Mother Nature, Bring it on!

I hate to admit it, but I love a good crisis (or potential crisis). Not in the "never let a good crisis go to waste" way the thugs of the fe(de)ral government love a crisis, though. They love a crisis because it gives them an excuse to violate the liberty and the rights of others. They love the harm it does to others and the panic that it causes and the power they are able to grab in the wake of the crisis.

I love a crisis because it makes me feel more alive and challenges me in a way I find invigorating. The crisis can be a purely personal thing that doesn't even involve other people at all. I wish no damage on anyone. Well, no one who is innocent, anyway.

I was thinking about this tonight in relation to the huge winter storm that is supposedly bearing down on a big chunk of North America. Even though I am on the southern edge of the storm path and not expecting anything very crisis-like in this area it is fun to think about.

The thought of a big storm with impassible roads and power outages is very exciting for me. Mostly because I feel prepared to handle it, and have lived through similar things before with no problem. I even enjoy the slight "inconveniences". It's an adventure!

There is an exception, though. I hate financial crises. This is because I feel inadequate and unable to handle those. Money hears me coming and runs away. I guess it all depends on how well you are able to weather a particular storm as to whether it is a fearful thing or an adventure.

*

Donate or buy my books to help me through my ongoing financial crisis.

"Pro-life" people alienate me

I get really tired of running into "pro-life" people who refuse to discuss anything relating to liberty until the "question" of abortion is resolved the way they want it.

To balk at any move toward liberty simply because we can't agree on abortion is insane. Let's get rid of all the liberty-crushing counterfeit "laws" first, and then we can work out the details on abortion.

The "pro-lifers" won't even discuss anything without the ridiculous insistence that everything, all good and all evil, flows from- and revolves around- the issue of abortion.

I am against abortion, especially as a form of birth control, but am also against government getting involved. If that's the way the "pro-lifers" want it they might just make me change sides. They may just make me decide I must be for abortion if the alternative is to be on the same side, even philosophically, as people who are so ignorant and bullheaded.

OK, so I don't really base my principles on other people, but it really is very tiresome. Work with me to get The State out of all areas of our lives and then we can settle the rest. OK?

Hosni Mubarack Obama

Has anyone else noticed the little game that can be played with the names of Egypt's and America's tyrants? Hosni Mubarak + Barack Obama = Hosni Mubarack Obama.

If I were superstitious I might think there's a message there. Maybe Obama is seeing his own near future in the current troubles of his soul mate in Egypt. Is one tyrant really that different from another tyrant? Should we pay attention to Mubarak to see what may happen to Obama? Interesting times.

Heretics and nonbelievers

Most of the systematic torture in the world has been done to preserve superstition of one sort or another from being exposed as superstition.

Both of the Big Superstitions, religion and government, have shared in the guilt. Sure there have been cruel freelance torturers, but their offenses have been a drop in the bucket, barely even measurable, compared to the vast scale of the cruelty committed by goons trying to enforce adherence to the notions of The State or religion.

I think it is because a substantial percentage of people really, deep down, know better. They see through the scam, so obedience and the appearance of agreement must be enforced in both cases. Either through torture or the threat of torture.

Of course, in both cases there are also "True Believers" who will continue to believe what they want to believe no matter how overpowering the preponderance of evidence may be.

From these ranks come the ones who cheer on the torturers and try to prevent the truth from having an impact. These are the useful idiots.

There are also some "True Believers" who don't contribute to the evil, but too few of these actively oppose it. By their silence they betray humanity.

There are also a few, very few, who remain "True Believers" while supporting the right of others to disagree with their superstition, and who openly oppose inquisitions and torture. These are the good, though still deluded, "True Believers".

"My"

The word "my" can mean ownership, such as "my gun", "my clothes", or "my hair".

It can also mean a relationship, such as "my daughter", "my friend", or "my family". Maybe even "my shadow". This is why saying "my child" is not a claim of ownership over that child, but is an acknowledgement of the relationship I have with that child.

"Good"- the definition

To me "good" is anything that voluntarily helps someone who deserves to be helped. That would be what I consider "actively good".

It can also be anything that avoids harming those who do not deserve to be harmed, although many people would probably just think of this as an ethically neutral act. I think of this as being "passively good".

There is no obligation to be actively good, while there is an obligation to be at least passively good.

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Teen crimestoppers in trouble

Never, ever call the police. And never speak to reporters.

A couple of Albuquerque teens are facing possible legal trouble after catching a thief and then beating him up.

Did they go too far? Maybe. It depends on what the truth is, and that may never be known. However, the burglar admitted being a burglar. And he was caught trespassing. The teens had every right to track him down to recover stolen property. If the thief then attacked them with a knife as they claim, they did the right thing by defending themselves.

In all cases I think it is right to give the benefit of the doubt to those who did not initiate force, fraud, or theft. The burglar committed theft, and doesn't deny it.

The cops do not wish to be seen as unnecessary. It is hard to justify living on stolen money, taken by coercion, if people can handle situations themselves. Yet, we can and they are unnecessary, and even promote crime by their very existence through the very mechanism displayed here. The "cooperate with the bad guys and just call the professionals" mantra. That is a recipe for defeatism.

It is a lesson the authorities hope we all learn. No thanks.

*
Donate?

The evil of "The Other" is sometimes real

I read a lot of warnings about thinking of "the other" as evil and yourself as good. It applies accurately to the silly "Democrat vs Republican" thing. It also applies very well to the "America vs AnyOtherCountry" thinking.

Where it utterly breaks down is in the "Liberty vs Tyranny" or the "Attacker vs Victim" realms.

There, any pretense that one choice is just as valid as the other is simply denial. The denial that the bad guy is bad serves no useful purpose for you. Tyranny, the systematic denial and violation of individual liberty in favor of power for The State, is completely wrong. It has no good side, even if it results in superficially "good" results. Liberty, even if it seems scary and dangerous, is the only ethical choice. Liberty is right, and tyranny is wrong. Completely, and without any equivocation.

If you are being attacked, your attacker is completely wrong (at that moment), while you are in the right if you choose to fight back with all you have. The one who "started it" bears all the blame if he is killed in the ensuing conflict. Yet, if you harm someone else during your defensive actions (perhaps the attacker's family member who wasn't involved), YOU become the attacker, subject to the laws of consequences.

