Abolish slavery- abolish government schools

I don't understand why so many people are so anxious to defend government schools that they will attack anyone who questions the "system". This psychotic level of defensiveness is scary.

Is it because they don't want to be thought of as abusing their children if they send them to these drone factories?

Is it because they don't want to face the harm the government schools may have done to them?

Is it because "it's always been done this way"? Because it hasn't, you know.

Government schools are funded through theft. You can't teach anyone to be a decent person with that kind of example. Government schools are the reproductive organ of The State. Sure, some people do well in them. Humans are incredibly adaptive. Sure, you can learn things in government schools.

But "Schooling" is NOT the same as education. They are completely unrelated, except that schooling teaches people to obey "authority" figures- thank goodness many never really learn that lesson.

.

Bloomberg & Kelly: Laughingstocks

New York City's mayor Bloomie and New York's Reaver Queen, DeathRay Kelly, are now the laughingstock of America. It's about time.

These "only cops should have guns" idiots are still chanting their mantra even after their ridiculous premise was utterly destroyed when the NYC's badged reavers shot 9 innocent bystanders while killing a murderer near the Empire State Building. "Untrained" armed good guys couldn't have done worse, and have historically done a lot better.

I suppose the only way things could have been worse in the Aurora theater massacre is if some armed cops had been the only other armed people at the movie that night. Yet, this is exactly what Bloomie and DeathRay are still pushing for. Because only reavers have the "right training" to handle guns safely. Yeah, right.

.

Gun laws won't stop killers

Gun laws won't stop killers

(My Clovis News Journal/Portales News-Tribune column for July 27, 2012. Also, read "part 2".)

Once again, the inevitable results of "gun control" have claimed more innocent lives. And, once again, those whom the majority of the media fawn over have begun their ritual blood dance; blaming everything and everyone but the shooter for the murders.

Predictably they are calling for more violations of the fundamental right to own and to carry any type of weapon you see fit, wherever you go, in any manner you choose, without asking permission from anyone, ever. You have this right not because of the Second Amendment, or because of your citizenship, but because you were born a human being. A government can either respect this right or violate it. There is no middle ground.

No new laws could have prevented this massacre, nor could the enforcement of existing laws. People who have decided to murder don't worry about whether there is also a law prohibiting them from having a gun. They don't see a "No guns" sign and turn away in disappointment. No, they ignore those laws and walk right past that sign knowing that their grim task has been made much easier because most decent people will obey those dangerous rules even at the risk of their life- and the lives of their loved ones.

But what about the "mentally ill"? Shouldn't something be done to keep guns away from them? Any law that can forbid anyone from owning a gun can be used against you, too, and it still won't stop the bad guys from getting one anyway. Also consider that the anti-liberty bigots who don't want you to have a gun consider your determination to own one a "mental illness" that should disqualify you from owning one. It's a "catch 22" and you aren't permitted to diagnose yourself.

What about an outright ban? Even if you managed to get every gun away from every member of the public, you would also have to remove them from the hands of police and the military since any gun can be stolen, or sold for black market prices. This is what all prohibitions will always do for any product. Plus, guns are not that hard to build from scratch.

The people calling for more gun laws, stronger enforcement, or a bigger surveillance state "for safety" are ignoring reality in favor of feeling like something is being done. Next time I'll look at more of the problems with the failed social engineering experiment euphemistically called "gun control".

.

I am...

I am an anarchist. I don't believe in "rulers" or states, and believe the only government that has ever worked, or ever will, is self-government (self control). I don't look for anyone else to shoulder my responsibilities or save me from the consequences of my actions. I rule my own life even as others try to rule me. I would be an "enemy of the State" if I cared that much about such a silly group of clowns in funny hats.

(Re-posted from my facebook status a few days ago.)

Bad day.

This is a difficult day for me. A bad day.

My youngest daughter is starting kindergarten in a government school today. Against my wishes. But I have been outvoted.

She wants to go, because she loves being around other kids. And because she thinks "recess" is "school".

Her mom wants her to go because- well, I am not sure why but I have several unflattering theories.

My parents want her to go because they are "patriotic" statists who think government schools are great and necessary for education. And, I suspect, because they want to see her get "the other side" of the story- the pro-USA side- away from my influence. And probably because here the government school also pushes a religious agenda which they would like to see her exposed to. That, along with any exposure to the National Socialist "Pledge of Allegiance" or DARE will undoubtedly make for some interesting interactions for me. Interactions I do not look forward to.

