"The werewolf" (Happy Halloween!)

So, here's the deal: I'm a werewolf.

Of course, being one, I know that a werewolf is no more a "wolf" than a koala bear is a bear, or a guinea pig is a pig. It's just a case of convergent evolution that makes a primate look somewhat wolf-like; similar to the way a marsupial mole, which is more related to wombats than moles, looks very much like a regular garden-variety mole. The similarity goes beyond appearances so that the werewolf exhibits some very wolf-like behaviors. Except for the urge to be a part of a pack. Werewolves are not very social with one another. And those computer-generated "werewolves" seen in recent sappy, love-sick teen movies... those would just be "shape-shifters" turning into wolves, if they were real. Which they aren't! They are really pretty insulting to us. I suppose it's just entertainment; not to be taken too seriously. Not that all this explanation has anything to do with anything. It's just in my nature to ramble on about things no one really cares about. If you encounter one of us these distinctions will not seem important.

I first discovered my "talents" as a teenager when I was surrounded by a pack of feral dogs in the woods where I roamed as a youngster. I have always had a "problem" with dogs. It's not that I don't like them, exactly, but there is some primal rivalry there. And when I see dogs my teeth ache and an almost overwhelming urge to bite them rises up inside of me and settles in my jawbones under my teeth. At least that's the only way I can describe the feeling.

Anyway, back to the feral dogs. They had me treed, without a weapon. But as I sat up there a change began to take place. I can't say for sure that it was a physical change that time, but it was certainly a change. I began to growl deep in my throat, without even intending to. The dogs became unsettled. Instead of looking at me as something to attack, they began backing away from the tree while still watching me. My fear was evaporating as the dogs became more uncomfortable. Suddenly I just got out of the tree and the dogs took one look at me and ran. Fast! They never bothered me again, which was a relief as they had made my wanderings less pleasant than I would have liked.

This part of my nature has saved me from aggressive dogs on several occasions. My lip curls, my teeth are bared, and the growl wells up from inside. The dog backs down.

There have been other times the werewolf has manifested itself as well. I know I have always had a tendency to howl at the moon. People just thought it was a quirk. They had no clue at the compulsion I felt and how I felt if I repressed the urge. It was almost as if I were drowning if I didn't let myself howl. A feeling of becoming something different- something "other"- would then flow through my entire body. It felt good. It was also a relief.

I soon discovered that if I were joking around with people, growling, and generally acting like a wolf, and if I didn't stop soon, it would take over. I would become animalistic and my human side would be submerged and become almost unreachable. It would be very hard to stay tame and to change back. Honestly, it scared me a bit the first few times it happened. I have mostly gotten control of that now. As long as no one backs me into a corner.

I think only one person who knows me has really seen the "werewolf me", and then only once. My first ex-wife was reading once when I entered the room. For some reason I growled and leaped in as I did. She screamed and recoiled so severely, with such an expression of terror on her face, that I panicked and looked behind me, certain from the reaction she gave that an indescribable demon was at my heels about to grab me from behind. Nope. It was just me. I tried apologizing but it wasn't very effective. And I was still terrified, too. I then knew this power I had needed to be controlled and kept hidden. I think I've done fairly well. But it is part of the reason I need large empty spaces to roam. I can't keep the werewolf bottled up all the time, and letting it out around people is a problem. Even at night.

It is still mostly dogs that seem to "know", and who trigger my "toothache" by their presence. You can't be expected to understand the craving to bite them that flows up my body and settles underneath my teeth. It feels as though my teeth will pop out of their sockets if I don't satisfy that urge.

So, the next time that person in line next to you seems to give off a different vibe, or seems a little wild and dangerous, listen to your instincts. Not all werewolves refuse to initiate force. Some may be authoritarians.

Trick or Treated like a criminal

Trick or Treated like a criminal

If a "registered sex offender" once lived at your address, and moved without telling the authorities, or if the address is read wrong, you may get a surprise visit from a real pervert. And if you are not prepared to instantly comply with his aggressive demands to provide ID upon his (illegal and evil) request, expect to be violated in one or more ways.

Federal Marshalls, the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, and the New Mexico Probation and Parole Office will be checking up on those people who appear on the incomplete, inaccurate, and utterly useless "sex offender registry" on Halloween night in Albuquerque and Las Cruces. Be warned.

The standard collectivist/authoritarian lie is being dragged out of its coffin, propped up, and dusted off: "the effort is aimed at making sure children are safe". Sure it is.

* * *

Want to really frighten your mainstream (probably even voting!) neighbors on this spooky and fun day? Dress as Liberty. Not the pitiful, harmless statue that commonly goes by that name, but REAL Liberty. The freedom to exercise your rights. All of them. A real Liberty who has the determination to back it up with justified, righteous force if those rights are violated in any way. Not aggressive; not looking for a fight; but a staunch refusal to be prey. That's what scares so many collectivists out of their droopy, soiled diapers these days.

*
Donate?

Another attack on your right to drive

Another attack on your right to drive

*
Donate?

Pomeranian held hostage by abusers in city shelter

Pomeranian held hostage by abusers in city shelter

Some rules, such as "Don't attack", "Don't steal", or "Keep your (non-coerced) word" always make sense. Most other rules, especially arbitrary government or bureaucratic rules, don't. They are a substitute for thought. Just as "zero tolerance" policies in schools frequently forbid the "authorities" from distinguishing between a butter knife and a switchblade (both have their legitimate uses and neither should be forbidden anywhere), so do the rest of government's rules remove the human element- discernment- from the equation.

Now a family is suffering from bureaucratic mindlessness, as is their dog. Their pomeranian is being held by Albuquerque's Eastside Shelter, and the "law" says the dog can't go home until it has been neutered. But this particular pomeranian is a breeder. To neuter it would devalue the family's property. It's like if every time the city "impounded" (stole) a vehicle, it refused to give back the stolen property until the seats had been removed. And that's in addition to the ransom being paid.

To have a "no exceptions" policy that is based on anything less than an ethical principle is wrong. And there is no ethical principle that demands that you neuter someone else's dog. In fact, the ethical principle is that you shouldn't damage other people's property. But, governments shouldn't steal or lie or attack the innocent either, so their inability to grasp this simple concept isn't surprising. Evil can be found in the most trivial of places and is upheld by the most stupid of people. Why not tell them about it?

*
Donate?

