Want an AR 15 lower receiver? Here ya go: http://defcad.org/defdist-ar-15-lower-receiver/
.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Asking the wrong questions
You know what "they" say: if they can keep you asking the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what you think the answers are.
Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
Someone brought this story to my attention: link
The short version- this guy, Andre, stabbed his girlfriend to death, along with her two young kids, and cut out their hearts (well, actually, part of his girlfriend's lung which he thought was her heart). Even though he is obviously insane, and doesn't seem to understand that what he did was wrong, he was convicted by a (not fully-informed) jury and sentenced to death. He has plucked out his own eyes, eating one of them. He has tried to kill himself and seems to believe his victims are still alive.
The State, though its spokescritter, claims he is mentally ill, but not insane, and is putting on an act in order to avoid punishment. Horse pucky.
Anyway, I had commented that this situation was "Sad all around".
Then I was asked should people like Andre be able to "keep and bear arms"?
The question misses the point.
"Should" gravity exist? The right exists, it isn't a case of "should it" or "should it not".
It isn't within my rights to decide that for any person, nor is it within the authority of any State to make that decision for anyone.
A person shouldn't murder. It doesn't matter what tool is used. In this case Andre used 3 knives. If he wanted to murder he could easily have done so with bare hands. Any "law" that seeks (dishonestly) to restrict Andre's right to own and to carry weapons would not have affected his ability to murder. It would only disarm those he chooses to victimize.
I support Andre's right to own and to carry weaponry, and I wish he had been shot and killed when he went on his killing spree. This wasn't a case of too many guns, but of one too few.
.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"Hurray for Washington!"
Hurray for Washington! by By Mary Theroux
Go to the link above and read it, and then consider...
Has politics ever been anything but a puppet show? Ignore that fact that you may have liked some of the shows more than the current one. It's all smoke and mirrors and you are forced to "enjoy the show" at the point of a gun. Well, how often are you really forced to participate? Sure, you may know that certain silly individuals wearing the ill-fitting hat of government demand you sit up and pay attention, but how often do you actually get grabbed if you ignore them? I'm finding it harder and harder to care what those pathetic control freaks shriek about.
Yeah, more people are beginning to figure it out, but politics is always about celebrating something largely imaginary and silly.
Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.
Hollywood and DC: a perfect fit.
.
Slavism
The opposite of libertarianism isn't just statism. It isn't just authoritarianism. Those are just aspects of slavism: the love of being a slave, or the imposition of slavery on others.
I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.
They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished. While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure. They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.
Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".
.
I am exposed to people suffering from slavism everywhere.
They worship imaginary "authorities", and demand that everyone else do the same- or be punished. While some of them don't see their own chains, they enthusiastically want to make sure everyone else's chains are secure. They use "laws" and delusions to enslave.
Until people get over the notion that some people should be "in control" of other people, and stop "respecting the office" OR "the person", slavism will be "normal".
.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Your liberty depends on their liberty
Your liberty depends on their liberty
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 25, 2013)
Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.
If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".
It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.
Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.
When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.
Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.
That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.
This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.
It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.
If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.
Liberty is not a buffet where you pick the parts you like, while trying to deny other people the same freedom.
If you claim to value the Second Amendment, the best way to prove it is to fight violations of the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. This means defending from government actions people you don't like who are saying things you disagree with, or who are doing things you think are immoral (yet harming no other person without their consent). You will never seek to use laws to prevent a contrary opinion from being expressed. You will oppose unreasonable search and seizure- whether it is called "a checkpoint" or a "drug raid".
It means coming to see that the amendments to the Constitution are not giving you permission to do what you already have a right to do, but making it a serious crime for government to attempt to violate those listed, and unlisted, rights in any way, no matter how "reasonable" those violations may seem to some people.
Even this is barely scratching the surface. Support for liberty goes much deeper than even that.
When the Constitution is wrong and violates individual liberty, courage and consistency demand that you not defend that violation. Fundamental human rights, from which liberty springs, pre-date the Constitution and even the earliest attempts at government, and can not be legitimately criminalized by any government.
Liberty is a web where every thread is connected to, and dependent upon, every other thread. Snipping one thread that you don't like weakens the thread that you depend on for your very life. Every time.
That means that to really love liberty means you will end up defending people and actions that you despise, simply because you recognize that- as long as a person is not attacking or stealing- what they choose to do is none of your business. Your liberty depends on their liberty.
This is very hard for "the right" and "the left" to do. It's easier for libertarians, but not as easy for some as it should be.
It means that you don't ask the question "but why would anyone need...?" when the truth is that it isn't about "need" or "want", but about the fact that no one has a right to decide that for anyone else.
If you are a timid person who is hoping for comfort or guarantees, liberty probably isn't the path for you. Move along; nothing to see here. There will always be someone pandering to your fears.
.
Feeling entitled?
Entitlements. Just because you really like one, and the thought of losing it makes you angry, you can't complain that your "entitlement" shouldn't be called an "entitlement".
I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".
Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.
I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her. She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.
If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.
I hate that people have been robbed and lied to. It doesn't justify continuing the theft.
I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out, "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it. The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.
Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State. It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".
Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day. Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money. There is a way to avoid the pain, too.
However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out. No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme. And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either. It's a good deal.
Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS. They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme. The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support. It's only a matter of time. It is absolutely inevitable.
Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs. Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.
.
I heard someone complaining that Social(ist in)Security shouldn't be lumped in with the "entitlements".
Because she felt entitled to get it since she had been forced to "pay into it" [sic] for all those years.
I tried to nicely explain that the money that was taken from her wasn't being returned to her. She was robbed to pay the ones who got the money "back then" (and to pay for the expensive bureaucracy...), and now new people are being robbed to pay the money to her.
If a mugger robs you in the alley today, but promises to rob someone else tomorrow so he can give you some money, there is still robbery going on.
I hate that people have been robbed and lied to. It doesn't justify continuing the theft.
I suspect- although I don't care enough to research it- that the money being stolen in the name of "Social Security" is a drop in the bucket compared to what is being paid out, "Taxation" all goes to the same place, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think it is very honest to distinguish between the different bureaucracies who receive the stolen money or where they send it. The fact that it is being stolen is enough to make it wrong.
Since "taxation" doesn't even make a dent in the money the kleptocrats in "government" spend, "taxation" could be ended tomorrow without affecting the financing of The State. It is only kept up for its social engineering purposes (so you can be forced to incriminate yourself) and to keep people from prospering "too much".
Look at all the "money" the Federal Reserve counterfeits every day. Yes, you and I understand that this counterfeiting operation causes inflation, which is just another way for the kleptocrats of "government" to steal money. There is a way to avoid the pain, too.
However, as a compromise with the people who sincerely believe they are "entitled" to "their" Social Security [sic] payouts, I would say, let everyone who wants to stay in "the system" stay in (until The End), and let everyone who wants to, opt out. No more money taken from their paycheck in the name of that coercive Ponzi Scheme. And, that also means those who opt out can never collect a cent from the scheme, either. It's a good deal.
Let the Fed print up all the FRNs it would take to pay the recipients of SS. They'll be forced to anyway, if they intend to keep propping up the broken scheme. The numbers don't add up, because even the "honest" Ponzi Schemes (the non-governmental ones) collapse as soon as there are too many people looking for a payoff for the number of new suckers to support. It's only a matter of time. It is absolutely inevitable.
Then, you and I who opt out will explore the free market of money and not rely on the rapidly collapsing FRNs. Just like we probably are doing already if we have been paying attention.
.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Nit-picking for evil
If you cite a quote, people will say "he didn't really say that". The quote about there being "a gun behind every blade of grass" is a prime example.