Of course, this evil can be seen with your own eyes rather than being preached by the priests of The State to unquestioning believers who have witnessed nothing but what those priests have chosen to show (or stage) for their own ends. In other words, if someone has to convince you that someone is out to get you, with no evidence that can be seen, you would be better to laugh it off. And, conversely, if you see evil being committed don't buy the justifications that those supporters of the bad guys will try to bury you under.

You are being delusional if you think there is not real right and real wrong. If you are being attacked by a thug who wants to steal your property or rape and kill you, it is insane to think he might have a valid point of view as you stare down the barrel of his gun. He is the bad guy.

So many inconsistencies...

I've written about unlibertarian libertarians before. Several times, in fact. It still gets me how someone who is libertarian can be so blind in some areas.

I'm not saying they aren't libertarian, just that they hold on to inconsistencies that are not libertarian. How many inconsistencies can a person hold and still be what they claim to be? How many statist beliefs can a person support before others laugh at their insistence that they put liberty first?

In mild cases it would be like someone claiming to be a Christian, but worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the first Tuesday of each month. (Substitute the belief systems of your choice.)

In the worst cases it would be like someone claiming to be Christian, but instead worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster all the time, with occasional nods to the God they claim to worship- as long as it's convenient and doesn't get in the way of their normal worshiping routine or threaten their belief in FSM.

It is certainly bewildering.

*

Donate?

Accidents are not crimes

The indictment of Clovis police officer Stephen Gallegos on vehicular homicide charges is a good first step toward giving the appearance of fairness. All we should demand is that there be no double standards and that we are all equals "under the law" regardless of our employer. This indictment serves the purpose adequately.

Now, how to get justice? Surprisingly, or perhaps not, were I seated on the jury that will be asked to determine his fate, I would have to return a "not guilty" verdict. It's simply the right thing to do. Accidents are not crimes and are not within the legitimate realm of the current justice system. For a real crime to exist there must have been an intent to cause harm to another person or their property. Officer Gallegos is not alleged by anyone to have intended to harm the women he collided with.

On the other hand I do think Gallegos owes restitution to the dead woman's family, and to the injured survivor of the accident. The core of any legitimate justice system must be restitution. Intentional or not, harm was caused, and this incurs a debt. The details of the restitution should be between the victims and Gallegos, and no one else. This should be a private matter that is none of my business and none of yours unless you were involved.

Of course, in the current broken incarnation of a justice system, fines and imprisonment are the most popular recourse. Imprisonment doesn't often serve the cause of justice. It can not return the dead to life, nor heal the injured, nor even repay a financial wrong. However, if that were the only restitution the victims would accept, then they should work out the details of who will pay for his imprisonment. The most fair solution in that case would be for Gallegos to pay for his own upkeep, perhaps with help from his family, friends, and supporters. To make "the taxpayers" foot the bill is not justice. Two wrongs never make a right.

The same goes for the practice of levying a fine. The State (or any political subdivisions thereof) are not the victim here, and are owed nothing. Fines are simply another "tax" that goes to feed the beast without helping those who have been injured. Most of the time when fines are collected there was never any harm to anyone anyway, but merely the violation of some counterfeit substitute for a law that attempts to regulate something other than aggression or theft. Once again, this has no relation to real justice.

I can only hope any jury that is seated in Officer Gallegos' case, or any other case, keeps these things in mind while deliberating, and also remembers their historical duty and obligation to judge not only the facts of the case, but the legitimacy of the "law" that is being used against the defendant, regardless of the instructions of the court. Doing so would set Stephen Gallegos free. (www.fija.org is an excellent resource for jury education.)

*
This was to be my weekly Clovis News Journal column, but was rejected due to it being seen as an attempt to influence potential jurors in a local case. So there will be no CNJ column from me this week as the deadline had already passed when I was informed of the decision. What this means for me is that I am going to be short 25% of my pay this month. Therefore if anyone feels inclined to help me make up the shortfall this month, I would be grateful. Donate?

Is a free society unworkable?

Discuss the benefits of trying liberty rather than statism as the basis of a society* and you will hear many people drone on and on about how it won't work. One common example is the "Somalia blah blah blah" retort. As if that has any bearing on what a free society would be.

When liberty is given a real shot we can then discuss the results.

Even if anarchy or an other wise free society is "unworkable", that doesn't mean the statist alternative is right. Statism is also unworkable, as has been shown amply throughout recorded history. To deny that statism results in calamity is just silly. Plus, based as statism always is (by definition) on theft and coercion, it is wrong.

Given the choice, I would rather live in a failed society based upon liberty rather than an equally failed society based upon authoritarianism. Liberty is right, at least.

If liberty also fails to produce a workable society, then the obvious conclusion is that society itself is the problem. Maybe society* is a false concept and can never be truly workable.

*I am using the term "society" as short-hand for the interactions of all people who actually deal with one another in some way, not as some real, physical thing (like some collectivists seem to believe).

*

Donate?

Lever Action is back!

L. Neil Smith has announced that his book Lever Action is back!

If you are not familiar with the book, you should be.

I discovered Lever Action from a short, not entirely positive, review in the back of an NRA magazine soon after the book was first printed- probably in the winter or spring of 2002*. I had no money at the time, but I cut out the review and held on to it for a few months until I was able to order a copy. It changed my life. Seriously. I would not be writing this, or anything else, had I not read Lever Action.

I had never known there was anyone else out there who thought the way I did. I had thought there were "conservatives" and "liberals" and then there was me. I knew I didn't fit in either category, so I just considered myself a lone misfit. Lever Action was the first realization that other people did think the way I did. It brought me from being an aberration to being a libertarian. Or at least gave me the realization that there was a name for my particular ideology. For that sense of belonging I am forever grateful. Thanks again El Neil.

*If you have a copy of that review, please let me know. I kept my copy for a long time, but somewhere in all the moves, homelessness, storage units, and etc. it was misplaced. L. Neil has expressed an interest in seeing that review.

Compulsive liars telling the truth?

You know what, I personally DO believe the US government (through its official spokescritters) has lied about the JFK assassination, "9/11", Obama's citizenship, the ratification of the 16th Amendment, and various other liberty-destroying things. After all, when have you ever heard anything truthful come out of Washington DC (unless it was Ron Paul saying it)?

