Protest proposed anti-gun "laws"?
Get out and vote?
Write your congresscritter?
Sorry, I can't get too worked up for all that. I don't buy into the idea that gun owners who don't speak out are "doing nothing".
Sometimes people just realize that political action is equivalent to trying to use a trash can lid to hold back a landslide. I'll spend my energy doing things that might work.
It's always going to be something- you'll spend your life in a dither trying to put out each brushfire of tyranny if you keep seeking a political "solution". The State- government- is illegitimate. That is NO WAY to deal with other people. Accept it and move on to more productive pursuits.
Unless you just happen to enjoy the frenzy of reactive political action- and some people do. In that case, do whatever makes you happy, but don't pretend your path is the Only Way.
.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Assumption of Aggression
It is very hard for most people to think of a way to consider methods of interacting with others that don't involve using The State in some way.
Think of "liberals" and you think of the "laws" they impose on the rest of us.
Think of "conservatives" and you think of the "laws" they impose of the rest of us.
Think of "libertarians" and most people think of the "laws" that the Libertarian Party members want to get rid of or change, through political activism.
Think of "anarchists" and most people think instead of communists who want to use The State to impose their desires on everyone else.
Few people think of people interacting as individuals on their own, without using The State. So, for the people who have their preference but don't seek to use coercion or theft, the round holes of assumed "political action" are a non-fit from the beginning.
.
Think of "liberals" and you think of the "laws" they impose on the rest of us.
Think of "conservatives" and you think of the "laws" they impose of the rest of us.
Think of "libertarians" and most people think of the "laws" that the Libertarian Party members want to get rid of or change, through political activism.
Think of "anarchists" and most people think instead of communists who want to use The State to impose their desires on everyone else.
Few people think of people interacting as individuals on their own, without using The State. So, for the people who have their preference but don't seek to use coercion or theft, the round holes of assumed "political action" are a non-fit from the beginning.
.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Euphemisms don’t change ethics
Euphemisms don’t change ethics
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 28, 2012.)
Following libertarian principles is inseparable from being a decent human being.
Even kindergartners are taught the libertarian principles: don't start a fight by throwing the first punch and don't take other people's stuff. It really is that simple.
It's only as kids get older that most adults start trying to make children accept exceptions to these rules. It is a glaring inconsistency that most children can see right through, while their parents try to wiggle around finding justifications that just aren't there.
Rules are often made up to try to short-circuit a child's understanding. They are told that they can't fight back to defend themselves when someone violates the rules and hits them first. Or, they are taught that they aren't really the one starting the fight if someone has offended them in some way. They are told that stealing is OK as long as it is done with majority approval, as part of your job, or if it is called "sharing" even though it isn't voluntary.
You can't raise ethical kids by condoning this kind of behavior and confusing the issues.
Yet you can even be non-libertarian in your personal beliefs and still behave in an outwardly decent manner by following libertarian principles.
Whether a person is conservative or liberal, as long as they don't steal or use coercion and attack the innocent, we can get along. For that matter, I even have no problem with people choosing to live in a communist enclave, as long as all participants are there by unanimous consent, no one is coerced into participating, and anyone can opt out any time they wish. The first time a person is coerced to give up their self-ownership without their consent, and without it being necessary to fulfill a voluntarily-acquired debt or to pay restitution, the consent is gone. Theft or coercion has then occurred.
The problem is that non-libertarians try to change the names of theft and coercion to hide the true nature of the acts. Theft becomes "taxation", "property codes", "asset forfeiture", or "eminent domain", while attacking the innocent becomes "sobriety checkpoints", "immigration control", "gun control", and "homeland security". The euphemisms change nothing about the ethics of the acts.
I hope that the new year brings you in contact with lots of people who relate to you as if they are libertarians. I hope, too, that you will try to return the favor. Happy New Year!
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 28, 2012.)
Following libertarian principles is inseparable from being a decent human being.
Even kindergartners are taught the libertarian principles: don't start a fight by throwing the first punch and don't take other people's stuff. It really is that simple.
It's only as kids get older that most adults start trying to make children accept exceptions to these rules. It is a glaring inconsistency that most children can see right through, while their parents try to wiggle around finding justifications that just aren't there.
Rules are often made up to try to short-circuit a child's understanding. They are told that they can't fight back to defend themselves when someone violates the rules and hits them first. Or, they are taught that they aren't really the one starting the fight if someone has offended them in some way. They are told that stealing is OK as long as it is done with majority approval, as part of your job, or if it is called "sharing" even though it isn't voluntary.
You can't raise ethical kids by condoning this kind of behavior and confusing the issues.
Yet you can even be non-libertarian in your personal beliefs and still behave in an outwardly decent manner by following libertarian principles.
Whether a person is conservative or liberal, as long as they don't steal or use coercion and attack the innocent, we can get along. For that matter, I even have no problem with people choosing to live in a communist enclave, as long as all participants are there by unanimous consent, no one is coerced into participating, and anyone can opt out any time they wish. The first time a person is coerced to give up their self-ownership without their consent, and without it being necessary to fulfill a voluntarily-acquired debt or to pay restitution, the consent is gone. Theft or coercion has then occurred.
The problem is that non-libertarians try to change the names of theft and coercion to hide the true nature of the acts. Theft becomes "taxation", "property codes", "asset forfeiture", or "eminent domain", while attacking the innocent becomes "sobriety checkpoints", "immigration control", "gun control", and "homeland security". The euphemisms change nothing about the ethics of the acts.
I hope that the new year brings you in contact with lots of people who relate to you as if they are libertarians. I hope, too, that you will try to return the favor. Happy New Year!
.
Do origins matter?
I really despise the "Pledge of Allegiance". I know too much about its origin to respect it at all.
I know this puts me in a suspected minority.
But it makes me consider an idea. How much does the origin of something matter? Something that had a bad origin can turn out to be good and something that had a good origin can turn out to be bad. Just look around you to see the truth of this.
In the case of the hated "Pledge", it can be judged by its fruits today: nationalism, war-mongering, blind devotion. and obedience. All disgusting, rotten, poisonous fruits.
But, just because it was created by a nationalist/socialist doesn't automatically make it bad- judge it for yourself by how it is used today. If you still think it is a good thing... well, give yourself to any ideology you want, but leave me out of it.
I know this puts me in a suspected minority.
But it makes me consider an idea. How much does the origin of something matter? Something that had a bad origin can turn out to be good and something that had a good origin can turn out to be bad. Just look around you to see the truth of this.
In the case of the hated "Pledge", it can be judged by its fruits today: nationalism, war-mongering, blind devotion. and obedience. All disgusting, rotten, poisonous fruits.
But, just because it was created by a nationalist/socialist doesn't automatically make it bad- judge it for yourself by how it is used today. If you still think it is a good thing... well, give yourself to any ideology you want, but leave me out of it.
Monday, January 28, 2013
"Media and Politicians Firing Blanks"
Media and Politicians Firing Blanks
by Brian Wilson
Have you ever fired a gun? (NB: water, cap, BB, paintball and fingers
are not acceptable)
How many guns have you seen become violent? If your answer acknowledges
an individual is necessary to operate the weapon, why, then, are you
using the term "gun violence" and not "human violence"?
In 25 words or less: What is an "Assault Weapon"? Be specific
(Extra Credit: From Columbine to Newtown, how many involved "Assault
Weapons"?)
What is the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"? Use both in a
sentence.
Is a .223 cartridge more or less powerful than the predominant rifle
cartridge used by American fighting men in WWII?
(Extra Credit: What was the caliber of the predominant rifle
cartridge used in WWII?)
If you had to choose, would you prefer to shot with a .22? .223? 30-06?
00Buck?
("None of the Above" is an understandable but unacceptable answer)
Why is a black gun more dangerous than one made with differently colored
components?
If black guns are bad, isn’t that racist?
How does a bayonet lug make the "assault rifle" more lethal?
(Extra credit: How many drive-by bayonetings occurred in the US last
year?)
To the nearest 100,000, how many Assault Rifles are made of Nerf?
Within 10,000, how many times a day do law-abiding gun owners prevent a
crime without firing a shot?
Approximately how many gun laws (State and Federal) are in force in
America today?
With so many laws already in force, what are the compelling reasons to
believe criminals and mass murders will obey the new ones?
If faced with a home invasion, would you want to be holding your phone
or your firearm?
by Brian Wilson
Have you ever fired a gun? (NB: water, cap, BB, paintball and fingers
are not acceptable)
How many guns have you seen become violent? If your answer acknowledges
an individual is necessary to operate the weapon, why, then, are you
using the term "gun violence" and not "human violence"?
In 25 words or less: What is an "Assault Weapon"? Be specific
(Extra Credit: From Columbine to Newtown, how many involved "Assault
Weapons"?)
What is the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip"? Use both in a
sentence.
Is a .223 cartridge more or less powerful than the predominant rifle
cartridge used by American fighting men in WWII?
(Extra Credit: What was the caliber of the predominant rifle
cartridge used in WWII?)
If you had to choose, would you prefer to shot with a .22? .223? 30-06?
00Buck?
("None of the Above" is an understandable but unacceptable answer)
Why is a black gun more dangerous than one made with differently colored
components?
If black guns are bad, isn’t that racist?
How does a bayonet lug make the "assault rifle" more lethal?
(Extra credit: How many drive-by bayonetings occurred in the US last
year?)
To the nearest 100,000, how many Assault Rifles are made of Nerf?
Within 10,000, how many times a day do law-abiding gun owners prevent a
crime without firing a shot?
Approximately how many gun laws (State and Federal) are in force in
America today?
With so many laws already in force, what are the compelling reasons to
believe criminals and mass murders will obey the new ones?
If faced with a home invasion, would you want to be holding your phone
or your firearm?
The above was forwarded to me by MamaLiberty
I have a couple of questions of my own to ask anti-liberty bigots:
Are you completely insane?