If you use a statistic, people will say "your statistic is wrong". The oft-referenced number of 20,000 anti-gun laws being an example.
It apparently doesn't matter if the information being transferred in the quote is accurate- what matters to quibblers is whether the person it is attributed to actually said it. It's why I don't really like using quotes. I much prefer to just speak for myself, and anyone who wants to quote me can do so. My words, and yours, hold just as much import as anyone else's words as long as we speak of things we know.
And, it apparently doesn't matter that even one anti-gun "law" is too many- they want to quibble over whether the number you quoted is accurate, and whether the same "law" that applies to non-overlapping territories count as two or one. It doesn't matter. One anti-gun "law" will kill people. One is wrong. Whether the "true number" is 20,000 or "only" 300 (as one person tried to argue), any is too many.
If the best you can do for your anti-liberty bigotry is to worry about who first said which accurate thing, or to try to split hairs over just how much evil is OK, then your position is empty. You have no ethical high-ground to defend.
.
If you use a statistic, people will say "your statistic is wrong". The oft-referenced number of 20,000 anti-gun laws being an example.
It apparently doesn't matter if the information being transferred in the quote is accurate- what matters to quibblers is whether the person it is attributed to actually said it. It's why I don't really like using quotes. I much prefer to just speak for myself, and anyone who wants to quote me can do so. My words, and yours, hold just as much import as anyone else's words as long as we speak of things we know.
And, it apparently doesn't matter that even one anti-gun "law" is too many- they want to quibble over whether the number you quoted is accurate, and whether the same "law" that applies to non-overlapping territories count as two or one. It doesn't matter. One anti-gun "law" will kill people. One is wrong. Whether the "true number" is 20,000 or "only" 300 (as one person tried to argue), any is too many.
If the best you can do for your anti-liberty bigotry is to worry about who first said which accurate thing, or to try to split hairs over just how much evil is OK, then your position is empty. You have no ethical high-ground to defend.
.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Empty, meaningless words
A lot of gun owners say they support the "right to keep and bear arms". Some of them even know that "to keep and bear arms" means to own and to carry weaponry.
A lot of gun owners also say they will refuse to comply with any attempt by government agencies to register firearms.
Maybe.
If you don't carry a gun with you as you go about your daily life, you are not living the "keep and bear arms" you claim to support. Your "support" is empty and meaningless.
If you do carry, but submit to a "carry permit" before you "bear arms" then you are already agreeing to register your guns. Because you have already done so. Your refusal to comply is moot. Empty and meaningless words.
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? Do you not understand that Natural Law says you have the absolute right- simply because you are alive- to provide for your own defense regardless of what anyone else may demand?
I'm not telling you what to do. I am pointing out that you need to look at your own life and your real-life actions to see if there is a consistency there that you can be proud of, or if there is something you need to change.
.
A lot of gun owners also say they will refuse to comply with any attempt by government agencies to register firearms.
Maybe.
If you don't carry a gun with you as you go about your daily life, you are not living the "keep and bear arms" you claim to support. Your "support" is empty and meaningless.
If you do carry, but submit to a "carry permit" before you "bear arms" then you are already agreeing to register your guns. Because you have already done so. Your refusal to comply is moot. Empty and meaningless words.
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble understanding? Do you not understand that Natural Law says you have the absolute right- simply because you are alive- to provide for your own defense regardless of what anyone else may demand?
I'm not telling you what to do. I am pointing out that you need to look at your own life and your real-life actions to see if there is a consistency there that you can be proud of, or if there is something you need to change.
.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Comment moderation, temporarily
I'm turning on comment moderation for a while due to the number of Chinese spammers (judging by where "extra" page views are coming from) recently.
So, if you comment and it takes me a while to post it, I apologize, but I WILL get it approved unless it is a spam comment. Disagreeing with me or insulting me don't count as spam and I have never deleted any such comment, and never will.
I'm sure this will only be temporary, as these things seem to come in waves and cycles.
.
So, if you comment and it takes me a while to post it, I apologize, but I WILL get it approved unless it is a spam comment. Disagreeing with me or insulting me don't count as spam and I have never deleted any such comment, and never will.
I'm sure this will only be temporary, as these things seem to come in waves and cycles.
.
Dorner immolation* "not intentional"?
The sheriff responsible for burning the "cabin" Chris Dorner was supposedly* holed up in, says his minions didn't intentionally torch the "cabin". Just like the feds didn't "intentionally" roast the Branch Davidians.
But the police radios tell a different truth.
Cops already get really twitchy, and willing to break the law and faces, over people photographing or making videos of them "just doing their job". How long until they react the same to people who hear them "just doing their job" over radios and scanners?
If your own words and actions are that dangerous to you, maybe you should recognize that you are verminous scum; not one of the good guys.
.
But the police radios tell a different truth.
Cops already get really twitchy, and willing to break the law and faces, over people photographing or making videos of them "just doing their job". How long until they react the same to people who hear them "just doing their job" over radios and scanners?
If your own words and actions are that dangerous to you, maybe you should recognize that you are verminous scum; not one of the good guys.
-
*Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. You and I will never know the truth unless Chris Dorner pops up and starts offing reavers again..
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Following orders is NOT honorable
There is no good in following orders. None.
To pretend this personality defect is a sign of an "honorable person" is disgusting and dishonest.
Any idiot can manage to follow orders. It takes a real human to evaluate those orders, and decide if they should be followed or ignored. Or even to decide if the one giving the orders needs to be stopped in his tracks.
Cars follow orders. You take certain actions that transmit orders that you wish the car to obey, and as long as the car is functional, and your orders do not exceed its operational parameters or the laws of physics, it does as you order it to do. That doesn't make the car a hero. It makes it a tool.
Humans should never allow themselves to become tools. There should always be a gateway that filters the orders and asks if this order is right or wrong. "If I do as ordered will I be harming innocent individuals or their property rights?" If the answer is "yes", a hero refuses to comply. A thug obeys even after seeing that the answer is "yes". A tool obeys without even asking the question of himself, but only taking the word of those issuing the orders.
Don't let yourself be a tool.
.
To pretend this personality defect is a sign of an "honorable person" is disgusting and dishonest.
Any idiot can manage to follow orders. It takes a real human to evaluate those orders, and decide if they should be followed or ignored. Or even to decide if the one giving the orders needs to be stopped in his tracks.
Cars follow orders. You take certain actions that transmit orders that you wish the car to obey, and as long as the car is functional, and your orders do not exceed its operational parameters or the laws of physics, it does as you order it to do. That doesn't make the car a hero. It makes it a tool.
Humans should never allow themselves to become tools. There should always be a gateway that filters the orders and asks if this order is right or wrong. "If I do as ordered will I be harming innocent individuals or their property rights?" If the answer is "yes", a hero refuses to comply. A thug obeys even after seeing that the answer is "yes". A tool obeys without even asking the question of himself, but only taking the word of those issuing the orders.
Don't let yourself be a tool.
.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Random thoughts
Sometimes I get a stack of random thoughts that I decide to share. Maybe I will eventually expand on them; maybe nothing more is necessary. Here they are in no particular order:
One thing that has been kind of fun for me has been watching some of the people I met when I first got on the internet become "kinda a big deal" in the years since then. And, I've only been online for 12 years. I can only imagine what those who were around at the beginning have seen.
I suspect the near future belongs to the copsuckers. I hope not for too long. But there are a majority of people who have a religious devotion and need to believe in the goodness of The State. Even when they hate what it does, they believe if only "the right people" are in charge, things would be fine. This will keep leading to "wacky fun", until the piper demands to be paid.