ABQ couple had chemicals, guns, and books in home

ABQ couple had chemicals, guns, and books in home

An Albuquerque couple is in trouble for the chemicals they had in their home. Also, if the story is true, the male half of the couple initiated force against an innocent man. It gave the authorities a good excuse to whip up a dramatic overreaction so they could be seen to be "doing something". However, if his bombs don't work any better than he shoots, probably no one was in much danger.

I have to shake my head when I hear some authority get breathless over "dangerous chemicals". Every home is full of dangerous chemicals. It is the way they are stored and used that can be the problem. I see no indication this was the case. With this couple it is the fact that The State is scared (or wants to make people believe) that the chemicals might have been intended to be used against its assets that is the issue.

Other non-issues are also being brought up. Specifically that the home contained firearms, "biohazard materials", and books. Every home on the planet should contain several firearms. I would bet that many homes also have books that contain information about making explosives. And every home also contains "biohazard material" if you listen to The State and mainstream health authorities.

I see nothing other than the attack on the innocent man that requires any response from any third party. And that's assuming the innocent man really is innocent.

*
Donate?

How is your hoard of lead?

With the approaching elections comes the possibility of unhappy voters. While I doubt anything too serious will come of their unhappiness (voters are too easily placated), it is never a bad idea to use this as an excuse to check up on your stocks and supplies. Any excuse to do what you should do anyway, right?

One thing I like to inventory (and re-stock) from time to time is my supply of ammo. Like most other emergency supplies, even if you don't "need" it, you can always use it. And you can never have enough of it. It's just fun to go out and shoot up a few boxes for relaxation, and it is useful fun that keeps your skills honed.

Plus, it makes a great gift in my opinion- I have never gotten ammo from someone and wished I had gotten something else. (hint, hint- if any of my family is reading)


I also look at my stock of ammo as a bank account of sorts; even calibers you don't use in your own guns make good trade goods- and, with the Fed's vigorous counterfeiting operation, it will hold its value better than FRNs. So, check out your stocks, and refill any gaps.



Disclaimer: I did get paid for this endorsement. However, I have been a customer of theirs for years and have always gotten great service and have always been more than satisfied. I wouldn't have agreed to this had it been otherwise.

Bernalillo County bans bullying

Bernalillo County bans bullying

Cool! Bernalillo County (that's Albuquerque) says it now has "zero tolerance" for bullying. Now, normally I equate "zero tolerance" with zero brains since it doesn't allow for actual thought or discernment to go into the process, but maybe in this case it's a good thing. Bullying is always an initiation of force or coercion; something I have no tolerance for either.

So no more enforcement of counterfeit "laws"! No more innocent people being bullied for smoking a plant, or for carrying a gun, or for refusing to hand over their own property to those who would like to steal it! Right? So let's watch the news about the announcement together.

Oh, wait, it seems some bullying is still OK with the authorities, just not freelance bullying by young people. I knew it was too good to be true. It's those statist double standards again.

*
Donate?

Is libertarianism an 'ivory tower'?

Is libertarianism an 'ivory tower'?

I was told yesterday that I live in an Ivory Tower. Nice! But it doesn't seem to lift me beyond the height of the ground around me, and it's made out of reddish-brown sandy dirt instead of ivory.

The assertion of my ivory-tower dwelling was made because I claim that voluntary charity is better than coerced welfare, and that instead of government protecting "the weak" from "the strong", it has become "the strong" that preys on "the weak" and it therefore attracts the very worst of "the strong" who wish to prey on others with impunity.

I assure you I would qualify for all sorts of government "benefits" due to my income and situation. I could also "benefit" by using government against people who have harmed me. Many people don't understand why I refuse to take advantage of the government's offers of "help". It's because the cost of "free" is too high for me to afford.

It is pure delusion to claim that The State is in any way good or beneficial. The real problems of real life can not be solved with coercion; only shifted, rearranged, or delayed. They accrue compound interest as well while you move them around to avoid dealing with them. That's the reality, no matter what some might wish.

Respecting liberty and the rights of others always works, in real life, every single time it is applied. That isn't "ivory tower", that's the real world.

In Albuquerque news: Some robbers in Albuquerque may have learned the lesson that if you are going to rob people, you should make certain your get-away car isn't visible to your victims, and that your tank has enough gas to actually get away. They probably should have taken the safer course for thieves and gotten cushy government jobs instead.

*
Donate?

Opposites, but both still wrong

Opposites, but both still wrong

The two "mainstream" politicians who are trying to fool you into consenting to one of them being appointed governor of New Mexico express their opinions on "social issues" in this article from Albuquerque's KOB.com: link

I could go down point-by-point to show where they are both completely, pathetically wrong, even when one seemingly "supports" the correct side (usually Denish, on these issues). I'll assume you are smart enough to do that on your own if you care about the opinions of a couple of authoritarian sociopaths. (But feel free to discuss specifics in the comments below if you feel I am being too harsh, or can't see where one is wrong.)

There is really only one "social issue"- the right to live without being molested. Everything derives from that. Voting for a politician only ensures that someone, somewhere, will be molested in the name of "The Greater Good".

That molestation may be a consequence of a "drug law". It may result from some violation of property rights, such as a "property code" or a license plate "requirement", or a property "tax". That molestation may come when a reasonable, self-responsible person is kidnapped for keeping and "bearing" (which means carrying) a firearm. It may come from double standards which make the same act "legal" in some situations for some people, and "illegal" in similar situations for other people.

There is no real way to separate "social issues" from "economic issues". It is only about liberty. Liberty is completely entangled and inseparable. It is a tapestry that is damaged by trying to pull out any one thread as an exception. Violations of your "social rights" are also violations of your "economic rights", and vice versa. To pretend there is a dichotomy is dishonest and is only of benefit to those who with to rule and enslave others. Don't fall for it. Don't vote.

*
Donate?

Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?

Will a mugging wake a politician up to reality?

(And this is one of those times I actually have the meat of the post after the obligatory ABQ stuff.)

State Senator Mary Jane Garcia was mugged and robbed September 16 outside of a hotel in Albuquerque. So, although she seems to be recovering, she now considers herself a victim who is entitled to sue the hotel because they didn't have security guards patrolling around the hotel that day. Never mind that her safety is first and foremost her own responsibility.

She has said that as a result of the mugging she is more aware of the affects of criminal violence, and that she intends to be much more active in promoting "support for victims". She says she wants "women to be more aware of what they can do to protect themselves". Good. I expect to see her become very active in fighting the repeal of "laws" that make it harder for people to own and to carry weapons with them everywhere they go. If she does anything else, she is a liar and a hypocrite. And a typical statist.