I am not a tyrant, and believe my daughter should be allowed to choose for herself, but I also know that with her natural inclination, and the cheerleading for school coming at her from every person other than me, I lost the battle before it even began.

I had assumed from the beginning that I would be homeschooling/unschooling her. Now I feel I have failed her, even though she doesn't know it yet. I also feel lost and useless since I have been caring for her every hour of every day since she was born- five years ago tomorrow.

So I am in a really bad mood, which is not my normal condition.

.

My New Look!

An improvement, no?

Check out some other uses of this instant masterpiece on Claire's blog.

Troublemakers' associates don't like guns

I have made an observation about guns and those who dislike them.

People who have grown up around troublemakers (or have been troublemakers, themselves) don't like gun ownership. Most other people are either neutral on the subject or appreciate gun ownership.

Is it because the hoplophobes are afraid that the troublemakers in their lives will be using the guns to create crime, or because the troublemakers will be neutralized by a good guy who doesn't want to be victimized? I suspect it is, after listening to some of these people.

.

Fame!

I think I have just the right amount of fame. Enough that (some) people listen to what I say so that the message about liberty gets into more brains, but not enough that I have to worry about the negative aspects. Crazy people aren't following me around or trying to shoot me. So maybe I have the best of both worlds.

Well, I would appreciate some groupies...

And money...

But other than that...

.

Factions become fractions

Why are there so many factions of libertarian? And of liberty-lover? And of "Three-percenter"?

I think it's because everyone wants to take the foundational concept and put their own "spin", their own little memorial, on top of it. Unfortunately that memorial becomes a tombstone.

That tombstone may involve "borders", or "anti-big business" (usually, actually anti-free-market and pro government regulation), or anti-sexuality, or anti-politically-incorrect drugs, or whatever else the people are willing to make an exception to permit State coercion for.

It's why we have factions of "left libertarians" and "right libertarians" instead of just a bigger group of libertarians.

Screw that!

.

The "Green Party"? Oh my!

Somehow I got CC'ed on some emails involving people I don't know at all. Don't even have a clue who they are. One of the participants copied and pasted my latest CNJ column to the others, which is how I might have gotten mixed up in it.

Anyway... they were discussing The Green Party. One person was mentioning how the Green Party supports "depopulation", while the others were defending the Green Party by saying that, no, they are not advocates of depopulation, but of "sustainability".

I have heard of the Greens for years and assumed they were simply socialists, but had never looked into them. Perhaps they could be allies. So, I found their website.

Nope. Not allies. Not a chance in Hades!

I started looking over their platform and- WOW! I don't know where to begin.

I originally thought I might go through their platform and drag the truth out of it sentence by sentence, but I soon realized that it is a VERY long platform and every sentence contains "problems".

I did get a tiny bit into the first point ("Democracy") and will share what I found in the first paragraph:

"Our nation was born as the first great experiment in modern democracy."

And, like the majority of experiments the premise was disproved. Time to try something different.

"We seek to rescue that heritage from the erosion of citizen participation."

Why? When smart people discover that something doesn't work they don't keep doing it. Only idiots do that.

"Moreover, we seek to dissolve the grip of the ideology, intoned by big-money interests for more than twenty years, that government is intrinsically undesirable and destructive of liberty and that elected officials should rightly 'starve the beast' by slashing all spending on social program, in the name of freedom."

"Big money interests", at least the dishonest ones that are a problem, desire big government. They also despise liberty. "Starving the beast" means forcing government to support itself with donations, not by stealing. If it can't do that it needs to die. It isn't up to elected officials to be responsible by not spending money that isn't theirs to spend. Crooks won't ever be responsible. It is up to you and me to do the right thing and force the theft to end. "Social program" [sic] destroy freedom. It isn't "generous" to give away money that is not yours to give- that is theft. Theft is anti-freedom, and more importantly, it is anti-LIBERTY. Charity is great; "social programs" financed through theft and coercion are evil.

"We challenge that tactic by calling on all Americans to think deeply about the meaning of government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Government can be "of the people", it can even be "by the people", but it can never be "for the people". It is always for the government. The people- individuals- always lose out to the collective that seeks to live at the expense of those who actually produce. That "collective" is a sad feature of humans wherein they feel empowered by the anonymity of a large group to do things they know are wrong if they did them on their own. They may know it is wrong to steal from others, but put them in a group where someone else is actually looking into the eyes of the children as they take away the property they depend on, and it is easy to shirk the blame. But the blame rests on each individual who advocates theft. Government lives for power, and the corrupt individuals who hold that power know that the best way to hold onto the power they possess, and gain more power, is to promise to give voters and supporters "stuff". "Entitlements" are bribes paid by politicians to people who generally won't do the stealing in person, but are more than happy to receive stolen goods as long as they don't witness the theft first-hand.