Not one new law is ever needed for any problem. Never. I have observed problem after problem, and I can see how to solve most of them without adding one "law"; they are are almost universally created by "laws" in the first place- and those that can't be solved by getting rid of "laws" probably are just a fact of life that can't be solved- yet.
Someone, somewhere, isn't going to like what you say, unless you utter completely empty words (in which case, thinking people still won't like what you say- but they are so rare you may never notice). So, since that's the case anyway I would prefer to receive hate mail from those who excuse murder, theft, coercion, kidnapping, and other evil acts- as long as they are done by The State. You are known by those who decide to be your enemy.
It's time to stop focusing on "laws" further violating the right to own and to carry arms. Let's take it back to the root. I'm against the machine gun, silencer, and sawed-off shotgun "bans".
In the name of "civilizing" a place, statists adopt the least civilized notions: "Gun control" and loss of property rights.
"Dominate the market" is not the same as a monopoly. You can dominate the market by providing what customers want, and leaving no room for competition, but the instant someone has a better idea he is free to entice your customers away from you. A monopoly can only be maintained with The State and its "laws". In a free society there can be no monopoly because nothing can prevent some guy setting up shop in his garage to end the monopoly. That is no guarantee the "established" guy won't continue to dominate the market, though.
.
-
One thing that has been kind of fun for me has been watching some of the people I met when I first got on the internet become "kinda a big deal" in the years since then. And, I've only been online for 12 years. I can only imagine what those who were around at the beginning have seen.
-
I suspect the near future belongs to the copsuckers. I hope not for too long. But there are a majority of people who have a religious devotion and need to believe in the goodness of The State. Even when they hate what it does, they believe if only "the right people" are in charge, things would be fine. This will keep leading to "wacky fun", until the piper demands to be paid.
-
Not one new law is ever needed for any problem. Never. I have observed problem after problem, and I can see how to solve most of them without adding one "law"; they are are almost universally created by "laws" in the first place- and those that can't be solved by getting rid of "laws" probably are just a fact of life that can't be solved- yet.
-
-
It's time to stop focusing on "laws" further violating the right to own and to carry arms. Let's take it back to the root. I'm against the machine gun, silencer, and sawed-off shotgun "bans".
-
-
.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Voluntary solutions the answer
Voluntary solutions the answer
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 18, 2013.)
Libertarians often get accused of blaming everything on government. Little old us, picking on big strong government? That's silly.
The problem is not government, nor is it crime. The problem is people using theft and aggression against others. To draw a false distinction between these primary sources of theft and aggression in the world is to miss the point entirely. It is to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
Theft and aggression exist, and always will, so I might as well accept it and deal with it. So how can you and I survive in the world without resorting to the same tactics used by the bad guys?
Through voluntary cooperation and trade, of course. This is called "the economic method", and when this is used everyone wins, or they are free to walk away- in which case they still win since they were not forced to enter a transaction without their consent. When the economic method is used, completely free of coercion or fraud, there are no losers.
When cooperation and free trade fail- which they sometimes will because there will always be bad people out there who will resort to coercion and fraud- you survive by falling back on self defense.
Isn't self defense an act of aggression? No, it isn't. It can be violent, but it is never aggression. Aggression is the act of starting the attack- throwing the first punch- not of defending yourself or your property from others. Any "laws" that get in the way of self defense and defense of property only make society less civil. They protect the bad guys while hobbling the rest of us.
Almost everyone recognizes violent crime and theft as wrong-doing. In that, libertarians fall squarely on the side of the rest of society. Where we differ is that we make no allowances for theft and aggression done under color of "law". Double standards are rejected and no one gets a pass for their actions.
Without the human potential and energy being wasted maintaining the double standard, the real problems of aggression and theft can be dealt with more effectively.
Then the mental resources and energy that are no longer being wasted can be directed at the other problems that the universe throws at our species. After all, natural disasters, disease, and ignorance won't magically go away by themselves. That takes people who care enough to act, freely, to find voluntary solutions.
Libertarians often get accused of blaming everything on government. Little old us, picking on big strong government? That's silly.
The problem is not government, nor is it crime. The problem is people using theft and aggression against others. To draw a false distinction between these primary sources of theft and aggression in the world is to miss the point entirely. It is to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
Theft and aggression exist, and always will, so I might as well accept it and deal with it. So how can you and I survive in the world without resorting to the same tactics used by the bad guys?
Through voluntary cooperation and trade, of course. This is called "the economic method", and when this is used everyone wins, or they are free to walk away- in which case they still win since they were not forced to enter a transaction without their consent. When the economic method is used, completely free of coercion or fraud, there are no losers.
When cooperation and free trade fail- which they sometimes will because there will always be bad people out there who will resort to coercion and fraud- you survive by falling back on self defense.
Isn't self defense an act of aggression? No, it isn't. It can be violent, but it is never aggression. Aggression is the act of starting the attack- throwing the first punch- not of defending yourself or your property from others. Any "laws" that get in the way of self defense and defense of property only make society less civil. They protect the bad guys while hobbling the rest of us.
Almost everyone recognizes violent crime and theft as wrong-doing. In that, libertarians fall squarely on the side of the rest of society. Where we differ is that we make no allowances for theft and aggression done under color of "law". Double standards are rejected and no one gets a pass for their actions.
Without the human potential and energy being wasted maintaining the double standard, the real problems of aggression and theft can be dealt with more effectively.
Then the mental resources and energy that are no longer being wasted can be directed at the other problems that the universe throws at our species. After all, natural disasters, disease, and ignorance won't magically go away by themselves. That takes people who care enough to act, freely, to find voluntary solutions.
.
Bill of Rights. "Feds only"?
Even though I don't look to the Constitution as the paragon of liberty that some seem to believe it is, I still find the Bill of Rights interesting.
And, I find it funny that some people claim that the Bill of Rights is "only binding on the federal government". Nonsense.
What the Bill of Rights did was to recognize that there are things no other person is allowed to do to you. No matter their justification. "Government" is nothing but people- so forbidding government to do something means it is recognized that no individual has the right or the authority to do those things to any other individual. You can't eliminate this truth by paring a "government" down to one person or by piling people together until you can call it a "government".
No government can do what is wrong for an individual to do without being in the wrong, and no individual can do things that are wrong for "government" to do, either. Because there is no "government"; there are individuals. The Bill of Rights just recognizes that some things are wrong for one person to do to any other person. But it only makes it a crime for government to do those things.
.
And, I find it funny that some people claim that the Bill of Rights is "only binding on the federal government". Nonsense.
What the Bill of Rights did was to recognize that there are things no other person is allowed to do to you. No matter their justification. "Government" is nothing but people- so forbidding government to do something means it is recognized that no individual has the right or the authority to do those things to any other individual. You can't eliminate this truth by paring a "government" down to one person or by piling people together until you can call it a "government".
No government can do what is wrong for an individual to do without being in the wrong, and no individual can do things that are wrong for "government" to do, either. Because there is no "government"; there are individuals. The Bill of Rights just recognizes that some things are wrong for one person to do to any other person. But it only makes it a crime for government to do those things.
.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Statist hate
Recently I was reminded again of the mental capacity of most of those who oppose liberty. It gives me hope- although I can worry a little because they are extremely violent maniacs who see nothing wrong with murdering those they hate- and killing other innocent people to get to their target seems to be completely OK with them.