Speaking of statists:

Some people can't tell the difference between being coerced and having someone else refuse to be coerced. It seems strange, but it's true.

My young daughter gets mad when she wants me to do something that I am not willing to do at the moment. I wanted to eat lunch today and she had a fit because she didn't want me to stop playing to eat. I told her she could keep playing but I needed to eat. My choice didn't really affect her in any way other than the fact that for a while she'd need to play alone. I had to assert my right to act for myself.

I have also had other people in my life whose attitudes were no more mature than that. As an example: one woman I was involved with insisted on going to karaoke with me, even though she hated going and did nothing but cry, complain, and whine (except when she was trying to start fights) while there. Obviously, I would have preferred she not go. In other circumstances, when she wanted to force me to go somewhere I didn't want to go or do something I was not willing to do, she would say "But you force me to go to karaoke with you and I HATE it!" No, I simply was going and she insisted on going along to make sure I didn't enjoy myself too much. Her choice. When I mentioned that there was a big difference between forcing someone to do something, and refusing to let someone force me to not do it, she would sulk.

The same is true of so many other people in "society". They hate guns so they try to claim it is an imposition on them if I carry one. They support the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs and claim it imposes on them if someone destroys themselves by abusing some substance. They claim that since they are forced to get government permits for certain activities, everyone else should have their liberty violated in the same way. It is a very childish attitude, to be sure.

*
Donate?

'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?

'Drug deal-gone-bad' or business-as-usual statism?

A man was shot multiple times and killed in what authorities are calling a suspected "drug deal-gone-bad" in Albuquerque.

I have worked in businesses where deals are made all the time. Mostly I worked in pet stores. I don't remember any neon tetra deals that "went bad". Why did none of those deals go bad and result in murders? Why do only "drug deals" seem to precipitate this kind of aggression? Oh, yeah: prohibition.

*
Donate?

Resistance is not futile

Resistance is not futile

A nine-year old Albuquerque girl says she was grabbed and put into a van, and that she escaped by jumping out and running. I'm not sure why, but I'm just a tiny bit suspicious of the story. However, I will take it at face value since it illustrates some truth, and since I have no real reason to doubt her.

Her detailed description of the man and his vehicle (a white man in his late 50s with a heavy build - dark hair; balding on top - a black beard - driving a white van with a taped up passenger side window) should make it easy to find him.

I'm glad she did not obey this adult. Kids need to be taught that not only is resistance NOT futile, it is essential. They need to be taught that cooperating with someone who wants to harm them is not the right thing to do. Resist smart by watching for opportunities and taking a chance. It is easier to prevent a situation than to escape once you have let a bad guy get control. The time to make a scene, gouge eyes, kick crotches, break things, and generally misbehave is before you are under the control of the ones who intend you harm. Do not allow yourselves to be herded into a room by a thug determined to take you hostage. Do not hesitate to hurt a kidnapper in any way you can.

Statists might balk a bit at this advice since it would be harder to brainwash children into accepting false differences between freelance monsters and those who work for The State than it is to get "adults" to fall for that particular lie.

*
Donate?

'Police brutality' protest in ABQ

'Police brutality' protest in ABQ

Yesterday dozens of people protested police brutality outside the Albuquerque Police Department Headquarters, as part of an annual event held on October 22. Specifically, they were protesting fatal shootings by officers, although this is only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of police brutality isn't fatal.

Anytime a person is grabbed, accosted, questioned, or "arrested" for doing something other than initiating force, fraud, theft, or possibly trespassing, he is a victim of police brutality.

And the tragic truth of the matter is some of those who were fatally shot by police needed to be shot. That it was a cop doing the shooting is beside the point.

Then these protesters watered down their stance even further by saying they are not "anti-cop". As the system is now set up, and until they implement my reforms, I am anti-cop. Any decent person has to be.

*
Donate?

'Government'- a hysterical overreaction

'Government'- a hysterical overreaction

The State (and its government) is a hysterical overreaction to overblown nonproblems that is then latched onto by evil power-hungry sociopaths for their own purposes, and is supported and cheered by pathetic, empty drones who seek to fill their need to be validated by attaching themselves to something and who want to win the favor of the Rulers.

This "overreaction factor" can be demonstrated more than adequately by stop signs and pot.

There is almost nowhere that a complete stop is necessary for safety. In almost every case, a motorist can see if the coast is clear and whether it is safe to proceed through the intersection without coming to a stop. If stopping is necessary, the sign doesn't change things at all. Stop signs are a hysterical overreaction to "Oh no! An intersection! What do I do?" Traffic signs have been demonstrated to cause a lot of accidents (directly and indirectly), and cities in Europe where such signs are being removed are seeing a huge decrease in delays, accidents, and congestion. Stop signs are a great money-stealing tool for The State, though.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to kidnap or kill people for possessing, smoking, or selling plants. None. The "laws" are much more dangerous and deadly than marijuana could ever possibly be. If "safety" were really the goal, the "laws" that permit the War on (some) Drugs would be repealed immediately. That they are not shows that whatever the goal may be, it has nothing to do with what's best for you or me. Pot was a nonproblem that hysterical imbeciles and control freaks used to feed their own pathetic addiction. An addiction that actually harms others who are not those addicted, unlike drugs. (The crime that is blamed on drugs is caused by prohibition in the vast majority of cases, and on anti-defense "laws" in almost the entire remainder of cases.)

This truth is also clearly demonstrated in the case of an erotic film festival being forced to look outside the city limits for a venue after Albuquerque "authorities" said that showing erotic movies is prohibited in some (apparently, most) areas of the city. I could understand (though not necessarily agree) if the event were showing the films at a drive-in theater right out in the open for all to see, but that is not the case. Additionally, a city official is saying "the city" is trying to figure out how to ban the censored show the event organizers have scheduled at the Sunshine Theater. It's a hysterical overreaction from busybodies with nothing better to do than to spend their time worrying about what others are doing. They should really get a better hobby.

*
Donate?

When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?

When is it right to shoot a kidnapper?


Video of an Albuquerque LEO shooting and killing a kidnapper has been released by the Albuquerque Police Department.

I agree with the APD that the cop did the right thing. As if my opinion matters.

What I would like to point out, though, is that it would have still been the right thing to do if the kidnapped woman had shot her attacker herself, had she been in possession of a gun ("legally" or not) instead of a cellphone.