Are you totally ignorant of human nature, history, ethics, physics, and the difference between right and wrong?
.
The silliness of "borders"
Borders. Imaginary lines. I can understand them to a certain extent. Private property lines are the borders that trump all others. And I can even understand a "border" that gives an area an identity. Maybe based upon geography or customs or other things like that which give a shared identity that the locals rally around. As long as they are not imposed or maintained by "law".
What I don't understand are "legal borders". I mean the kind that derive from governments saying "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there. Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money." And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to. "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.
To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil. For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil. So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".
And the short answer to that is: neither one.
Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad. To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.
It's not about "open borders". It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.
.
What I don't understand are "legal borders". I mean the kind that derive from governments saying "We have these laws over here, and they have those laws over there. Our laws are better than theirs." That includes saying that "You live here, so we are entitled to a percentage of your money." And, really, that's all "national borders"- and even "state borders"- come down to. "Our laws are better than their laws" and posturing to be the "legitimate" thief.
To say "Here, possession of this plant/gun/car window makes you a criminal, even if over there it doesn't" is evil. For that matter, passing or enforcing any "law" that attempts to control or prohibit anything beyond aggression or taking/damaging property (which may include trespassing) is evil. So, arguing over borders is just two thugs arguing over which one is violating you in "just the right way".
And the short answer to that is: neither one.
Since I don't believe in "laws" that go beyond (or violate) the Zero Aggression Principle and "don't steal/damage other people's property" (which never need to be written down anyway), the rest of the "laws" are all bad. To pretend your counterfeit "laws" are better than anyone else's counterfeit "laws" is ridiculous.
It's not about "open borders". It's about the ridiculous notion that a line dividing between different bundles of "laws" is anything other than a delusion based upon elevating theft and aggression to a place of honor.
.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
I need more exciting dreams
Sometimes I have odd dreams.
Recently I dreamed I was watching an in-depth video presenting the best arguments for conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, and pure anarchism.
Each position was laid out by the best proponent of each philosophy. No, I didn't dream who each of those people might be.
The video ended with sci-fi movies showcasing libertarianism/anarchism. I guess in my dream, the conclusion was a foregone conclusion as to which philosophy was going to be discovered to be the best.
.
Recently I dreamed I was watching an in-depth video presenting the best arguments for conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, and pure anarchism.
Each position was laid out by the best proponent of each philosophy. No, I didn't dream who each of those people might be.
The video ended with sci-fi movies showcasing libertarianism/anarchism. I guess in my dream, the conclusion was a foregone conclusion as to which philosophy was going to be discovered to be the best.
.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Imaginary lines
A family member was complaining about an arbitrary rule that resulted in an inconvenience because we happen to live on the losing side of a state line- everything we need generally lies on the other side, and because that is a different state, some things are off-limits to us and we have to go miles out of our way to something "in state". In this case it was a dog rescue group that wouldn't take in a starving dog that was rescued because "we don't take them from out of state".
My family member was griping that it was all "because of that imaginary line".
I agree. The thing is, she's perfectly fine with other imaginary lines. Why does the imaginary line between "Texas" and "New Mexico" on a map bother her, while the imaginary lines between "The USA" and "Mexico" or "Canada" are fine with her? (I'm kidding- I doubt she cares about the imaginary line that says where Canada begins.)
.
My family member was griping that it was all "because of that imaginary line".
I agree. The thing is, she's perfectly fine with other imaginary lines. Why does the imaginary line between "Texas" and "New Mexico" on a map bother her, while the imaginary lines between "The USA" and "Mexico" or "Canada" are fine with her? (I'm kidding- I doubt she cares about the imaginary line that says where Canada begins.)
.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Strikers
Would the person who emailed me about hand-forged strikers please email again. It went to my "junk" box and I saw it just as I emptied the box- and it was too late and I can't get it back.
Sorry about that, and I hope you get this message.
.
Sorry about that, and I hope you get this message.
.
"Traffic stops" are the key
It's all well and good to have a plan and know how to defeat Stormtroopers and reavers who show up in masks and body armor at your house at 3AM, to kidnap or murder you and your family- after shooting Rex and stomping Fluffy for the sacred cause of Officer Safety, of course.
However, the reality is that most of the kidnappings will be done as the result of a "traffic stop". This is where they have gotten more people accustomed to forced encounters with agents of The State. And most people are trained and frightened into being compliant and cooperative. That is going to have to end if liberty is to ever return to the former America.
I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, if you haven't already realized it on your own. But it has come to this.
So, think about it and plan accordingly.
.
However, the reality is that most of the kidnappings will be done as the result of a "traffic stop". This is where they have gotten more people accustomed to forced encounters with agents of The State. And most people are trained and frightened into being compliant and cooperative. That is going to have to end if liberty is to ever return to the former America.
I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, if you haven't already realized it on your own. But it has come to this.
So, think about it and plan accordingly.
.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Go back in time- Kill Hitler
I love time travel stories, particularly tales of travel into the past and thoughts of "What would I do if I could go back in time? What would I try to change?"
There are lots of events in my own past I'd be tempted to change.
Beyond the personal, there are so many events I would like to witness first-hand to see for myself how badly misinformed I am due to errors of history or willful disinformation.
But one almost universal thought I hear connected to the idea of time travel is the assertion that "If I went back in time I'd kill Hitler."
Regardless of whether they'd smother newborn Hitler or shoot him just before he began to kill the innocents, they seem to be saying that they would, with the wisdom of information about the future, be bold enough to do something that would be seen by most contemporary observers to be an act of evil. In order to prevent an actual evil that would then (probably) never come to pass. They might even go down in history as an evil assassin. Or a baby murderer.
Sadly, by the time that killing Hitler was obviously the right thing to do, his security apparatus made chances of success almost nil.
I wonder what would happen if I could somehow send a message back in time to the 1930s, to people who might encounter Hitler before it was too late. Back before the tides of history became obvious. Back when an assassin would have been seen as evil.
Maybe we have dodged that bullet before. What would people say to the purely hypothetical claim that JFK was just days away from becoming a mass-murdering despot when he was shot? It seems highly unlikely, but since he was killed and we can't know what he would have done the next day, there could never be any real proof. A time-traveling assassin could do a lot of good while being judged to be a monster.
What would a time traveler from 50 years in our future do if he showed up tomorrow? Or, if he couldn't physically return to this point in time, but could send you a message, what might he tell you? What would you do about it?
Funny thing about today- it will be history soon enough. You are living in someone's "history" today. How will our grandchildren and their grandchildren view us? How do we view the Germans of the 1930s? I wonder what their ghosts might say to us if they could communicate.
.
There are lots of events in my own past I'd be tempted to change.
Beyond the personal, there are so many events I would like to witness first-hand to see for myself how badly misinformed I am due to errors of history or willful disinformation.
But one almost universal thought I hear connected to the idea of time travel is the assertion that "If I went back in time I'd kill Hitler."
Regardless of whether they'd smother newborn Hitler or shoot him just before he began to kill the innocents, they seem to be saying that they would, with the wisdom of information about the future, be bold enough to do something that would be seen by most contemporary observers to be an act of evil. In order to prevent an actual evil that would then (probably) never come to pass. They might even go down in history as an evil assassin. Or a baby murderer.
Sadly, by the time that killing Hitler was obviously the right thing to do, his security apparatus made chances of success almost nil.
I wonder what would happen if I could somehow send a message back in time to the 1930s, to people who might encounter Hitler before it was too late. Back before the tides of history became obvious. Back when an assassin would have been seen as evil.
Maybe we have dodged that bullet before. What would people say to the purely hypothetical claim that JFK was just days away from becoming a mass-murdering despot when he was shot? It seems highly unlikely, but since he was killed and we can't know what he would have done the next day, there could never be any real proof. A time-traveling assassin could do a lot of good while being judged to be a monster.
What would a time traveler from 50 years in our future do if he showed up tomorrow? Or, if he couldn't physically return to this point in time, but could send you a message, what might he tell you? What would you do about it?
Funny thing about today- it will be history soon enough. You are living in someone's "history" today. How will our grandchildren and their grandchildren view us? How do we view the Germans of the 1930s? I wonder what their ghosts might say to us if they could communicate.
.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Self defense prevents massacres
Self defense prevents massacres
(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)
(My Clovis News Journal column for Winter Solstice/The Mayan Apocalypse/December 21, 2012.)
Mass murders.
Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?
These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.
Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.
How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.
While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.
People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.
No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.
There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.
So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.
Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.
Who commits them?
Where do they happen?
How can they be prevented?
How can they be stopped when prevention fails?
These seem to be the only reasonable questions to ask in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
Who commits them? People who have mental problems; which have usually been treated with SSRI medications. People who, for various reasons, are already prohibited (illegally and unconstitutionally) from possessing the weapons they use to murder people.
Where do they happen? Almost exclusively in places where people have been told they are not allowed to be armed, and usually where there will be a crowd of distracted people and a bottle-neck to "control" entry.
How can they be prevented? By curing mental illness, or by force or the threat of force.
While seeking cures there needs to be an immediate solution, and there is.
People can be locked up before they start killing, or it can be made impossible for them to kill anyone. Therein lies a problem.
No expert can know who is really a threat. There's also the problem of "who gets to decide what constitutes a 'mental illness?'" Just like "drunk driving", the definition will creep to include anything the "authorities" want it to encompass.
There is also no way, short of killing the person, to make it impossible for them to harm someone. The brain is really the only weapon there is, and as long as it is conscious and able to control the body, it can kill. The tools used to accomplish that perverted goal are interchangeable and irrelevant.
So how about prevention through the threat of force? That works better. By letting these aggressive monsters know that they will not have an easy harvest, they may decide it isn't worth it- not enough infamy to bother. That police will eventually show up doesn't stop them because they know they'll have met their goal by that time. But a universally-armed society? That those they plan on killing will fight back and ruin the scheme removes much incentive.