Their "argument" boils down to this, repeated endlessly with slight alterations in endless combination, and brave new "spellings", every chance they get:
"YOU SCUMSUCKIN (censored) (censored) (censored)!!!!! GET OUT OF MY (censored) AMERICA, (censored)!!!! YOU IS A COWARD AND AM NOT GOOD ENUFF TO SUCK A REAL PATRIOTS (censored)!!!! LIBRAL (censored) LIKE YUO NEDE TO BE SHOOT IN THE (censored) HAED!!!! THE TROOPS GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO RIGHT YOUR WORDS OF HATE ON YUR (censored) COMPUTET AND THEY YOU THE INTERNET!!!!! THEY FIGHT THE TERRISTS OVER THERE SO (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU DON'T GET (censored) RPED BY THEIR TOWELHEADED CAMEL (censored)ING TERRORISTS ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!! THIS IS WHY AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE BECAUSE OF (censored) (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU PUSSY (censored)!!! KISS MY (censored) AMERICAN (censored) FLAG!!! yOU MUSLIM LOVING LIBERTY HATING (censored) (censored)!@!!! THE CONSTITUTION GIVES WARRIORS A RIGHT TO GO KILL (censored) (censored) THAT HATE AMERICA!!!! HOORAH!!!!"
Yeah... Well, at least we don't have to worry about them outsmarting us.
It cracks me up that these guys consider me a bad guy, and themselves to be the good ones.
On the other hand, I seriously wonder whether the posts like that are parodies meant to make the anti-liberty bigots look ridiculous. As if they need any help.
.
Their "argument" boils down to this, repeated endlessly with slight alterations in endless combination, and brave new "spellings", every chance they get:
"YOU SCUMSUCKIN (censored) (censored) (censored)!!!!! GET OUT OF MY (censored) AMERICA, (censored)!!!! YOU IS A COWARD AND AM NOT GOOD ENUFF TO SUCK A REAL PATRIOTS (censored)!!!! LIBRAL (censored) LIKE YUO NEDE TO BE SHOOT IN THE (censored) HAED!!!! THE TROOPS GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO RIGHT YOUR WORDS OF HATE ON YUR (censored) COMPUTET AND THEY YOU THE INTERNET!!!!! THEY FIGHT THE TERRISTS OVER THERE SO (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU DON'T GET (censored) RPED BY THEIR TOWELHEADED CAMEL (censored)ING TERRORISTS ON AMERICAN SOIL!!!! THIS IS WHY AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE BECAUSE OF (censored) (censored) (censored) LIKE YOU PUSSY (censored)!!! KISS MY (censored) AMERICAN (censored) FLAG!!! yOU MUSLIM LOVING LIBERTY HATING (censored) (censored)!@!!! THE CONSTITUTION GIVES WARRIORS A RIGHT TO GO KILL (censored) (censored) THAT HATE AMERICA!!!! HOORAH!!!!"
Yeah... Well, at least we don't have to worry about them outsmarting us.
It cracks me up that these guys consider me a bad guy, and themselves to be the good ones.
On the other hand, I seriously wonder whether the posts like that are parodies meant to make the anti-liberty bigots look ridiculous. As if they need any help.
.
Bitcoins for me
I think I have finally got a Bitcoin wallet operational, for those who prefer this method of payment and donation.
The address is:
1BKqRWERfVU2hryZFm5R2UFQFnjU51QV15
And the QR code is:
If you intend to send me some Bitcoin, please let me know so I can see if everything goes like it is supposed to. I would suggest that someone could send me some, that I could send back, just to see if it all works, but I would be horrified if something went wrong and the Bitcoin was lost somewhere in cyberspace, so don't do that.
.
The address is:
1BKqRWERfVU2hryZFm5R2UFQFnjU51QV15
And the QR code is:
If you intend to send me some Bitcoin, please let me know so I can see if everything goes like it is supposed to. I would suggest that someone could send me some, that I could send back, just to see if it all works, but I would be horrified if something went wrong and the Bitcoin was lost somewhere in cyberspace, so don't do that.
.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Chinese spammers
The last few days my blog has been inundated with spam comments from (according to my Blogger analytics) China.
While Blogger is catching almost all of them, it makes me feel bad. Here these people are spending hours copying and pasting (I assume) comments onto blogs and those comments are being trashed without ever being seen. Not that I want to see them.
Are the people getting paid anyway? Are they basically slave workers?
Are they aware that their spam is being filtered? Are they working on ways to avoid being automatically detected?
The spam comments annoy me, but it makes me wonder about other things.
.
While Blogger is catching almost all of them, it makes me feel bad. Here these people are spending hours copying and pasting (I assume) comments onto blogs and those comments are being trashed without ever being seen. Not that I want to see them.
Are the people getting paid anyway? Are they basically slave workers?
Are they aware that their spam is being filtered? Are they working on ways to avoid being automatically detected?
The spam comments annoy me, but it makes me wonder about other things.
.
"Primitive" Fire starting
I decided it might be a good topic to add here, to supplement my BrainTan Buckskin post.
In Colorado, I lived right on the river and had a nice stand of willows, some western birch, and narrow leaf cottonwood in my yard.
The cord on my bow (a curved piece of... willow?) is braintan buckskin. It lasts pretty well unless I try to teach someone else firestarting. (I have been known to make a "practice bow" for them.) I have used elk rawhide for my cord, and if you flex it a LOT as it dries it will be flexible enough to work, and it lasts a good long time. I had one last for years, through making a fire just about every day. Probably well over a thousand fires from that one cord. Maybe close to two thousand.
One thing I found is that, for me, it helps if the bow is NOT flexible. I actually used a cow rib bone once when I didn't have my kit with me, and it worked pretty well.
One thing I found is that, for me, it helps if the bow is NOT flexible. I actually used a cow rib bone once when I didn't have my kit with me, and it worked pretty well.
I used old, dead standing, willow or similar thumb-thick (or slightly thicker) birch for the spindle. (The spindle pictured is 10.25") I use a good spindle until it is too short to be comfortable anymore.
The fire-boards I used in Colorado were usually birch. The larger dead branches would often naturally split making it really easy to get a good fire-board just by breaking it off the shrub. If it still wasn't completely split, a whack or two on a big rock would usually finish the job. I still prefer wood that is similar in its qualities. Just don't try to use evergreen wood (the resin in the wood lubricates, and you want friction, not lubrication, to make heat).
The inner bark of the cottonwood made good tinder, not resinous like juniper, but still easy to light. Big dead branches (or half-trees) were always falling off, and the bark would come off, exposing the fibrous inner bark. I'd collect handfuls of it and fluff it up. The wad of tinder in the picture seems to be a combination of cottonwood, juniper, and various unidentified fibers. I have a habit of just picking up promising looking tinder as I walk, often not even thinking about it.
The small bundle below the mass of tinder is a little buckskin bag full of charcoal from previous fires. I sometimes add a bit to my tinder nest if I sense the coal might need a little help. Once that charcoal starts to glow, which it does quickly, you almost can't lose your coal.
For the bearing block, I found a nice river rock that fit my hand, and I chipped and ground out a socket and lubed it with elk tallow. The most annoying thing to improvise is a good bearing block (this is what you place on top to apply the downward pressure on the spindle and keep it all from wobbling around).
For the bearing block, I found a nice river rock that fit my hand, and I chipped and ground out a socket and lubed it with elk tallow. The most annoying thing to improvise is a good bearing block (this is what you place on top to apply the downward pressure on the spindle and keep it all from wobbling around).
I also use a square of elk rawhide to catch the coal.
I have improvised EVERYTHING in the above list at one time or another. Normally you can just tell when the wood will work.
