Climate change no excuse for tyranny

Climate change no excuse for tyranny

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 28, 2011. This is the long version.)

You are being lied to about "global warming". By both sides.

Of course, it's no longer called "global warming", but "anthropogenic global climate change", to communicate the idea that the average global temperature might go up or go down in the short term, along with other climatic effects, and that human activities- specifically technology- are the cause.

No matter the name, "anthropogenic global climate change" ("AGCC" for short) is presented as a clear line in the sand between those who believe they have the right to control how you live "for the greater good" and those who don't.

Except, that isn't the whole truth. The irony is that some of AGCC's most vocal critics also believe in using the violence of government to violate your property rights and individual sovereignty, but for different reasons. Reasons like "national security", "morality", or "preserving our culture". Those critics have to insist AGCC is false or their belief in using the authority of The State to control you would come back to bite them.

Is AGCC real? No one knows for sure one way or the other, although you'll hear both sides claim they know the truth and that the "other side" is lying in order to promote an agenda. I'll let you in on a secret: it doesn't matter if AGCC is real or not. Making laws that violate individual rights - even in an effort to "save the planet"- is still wrong.

Uncouple AGCC from the agendas and pretend for a moment that it is absolutely factual. Pretend also that climate change would be wholly bad rather than the more likely reality that it would be a mixed bag of good and bad effects. Do you have the right to prevent someone else from doing things that might contribute in some unspecified, non-quantifiable way to AGCC? How do you calculate the exact amount of damage any specific individual's actions are causing to your property? Almost any action taken by people, and most other forms of life, could be claimed to cause some "damage to the planet". It is wrong to criminalize human life.

Think about it another way: Do you have a right to prevent someone from making a mutually consensual individual economic decision that might contribute to the collapse of the world economy? Buying a car using US dollars is economically harmful compared to buying a car with real money like gold or silver, yet as long as the buyer and seller can both agree, it is their decision- even if it might contribute to global economic upheaval in the long run. And don't be fooled: economic problems can be just as deadly as climate problems can.

Your only ethical option is to convince people to do what you believe they should do rather than using collectivism and initiating force to impose your will. Present the best evidence for your position and admit the unknowns. Don't lie to be more persuasive; that will only harm your argument when it is discovered. Make the best choice you can, setting the best example possible, with the information you have. Change is inevitable. Tyranny isn't.

Related: Cosmos and "Climate Change"

and Statism's AGCC denomination

.

Are we doomed to be wrong?

I keep reading things that suggest that because of the way human brains work and the limits of our experiences, we are usually wrong about any important issue we form an opinion about.

Whether it's Xerographica talking about the blind men groping an elephant, or Cracked.com's list of the 5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think, I feel I am getting signals from all sides saying that little old me has no chance to ever discover the truth. Either my perspective will be too limited or my brain will deceive me.

But I know that's not completely true.

Sure, I may be blind, feeling only one part of an elephant (and she'd be enjoying it, too), but I don't stand in one place for long. In moving around I would quickly get a clue that things were not as they seemed at first.

And, if everyone is being deceived by their own logical fallacies then they have as little chance of being right from the start as I do. If my ideas are wrong, then chances are those who disagree with me the most are also wrong. As long as I keep listening and testing my ideas, I will at least keep up with those who think differently about the issues. Eventually one of us, out of all of us, will find reality. If you find reality it isn't a good idea to change your mind later just because a lot of people disagree with you. Reality stands up.

One thing that suggests to me that I am at least on the right track is that I now accept some things that I once found absolutely abhorrent. But I heard them (or realized them), I tested them, and they passed, so I accepted them and was forced to adapt in order to be right.

Because being right- seeing reality as it actually is- is important to me. And I do think there is an objective reality and the universe isn't just a subjective guessing game.

.

Open letter to a local cop

You are the local cop. I see you everywhere, and watch as you break some of the "laws" I have seen you enforce against others. I know that it is human nature to justify your own behavior, but seeing this disgusts me. It's not that I think you should stop doing the things I see you do; it's that you should stop enforcing those "laws" against others. That's not why I am writing, though.

You may be a "nice" guy. You may even really try to help the community. Most of the time you seem friendly- as long as you are not acting in an "official capacity". I still try to avoid you whenever I can, because although you are a person, I can't trust you to not act as a cop if something triggers you. It's the same reason I won't sleep with a rabid skunk in my bed no matter how tame it seems.