Which leads to the final question: How can massacres be stopped when prevention fails? By the good violence of self defense. Immediately deployed. From several different sources at once. Sure, most of these monsters plan on dying, but they also plan on murdering a large number before that happens. Foil them. Any other suggestions are just the sounds of sheep bleating, begging the wolf to go away, while standing in the butcher's holding pen.
.
Property theft on grand scales
I saw this top map on Facebook. I can't verify its accuracy. I also won't debate whether a particular State is "better" than some other State. Are they based on "taxation" and coercion? That's all I need to know.
What that map does make me think of is another map, concerning someone else who was in a place first (and, no, no one was in either of these places in "the beginning", but migrated there at some point) and lost their land/property and freedom to someone else who decided that god had given the land to them, because of their obvious superiority and because they won god's favor. Or something.
It just doesn't smell right to me, in either case.
Of course, it wouldn't be an issue at all without governments behind it. People should be free to keep their property, or sell or trade it, to anyone for any reason. People should also be free to use any means at their disposal to defend their property from those who want to steal it. Neither of the illustrations show consensual property redistribution, but theft and aggression. And no one should ever be subject to some government or its "laws" simply because of where they live or because of who outnumbers them.
.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Sheriffs discover nullification
While I suppose I am glad that there are some sheriffs making nullification-type noises concerning proposed anti-gun edicts, I would be more impressed if they realized that the next anti-liberty "laws" are just a continuation of the evil anti-liberty "laws" they enforce every day. And have been enforcing since they took office.
Mr. Shire Reeve:
If you accept any "federal money", equipment, supplies, or oversight, you are already an oathbreaker.
If you enforce any anti-drug "laws", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you have ever arrested anyone on any "weapons charges", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you allow federal "law enforcement" to operate in your employers' territory in order to commit any of those acts, you are already an oathbreaker.
What's one more violation to you? Why make a fuss now, when you have been happy to betray your neighbors thus far? Is it to fool people into believing you have principles? Is it to cover your... "self"... when your neighbors start picking up pitchforks and lighting torches? Are you trying to give yourself plausible deniability?
I won't be fooled. Some of your neighbors probably won't be fooled, either.
You have already chosen your side. Unless you switch sides, unequivocally, now- and immediately cease and desist your unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical actions this instant.
Past violations can be forgiven. Future actions will be tallied.
Where will you be standing when the account comes due?
(The other side of the coin: Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals)
.
Mr. Shire Reeve:
If you accept any "federal money", equipment, supplies, or oversight, you are already an oathbreaker.
If you enforce any anti-drug "laws", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you have ever arrested anyone on any "weapons charges", you are already an oathbreaker.
If you allow federal "law enforcement" to operate in your employers' territory in order to commit any of those acts, you are already an oathbreaker.
What's one more violation to you? Why make a fuss now, when you have been happy to betray your neighbors thus far? Is it to fool people into believing you have principles? Is it to cover your... "self"... when your neighbors start picking up pitchforks and lighting torches? Are you trying to give yourself plausible deniability?
I won't be fooled. Some of your neighbors probably won't be fooled, either.
You have already chosen your side. Unless you switch sides, unequivocally, now- and immediately cease and desist your unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical actions this instant.
Past violations can be forgiven. Future actions will be tallied.
Where will you be standing when the account comes due?
(The other side of the coin: Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals)
.
Unveiling: Money
If the US government can do it, so can I. After all, no State has rights not held by the individuals who make it up, and no individual has more rights than any other. And if rights are imaginary, then no one has a right to rule me or coerce me, so...
Here is the one and only 1 Million Money Note in existence. So far, anyway.
I authorize myself- through my own Constitution- to issue Money in whatever form I see fit (it says so right on the back of the note).
The current exchange rate for a "Money" is 1 Money to $0.75 (in Federal Reserve Notes). Silver and gold are given preference in exchange, and get better rates, though.
Acceptance is not mandatory, but is purely voluntary. Laziness on my part, and my inability to issue Money electronically, ensures that Money will never hyperinflate itself in the way US Dollars are guaranteed to do.
But, just like Federal Reserve Notes or US coins, it is only really worth the material, the paper or metal, that makes it up. Only the belief it is worth more makes it worth more.
.
Here is the one and only 1 Million Money Note in existence. So far, anyway.
I authorize myself- through my own Constitution- to issue Money in whatever form I see fit (it says so right on the back of the note).
The current exchange rate for a "Money" is 1 Money to $0.75 (in Federal Reserve Notes). Silver and gold are given preference in exchange, and get better rates, though.
Acceptance is not mandatory, but is purely voluntary. Laziness on my part, and my inability to issue Money electronically, ensures that Money will never hyperinflate itself in the way US Dollars are guaranteed to do.
But, just like Federal Reserve Notes or US coins, it is only really worth the material, the paper or metal, that makes it up. Only the belief it is worth more makes it worth more.
.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Law enforcers openly admit to being criminals
"We will uphold whatever laws that are actually enacted."
Then you will be violating your oath of office as well as declaring yourself a domestic enemy.
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any room to wiggle.
And, before you grasp at the "well-regulated militia" part remember that when the words were penned, "well-regulated" meant "well-practiced" and "fine tuned"; not what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. And the militia is everyone capable of holding and shooting a gun.
There is no room left for your feelings or concerns. The Bill of Rights leaves no room for any anti-gun "laws"- not against "felons" possessing guns; not against semi-automatic or fully automatic guns; not against where the guns may be carried.
The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anyone any rights- it takes away authority. The only thing the Bill of Rights did was make it a very serious crime for government employees to pass or enforce any "law" dealing with guns in any way. If you don't like that then you need to immediately remove yourself from any position of "authority".
Unfortunately, the sheriffs who have announced they will not be enforcing any further unconstitutional "laws" are lying. You know it and I know it. Because they will still be enforcing anti-drug "laws", and taking federal handouts, and assisting federal (and illegal) law enforcement agencies. And, when push comes to shove, they will roll over and betray their employers to the feds in order to keep their "job".
.
Then you will be violating your oath of office as well as declaring yourself a domestic enemy.
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't leave any room to wiggle.
And, before you grasp at the "well-regulated militia" part remember that when the words were penned, "well-regulated" meant "well-practiced" and "fine tuned"; not what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. And the militia is everyone capable of holding and shooting a gun.
There is no room left for your feelings or concerns. The Bill of Rights leaves no room for any anti-gun "laws"- not against "felons" possessing guns; not against semi-automatic or fully automatic guns; not against where the guns may be carried.
The Bill of Rights doesn't "give" anyone any rights- it takes away authority. The only thing the Bill of Rights did was make it a very serious crime for government employees to pass or enforce any "law" dealing with guns in any way. If you don't like that then you need to immediately remove yourself from any position of "authority".
Unfortunately, the sheriffs who have announced they will not be enforcing any further unconstitutional "laws" are lying. You know it and I know it. Because they will still be enforcing anti-drug "laws", and taking federal handouts, and assisting federal (and illegal) law enforcement agencies. And, when push comes to shove, they will roll over and betray their employers to the feds in order to keep their "job".
.
"Too much liberty"?
I wish cops would just leave everyone alone. Yes, I mean everyone.
Like Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (1791) He would have hated, and fought against, the current police state that infests the former America.
I am tired of seeing cops everywhere. L. Neil Smith once (or probably more) said America has 10 times more police than any civilized country should tolerate. Well, I'd say the situation is at least an order of magnitude worse now. But I don't want any police. Not one.
Let me deal with bad drivers, robbers, rapists, jaywalkers, thieves, murderers, unlicensed pharmacists, drunks, in my own way- without initiating force- IF I FEEL THE "NEED" TO "DEAL WITH THEM" AT ALL! If you are too weak or too cowardly to deal with them on your own, I might even volunteer to assist you as long as you don't "ask" for my help through some coercive agent. But I will warn you right now- if they are not attacking anyone, nor stealing, you are on your own because what they are doing is none of my business. Nor yours.
I have no use for cops, and really, neither do you. They need to just go away. Forever.
.
Like Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (1791) He would have hated, and fought against, the current police state that infests the former America.
I am tired of seeing cops everywhere. L. Neil Smith once (or probably more) said America has 10 times more police than any civilized country should tolerate. Well, I'd say the situation is at least an order of magnitude worse now. But I don't want any police. Not one.
Let me deal with bad drivers, robbers, rapists, jaywalkers, thieves, murderers, unlicensed pharmacists, drunks, in my own way- without initiating force- IF I FEEL THE "NEED" TO "DEAL WITH THEM" AT ALL! If you are too weak or too cowardly to deal with them on your own, I might even volunteer to assist you as long as you don't "ask" for my help through some coercive agent. But I will warn you right now- if they are not attacking anyone, nor stealing, you are on your own because what they are doing is none of my business. Nor yours.
I have no use for cops, and really, neither do you. They need to just go away. Forever.
.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Gun Appreciation Day
Yes, I appreciate guns. I appreciate the pleasure they have brought into my life. I love the way they feel and smell. I enjoy handling them and shooting them.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped feed hungry people for hundreds of years.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped good people resist- and kill- tyrants, thieves, thugs, home invaders, drunk husbands, jealous girlfriends, rabid dogs, and various other vermin.
I appreciate the fact that guns have provided countless hours of enjoyment for "plinkers", and target shooters, and Buckskinners, and "Cowboy Action Shooters", and gunsmiths, and movie goers.
Guns have been abused by bad guys. Bison were indiscriminately slaughtered. Genocides were carried out. Helpful signs are damaged (and by "helpful" I am obviously not talking about "stop signs" or "speed limit signs" or any other Nanny State excuses for highway robbery).
I have lost two friends to bad guys with guns. Another friend was shot by a mugger, but survived. Would my dead friends have survived if they had been in possession of a gun at the time they were attacked? I don't know, but they couldn't have been hurt any worse. I am not stupid enough to blame the tool the bad guys used. Yes, that is what it requires to blame guns for the bad guys' actions: stupidity on a monumental scale.