It would be a conspiracy theory beyond belief to believe that on those subjects, the official story is completely true, while the evidence of innumerable other lies, both big and small, is so completely overwhelming for everything else. Look at anything, anything at all, the government claims and you will uncover lies if you dig just a little. Compulsive liars simply don't tell the truth on "big stories" while routinely lying about mundane things. To think they do is ... well, it just isn't rational.

But, on the other hand, none of those things makes any difference in how I relate to people who claim it is OK for them to steal, kidnap, attack, and murder people who have initiated no force, theft, or deception. It is simply a tiny bit more evidence that The State is a force for harm in civilization. The State is inexcusable.

'Shall not be infringed' is The Law. Obey it.

'Shall not be infringed' is The Law. Obey it.

In the Albuquerque news I see that a bill to further depoliticize "concealed carry" has been introduced in the state legislature. While I support such an act, it is not necessary.

All that is necessary is that the state, and its enforcers, start obeying the law that already strictly limits what they can legally do, and ignoring the illegal counterfeit "laws" that violate those limits.

The stupidity of the anti-liberty side is copiously demonstrated by Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino, an Albuquerque Politicrat who is quoted as whining “The week after the Tucson Massacre, to have dreamed this up - really?” Yes, really. When tragedies happen, intelligent people see ways to make a repeat less likely to happen. Laws didn't stop Loughner, and apparently don't stop senators either. More guns in the hands of good people will go a long ways toward this goal. Get over your religious delusions to the contrary and deal with it Senator. Just because you fail to acknowledge the blood on your hands doesn't mean it's really nail polish.

"Shall not be infringed" is not just a popular quote with liberty-minded folk; it is The Law. Get used to it, politicians. It isn't negotiable. It is absolutely required of those who seek to be a part of government. You break that law and you lose any legitimacy you may have thought you had. In other words you become a common thug trying to violate the rights of your neighbors to empower or enrich yourself, rather than an official thug doing the same while still following the written laws that apply to your actions.

No new laws are needed. All "laws" that violate the higher law simply need to be repealed, abandoned, and/or ignored. And, if you somehow manage to get that higher law repealed, the basic human right to own and to carry any kind of weapon we choose, in any way we see fit- openly or concealed- everywhere we go without asking permission of anyone, will still exist- just as it has since before the dawn of history.

*
Donate?

Kent's Dictionary

Click on the word for the meaning I have when I use the word

Aggression

Anarchy

Arrest

Chaos

Coercion

Collective *

Common Good

Conspiracy

Credible Threat

Crime

Ethics

Evil

Fraud

Freedom

Good

Government

"Greater Good"

Greed *

Harm

Inflation

Innocent

Justice

LEO

Libertarian

Liberty

Money

Morality

"My"

Politicians / Thieves

Politics

"Puppetician"

Reavers

Rightful Liberty

Rights

Ruler

"Social Justice"

[The] State

Statists

Trespasser

.
* Things that were suggested I add, but which I don't necessarily think about enough to need to define otherwise.

"Basics of Liberty" video series

I thought I'd post an update with all my "Basics of Liberty" videos listed in one place.

Zero Aggression Principle

Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Bubble Theory of Property Rights

Understanding Right and Wrong

Love it or Leave it

Theft by Any Other Name

If/when I make more videos I will update this post and change the date to make it current.

"Decriminalize"?

I dislike the word "decriminalize"; often used in association with the efforts to end the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs. It sounds like the speaker/writer is asking The State for a favor.

I think a couple of more accurate terms would apply. Such as "degovern" or "depoliticize". The point is that these things are none of the government's business under any circumstances.

Perhaps that is just my nature as an INTP showing itself.

Understanding Right and Wrong- the video

And on Youtube here: link

Are you in favor of a War on Bath Salts?

Attention supporters of The State:

I am tired of treating prohibitionists as though they are rational, reasonable people. They are not. They are childish control-freaks.

People want to get high. First it's stuff like marijuana and plant-based chemical intoxicants (including alcohol), along with religion. Then came the laboratory-created drugs. The State and its useful idiots (like the tweaked morons of MADD) were anxious to ban all of these that they personally feared or hated.

Then regular people found things you evil idiots of The State hadn't specifically banned- yet. Plants or other household products. Things that often were more harmful than the things you prohibitionists originally banned.

So now I am treated like a suspected criminal when I want to buy cold or allergy medicine. I do not freakin' care how someone else might use allergy medicine, nor what they might make out of its chemicals. I am adult enough to realize it is none of my business. I probably won't be purchasing any of their products, and I can defend myself against anyone who is impaired from using those substances. I do not need your "protection" and I don't appreciate your claim that I do. I am not as pathetic and weak as you are. I do not need "the law" or its enforcers.

Still delusional enough to think you can "win"? Now, people are using bath salts and plant foods to feel altered, and apparently causing real damage to themselves. Come on, you idiots who favor prohibition and the stupid and evil War on (some) Drugs, can't you see the results of your insanity? If you do, and still don't care or think you are doing good... I can't say what consequences you should face. But I know, and so do you.

People want to alter their mental states, and no matter what you do, they will find a way to do it. Even if it means spinning around to get dizzy, which can still result in serious injury, they will find a way. Your prohibitions make no difference that is good, and are making all the difference in the world for all that is bad.

What would be enough for you pinheads? Screw the "slippery slope" arguments. That slope has been slipped down long ago. You are reaching the bottom of that slope now. How much is "too much" for you? I'm afraid nothing would be seen as "too far" for authoritarian control-freak monsters like those who still, in spite of all the evidence, support prohibition. You are already killing people. What's a little more death to people like you?

So, BUTT OUT! Stop! Feel free to educate or pontificate, but don't you dare pick up the gun of The State and start to legislate (or continue to enforce previous illegitimate legislation). Doing so makes YOU a bad guy. A thug who is a danger to liberty. You are a threat.

TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video Continue reading on Examiner.com: TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video

TSA loses big test case in ABQ- and important video

The man who was violated by the TSA in Albuquerque and "arrested" over his refusal to comply with illegitimate demands to show his ID has been cleared of wrongdoing in "the trial [which] has been postponed until 2011". As he should have been.

I hope every trial the TSA is involved in ends this way. And it will if justice is served. Remember to visit FIJA to know how you must act if called for jury duty.
*
On another, even more important note, you need to watch Guns and Weed. No, seriously- you NEED to watch it all, share it, and then watch it again.

*
Donate?

"Guns and Weed" movie.

