Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Year end stuff

Humor:  The ObamaCare website is fixed- go sign up now. (It's safe)

Truth: Don't Become a Libertarian.

Survival skills: An alternative weapon- the Bolas

If you celebrate, please survive to celebrate again.  If you don't celebrate, please celebrate somehow anyway.  2013 was an "interesting year".  I wonder what's in store and what I'll be saying about 2014 a year from now.


Monday, December 30, 2013

Personality type pondering

I don't know for certain what value there is in knowing what "personality type" you are.  Everyone is an individual, after all.  You may decide there is no value in it for you at all.  However, I have learned a few things that help me understand how I approach the world, and the ways my approach is lacking, by applying the knowledge gained by taking the tests and reading about the results.

I am an "INTP".  Also known as the "rational architect".  As usual, I am a rare type of critter.

Mostly, my personality type has served me well.  I really enjoy thinking and plotting- um, "planning".  I can hardly imagine being some other way, although I do feel the past several years have allowed me to stretch my boundaries a little.  And shown me where I need to change.

I need a little more of whatever trait it is that would help me make money.  All my life that has been the toughest thing for me.  If I enjoy it and I'm good at it, it's practically guaranteed to not be popular enough to lead to financial success (and by "success" I don't mean "get rich", I mean "allows me to make enough to eat and pay some basic bills").

My other difficulty has been maintaining intimate relationships.  I'm not "cold", I'm just difficult and different.  (And the lack of money has always been a stumbling block in that area, too.)  I'm hoping I am softening up where I need to and becoming more approachable and "relatable" now.

Understanding the INTP traits has allowed me to see how I interact with others in all aspects of life, and shows where I need to focus some attention and put forth some effort.  I am trying to accentuate the positive traits and minimize the negative ones.

I also wonder if it might be part of the reason I have always been drawn to "rules, not Rulers".  After all, one of those pages above states "Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. "  You've got that right.  Expertise impresses me, position is meaningless without it.  And, if your expertise is in coercing the innocent, you don't "impress me" in a good way- but you do make an impression.  You expose yourself as someone to watch when TSHTF, in case self defense (and defense of the innocent) becomes a more critical necessity.

But, then, I also feel pity for those cursed with a personality type (along with other traits they may have no control over) which draws them toward coercive "jobs".  What if that were me?

(Writing this post, and doing what I always do when I write, amused me this time as I struggled to make certain each and every word was just the exact word I meant to use.  Just as the INTP profile says "rational architects" are wont to do.  Which is also why the editing of my newspaper columns gives me heartburn.)


Sunday, December 29, 2013

Be careful what you ask for- or how you ask, anyway

My dad got an e-reader for Christmas.  He's the least technologically capable person I know.  I'm not that much better, but I was setting it up so that he could use it.  He saw that it had voice recognition capabilities and wanted to try it out.

I got everything ready and handed it to him.

We discuss Bitcoin a fair amount so when he tried his first search he said "search Bitcoin".

He immediately got thousands of results for "Best porn".

My twisted sense of humor will forever be amused that whatever else happens that will always be his very first "search".


Saturday, December 28, 2013

Fix your roof and insulate your walls

My favorite desert hermit posted a really good blog that I think you'd enjoy.  One wise point he makes is this:

The only person who is actively doing destructive things to me is me, and I’m welcome to stop. Hating on the great omnipotent “they” – and calling that a struggle for freedom – has never gotten me anywhere. It’s like bitching about the weather: Great fun, but not as useful as fixing my own roof and insulating my own walls. The weather itself won’t change just to suit me.


Thursday, December 26, 2013

Cops and robbers

Cops and robbers.  Why do people act as though they are opposites?  Like the Dallas Cowboys and some other football team (I can't think of others at the moment), you are talking about different, interchangeable teams playing the same sport.  You may cheer for one and boo the other, but pretending you are talking about something as different as a football team and a bakery is ignoring reality.


(Too hard on cops?)


Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Christmas

See you tomorrow.


Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Remove perks that enable Police

Remove perks that enable Police

My Clovis News Journal column for November 22, 2013.

This one was heavily edited, with a lot of "allegedly" added by the newspaper. And some other things I will point out.

After you read my column at the link above, please come back and read this post, then read the column as I originally wrote it at the bottom.

I disagree most vigorously with the addition of the words "alleged" and "allegedly" in the editing of my column.  I completely understand that the editor needs to protect the interests of the newspaper, so I didn't fight him on that.

The word "allegedly" has a place when it is one person's word against another's- one who denies the accusation.  After all, you and I weren't (usually) there to see what happened- we are taking someone's word for it, and everyone has an agenda.  People want to win their lawsuits, or keep their job, or make the other guy look bad, or whatever.  So, since the facts aren't known for certain, the word "allegedly" makes that point clear.

But, nowhere are the facts of these cases I am writing about in dispute.  Neither the cops, nor their gang's official spokescritters, nor either hospital's staff, dispute that the events happened as described in the lawsuits- the only dispute is that the cops and copsuckers and other "authority" worshipers see the acts as justified and "allowed by law" in pursuit of the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.  That is total BS, and anyone with any morals or ethics knows it.  Rape is rape, and wearing a badge while you rape doesn't change that fact.  Nor does raping in pursuit of some goal you hallucinate to be "noble".

The newspaper also has to appease the local puppeticians and cops by bending over backwards when discussing even non-local cops and puppeticians in order to look "fair" to these people- to the point of being unfair to those of us who aren't gang members- and I also understand that.  The newspaper needs to keep access to these people, or they'll be shut out and denied access to news releases and whatnot.  That would damage their ability to function as a newspaper.  However, over time this appeasement creates other problems, by not exposing corruption as thoroughly as it deserves to be exposed.  Trying to appear "fair" to a known bad guy makes one lose credibility in the eyes of those who are observing from the side.

These cops really did do what they are accused of- they don't even deny it.  So let's not tiptoe around the facts- let's call them what they know they are: rapists.

At the end of the "30 day exclusivity" I will post the column as I originally wrote it, below.  Come back then and compare the two versions.

Here it is, as originally written, with parenthetical comments and an important link added:

The recently publicized examples of assault by police officers, while supposedly looking for drugs, are much more than "simple assault"; they are acts of aggressive penetration. If you or I did anything similar we would rightfully be called rapists.

Is bodily penetration becoming a weapon of choice in the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? Texas police began this tactic a few years ago with their road-side syringe assaults to steal blood from drivers- penetrating the body of those they wished to incriminate.

Now New Mexico cops have overshadowed their Texas brethren, getting caught in multiple acts of medically assisted gang rape against drivers who weren't yet sufficiently terrorized, and justified by the 21st Century equivalent of the witch trial: a false "alert" by a drug-sniffing dog- a scam as scientifically invalid as "polygraph tests" and astrology. (The newspaper objected to this characterization, and edited it out, saying that dogs can be trained to sniff out all sorts of substances- yes, they can, but that's not the point. Dogs want to please their handlers and learn how to do so by "alerting" falsely. Also, a dog's alert is only as good as the word of its handler- if he lies to justify a rape, the dog can't come back and testify against him. And, we all know cops lie. If using dogs to find "drugs" were scientific, it wouldn't result in so many false positives. It's a scam.)

No individual involved in these rapes should ever again have any "authority" over anyone. I would never hire them, nor knowingly do business with anyone who did.

I salute the hospital whose staff wisely recognized that compliance with the police demand was wrong, and refused.

The medical staff at the other hospital, who assisted in these rapes in violation of their medical oaths, should all lose their "licenses" and be fired.

Each attacker needs to be paying the victims out of his own pocket for the rest of his life. There is no excuse for letting them get away with this, nor for forcing the "taxpayers" to pay the restitution.

Leo, the "drug dog" who alerted on command for his handler (and whose certification expired years ago, by the way- "according to media reports" the newspaper adds), needs to be retired and rescued from being employed in this vulgar manner.

It's not enough to make these rapists face justice; it's long past time to end that which makes their crimes possible. Abolishing prohibition, which has become the excuse for just about any violation of individual rights you can imagine, is essential. It was never an ethical endeavor, but has become downright vile. It's not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater- that's not bathwater, it's sewage, and those lumps are not a baby.