I blame bad guys for all they take from life, and I appreciate guns for all the good they bring to life.
.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped feed hungry people for hundreds of years.
I appreciate the fact that guns have helped good people resist- and kill- tyrants, thieves, thugs, home invaders, drunk husbands, jealous girlfriends, rabid dogs, and various other vermin.
I appreciate the fact that guns have provided countless hours of enjoyment for "plinkers", and target shooters, and Buckskinners, and "Cowboy Action Shooters", and gunsmiths, and movie goers.
Guns have been abused by bad guys. Bison were indiscriminately slaughtered. Genocides were carried out. Helpful signs are damaged (and by "helpful" I am obviously not talking about "stop signs" or "speed limit signs" or any other Nanny State excuses for highway robbery).
I have lost two friends to bad guys with guns. Another friend was shot by a mugger, but survived. Would my dead friends have survived if they had been in possession of a gun at the time they were attacked? I don't know, but they couldn't have been hurt any worse. I am not stupid enough to blame the tool the bad guys used. Yes, that is what it requires to blame guns for the bad guys' actions: stupidity on a monumental scale.
I blame bad guys for all they take from life, and I appreciate guns for all the good they bring to life.
.
Gun Appreciation Day- To the NRA:
I have been trying to send the following letter to the NRA, and their "contact form" has managed to prevent the message from being sent. Very well.
Here it is:
.
Here it is:
Not ONE MORE INCH!
If NRA 'compromises' one iota on ANYTHING anti-gun, no matter how pragmatic it may be, I will renounce my life membership and publicize it on my blog, on facebook and twitter, and in my newspaper column.
No anti-gun 'law' is constitutional- not one. Not the 1934 NFA, not carry permits, not prohibitions on felons possessing guns. Stop calling for the reavers of 'law enforcement' to 'enforce the laws already on the books'- you are supposed to be on OUR side; not theirs. Stop pretending there is any legitimacy to any anti-gun 'law'.
I am tired of the tsunami of 'compromise' sweeping away liberty and making 'criminals' out of decent people.
I am tired of NRA supporting anti-gun puppeticians who are in 'useful positions', and ignoring candidates who are actually pro-gun, just because they might not win. Washington DC, and its lesser, more local partners in tyranny need to be warned that gun owners will not obey one more 'law', and any attempt to inflict another 'law' on us will result in more of us seeing the stupidity of obeying the counterfeit 'laws' we have obeyed up to this point.
If the penalty for owning a semi-auto is just as draconian as the penalty for owning a full-auto, why settle for the lesser weapon?
Rights don't come from government or a constitution. Rights can be respected or violated. Period. I am tired of seeing them violated with NRA's 'compromising' consent.
.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
My "NRA" tag
I don't know if you have noticed, but I "tag" most of my pro-gun posts with my NRA tag.
Not because I think the NRA is pro-gun, but because I enjoy ridiculing their anti-liberty stance by demonstrating how real pro-gun looks.
.
Not because I think the NRA is pro-gun, but because I enjoy ridiculing their anti-liberty stance by demonstrating how real pro-gun looks.
.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Be ready. Be vigilant.
Keep a close watch for the next couple of weeks. Be observant beyond your normal level. Stay as alert as you can manage- and push the awareness envelope.
Because, I hate to suggest it, but judging by the past I suspect America is ripe for another mass shooting- they always seem to happen when the feds and their slimy familiars are seeking support for new anti-gun "laws". Not saying that these events are "triggered" or called into action, but...
You might be the person to stop it before it happens.
Sure, that will not be reported by the "mainstream" media, but that's OK. You are not looking for fame anyway, but looking to live by the Zero Aggression Principle. Right?
Don't depend on someone else carrying your load for you. Be ready. Be vigilant. "Don't leave home without it." The war is here- denying it won't make the truth go away.
You watch my back- I'll watch yours.
And, thank you in advance.
.
Because, I hate to suggest it, but judging by the past I suspect America is ripe for another mass shooting- they always seem to happen when the feds and their slimy familiars are seeking support for new anti-gun "laws". Not saying that these events are "triggered" or called into action, but...
You might be the person to stop it before it happens.
Sure, that will not be reported by the "mainstream" media, but that's OK. You are not looking for fame anyway, but looking to live by the Zero Aggression Principle. Right?
Don't depend on someone else carrying your load for you. Be ready. Be vigilant. "Don't leave home without it." The war is here- denying it won't make the truth go away.
You watch my back- I'll watch yours.
And, thank you in advance.
.
Blame not the tyrant, blame the people who obey him
I haven't got a clue what anti-liberty "executive orders" Obama has proclaimed concerning guns. I'm sure I will find out what most of them are in the coming days. However, I could not possibly care less what he thinks will become "law" just because he declares it so.
Real law is discovered, not created by rulers.
Real law, also called Natural Law, says you have the right to own anything you want, as long as you didn't get it through theft, fraud, force, or threat of force. Anything. Any weapon at all. Yes, even nuclear bombs.
The possession of anything can never be a violation of any real law. Only initiation of force (or a credible threat to initiate force) and theft violate real law. If you hurt someone or damage their property it doesn't matter what you use to hurt them- YOU are the guilty one, not your tool. Anyone who believes otherwise is a superstitious idiot. Yes, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and probably just about everyone else who works for the government in some capacity- I am speaking to you.
Obama is violating real law- Natural Law- by pretending he can take your property and/or liberty. By violating your fundamental liberty to own anything you wish, and to defend your life, liberty, and property in any way you see fit with any tool you wish to use, he has declared war on you. Just as Bush the Decider did before him by imposing the Patriot Act. They are no different than a mugger in a dark alley demanding "Your money or your life".
Only people who plan on obeying Obama's anti-liberty proclamations worry about what they might be. I don't worry about it. I know he is the sworn enemy of liberty, and as such he has declared that he is my mortal enemy. This is not news to me.
I will not obey. Not one more inch.
Molon Labe!
.
Real law is discovered, not created by rulers.
Real law, also called Natural Law, says you have the right to own anything you want, as long as you didn't get it through theft, fraud, force, or threat of force. Anything. Any weapon at all. Yes, even nuclear bombs.
The possession of anything can never be a violation of any real law. Only initiation of force (or a credible threat to initiate force) and theft violate real law. If you hurt someone or damage their property it doesn't matter what you use to hurt them- YOU are the guilty one, not your tool. Anyone who believes otherwise is a superstitious idiot. Yes, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and probably just about everyone else who works for the government in some capacity- I am speaking to you.
Obama is violating real law- Natural Law- by pretending he can take your property and/or liberty. By violating your fundamental liberty to own anything you wish, and to defend your life, liberty, and property in any way you see fit with any tool you wish to use, he has declared war on you. Just as Bush the Decider did before him by imposing the Patriot Act. They are no different than a mugger in a dark alley demanding "Your money or your life".
Only people who plan on obeying Obama's anti-liberty proclamations worry about what they might be. I don't worry about it. I know he is the sworn enemy of liberty, and as such he has declared that he is my mortal enemy. This is not news to me.
I will not obey. Not one more inch.
Molon Labe!
.
And how we'll burn in the camps...
And how we'll burn in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every cop, when he went out at night to make an arrest or man a "checkpoint", had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?
Or if, during examples of mass oppression, as for example traveling in "border" states, or entering airports, or when "laws" forbid the tools of self defense, people would not simply sit there too scared to resist, paling with terror at every arbitrary demand and at every flash of the red and blue lights, but would understand they have nothing left to lose and will boldly set up an ambush of half a dozen people with pistols, rifles, machetes, axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else is at hand?... The law enforcement departments would very quickly suffer a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Washington DC's thirst, the cursed State will grind to a halt!
If...if...Most Americans don't love freedom enough. And even more – most have no awareness of the real situation.... They purely and simply deserve everything that happens afterward. And the truly innocent will be dragged along with the complacent.
With apologies, or sincere thanks, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
.
Or if, during examples of mass oppression, as for example traveling in "border" states, or entering airports, or when "laws" forbid the tools of self defense, people would not simply sit there too scared to resist, paling with terror at every arbitrary demand and at every flash of the red and blue lights, but would understand they have nothing left to lose and will boldly set up an ambush of half a dozen people with pistols, rifles, machetes, axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else is at hand?... The law enforcement departments would very quickly suffer a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Washington DC's thirst, the cursed State will grind to a halt!
If...if...Most Americans don't love freedom enough. And even more – most have no awareness of the real situation.... They purely and simply deserve everything that happens afterward. And the truly innocent will be dragged along with the complacent.
With apologies, or sincere thanks, to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Constitution is ultimate authority
Constitution is ultimate authority
Should you "render unto Caesar" anything that he, in his modern incarnation, demands?
Basically, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's just means don't take, or keep, that which isn't yours. Don't steal. If you have someone else's property, give it back. Does your money automatically belong to the government just because someone passed a law permitting them to take it? Absolutely not. Should you pay for services you use, regardless of who provides them? Yes, you should. Should you be forced to pay for services you neither want nor need? If so, everyone should start sending me a monthly check for picking up litter, and for preaching liberty.
But what about submitting to government simply because it is the government? Do you have an obligation to obey every edict that comes from a government official simply because of his position? No.
In America no person, agency, or office is the governmental authority. The Constitution is. Those who refuse to abide by the letter and intent of that authority have no legitimate power over you. In fact by using coercion and violence on people who are harming no one else, and even against those who are doing "good work", they cause fear in good people and show themselves to be false authorities in violation of the Constitution.
Sure, the Constitution has its own problems, but as long as you choose to play the game, it is your rule book. If you seek political office, the Constitution is not to be "interpreted" to be more convenient for your ambitions. Once you violate any of its provisions, whether by trying to regulate immigration, by passing or enforcing "laws" against gun ownership or possession, or by regulating which substances people may introduce into their own bloodstream, you have lost all authority. No one has any obligation to honor or obey you any longer.