Above all, I pity you. By joining forces with the worst enemy the people in America, and all of humanity, have ever faced you made yourself into a villain. You aligned yourself with the powerful bad guys who think it is their duty to tell other people how to live regardless of natural law, and think they deserve to be supported by the fruits of the labor of those they attempt to rule- in direct violation of natural law. And, by accepting a cut of the loot from those parasites in exchange for imposing their will on your neighbors, you became a parasite yourself. And, often, a thug. Your behavior is no better than any other gang member. You may (usually?) abide by your gang's rules, but when those rules are wrong, that isn't a point in your favor.

Probably no one other than me has ever pointed this truth out to you.

And now that you know the truth, you have a choice. You can change careers, or you can pretend that what I said isn't true and keep on doing what you are doing. But by taking the second path you go from having your guilt extenuated by ignorance to a willing embrace of evil. Your choice will show where your heart lies. Because, even if you never enforce another counterfeit "law" for the rest of your life, you are still living off of money taken by threat of violence from people who do not hand it over willingly. You are receiving stolen property, knowing full-well where it came from. That is enough to erase all the good you might ever do.

So, what is your decision?

.

Thinkfullness about thankfullness

Thanksgiving is here again. So, what am I thankful for? A lot.

Among the thankfulness is this: I am so thankful to all my readers for stopping by.

I'm not as "big" as a lot of the bloggers I admire, but it warms my heart to know that you actually take time out of your busy day to read what's on my mind.

So, thank you all.

.

Choice means running own life

Choice means running own life

(My CNJ column for October 21, 2011.)

You do have a choice, but it is not the choice you are usually presented with. The real choice is between being responsible for governing your own life or allowing someone else to govern you. To put it more bluntly, the choice is between liberty and slavery. However, if you listen to anyone other than libertarians you will be told that the choice is between limiting liberty in a "reasonable manner" and succumbing to chaotic death and destruction at the hands of others. Wrong.

Life is not really reducible to a choice between a fascist State or a murderous free-for-all. People who try to pretend these are the only available options are not being truthful. Or, perhaps they have been brainwashed into being unable to see any other options.

How many times have you heard the equivalent of "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists"? Or seen someone try to make the point that you must either violate a stranger's rights or watch your children be molested? How many times have you heard the "self-evident" opinion expressed that there is only a choice between tax-financed government schools with compulsory attendance or mass illiteracy and general ignorance. How many "experts" go on television, after an awful criminal act makes the news, to insist government must pass and enforce more gun laws or tragic shootings will continue to occur?

How many people are brave enough to admit that the collectivist "solution" in each of these cases ends up causing more of the problem?

Those who profit from scaring you into believing you face only the two extremes are happy that you are willing to believe it. It makes their work easier if you don't think for yourself. Fear is not a good emotional condition to be in while making decisions. It leads to draconian "for the children" laws that will ultimately hurt the children- if not immediately, then almost certainly once they become adults.

No one can claim fear isn't a powerful motivator, or that false dichotomies, and "for the children" doesn't usually work. That's why the strategies will continue to be popular. However, when you notice these tactics being used you should realize you are being manipulated, and it is not for your benefit or for the benefit of your children. It is strictly for the benefit of those who want to run your life. Don't fall for it.

.

"Greater Good"? Neither.

I recently ran into the term "greater good" again. And, as is always the case, the "greater good" being discussed was not great or good.

That term is invariably used to describe harming some individuals in order to promote some group's agenda. The group, through its individual members, decides that the individuals it targets are doing something that is "bad" for "society", and so they must be sacrificed. Sometimes the sacrifice doesn't result in the targeted individuals' actual, physical death, but other times it does.

And the murderers feel smug and get awards for the "good" they have done, while hiding behind the group, and lies, to avoid justice.

I never bought it, and I never will.

The only "greater good" is to respect the life, liberty, and property of every individual. Nothing can be greater than that, and that is the root of all good. Anything less great or less good is evil.

.

TV's "Parks & Recreation"

I've been watching the show "Parks & Recreation" on Netflix. Late at night. It is about a fictional town's parks and recreation department, which is headed by a fictional libertarian.

At least the character says he's a libertarian.

Don't get me wrong. I like the character. He has some libertarian characteristics. He also has some anti-social characteristics and some quasi-conservative characteristics. But he is much too eager to accept the government's say on things, and its limits on natural rights, to be a libertarian. Plus, you know, he works for the government. (OK, I accept that it does happen.)