"In a democracy, individuals come together to form structures of governance that protect and advance the common good."

Structures of governance? What is "governance"? It is control and coercion. It is forcing people to do things they know are not in their best interest, because otherwise they would do them without being forced. Governance, other than self-governance, is mob rule. It is a violation of liberty. When those "structures" and "the common good" hurt individuals it is time to stop. There is NO SUCH THING as "the common good". If it hurts individuals it hurts society. Society is nothing without the individuals that comprise it. You can't violate property rights of the individuals and then claim it helps "the common good" without exposing yourself as a liar.

"We the citizens are the government, and we the citizens can direct it to fulfill its finest goals and purposes."

The word "citizen" is disgusting; implying that you belong to the government that claims the land you live on or were born on. But, moving right along... What are the government's "finest goals and purposes"? The only possible justification for government is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the people who live under it.

.....

And so on. And that's not even the whole first paragraph. Next to these people, Republocrats seem almost honest and respectable. They are almost as bad as the "Government is Good" goons- maybe the same people are behind both spectacles.

.

You have right to refuse health care

You have right to refuse health care

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 20, 2012)

The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", that Orwellian edifice of Medical Marxism more commonly referred to as "ObamaCare", has been declared "legal". What a farce. It has nothing to do with protecting patients. It has nothing to do with making medical services affordable- unless you consider slavery an affordable alternative to paying for services and theft an affordable alternative to paying for products. It is also the opposite of care.

It abysmally "solves" a problem that would never have existed if not for government intervention in health care.

You have an absolute right to provide yourself with whatever health care you want and can obtain for yourself without coercion. You have a human right to use whatever kind of medication or procedures you want, over the objections of the FDA and DEA. However, your right doesn't create an obligation on anyone else to serve you or pay for your care on your behalf. No one has a right to force someone to do something for them beyond leaving them alone.

If you can read the Constitution you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the federal government has no authority to interfere in the practice, or financing, of medicine. If it isn't specifically spelled out, the authority doesn't exist. It doesn't take a Supreme Court to find the truth; only to obscure it. The Supreme Court was never intended to be the final arbiter of whether or not a law was constitutional; that is your job and mine, but the Supreme Court illegally seized that power for themselves in the early years of the 19th century, and no one punished them for doing so. America has been paying the price ever since.

If you assume that the Constitution is the Alpha and the Omega of right and wrong where governing is concerned; that "legal" is the same thing as "right"; that the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not; that it is OK to dictate what people may do with their own property- even to the point of taking it from them against their will; if you allow things you know are wrong to be imposed on yourself or on others, then you should expect things like this to happen. You are a part of the problem.

America will probably survive ObamaCare. The USA may, too. However, if things like this continue to be allowed to be imposed, there will come a time when, unexpectedly and out of the blue, the next tiny straw will break the camel's back. Be prepared.

.

War is Peace. Military is Militia.

I don't have television (only Netflix streaming), but just ran across some previews of a TV show that looks interesting. "Revolution". However, in watching previews on YouTube I notice something. Just as words got twisted in Orwell's "1984" so that "War is Peace", "Revolution" has twisted the word "militia". The bad guy, Neville, is called "militia", but he is instead military.

If you work for The State (or whatever coercive collective passes for The State in your society), using weapons to enforce the edicts and theft of that State, you are military. If you pursue the interests of The State, with force, against the interests of the people, you are military.

The character Charlie is the true face of militia. The armed people, simply protecting themselves and their local society, is what militia is. All the people. Not some "set apart" elite.

Yet, as is the case more and more in Police State USA, the concept has been turned inside out in order to vilify the good guys by conflating them with the bad guys.

Like it or not, YOU are tasked with being militia. You can betray that by becoming military instead, or you can step up and do what's right. Which do you choose?

Added, after watching the pilot episode:

(From here)

I liked it in a “willing suspension of disbelief” way.

Why is it that people always assume it’s going to be “kill or be killed” if you remove The State? I don’t refrain from killing people only because I might be punished by cops or courts. And, even if I were a thug I still think I’d worry more about armed victims.

And, back to the subject of their “militia” [sic]… Anyone who bans guns, or enforces a gun ban for someone else, is NOT militia. Militia helps its members (in other words, EVERYONE) get weapons and learn how to use them.