The bag under it all is what I carry it in. It is (poorly) braintanned elk. Not shown are 6 extra spindles (one is yucca), a spare fireboard (2/3 the length of the old one), and a piece of birchbark. Sometimes I also keep an extra bow cord in there. I also have a yucca spindle in there with buckskin thumb-loops for more hand drill attempts ("making blisters").
Then you put it all together and do this:
I have improvised EVERYTHING in the above list at one time or another. Normally you can just tell when the wood will work.
The bag under it all is what I carry it in. It is (poorly) braintanned elk. Not shown are 6 extra spindles (one is yucca), a spare fireboard (2/3 the length of the old one), and a piece of birchbark. Sometimes I also keep an extra bow cord in there. I also have a yucca spindle in there with buckskin thumb-loops for more hand drill attempts ("making blisters").
Then you put it all together and do this:
Keep your hair tied back; bandanas and stampede strings out of the way, and keep your body over the spindle, with your shoulder directly above the bearing block and your wrist locked against your shin bone for stability.
Good luck ... or better yet: practice.
Since we are on the subject of fire, here are some easier methods. If you have access to the right materials (a steel striker, flint or chert, and some char), you can make a flint and steel fire. "Thank you" to one of my regular readers who sent me this good-sparking steel!
What if you have nothing but a magnifying glass (or far-sighted glasses)?
And, you can make it even easier by having some "char" to focus your lens on. Funny thing is, the glowing part of the char is hard to see in the bright sun. It catches almost instantly and might catch you off-guard. Watch me burn my fingers and be amused.
Now, if you want a fire really easy, and I mean "matches and gasoline" easy, try a firesteel (from firesteel.com) and some dryer lint. It just doesn't get easier than that. My 5 year-old daughter can make fire in seconds this way (see video at the very bottom)- and has more than once.
There is really no excuse to be without a fire in a survival situation. Even in wet conditions you can find some dry tinder somewhere, and you should be able to find some method to light it. Just learn and practice.
There are more primitive, much more difficult (for me) methods, such as the hand drill and "fire plow" (really "rubbing 2 sticks together"). If I ever manage to succeed with either of those methods, I'll post the video. If anyone wants to come here and teach me those methods, I'm up for it.
Bonus video:
.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
"I never thought..."
"I never thought, in all my life, that..."
And that's the problem. Too many people don't think. They don't plan ahead. They always think "it can't happen to me, not here, not today".
But it can, and it does. To countless people every day. It doesn't mean you need to live your life in fear. Just be aware. Observe. Be ready for whatever might come your way, as much as you can.
And, remember, there is nothing magical about your life. Special, yes. Magical, no.
"It" can happen to you. Pay attention and see "it" before it's too late.
.
And, remember, there is nothing magical about your life. Special, yes. Magical, no.
"It" can happen to you. Pay attention and see "it" before it's too late.
.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Sometimes, statists are just...
... well, decide for yourself.
A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race". Yes, he does- no denying it. But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.
I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."
He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.
So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."
Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."
OK. Kidding. That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.
I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."
I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."
A while back on facebook, an apparently "liberal" acquaintance from long ago had posted a link about some racist redneck preacher (my words, not his), who hates Obama because of his "race". Yes, he does- no denying it. But that doesn't mean all opposition to the Droner in Chief is racist in nature.
I replied "At least I'm consistent. My opposition to Obama is based on the exact same things my opposition to Bush the Decider (and all those puppeticians before him) was based on."
He responded, jokingly- I think- that I was opposed to just about everything.
So, I responded "Hardly. I'm only opposed to those who are opposed to liberty. Pretty much everyone and everything else- as long as you don't attack people or steal from them, enjoy yourself."
Then someone else piped up and told me "We call people like you agginneers. You are against everything. Now before you go off on me. I am only kidding."
OK. Kidding. That's fine, but it is hardly accurate, and jokes need to be based in reality to be humorous.
I replied: "I'm actually 'against' almost nothing. Nothing but theft and aggression, anyway."
I was then told that "Being opposed is the same as being against. You listed several things you are opposed to earlier."
Confused, since I don't deny being opposed to or against coercion and theft, I asked: "'Several things'? What are they? Besides aggression and theft, I mean.
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons."
Politics is based solely upon aggression and theft. It is using the coercive force of government to force others to do what you want. That is why the "economic method" of dealing with others is based upon voluntary agreements- if you don't wish to participate you can walk away. This way there are no losers, and usually both people win. The "political method" of dealing with others is where if you and someone else can't reach an agreement, one of you pulls out a gun (by proxy in most cases, by calling for government intervention) to force the other person to do what you want against his will. This way has a winner and a loser, every time.
I just make no exceptions for theft and aggression done under the guise of 'government'.
I hope that clear it up a little- I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I am saying, or think badly of me. At least, not for the wrong reasons."
I then linked to "The Philosophy of Liberty" video and explained that it might do a better job of illustrating what I was talking about.
Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"
Yeah, I suppose. And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too. What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?
Not all viewpoints are valid.
It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did. Nope. Sorry. Not gonna buy it.
.
.
Then, I got a very typical statist brush off: "Not a big deal to me. Everyone is entitled to their own things to be opposed (against) to. Have a nice night!!"
Yeah, I suppose. And I'm "opposed (against) to" cancer, too. What thinking and ethical person wouldn't be?
Not all viewpoints are valid.
It reminds me of the person who threw a temper tantrum a few times because my refusal to be controlled amounted, in her eyes, to me controlling what she did. Nope. Sorry. Not gonna buy it.
.
.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Clueless about money
There are clueless people out there. I try to not be one of them.
I saw this question about buying silver: "But who are we going to sell back to when we need money someday?"
Seriously? Silver IS money. The "money" the person refers to is fake. It is only money because people believe it is. Don't trade your money for Federal Reserve Notes unless you find someone who prefers fake money. And, in that case, someone more intelligent will always be happy to trade you so that you can pay the economically ignorant person. At least until "dollars" are no longer an option, in which case the FRN-preferrer is gonna be out of luck.
.
I saw this question about buying silver: "But who are we going to sell back to when we need money someday?"
Seriously? Silver IS money. The "money" the person refers to is fake. It is only money because people believe it is. Don't trade your money for Federal Reserve Notes unless you find someone who prefers fake money. And, in that case, someone more intelligent will always be happy to trade you so that you can pay the economically ignorant person. At least until "dollars" are no longer an option, in which case the FRN-preferrer is gonna be out of luck.
.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
More laws will not save any lives
More laws will not save any lives
(My Clovis News Journal column for January, 11, 2013)
In the weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the standard reactions that always follow such a tragedy cropped up everywhere, with a new emphasis on the specter of "mental illness". Surprise! Mentally ill people are responsible for mass-murders.
What can be done about that?
Even more "taxes" to force us to pay to treat more people? If nationalized health care is bad, and it is, how can more be good? Nothing is free, politicians' claims to the contrary. Do you sentence someone to life in a cage or a "hospital" when they haven't hurt anyone, just on the fear they might someday do something? Should everyone who is depressed or upset be caged until they appear to be happy?
There is no guarantee that something would happen. Do you steal a life in trade for a life?
Who is to be held responsible when a person slips through the cracks and commits murder?
What about people who are just evil? Some of them function quite well, and pass notice. Or get elected.
People who do not have a history of mental illness can suddenly snap. How do you predict or prevent this?
Some blame parents, but serious mental problems are typically due to brain chemistry. The drugs given to kids and teens for many comparatively minor problems (ADHD, "depression") seem to precipitate these kinds of horrendous acts, and trigger suicides. That doesn't take responsibility away from the murderers at all, however, there is a very clear correlation, and that may indicate causation.