For example: He gave another character a handgun as a 21st birthday gift, and then went on to talk about holding it for her until she got her "license". If you're going to give someone a gun, why wait until the "law" says it is OK, and why make a big deal about licensing and other such nonsense. I suppose you could make the argument that he just wanted an excuse to hang on to the .22 caliber mouse gun a little longer, but that isn't believable. No, I think it showed he is a statist.

Even more telling; he seems to know nothing of the Zero Aggression Principle, or anything else that defines libertarianism.

It bothers me that this may be the only reference to libertarianism that some people will ever see, and it is just plain wrong. They will come away with the notion that "libertarian" means selfish, aimlessly anti-government, and slightly misanthropic, without any guiding principle. But, then, that's what "The Powers That Be" and the mainstream media believe... or want everyone else to believe. It's like having a show about a horse, but using a camel in the starring role.

Still, if you want an amusing way to waste some time, it's a funny show. I can even watch it, in spite of it being about government, and get a laugh.

.

Lying on the internet, sex predators, and The State

If lying on the internet is now a federal crime, that means that LEOs pretending to be 15 year-old girls looking for sex with older men are also committing a federal crime.

The State and its sex predators can't have it both ways.

.

"Public goods"?

The term "public good" is used to justify a lot of theft and coercion.

There is no such thing as a "public good".

Instead, there is only a tradition that says "the market can't provide this, so we must use the force of the government to provide it by forcing people who don't want it to pay for it".

But that's a lie, and the supposed "public goods" will change from place to place and over time, depending on what the local thieves/politicians want to steal your money for.

Here and now it is roads and "national defense" [sic]. In other places and during other times it has been other things. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that "witchcraft intervention" has been a "public good" somewhere at some time.

If something is wanted (never mind whether it is needed) there will be a market for that thing (or service) and those willing to provide it. No theft or coercion necessary.

Added: a lot more discussion has been carried out here.

.

Here we come, a-waffling...

Anyone else ever notice (if you bother to waste your attention on such things) that politicians either waffle all over the "political" map, or they find the most idiotic stance they possibly can and then stand absolutely firm in their idiocy- immune to reason, logic, or decency?

And then those who choose to participate in politics act surprised at the mess that results.

.

Kinder? Gentler? Me?

My editor at the paper emailed me after my latest submission (to be published Friday). He commented about me being "kinder and gentler" recently. What?!? Kinder? Gentler? Am I losing my touch?

Yes, I try to say things for the newspaper column that don't compromise principles of liberty in any way, while not sounding mean and nasty. I probably try harder to do that in the newspaper column than in this blog. But, I still say things in every column that I suspect might cause problems. I am still the same old me, and my attitudes and opinions haven't changed a bit. In person I am always (I think) kind and gentle. Sometimes to excess.

But to hear that about my writing is a shock.

Seriously, do I need to re-examine myself to see if I am losing my edge?

.

Protesters should focus on the Fed

Protesters should focus on the Fed

My Clovis News Journal column for October 14, 2011. (I actually used the preferred spelling "protestors", but the paper changed it.)

The recent "Occupy Wall Street" events are entertaining political theater. It has been interesting to watch the Democrats derail the movement just as the Republicans derailed the Tea Party movement before. This may also partially explain why so many of the participants are missing the point. Many, if not most, of the protestors blame "capitalism" for the problems they are protesting. Some even are pushing socialism as the solution. They couldn't be more wrong. Of course, those misguided protestors have been raised to believe in the twisted ideals of socialism, so what would you expect them to cry out for?

Yes, Wall Street is corrupt. What do you expect when you have a government available to be influenced and bought? "Laws" to be manipulated and monopolies to be protected? Under such a system this exact type of corruption and cronyism is inevitable. However to confuse the current situation with capitalism is to show you have no clue what capitalism is.

Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals, rather than the government, own and control the means of production. This hasn't been the case in America in a very long time. While the ownership is still nominally private, the control- through thousands of pages of rules and regulations concerning every aspect of running a business- is by the State. Thus, no capitalism.

A more accurate term for the melding of government and "big business" (usually through the government's creation of corporations) is "fascism". Or, to use a less politically-charged word, "corporatism". Corporatism is not capitalism and is not equivalent to the free market. In fact, it is the mortal enemy of the free market and liberty of all sorts.