It would have still been the right thing to do if some random passerby had shot the kidnapper if the situation had become evident. Whether the defender had State permission for the gun used in defense of life or not.

And, probably not popular, but true nonetheless, it would have still been the right thing (regardless of The State's response) had the kidnapper been a LEO "just doing his job", if that job included "arresting" a person doing something that is not wrong - is not causing harm to any other person- but just "illegal". No double standards.

*
Donate?

Public schools or education? Choose one.

Public schools or education? Choose one.

In Albuquerque news: Politicians just don't get it.

I just heard the Diane Denish "education" ad on the radio again. You know the one- where all the teachers' union members are pretending that government schooling has something to do with education, and where they claim that since Ms. Denish wants to throw tons of your stolen money at those government indoctrination camps it means that she "cares" about children. (It seems more like it means she is beholden to the teachers' union, to me.) Oh, and don't forget that she pushed to get more young inmates into the system earlier through the "pre-K" programs. Please. It almost makes me sick to realize how many people fall for the lie.

Government schools are BAD for children and make a mockery of education. As a wise man has long advocated: "[E]radicate the public schools ... empty out their buildings and raze them to the ground, so that not one stone is left standing on another, and sow salt on the ruins."

Not that Susana Martinez is any better, because she isn't. Socialism is never fundamentally questioned by either candidate. Separate school and state: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

DON'T VOTE. If you waste your time and your vote by voting for Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum you are lending an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system. If you vote you are agreeing to abide by the outcome. Just ignore The State in all its stupidity when at all possible. And elections for governor are one of the possibilities where you should exercise the "liberty option" and refuse to consent to the false "choice".

*
Donate?

What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?

What's worse- offending someone or trying to kill them?

The State fears nudity (in commoners, anyway) more than it dislikes aggression. Need proof?

An Albuquerque man supposedly showed up at a house, nude, and was seen by a teen girl inside. He also apparently tried to set fire to the girl's home.

Guess what he has been charged with. Not attempted arson, but "aggravated indecent exposure". What utter nonsense.

Nudity can't harm anyone in any way (unless you are the nude person in an environment unsuited for bare skin), but fire... burning someone's house while they are inside... that's a lot more real than "offense".

Humans need to get over their acquired fear of skin. It's really silly and harmful. And it distracts people from the serious problems. But I suppose the statists will claim that "no one" would really think there should be no "laws" against nudity.

*
Donate?

The emperor's clothes never change

The emperor's clothes never change


The emperor's new clothes. They are the same as his old clothes. Imaginary. He has always been completely naked, and this set of "new clothes" is no different than the ones he has always claimed to be wearing.

Many people pretend to see the clothes when it's "their guy" walking around, yet bring attention to the nakedness when it's "the other side's guy" wearing nothing. The emperor is really the entire notion of government- not an individual holding an office, and his "clothes" are the imaginary cloak of legitimacy some people seem to desperately want to see covering the naked aggression that gives this murderous emperor his concrete form.

The cloak of legitimacy is not real, and never has been. I'm one kid who sees that the emperor is naked and tells the truth about it. Yet some people want me to hush. It embarrasses them to have it pointed out since they get their self-worth by following the emperor around, praising him and his "fine garments" and "necessary" (evil) deeds. They blame the messenger for the discomfort of what they don't want to see. They may refuse to see, but it doesn't change the reality.

* * *

In Albuquerque news: A five-month long, and undoubtedly very expensive, investigation by that naked blood-sucking emperor has resulted in nine people kidnapped on "drug charges" in western New Mexico. I'd be interested in cost per hostage (or political prisoner, if you prefer), itemized in detail. If the emperor were truly interested in putting an end to "drug trafficking" as he claims, he could end it today by calling off the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. Because he doesn't, we know he is a liar as well as a kidnapper and a murderer.

*
Donate?

Government-givers

Government-givers


A symposium being held in Albuquerque will educate judges, LEOs, and tribal leaders about a new treaty... oops, I mean "law", that affects crime on reservations.

The Federal government paternalistically "gave more authority" to Native tribes to deal with
crime on their reservations with the Tribal Law and Order Act, signed by the president last
summer. And the new "law" also guarantees the feds will keep records of all criminal cases
from the reservations that federal prosecutors decline to pursue. Nothing like getting more individuals into that federal database to increase our liberty and prosperity.

How benevolent of those White Eyes from Washington DC who always speak with two tongues. "Giving" something that is not theirs to give to those who don't need it.

Unless it "gives" tribes the authority to nullify "laws" of lesser, non-consensual groups, such as the federal and state governments, then it is much ado about nothing. But then, the tribes have always had that authority. They should exercise it. As should any voluntary group of individuals.

*
Donate?

Decreasing your local entropy

Decreasing your local entropy


I am a anti-entropist. I constantly try to decrease my local entropy while knowing that in the Universe as a whole, it must increase. I see where people have messed something up or broken it, and I want to fix it even if it is not my responsibility. And I often do.

That is part of why I dislike The State. It breaks the natural order and harms individuals. It is chaos of the worst kind masquerading as order.

Statists lie and pretend that they are fighting entropy, but instead they are accelerating it. Instead of letting human interactions naturally crystallize into the best, most stable, and mutually beneficial forms, The State prevents that spontaneous order and uses "laws" to make a mess of everything; to divorce actions from justified consequences. Then supporters of The State claim that the only alternative is chaos and death. They lie. I do not support their false beliefs. I will not even silently pretend the statists are right to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

* * * *

In Albuquerque news: I've mentioned the counterproductive drive to "do something" previously. The urge rears its empty head once again.

Some bikers in Albuquerque were recruited by an anti-heroin group to get the message out to teens that "heroin is here, it's in on our streets and in our schools". Seriously, I suspect the teens were the first to know. Instead of "breaking the silence" and telling teens what they already know, why not tell them the truth.

Tell them that abusing drugs, or anything, is a stupid thing to do. Tell them that they own their body and have a right to do anything to it they want, including destroying themselves, BUT no one has any obligation to rescue them from their stupid choices. And tell them that The State will kill them to "save them" from drugs, if given half a chance. That's the message that needs to get out there.

*
Donate?

Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged

Man stabs man and gets 'creatively' charged


Sometimes, The State's actions seem like the set-up for a joke. After a church service in Albuquerque, a man (who happens to be an ex-convict) stabbed a man who was approaching to greet him. Now, when I used to attend church, I will admit the "greeters" got on my nerves pretty bad a few times, but I was never seriously tempted to stab one.