Watch this, then send it to everyone you know and watch it again!

Public officials here to serve us

Public officials here to serve us

Would you feel comfortable if you had a few hired hands, and maybe a maid, a butler, and a gardener, who insisted that you had no right to know what they were doing while they worked for you, maybe even locked the doors behind them while around your valuables, yet still insisted on having the run of your property? Me neither. Then why do we allow those servants in government to get away with this same behavior?

When the Curry County Citizens Courthouse Committee decided, against the better judgement of some of its members, to conduct its business in secret it demonstrated exactly why its meetings must be open to observation. If you want to be making recommendations that will affect the lives of others or will determine how other people's money will be spent, you have no expectation of privacy in that role. Power without oversight is dangerous.

When you or I want to protect our privacy from government or other meddlesome busybodies, we are told we wouldn't object if we have nothing to hide. Yet, we are the masters. Being told this by our servants is nonsense.

I realize this committee isn't exactly "government", but it isn't exactly private individuals minding their own business either. Their actions will have governmental repercussions on their neighbors. Whether these repercussions are negative or positive depends on the principles of those involved and on whether the individuals are being subjected to manipulation or are coming to their own conclusions in their own way. How can this be known if the group dynamics are not watched.

Of all secrets, government secrets are the most dangerous and the least justifiable. Government secrets often kill. Exposing filthy secrets to the sterilizing light of the sun is the only healthy choice. Using "security" as an excuse for secrecy doesn't hold water.

As Ben Franklin noted, security and liberty have a strange relationship. If you spend your precious liberty to purchase some security, you will find that the security you thought you were buying was only a photoshopped simulation made to deceive you and get your money.

Protect yourself. Watch the people behind the curtain and don't let them do anything in secret. Even when it's a small, local matter.

(As written; not as published)

*

Donate?

Pleasant lunch with a lovely cannibal

I watched a TED video today that illustrated, for me, the divide between statists and rational people.

It was titled "Take the 'Other' to lunch". The point was to take someone to lunch who is from the opposite side of some issue. Of course, the speaker used the archaic and irreparably flawed "Right/Left" dichotomy, rather than reality, to illustrate her broken point.

She came from the "liberal" side and spoke of taking a "Tea Party" supporter to lunch to discuss their differences, with some ground rules meant to ensure civility. How nice for them, and what a lovely couple of authoritarian control freaks they must have made.

Yet, to me, the foundational problem is that while I could (and often do) talk to people, people either on "The Left" or on "The Right", who are opposed to everything I stand for, I am willing to leave them alone to go down their dead-end path, while they fully support killing me if I don't cooperate with their plans for me and for my children. That little undeniable fact tends to chill the friendly atmosphere somewhat.

They may support killing me over hemp, chemicals, guns, taxes, "patriotism", wars, seat belts, property code violations, licenses, permits, how I dress, schooling, what I write, words I say, sex, marriage, MP3s, pets, medications, money, religion, alcohol, private thoughts, weeds around my house, junk in my yard, light bulbs, photographs, velocity, numbers, milk, food, and lots more things than I can possibly list here... but the fact of the matter is that they do support killing me if I don't go along with what they demand of me.

If you think I am exaggerating when I say they are willing to kill me, remember that every single "law" is backed up, at some point, with the threat that if you do not submit, somewhere along the line, to those who are enforcing that "law", they will use deadly force to either capture and punish you, or kill you in the attempt. With every "law", no matter how seemingly trivial, the penalty for violating it is always death. Those who advocate and enforce "laws" are willing to kill you to see their will imposed on you.

How can you have a pleasant lunch with a monster?

*

Donate?

State's biggest theft ring seeks to expand

State's biggest theft ring seeks to expand

Governor Susana Martinez has exposed herself, yet again, as just another fascist politician. This time she wants to steal cars.

Of course, her intended victims are people who get no sympathy from the State-worshipers and control freaks that make up the majority of the voters, so she's treading safe territory.

Her dishonesty is exposed even more clearly by the fact that the loot would be used for enforcement rather than education. In other words, the money gained by this theft would pay for more thieves and more theft, rather than in reducing the pool of people to be stolen from.

She is happy to point out that such a theft ring has been operating "successfully" in Albuquerque for some time, and that it can be extended to the entire state. Plus, The State quite often steals cars (and other things) so this is really nothing but an expansion of the aggression and another illustration that The State is nothing but crime writ large.
*
Don't forget the thing that could stop abuses like this- the Bill of Rights penalty clause:

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify,
evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.” www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=501

*
Donate?

Get america'd

I got the following from a reader (when I was sick, and it got misplaced until now) and am glad to pass it along:

Hi Kent! I'm an indie recording artist and a committed anarcho-libertarian. I'd like to submit my latest album to your site for a review or mention on your site. My music is edgy, political prog rock. Its been described as a mix of Frank Zappa, Iron Maiden, XTC & Public Image Limited - with the bitter lyrical worldview of a Warren Zevon or Donald Fagen.

• Here is my latest album america'd, just released:
• Interactive Page (with streaming music, lyrics, etc.)
• My bio
• My press kit
• My first video Adult Children

Thank you and keep up the good work! Best,

-- ~Ben Sommer Edgy, political prog rock http://BenSommer.com

Hey, not exactly my style of music, but I did listen and read the lyrics. Check him out.

America's Sharia Law

One of the reasons I hear coming from "conservatives" for invading and occupying Islamic countries it so "they" won't take over America and force Sharia "law" on "us". You know, kind of an extension of the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" excuse.

True, I have no wish to live under such a brutal and primitive, and painfully stupid, system. But doesn't that mean we should deal with the mote in our own eye and get rid of our own version of Sharia "law" too? Otherwise we are just being hypocritical. Again.

Sharia law is no more obscene than most of the counterfeit laws in America. Kidnapping and murdering people over plants? Or chemicals? Or because they refuse to facilitate their own muggings? "Laws" based on what people claim their god wants?

If we refuse to put up with being ruled by Sharia "law", why don't we refuse the US equivalent and refuse to tolerate drug laws, gun laws, sex laws, tax laws, seatbelt laws, property codes, obscenity laws... and the list goes on almost infinitely to embrace any and all "laws" that attempt to control or regulate anything other than actual aggression or theft.

