secession manifesto
I fully support the various state secession movements that have sprung up around the US (even as I disagree with many of their reasons). Not that I think a state, county, or city government is any more legitimate than a federal government, but because to solve a problem, it often helps to break it into more manageable pieces. It also gives me hope that these movements will eventually become an annoying distraction to the feds.
Authoritarians, especially those who are government extremists, may claim it is not "legal" to secede. They may point to the Civil War's result as proof of their position. They would be dead wrong according to America's primary founding document.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing the individual's unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
This doesn't give us the right "to alter or to abolish" a government any more than the Bill of Rights gives us the rights listed there; it recognizes a right that has always existed in all humans everywhere at all times. I would go further than even that and say that people, individuals, have the right to ignore, alter, or abolish any government that they feel is not working in their best interest, even if it has not yet become openly destructive to their "unalienable Rights", which include ("...among these are..."), but are not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". By the time a government has actually become destructive to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it may be too late to divorce that government peaceably.
The first option, and the most peaceful, is to ignore the offenders. If this fails it can still be a peaceful option to alter that government in order to remove the violations it has enshrined in its body of "laws" and daily operations. The very last option, one that can be as peaceful or as violent as the government's employees choose, is to abolish that government. Whether these last two can be done peacefully or not depends on those who work for and support that offending government. Will they lay down their arms and step aside when ordered to, or will they fight to keep their ill-gotten power?
The question is, do you know of any government, anywhere on Earth, that has not become destructive to "unalienable Rights", including, but not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? If those governments violently resist being ignored or altered, then they leave the people no alternative but to abolish them. Don't like the implications? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
____________________________
An Albuquerque church is spreading the message that drug abuse can have bad consequences. As if that is a secret. Ignoring the fact that everyone already knows this, they are using live drama to illustrate the dangers: "It shows where a life of drugs will lead, like premature death or prison." Forget the fact that prison is NOT a consequence of drug abuse, but of drug prohibition. As is the case in a large percentage of the premature deaths attributed to drug abuse, as well.
Abusing drugs, or anything else, is stupid, but prohibition is evil. It would be nice, and much more honest, if the church would address that issue as well.
The pastor is also spreading a dishonest message that could well backfire. He is quoted as saying "Our whole message is make a change, and that change will cause you to have a great future." There are no guarantees, and if people who are in need and hurting, the kind susceptible to both drug abuse and religious messages, find that their future is not as great as promised, they may fall back into old patterns that could hurt them. Honesty is better. Tell them they are responsible for their lives; that bad choices can result in bad consequences; that no one is obligated to rescue them from their choices, but that there is no guarantee that good choices will make their future "sunshine and roses".
___________________________
While writing this column on the Declaration of Independence, I was amused to notice one of the enumerated grievances used as justification for secession from Great Britain. The people who are the strongest advocates of “immigration control” would find themselves in the position of having the founders of America, whom they claim to revere, opposed to their efforts:
Wave that in some Tea Partier's face!
*********************
I fully support the various state secession movements that have sprung up around the US (even as I disagree with many of their reasons). Not that I think a state, county, or city government is any more legitimate than a federal government, but because to solve a problem, it often helps to break it into more manageable pieces. It also gives me hope that these movements will eventually become an annoying distraction to the feds.
Authoritarians, especially those who are government extremists, may claim it is not "legal" to secede. They may point to the Civil War's result as proof of their position. They would be dead wrong according to America's primary founding document.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing the individual's unalienable Rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
This doesn't give us the right "to alter or to abolish" a government any more than the Bill of Rights gives us the rights listed there; it recognizes a right that has always existed in all humans everywhere at all times. I would go further than even that and say that people, individuals, have the right to ignore, alter, or abolish any government that they feel is not working in their best interest, even if it has not yet become openly destructive to their "unalienable Rights", which include ("...among these are..."), but are not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". By the time a government has actually become destructive to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" it may be too late to divorce that government peaceably.
The first option, and the most peaceful, is to ignore the offenders. If this fails it can still be a peaceful option to alter that government in order to remove the violations it has enshrined in its body of "laws" and daily operations. The very last option, one that can be as peaceful or as violent as the government's employees choose, is to abolish that government. Whether these last two can be done peacefully or not depends on those who work for and support that offending government. Will they lay down their arms and step aside when ordered to, or will they fight to keep their ill-gotten power?
The question is, do you know of any government, anywhere on Earth, that has not become destructive to "unalienable Rights", including, but not limited to, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? If those governments violently resist being ignored or altered, then they leave the people no alternative but to abolish them. Don't like the implications? Take it up with Thomas Jefferson.
____________________________
An Albuquerque church is spreading the message that drug abuse can have bad consequences. As if that is a secret. Ignoring the fact that everyone already knows this, they are using live drama to illustrate the dangers: "It shows where a life of drugs will lead, like premature death or prison." Forget the fact that prison is NOT a consequence of drug abuse, but of drug prohibition. As is the case in a large percentage of the premature deaths attributed to drug abuse, as well.
Abusing drugs, or anything else, is stupid, but prohibition is evil. It would be nice, and much more honest, if the church would address that issue as well.
The pastor is also spreading a dishonest message that could well backfire. He is quoted as saying "Our whole message is make a change, and that change will cause you to have a great future." There are no guarantees, and if people who are in need and hurting, the kind susceptible to both drug abuse and religious messages, find that their future is not as great as promised, they may fall back into old patterns that could hurt them. Honesty is better. Tell them they are responsible for their lives; that bad choices can result in bad consequences; that no one is obligated to rescue them from their choices, but that there is no guarantee that good choices will make their future "sunshine and roses".
___________________________
While writing this column on the Declaration of Independence, I was amused to notice one of the enumerated grievances used as justification for secession from Great Britain. The people who are the strongest advocates of “immigration control” would find themselves in the position of having the founders of America, whom they claim to revere, opposed to their efforts:
"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose
obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others
to encourage their migrations hither..." [Emphasis mine]
Wave that in some Tea Partier's face!
*********************