.

Fundraiser time

(I'm pinning this to the top, so look below for the new stuff for a few days. Thanks.)

I need some money. However, I'm not asking for donations. What I am asking is that you buy things from me if you want them.

Or, if you feel so inclined, and you believe there is value in what I write, you could pay me for that. Whatever you believe my writings are worth to you.

If you are struggling or short of money I don't want any money from you. Only if you have "extra money", whatever that might mean to you, should you ever pay me for my writing. I don't want your kid to do without a single water balloon because of me.

If you don't think my blog is worth reading, or at least not worth paying for, I don't want your money.

I don't want welfare, and in this case I don't even want charity.

All I'm asking is that if you believe there is value- for YOU- in what I write, and you think you should pay me for it even though you can get it for free, then pay me what you think you should. If you can, without causing hardship to yourself. If you can't afford to pay, or you don't believe you should- for any reason at all- then please don't send a cent.

Thanks.

.

Sticking points

There are some pretty interesting groups out there I can't join, even though I otherwise would, because of just a couple of disagreements. It is the difference between a "liberty-supporting conservative" and a libertarian.

I got an invitation to join one such online group a couple of days ago that I was initially going to join, but their website had a couple things I can't agree to. For example: "We support bringing all U.S. Troops home, from overseas bases, and placing them in our homeland, to secure OUR borders."

Bring the "troops" home, by all means. But then let them find real jobs, paid for economically, not politically. And don't use them for political purposes. I secure MY borders just fine (without using people paid with stolen money) and I will help others do the same, but I don't recognize any collective "borders" like the ones the US government insists are real (and is willing to kill over). That one little problem prevented me from clicking "agree".

Well, there's another one. "We don't support Darwinism..." What is "Darwinism"? If they mean the science of evolution by natural selection over geological periods of time, well, it doesn't matter whether you "support" it or not. Just like gravity, it will keep on doing what it does with or without your support or approval. Now, if they mean "Social Darwinism" of the type advocated by genocidal collectivists, I would agree to refusing to support that, but that isn't what it says.

Another issue I have is the repetition of the terms "American"/"Americans". Rights are not dependent upon "citizenship" or where you were born. An Afghan shepherd has the exact same fundamental human rights that an American neurosurgeon has- no more and no less. Whether the local mafia/state recognizes those rights or not is a different issue, as is the issue of whether an occupying force of invaders respects your rights.

So, while I wish the organization all the best and I support most of its goals, and may even promote them in some ways, those sticking points mean I can't honestly join them "officially".

I'm still waiting for a group based upon the Covenant of Unanimous Consent.

.

"Have you ever sat down with a cop...?"

I realize I am pretty harsh in my criticism of cops. Reavers. Liberty Eradication Operatives. Whatever you call them.

One assumption that comes up over and over through the years is that I have never actually known any cops socially, or that I have been in trouble with the "law" a lot. Neither is true.

I have had a few educational experiences that involved cops, but nothing more serious than minor traffic "offenses" (which wouldn't be offenses in a free society). Maybe a few incidents that would be more serious in today's US police state than back when they occurred. But I have never really been "in trouble". That doesn't mean that I overlook abuses just because I didn't happen to be the victim, though. Wrong is wrong, even if it doesn't directly target me.

I have known quite a few cops over the years. In a few different states. I have socialized with them, had deep conversations with them, even driven some drunk ones home. I have talked to some soon-to-be cops and found their brainwashing to be horrifying.

What they do, as a integral part of their "job", on a daily basis, is not a good thing. It is not something that should be done. You can't live off of "tax" money and then "arrest" people for theft without exposing yourself as a hypocrite. You can't enforce "laws" that shouldn't be enforced and then say you are "just following orders" or just doing your job.

Yes, I oppose the very existence of cops. I have some surprising allies in this opposition. As a matter of fact, the older retired/former cops I have known generally hate today's cops more than I do. They seem utterly disgusted at what police have become in a way I could never really relate to. Compared to them, I am a "cop lover".

I don't "need" cops. Neither do you. They don't make us safer. You are wise to never involve a cop in any bad situation; they only make it worse.

So don't assume that someone who dislikes cops does so out of ignorance, or out of bad "legal" experiences, or from a desire to be a thug. It may just be that he sees them and their illegitimacy more clearly than you do.

.

Politicians fear guns? Of course!

Most politicians, even those who fool gun owners into believing they are their friend, fear guns. Or hate them openly. And they do all they can to ban or regulate them into uselessness.