Next, dismantle the domestic US police state. Return cops to their only legitimate position- one of servitude- and remove all the perks and "officer safety" protection which has emboldened them over the past several decades. Or end the disastrous experiment in policing, altogether.

The people who will say I am going too far are the same ones who call for freelance rapists to be castrated or executed. I am reasonable by comparison. (The newspaper thought this last paragraph was confusing and deleted it.)

Where do you want to be?

There is a continuum from good to bad when you talk about how to attempt to live among other humans- what people call "politics".

To me, when keeping the discussion limited to where I currently find myself living, it goes something like this: anarchy to minarchy to the Articles of Confederation to "local government" to the "states" to the Constitution to whatever it is the individuals in America stagger under now.  Of course, there can always be something worse.

Your particular manner of arranging them from good to bad may differ from mine, but I'll bet you do still have a preferred order.

I'd be happy for any move toward the good and away from the bad, but I won't be satisfied anywhere along the continuum except anarchy.  How much liberty is enough for you?


Monday, December 23, 2013

Cops are a cult

Someone shared with me a very good blog post which he had written, wherein he makes the observation that cops are a cult.  His analysis is spot on.

Read it here:  On Cops as a Cult, by Dreamwanderer


Saturday, December 21, 2013

Afraid of cops?

Cops.  Yes, I hate them.  Do I also fear them?  You bet.

Not that I go around scared to make a move, afraid that a cop will see me.  I don't alter my behavior just because I know our society is crawling with cops of various kinds, all hungry to make a score at any cost.  I don't look over my shoulder afraid a cop is following me.

It's only when I have occasion to be noticed by one (or more) and they start speaking at me that I become afraid.  Only an idiot would refuse to recognize the danger in that situation.  Just like if you notice a rabid fox in your house.

Cops are cowardly, paranoid, sociopathic, potential murderers.  Any interaction with one is a life and death situation.  Sure, you could claim anyone and everyone is a "potential murderer", but some "jobs"- such as a mafia hitman, a drug cartel lord, or a cop- have a much higher potential to lead to you committing murders than other, more ethical, life choices.

If you are aware of reality, dealing with anyone of that sort will get your adrenaline flowing.  I try to do nothing to make those twitchy parasites any more dangerous than they already are, if I have to speak to them.  I don't believe in magic incantations that will make them change their "mind" and let me go on my way if they have decided to molest me further.  So, I try to be polite while being glad they can't read my mind.

But, yes, I am nervous around them.

I don't do anything wrong that warrants an intervention by cops.  I don't steal or initiate force.  Any problem anyone has with me can be dealt with in a civilized manner- which NEVER involves inviting a cop into the mix.  Once you bring a cop in, my cooperation ceases because you have asked someone to point a gun at me on your behalf.  So any contact by a cop is illegitimate from the beginning.

You may not have a healthy fear of cops.  Good for you.  I hope your lack of fear proves to be the right choice.


Thursday, December 19, 2013

Consequences, pain, and growth

Ten years ago today every bad thing I have ever done, and every bad decision I ever made, came back to bite me.  Hard.  Tore my world apart, in fact.  Caused me to lose everything I really cared about.  And I knew I had no one to blame but myself.

In a lot of ways the person I was before died on that day.  Many times since then I have felt that every day since has been a sort of "freebie".

I still have the emotional and psychological scars, and I always will.

But I also believe the experience made me a better person.  At least, I sure hope so.

My pain immediately caused me to get active and begin to write more than the occasional letter to the editor.  Having nothing else to lose took away a lot of the fear I had before- fear of silly things.  Yeah, it's true: "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".

I would have never started speaking out before that day.  I would never have decided to run for president, which means I would have never started writing this blog, and I would have never written my books or made my videos.

It took a while, and I now have things to lose again, but most of the fear never came back.

But, I still wish I could fix things.


Wednesday, December 18, 2013

"No weapons"

When I see or hear "No weapons" I know I am in a backwards place populated by backwards minds.

Not a civilized place at all.


Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Let’s just outlaw feeling pleasure

Let’s just outlaw feeling pleasure

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 15, 2013.  But most of the activity is on the Portales News-Tribune site this time.)

I think I have come up with the winning strategy in the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs.

The problem is, each time a new substance is criminalized, independent innovators come up with something new which isn't yet illegal. Marijuana is illegal most places, therefore "synthetic marijuana" (which is actually dangerous, unlike the innocuous plant whose effect it mimics) was invented. The synthetic marijuana is then outlawed by "do somethingers", so a new substance will be created. It's an unending battle of unintended consequences.

And each new volley fired at society by either side hurts more people than the original problem ever did.

As opposed as I am to the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, I see the only solution is to cut to the root and address the reason humans desire to use drugs.

The substances themselves are not the most critical piece of the puzzle. The drugs are just a means to an end; just the delivery system. You've got to address the feelings they produce. The goal is the feeling of pleasure- or at least a temporary reduction in misery- people get from using the substances.

The Prohibitionists need to stop focusing on the delivery system and focus on the feeling. They must write a "law" forbidding anyone from feeling any pleasure- that way all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, would be outlawed. Just what the Prohibitionists have always craved.

One problem this would create for the State is the loss of income from the pleasures that are currently legal and "taxed".

It's not only chemical substances that cause the scourge of pleasure. Activities and hobbies do too. People get pleasure from football, religion, hobbies, cars, food, friends, romance, and more. Will those be exempt? Wouldn't that be a dangerous precedent which could create pleasure loopholes?

I suppose that can be dealt with when it becomes too much of a problem and distracts people from their primary purposes of producing "tax revenues" and being enthusiastic cannon fodder for The State.

Another problem would be finding a way to manufacture the exceptions the anti-pleasure advocates would demand for their own pleasures. After all, "my pleasures are acceptable; yours are shameful and wrong". Or, at least that seems to be what the anti-pleasure nannies have been saying with their advocacy. Obviously, the thrills the anti-pleasure nannies get from criminalizing other people's joy can't ever be subject to limits. That would never fly. It would expose the hypocrisy of the whole prohibition movement to even acknowledge that pleasure exists. I never said my solution would be perfect.

Blind hate fueled by ignorance, and more than a little stupidity

Anti-liberty bigots are just insane.  There's no other explanation for things like this: link

I posted the following comment:

How sad that you blame objects and not acts. I suppose in your mind it is better to be murdered by a thug using a fist, a knife, or a rock than by a thug with a gun.
No tool in the history of the world has made it more possible for a smaller, weaker victim to fight back against a stronger, determined aggressor with less chance of being harmed in their resistance. It’s not a magic talisman- you still need to know what you are doing. But this stupid and, quite honestly, evil objection you express toward gun safety training would be like you demanding that kids not be taught to swim or even touch water, and then acting surprised when kids drown needlessly.
Feel free to join in.  David Codrea's "The War on Guns" pointed me to the post.


"Gifted with such advantages..."

I'm currently reading "The Count of Monte Cristo" and really enjoying it.  I decided to read it after my most recent viewing of "V for Vendetta" (on November 5th, of course).

I was quite amused by one little bit, which isn't pivotal to the story, but that I enjoyed for obvious reasons.  Edmond Dantes goes to a barber to get "cleaned up" after his escape from the dungeon:

"At this period it was not the fashion to wear so large a beard and hair so long; now a barber would only be surprised if a man gifted with such advantages should consent voluntarily to deprive himself of them."

"Gifted with such advantages..."  I like the sound of that, although I'm not sure that has been my experience so far.  Maybe I need the beard, too, in order to get the advantages, but my whiskers are sparse and pathetic due to my genes.  I can grow the hair, though (if the new cat doesn't keep chewing it off while I sleep).

Mostly I like my long hair because it just feels better to me, but I also like that it is so different from the short hair of so many State enthusiasts and enforcers, especially those with the silly little scalp rug so in fashion among the cops and military.

I just enjoy seeing the "olde tyme" references to long hair.


Monday, December 16, 2013

Time's Up cap

Here's someone offering a slightly different version of the Time's Up design on a cap.  I get a little money from any sales.