Some of the protestors are focusing on an even more deserving villain: The Federal Reserve. They are calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve and and end to its operation. My only disagreement with this point is that the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down regardless of whether it is ever audited or not. The US dollar has lost almost all of its value since the Federal Reserve began its counterfeiting operation back in 1913. Isn't that enough reason to abolish it? Return to sound money based upon things that can be voluntarily agreed upon to have lasting value. Gold and silver are good choices and have worked well as money for thousands of years.

I wish more of the protestors understood these simple facts rather than going with the feel-good soundbites they have been repeating endlessly.

.

Pragmatarianism examined

Xerographica keeps harping on the "pragmatarian" idea of still forcibly extracting "taxes" from people, but letting them choose which thugs shall receive the stolen property.

His idea is that in this way tax slaves would be able to reward government agencies for doing what they want done, and de-fund those they don't like. (Yes, this is a simplified synopsis.) In his view, this way, if the market is really better than government, government would fade away due to lack of funds.

How?

Unless you are free to choose to send your "taxes" to a private enterprise instead of an "equivalent" government office, all the "tax" money will still end up going to government, and will be unavailable in the market. Unless I can fund the local militia instead of the Pentagon, how will my choice be honored?

Sure, I could send my "tax" money to the EPA instead of the Pentagon, but I can't choose an actual alternative to the Pentagon.

Considering this deeper: I don't want or need cops or the military. So, would any money I spend on guns, ammo, and training be subtracted from my coerced "tax" burden? After all, I am choosing to spend the protection money on the only one who really has any incentive to protect me and my family. Any money "taxed" from me is money I can't spend on my more personal defense.

If some government agencies end up completely unfunded and evaporate, that means the surviving agencies will be getting larger budgets. Agencies will always spend whatever is available. How will the total "tax" burden ever shrink? The pie will stay the same size (no, that is a lie. It will grow), but it will have fewer, larger, slices.

I'm sorry. I keep going back to this idea with the intention of finding some way to agree with it. I seriously want to like it. It seems so reasonable at first glance.

But the more I think about it the less I actually agree with it.

It's funny because this is the exact same idea I had when I was a teenager. I figured if I could pretend that every cent of the "taxes" I paid were sent to NASA (for example) I wouldn't feel so violated when paying. I could fund something I thought was doing a useful thing. (Yeah, I was terribly naive and didn't see what was really happening because of the government space monopoly.) I grew out of that notion fairly quickly as I learned and observed more.

I still can't make myself believe that theft is "better"- "less wrong"- when you can choose which thief gets the money, or that rape is "nicer" if you can choose your rapist.

I could, conditionally, support "pragmatarianism" as long as there were the option to opt out if you agree to use no government "services" [sic] unless you pay for them up front. But I would still consider those who funded government aggression and theft to be my enemy- guilty of violating the ZAP by sending others to use, or threaten, force against me.

*All government agencies named above are for illustrative purposes only. I have no intention of ever voluntarily sending any of them a cent.

.

Another Statist Holy Day

On the heels of "Used Person's Day", where we are supposed to "thank a veteran for our freedom"- LOL), perhaps we should also have "Cop Day".

In honor of this day you can thank a cop for not having shot you. Yet.

It makes just as much sense.

.

Day of the Used Person

I really have a hard time stomaching the "veteran" worship this day brings. It's not that I necessarily fault the "veterans". I fault the puppetmaster holding the veterans' strings, and the mindless masses who choose to not see the strings. Or the threat.

Most "veterans" probably didn't know any better and really thought that by signing up, or cooperating with their enslavement during the era of the "draft", they were doing the right thing. Of course, they were NOT- they were being used to advance the interests of a group of insane monsters who want to control the world- but few people are aware enough to realize that.

The constant barrage of "Thank you for your service" and "We thank our veterans" is enough to make me ill. There has been no "service" and I have no ownership interest in any "veterans".

People working for a mass-murdering psychopath are not to be thanked, even if they thought they were doing good. Naive intentions may matter, but the end results are extremely important, too.

The truth is the US government is the American's worst nightmare. The greatest threat America has ever faced. And the only real danger to your liberty and mine.

Want me to think you, Mr. and Ms. Military? Then walk away from your "job" and arrest your employer (the one who writes your checks, not the person the money backing the checks was stolen from). And then, when out of the clutches of the federal domestic enemies, please don't join the domestic enemies of the standing army that occupies America. We were warned about them in no uncertain terms.