In America the Constitution was written to hobble the government, not to ensnare the people. Any ruling that goes against that higher power is a ruling that goes against the spirit of the Constitution- even if you approve. Those acts erode authority rather than enhancing it.
Every time this happens you can stop submitting, honoring, and complying- with a clear conscience.
If you feel called to support the earthly powers-that-be, don't misguidedly throw your support behind those who are in fact its worst enemy.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 14, 2012. Trying to speak to those who would be on the side of liberty if they can get free of certain obsessions.)
Are you among those torn between feeling you should support the government, and knowing it does wrong? Should you "render unto Caesar" anything that he, in his modern incarnation, demands?
Basically, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's just means don't take, or keep, that which isn't yours. Don't steal. If you have someone else's property, give it back. Does your money automatically belong to the government just because someone passed a law permitting them to take it? Absolutely not. Should you pay for services you use, regardless of who provides them? Yes, you should. Should you be forced to pay for services you neither want nor need? If so, everyone should start sending me a monthly check for picking up litter, and for preaching liberty.
But what about submitting to government simply because it is the government? Do you have an obligation to obey every edict that comes from a government official simply because of his position? No.
In America no person, agency, or office is the governmental authority. The Constitution is. Those who refuse to abide by the letter and intent of that authority have no legitimate power over you. In fact by using coercion and violence on people who are harming no one else, and even against those who are doing "good work", they cause fear in good people and show themselves to be false authorities in violation of the Constitution.
Sure, the Constitution has its own problems, but as long as you choose to play the game, it is your rule book. If you seek political office, the Constitution is not to be "interpreted" to be more convenient for your ambitions. Once you violate any of its provisions, whether by trying to regulate immigration, by passing or enforcing "laws" against gun ownership or possession, or by regulating which substances people may introduce into their own bloodstream, you have lost all authority. No one has any obligation to honor or obey you any longer.
In America the Constitution was written to hobble the government, not to ensnare the people. Any ruling that goes against that higher power is a ruling that goes against the spirit of the Constitution- even if you approve. Those acts erode authority rather than enhancing it.
Every time this happens you can stop submitting, honoring, and complying- with a clear conscience.
If you feel called to support the earthly powers-that-be, don't misguidedly throw your support behind those who are in fact its worst enemy.
.
"The wrong hands"
One thing I hear from almost every "side" in the "gun debate" is this idea that "we" need to keep guns "out of the wrong hands".
Just whose hands are "wrong"? And who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"? Government employees? I laugh at the absurdity of that suggestion.
I suppose "the wrong hands" are those who want to hurt you. If that's the case, cops and other government employees have the "wrongest" hands of all, along with the thuggish members of freelance gangs. Don't make a distinction where none exists.
There is no possible way- NONE- to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" without also keeping them out of a lot of the right hands. Even the "minor" layers of difficulties that any good person could easily pass through tend to dissuade a lot of people from going to the trouble to own or to carry a gun. It adds expense to the cost of a gun, either in dollars or in time. Since dollars are nothing but a placeholder for time you traded to someone else, there is no difference. A lot of good people also don't like being treated like a criminal by a gang of demonstrable criminals- and then told by the brainless criminal drones with FBI computers whether or not they are "worthy" of defensive tools. It is incredibly insulting.
And bad people will never be inconvenienced in the slightest. They'll buy or steal what they want- whichever is easiest.
I would prefer to live in a society where guns are freely and openly available, with absolutely zero restrictions on anyone, so that more good people will not feel like criminals for owning and carrying weapons. Good people outnumber the truly bad ones. Any additional liberty will empower the good more than the bad (who already do whatever they feel like anyway).
So, if you are truly a pro-liberty person, stop giving any attention to the absurd "wrong hands" nonsense. It makes you look like an anti-liberty bigot.
.
Just whose hands are "wrong"? And who is this "we" who'll be doing the "keep away"? Government employees? I laugh at the absurdity of that suggestion.
I suppose "the wrong hands" are those who want to hurt you. If that's the case, cops and other government employees have the "wrongest" hands of all, along with the thuggish members of freelance gangs. Don't make a distinction where none exists.
There is no possible way- NONE- to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" without also keeping them out of a lot of the right hands. Even the "minor" layers of difficulties that any good person could easily pass through tend to dissuade a lot of people from going to the trouble to own or to carry a gun. It adds expense to the cost of a gun, either in dollars or in time. Since dollars are nothing but a placeholder for time you traded to someone else, there is no difference. A lot of good people also don't like being treated like a criminal by a gang of demonstrable criminals- and then told by the brainless criminal drones with FBI computers whether or not they are "worthy" of defensive tools. It is incredibly insulting.
And bad people will never be inconvenienced in the slightest. They'll buy or steal what they want- whichever is easiest.
I would prefer to live in a society where guns are freely and openly available, with absolutely zero restrictions on anyone, so that more good people will not feel like criminals for owning and carrying weapons. Good people outnumber the truly bad ones. Any additional liberty will empower the good more than the bad (who already do whatever they feel like anyway).
So, if you are truly a pro-liberty person, stop giving any attention to the absurd "wrong hands" nonsense. It makes you look like an anti-liberty bigot.
.
Monday, January 14, 2013
The Trillion Dollar Coin questions
I keep thinking about the proposed $1 Trillion platinum coin.
If it were lost through government employee stupidity or negligence and I found it, would it be honored for $1 Trillion? Would I then be a trillionaire? (Leaving aside the fact that the criminals of The State would claim it was theirs, no matter how negligent they were.)
If it were stolen, could it be spent anywhere?
If the answers to these two questions are "no", then it is not a real trillion dollar coin, but a counterfeit.
.
If it were lost through government employee stupidity or negligence and I found it, would it be honored for $1 Trillion? Would I then be a trillionaire? (Leaving aside the fact that the criminals of The State would claim it was theirs, no matter how negligent they were.)
If it were stolen, could it be spent anywhere?
If the answers to these two questions are "no", then it is not a real trillion dollar coin, but a counterfeit.
.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
As dumb as they seem?
Politicians can't really be as dumb as they seem, can they?
I include all the appointed bureaucrats such as all the Secretaries of This and That- and especially Ben Bernanke. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
But, anyway, either they are all really, really dumb, or they are smart enough to appear to be dumb. Judging by the actions they take and the things they advocate I have a hard time accepting that premise.
I'll try to not underestimate them if I have to avoid them or deal with them, but it is still pretty hard to accept that they may not be as dumb as they seem. What amazes me the most is how many people- statists, anyway- don't see it, but instead praise these clowns for their "wisdom".
If that's "wisdom" or "intelligence" I want no part of it.
.
I include all the appointed bureaucrats such as all the Secretaries of This and That- and especially Ben Bernanke. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
But, anyway, either they are all really, really dumb, or they are smart enough to appear to be dumb. Judging by the actions they take and the things they advocate I have a hard time accepting that premise.
I'll try to not underestimate them if I have to avoid them or deal with them, but it is still pretty hard to accept that they may not be as dumb as they seem. What amazes me the most is how many people- statists, anyway- don't see it, but instead praise these clowns for their "wisdom".
If that's "wisdom" or "intelligence" I want no part of it.
.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Gay marriage, pedophiles, and libertarians
Recently I was forwarded a comment. The person who made the comment claims to "lean libertarian", but can't take the final step because "libertarianism says what you do in privacy is of no concern to me" and "what you do in public is permissible as long as it does not constrain my own liberty." Mostly correct- not only liberty, but also life and property/"pursuit of happiness".
The example that they gave was gay sex and, even more specifically gay marriage. They were concerned because they felt libertariansism left no room for rebuttal against gay marriage and felt that, if "normalized", it leads to this: Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
Other than both being "sexual", I see no connection, but, OK.
He asks "If it happens in private between consenting parties, what argument can full-throated libertarians make against the act? Would they even offer an argument?"
Some offer arguments, but I can only speak for myself.
I read the article and found it very interesting... and then it hit me- the basic difference between me and your friend. He was offended by the information and opinions presented and I was not. I took in the information presented and gave it consideration. He, apparently, couldn't do that, but only saw it as confirmation of his worst fears.
The main case against forbidding gay marriage should be an easy "conservative" fit: how on earth can the claim be made that government should be in the business of licensing private and very personal vows? It isn't that gay marriage should be "allowed", it is that government should never have been allowed to regulate, sanction, or ration marriages in the first place. It's like licensing churches. Or guns. Or cars and travel.
Beyond that, if something is truly consensual (and it needs to be informed consent, without deception) and doesn't harm either of the participants, how can you seriously advocate killing people over it? And that is what any "law" against something leads to. All "laws" are enforced by death. Sure, you can usually avoid that outcome by complying early in the enforcement process, but eventually, if resistance is made, armed government employees will arrive to either "arrest" you or kill you in the attempt. Don't believe me? Find a minor "law" and openly defy it around the government employees who are "responsible" [sic] for enforcing it- and keep refusing to comply each time they escalate their enforcement attempts. Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well..." as they walk away?
His complaint that libertarianism leaves "little room for rebuttal" against gay marriage, because "What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is of no concern to the true libertarian" seems misguided. Why would anyone want to rebut that? Because it offends them? No one has a right to not be offended. I don't worry that someone might be watching MSNBC or FOX news in the privacy of their own home, even though the thought offends me and I think it can cause wide-ranging problems out in society. Until someone is actually harmed, it just isn't any of my business.
Which gets back to the article he linked to.
If it were shown beyond a reasonable doubt that pedophilia, when engaged in willingly with INFORMED consent, did not harm either participant, neither physically nor psychologically, why use the lethal force of government (which is known, beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause harm to almost everyone) to prevent or stop it? Because it offends "the majority"? Gun ownership seems to offend either "the majority" or a very vocal minority. In itself, gun ownership harms no one. Until the gun is used to coerce or attack an innocent person- one who does not deserve to be harmed right now because they are not attacking or stealing. As long as no one is being harmed and everyone is engaging in consensual acts, you can be offended all you want, but you have no right to use force against them. Nor to delegate someone else to use force that you don't have the authority to delegate. You can't delegate something you don't possess.
