A tale of two scam artists
There is a scam artist at work in Albuquerque who is targeting small businesses; talking people out of money for fake advertising for nonexistent events.
Yet, there is a much more serious scam artist targeting those same small businesses, and the larger ones as well, in addition to every resident. And this scam doesn't rely on smooth talk, but on the threat of violence to those who don't fork it over. The police will never look for this particular scam artist, since he collects the money that they get to take home.
The freelance scam artist is being sought, though. The State just doesn't like the competition.
*
Donate?
Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Friday, November 26, 2010
Trailer park to kids: 'Go play in the ditch."
Trailer park to kids: 'Go play in the ditch."
Property rights collide in Albuquerque again. A dad is upset that the trailer park manager suggests that resident kids cross a street and play beside a ditch rather than on the trailer park's streets or around other people's trailers.
I can see both sides. If kids are trespassing on the other resident's properties, or blocking traffic by playing in the streets, I can see that the other residents would get upset and demand that the manager "do something". On the other hand, to suggest that the kids cross a busier street to play in a ditch is just absurd. I wonder if he got permission from the ditch-property owner before making that suggestion.
The trailer park owner has a right to restrict use of the property that is not rented to a specific individual, and has an obligation to defend the property rights of those who rent from him. The renters have a right to defend their own rented property from trespassers of any age. Not every right you possess should necessarily be exercised in every situation. Probably this wouldn't have become an issue had the kids respected property rights to begin with, so the parents should emphasize that lesson, too. Of course, that means teaching the parents about property rights first.
I suggest a solution: Let the parents of the kids make an agreement among themselves as to letting the kids play in their respective yards and any other yards that might be offered for the purpose. Maybe there are some adjacent yards that could be used, with the owners' permission, for team sports. Then try to get the kids to agree to stay off other property and off the streets as much as possible, and inform them of the consequences if they don't.
*
Donate?
Property rights collide in Albuquerque again. A dad is upset that the trailer park manager suggests that resident kids cross a street and play beside a ditch rather than on the trailer park's streets or around other people's trailers.
I can see both sides. If kids are trespassing on the other resident's properties, or blocking traffic by playing in the streets, I can see that the other residents would get upset and demand that the manager "do something". On the other hand, to suggest that the kids cross a busier street to play in a ditch is just absurd. I wonder if he got permission from the ditch-property owner before making that suggestion.
The trailer park owner has a right to restrict use of the property that is not rented to a specific individual, and has an obligation to defend the property rights of those who rent from him. The renters have a right to defend their own rented property from trespassers of any age. Not every right you possess should necessarily be exercised in every situation. Probably this wouldn't have become an issue had the kids respected property rights to begin with, so the parents should emphasize that lesson, too. Of course, that means teaching the parents about property rights first.
I suggest a solution: Let the parents of the kids make an agreement among themselves as to letting the kids play in their respective yards and any other yards that might be offered for the purpose. Maybe there are some adjacent yards that could be used, with the owners' permission, for team sports. Then try to get the kids to agree to stay off other property and off the streets as much as possible, and inform them of the consequences if they don't.
*
Donate?
Libertarianism true love of freedom
Libertarianism true love of freedom
(My first column in the Clovis News Journal)
(My first column in the Clovis News Journal)
How does a kid grow up in a deeply conservative background, and become libertarian? Probably by taking those teachings to heart and realizing there can be no double standards without compromising the principles he was taught.
By internalizing the lesson that if someone is doing something you believe they shouldn't be doing- unless they are attacking, stealing, defrauding, or possibly trespassing- you have no right to do more than point out that you think they are doing wrong, ask them to reconsider their actions, and then let them make their own mistakes. You can't fix a minor wrong by committing a major wrong.
By realizing that there is no one else to blame when you choose to do the wrong thing and it goes badly.
By coming to the knowledge that if it is wrong to attack, kidnap, steal, and murder, it changes nothing if the acts are committed by people who work for The State and who call the acts "airport security", "arrest", "taxation", and "war".
By realizing you can't protect individual rights and property rights, the only legitimate justifications for any government, by violating those same rights in any way.
I was libertarian, with conservative tendencies, long before I knew what the word "libertarian" meant. I was called an "individualist". Once I began to really consider my beliefs, I began to eliminate the "conservative" inconsistencies that I had held on to. Like dominoes, they fell and toppled others as they went. Down went the racism; the nationalism; the hunger for punitive, false justice. Down went the support for The War on Drugs. I'm not saying that every non-libertarian has these same flaws, but these were mine. Other people have their own.
I came to see that you can't love liberty if you allow these things to persist in your life. Liberty is not a buffet where you can pick the parts you like for yourself, but toss away the rest to deny others their choice. That was a hard thing to learn.
So, when a jail inmate is said to be accidentally released from the county jail (or maybe not), or when the military wants to buzz regional private property, I try to dig below the emotion and rhetoric to get to the foundation. Such as, why was the shoplifter in jail rather than working to pay restitution? And, why does the military need even more land over which to train for a military occupation (or two, or ...?) which should never have begun? See, getting to the root clears up a lot of things.
By internalizing the lesson that if someone is doing something you believe they shouldn't be doing- unless they are attacking, stealing, defrauding, or possibly trespassing- you have no right to do more than point out that you think they are doing wrong, ask them to reconsider their actions, and then let them make their own mistakes. You can't fix a minor wrong by committing a major wrong.
By realizing that there is no one else to blame when you choose to do the wrong thing and it goes badly.
By coming to the knowledge that if it is wrong to attack, kidnap, steal, and murder, it changes nothing if the acts are committed by people who work for The State and who call the acts "airport security", "arrest", "taxation", and "war".
By realizing you can't protect individual rights and property rights, the only legitimate justifications for any government, by violating those same rights in any way.
I was libertarian, with conservative tendencies, long before I knew what the word "libertarian" meant. I was called an "individualist". Once I began to really consider my beliefs, I began to eliminate the "conservative" inconsistencies that I had held on to. Like dominoes, they fell and toppled others as they went. Down went the racism; the nationalism; the hunger for punitive, false justice. Down went the support for The War on Drugs. I'm not saying that every non-libertarian has these same flaws, but these were mine. Other people have their own.
I came to see that you can't love liberty if you allow these things to persist in your life. Liberty is not a buffet where you can pick the parts you like for yourself, but toss away the rest to deny others their choice. That was a hard thing to learn.
So, when a jail inmate is said to be accidentally released from the county jail (or maybe not), or when the military wants to buzz regional private property, I try to dig below the emotion and rhetoric to get to the foundation. Such as, why was the shoplifter in jail rather than working to pay restitution? And, why does the military need even more land over which to train for a military occupation (or two, or ...?) which should never have begun? See, getting to the root clears up a lot of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)