Sorry, but if your god approves of the War on (some) Drugs, or government sanctioned (or prohibited) marriage, or 99%+ of the rest of the things that "The Law" concerns itself with, your god is a monster. And if you continue to follow your god (whatever name you call him by) in spite of his monstrosity, then you are no better. And if you think it is a good idea to impose "laws" like this, and enforce them against your neighbors, you should be happy with Sharia "law". As for me, I'll take liberty and respect yours as well.

Is liberty a market failure?

I read somewhere recently that liberty (and by extension, libertarianism) is a "market failure" since "we" don't already have a free society. But this assumes there is a market. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we have in the "big picture" is a monopoly of The State. A monopoly maintained and enforced by violently aggressive people who are not bound in any practical sense to abide by the rules of civilized society that the rest of us normally choose to live under. That gives a false impression.

People frequently choose freedom for themselves, and ironically, many are then imprisoned by The State, thus losing their liberty. The jailed and otherwise "justice system-monitored" people are evidence that there is a huge market for liberty, even if most people are not educated in order to understand what it is they are seeking. People risk all in order to grab a little freedom or liberty for themselves.

The only "market failure" is that people don't, to a very large extent, respect that same liberty in others. They think that their own personal liberty should be respected, and that "laws" to the contrary can be ignored if a LEO isn't watching, but they rarely extend that same courtesy to their neighbors unless they are close acquaintances.

I think this is the problem that should really be addressed. Not convincing people that liberty is desirable, but that if they want it for themselves they must also not advocate violating it for anyone else.

Jared Lee Loughner and "Deep Meaning"

One thing I have noticed about crazy people (or those dancing on the fence between crazy and not) is that, like the Arizona shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, they all seem obsessed with "meaning".

In this kind of mind, ordinary events and random things are never ordinary or random. And the person who "finds" the secret message is elevated to an almost godlike position because only they "see" the truth.

With Loughner, it was words and grammar (among other things). Some people I have known or heard about felt the same way about music (Beatles' songs in particular). Or natural phenomena ("Chemtrails"). These things "speak" to them.

One man I knew went on for hours telling me the significance of his initials- "M. A. T."- how they showed that he was to be the emissary between the Martians and the "Terrans". He went on to explain the significance of other people's initials as well; especially John Denver's (which, as a stage name would seem to have no "deeper" significance). Words were never "just words", but all had a message for him, usually to be found in the initials.

I have seen the same behavior toward music, and particularly anything the Beatles/John Lennon were involved in. Deep special meanings were sought and found. It wasn't "just music" but something of Universal importance. Every song was a message just for that one person. Some have even expressed the idea that the song was written with them in mind.

With those who worry about "chemtrails"- look, I know the government would have no qualms about doing chemical/biological experimentation on the population. They've done it before. However, look at the physics of the situation. Contrails are a result of hot, moist exhaust and cold upper-atmospheric conditions. You'd have to alter the physics of the universe to keep them from forming. Even my car leaves a "contrail" on cold winter days. There is no deep meaning there, even if the government is exposing the country to toxins for whatever purpose, contrails are not the smoking gun. This is the same obsession that led to rainbows being interpreted as a sign from God. It's just the physical world following natural laws.

This need to find meaning is a harmful obsession. It is what leads to superstition and harming others for "higher purposes".

Look, it may seem distressing but most things are meaningless. There is no deep meaning to be found in them without falling off the crazy fence. They just are what they are. Now, go out and do something meaningful, within the bounds of the ZAP.

Schools, penalty clauses, and radical libertarianism

Schools, penalty clauses, and radical libertarianism

Albuquerque Public Schools is considering suing the state because not enough stolen loot is being directed toward them. What a mature response.

So what if the state constritution requires a "sufficient" public education system. Schooling or "education" is not a legitimate area for The State, any State, to be involved in. Separate school and state. Education is much too important to leave to government!

*

Please spread around the following Bill of Rights Penalty Clause:

“Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.”

www.bigheadpress.com/lneilsmith/?p=501

*

I think that's all for Examiner. I got my blurb for L. Neil put in, and suggested that readers check out this blog for new stuff. I may change my mind, but I may not.

Support for military is NOT "libertarian"

The assertion that support (or at least acceptance) of the US military as something "we think the government should do- keep us secure" is a "libertarian" position keeps cropping up.

No, it is not a libertarian position, it is an authoritarian inconsistency when found in a libertarian and needs to be exposed as such. It makes as much sense as a koala trying to live on the sea floor.

Even the most weak-kneed variety of libertarianism is centered around the idea of "minimum government- maximum liberty". How can you claim "minimum government" while supporting the biggest government program there is? The one used as justification for every violation of libertarian principles imaginable.

If you include the (I think) necessary aspect of a libertarian living by the ZAP, then supporting the military becomes even more absurd. The US military has made it standard practice to be aggressive; attacking, invading, and occupying the homes of people who did nothing to deserve it. If it was "defensive" in nature, then ONLY government facilities would be targeted. And even one instance of "collateral damage" is a violation of the ZAP and makes one the attacker rather than the defender.

The US military- the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, the national guard, and even the coast guard- are a greater threat to YOUR liberty than all the foreign military forces and terrorists of the world combined.

They are already the occupying force surrounding you. They are already being funded with money stolen from you. They have already claimed large tracts of land all around you for their exclusive use. They have already gained acceptance from a large percentage of your friends and neighbors. They are already under the command of people who would gladly sacrifice your life and property to protect their own interests and have no ethical qualms about ... well, anything that normal people would know is evil.

If, in spite of all this, you still want to worship and fawn over the US military, that is your choice. But stop lying and claiming it is anything other than a statist position.

*

Donate?

Gold Rush - gold cap

For those of you who have one of those magic mirrors called a "television", which is attached by dish or cable to the channelsphere, you might check out Discovery Channel's "Gold Rush: Alaska".

And, if you are paying attention while watching it, you might notice that the best-looking star of the show wears a cap with a familiar symbol.

The cap was made by someone else, with my permission. I was a bit uncomfortable with it since it included the phrase "Strike Back 2010" and was advocating voting as a way to increase liberty, but as I have said before, as long as you are moving with me in the general direction of "more liberty", we can work out the details of where you want to get off the train later.

This brings up another subject. Another business has gotten my permission to make more flags (and other products) with the Time's Up flag design. I will let you know when these items are available.