Then I could honestly, without any hypocrisy or irony, say "Thank you for protecting liberty". You would then have served with honor.

.

Pity Herman Cain

Herman Cain must be a truly messed-up individual. And yet there are those who think he should be allowed to rule them?

In response to the claims of sexual harassment he said "I have never acted inappropriately with anyone. Period."

I don't think there's a human alive who can honestly say that. Thank goodness! On the other hand, I'd be even more worried about him if the claim were true! That's just not healthy.

I have "acted inappropriately" with lots of people. I also enjoy it when others (particularly of the opposite sex) act "inappropriately" with me. But I guess it depends on what you consider "inappropriate". Maybe there are times "inappropriate" is appropriate.

Cain also shows a lack of understanding of reality in that he offers to take a lie detector test to "prove" he is telling the truth. Lie detector tests do not detect lies or verify truth. They are pseudo-science just like astrology and creationism. Or, maybe he knows this but is playing along to satisfy the dupes who support him.

.

Running to the government

Claire Wolfe had a link that is an engaging waste of time. It is on a fishing forum and is about "weird things found in the woods". Fascinating, if you have a lot of time to waste.

It made me think of some of the things I have found over the years, but this isn't about that.

No, what gets to me is how many of those "findings"were dutifully (and immediately) reported to agents of The State. I have found my share of marijuana patches and it never even crossed my mind to run to the nearest government employee to report them. I never found a dead body, and I'm glad. I would be conflicted about what to do. I might make an anonymous tip to a funeral home or something.

Never, at any stage of my life, did the default setting in my brain involve running to the government. Is that really such an odd thing?

.

Socialism weakens freedom

Socialism weakens freedom

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for September 7, 2011.)

Collectivism or socialism, in whatever form, is like a deadly parasite excreting a poison into its host. As long as your society is vibrant and healthy it can support a small amount of this societal poison. The collectivism feeds off of the rest of the society, dragging it down a little, but not enough to be noticed by the majority of the people who are busy with their own lives. A healthy society is resilient.

If the society starts to become less healthy for some reason, or if more socialism is added since "just a little more won't hurt", the effects will start to grow. Little economic problems will take longer to recover from. Each new problem will have a slightly bigger effect. A feedback loop begins.

At some point there will be too much socialism for the society to sustain. At that point there are two ways things can go from there. Either you get rid of the socialism or you watch the society die.

You can't shield your favorite bits of socialism while demanding that someone else get rid of theirs. Entitlement programs are all equal in the effects they have. Just whom "The Entitled" may be is of no consequence.

Regulations and taxation, too. Everything that is a hindrance to private property and a disincentive to be productive has a broad reach- crippling more than just the intended target.

Each bit of collectivism takes a small bite out of liberty and weakens your society just a little more. Add an intrinsically worthless fiat currency to the mix, such as the US dollar, and you have a recipe for disaster.

After a while, if the situation goes on long enough, it isn't only your society in danger, but much of civilization.

Civilization today is no longer strong enough to indulge collectivist myths and delusions. You want socialism? Then you pay for it yourself and leave the rest of us, who choose to opt out, alone. You'll have to let civilization recover for a couple hundred years before it can weather another round of your statist disease. Perhaps by then our descendants will be smart enough to realize that collectivism always fails, every time it is tried, no matter what you call it or how you justify it. It's just a matter of time.

.

Epidemics and conspiracies

I wonder why there can't be an epidemic that does something beneficial- such as destroy the ageing process, or make it impossible for cancer or heart disease to damage those infected. What if something like that has happened in the past to solve a problem we don't know once existed?

Yeah, I know that since there are so many more ways to mess things up (due to entropy) than to get something right that making things worse and causing problems is the overwhelmingly more likely result, but still...

In a similar vein: Why can't there be a conspiracy to spread liberty and help people rather than to hurt individuals and hide the guilty parties? Oh, wait. I think I've said too much...

.

CIA is now following YOU

So, the CIA admits it is spying on people's Twitter and facebook posts. To get a "feel" for what people think about its criminal bosses' criminal actions. That could be amusing, especially if turned against them.