Waylaid by wildlife thieves

The armed and badged New Mexico wildlife thieves (backed up by other gangs of LEOs) were setting up checkpoints yesterday, to try to catch folks who dared take "wild" food without their permission.  I had the unfortunate experience of having to pass through their Nazi-esque checkpoint as I crossed the state line.  I hadn't been hunting or fishing, and I think it was obvious I hadn't been, so I didn't have much extra trouble, besides being delayed and having to speak to the tax addicts, but I hate talking to these parasites.

All over something as imaginary as "poaching", or harvesting the "wrong" game, I suppose.

A thief claims property that is not his to claim, and in many cases backs that claim with the threat (or the actuality) of violence.  It's what is behind most cases of theft-by-state-employee.  They let you do the work to get the property, then they take it at gunpoint- claiming it was theirs all along.  And rob you of your tools and money, as well.  And possibly kidnap you.  And murder you if you resist.

The wildlife doesn't belong to anyone in "government", nor to some nebulous "public".  There is no such thing as "poaching" unless you are trespassing on private property and taking the game that is there.  Even in that case your offense doesn't involve "the state" in any way; only the property owner you have violated.  Let him deal with you as he sees fit.

I should never be put in a position to "need" to speak to an enforcer- unless, perhaps, I am attacking or stealing.  In fact, peaceable individuals should be able to live their entire lives without ever having to see or speak to a government employee at all- without ever even being aware these people exist, in fact.  I am absolutely sick to death of being put in the position of having to be civil to people who are a mortal threat to me and my daughter.  Every time a cop stops a peaceable person, the cop deserves to be shot and killed.  Every single time.  Think I'm being overly sensitive?  Consider: every interaction between an enforcer and you is a gamble that you are on the losing side of.  The "house" always has the advantage at this point in history, and if you keep playing you WILL lose.  As the police state ramps up, more and more things will be excuses to stop and search and kidnap and rob.  And "officer safety" will excuse your murder as long as the cowardly cops say you scared them.

The lack of effective resistance thus far just emboldens these vermin.

I'm not saying killing every cop that stops you is a smart thing to do at this point in time- it's not, because they have a bigger gang and still have most people brainwashed into believing they are the "good guys"- but it wouldn't be wrong.  Not anymore.  It is self defense, plain and simple.  That's the sad reality of the unfortunate times and the police state I find myself living in.  The cops should change their ways before the risks of civil interactions outweigh the risks of violent resistance for the average person.  Because it IS heading that direction quickly.


Sunday, December 15, 2013

"... and with $100 you get this $2 totebag..."

Except that you don't actually get a totebag in this case.

I could use at least $10 if anyone is feeling so inclined today.  If not, that's perfectly understandable.  As always, your family comes first and I would never want anyone to have any hardship because of donating to me.



American facts approved by the US government

I was laughing at the "facts" about North Korea that the North Korean "government" morons promote- and then, in the midst of the laughter I started thinking about the "facts" the US "government" morons promote.  You know, stuff like:

"The USA is the freest country in the world."

"Soldiers give you your freedom."

"The Civil War was fought over slavery."

"Cops are heroes."

"Taxes are necessary and refusing to pay makes you a criminal."

"Without government schools you would be illiterate and ignorant."

"Government created the internet."

"The US troops in all those other countries are there to help the people there be safe and free."

"Voting matters and is important."

"Rights come from the Constitution and are all subject to reasonable restrictions, and can be cancelled in emergencies."

"Respect the office, if not the man."

"Without government, no one could stop you from murdering or being murdered."

"Prohibition is good and necessary."

...and balderdash of that sort.  I guess every criminal gang has its own ideas it tries to brainwash into others.


Saturday, December 14, 2013

Politics or reality?

"More guns" isn't a political thing- it's a sensible, safety thing.

Getting (or "requiring") permits for those guns, now that's a political thing.  One I find disturbing.


Thursday, December 12, 2013

Disarm the military!

Yes, seriously.

You and I know the Second Amendment was intended to be a protection from a tyrannical US government.  Yes, as uncomfortable as the truth makes some people, that means shooting and killing politicians and "troops" (including, now, cops) when they become a threat to rightful liberty* (as they all are now), and when they refuse to stand down when facing "citizens" and free individuals (as they do every day).

But the anti-liberty bigots like to say that even if this were the case, you and I, with our hunting rifles, shotguns, Glocks, and 1911s could never defeat the US military with its fully-automatic weaponry, missiles, bombs, jets, helicopters and unlimited amounts of ammunition.

Maybe... although it only takes one well-placed .22 round to make that superior weaponry change ownership... correction: to liberate it from the thief's agent and give it back to the true owner who paid for it in the first place.

Anyway, assuming the claim that "resistance is futile" is true, it means the Second Amendment has a subtext that has been ignored and needs to be rediscovered.

It means the military must be disarmed until they are no longer a threat to individuals intent on restoring liberty.  They must be rendered technologically inferior to deer hunters and farmers and inner city gangbangers.  All the weaponry which has made the military a superior fighting force must be distributed among the people who paid for it.

This would end the empire-building and make you and me safer by ending the ongoing terrorist recruitment campaigns; the US military actions around the planet.  And, if a real external threat ever cropped up again- as unlikely as that is- I'd gladly either take up arms myself or hand my "military weapons" over to someone who would.

*"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ~ Thomas Jefferson


Wednesday, December 11, 2013

"Guaranteed minimum income"?

If there were a "guaranteed minimum income" it would quickly become the new zero.

Then, someone would demand the minimum be increased.  Again and again.

Why are "smart" people too dumb to see this?


Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Wage hikes feel good, solve little

Wage hikes feel good, solve little

(My Clovis News Journal column for November 8, 2013)

I have seen many well-meaning people calling for an increase in the "minimum wage" as a way to fight poverty. If only it were that simple. How much do you raise it? To $100 per hour? More?

Unfortunately, economics doesn't work that way. The higher you raise the minimum wage, the fewer people a business can afford to employ. Many people will be priced out of a job altogether.

A higher minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, which means prices will have to go up or businesses will close. Employees getting the new minimum wage will soon be facing proportionally higher prices for everything they buy- completely negating any benefit they thought they were getting, thus creating a vicious cycle.

The economy isn't a pie; it's a pie that can grow exponentially. A dollar someone else pockets doesn't necessarily take a dollar out of your pocket, unless that dollar is gained through theft or coercion.

Many CEOs are paid a ridiculously inflated amount, but the solution isn't to raise the "minimum wage", it's to eliminate the fiction of the corporation, and get government OUT of the "business" of controlling business. That includes completely eliminating "minimum wages". When businesses are privately owned, but are told by government how they can operate, what they must pay, how much they can charge for their services, and are forced to pay a percentage to the State, that is the socialist economic system properly called "fascism".

But what if the "minimum wage" had simply kept up with the cost of living? Wouldn't that solve everything?

If the minimum wage had "kept up" with the cost of living, unemployment and inflation would have been proportionally higher all along. The reason the cost of living keeps rising is the devaluation- the counterfeiting- of the dollar by the Federal Reserve. Strike at the root of the problem, not the side effects.

Even a minimum wage of $100 per hour or more wouldn't make everyone happy. If the average person brought home the same amount as a vastly overpaid CEO, or what the average plastic surgeon makes, it wouldn't be long before everything cost many times what it costs now. That's just a basic law of economics- supply and demand, and the ability to produce enough to meet demand without a free market. The same number of items will always be out of reach of the average person, no matter how high you make the minimum (or average) wage.

Don't fall for the feel-good solutions which solve nothing.


Which would you be?

Warlords and Protectors.

That is what many guys naturally tend toward.  They are just opposite sides of the same coin, I think.

Every statist seems to worry that everyone inclined in this way will become a Warlord if the State collapses, but wouldn't more people choose to become Protectors when freed of the silly notion that "that's government's responsibility"?

If that's the kind of person I was, I would certainly get more satisfaction out of coming to the rescue than I would subjugating others to my will.

Or, is this another area where I'm just oblivious to how different I am from "the average"?


Monday, December 09, 2013

Josie the Outlaw


I'm sure you have probably already discovered her videos... but if you are one of the unfortunates who has somehow missed out, check her out.  And share her videos with statists who might just want to see a hot anarchist.