Examiner- Adios, amoebas

Maybe it's just the flu talking, but I think I have posted my last Examiner column. They found a way to cut pay again, and, although it might not have made much real difference, I'm just tired of them. Of course, this means I am gonna be hurting even worse, financially.

*

Donate?

Laws don't put end to problems

Laws don't put end to problems

It seems a certain violent Arizona resident named Jared would have done well to have read my column last week. The message that right and wrong are universal rather than subjective is something he apparently needed. Of course, if he is crazy, as seems likely, he may not have understood. And if he is simply willing to commit evil acts without regard to right or wrong, then nothing could have changed his course short of effective self defense measures.

It is not right to kill a person who is not attacking you or others, or making a credible threat to do so. Even in the case of killing in self defense, you must not harm any innocent person. As a libertarian, I understand that "collateral damage" is never acceptable. Never. It changes self defense into an act of aggression.

I cringe when tragedies like this multiple murder happen, and not always for the right reason. There isn't even time to consider the innocent lives destroyed before the usual spokespeople start pointing fingers at their standard boogeymen to any news media that will listen. Guns; free speech; dissent: all the things that are necessary for liberty are blamed. As has been said by one of Obama's henchmen "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste..." In this case the crisis is even being used to deepen the chasm between the illusory concepts of "The Right" and "The Left". There is no "Right" or "Left"; there is only respect for liberty for all, or support of tyranny for at least some- liberty or authoritarianism- and this transcends the false political spectrum that we are told exists.

I just get the feeling that the anti-liberty crowd has a hard time not smiling when a tragedy of this sort happens. They get to start crying "There oughta be a law!"; no matter that murder and assault are already illegal, and really can't be made "more illegal". No problem has ever been solved with a "law".

Instead all the proposed "solutions" will only make events like this inevitable. Stifle free speech, "heated rhetoric", and you have closed a vital pressure-release valve. Add more illegal gun control "laws" and bad guys who have no ethical problem with violating the Zero Aggression Principle and the laws against murder will still find ways to be armed and hurt the innocent, while some good people will be stopped from being able to effectively defend themselves. Ignore the fact that this shooter was an apparent fan of collectivism, and blame individualism, and you'll marginalize the only people who can truly be counted on to do the right thing.

Nothing will ever stop truly evil people from harming others, but really respecting liberty and the basic rights we all possess will prevent more tragedies than any other tactic. It's time to stop letting the few bad guys out there dictate what the rest of us must put up with. It's time to stop surrendering liberty to the twisted misfits.

(Once again, this is as I wrote it, not as it was published.)

Flu-cation

I have had the flu and have been out of circulation for a few days. It's almost been a vacation. The flu is better than the insanity of the gun-banners and other liberty-phobes, which I see hasn't calmed down any in my absence. I think I'll go back to bed.

Frustration!

You just can't discuss a subject rationally with people who get their world view from their interpretation of the opinions of imaginary beings and think the written records of the opinions of reality-ignorant, brutal, slave-owning, genocidal, female-subjugating tribes are "The Law". Especially when they cherry pick those writings so carefully (and apparently without any realization they are doing so. And yes, I am cherry-picking as well, but one turd in the pie ruins the whole pie and should not be ignored).

This has come to a head due to my CNJ columns. This is a very statist and superstitious region, and the commenters demonstrate that in spades. Every topic gets hijacked into a "Well, God says..." sort of thing. If I wanted to write about religion, I would write about religion. (I guess I sort of do anyway since so many worship The State against all reason, and they don't like me showing that god as an imaginary, yet destructive, delusion.)

Want to end a conversation with me? Just start basing all your "arguments" on religious notions rather than universal principles.

Looking down the barrel...

I am worn out from all this nonsense over the Giffords shooting.

I really do try to care about it but the victim disarmament crowd- the Mass Murderer Fan Club- makes it very hard for me to care that politicians were shot. I am very upset at the death of the 9 year-old girl, though.

But, truly, the balderdash from the hoplophobes makes me much more concerned about protecting my own life and family. It is hard to be really concerned with the tragedy that has befallen others when you see that the real bad guys have you in their sights and are drooling over the chance to "take you out" next. That is what is happening here. Those who want to take your guns are willing for you to die to further their agenda. And they are happy to have their tools kill you.

More corrupt 'law enforcement officers'?

More corrupt 'law enforcement officers'?

Three Bernalillo County (Albuquerque area) deputies who work on the despicably authoritarian "DWI unit" are suspected of falsifying timesheets.

All I can say is that if they really have been doing what they are suspected of doing, at least they were "only" stealing money (stealing extra money, on top of the theft that normally funds their paychecks) instead of adding other rights violations to their offending behavior. We are all better off if they don't show up for "work".

And these are the guys allowed to enforce the "laws" on the rest of us? This is not the result of "a few bad apples"; it is absolutely inherent in The State and its version of "law enforcement". You can't fix something that is wrong from its very foundation.
*
Donate?

Quick, Close the safety valve!

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

The authoritarians and statists who are wringing their hands over "heated rhetoric" don't realize they are trying to close the best pressure-release valve that exists.

Add to that the fact that they are also dancing in the blood of the dead and injured while they gleefully dust off their carefully-prepared new violations of the Second Amendment and basic human rights, and you have a perfect recipe for "interesting times".

Maybe, in spite of their pious assurances to the contrary, this is exactly what they want. Judging by their actions and their heated rhetoric, it sure seems that way.

*

Donate?

Another "Manchurian Shooter"

I think the shooter in Arizona is being exposed, more and more as information becomes available, as another "Manchurian shooter"- prepped and drugged and unleashed at a time when the BATFE is under scrutiny for recent, additional, illegal activities and more people are becoming aware of the actions of The State and how those actions violate their liberty.

Even if this is not the case, idiots in government need to learn that their actions and their rhetoric have consequences and can cause tightly-wound individuals to snap. Keep seeking to violate liberty and this will keep happening, no matter what "laws" are passed (and, in fact, directly because of those "laws"). Of course, this is exactly what The State wants.

Not one more inch!

*

Donate?

Thugs steal, destroy, house

Thugs steal, destroy, house

Once again "code enforcement" and complicit neighbors skip vapidly hand-in-hand toward the collectivist police state.

An elderly Albuquerque man's property rights have been violated in the worst way by the thugs of the city. Known as a "hoarder" and said by neighbors to sometimes be "aggressive", his home has been stolen and destroyed by the city.