Why does that surprise anyone?

Given the power, I'm quite certain plague-infested rats would ban rat traps and rat poison, and flesh-eating bacteria would ban antibiotics. So it's no wonder anti-liberty vermin who have gained political power would try to ban our best defense against them.

The solution is obvious: stop being a parasite that threatens our life, liberty, and pursuit of property and you'll no longer have any reason to fear guns.

.

Obamney/Ryden 2012! Embrace the fail!

The post's title has upset quite a few Rombots on facebook. Usually after they have posted something anti-Obama that I agreed with. Then they make some absurd comment about how much better Romney is, or at least how much less bad he supposedly is, than Obama ("No comparison to a full blown socialist marxist radical anti-ameriKan usurper..")- which is sad considering that anything they say about Obama applies just as much to Romney, or would if he were "elected" president.

I'd purge my bloated "friend list", but those I'd be most likely to "de-friend" need to be exposed to the truth worse than those whom I'd keep around.

.

Assume you are a "criminal"

If you see a Reaver ("law enforcement officer") or have to be around some government facility or employee, it is wisest to simply assume you are doing something "illegal" or at least something they won't like (and will probably use as justification for further scrutiny or molestation).

This isn't being "paranoid"; it's being smart. It is the reality of the police state in which we find ourselves living today. Don't deny it or fight it. Accept it and survive.

.

Our society able to govern itself

Our society able to govern itself

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 13, 2012. I think I woulda left out the word "Our" in the headline, but...)

Technology has evolved. I can now carry an entire library of books in one hand when I leave the house, and I still have a library full of "paper and binding" books at home. This is a wealth unimaginable to even the kings of previous generations.

Knowledge has grown. For example, the human genome has been read and is being studied to find causes and cures for many horrible conditions. This raises possibilities undreamed of just a generation ago. Not only of extending the typical lifespan, but of improving the quality of more of that lifespan. (Unless ObamaCare kills health care in America.)

Everywhere you look, things show promise of getting better. Well, almost everywhere you look. Why, in the midst of all this exciting advancement, do we still settle for the bronze age notion of externally-imposed government?

Sure, governance is necessary. Self governance. You have to take responsibility for your own actions and accept the consequences, but this primitive notion of having a ruler- either one man or "the majority"- to interfere in the consensual, non-aggressive aspects of your life is positively barbaric. Very few things should be subject to a vote of any sort, and then only when you allow the non-consenting parties to opt out without leaving their home turf.

This problem springs from the silly belief that society needs to be run. As if society were a machine that will stop functioning without someone sitting in the driver's seat. The truth is much happier: Society runs just fine without so much as a steering wheel.

Snowflakes form a six-sided crystal due to the way water molecules arrange themselves as they freeze. It is just a natural example of self-organization; it will always occur unless there is some contaminant introduced into the mix. In the same way, people naturally arrange themselves in a peaceful society where each interaction benefits both. Those who attack or steal get eliminated as a matter of course. Until or unless you allow the contaminant of legitimized coercion to pollute your society. Then you end up with something uncivilized. Something resembling what we live under now.

"Patriots" frequently suggest that if I don't like it, I can move to Somalia- a society which has been destroyed by those who keep trying to impose a state on people who never wanted one. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic and backward.

.

A squirt from the State's reproductive organ

I see it over and over again; something along the lines of how the looming economic and/or social disaster can be averted "if the US government creates more jobs".

Governments do not "create jobs". All they can do is to destroy jobs. Destroy wealth. Destroy opportunity. Destroy incentive and innovation.

I made this point a while back on facebook only to have a commenter scold me by claiming that:

Business owners and entrepreneurs can only create jobs if there is a demand for their services. There can only be a demand for their services if gen pop has disposable income for such services, gen pop can only have that income if they are employed, they can only be employed if they are educated. They have to be educated in some type of school, which happens to be funded by the gov't.... gov't creates jobs. Just saying...

Sigh. There are so many flaws in that "argument". Why do people confuse "schooling" with "education"? And, why assume that to be educated you must have been "in some type of school"? And why ignore all the education that occurs free of government [sic] funding?

So I responded:

Education only rarely, and purely by accident, happens in government schools. Home-schoolers and unschoolers get a better education without the indoctrination. Disposable income is eliminated by The State on many levels. "Taxation" (which is a euphemism for theft), red tape, regulations, licensing, etc., and the counterfeiting operation at the Federal Reserve, take about 7/8 of the production of Americans when you add it all up. Want more disposable income? Get rid of the parasites who are bleeding you dry. Then, find a service or a product that is needed, and provide it. You will have created jobs and "disposable income".