Obviously, the stabber was soon caught and charged with "aggravated assault and battery with a deadly weapon" (although I still fail to see the point in charging a person with 2 crimes from one act - since I am not afflicted with the insanity of statism). That's not the main stupidity on display here, though. The stabber was also charged with three counts of child abuse because some children saw the stabbing!

Fine. If that's the way they want to play. Then every cop who kicks in a door in a drug raid, especially when it turns out to be the wrong address, needs to be charged with child abuse from this day forward, if any children were present. If they are not so charged, then the statists are exposing themselves (another serious offense) as hypocrites in the extreme.

*
Donate?

In touch with my caveman roots

I am a primitive. I am still too impressed with cordage, blades, and fire. More impressed than seems proper, by modern standards, anyway. There are so many "bigger" things out there now.

Yet, when I see some cordage I always need to examine it. I even feel the urge to collect and keep inferior cordage, like nylon, that I find discarded. I can make my own cordage, but that just makes me appreciate it more. I know how much work goes into it.

And I love knives. A knife is always a good gift in my opinion. And is a nice find. I even find pieces of metal and think about whether they would make a good blade in a survival situation. And I'll chip stones just to see what sort of edge it makes, and how useful it would be.

Then there's Fire. I love to sit beside a small fire I made with primitive methods and watch it flicker and burn. I love the way it sounds and smells. And the things it can be used for.

I would make a good caveman.

The State asks stupid questions

The State asks stupid questions


I see another incident in the Albuquerque news that illustrates a point I have made many times before.

A man was cleaning his gun and accidentally shot his 4-year old son and his mother. Both survived.

The cops admit it was an accidental shooting, but are sending the case to prosecutors to determine whether negligence played a part in the accident.

I can save a lot of taxpayer money right now: Yes, obviously and positively negligence did play a huge part in the accident. Guns don't shoot innocent people by themselves, and people who are not negligent in some way don't shoot innocent people either. So, save yourself the trouble of trying to appear to be "doing something" as prosecutors.

Now that I've settled that question, the other question remains, what is in it for The State if they decide to make a case out of this accident? Money and power, of course. That's all it ever comes down to. Not every accident (if any) needs to become a criminal case and be punished. I don't think this man intended to shoot his relatives, and making an example of him will not prevent this type of accident in the future. Not even in one case. I'll guarantee you the man has learned a valuable lesson and will be more careful from now on (if The State "allows" him to own guns after this). If anyone has a case against this man it is the people he shot. Not The State.

*

Donate?

ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites

ABQ 13th in percentage of tax-parasites


Albuquerque has the dubious distinction of being one of the cities in America where more than 20% of its residents work for government at some level. Albuquerque comes in at number 13, with 21.58% of its workforce being tax-parasites. I'll bet if the accounting considered those "private sector" jobs that could not exist without supporting some government function the percentage would be much higher. But we'll ignore that for now.

That means that the rest of the people in Albuquerque, almost four out of five, are carrying those freeloaders. There is a better than one in five chance that you are parasitically living off your neighbors and the fruits of their production. But no one seriously considers taxation to be theft and those who live on government paychecks to be parasites. That's right. "No one" does.

*
Donate?

I am 'no one'

I am 'no one'


I have discovered that according to the statists, I do not exist. That should mean they don't expect me to pay taxes or be bound by their "laws". Right?

What proof do I have that I am a non-existent "no one" to the statists? Consider these statements I have heard many times over the course of the years coming from them:

"No one wants to live without police."

"No one wants to live in a town without code enforcement."

"No one wants mentally ill people to be able to have guns."

"No one wants felons to be able to legally own guns."

"No one wants to completely end taxation."

"No one seriously thinks it would be a good idea to shut down the government."

"No one would want to do without government free [sic] roads and free [sic] schools for the children."

"No one really wants to make all drugs legal."

"No one wants to remove government oversight from businesses that make our food and drugs."

In all the above statements, I AM "no one". I have advocated all of those very things in the virtual pages of The Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner in the past year and a half, and in my blog for years before that.
Are you also "no one" in at least some of the above?

*
Donate?

More of those 'rare' bad apples?

More of those 'rare' bad apples?


An Albuquerque cop is a "person of interest" in his wife's 2007 shooting death and may be indicted by a grand jury early next year. And other ABQ cops, rather than just protecting this cop with words of support and denial, may have actually destroyed evidence that could have convicted him. "Thin blue line" indeed.

Do you really want these people to have "legal" access to weapons you are denied the liberty (in violation of your rights) to own and to carry? Do you really think cops are more honest and trustworthy than you or me? I'm not saying he committed the murder, but obviously some people know him and suspect he would be capable of it. I don't want that sort of person to be around me if I am forbidden defensive weaponry at least equal to his. And I certainly don't want him to have any "authority".

I keep wondering- what is it about all these cases involving cops taking so many years to get prosecuted? Preferential treatment again? There has got to be a separation of court and State. IF justice is to be the goal.


*
Donate?

Do accused cops get preferential treatment?

Do accused cops get preferential treatment?


An Albuquerque LEO accused of raping a young relative on several occasions, both before and after she was 13 years old, and then intimidating her into remaining silent, has been placed on "administrative leave" after being indicted. He can't carry a weapon (they mean "legally", I suppose) and can't investigate crimes as a cop for the duration. I wonder if he still gets to receive his duly-earned stolen money "paycheck" until he is either found guilty or cleared, or if his "leave" dries up that well.

I have no idea if he actually did it or not, but I do tend to suspect he is not getting the same treatment at the hands of The State that someone like you or me would be getting if we were facing the same accusations. It sure seems like he is getting preferential treatment to me.

Even people with supposed images of young people on their computers, who aren't even suspected of actually touching or photographing anyone themselves, get harsher treatment- without delay- at the hands of The State than this cop is getting. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Only, some ganders are more "equal" than we geese because they have a badge.

*
Donate?

Do-it-yourself statism

Do-it-yourself statism


If you are rich and think "the rich", including yourself, should pay higher taxes, what is stopping you from sending big checks to government right now? Why do you need a "law" ordering you to do it? As long as you don't force people who have a different idea of how to use their own money to go along, you are within your rights to waste your money however you want. (And make no mistake, sending the money to government is a waste unless you like bloated organizations which spend little of the money on the actual work they claim the money is going toward.) Once you start telling others how they must use their money and advocating "laws" to force them to do as you wish, you become an evil parasite; deserving of a parasite's fate.