An anonymous neighbor claims "we weren't against him personally". Really? There is nothing more personal than stealing a man's home.

And the claims of "aggression" seem suspicious to me as well. Who wouldn't be "aggressive" when having his property rights violated over and over again? This wasn't the first time "authorities" had entered his property without his permission, in other words, trespassed, and stolen things from him that they decided he didn't need. It isn't "aggression" to defend your property rights against those who seek to violate them.

I am also very ashamed of the "work crew" that did the actual destruction. People who do the dirty work of The State are as guilty as those who make the evil decisions. I know times are tough and money is hard to come by, but taking blood money is not the solution. Doing so makes you the bad guy, no matter what you may want to think of yourself.

Refresher on right and wrong

Refresher on right and wrong

Before an event like the one which happened in Arizona comes to Albuquerque (or other parts of New Mexico), I think it is time for a refresher course on right and wrong.

I know this is not necessary for libertarians and anarchists, but I do this in order to show the statists which side we are on.

First off, please watch the Zero Aggression Principle video, then read this article about right and wrong, then another about the need to do what is right, and finally this most recent one about right and wrong being universal with the ironically-written headline.

Then, if you still don't understand, repeat as necessary.
*
Donate?

Lawsuit at the ABQ corral

Lawsuit at the ABQ corral

The police union is suing the Albuquerque mayor over the issue of "take-home cars" that the LEOs had grown to feel entitled to. The union mouthpiece claims the new policy endangers "officer safety" and "public safety" [sic].

If the cops are scared when driving their own cars, I question their grasp of reality and wonder why cop cars are so much safer than yours or mine. If they feel endangered by this policy, they can always go out and get an actual dangerous job, rather than their cushy tax-suckling gig. The only time "public safety" [sic] is at risk is when those police cars are being used by police.

It's too bad that when government appendages sue one another it is our money that is wasted, because I sure do enjoy seeing the bad guys fight among themselves. It's like seeing two firing squads facing each others' ranks and just enjoying the show; while knowing that I had to buy both side's guns and ammo, uniforms and briefcases, and that I will be billed for the clean-up and the medical care of the survivors.

There is a glimmer of hope: The union says it will drop the lawsuit if the city council comes up with a "better alternative". Well, city council, here it is: fire all the cops and let people take responsibility for their own safety once more, without the "legal" hindrance of The State's anti-self defense "laws" getting in the way. It's the only thing that really works, after all.

*
Donate?

Only you can judge what is right

Only you can judge what is right

(Is it just me, or does the headline which was written for this column seem to say the polar opposite of my main point? I was trying to say that right and wrong are universal regardless of your opinions.)

Last week's column emphasized the need for each of us to do the right thing in order to improve society. Most commenters seemed to agree, but were not necessarily sure what "the right thing" is. Fair enough.

Real right and wrong are pretty easy to grasp as long as you aren't looking for excuses or shortcuts to get around them. They are not dependant upon opinions or the prevailing culture; these substitutes will lead you astray. Circumstances, "laws", or personal beliefs don't change wrong into right. Nor does "majority make right" in the case of believing it is OK for fifty percent, plus one, to be able to dictate, by "law", what others will be prohibited from doing. Most things are not up for a vote.

Avoiding doing the wrong thing is probably even more important than doing the right thing. It is never the right thing to cause harm- economic or physical damage- to someone who is not harming you. Put another way, it is never the right thing to attack someone; it is never the right thing to steal; it is never the right thing to deceive someone who is not harming or threatening you.

Beyond the actual wrongs, there will always be petty disagreements about this or that. If you don't like it, don't participate. If a friend insists on doing something you can't tolerate, and won't change to suit you, find a different friend. Don't cross the line by forcing the friend to do as you wish.

So, what is the right thing? It is the right thing to take responsibility for your actions and deal with the consequences that result. This does mean looking out for your own interests, but not at the expense of doing the wrong thing to others. After all, if you don't look out for yourself and your family, who will? The responsibility can fall on no one else. Your interests do not conflict with the genuine interests of others. It is right to protect your interests from all those who seek to violate them through aggression, theft, and fraud.

In many cases "doing the right thing" means you must learn to mind your own business and deal with being offended by the consensual behavior of those around you. It doesn't mean you have to like it or refrain from expressing your opinion, it just means you have no right to meddle or support "laws" that meddle in the lives of others. It means that you need to recognize that not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs that motivate you, and as long as they are not attacking, stealing, or defrauding anyone you need to leave them alone. After all, even YOU do things that offend someone.

(As submitted, not as published.)

*

And, if you can, Donate?

The future is a toss-up

Will the future be bright or will it be bleak?

Will scientific advances give us incredibly long, healthy, and prosperous lives?

Or will The State reward its elites with those advances while making the lives of the rest of us dreary, hopeless nightmares with the jackboot stomping the human face forever, while our private lives - along with our property and self determination- are a thing of the past. Make no mistake- this nightmare future is the future The State's architects (from the "left" and the "right") dream of subjecting us to, and they will unless stopped.

Right now it's a toss-up as to whether the forces of good or the forces of evil- those who seek to control the private, voluntary and non-aggressive behavior of others- will win.

At least in the short-term. In the long term, history shows that control freaks die violent deaths, in mass events, eventually.

War on America reaps more victims

War on America reaps more victims

Two young men have fallen victim to the thugs in blue. They were stopped and arrested on New Year's Eve for doing something about as "wrong" as walking across a room.

Their "crime"? Smoking marijuana and selling some to someone else. So now they face made-up charges including "conspiracy". Yeah, there's a conspiracy all right, but it is The State who is guilty in this one.

The only thing these young men did wrong was admitting anything to the LEO. Never speak to cops. Never.

If this gets to trial, which I hope it does since no one should ever plead "guilty", this is a good opportunity for a fully-informed jury to nullify the "law" in defense of justice.

The illusion of government efficacy

The State can give the illusion of working to those saddled with the misguided need to look and see someone "in control" and running things, even if that control is not real or is harmful.

For the rest of us, those who look at whether things are really working, we see that when left alone, people self-organize very efficiently. We see government as causing chaos. We see that society works best when meddled with least- and never from a "top-down" direction or through a coercive monopoly. Of course, the phrase "top-down" implies that Rulers are "above" us, which isn't even partially true.