Of course, their final response was to ask where I got my "schooling". Not where, or how, I was educated, but where I was "schooled". To which I responded:

Truthfully, I attended government schools, but I educated myself by reading and experimenting and thinking. Thankfully I made it through government schooling without having my love of learning destroyed as happens to so many.

I smell a government school employee. How about you?

.

Obamney plus Paul Ryan is still poison

Would you suddenly like your cancerous tumor if it grew an attractive lump on one side?

Romney is still Obamney even if he has a Paul Ryan appendage hanging off his side. Poison is still poison even if you add a strawberry. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig...

The game is still rigged and YOU aren't even among the potential winners- if you consent to play.

.

Just Stop Believing

Is "The State" a real thing, or is it only a figment of the believers' imaginations?

The buildings associated with The State are real. The consequences of getting caught violating the multitude of its counterfeit "laws" are real. There are a great many people who work for The State who would tell you the State is real.

But, what if everyone stopped believing in The State? How long would it outlast the cessation of belief? It wouldn't. Not by one femtosecond. The State's existence is completely dependent upon belief.

I don't believe in The State. I believe in thugs who band together and call themselves "the government" or "The State", but those are completely separate issues. Stop believing in The State, just recognize all the aggressors for what they are, and stop pretending there's a difference between the warring gangs. They are as they do.

.

Statist Confusion

An awful lot of people have been carefully trained to confuse schooling with education, nationalism with patriotism, compliance with consent, federal reserve notes with money, control with safety, freedom with liberty, "The United States of America" with America, ...and numerous other examples.

Is it paranoid to think this isn't accidental?

.

Doomed from the start?

Some people seem to just be more naturally aggressive than others. I am thinking of a young child I know.

He is aggressive. Everything he does is loud, aggressive, and impulsive. Fortunately, he seems to be intelligent, so he may have the mental tools to override his impulses if he gets the right guidance (which may be unlikely, as his family are happily statist).

I realize that some of that is "just being a boy" (I was never that way), and he'll undoubtedly grow out of a lot of it, but will a person like this be less likely to accept the Zero Aggression Principle, or, even if he acknowledges it, be unable to abide by it? How will people like him fare in a free society?

And what about those who are like him, but not intelligent? I hate to think that anyone is just doomed before they ever get a chance, but on the other hand, everyone, smart or stupid, has to live with consequences. That's just reality, and isn't something you or I can prevent.

.

Government threat to life, liberty

Government threat to life, liberty

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 6, 2012)

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have all heard those words, and most of us probably recognize them from the Declaration of Independence, but have you ever stopped to think about what they mean?

Those three things may seem random and unconnected, but they are as interconnected as links in a chain. Each is entirely dependent upon the one preceding it, and leads, or should lead, to the one that comes after it. Happiness is dependent on the liberty to pursue it, which you can't do if you are not alive. Originally "property" was mentioned instead of "pursuit of happiness", but it was later realized that property is just a facet of happiness. There are many other ways to pursue your happiness; many, but not all, depend upon your property, and your ability to keep it.

Even people who seek to violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others are trying to make themselves happy by doing so. They couldn't try to be happy without that freedom, but, freedom is only a part of liberty.

Liberty is the freedom to do anything you want as long as it doesn't violate the identical rights of anyone else. If your happiness depends on you punching people who are minding their own business, or if you believe you have to steal to make yourself happy, you are out of luck. Unless you get a job that comes with the illusion of authority to do those things. That still doesn't make it right.

Sadly, even though Thomas Jefferson claimed that government's purpose was to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is no greater threat to those "unalienable" rights today, and for the past several generations at least, than government.

How do you fix that? Either you stop permitting government to legally interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of everyone, or you have to put that power away; out of reach of those who use it as a weapon. That was what the Constitution was supposed to do- place most things beyond the reach of government. But government grew, and now it ignores the rules which were supposed to restrain it. It considers everything to be within its reach, and few people disagree.

No government can ever claim to possess "just powers" yet violate the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of anyone without losing its legitimacy. No matter how badly you want that to not be true.

.

Angry armed mother gets off

Yes, the double meaning is intentional.

There was a recent case where a mom, who was an armed government employee, came home to discover her 19 year old daughter and a male visitor enjoying themselves in a naked fashion.

The mom became violent, striking the man and then holding him at gun point (and handcuffed naked) until she discovered, through a phone call, that she couldn't have him charged with anything because he was an invited guest. She was then arrested, but the charges were dismissed.