This "do-it-yourselfism" could even be adapted to other areas of life.

If you think you have a "right" to control what your neighbor does with his own property, why not walk up to his door and try to force him, personally, to do as you wish? Why take the pathetic coward's way and send heavily armed thugs in your place? Sending thugs doesn't absolve you of your evil act in the slightest, no matter what you may pretend. You are just hiding your evil behind your hired goons.

If you hate for people to own and to carry guns, try to take them away yourself. And do it without a gun so as to not be a hypocrite. Pass all the counterfeit "laws" you want, but no one is obligated to obey a "law" that is counter to natural human rights- one of the most basic of which is the right to possess the best available tools for self-defense, and use them when needed against ANY attack.

If you support the War on (some) Drugs, throw away all your medications. Every single one of them. Don't take drugs. Then physically attack any family member or friend who doesn't subscribe to your silliness. Order them to only eat and drink things you approve of under threat of death. Don't send others to kick in doors in the middle of the night. Do it yourself if you approve. There are probably lots of people who could provide you with a list of houses in Albuquerque the cops are probably planning to conduct an illegal early-morning raid against. Put your life on the line for your beliefs, and accept the consequences of your acts.

Yes, by embracing collectivism - and attempting to force it on people who are too sensible for such simplistic nonsense - you show yourself to be a bad person. But at least you would be an "honest" bad person if you openly admit your goals and carry them out yourself instead of hiding behind the myth of the legitimacy of government.

*
A reader suggests, in the vein of a "gaggle of geese" a name for a group of cops: "a thug". I can imagine it now... "Did you hear that thug of cops over at the donut shop all arguing among themselves over how to split up the latest drug bust loot?"

*

Donate?

Another aircraft in the news

Another aircraft in the news


Speaking of aircraft troubles, the Albuquerque Police Department's aerial tyranny unit has been used to drop a football into a high school homecoming game in Rio Rancho. Now an APD employee is in trouble.

What's the problem?

A government agency which claims "authority" and is based upon coercion and paid for through theft, was used to promote a collectivist sports event (which would not necessarily be a bad thing if it were completely voluntary and paid for voluntarily) at another government institution which trains people to accept "authority" and is also based upon coercion and paid for through theft. Seems like a match made in some mythical realm to me. Complaining about this seems like complaining that your left foot goes everywhere your right foot goes.

Why worry that "it doesn't send a good message to the public", who might think "we probably could have used our resources in a better way"? That money is not your resources. If that is a real worry to you, stop stealing. And as for "a better way", all things considered I'd much rather have the APD eating donuts in a donut shop or visiting football games instead of enforcing counterfeit "laws" against my neighbors. It would keep the harm to a minimum.

*
Donate?

Aerial trespasser shot at

Aerial trespasser shot at


An Albuquerque gas balloon pilot has been shot at as his balloon drifted over a corn field north of Lubbock, Texas.

If his balloon was over the property of another, then he was trespassing, and his act of calling enforcers to the scene was probably not justified. Of course, it wasn't particularly nice of the shooter to fire on the trespassing balloon, either. This is why I often include trespassing as an act that can justify a forceful response, but usually with the qualifier "sometimes" attached. I do think that there should be some ill-intent involved before shooting is the appropriate response to a trespasser.

A lost person who is not damaging your property should probably just be told to leave, or escorted off. I have led lost people from my property in the past and made it into a pleasant experience for us both. (And not all of them were cute girls, either.) There is no need, in most instances, to get twitchy about it.

I wonder if the violent response to the balloon may have been an unintended consequence of the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. If the corn field held a cash crop made artificially profitable by prohibition, an exaggerated response might have been inevitable, since discovery would have bad consequences (not that shooting at someone is the smartest way to avoid LEO attention).

A balloonist or two drifting over your land are technically trespassing, since I don't buy the lie that the sky is State property. However, I would tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as they weren't government employees. I don't think balloons can be steered all that well, and I don't think there is any harmful intent in most cases. However, I wouldn't support the arrest of a person who thought differently about their property rights.

*

Donate

Police chief on "code enforcement"

Here is the police chief's response to my column against "code enforcement" (with my comments in parentheses):

Some residents have bridled at the enforcement of the city codes while others
insist that it's long overdue.

("some residents", or only me?)

We've all seen cities in which there were no minimum standards for neighbors to
observe, where junked cars cause traffic hazards in the streets,...

(No, I have never seen a free city such as you describe. Where are these places? Why is a "junked car" more of a hazard than a 2011 Mercedes parked in the street? I can easily drive around either one, just as I do all the cop cars parked in the street at that one particular house in town. Why are these parked cop cars not a hazard to traffic?)

...where buildings lacking in repair drag down the property values of whole
neighborhoods,...

(So, buy them, fix them up, and raise the property values without using the threat of coercion against the owner. If they are dragging down property values, they should be very affordable. Right?)

...where mosquitoes breed disease,...

(I already addressed the real problems like this in my original article. Using voluntary cooperation rather than brute force.)

...and where homeless animals wander in hunger and misery through their short
and violent lives.

(So let people shoot or adopt the "homeless animals", once again solving the problem without spending one dime of stolen "tax" money or using coercion against anyone. If the animals truly are homeless they are the property of no one and these acts would not violate anyone's rights the way the city's methods do.)

A community like that is not were anyone would choose to live and not something
that the residents of Farwell would ever accept.

(Really? If that's true who are these "some residents" who have "bridled" over your enforcement emphasis? A free community, free of tax parasites who feel it is OK for them to trespass and violate property rights in others ways is exactly where I would choose to live and what I would enthusiastically embrace, not just "accept". Don't assume you understand me, or can speak for me, you tyrant.)

The codes of any city are not designed to establish a dictatorial rule over
citizens, nor would there be any benefit to the city if they did.

(They may not be "designed to establish a dictatorial rule", but that is the real world result, isn't it? And there is a benefit to "the city" at the expense of the residents: money and power. You wouldn't be doing it if this were not the case. And don't lie and claim that isn't true.)

Farwell's officers are only attempting to perform the minimum duty of any
government, that is to ensure that every individual can live in peace and
harmony with his neighbors.