I suspect that your conservative friend, if he were honest, would admit that he will never believe any studies that show "no harm from pedophilia". He will continue to "know" it causes harm, no matter what. And, in that, he may be right. I simply don't know.
So, no I wouldn't make an argument against pedophilia, in and of itself- although in the past I would have. No child "belongs" to me, just as I didn't "belong" to anyone when I was a child. Would I try to convince children that I thought it was a bad idea for them to engage in sex? Yes. Would I try to talk a pedophile out of acting on his desires? Absolutely. Just because the thought bothers me personally. Do I think it is somehow worse for a child to engage in sexual activity with an adult than with another child? Not really. And I also recognize that all children engage in some level of sexual experimentation or play. I did. It was completely consensual, it didn't harm me, and I don't regret it. Where would you draw the line between "normal" sex play and "perversion"? Where do you get the authority to draw that line?
And, even if it does cause harm, if there is informed consent with both parties, I wouldn't send The State after them. I would step in, myself. And I would accept any consequences that came from that.
Tattoos and piercings cause visible harm. Damage to the body that you can see with your own eyes. It offends my aesthetic sensibilities to see them, especially when there are "too many" of either (or both). I think that people who get multiples of either don't understand what they are doing to themselves. They invariably disagree with me on that point. I would still do my best to argue a person out of going overboard with them. But I know where the line is. I respect that line even when doing so makes me unhappy. Which is increasingly rare.
This is a taboo subject, and one I address with apprehension. More than any other subject, talking about sex leads to hatred and accusations and drives people away. It is the most emotionally charged subject I have ever found. Which means, I suppose, that it is important to talk about.
.
The example that they gave was gay sex and, even more specifically gay marriage. They were concerned because they felt libertariansism left no room for rebuttal against gay marriage and felt that, if "normalized", it leads to this: Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light
Other than both being "sexual", I see no connection, but, OK.
He asks "If it happens in private between consenting parties, what argument can full-throated libertarians make against the act? Would they even offer an argument?"
Some offer arguments, but I can only speak for myself.
Here was what I said in reply to the person who forwarded the comment to me:
I read the article and found it very interesting... and then it hit me- the basic difference between me and your friend. He was offended by the information and opinions presented and I was not. I took in the information presented and gave it consideration. He, apparently, couldn't do that, but only saw it as confirmation of his worst fears.
The main case against forbidding gay marriage should be an easy "conservative" fit: how on earth can the claim be made that government should be in the business of licensing private and very personal vows? It isn't that gay marriage should be "allowed", it is that government should never have been allowed to regulate, sanction, or ration marriages in the first place. It's like licensing churches. Or guns. Or cars and travel.
Beyond that, if something is truly consensual (and it needs to be informed consent, without deception) and doesn't harm either of the participants, how can you seriously advocate killing people over it? And that is what any "law" against something leads to. All "laws" are enforced by death. Sure, you can usually avoid that outcome by complying early in the enforcement process, but eventually, if resistance is made, armed government employees will arrive to either "arrest" you or kill you in the attempt. Don't believe me? Find a minor "law" and openly defy it around the government employees who are "responsible" [sic] for enforcing it- and keep refusing to comply each time they escalate their enforcement attempts. Do you think they will shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well..." as they walk away?
His complaint that libertarianism leaves "little room for rebuttal" against gay marriage, because "What happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is of no concern to the true libertarian" seems misguided. Why would anyone want to rebut that? Because it offends them? No one has a right to not be offended. I don't worry that someone might be watching MSNBC or FOX news in the privacy of their own home, even though the thought offends me and I think it can cause wide-ranging problems out in society. Until someone is actually harmed, it just isn't any of my business.
Which gets back to the article he linked to.
If it were shown beyond a reasonable doubt that pedophilia, when engaged in willingly with INFORMED consent, did not harm either participant, neither physically nor psychologically, why use the lethal force of government (which is known, beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause harm to almost everyone) to prevent or stop it? Because it offends "the majority"? Gun ownership seems to offend either "the majority" or a very vocal minority. In itself, gun ownership harms no one. Until the gun is used to coerce or attack an innocent person- one who does not deserve to be harmed right now because they are not attacking or stealing. As long as no one is being harmed and everyone is engaging in consensual acts, you can be offended all you want, but you have no right to use force against them. Nor to delegate someone else to use force that you don't have the authority to delegate. You can't delegate something you don't possess.
I suspect that your conservative friend, if he were honest, would admit that he will never believe any studies that show "no harm from pedophilia". He will continue to "know" it causes harm, no matter what. And, in that, he may be right. I simply don't know.
So, no I wouldn't make an argument against pedophilia, in and of itself- although in the past I would have. No child "belongs" to me, just as I didn't "belong" to anyone when I was a child. Would I try to convince children that I thought it was a bad idea for them to engage in sex? Yes. Would I try to talk a pedophile out of acting on his desires? Absolutely. Just because the thought bothers me personally. Do I think it is somehow worse for a child to engage in sexual activity with an adult than with another child? Not really. And I also recognize that all children engage in some level of sexual experimentation or play. I did. It was completely consensual, it didn't harm me, and I don't regret it. Where would you draw the line between "normal" sex play and "perversion"? Where do you get the authority to draw that line?
And, even if it does cause harm, if there is informed consent with both parties, I wouldn't send The State after them. I would step in, myself. And I would accept any consequences that came from that.
Tattoos and piercings cause visible harm. Damage to the body that you can see with your own eyes. It offends my aesthetic sensibilities to see them, especially when there are "too many" of either (or both). I think that people who get multiples of either don't understand what they are doing to themselves. They invariably disagree with me on that point. I would still do my best to argue a person out of going overboard with them. But I know where the line is. I respect that line even when doing so makes me unhappy. Which is increasingly rare.
This is a taboo subject, and one I address with apprehension. More than any other subject, talking about sex leads to hatred and accusations and drives people away. It is the most emotionally charged subject I have ever found. Which means, I suppose, that it is important to talk about.
.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Worrying about the properties of unicorn poop
Recently I have been able to observe some "liberals/progressives" in their natural habitat. It has been highly educational and hilarious.
Now, they are not exactly typical "liberals", but it's still funny.
They watch news about the latest goings-on in DC and act like it is actually important. I guess I just don't get it. I couldn't possibly care any less who Obama nominates for what post, or what he believes about guns, or what he is advocating as a "solution" [sic] for the economy he has worked so hard to continue destroying. I already know he is a statist thug- just like Bush the Decider was before him.
The particulars of exactly how Obama and his co-conspirators plan to gang-rape Liberty are less important to me than my plans to defend my individual Liberty from his- or anyone's- aggression. And those plans aren't any of his business. I know the attack is coming, and that's really all that matters.
I hope you also know what's coming, and are getting prepared. I hope you don't waste time pretending that the noises and odors coming from DC (or a more local Mos Eisley) are "the real world". Or that the Storm Troopers and reavers are anything other than what they are.
And, I hope you can laugh at those who get all excited about what their Rulers proclaim and do.
.
Now, they are not exactly typical "liberals", but it's still funny.
They watch news about the latest goings-on in DC and act like it is actually important. I guess I just don't get it. I couldn't possibly care any less who Obama nominates for what post, or what he believes about guns, or what he is advocating as a "solution" [sic] for the economy he has worked so hard to continue destroying. I already know he is a statist thug- just like Bush the Decider was before him.
The particulars of exactly how Obama and his co-conspirators plan to gang-rape Liberty are less important to me than my plans to defend my individual Liberty from his- or anyone's- aggression. And those plans aren't any of his business. I know the attack is coming, and that's really all that matters.
I hope you also know what's coming, and are getting prepared. I hope you don't waste time pretending that the noises and odors coming from DC (or a more local Mos Eisley) are "the real world". Or that the Storm Troopers and reavers are anything other than what they are.
And, I hope you can laugh at those who get all excited about what their Rulers proclaim and do.
.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
"There are parts I like..."
First, this:
I think of this Futurama clip every time I talk to a Constitutionalist.
But they are rarely honest enough to admit "There are parts of the Constitution I like and parts I don't like!".
Because they are almost universally supportive of the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, and "immigration control"*, and against "gay marriage" (which means they are for government-regulated marriage). None of those things are permitted by the Constitution. If you support or advocate any of those you are against the Constitution when it doesn't allow you to "legally" do things you want to do. Just like me.
However, I readily admit to not liking most of the Constitution due to the fact it established a State, and that I consider it irrelevant, while acknowledging that a "Constitutional America" would be a huge improvement over what the US is now.
*The one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves. Not the same thing at all.
.
I think of this Futurama clip every time I talk to a Constitutionalist.
But they are rarely honest enough to admit "There are parts of the Constitution I like and parts I don't like!".
Because they are almost universally supportive of the War on (Politically Incorrect) Drugs, and "immigration control"*, and against "gay marriage" (which means they are for government-regulated marriage). None of those things are permitted by the Constitution. If you support or advocate any of those you are against the Constitution when it doesn't allow you to "legally" do things you want to do. Just like me.
However, I readily admit to not liking most of the Constitution due to the fact it established a State, and that I consider it irrelevant, while acknowledging that a "Constitutional America" would be a huge improvement over what the US is now.
_
*The one part of the Constitution sometimes pointed to as "proof" that it "legalizes" immigration control is actually concerned with the importation of slaves. Not the same thing at all.
.
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Regulations, taxes block progress
Regulations, taxes block progress
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 7, 2012.)
Fraser Institute released its Economic Freedom of North America 2012 report, and New Mexico came in 50th among the American states.