I was sent this story in an email from someone who thought it was funny and liked the outcome.

I did neither.

I responded thusly:

While the mom's emotional over-reaction was somewhat understandable from a parental point of view, I hope the guy sues her. And wins. An invited guest in the home doesn't deserve to be held at gun point even if doing something, with consent, that you don't like. He wasn't harming her, trespassing, or damaging her property in any way. She was wrong.

Which got a reply from him in which he disagreed:

First - Invited or not you don't [have sex with] my daughter in my home without my permission. Second - She held him at gun point till she found out the facts and then she let him go. He did sue her and this was the court decision upholding the dismissal of the district court. For a change the court was right!!

This bothers me for a few different reasons.

It assumes ownership of the daughter. It asserts that it is not also her house. It claims the right to demand permission from someone not involved in the activity, and who isn't harmed by it. It seems to say that holding an innocent person at gun point (after punching him) is OK as long as you then let him go- no liability here for initiating force. I think the court was clearly wrong.

Added- He later responded, and said this in regards to the daughter's property rights:

Until the daughter is granted or gifted that right or a portion of that right of ownership, she has no ownership interests.

Hmmm. OK. I don't think rights can be granted (or withdrawn), but only respected or violated. I respect my (nearly) 5 year-old daughter's property rights- especially when she asserts them. Those rights don't come from me. Sometimes she doesn't use those property rights in a way I would choose for her to use them. That's life. Sometimes I assert my property rights in ways that irritate her (and others). It's not something I have to ponder. I would hate to have someone who is a part of my family, living with me, but whom I declare has no property rights to the house, or at least to their portion of it. Now, she can't burn her room without damaging everyone else's property, or without endangering my life, but the same boundaries apply to me and my decision about burning my room. As long as we live under the same roof, the best way I can see to get along is to respect each other's boundaries and property rights. That mom did not.

.

Drug tests, "checkpoints", and the TSA

From drug tests, to DWI "checkpoints, to the TSA, rapists have been given "authority" to control your life.

Welcome to America, the world's first "rape-ocracy:".

.

"I voted Demopublicratican because..."

I got half of this in an email, from someone who said it was only "pointed in one direction", and that I point in all directions. So, I added another direction. It's not perfect, by any means, but sometimes it is really hard to make a distinction where none really exists. See what you think.

**

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

1a. I voted Republican because I love having the power to insert myself into other people's marriages through State coercion. Everything is subject to licensing, even love.

2. I voted Republican because I don't care what oil companies do as long as it doesn't affect my driving habits.

2a. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3a. I voted Republican because I believe without government "laws" my friends, family, and neighbors will not know the difference between right and wrong and they might do things I don't like.

4. I voted Republican because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as I am not offended by it saying things I don't like about my traditional values.

4a. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5a. I voted Republican because I trust the police and military with guns even though they kill more innocents than all the freelance criminals combined.

6. I voted Republican because I want authorities to absolve me from the consequences of my actions, and because I like to poop in my nest. And, because I believe "laws" are the answer.

6a. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7a. I voted Republican because I'm not concerned about millions of babies, children, mothers, and fathers being bombed to death in "Brown people countries" so long as we keep all American fetuses alive. And as long as we can keep killing people to show that killing is wrong.

8. I voted Republican because I believe government owns the whole country and can violate my right to decide who I allow, or not, on my property- and that Social Security is not socialism because I paid into it all those years.

8a. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the social security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9a. I voted Republican because I believe that businesses should submit to government before being allowed to engage in trade, should be "taxed" to support the military, and that many consensual economic activities should be forbidden because I don't like them.

10. I voted Republican because I believe that the Constitution is Holy and can't be improved upon even when it authorizes the government to commit acts of evil.

10a. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

11a. I voted Republican because I think it's OK to pay trillions of dollars of your money to bomb and invade countries to make their people hate us, as long as it keeps the oil flowing and keeps me feeling patriotic bliss.

12. I voted Republican because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

12a. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my a**, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.

.

Keep abreast of the illegal infringements

"Shall not be infringed". It's the Law. But criminal governments don't obey it, and will murder you if you do what you have a fundamental human right to do.

That being the case, it is probably a good idea to know the counterfeit "laws" that the bad guys will use against you. So, here's a book that can help:



Another good thing is that if you buy the book through that link I get paid a bit of money, which I am always in desperate need of. So, think about it. Please.

.