Her website is here: JosieTheOutlaw.com/


Sunday, December 08, 2013

Christmas colors: Red and Bluish Yellow

"Bluish yellow? You mean 'green'?"
"Oh, I don't like labels."

Labels exist for good reason.  They can help people communicate when used correctly.  They can also prevent communication when used incorrectly.  If you call green "blue" your message is getting muddled.

If you call a conservative or a socialist "libertarian" you are not communicating, you are confusing.  Yet major "news" sources are doing this all the time.  So much, in fact, that it is probably intentional.

Be annoying.  Correct them relentlessly.


Saturday, December 07, 2013

Things left unsaid...

Any subject I address- for my CNJ columns in particular- ends up being necessarily abbreviated.  I am limited  to "around 400 words".  Take my recent column, on people being forced to work on Thanksgiving, for example.

I had to stick with a narrow peek at one aspect of all the possible things that are related in some way to the topic.  I couldn't really go into the nationalization of the holiday by Lincoln.  I couldn't go into whether a day set aside for being thankful really makes sense, or whether it is necessary to believe in the supernatural to feel a sense of thankfulness.

I didn't address whether holidays are silly collectivist nonsense, or a necessary diversion for humans.

I didn't have time to address every detail of whether it makes a difference if you work for a corporation or a small family business.

I didn't go into the whole load of myth and misinformation that has grown up around "The First Thanksgiving Day" and pilgrims and "indians", or "the evils of industrial farming techniques", or whether eating meat is ethical or healthy, or... well, lots of other things that certain individuals out there feel are important to tackle every time the issue of "Thanksgiving Day" is discussed.  And that's just on the Thanksgiving side of it.  Anything anyone writes on a subject is going to ignore more than it addresses.  That's just reality.

As hard as it is for me- and it really is difficult- I have to focus on a tiny part of all the potential tangents I could explore anytime I write on anything.

And it seems that some people always manage to mention what I didn't address rather than focus on what I did.  Which is fine.  More can always be discussed in the comments.  Right?

But, maybe that's not enough.  Blogs are free to set up.  Whatever you feel is not being addressed by others may be calling to YOU to address it.  Start writing.  If I can do it, you can, too.


Thursday, December 05, 2013

"Hit and Run"- wrong but understandable

A strange question entered my mind after hearing about a friend who was hit in a "hit and run" accident recently.

Were there as many hit and runs before cops started making every accident into a criminal case?

I would bet there were not.  I might be wrong, but I can see why people might now flee after an accident.  Maybe there are some residual substances which the authoriturds criminalize in their bloodstream.  Perhaps some mandated papers are missing or expired.  Perhaps the driver or a passenger is "in the system" for some other infraction and an encounter with enforcers would be too costly.

And, that's besides the fact that now, in every accident, the enforcers will find a way to turn it into a "crime" and extort money from someone.  Not money for the injured party as in restitution, but for their leash-holders of The State.  It's what they show up for.

Sometimes accidents are just accidents.  Tragedies don't need to be used to prop up the flailing police state.  If I have an accident, I feel awful enough (just like when I dropped my mom's whole chocolate pie on the floor the other day).  I don't need anyone to inflict extra pain on me in order to "teach me a lesson", or to finance the cowardly enforcers' retirement fund.  Nor do I want enforcers doing that to other people on my behalf.  Get a clue- people who don't feel bad for causing an accident don't magically change for the better because you turn them into criminals and steal some of their property for the State.

Go away, enforcer.  Society can't afford to support you any more.


Wednesday, December 04, 2013

Dreaming of riches

The weird dreams I sometimes have... the ones I can mention in nice company (or even among outlaws like myself), I mean.

A few days ago I dreamed Bitcoin was at $2077 and someone donated 20 of them to me.  Of course, in my dream, my mathematical abilities were on par with my waking mathematical ability, and I figured it totaled million$.

Yes, in the past I have also dreamed of cash, precious metals, and other treasures falling into my lap, so this is just a new version of the same old dream.

But, speaking of Bitcoin... I really am amused at the people having conniptions over other people choosing to use Bitcoin.  Personally, I will use FRNs, silver, gold, Bitcoin, or trade goods to get what I want or need.  And I have used each and every one of those forms of "money" at various times.  I won't accept payment I don't want, and I would never expect anyone else to, either.

I don't totally understand how Bitcoins are mined or created, because that involves math and programming- 2 things I am not great at and don't have the ambition (or time) to really practice.  But, I am not an expert on gold mining and refining and minting, either.  That doesn't make me scared of gold.  Yes, I wish I had bought a bunch of gold when it was really cheap, but I'm not going to insult people who own gold simply because they have more than I do.

I was highly amused when the story broke where the expert was calling Bitcoin a "Ponzi scheme".  By making that association he is lending a lot of undeserved legitimacy to actual Ponzi schemes (even the "participate at gunpoint" Ponzi scheme called "Social Security").

I never started accepting Bitcoin in order to get rich.  Or even to profit from having them.  I did it to have another monetary option available to myself.  It has worked and I am satisfied with that option.

If you don't like Bitcoin, I have a link on the side that will allow you to get rid of the ones you might have.


Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Never confuse theft with charity

Never confuse theft with charity

 (My Clovis News Journal column for November 1, 2013 -in the Portales News-Tribune this time)

I'm as far from being a Republican as I am from being a Democrat: as far as east is from west. But when I see misguided criticisms and flawed comparisons aimed at the wrong target, I feel the need to address it.

Recently I witnessed someone scolding Republicans for their "opposition to socialism", as demonstrated by their use of the ObamaCare boondoggle for political theatrics. "Opposed to socialism"? Republicans are enthusiastic socialists in most everything they advocate- but their favorite programs differ from those of the Democrats, therein dwells the friction.

This particular Democrat was claiming that Jesus was a socialist, as evidenced by his handing out free medical care, food, and other such necessities, therefore Republicans shouldn't be so hostile to socialism. But there's a gaping hole in this comparison, overlooked by the commenter.

Socialists' "generosity" comes through giving away things that didn't belong to them to begin with, and were not voluntarily given to be handed out. In other words, socialists steal from others and then feel superior when they distribute the stolen property. Never confuse theft with charity. You can't be generous with other people's money, time, or labor, but only with your own. When you try to do so, you are just a common thief.

Any way you look at it, that's not nice.

If theft was one of the virtues advocated by Jesus, I must have missed that part.

Anytime you take something that doesn't belong to you, against the wishes of its rightful owner, you are stealing. Even if you promise to use that property for good. Even if you say the victim of your theft is getting some necessity in return. Even if you make the claim that the person has implicitly consented through some non-voluntary "social contract". It doesn't matter if your uses for that property are "progressive" or "conservative". Once again, it comes down to the difference between sharing and being robbed.

Go ahead and advocate whatever policies or programs you like, but don't pretend those you look up to would have supported whichever Big Government welfare program you happen to love, in an attempt to make your position seem moral.

That applies to those who would claim he would have supported the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, the War on Terror, torture, immigration control, government schools, police checkpoints, NSA spying, or anti-gun laws. In this case you are clearly misrepresenting everything he stood for. What was that about "bearing false witness"?


Nice cops

Everytime I speak the truth about cops, someone will object and tell me "there are good cops!"

No.  There are not.

As I saw someone say a while back- and I wish I could remember where I saw it and who said it- there are "nice cops", but no "good cops".

A "nice cop" is one who treats you in a non-cop manner.  Who holds the door for women, stops to help a stranded traveler, gives a thirsty dog a drink.  Things any of us would do if we are decent people.  He is nice because of who he is, and what he is doing at the moment, not because of what his job might be.

But, that same "nice cop", as soon as he enforces ONE counterfeit "law" is no longer a good person.  He is being a cop.  He might still do "nice" things while on the job, but the overwhelming majority of that "job" is inflicting evil upon people.

Most bad guys can't spend all their time being evil.  It's too much work and would cripple their ability to live among friends and family- if they could even keep friends and family.  They have to be nice to those around them most of the time, no matter what they do when they target those they consider to be "other" or "less-human".  Because of this fact, you can have nice mobsters, nice muggers, and nice rapists, but none of them can be "good".