That's bad news, but it's also an incredible and exciting opportunity, because it would be so simple to flip that ranking upside down.
Economic freedom is natural; it requires a lot of effort to stifle it. To destroy economic freedom requires "taxation", regulations, red tape, licenses, and fees. All those things amount to barriers which are erected between an idea and actually providing a product or service to people who might want it. All that would be needed to improve New Mexico's standing is the removal of some of those barriers.
You could even decide how high to lift New Mexico. If a slight improvement is good enough, just remove some of the economic barriers; if you want to rise to the top, get rid of them all. Your choice- the more barriers you insist on removing, the better off we all become.
This doesn't mean there would be no economic risk, or that every new business idea would succeed, but it would make it easier to try new things and allow more of those new things to succeed. The more new things that are tried, the more successes there will be. If you throw one dart, it is unlikely you will hit a bulls-eye, but if you throw a hundred darts, a bulls-eye is almost a sure thing. The state should not be rationing the darts.
Unfortunately, the state and many of its supporters are addicted to their favorite economic barriers.
The "left" wants barriers to ensure the fairy tale of "fairness".
The "right" wants barriers which enforce its notions of "goodness".
Both would be happy to eliminate the other side's favorite barriers, but will fight tooth and claw to hang on to its own barriers. And always propose more. The state is happy to oblige.
So here we are.
Solving this problem means taking power, position, and money away from politicians and bureaucrats. Be assured they will go into fear-monger mode to prevent that from happening. Don't fall for their lies.
America as a whole has slipped further down the index of world economic freedom; now at number eighteen. This is a tragedy that can be solved. New Mexico could lead the way, if we can just be bold enough to do it.
So, which is it? Are you more concerned about imposing barriers against others, or being a shining beacon, even though it means allowing others the same freedom?
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for December 7, 2012.)
Fraser Institute released its Economic Freedom of North America 2012 report, and New Mexico came in 50th among the American states.
That's bad news, but it's also an incredible and exciting opportunity, because it would be so simple to flip that ranking upside down.
Economic freedom is natural; it requires a lot of effort to stifle it. To destroy economic freedom requires "taxation", regulations, red tape, licenses, and fees. All those things amount to barriers which are erected between an idea and actually providing a product or service to people who might want it. All that would be needed to improve New Mexico's standing is the removal of some of those barriers.
You could even decide how high to lift New Mexico. If a slight improvement is good enough, just remove some of the economic barriers; if you want to rise to the top, get rid of them all. Your choice- the more barriers you insist on removing, the better off we all become.
This doesn't mean there would be no economic risk, or that every new business idea would succeed, but it would make it easier to try new things and allow more of those new things to succeed. The more new things that are tried, the more successes there will be. If you throw one dart, it is unlikely you will hit a bulls-eye, but if you throw a hundred darts, a bulls-eye is almost a sure thing. The state should not be rationing the darts.
Unfortunately, the state and many of its supporters are addicted to their favorite economic barriers.
The "left" wants barriers to ensure the fairy tale of "fairness".
The "right" wants barriers which enforce its notions of "goodness".
Both would be happy to eliminate the other side's favorite barriers, but will fight tooth and claw to hang on to its own barriers. And always propose more. The state is happy to oblige.
So here we are.
Solving this problem means taking power, position, and money away from politicians and bureaucrats. Be assured they will go into fear-monger mode to prevent that from happening. Don't fall for their lies.
America as a whole has slipped further down the index of world economic freedom; now at number eighteen. This is a tragedy that can be solved. New Mexico could lead the way, if we can just be bold enough to do it.
So, which is it? Are you more concerned about imposing barriers against others, or being a shining beacon, even though it means allowing others the same freedom?
.
Keep playing an unfair game
"That's not fair!"
Every time I hear those words I smile because I am reminded of Scott Adams' assertion that "fairness" isn't a feature of reality, but a concept invented so that stupid people could feel like they are participating in conversations.
Maybe that's true; maybe it isn't completely true.
However, "fair" does figure into playing games with agreed-upon rules. When someone doesn't play by those rules you feel it isn't fair. You can whine about it, you can keep trying to adapt to the "new" rules, you can "cheat" in your own way and hope to somehow win, or you can walk away.
Some people seem to think of The State as a kind of game. They realize that the rules seem to only be applied in one direction- against individuals who are not a part of the government gang- but they still believe they should keep playing and try to win. Or at least not lose.
What I don't get is that so many of those people think whining about the unfairness will change anything. As long as you keep playing, what incentive is there for any change? You'll keep playing, keep losing, and The State will keep teasing you with the promise of winning a little bit... someday.
When playing against someone who keeps changing the rules to benefit themselves, you are an idiot to not walk away.
Withdraw consent.
.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Liberty, in the real world
I like to handle physical objects. Hats. Guns. Skulls. Whatever.
I enjoy looking at pictures of things I like, but nothing beats having an interesting item in my hands, turning it over, examining every angle, and feeling the weight of it as I turn it over and feel its texture. Concepts are good, but I want to feel the reality, even if it is gritty.
So it is with liberty. I can be free in my mind but I want to grasp liberty in my grubby paws and explore every nook and cranny. I want to see the dirt and stains and scratches. I don't expect liberty to be shiny and perfect, but to be real. I want to live it- flaws and all.
And I will despise anyone who tries to prevent me from experiencing that. And I may need to defend my life, liberty, and property from thugs and parasites who try to take those things from me.
If you fear or hate liberty or those who love it, just get out of the way and leave us alone and there will be no problem. Get in our way by initiating force or being a thief and you may not like the consequences you bring upon yourself. We have seriously had enough.
.
I enjoy looking at pictures of things I like, but nothing beats having an interesting item in my hands, turning it over, examining every angle, and feeling the weight of it as I turn it over and feel its texture. Concepts are good, but I want to feel the reality, even if it is gritty.
So it is with liberty. I can be free in my mind but I want to grasp liberty in my grubby paws and explore every nook and cranny. I want to see the dirt and stains and scratches. I don't expect liberty to be shiny and perfect, but to be real. I want to live it- flaws and all.
And I will despise anyone who tries to prevent me from experiencing that. And I may need to defend my life, liberty, and property from thugs and parasites who try to take those things from me.
If you fear or hate liberty or those who love it, just get out of the way and leave us alone and there will be no problem. Get in our way by initiating force or being a thief and you may not like the consequences you bring upon yourself. We have seriously had enough.
.
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Liberty Lines 1-3-2013
(Published in the Farwell TX/Texico NM State Line Tribune January 3, 2013)
School shootings are, fear-mongering hysteria to the contrary, rare. I have seen the statistics that show your chances of being murdered in one are less than one in two million. Your risk of being killed in a car wreck on the way to school is much higher. You have a higher chance of being killed by a police officer, or of choking to death on a pen cap. Of course, even one murder is too many.
The recent tragedy in Connecticut will result in more anti-gun "laws" being proposed. "Laws" just like the ones that failed to prevent the massacre, and in fact make events like that one more likely. Connecticut has some of the worst- and by that I mean most restrictive- anti-gun "laws" in America. How'd that work out?
There are other meaningless displays that some will propose. Such as lock-downs. The school in Connecticut was "breached" violently. No lock-down prevents that. Lock-downs only increase other risks- risks that are actually more likely to really happen.
I realize no one in government or in the touchy-feelie "we can legislate our way to Utopia crowd" wants to hear it, but the truth is that arming teachers and school employees again is the only thing that can work. It isn't "radical"- it's a return to common sense that seems to have been lost in recent decades. It doesn't even require new "laws"; just the elimination of some very bad ones that are currently enforced.
Fortunately, events like the one in Connecticut will still be highly unlikely even if reasonable measures are passed over in favor of "feel good" security theater. But when the next massacre happens in another of those "gun free zones" take a moment and think about the lives that would have been saved if the decision-makers had listened to me.
.
School shootings are, fear-mongering hysteria to the contrary, rare. I have seen the statistics that show your chances of being murdered in one are less than one in two million. Your risk of being killed in a car wreck on the way to school is much higher. You have a higher chance of being killed by a police officer, or of choking to death on a pen cap. Of course, even one murder is too many.
The recent tragedy in Connecticut will result in more anti-gun "laws" being proposed. "Laws" just like the ones that failed to prevent the massacre, and in fact make events like that one more likely. Connecticut has some of the worst- and by that I mean most restrictive- anti-gun "laws" in America. How'd that work out?
There are other meaningless displays that some will propose. Such as lock-downs. The school in Connecticut was "breached" violently. No lock-down prevents that. Lock-downs only increase other risks- risks that are actually more likely to really happen.
I realize no one in government or in the touchy-feelie "we can legislate our way to Utopia crowd" wants to hear it, but the truth is that arming teachers and school employees again is the only thing that can work. It isn't "radical"- it's a return to common sense that seems to have been lost in recent decades. It doesn't even require new "laws"; just the elimination of some very bad ones that are currently enforced.
Fortunately, events like the one in Connecticut will still be highly unlikely even if reasonable measures are passed over in favor of "feel good" security theater. But when the next massacre happens in another of those "gun free zones" take a moment and think about the lives that would have been saved if the decision-makers had listened to me.
.
Friday, January 04, 2013
Donations and "Subscriptions"
I just added Paypal buttons for donations and "subscriptions" over there on the left (since the blog redesign in January 2014, they are on the right), under my head. I realize many people despise Paypal, and I completely understand why. However, it is still the way most people choose to send me money and I'm not going to be silly and refuse it.
For those of you who hate Paypal but feel a pressing need to send me money, I happily accept silver, gold, and ammo. If you have other ideas of things to send me, let me know.
Obviously, you can still read the blog whether or not you subscribe. If you think I give you value that is worth paying for, then I appreciate it. If I don't- or if you can't afford anything- don't worry about it.
I have also been trying to "get with" Bitcoin- and it is giving me fits. I'll keep trying, but I have been so busy I have to ration the time I spend on computer projects that don't involve actual writing.