(That is NOT "the minimum duty of any government"; protecting the rights of everyone from being violated by anyone is the minimum duty AND also the maximum duty. It is the ONLY legitimate duty possible for any government. This "code enforcement" nonsense actually violates that duty. Plus, using coercion and threats of violence are not ways to promote peace and harmony. Respecting property rights, and all other rights, of all individuals, even when they do things that are within their rights but that you don't approve of, are the only way to ensure peace and harmony. Your rights end where someone else's begin, no matter what you want. Your enforcement results in suspicion, discord, and could even result in actual violence.)

The citizen who finds a neighbor is intruding onto his property through his
failure to observe even the minimum level of repair or hygiene that might be
expected should not have to deal with the problem himself.

(Why not deal with it himself? That's his job, and no one else's, if it is something that should legitimately be dealt with. Some people might just need to grow up and either take responsibility for themselves or live with their cowardice. And a big part of being a responsible human is accepting that there are some things that are absolutely none of your business.)

Residents can be assured that code enforcement is intended to accomplish no
more than that level of law and order and mutual respect that are the foundation
of any happy community.

(No thank you. I have seen the results of "law and order" and the mass graves that result, and I want no part of it. There can be no mutual respect as long as one party thinks programs such as this are acceptable and OK.)

Farwell Police Chief LK [name withheld to protect the guilty]

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad

Absent principles, power does not have to 'corrupt' to be bad


Thank your lucky stars, or at least the nature of reality, that I don't have political power and that I'm a libertarian. If I had the power and I believed the lie that political power gives a person (or group of people) the right or the authority to impose their opinions on others who are harming no one (in other words, if I were as evil, narcissistic, and delusional as past and current congresscritters and presidents), what "laws" would I impose?

First I would make it illegal to mow lawns. Probably outlaw the disgusting things altogether. Native species look better (in my opinion), take less resources and effort to keep alive, and are more sensible. Nor do they "go kudzu" on you. I'd probably outlaw all exotic species of outdoor plants, other than food crops. If it didn't grow right here 600 years ago, get rid of it or move it indoors.

Next I'd make it illegal to go out of your house without carrying a functional and loaded gun. There's no excuse for it anyway. If you can't be trusted with a gun, you simply can't be trusted. Period.

Then, littering would be a capital offense. In fact there would be a bounty on litterers. And since everyone would be required to be armed there would be no excuse to not collect.

Plus, I'd look after my own financial concerns. Everyone would be required to buy multiple copies of all my books, assuming that as a statist monster I would bother writing any books. I certainly wouldn't be writing the same ones.

The nation's pastimes would not escape my notice, either. The FOX network would be given a choice: put Firefly back on the air with an adequate budget and full cooperation with the cast and crew's desires and needs, and air it in the best timeslot imaginable, or lose your FCC license. (Yeah, I'd still love the show, I might just be rooting for the Feds in this case.)

There are probably a lot more nasty and evil things I would do, given a complete lack of principles and the power to "legally" damage the lives of others. I have strong opinions, as do most people, but I know my opinions are just that- opinions, and it would be wrong of me to impose my wishes on others who are not attacking, defrauding, stealing, or trespassing.

Yet, none of those things I mentioned are any more insane or harmful than actual "laws" passed by politicians and bureaucrats (and enforced by LEOs) in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Washington DC, and supported by regular "citizens". I mean, really, killing people for having some dried leaves in their possession? Who's the monster?

*

Donate

Three schools get new warning labels

Three schools get new warning labels


Three Albuquerque schools were tagged with graffiti described as "racist" and "sexually graphic". Since I think "public" schools probably deserve warning labels anyway, maybe this graffiti can serve that purpose.

After all, government indoctrination centers- "schools"- do serve as racism dissemination centers, and help reinforce it in the inmates.

And, like it or not, "public schools" are where most kids will learn about sex in one way or another if parents delay artificially the natural lessons they should be teaching at appropriate levels of physical, emotional, and mental development (which are far younger than parents might want to admit). Besides, "public" schools are the reproductive organs of The State.

And since these "schools" have no real owner who was harmed, who would seek restitution?

I don't think it is right or nice to tag or otherwise alter property that is not yours, but government schools are dependent upon making people believe that violations of property rights are OK under certain circumstances. I find it ironic that their supporters complain when people learn the lesson too well and act on it.

*

Donate?

"Code enforcement"

This is my latest column (10-7-2010) in the local paper, which has no website to link to:

I care how Farwell looks. I probably care more than the vast majority of Farwell residents, and I can offer concrete proof of my concern, backed up by my actions, to those who doubt me. However, I care about liberty even more.

All socialism has the myth of "the common good", also known as "the general welfare", at its heart [and nothing but socialism can result from it]. Socialism is wrong, even when you approve and even if you benefit from it. It places the desires of "society", or even just a portion of society, above the inalienable rights of the individual.

So I am particularly appalled by the recent emphasis on "code enforcement". That's socialist-speak for "Violating your property rights on behalf of The Majority using the threat of force". It is wrong even when it has been made "legal". Liberty is sometimes messy, but it is still preferable to, and the ethical opposite of, "neat and orderly" socialism.

I understand that some people get offended when a neighbor has an unkempt lawn or a junky car in their yard. Yet, what another person does with their own property, even to the point of destroying it, is no one else's business as long as no one else is being harmed- and being offended doesn't qualify as harm. If a neighbor's junk is winding up on your property, or causing you harm through attracted vermin or mosquito breeding, you have the right to take action to solve that particular problem or seek restitution. Until that happens their property is none of your business, no matter what.

"Codes" are just a way of taking control of a person's property away from them and giving it to a mythical entity called "the majority". It is wrong even if you like it and even if you can come up with reasonable-sounding justifications. I repudiate this violation of rights. Don't enforce the "codes" against my neighbors on my behalf.

Update: Check out the police chief's response, along with my added comments here.

Deadly ABQ motorcycle crash illustrates flaws of statism

Deadly ABQ motorcycle crash illustrates flaws of statism


Two people who were "speeding" and not wearing helmets were killed in a motorcycle crash in Albuquerque Saturday afternoon. Some control-freak types see this as an excuse to allow government to control what people do with their own bodies, for "the common good". They may claim that injuries cost "society" if the person isn't insured. They may claim that as long as government "owns" the road it can make the rules. And in making these claims they would be missing the point.

First of all there should be no government welfare that provides medical care through coercive financing. If charities, hospitals, or philanthropists want to donate time or money to take care of people who can't afford it, they can. Yet they wouldn't be forced to help those who they feel were injured by making life choices they don't personally like if they don't wish to. Anti-gun extremists could deny care to those who injure themselves in shooting accidents or while hunting, and those who feel everyone should wear a helmet could deny funds to those injured while not wearing one.