And neither can any cop.  The "job" eliminates that possibility completely.


Monday, December 02, 2013

Don't add what you don't need

A week or so ago an online friend (you know who you are) was relating a conversation he had with someone else- trying to explain that refrigeration systems don't "make cold", they remove heat, and then he mentioned that this is similar to what liberty is.

It isn't so much "something" as a lack of something: liberty is the lack of tyranny, or coercion, or whatever you want to call it.

Why on earth would anyone want "Life, now with added tyranny!"?


Sunday, December 01, 2013

Can't blame a thug for trying

You can have opposing sides in an encounter both be right- even if one is otherwise wrong.

An extreme example: imagine you lived during or just before WWII in Germany, and you happened to be present as Hitler was issuing orders to kill some innocent person.  You would have been right to shoot Hitler, if you'd gotten the chance at that moment, and he would have been right to violently defend himself from your attempt.  I would hope you came out victorious, but I wouldn't blame Hitler for shooting you in self defense.  It would be silly to fault a person for that.

No one is obligated to just sit there and be killed.  No one can "lose" a right, such as the right to defend yourself.  Not even by violating the same right in others.

It seems odd to me when that's what I think people are advocating.  It's why "resisting arrest" is such a stupid concept for a "crime".  It's why I would like to see the next death row inmate who is being lead to his execution lash out and kill a few of the prison employees before being shot to death in the hallway.  If you're going to die, die like a man.

Sure, I always prefer the bad guy to be the one who loses, and if I'm involved in a violent attack I'd probably rather my attacker let me shoot him without fighting back, but I could never blame him for trying.


Saturday, November 30, 2013

Protect the dead- eat the living?

Watching Firefly, as I often do, I am constantly coming across wise things I hadn't caught before.  Or, stupid statist things that I hadn't gotten the significance of on earlier viewings.

One jumped out at me recently, when the Alliance goon said, in reference to the crew of Serenity: "Lowlife vultures, picking the flesh off the dead." As opposed to what?  Lowlife thieves who eat the living with taxes and regulations, that's what.

The dead don't care if you take their stuff- they can't own anything.  Funny that The State would supposedly find this more horrific than stealing from living owners- but you know they do.


Thursday, November 28, 2013


That means "Thank you" in Navaho.

Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing my posts and CNJ columns.  Thank you for your support- financial, emotional, and intellectual.

Just Thank you.


Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Leaving a mark

Humans want to know (or at least feel) they have left some mark on the world that will outlive them.

I am happy to know I've made my mark.

I know my Time's Up flag will outlive me.  Most people who use the design don't even know I designed it- and that's IF they have ever heard of me.  It has taken on a life of its own.  That's strangely satisfying.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Government meddling not helping

Government meddling not helping

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 25, 2013.)

When judging whether you should do more of something, or even continue to do it at all, a necessary step is to look at the results your actions have produced so far.

After over a century of government schooling, usually erroneously called "public education", illiteracy is at crisis levels in America. Another century of letting government control education and today's texting generation may be literacy's "good old days" by comparison.

After a century or so of ever-escalating anti-gun "laws", the least dangerous places are still those areas which have avoided the most restrictive, or what the anti-gun activists would call "common sense", regulations. The most restrictive locations keep getting less safe.

Because of strife between the "races", government imposed "laws" which violated the right of association, particularly that policy which was called "Affirmative Action", and caused the strife between the races to begin heating up again. For decades now, about the only racial problems that have existed are those directly created by government intervention.

President Lyndon Johnson declared a "war on poverty", and imposed policies that made poverty practically hereditary and almost impossible for those being "helped" to ever escape. Poverty is winning that war.

After several decades of drug prohibition, approximately the same percentage of people are addicted to the forbidden substances as were addicted before the prohibition began, and the laws are driving the drugs to grow ever more dangerous and cheaper.

Here in the midst of the post-9/11 security mania, Americans are less free at home and less safe when venturing out into the rest of the world. And there have never been more people around the world willing to kill or die to strike a blow at the US government, which they mistake for Americans.

After handing control of the money supply over to the Federal Reserve a hundred years ago the US dollar has lost 95% or more of it's value. "Inflation" isn't normal; it is the consequence of the Federal Reserve's accelerating counterfeiting operation which floods the economy with more and more dollars every year- each of which makes the dollar in your hand worth just a little bit less.

How is all that "help" working for you?

Of course, when proposing to interfere, you also need to examine whether your plans will violate the rightful liberty of any person, or violate their property rights in any way, no matter how seemingly minor. If it will you shouldn't ever do it.

It leaves me wondering, how can anyone imagine that socializing medical care will have an effect opposite to that of state intervention in every other area?

Who is less trustworthy?

In a conversation with my newspaper editor last week, concerning my column, he mentioned that he also doesn't trust cops, but that doesn't mean he trusts the people who sue the cops- particularly when they wait a year or more to file the suit.

Well, I don't necessarily automatically trust anyone, but I know cops lie as a matter of course.  It's a required part of holding the "job".

Sure, a guy who sues the cops and wants to be paid millions of "tax" dollars also has an incentive to lie.

No one gets my trust automatically.  And who is it more important for me, personally, to be wary of?  Who can do me the most damage, with the least chance of me being able to fight back effectively?  It's not the guy suing the cops, even if the cops are- in this case- "innocent".


Monday, November 25, 2013

Knock out the aggressors

That new excuse for aggression, the "knockout game", does seem to show a need for more people being armed at all times, but I wonder how much a gun would really help.

If the attack comes with "no warning", as is claimed, how will you have time to pull your gun?

By all means carry a gun with you everywhere you go, but that's not enough.  You also need to be aware of your surroundings every moment of every day.  Make it a habit.

If the predators can't get within striking range, they can't punch you.  But if they do manage to catch you off guard, and if they fail to knock you unconscious with the first punch, maybe you can end their consciousness forever before they succeed.


Sunday, November 24, 2013

Be careful what you ask for

It cracks me up when statists complain about the ideas of liberty being spread on the internet, because, in their minds, the State "gave us the internet", so we should be grateful and never put a disparaging word about "government" online.

Except that they're wrong about this, too.

Government didn't create the internet.  Some government goons told some techies what they wanted in a robust communications tool, and those people created the internet.  Much to the consternation of every government thug since the day they realized what had sprung into being was something they didn't control.

And, the internet wasn't even useful until it escaped into the wild.  If government employees were still keeping it only for themselves, it would be nothing more than a filing cabinet full of dead roaches.


Saturday, November 23, 2013

The blind leading the blind?

Politics is not a case of "the blind leading the blind" (as I have heard claimed).  It's much worse than that.  It's an example of the blind "leading" the one with absolutely perfect vision.

You can see your own path- you don't need to be dragged where you don't want to go, right off a cliff, by someone who is clueless and stupid.


Thursday, November 21, 2013

Liberty Lines, Nov. 21, 2013

Published in the Farwell TX/ Texico NM State Line Tribune

(This was in response to a column by the newspaper's owner- click on the picture to read it- which suggested that the presence of a Libertarian candidate ensured the victory of the Democrat in the VA governor's race.  I was asked to weigh in on the matter from a libertarian perspective.)

First of all, I am what you would call a "small 'l' libertarian" as opposed to a "Big 'L' Libertarian". It's the difference between being a philosophical libertarian and being a political libertarian (a member of the Libertarian Party). They can be the same, but often aren't.

The Libertarian Party is a political party supposedly based upon the principles of libertarianism- but they often fall short due to their desire to win elections- or to at least play the game. They soft peddle and avoid topics they think would hurt them, and because of that can't even get the support of many libertarians. I used to be a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party, but dropped out because of the LP's refusal to stick to the principles.

When they lose an election, both Republicans and Democrats think Libertarians took votes from them. Both are probably correct to a degree, depending on the particular election, but I think in most cases the people who end up voting for the Libertarian candidate simply wouldn't have voted at all if there hadn't been a Libertarian on the ballot. There is a simple solution- become more libertarian rather than constantly whining that libertarians should vote for candidates they find repugnant.