Some mentally ill people will always slip through the cracks. The only effective way to stop their rampages is to make sure that they will NEVER have a disarmed pool of innocent targets available. No one, other than the people who were already there just going about their lives when Evil strikes, can always in the right place to make a difference at the right time. You are always your own "first responder".
My heart breaks for those innocent children, their teachers and administrators, all the families who will have an un-fillable hole in their lives from now on, and for the survivors who were there, and rendered helpless by "law". I can't imagine the thoughts of "if, only..." they must be having.
More socialism, more coercive "laws", and knee-jerk "someone has to do SOMETHING!" responses will not save one innocent life.
Armed self defense, and respecting that fundamental human right, will. I'll keep supporting the solution rather than ensuring the safety of those monsters who are determined to become famous by mass murder.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for January, 11, 2013)
In the weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the standard reactions that always follow such a tragedy cropped up everywhere, with a new emphasis on the specter of "mental illness". Surprise! Mentally ill people are responsible for mass-murders.
What can be done about that?
Even more "taxes" to force us to pay to treat more people? If nationalized health care is bad, and it is, how can more be good? Nothing is free, politicians' claims to the contrary. Do you sentence someone to life in a cage or a "hospital" when they haven't hurt anyone, just on the fear they might someday do something? Should everyone who is depressed or upset be caged until they appear to be happy?
There is no guarantee that something would happen. Do you steal a life in trade for a life?
Who is to be held responsible when a person slips through the cracks and commits murder?
What about people who are just evil? Some of them function quite well, and pass notice. Or get elected.
People who do not have a history of mental illness can suddenly snap. How do you predict or prevent this?
Some blame parents, but serious mental problems are typically due to brain chemistry. The drugs given to kids and teens for many comparatively minor problems (ADHD, "depression") seem to precipitate these kinds of horrendous acts, and trigger suicides. That doesn't take responsibility away from the murderers at all, however, there is a very clear correlation, and that may indicate causation.
Some mentally ill people will always slip through the cracks. The only effective way to stop their rampages is to make sure that they will NEVER have a disarmed pool of innocent targets available. No one, other than the people who were already there just going about their lives when Evil strikes, can always in the right place to make a difference at the right time. You are always your own "first responder".
My heart breaks for those innocent children, their teachers and administrators, all the families who will have an un-fillable hole in their lives from now on, and for the survivors who were there, and rendered helpless by "law". I can't imagine the thoughts of "if, only..." they must be having.
More socialism, more coercive "laws", and knee-jerk "someone has to do SOMETHING!" responses will not save one innocent life.
Armed self defense, and respecting that fundamental human right, will. I'll keep supporting the solution rather than ensuring the safety of those monsters who are determined to become famous by mass murder.
.
"Moral"? "Compassionate"?
It isn't "moral" to use government coercion to make people act like you think they should act.
It isn't "compassionate" to use government coercion to force people to "help" other people.
It is neither "moral" nor "compassionate" to use government coercion to protect you from things that scare you, such as guns or immigrants.
I get really tired of "conservatives" and "liberals" who can't grasp these simple, yet true, facts. I get tired of being subjected to the broken record of "moral" or "compassionate" people who are in reality neither one.
If you are too dumb to see that your support of this or that "law" is destroying individual lives in order to make you feel better, then I hope someone with more patience than me can get through to you someday soon, before you poke your own eye out with a colon polyp.
.
It isn't "compassionate" to use government coercion to force people to "help" other people.
It is neither "moral" nor "compassionate" to use government coercion to protect you from things that scare you, such as guns or immigrants.
I get really tired of "conservatives" and "liberals" who can't grasp these simple, yet true, facts. I get tired of being subjected to the broken record of "moral" or "compassionate" people who are in reality neither one.
If you are too dumb to see that your support of this or that "law" is destroying individual lives in order to make you feel better, then I hope someone with more patience than me can get through to you someday soon, before you poke your own eye out with a colon polyp.
.
Monday, February 11, 2013
It's not me, it's you.
If everyone around you is an idiot, or is always "out to get you", that may be a hint that "they" might not be the real problem.
If "you" are a country, and you are always at war with someone somewhere for some reason, that might be a clue that the problem isn't all the other countries, but You.
.
If "you" are a country, and you are always at war with someone somewhere for some reason, that might be a clue that the problem isn't all the other countries, but You.
.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
"From my cold dead hands?" Ha!
"You can have my guns when you ...." Wait. No you can't.
You never have my permission to have them. I would rather my guns go to a drug lord or an inner city gang member after my death than to any government agent.
If you steal them "under color of law" you are a thief and you took them without consent.
If you kill me in the process of stealing them, you are a murderer and my dead silence is not consent.
If you threaten and torture me or my family until you get me to hand them over under duress then you are an aggressor and you deserve the aggressor's fate: death. And in that case I will spend the rest of my life ensuring that your earned fate finds you.
It doesn't matter if there is a "law" saying you have authority to steal my guns. It doesn't matter if you wear a badge or have a title or hold a "high" office. You can never "have" them. Not even if you somehow end up possessing them.
.
You never have my permission to have them. I would rather my guns go to a drug lord or an inner city gang member after my death than to any government agent.
If you steal them "under color of law" you are a thief and you took them without consent.
If you kill me in the process of stealing them, you are a murderer and my dead silence is not consent.
If you threaten and torture me or my family until you get me to hand them over under duress then you are an aggressor and you deserve the aggressor's fate: death. And in that case I will spend the rest of my life ensuring that your earned fate finds you.
It doesn't matter if there is a "law" saying you have authority to steal my guns. It doesn't matter if you wear a badge or have a title or hold a "high" office. You can never "have" them. Not even if you somehow end up possessing them.
.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
The "gateway drug" of "gun rights"
Gun rights are a primary gateway drug for liberty. For some people religion fills that role. Or something else. Everyone has their hot button.
For me, it was a combination of gun rights, property rights, and love for the environment.
But, back to gun rights. What I see happen frequently is that (intelligent) people who are passionate about gun rights come to see that it depends on all the other rights. Liberty can't be dissected.
The biggest dangers to gun rights have been the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War on a Scary Emotion... I mean "Terror".
What people see is that supporting these nonsensical violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only whittles away on the liberty to own and to carry weapons, including ANY weapon owned (or deployed) by any employee of The State. (Yes, I mean "nukes" as well. If you shouldn't have one in your garage, then the US Government shouldn't have any either. And, if everyone had to pay for their own nukes out of their own pockets, I doubt you'd see anyone having them anyway. End tangent.)
Concern for the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons- and particularly the collectivist drive to demonize that right- serves to wake up a lot of people. "If government extremists are wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?" And thinking people will then look into that question and discover that the government extremists are wrong about everything. They'll be addicted to liberty from that moment on.
.
For me, it was a combination of gun rights, property rights, and love for the environment.
But, back to gun rights. What I see happen frequently is that (intelligent) people who are passionate about gun rights come to see that it depends on all the other rights. Liberty can't be dissected.
The biggest dangers to gun rights have been the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War on a Scary Emotion... I mean "Terror".
What people see is that supporting these nonsensical violations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only whittles away on the liberty to own and to carry weapons, including ANY weapon owned (or deployed) by any employee of The State. (Yes, I mean "nukes" as well. If you shouldn't have one in your garage, then the US Government shouldn't have any either. And, if everyone had to pay for their own nukes out of their own pockets, I doubt you'd see anyone having them anyway. End tangent.)