Second, government doesn't really own roads since government owns NOTHING it did not first steal or "buy" (or maintain) with money it stole. Thieves do not get to control the use of the property they stole. Private road owners could set any requirements for using their roads they wish (as long as their "requirement" doesn't violate a basic human right- which is never up for negotiation), and their customers could choose to use a competitor if they don't like the rules.

Since these conditions are not met it shows deeper problems that need to be addressed before the finer details can be debated in any meaningful way. That a cure reveals another disease doesn't discredit the original cure; it shows something else that needs to be addressed before the problem is truly solved.

*

Donate?

Win ANY argument...

Recently on Examiner I have seen ads for some product that promises to help you "win any argument".

Isn't that counterproductive? I don't want to simply win any argument. I want to be right. If I am wrong I want to be shown where and why I am wrong so that I can change my opinion and be right. Simply winning any argument won't help me do that in any way.

Plus, as long as the opposition doesn't run away, I can already win any argument that I am confident enough to get in to.

Only ignorance justifies socialism

Only ignorance justifies socialism


I'm still mulling over recent thoughts. I understand that "the majority" in America, "conservatives" and "liberals", now support socialism, although they deny it is socialism. Popularity or acceptance doesn't make something right. Property rights are inconvenient if they would get in the way of the imaginary collective's wishes. So, for one example, we have property "codes". Living on stolen property is acceptable as long as you call the stolen goods "social security" or "farm subsidies". Or "a paycheck" if you work for the government in any capacity. I try really hard to understand.

I can understand supporting socialism- theft and coercion excused by "the common good"- as long as you don't know any better. Ignorance is a legitimate excuse. Perhaps you have never really thought about it. That's understandable. Life throws a lot of things your way that must be thought about and considered immediately for survival. Philosophy- right and wrong- gets put on the back burner or a religion gets substituted for real thought. I've been there.

However, once someone has pointed out the truth you must make a choice. Pretending you don't have to make a choice is the same as making the choice for socialism. You must either admit you approve of theft and coercion as long as it benefits you personally, and is perhaps done by a clown in a government costume, or you have to turn from things you now know to be wrong. And if you approve or accept theft and coercion in these supposedly limited circumstances, how can you really condemn them in "other" circumstances that are really not as different as you pretend?

You do have a choice to make, if you haven't already made it, and your choice shows what kind of person you truly are. Your choice and your consistency in living that choice will determine the future of Albuquerque (or your town, wherever that may be) and the world. If you accept theft and coercion, knowing what you know, even if you have a different opinion about it, then at least be honest enough to admit where you stand so the rest of us will know you are a potential threat and can watch you closely. But maybe you will be brave enough, adult enough, and generous enough to embrace liberty. Will you stand up for liberty even if it is inconvenient?

Let's spread liberty around the globe. Nothing happens that doesn't happen one individual at a time.

*
Donate

Consistency

Consistency. Staying true to the principles you claim to value. It is a rare thing anymore. Consistency doesn't necessarily mean you are right; you be can perfectly consistently wrong.
However, if you are inconsistent, you are obviously wrong somewhere.

Saying you love liberty, but then supporting "laws" that destroy liberty for some other people who are not harming anyone is not consistent. Looking down on a welfare mom while collecting your own farm subsidies or Social Security is not consistent. Saying that people should be "free to choose", until they choose things that offend or scare you, is not consistent.

Yet, while I have met people who seem consistently "libertarian" (something that can be done without much effort, as long as you overcome your conditioning and think matters through), I have yet to find anyone who is a completely consistent "authoritarian". They always make exceptions for themselves, and often for their friends. This is how you can tell that they are wrong somewhere, and that deep down they know it.

The inconsistencies that make a person take on authoritarian attributes confuse me. I respect consistency. I may hate a person's stance on a particular issue, but if they are completely consistent, I can at least respect the fact that they are not a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean that everyone who claims the label "libertarian" is consistent, just that it is more obvious and glaringly ridiculous when they aren't. All rights for everyone, everywhere, for all times without exception. That's where consistency dwells. Any "but" shows the flaws that are still present in the person's thinking.

*Note: This was previously published in The State Line Tribune a while back.

Clinging to their favorite crisis and avoiding solutions

Clinging to their favorite crisis and avoiding solutions

I am sometimes surprised that when offered a real, workable solution to problems which have been worried about for years, people pretend the solution was never offered. They don't even skip a beat in their continued hand-wringing over their favorite "crisis".

Here in my little town the school superintendant is upset over the utter failure of public schools and is asking people to contact the legislators to get them to implement some symbolic gesture that will solve nothing. He wants to make the legislators proclaim public education, and funding those "schools", to be a priority. I have brought up the point in the local paper that socialist schools are the problem, and getting government out of the mix is the solution. I know he reads the paper. He pretends there is no viable solution other than more of the same.

Here in my little town there is a sudden new emphasis on "code enforcement" (because a new enforcer was hired and something must be found for it to do), which I have pointed out is collectivist-speak for "Violating your property rights for 'the common good' using the threat of force". I do more to help clean up around this town than the vast majority of the residents combined, and can prove it to any doubters. I care how this town looks. But I use no force or coercion. In my latest column in the local paper I stated "Do not enforce 'codes' against my neighbors on my behalf". The police chief countered with some drivel about how without code enforcement, our town would be ugly and dangerous and no place anyone would want to live. In fact, he completely glossed over or ignored my point that "the common good" (or "the general welfare" as it is sometimes called) is at the very heart of all socialism and that nothing but socialism can come from it.

Every day I address the problems of Albuquerque in this column and offer solutions that would make those problems a thing of the past. I would be surprised if my opinions didn't get lost in the noise of such a big city, but here in my little town there is no excuse.

I realize I am working from a false premise. I assume that people are more like me than they really are. I assume they see a problem and want to actually solve it. Yet, I have known this isn't the case for many years. People fear or ignore solutions because they enjoy keeping the crisis around for entertainment. It gives them a purpose. They enjoy complaining and suggesting band-aid "fixes" that will only make the problem worse in the long run. It keeps providing them with crisis fodder in a way that a real solution would not.

So, I have a question with regard to this little town where I reside: Do I continue to point out the previously-offered solution again and again to counter each new collectivist whine, or do I rest content in the knowledge that the solution has been offered if they care to open their eyes and look, and move on to the next issue?

*
Donate?