Most Libertarians, and practically all libertarians, see no reason to prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat, or vice versa. Most see them both as simply different branches of the same political party, rather than seeing the superficial differences they emphasize having any actual value at all. If you are being chased by a hungry tiger, why would you care what color the stripes on his tail are? Both Democrats and Republicans believe it's their "right" to control what you do with your own life and property, and will use deadly force to enforce compliance. The only difference is in which parts of your life and property they choose to interfere with. That's no choice.

One big part of libertarian (and principled Libertarian) thinking is that a vote for the lesser of two evils just keeps resulting in more evil. If the choice is between two people who shouldn't be holding office, then to vote for either one is endorsing someone you don't want under the belief that "you have to vote for someone". No, you don't. It's better to not participate than to throw your support behind someone you know is dangerous to individual liberty. If you vote you are implicitly agreeing to go along with the result even if "your side" loses. In other words, if you vote you have no right to complain about the results. Yes, I know the voters usually turn that upside down, but think about it: If you play chess by the rules, how can you complain if you lose? Especially if you keep agreeing to play chess with a known cheat, or with someone who keeps changing the rules mid-game to favor himself. In that case the only winning move is to refuse to be drawn in. Go play something else instead.


Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Filthy Little Liars- and Their Slimy Lawyer

You may have seen this story.  Some school girls spread the rumor their teacher was a molesting pervert.  He sued and won.

But to me, that's far from the most important part of the story.  The most horrifying thing I got from this story was that the girls' families and at least one slimy lawyer didn't care whether or not the teacher was guilty, they wanted him to lose the case anyway so that real molesters wouldn't get away with it in the future.  

The lawyer, Lee J. Danforth, was actually quoted as saying:

"If this trial prevents one little girl or one mother or father from reporting suspected abuse, then this is profoundly sad for our society."

My response is; Yep, and the fault for that doesn't lie with the jury or the teacher, but with the filthy little liars.

How can he be so devoid of ethics that he thinks it's OK for an innocent person to be harmed?  

Once again, this is why I don't think I could convict anyone if I were a juror.  Not anymore.  I don't want The State's goons to win even when they are after a bad guy.  It empowers them and gives them the illusion of legitimacy.


Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Shutdown shows little is “essential”

Shutdown shows little is “essential”

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 18, 2013)

What have you learned from the "government shut down"?

I've learned that I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I didn't see people commenting about it. Personally, I probably wouldn't notice or care if the federal government really shut down for good and took the state and local governments with it into the dustbin of history. I expect that if I did notice, it would be like noticing a cool, refreshing breeze bringing a spring shower, or the way you can suddenly realize a nagging headache has gone away.

This is because I know what government purports to provide, and I know the market can provide those things better, when they are needed at all. I am also prepared to do without those things that are unlikely to ever be replaced. I welcome liberty.

However, I realize I am not typical.

I also learned that those who control the federal government are very vindictive, and organized the "shut down" to precisely target those who actually still support them.

I learned that "essential" doesn't mean what politicians think it means. Isn't it funny that it seems to be only the non-essential government functions which hurt "the people" when taken away? If the IRS (apparently considered essential, judging by the fact they weren't included in the "shut down") went away no one but those employees and their families would even notice, much less be hurt.

Park rangers are "non-essential" according to those who orchestrated the "shut down", at least in their normal capacity. It seems odd to me that armed guards to keep people out of parks, and terrorize those evil vacationers who dare visit or take photos of their own National Park property without an official welcome, are apparently essential- even though that job didn't exist until the government "shut down". Isn't making up numerous new jobs the opposite of "shutting down"?

It seems the only people out of a job because of the "shut down" are those who will be missed by the most people. It's almost as if the administration intentionally decided to use Americans as pawns, and cause them the most possible pain, to coerce them into putting pressure on congress to negotiate with a terrorist... I mean, to give the president everything he wants.

To prevent this ever happening again I would suggest the best course of action is for everyone to choose a private sector job, but even that doesn't guarantee job security, as demonstrated by the recent closure of Portales' Sunland Peanuts. And government had nothing to do with that. Oh, wait...


Bill Buppert's latest

Read this: The President as Police Commissioner: Cops and Collectivism by Bill Buppert

Best quote... "There is no such thing as a good cop..."

Absolutely right.  As I recently saw someone say, there are no good cops- nice cops, but no good ones.

I sure do wish more people would see that fact.


What's worse than flying monkeys?

Cops.  Not only are they cowards and a lot of other pathetic things, but they are also "compliance monkeys".

If you don't comply with their often unreasonable (to the point of absurdity) demands- faster than is humanly possible- they will act with potentially lethal force.  This is not the behavior of reasonable people, but of sociopaths.

Most traffic "laws" have nothing to do with safety- but with compliance.  And with stealing money for The State, of course.  But that's just one example in a galaxy of "laws" and other bureaucratic nonsense.


Monday, November 18, 2013

Teasing the dragon at the door (Updated)

I am writing a newspaper column that may not get past the publisher this week.  I can't really afford to have one rejected, but this is something that really needs to be said.  And I've got to at least try to get it beyond "the choir" who visits here.

It concerns the rapist cops of Deming, New Mexico.

I have edited out all the references to disembowelment* and such, but it is probably still too strongly worded to be published.  I keep trying, but how gently can one say what needs to be said?

And considering how badly the last column stirred up the citizens, they may not be willing to have another controversial column from the likes of me for a few weeks.

Either way, you'll be able to read it (I just may whine for donations to cover my lost pay if it's rejected).  I guess you'll find out Friday.

Update: It passed, but some things are getting edited out, and an awful lot of "allegedly" is being added, to protect the newspaper's hiney from the same kind of violation the cops are accused of committing.  You can read it this friday.  In a month (December 24, 2013 to be exact) you can read my original version right on this blog.  Stay tuned.

*In lieu of restitution...

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Celebrity watching

Pretty often I see "serious minded" folk making fun of those who obsess over the latest celebrity trainwreck... while following what various puppeticians do as if it is important business.

How silly.

Paying attention to politics has as much real world value as obsessing over what Miley is smoking or who she's twerking.

Both are just cases of substandard people in far off places, with no real place of importance in your personal life, living in your head.

Your attention just feeds their ego and gives them reason to believe they really are as important as they imagine themselves to be.  Sure you can say the politicians impose laws and taxes and have the power to destroy your life, but your compliance is really up to you.  They have as much power over your life as you give them.  Their local enforcers are the real problem, and yet, they still depend upon an illusion of legitimacy from their victims.  Stop giving it.

In fact, of the two obsessions, I'd say it is less vacuous and trivial to pay attention to celebrities.  At least they probably got your attention by doing something besides telling someone else to hold a gun to your head and steal your property and your liberty.


Saturday, November 16, 2013

"Need" to be governed?

I don't need to be governed by anyone else, but even if I did, since everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property from all violators, that is enough to govern me. 

And the same goes for everyone else in the world. 

People, exercising their rights, are the only government anyone needs, and the only kind of government that can actually work without becoming a bigger problem than that which it claims to be solving.

Obviously, some people have a pathological "need" to govern others, but even in that case they are not under the delusion that they need to be governed, themselves.  Just that everyone else does.

I think we can discount the "needs" of those people as a sickness.


Thursday, November 14, 2013

Shoe Goo!

Not a "primitive skill", but still a useful thing to know.  This is a kinda, sorta product endorsement.  No, I'm not getting paid for it and the company doesn't even know I am writing this... but I love Shoe Goo.

Originally I bought the stuff to do some shoe repairs, just as the stuff is intended for.  Then, I realized it would stick to plastic toys better than anything else I had around, so my daughter's toys started getting repaired better, rather than just thrown away.  She was going through tiaras too fast.

Then I started branching out to fix more and more stuff around the house.  Stuff I had never been able to effectively repair before.  Even fixed the side mirror on my dad's pickup with it.

The most useful thing I have found is that I can extend the life of my pants by 2 or 3 times.  Maybe more.  Actually, I haven't yet had to give up on a pair of pants that I have repaired with Shoe Goo.