Concern for the fundamental human right to own and to carry weapons- and particularly the collectivist drive to demonize that right- serves to wake up a lot of people. "If government extremists are wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?" And thinking people will then look into that question and discover that the government extremists are wrong about everything. They'll be addicted to liberty from that moment on.
.
Friday, February 08, 2013
Chris Dorner
Strange, but really... I feel nothing. While I feel sorry for any innocent people who are being harmed, everyone knows the score.
We already know cops are a public nuisance under the best of circumstances, and a lethal danger under the worst. So, I'm neither surprised by Dorner, nor by the LAPD's dangerous, overwrought response.
For all the good people out there- stay out of the way and assume any cop you see will shoot you to enhance "officer safety". And remember that just because you look nothing like him, and you are driving a vehicle that is nothing like his, it doesn't guarantee anything. Someone poked the hive and the hornets are blind with rage and have completely lost any semblance of a mind they may once have had.
Let's just watch this thing play out and try to come out alive on the other side. And, with that goal in mind, remember who is targeting random individuals rather than specific corrupt targets.
.
We already know cops are a public nuisance under the best of circumstances, and a lethal danger under the worst. So, I'm neither surprised by Dorner, nor by the LAPD's dangerous, overwrought response.
For all the good people out there- stay out of the way and assume any cop you see will shoot you to enhance "officer safety". And remember that just because you look nothing like him, and you are driving a vehicle that is nothing like his, it doesn't guarantee anything. Someone poked the hive and the hornets are blind with rage and have completely lost any semblance of a mind they may once have had.
Let's just watch this thing play out and try to come out alive on the other side. And, with that goal in mind, remember who is targeting random individuals rather than specific corrupt targets.
.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Liberty Lines 2-7-2013
(Published in the State Line Tribune, Feb 7, 2013)
I have really been enjoying the articles on nullification that Will Anderson has done such a fine job on. Nullification is an issue dear to my heart- not just nullification on a state by state basis, but down to the individual nullifying "laws" that he or she knows are wrong (which is most of them).
There is a one-thousand year-old right and duty of jurors to refuse to convict people who are charged under "laws" that the juror believes are overreaching their authority, no matter what the judge may instruct them to do. Judges used to inform people of this duty- now they generally hide it. Look up "jury nullification" or check out fija.org for more information.
I am not as optimistic about the chances of a state government doing the right thing, so I don't hold out much hope for Texas or New Mexico nullifying unconstitutional anti-gun "laws". After all, they have been enthusiastically enforcing these anti-constitutional edicts regulating guns for the federal government since 1934. Plus they have dreamed up plenty of their own- such as the Texas prohibition on "open carry"- that even the feds haven't yet managed to impose.
The Bill of Rights says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" (that means to own and to carry guns, swords, and Bowie knives) "shall not be infringed". That means every single anti-gun "law" that has been enforced since 1934, and especially since 1968, is unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void. It means that anyone enforcing even the most "reasonable" anti-gun "law" is a criminal. It means there is no authority to issue permits, do background checks, or to ever arrest anyone on "weapons charges".
Don't try to excuse anti-liberty positions by quoting the part about a "well-regulated militia", either. It doesn't mean what the "gun control" advocates want it to mean- "well-regulated" means "fine-tuned" and well-practiced, and the militia is everyone capable of handling a weapon in defense of self, territory, life, and liberty. That is YOU.
The power of nullification lies in each of us. It's time we start using it again.
.
I have really been enjoying the articles on nullification that Will Anderson has done such a fine job on. Nullification is an issue dear to my heart- not just nullification on a state by state basis, but down to the individual nullifying "laws" that he or she knows are wrong (which is most of them).
There is a one-thousand year-old right and duty of jurors to refuse to convict people who are charged under "laws" that the juror believes are overreaching their authority, no matter what the judge may instruct them to do. Judges used to inform people of this duty- now they generally hide it. Look up "jury nullification" or check out fija.org for more information.
I am not as optimistic about the chances of a state government doing the right thing, so I don't hold out much hope for Texas or New Mexico nullifying unconstitutional anti-gun "laws". After all, they have been enthusiastically enforcing these anti-constitutional edicts regulating guns for the federal government since 1934. Plus they have dreamed up plenty of their own- such as the Texas prohibition on "open carry"- that even the feds haven't yet managed to impose.
The Bill of Rights says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" (that means to own and to carry guns, swords, and Bowie knives) "shall not be infringed". That means every single anti-gun "law" that has been enforced since 1934, and especially since 1968, is unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void. It means that anyone enforcing even the most "reasonable" anti-gun "law" is a criminal. It means there is no authority to issue permits, do background checks, or to ever arrest anyone on "weapons charges".
Don't try to excuse anti-liberty positions by quoting the part about a "well-regulated militia", either. It doesn't mean what the "gun control" advocates want it to mean- "well-regulated" means "fine-tuned" and well-practiced, and the militia is everyone capable of handling a weapon in defense of self, territory, life, and liberty. That is YOU.
The power of nullification lies in each of us. It's time we start using it again.
.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Equivalencies, right and wrong
Here some equivalencies that a lot of people don't quite understand.
- Government = mafia
- "Patriots" = neighborhood residents that support the mafia and its acts
- Military = mafia "protection"
- Sniper = hitman
- "Taxes" = protection money
- Drones = UniBomber parcels
- Land mines/IEDs = "Shotgun tied to the doorknob" booby trap
- "Collateral damage" = murder
- War = gangland fight for control that kills and destroys the innocent
And here are some of the reasons statists can't understand liberty. They seem to be confused and believe:
- "Freedom"/"Liberty" = permission to do what we allow you to do
- "Hero" = "someone who did something we like- don't tell us the truth!"
- "America"/"USA" = "Always right, never wrong, God's favorite, the only nation that matters- kill everyone else if they don't swear allegiance or anyone who looks at a US flag sideways!"
- "Constitution" = The document that is Holy, and that makes it legal to kick "liberals" out of America, unless it doesn't authorize the feds to do something we want them to do, then... well, "It really does, but you just don't understand it like we do."
.
Town Bully
Suppose there was a bully in your town. You knew he constantly assaulted people and stole from them. You had even witnessed it yourself on several occasions. Maybe you had even fallen victim to him a time or two.
But, then one day your kid fell down a well, and Bully helped you get her out.
Is that any reason to decide that Town Bully should become an honored role?
Because that is exactly what cops are.
Thinking of police as "necessary" is just as ridiculous as supporting the institution of Town Bully.
When real problems occur normal people can always handle it- because cops have no superpowers. Their only "power" is an artificial one propped up by counterfeit "laws" that only hobble you by prohibiting you from doing the normal things humans have always done to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for yourself and the people around you.
Cops are not "above" you; you have been "legally" enslaved to make it appear that cops are elevated. Pushing everyone down to give cops "stature" makes society much worse off.
It's silly beyond words.
.
But, then one day your kid fell down a well, and Bully helped you get her out.
Is that any reason to decide that Town Bully should become an honored role?
Because that is exactly what cops are.
Thinking of police as "necessary" is just as ridiculous as supporting the institution of Town Bully.
When real problems occur normal people can always handle it- because cops have no superpowers. Their only "power" is an artificial one propped up by counterfeit "laws" that only hobble you by prohibiting you from doing the normal things humans have always done to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for yourself and the people around you.
Cops are not "above" you; you have been "legally" enslaved to make it appear that cops are elevated. Pushing everyone down to give cops "stature" makes society much worse off.
It's silly beyond words.
.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
State should stay out of parenting
State should stay out of parenting
(My Clovis News Journal column for January 4, 2013)
Should parents have the final say in raising a child? How can you protect children without violating their rights, or the rights of their parents?