If that's "peace", then you can have it

In a blog post that showed up in my Google Reader, but then vanished before I could actually go to the blog and post a comment, a libertarian said that because of the Aurora movie theater shootings he was getting rid of his shotgun by finding someone who would destroy it so it could never be used again. I find his lack of reasoning ability frightening. So I'll address it here.

He said he had once been "a gunnie" and had bought a revolver for self-defense. He spoke of going to the shooting range with his revolver, and how he learned to hate guns from his experience of shooting one (hey, it's not for everyone), and realized that he wasn’t ever going to use it in his home to defend himself against an aggressor. If someone broke in, his plan was to try to escape through the back door. He decided he could never shoot a home invader. His "reasoning" was that if they wanted his possessions, then they could have them. He says he wasn’t going to kill anyone over his "stupid stuff".

But what if it isn't your "stuff" they want? Sometimes, what they want is to kill you. Or worse. And, then after they survive the encounter with you they'll go do it to someone else. Shouldn't you do all you can to prevent that? I guess not. I think his attitude is selfish and self-centered. Think about other people, not just about yourself.

He says his original desire to own a gun was based upon fear and self-deception, and that it gave him a false sense of "control". That's not the point of owning and carrying a gun. The point is to prevent someone else from controlling you or the ones you love. Sure, you may fail. Is that a reason to give up and never try? Only if you are a coward. Just because any number of things could kill you at any time do you close your eyes and walk out into traffic when crossing a busy road? Do you get rid of your smoke detectors and fire extinguishers? Do you stop eating? Well, perhaps some mentally disturbed people do, but healthy people take charge of the things they can control and face the things they can't when they arise. They don't just give up.

He also quoted some Brady Mass-Murderer Fan Club lies about gun owners being more likely to shoot themselves than to use a gun in self-defense. Way to go, dude.

Guns are not "The" solution for everything, but they are a solution for some specific problems. Irrationally excluding one solution just because you don't like it is... well, irrational. I don't know, but I would have to say that he probably isn't responsible enough to own a gun. And that isn't "peace"; that's just a tragedy.

.

Chick-fil-A and gay marriage

The (somewhat) free market works every time it is allowed to do so.

Chick-fil-A's owner said he opposes gay marriage. His statement drove away some people and attracted others. That's how it should work. Even if the result isn't the one I would agree with. I don't get to "run" the economy.

This is how it should be. The only thing that happened here "as it should never be" is when that one elected crook (was it the mayor of Boston? I forget...) said that because of that statement, Chick-fil-A was not welcome in "his" town. What a worm.

That's why political power is not legitimate. It gives parasites and control freaks the delusion that they have the authority to decide who gets to enter into voluntary arrangements with others. No one has that authority.

.

Bloomberg's Plan- Police Strike

It's been a while since Bloomin' Bloomberg called for a nationwide police strike unless we "mundanes" agree to be violated with even more gun "laws".

He says:

I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'

I'm in full support of that idea. With a couple of conditions.

Not only must the police go on strike with regards to providing "protection", but they also must stop their thieving for The State. No traffic enforcement. No DWI "checkpoints". No drug busts. Nothing. Sit home and eat donuts and pretend to be 15 year-old girls online. On your OWN time.

Your safety is your problem, not mine. My rights don't crumble in the face of your fear or your desire to go home at the end of your shift. If you are scared to be a cop among an armed population, then f'ing QUIT. Please! Make the strike permanent.

It will never happen, though. The truth of the matter is that cops can't afford to stop "servicing" the public or the public will realize what an unnecessary burden the Reavers really are. Without fear of "legal" assaults, they could carry their own defensive tools without risk. They would get a taste of liberty and they just might like it. Some of us already know we don't need you at all. It might only take a police strike to show the rest of the people the light.

That's a risk Bloomers and his minions- wherever they may run their scheme- can never permit to happen. His promise, as delightful as it is, is nothing but a blast of verbal flatus from a giant windbag. What a disgusting waste of meat.

.

Patriots? Where?

Nationalists:

• Get teary-eyed over the "Stars and Stripes" and the national anthem.
• Say things like "our government" and "my president".
• Believe that "if we just elect the right people..."
• Believe that the Constitution is the answer, if only it had been enforced.
• Say "Love it or leave it".
• Chant "USA, USA".
• Believe the propaganda about the latest Enemy of America, whether economic or military or "terrorist".

Patriots:

• Would have started shooting government employees by now.

Note: I do not consider myself a "patriot", and I am certainly NOT a "nationalist". Liberty is what matters, not where you find it. Or don't.

.