I always wear out the left knee of my pants before anything else.  Then the right knee goes, and then the seat of the pants gets holes (bike riding seems to be hard on the seat).  I am not one to feel comfortable wearing holey pants, and never have been.  But what I discovered is that I can rub some Shoe Goo on the inside where the wear is just about to break through and prevent it from happening for a few more months.  If I get really ambitious I will cut a patch from an old pair of pants and glue it to the inside where the wear is and it lasts even better.  I just keep an eye on where the next hole is going to form and nip it in the bud.

If you like saving money- and who doesn't?- try it.  One tube of Shoe Goo pays for itself many times over at my house.  The company might not approve of all my uses, but I just keep finding more.  As soon as something needs to be fixed at my house, I don't grab the duct tape, I grab the Shoe Goo.


Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Officer paranoia

"Officer safety" has nothing to do with safety- it's all about officer paranoia.

If it really was about safety, then cops should be very relaxed and calm in any interaction with "the public".  After all, they are heavily armed, and swagger around with the knowledge that their entire gang in blue will be at their back in any scuffle between them and normal folk.  They know they have manipulated the "law" so that anything they do to you is "within departmental policy" and anything you do to resist their molesting hands is "assaulting an officer" and can be met with lethal force, "legally".

But cops aren't relaxed.  They are frantic, paranoid, and trigger happy.  They understand instinctively (even if they don't allow themselves to admit it) that their own actions have made them less safe than they would have been in the past.  People in general are not worse- cops are.  And there are real-world consequences that go along with that.

As I saw someone else say (sorry, I forget who said it) "There are no 'good cops'; there are 'nice cops'".  But by choosing (yes, they do make a choice) to show up on the job each day to enforce counterfeit "laws", they are choosing to be the bad guys- the predators.  Some can still afford to be "nice" while being the bad guys (just like the friendly neighborhood mafioso), but that number dwindles each day.  They make themselves less safe and their frantic paranoia is evidence of this fact.

Don't trust them, and never forget that no situation is so terrible that it can't be made worse by inviting a cop into the middle of it.  You think it's dangerous to handle things on your own?  Just wait til you call a cop and he shows up and immediately shoots down one of your family members who happened to twitch at the wrong time.

But you do what you want- just remember I warned you.


Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Laws poor substitute for morality

Laws poor substitute for morality

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 11, 2013.  Another "Huh?" headline from CNJ)

If you've been around computers much you know they tend to get slower over time as more junk builds up inside their programming, and as more processes get fouled. Some of this is due to spyware, malware, and viruses created to do you harm, and some is simply little glitches that tend to reproduce and spread.

Any complex system does the same sort of thing as time goes by.

Sure, you can keep applying patches, but the only solution is to wipe everything clean and start from scratch with a blank slate- or as blank as possible.

Such is the state of the body of laws in America. It's time to start over with a blank slate.

Even if you wipe the legislative slate clean, it will still be wrong to use force against anyone who isn't attacking someone else or stealing or damaging private property.

Laws against things that are truly wrong don't need to be imposed or enforced. Decent people will always recognize that murder is wrong, for example. It doesn't take a law to make it wrong, nor does it take a law to make it right to prevent a murder from happening or to permit you to seek justice for a murder.

That part is built into reality- it doesn't change, whether you write laws in that regard or not. Everything else needs to be carefully evaluated before being installed again.

Once the laws have been wiped away, and before imposing one to deal with some problem, look at history to see if previous legal attempts to address that issue fixed the problem, failed to fix it, or actually made it worse.

"Laws", against anything other than aggression or property rights violations, are harmful to the fabric of society. That's because to enforce them you must first violate life, liberty, or property.

The vast majority of laws are written as a patch- an attempt to fix a problem created by earlier laws. This just makes more problems that will need to be fixed later. This isn't a solution. Stop patching the flawed and broken code; that only makes things more twisted and problematic. Scrap it instead.

Install the recovery disc and start clean, and before enacting any law- even one that has a long history of being "common sense"- evaluate that law and see if it worked as advertised, or if its effects were misguided. Leave all your emotional baggage behind for this task.

And remember: If you need a law to make you do the right thing, you're already wrong.


Car question

For the past two years- or getting close to that- I have been depending on other people for motorized transportation.  I had a blowout in a blizzard and messed up my alignment (and obviously lost a tire) and can't afford to get that fixed.  And now there are other problems my poor car has due to sitting unused for a couple of years.

But I am sick of depending on others when I need to get where I need to go- I use my bike in town, but this town lacks a lot of what I need to get to, and I also have other things I need a car for, even though I try to combine trips and eliminate them if possible.  The "main town" is about 13 miles away, and not realistically a bikeable situation.

So, hypothetically, if I were ever somehow able to get enough money to fix the car (I'm estimating around $2,000), would it make sense to fix the car, or should I just buy another used car even if it cost me more?  I'm tall enough, and my legs are so ridiculously long, that I can't fit in, or safely drive, a compact car of any kind.  I have owned a standard transmission car but I despise standard transmissions with a red hot passion, but if I had no choice...

I'm not a "car guy", so your "Ford vs Chevy vs foreign car" stuff is meaningless to me.  As is just about everything else of a technical nature.  So I need it in "Captain Dummy talk".

It's not likely that I'll be doing anything soon due to finances, but I guess I should be thinking which way to go.  And I suppose I should go ahead and sell my car if I'm never going to fix it.  Any advice?


Monday, November 11, 2013

Government terrorist ID training

My in-depth research skills have paid off. Here, for the first time anywhere, is the newest training material the US government uses, and orders the states to use, to identify terrorists:

Honor the Stormtroopers- Serving The Empire

I'm sure they believe they are fighting for the right side- the "good guys".  After all, they are fighting "rebel terrorists" who destroyed a military base.  They are probably held in high regard among their peers and praised by those who use them as tools.  Their sacrifice and selflessness is apparent.  

I suppose we should "honor" them... right?  Without regard to the actual effects of what they did and are doing.

You go right ahead.  I'll sit this one out.


Sunday, November 10, 2013

The Undiscovered Planet

What if you lived on a newly discovered planet somewhere and, unbeknownst to you, someone decided to make agreements among themselves claiming all the land, and then started selling the land back and forth under your feet.  In that case, would you really be a trespasser?

Because, at some point in the past, that's exactly what happened.

I am not one of those claiming "we" should "give the land back to the original owners", because those people are long dead, and there is no way to know who would have owned that land now had the original theft never taken place.

It's just something I was thinking about.  I guess it just means you had better stake a claim, and be willing to defend it with violence, in the event of new land becoming available.


Saturday, November 09, 2013

Knocking CEOs

My CNJ column explained why raising the minimum wage won't solve anything.  But, what then is the solution?

What, if anything, to do about grossly overpaid CEOs and underpaid employees?

Convince stockholders to cut the CEO's pay would be one tactic. But if they think the CEO is worth what they are paying him you'll have a hard time convincing them to kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs.  In that case they believe he is responsible for increasing the profit of the corporation, and their own dividends- whether or not that's true.  But, even if it's not true it really isn't your concern how much the CEO makes.  Don't like how much he is paid?  Don't do business with (or work for) that corporation*.

Plus, it's probably a fantasy to believe that cutting a CEO's pay will increase the pay of the employees.  One vastly overpaid guy's paycheck isn't going to make much difference when divided among all the underpaid employees**.  I doubt they'd even notice the additional money in their checks, and if it were enough to notice it would probably just kick them into a higher tax rate and result in less take-home pay anyway.  This is why you should remember he isn't the real enemy- those who work for The State and set up and profit from the corrupt system are a more valid target.

I agree that it is emotionally aggravating to know you work for a few dollars an hour while someone else, working for the same company, sits in an office, in a cushy leather chair that rolls, and makes more money in one month than you'll earn in your whole life.

I guess the best solution isn't to try to knock him down; it's to find a way to join him.  Without becoming a thieving, aggressive parasite.  I never said it would be easy- if it were, I would have done it.

*Corporations are a government-created fiction.  They are a part of government, and probably wouldn't exist in a free market, unless a way can be found to have the liability-avoiding benefits, without the theft and coercion.  I don't see that happening, but maybe you do.

**In 2012 the CEO of Walmart made $20.7 million.  Walmart has about 2 million employees (as far as I can tell, this is only counting the employees in the American stores).  So, if you divided the CEO's entire pay among the employees they'd each get $10.35 more per year- that's not quite 20 cents per week; a half a cent per hour for full time employees. Woohoo.