For those of you who have helped support my writings, I thank you sincerely. You really have no idea how grateful I am.
.
For those of you who hate Paypal but feel a pressing need to send me money, I happily accept silver, gold, and ammo. If you have other ideas of things to send me, let me know.
Obviously, you can still read the blog whether or not you subscribe. If you think I give you value that is worth paying for, then I appreciate it. If I don't- or if you can't afford anything- don't worry about it.
I have also been trying to "get with" Bitcoin- and it is giving me fits. I'll keep trying, but I have been so busy I have to ration the time I spend on computer projects that don't involve actual writing.
For those of you who have helped support my writings, I thank you sincerely. You really have no idea how grateful I am.
.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Connecticut's Sandy Hook lessons
It has been weeks since the massacre at the Connecticut elementary school. So many innocent lives lost to one indescribably evil act by a broken individual. The magnitude of such a tragedy is hard for rational people to comprehend. Yet, the knee-jerk reaction from the political class is as predictable as sunrise.
It is adding insult to injury to force the individuals of America to withhold our grief because we have to prepare for a second attack. This time from politicians and their Laws of Mass Destruction. It is hard to find the time to cry when you know, from the moment of the first news reports, that fundamental human rights which are subject to no government's "laws" will be scapegoated. Tears must wait until your self defense has been secured.
Doing the same thing that keeps being done and that keeps failing, is not the right way to deal with it. For a change, let's do the thing that people like me keep suggesting.
A person who is willing to violate the laws against murder will never let a "law" against owning or carrying a gun stop him. The anti-gun "laws" only disarm the people who have no intention of murdering children. And, in doing so, those "laws" make the children-your children- less safe.
Politicians- who have had the anti-gun bills written in advance, waiting for such an opportunity to try to rush them into "law"- want you to be afraid. They count on it. Fearful people are temporarily willing to give up some liberty for the illusion of safety. It doesn't work that way.
I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to refuse to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I am resolved to make sure everyone knows the motivations of the people who would wish to take away the tools that allow you and me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.
Anyone calling for you to be disarmed- anywhere, at any time, for any reason- is not doing it for your sake. They do not have your best interests in mind. Instead, the only reason they do it is so that they can do things to you that you would stop if you had the ability. They do it so that they can keep hurting innocent people and you'll be powerless to prevent it.
Schools are not safer when the good people are disarmed. That is a deadly myth. How many more children will be sacrificed on this gory altar?
Instead of making it easier for these evil murderers to do what they want, let's end the insanity of "gun free zones" so that the next attempt will get nipped in the bud. A "gun free zone" is more accurately labeled a "slaughter house". Only a monster would advocate more of this.
.
It is adding insult to injury to force the individuals of America to withhold our grief because we have to prepare for a second attack. This time from politicians and their Laws of Mass Destruction. It is hard to find the time to cry when you know, from the moment of the first news reports, that fundamental human rights which are subject to no government's "laws" will be scapegoated. Tears must wait until your self defense has been secured.
Doing the same thing that keeps being done and that keeps failing, is not the right way to deal with it. For a change, let's do the thing that people like me keep suggesting.
A person who is willing to violate the laws against murder will never let a "law" against owning or carrying a gun stop him. The anti-gun "laws" only disarm the people who have no intention of murdering children. And, in doing so, those "laws" make the children-your children- less safe.
Politicians- who have had the anti-gun bills written in advance, waiting for such an opportunity to try to rush them into "law"- want you to be afraid. They count on it. Fearful people are temporarily willing to give up some liberty for the illusion of safety. It doesn't work that way.
I am not afraid of random violence. I am resolved to prevent or stop it. I am resolved to refuse to be a sitting duck, or to stand by and watch innocents be attacked. I am resolved to make sure everyone knows the motivations of the people who would wish to take away the tools that allow you and me to say "STOP!" and back it up with action.
Anyone calling for you to be disarmed- anywhere, at any time, for any reason- is not doing it for your sake. They do not have your best interests in mind. Instead, the only reason they do it is so that they can do things to you that you would stop if you had the ability. They do it so that they can keep hurting innocent people and you'll be powerless to prevent it.
Schools are not safer when the good people are disarmed. That is a deadly myth. How many more children will be sacrificed on this gory altar?
Instead of making it easier for these evil murderers to do what they want, let's end the insanity of "gun free zones" so that the next attempt will get nipped in the bud. A "gun free zone" is more accurately labeled a "slaughter house". Only a monster would advocate more of this.
.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
So many "laws", so little time...
I saw something that mentioned how many new "laws" came into effect with the new year.
Cool!
The more "laws" they pass, the more "laws" I can break. And the less I worry about each one I break.
When everyone is an outlaw it's not because we are all bad, but because the "laws" are. I actually find myself smiling about the opportunity to break more of their "laws". Am I sick or what?
.
Cool!
The more "laws" they pass, the more "laws" I can break. And the less I worry about each one I break.
When everyone is an outlaw it's not because we are all bad, but because the "laws" are. I actually find myself smiling about the opportunity to break more of their "laws". Am I sick or what?
.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Respect two-way street
Respect two-way street
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 30, 2012.)
I have noticed a couple of recent letters to the editor calling for respect towards those in political office.
That's all well and good; there needs to be more respect in society, but it needs to be earned. Respect is cheapened when it is not deserved. When it is given unearned to someone who demands it, it is downright worthless.
So should politicians and other government employees be shown respect? Well, sure, the same respect that is due everyone alive is also due to them. But no extra respect is due them simply because of their job.
And respect is a two-way street.
I get really angry at people who show a lack of respect toward waiters or cashiers. Just because they are acting as our servants- working to serve us at that moment- it is no reason to treat them with contempt or indifference. They are still our equals.
As human beings our servants deserve our respect, until the moment they fail to respect those they serve or otherwise do something to lose it.
This is particularly true for those in political office. It seems that they invariably forget they are to be the servants; the hired help.
These chronically ungrateful servants order their masters around. They steal from us and demand to be treated with respect as they do so. They impose and enforce illegitimate "laws" that violate our fundamental human rights. They bark orders and then attack when their orders are not obeyed instantly. Only a fool would keep such a servant employed. No one deserves less respect than this kind of servant.
It is an upside down relationship we see in America today, where the servants have the masters convinced that they are in charge, and through intimidation and draconian enforcement, have scared the majority of the masters into forgetting who serves whom.
As long as we, their bosses, let them get away with it the situation will only get worse.
Don't ever forget: YOU outrank the president. You are the master holding the leash of every Supreme Court justice. Every congressperson, mayor, sheriff, police officer, or government bureaucrat works at your pleasure. They are like the butler and are obligated to do your will- and have zero authority to act as your superior in any situation. Especially when they are repeatedly caught with their fingerprints in your vault, and all over your stolen liberty.
The authority is yours- use it.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 30, 2012.)
I have noticed a couple of recent letters to the editor calling for respect towards those in political office.
That's all well and good; there needs to be more respect in society, but it needs to be earned. Respect is cheapened when it is not deserved. When it is given unearned to someone who demands it, it is downright worthless.
So should politicians and other government employees be shown respect? Well, sure, the same respect that is due everyone alive is also due to them. But no extra respect is due them simply because of their job.
And respect is a two-way street.
I get really angry at people who show a lack of respect toward waiters or cashiers. Just because they are acting as our servants- working to serve us at that moment- it is no reason to treat them with contempt or indifference. They are still our equals.
As human beings our servants deserve our respect, until the moment they fail to respect those they serve or otherwise do something to lose it.
This is particularly true for those in political office. It seems that they invariably forget they are to be the servants; the hired help.
These chronically ungrateful servants order their masters around. They steal from us and demand to be treated with respect as they do so. They impose and enforce illegitimate "laws" that violate our fundamental human rights. They bark orders and then attack when their orders are not obeyed instantly. Only a fool would keep such a servant employed. No one deserves less respect than this kind of servant.
It is an upside down relationship we see in America today, where the servants have the masters convinced that they are in charge, and through intimidation and draconian enforcement, have scared the majority of the masters into forgetting who serves whom.
As long as we, their bosses, let them get away with it the situation will only get worse.
Don't ever forget: YOU outrank the president. You are the master holding the leash of every Supreme Court justice. Every congressperson, mayor, sheriff, police officer, or government bureaucrat works at your pleasure. They are like the butler and are obligated to do your will- and have zero authority to act as your superior in any situation. Especially when they are repeatedly caught with their fingerprints in your vault, and all over your stolen liberty.
The authority is yours- use it.
.
Happy 2013
Do you feel optimistic about the coming year? Or is rationality getting in the way of your "feelings"?
I'm not sure how I feel or what I think right now.
I think tyranny will get worse for the foreseeable future, but I think they who believe in The State have already lost the game in the long run. Things may be painful for a while as it all works out. I intend to make it as pain-free on myself as possible, by never depending on "government" or things others look to "government" to provide. I will act as though The State is already dead, and has been replaced by the freelance thugs that will probably inhabit the next phase of civilization. I will fend for myself and try to come to the aid of others doing the same.
I'm less optimistic about my individual circumstances than I am about the trend of future history, but that's not unusual. I will watch for opportunities to change that around, too.
Happy New Year, and have fun however you choose to celebrate- or not.
.
I'm not sure how I feel or what I think right now.
I think tyranny will get worse for the foreseeable future, but I think they who believe in The State have already lost the game in the long run. Things may be painful for a while as it all works out. I intend to make it as pain-free on myself as possible, by never depending on "government" or things others look to "government" to provide. I will act as though The State is already dead, and has been replaced by the freelance thugs that will probably inhabit the next phase of civilization. I will fend for myself and try to come to the aid of others doing the same.
I'm less optimistic about my individual circumstances than I am about the trend of future history, but that's not unusual. I will watch for opportunities to change that around, too.
Happy New Year, and have fun however you choose to celebrate- or not.
.