The most pathetic drunk in the gutter is a better person than the most benevolent Ruler. At least the drunk is not telling you how to run your own life, and threatening to kill you if you defy him. Well, unless he is also a politician or a cop, that is.

LEO kills pedestrian

LEO kills pedestrian

The new year begins with death-by-cop in Albuquerque. And, of course, the knee-jerk response by The State is to check the dead man's system for intoxicants rather than checking the cop who was driving. The double standard is once again at work. Just imagine if you or I had run over a cop who was on foot on the street. Would the first reaction have been to check the cop's blood for alcohol, or would the driver have been the automatic suspect? We both know the answer to that.

The cop had spent the night involved in a "DWI checkpoint" and had just left the scene of that offense when he hit the pedestrian. This doesn't mean the cop was "clean", and only a blindly religious devotee of the US police state would make that assumption.

Now, perhaps the pedestrian really was at fault. It's likely that he at least shared responsibility for the accident. However, for the LEOs to get special treatment when an accident occurs only deepens the chasm between the agents of The State and the regular productive people of America.

This should also demonstrate that checkpoints don't make anyone safer, and in this case they tangentially killed someone. That cop had no legitimate excuse to be on the streets at that time, and probably would not have been had he not been leaving the scene of his violations of the rights to travel free from molestation and to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Tyranny kills.

*

Donate?

Rationality- not terribly popular these days

I just really don't know how to respond to people anymore when their only justification for thinking a certain course of action is right or wrong is based upon superstition and imaginary beings who they believe are watching them.

I stopped even looking at the comments on one of my Clovis News Journal columns when the commentary devolved into "this is wrong- and must be kept illegal- because God says it is wrong".

I'm sorry, but if you get your notions of right and wrong from a supposedly immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient supreme being who is fine and dandy with, and completely supportive of, slavery, genocide, and other things that are harmful to innocent people (and, yes, I am fully qualified to judge that most victims of these horrors do not deserve them), then you have no principles and no moral compass. You will fall for anything as long as some authority you respect tells you it's OK.

I know who deserves to be defended against. I know who should be left alone. I know who is harming others if I see it happening. I know what actions are causing actual harm and which ones are just offensive to someone. If I can know this, shouldn't your supreme being be able to know this too?

Or, is he (or the narrative of him) trapped by the words and attitudes that were written down by barbarous tribesmen thousands of years ago? Unable to escape a primitive and brutal culture that laid out the rules of the game and claimed that this being was forever completely unchanging, since he was already perfection personified. Good thing for him that his fan club is so good at cherry-picking. Still, craziness is craziness, no matter how popular it remains, and it should not be coddled and encouraged.

Factual or fictional; rational or completely insane. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. It is not within my rights to order you otherwise even if it were possible. But... you have no right to base "laws" upon your silliness. If you try to do so, and you harm other people in the process- people who were simply trying to live their own lives- you are worse than those you seek to stop from doing ... whatever. You are actively committing acts of evil.

Smart - evil = libertarian

I've come to the conclusion that smart people who are not evil are very likely to be libertarian. People who have struck me as highly intelligent have usually turned out to have a very strong libertarian streak when I find out more about them. Often enough that I think it is more than coincidence.

While dumb people may be libertarian, it's probably just because someone told them something that sounded good at the moment and they latched on (there is always the possibility I belong in this group). Dumb people seem to be very attracted to the notion that it is OK to push people around and kill them if they don't cooperate. Some hide behind The State and some do it on their own, but there is no real difference between the two kinds of aggression.

Smart people will think things through for themselves and come to the libertarian position all by themselves without any outside guidance. They are also less likely to abandon their libertarian principles under coercion or distress.

Smart people who cling to the barbaric desire to harm people who do not deserve to be harmed right now will gravitate toward one form of authoritarianism or another. It is the only way they can justify the harm they cause (and usually avoid immediate consequences). They can pretend to be something other than a bad person, but it is a transparent act. Many of these end up joining the world's biggest, most violent gang.

Why "Dull 'Hawk"?

People seem to really enjoy using my "Dull 'Hawk" moniker (often shortened to "dullhawk" online) as an insult. The "dull" part, anyway. I'm sure I've explained this before, but I can't find it, so I suppose it's appropriate to post it here.

Dull 'Hawk is my "mountainman name", and is short for "Dull Tomahawk". (We mountainmen usually call our tomahawks "'hawks" among ourselves.)

So, why is my 'hawk dull? Actually, it isn't. Back in 1992 I was at a mountainman rendezvous and was competing in the tomahawk-throwing competition. My tomahawk would hit the target every time... and fall off. In practice it stuck every single time, but in the contest it simply refused. Performance anxiety, I suppose.

Anyway, people gave me the name "Dull 'Hawk" at that rendezvous and I kept it.

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State- collapsing under its own failures

The State is a failure. Need proof?

An Albuquerque police detective has been placed on "administrative duty" while his arrest for punching his girlfriend is sorted out. They were fighting over her taxes. Fail, fail, and fail again. So the police department is quickly distancing themselves by emphasizing he is just a "part-time" Only One. Just in case their "thin blue line" fails to protect one of their Brothers.

The girlfriend should not be forced, by The State, to experience the stress of cooperating with and enabling the theft of her property. There should be no special elite class who are given special treatment when accused of serious offenses. If he really punched her, should he be doing anything "official" for the APD, or might this give a dangerous man opportunity to harm more people with impunity? In a free society this entire situation evaporates and would probably never have happened in the first place.

Then, to add failure on top of multiple failures highlighted above, the "career criminal" who has become a prime example of the failure of The State to do what its supporters claim is its number one job has been arrested for the 128th time. In a free society he would have been shot and stopped long ago by one of his intended victims, rather than being protected by "laws" against defense of self and property.

Enough is enough.

Politicians / thieves

I, and others, have frequently called politicians "thieves", which is an accurate statement. However, I think a much more accurate way to look at it is that all thieves are politicians.

There are only two ways to get something- either you earn it through consensual trade, or you steal it. This act of stealing what you want is known as "the political method". That means in order to be more accurate and honest when we speak of those who are committing theft, we should always refer to them by the name "politicians", since that is truly what they are. They have chosen the political method over consensual trade.

So, I will try to remember this and use the term appropriately whenever a theft occurs, for example "Two politicians held up a bank today..." or "A man was robbed in a parking lot by a politician..." Who knows, freelance thieves, oops- politicians might just be insulted enough to want to change.