I wonder what would happen if lots of people, all over the world, started posting, in a one day concerted effort on Twitter and facebook, things like "The US government is on the brink of collapse!" "US government has lost consent of the governed!" "Angry mobs lynching politicians from coast to coast!" "The US regime is falling!" "USA is dead! Liberty lives!"

Would it spread? Would perception influence reality? Would the feds step in to put an end to it all?

.

The unstable are among us

I saw a conservative post this on facebook; as a biblical justification of conservatives:

Ecc 10:2- "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

I just see it as another illustration that the Bible is fallible.

To any rational impartial observer, anything that is inclined- is leaning- is seen to be unstable. Only those who are upright, above the "right vs left" nonsense, are stable. That's the libertarians.

.

Yearly Reminder- 5th of November

Remember, remember, this fifth of November,

that government is only a plot.

'Though it's the holiday season,

that is no reason

it should be forgot.

President, Congress, t'was their intent

To violate rights; our money they spent.

Thousands of "laws", each a new crime;

Liberty, it seems, had run out of time.

Elections were held to pacify some,

A new batch of scoundrels to Washington come.

Wake up, wake up, your life is your own!

Wake up, wake up, YOU sit on the throne!

And how shall we live? In true liberty!

.

What's wrong with this picture?

Not that there should be a government agency dealing with guns (since the Constitution clearly makes such illegal)- or a government for that matter- but putting anti-gun extremist bureaucrats in charge of such an agency makes as much sense as putting a rapist in charge of a women's shelter.

Fast and Furious/Gunwalker shows that it is time to fire (at the minimum) the rapists... and don't hire more.

.

Politics

Politics is the attempt to live among people you don't like by forcing your will on them (through government and "laws", for example).

Politics is what you use when you don’t want to bother with mutual consent to get what you want. Politics is cheating.

Not every human action is political, only every unethical human interaction.

The mugger uses politics when he mugs someone. The murderer, rapist, kidnapper, police officer, mayor, congressvermin, president, etc. use politics.

Politics is the use of the "political means" (government, legislation, coercion, threats, theft, etc.), where someone "wins" at the expense of someone else (win/lose), instead of the use of the "economic means" (trade, freedom of association, etc.), where everyone comes out ahead (win/win).



.

Government property rights

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Government has zero property rights. Government is not a person nor an individual of any kind and can own nothing. Not only that, but individuals who are a part of government have no property rights over the "government property".

The postmaster has no property rights over the post office. The forest ranger has no property rights over the forests. The traffic cop has no property rights to the roads. The president has no property rights over "Area 51"(nor do any of his military goons) . Nor do any government employees have any authority to administer the property rights of government, because those rights don't exist. Period. Government property is stolen property and does not belong to the thief or his gang, nor their descendants. It is No Man's Land.

That doesn't mean government enforcers won't murder or kidnap you if you violate those imaginary government property rights, or any terms thereof, but when they do, it is an unvarnished murder or kidnapping. It is exactly like if a crook broke into your house, claimed it as his own, and then killed you when you returned home. So be careful of government thugs enforcing their deadly delusions.

.

Movie recommendation: The Ledge

I don't normally get into doing movie reviews. Such things are just too subjective, and I don't assume your tastes mesh well with mine. But I'll make an exception now.

If you haven't seen "The Ledge" you are missing something entertaining and thought-provoking. Watch it.

It isn't the type of movie I normally want to watch. I had read about it, thought it sounded interesting, and put it on my Netflix list a month or so ago. I'm glad I did. Unfortunately I don't remember where I first read about it, so I don't know who to thank.

I started to write more about the movie, and the thoughts it brought to my mind, but erased it all to just say see it for yourself. I don't think you'll regret it- unless you'd be offended by Liv Tyler's naked breasts. And if that sort of thing offends you I doubt you'd be reading this blog.

.

"When should you shoot a cop?"

"Should". That's a pretty loaded word.

Somehow I ended up on some Tea Party mailing list. The email I got from them most recently mentions a flyer (which has been blamed on Tea Party activists) that asks the question "When should you shoot a cop?"

I can't tell you when you "should" shoot a cop, but I can tell you when you would be ethically justified in shooting one: Whenever that is the best way to stop one from violating your life, liberty, or property, or to prevent the same from being committed against someone you have accepted responsibility for. In other words, exactly the same conditions that justify the shooting of any other individual. The "job" gives no immunity from "natural law" even as it gives some immunity from statutory "law".

The "should" is up to your own assessment of the situation.

.