Now, look at a paystub and see how much the various "governments" steal from every paycheck, and then tell me who the real parasite is.

Thursday, November 07, 2013

Just a vector

Should I be disturbed that the most blog visits I have gotten in ages- even more than my post about the death of Chris Kyle, or the recent one pointing out that cops are cowards, or even my consistent "top post" of the past 3 months about Edward Snowden- was just a link to someone else's work?

Whether I should be bothered or not, I am.  Just a little.

I suppose any page views are good.  Of course I like it better when people are appreciating something I produced, but the more people who are exposed to the truth- from whatever source- the better the world becomes.  Eventually.

So, in that spirit, I am glad that my post passing along someone else's awesome work has gotten as much attention as it has.


Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Supporters are awesome!

Just a quick note to say "Thank you!!" to all those who have made donations to help keep me blogging and eating.  And to help me keep KentForLiberty online.

It's because of your support that I can afford to speak my mind without fear of losing a job for extreme "political incorrectness".

If you haven't pitched in, but you'd like to, the "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons are there on the left.

Thanks again!


If it makes you feel good, it's probably illegal

Often, after I read some really inspiring anarchist or libertarian writing, I feel so good it's amazing.  I feel taller, stronger, better than I was before.  The day seems sunnier, other people seem nicer.  Everything just looks and feels clearer.  More focused and sharper.  I feel happy.

So, I wonder if statists get the same rush after reading Mein Kampf or Mao's Little Red Book, or after visiting the Daily Kos or FOX News.


Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Healthcare best off in free market

Healthcare best off in free market

(My Clovis News Journal column for October 4, 2013)

If someone has a broken ankle you can't solve their problem by shooting them in the kneecap. If the problem is the cost of medical care you can't solve it by socializing medicine and giving government even more control. Government interference is what drove the price up to begin with.

The way to bring the price back down is to ensure a separation of medicine and state.

This would mean an end to ObamaCare, Medicare, Medicaid, to the FDA and the DEA (and the DEA's war on politically incorrect drugs), and the end of state licensing (and therefore rationing) of medical professionals.

There are people who can't afford health care. The proper way to solve the problem is two-fold: reduce the cost of medical care and then help those who still can't afford it. Charities have always been an excellent solution to the latter problem- except when driven out of the market by coercive welfare.

The way to reduce the cost of health care is incredibly simple, but requires letting go of some carefully crafted misconceptions. The biggest of those is that only government can adequately oversee safety and protect the patients.

The FDA wouldn't necessarily have to be abolished, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, nor should it have the final say. Let independent labs determine the safety and effectiveness of new medications, putting their reputations behind the release of the new treatments they approve. Let doctors and patients decide what treatments they want to try.

On the other hand, the DEA needs to die a quick death and be forced out of the business of driving up the price of drugs through prohibition and the prescription scam. Drug abuse is bad; drug prohibition is worse by every measure.

No one needs multiple years of medical school to set a broken arm or to diagnose and treat a flu. Allow those interested in practicing the healing arts to be certified by competing agencies. If you've heard good things about the doctors trained or certified by "Docs R Us", and have less confidence in the doctors turned out by "Bob's Skool of Medasin", make your decisions accordingly. Let people hang up a shingle and compete for patients. If a medical condition is beyond the healer's ability, make it easy for them to admit this and refer the patient to a more skilled provider.

You are smart enough to decide where to buy a car, or who to marry, and you are mature enough to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Medical care is no different.


The Caprock people

Libertarians are really radical compared to "the majority" today.

It wasn't always that way; not to the degree it is now.

The libertarian is like a stone that stays in place as the landscape around it erodes.  A caprock.  Over time, people on the eroded land look up and say "That stone is getting higher all the time!"  They don't realize that the stone hasn't moved; the ground they are standing on has kept getting lower.

This is why libertarians are now considered so "radical" when observed by the degraded people around us.  Of course, they are also standing on their heads so they see us as the degraded ones, but I suppose that's a topic for another day.


Sunday, November 03, 2013

Fun with spammers

Here's one of the best spam comments I have gotten in a long time:

"What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious experience concerning unpredicted emotions."

Yeah... not really sure what was being "communicated" there, other than the spammer's link.  But it was sure hilarious to read.  You have to watch out for those unpredicted emotions.


Saturday, November 02, 2013

Do I hope ObamaCare doesn't work?

I read a silly rant by someone claiming that ObamaCare's critics are just scared it will work. What tripe.

I hope ObamaCare does work. Just like I hope hyperinflation never hits America and like I hope the US government's "leaders" never get genocidally tyrannical. Just like I hope no one I know and love ever gets sick, injured, or dies.

But I know that's an impossible wish.  And every nation with socialized medicine is already a failure by my definition.

America has already dodged too many bullets that "no nation in history has ever __ and not had __ happen to it".  That "luck" can't hold out forever, and some day, when we least expect it, the bill will come due.  The piper will be paid.

But how can ObamaCare "work"?  Well, it depends on how you define "work", and whether you ignore larger issues.

Wanna improve "health care"? Just kill everyone who gets sick. Magically- no more sickness!  That would be just as ethical as theft-funded ObamaCare. You can't accomplish good by doing evil.


Thursday, October 31, 2013

A new investment opportunity!

No, not sending me all your money- although if you want to, I won't stop you.

This is about something really silly I saw in a "news" article.

It quoted someone who made the claim: "...each dollar of food stamps infuses over $1.70 of spending into the economy."

That's a pretty good return!

If that were true, grocery stores could profit by printing and handing out their own "food stamps".  There would be no need of coercive and dangerous "welfare", since stores would gladly fund this type of profitable charity.  I suppose it wouldn't even count as "charity" since it would be an investment and you could get rich by printing and accepting your own, brand name food stamps.  And if food stamps are so great, gas stations should print their own gas stamps, and hardware stores should print tool stamps, and car dealerships could make a killing on car stamps!  The possibilities are endless.  You can't lose.

Unless what the person claims* isn't true.

Do statists really believe the ridiculous things they say?

Or, does this just show an utter lack of understanding of basic economy and where the money to pay for things like food stamps actually comes from?

*(Yeah, that's assuming the article quoted her accurately, which is quite an assumption to make.  Yet, based on experience listening to statists make claims...)


Wednesday, October 30, 2013


Someone just sent me this message:

I just learned something interesting that you probably don't know, Kent.
You cannot post to your blog using an anonymous proxy.
More piggery from the government!
Perhaps you should inform your readers that posting "anonymous" will still show their IP address to the pigs.
I always assumed there was no such thing as real anonymity on the internet anyway, but you might want to be aware of this tidbit of information.


Stay leaderless, my friends

Unlike "liberals" or "conservatives", libertarians don't have real leaders.

Oh, sure, there are those who "everybody knows", and are followed with interest, but they aren't like a Glenn Beck or a Rachel Maddow, or even like Obama or Ron Paul.

I always see others posting the latest talking point from their leaders. But not so much with libertarians.

The "prominent" libertarians tell you what they are thinking, and expect you to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and reject it if it's crap (even if they don't like your conclusions).  They may still try to convince you they are right, but it isn't easy for their opinions to become widely accepted among liberty lovers without being picked apart and found to be correct.

The "mainstream" folks don't do that when their leaders tell them what they should think.  They suck it right up and repeat it everywhere.

Even of those libertarian thinkers I admire, if they say something full of crap I'll say so. And they do the same for me.

It's because libertarians don't just yap to be saying something.  We think first.  And we never stop thinking about what we are saying and what we'll say next.  We can back up what we say with reality and evidence, even if statists reject the reality for the comfort of their delusions. Makes it very hard for statists to actually disprove what we say, so they resort to other tactics.  At that point, the best thing to do is to ignore them- it's not going to end nicely.

If I were offered position of "king of the libertarians" I would turn it down.  Nor would I ever blindly follow a "king of libertarians", even if I liked the person.  There's no way that could help bring on more liberty.  Having a leader would set libertarians back and make us as vulnerable to basic foundational errors as the others are.