Everyone who isn't mentally or emotionally damaged wants to protect innocent children, but how far can you go to protect them?
I think parents do have the last word and the ultimate responsibility in raising their children- and I don't use the word "their" as an indication of ownership, but of relationship. Slavery is wrong and children are not the property of their parents. That also means children are not anyone else's property, either, nor do they "belong to society".
But what should you do if you know of mentally challenged parents who leave a baby home alone while running errands? Or what if parents high on crack cocaine share some with their 6-year-old? What about parents in a cult who give their children to a charismatic leader for his twisted purposes? How about parents who give their children too much access to junk food or television before they are mature enough to know what's best for them?
What is your responsibility if you know of these things happening, and you think the parents are endangering the kids?
In cases of imminent physical harm you can intervene; just as you could if you see a person getting mugged. As in the case of a mugging, you are then responsible for your actions and any consequences which come from them, even if you believe those consequences are not fair. Intervention doesn't necessarily mean using force, but could mean offering a helping hand.
What constitutes abuse in your opinion may not to others, and you may do things which horrify someone else. For example, I think it is critical to familiarize young children with guns and the safe handling thereof to prevent tragedies later; just like water safety doesn't happen by keeping children ignorant of swimming. Yet, some consider it abusive to let kids be in the same house with a gun. Do you really want anyone to have the power to step in and forcibly take over your child's life because they disagree with how you live?
If you think a situation is critical enough to take action, be responsible enough to do it yourself and personally accept the consequences. The greatest danger to families comes from having a government employee act on your behalf. They are rarely held accountable for their mistakes and the lives they ruin. Plus, they are paid out of "taxes" which are collected through coercion. You can't do the right thing in the wrong way.
Should parents have the final say in raising a child? How can you protect children without violating their rights, or the rights of their parents?
Everyone who isn't mentally or emotionally damaged wants to protect innocent children, but how far can you go to protect them?
I think parents do have the last word and the ultimate responsibility in raising their children- and I don't use the word "their" as an indication of ownership, but of relationship. Slavery is wrong and children are not the property of their parents. That also means children are not anyone else's property, either, nor do they "belong to society".
But what should you do if you know of mentally challenged parents who leave a baby home alone while running errands? Or what if parents high on crack cocaine share some with their 6-year-old? What about parents in a cult who give their children to a charismatic leader for his twisted purposes? How about parents who give their children too much access to junk food or television before they are mature enough to know what's best for them?
What is your responsibility if you know of these things happening, and you think the parents are endangering the kids?
In cases of imminent physical harm you can intervene; just as you could if you see a person getting mugged. As in the case of a mugging, you are then responsible for your actions and any consequences which come from them, even if you believe those consequences are not fair. Intervention doesn't necessarily mean using force, but could mean offering a helping hand.
What constitutes abuse in your opinion may not to others, and you may do things which horrify someone else. For example, I think it is critical to familiarize young children with guns and the safe handling thereof to prevent tragedies later; just like water safety doesn't happen by keeping children ignorant of swimming. Yet, some consider it abusive to let kids be in the same house with a gun. Do you really want anyone to have the power to step in and forcibly take over your child's life because they disagree with how you live?
If you think a situation is critical enough to take action, be responsible enough to do it yourself and personally accept the consequences. The greatest danger to families comes from having a government employee act on your behalf. They are rarely held accountable for their mistakes and the lives they ruin. Plus, they are paid out of "taxes" which are collected through coercion. You can't do the right thing in the wrong way.
.
Hooray for our side!
A while back on War on Guns, David Codrea was commenting about an anti-liberty bigot and pointed out that the guy's city council profile listed his favorite book as "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
David characterized the book as claiming that "...Western Civilization is just a fluke and we all lucked out,..." He then went on to offer this alternative explanation "...the first people to apply the scientific method on any kind of consistent and large scale reached the path to advancement first."
I recently finished reading the book and didn't get that from it.
What the book's author seemed to me to be saying was that humans are all the same species. We basically all have the same potential (but there are individual differences in intelligence and personality traits), at least averaged over the population. But, location and circumstances matter.
"Western Civilization" wasn't a fluke- it was the natural consequence of certain natural conditions. It doesn't matter where it happened to begin, or who it began with. At least, not to me. I don't get the objection to that.
I would be living a very different life had I been born in the Australian Outback, without electricity or abundant food and water, rather than in the "American Outback" where those things are currently common. I can't begin to pretend that there is some property of "me" that would have the same skills and use the same technology and have the same opportunities no matter where I happened to be born and grow.
Because a population of humans did "luck out" and live in an area where food production could be made less time-consuming, their time was freed so that they could learn to apply the scientific method instead of spending their time worrying about where the next meal would come from- if it came at all.
So, while it may have been "lucky" that some humans were from an area where there were abundant domesticable plants and animals, and those domesticates were able to spread over a wide geographic area due to the orientation of the continent, that isn't a judgement on anyone else. I can't even claim it is "better" to be technologically advanced. I like it, but that's just me.
I would have just as much value as a person if I lived in a cave and wore animal skins. I might even be just as happy, although probably not as comfortable.
Opportunities matter a lot. Even though I am not convinced that agriculture was a good thing in the long run, saddling humans as it did with a professional class of thugs and thieves who enjoy a (temporary) veil of legitimacy.
.
What the book's author seemed to me to be saying was that humans are all the same species. We basically all have the same potential (but there are individual differences in intelligence and personality traits), at least averaged over the population. But, location and circumstances matter.
"Western Civilization" wasn't a fluke- it was the natural consequence of certain natural conditions. It doesn't matter where it happened to begin, or who it began with. At least, not to me. I don't get the objection to that.
I would be living a very different life had I been born in the Australian Outback, without electricity or abundant food and water, rather than in the "American Outback" where those things are currently common. I can't begin to pretend that there is some property of "me" that would have the same skills and use the same technology and have the same opportunities no matter where I happened to be born and grow.
Because a population of humans did "luck out" and live in an area where food production could be made less time-consuming, their time was freed so that they could learn to apply the scientific method instead of spending their time worrying about where the next meal would come from- if it came at all.
So, while it may have been "lucky" that some humans were from an area where there were abundant domesticable plants and animals, and those domesticates were able to spread over a wide geographic area due to the orientation of the continent, that isn't a judgement on anyone else. I can't even claim it is "better" to be technologically advanced. I like it, but that's just me.
I would have just as much value as a person if I lived in a cave and wore animal skins. I might even be just as happy, although probably not as comfortable.
Opportunities matter a lot. Even though I am not convinced that agriculture was a good thing in the long run, saddling humans as it did with a professional class of thugs and thieves who enjoy a (temporary) veil of legitimacy.
.
Monday, February 04, 2013
Surprising allies
A while back I had a somewhat pleasant surprise. My daughter's kindergarten teacher (curses be upon government schools) had a lengthy letter to the editor published in the local weekly newspaper (reproduced below). It was surprisingly anti-government.
I can't really say it was pro-liberty since she didn't do much besides point out the destructive nature of The State's edicts concerning education and the effects those edicts have on family time. But that's a start.
She came at it from the religious perspective rather than from a pro-liberty stance, but it led to the same place: these government rules are harmful to individuals. That we can agree on.
I gave her a copy of one of my books; perhaps it will make an impact.
Now, to get her to talk about that repulsive ritual they engage in each day.
I can't really say it was pro-liberty since she didn't do much besides point out the destructive nature of The State's edicts concerning education and the effects those edicts have on family time. But that's a start.
She came at it from the religious perspective rather than from a pro-liberty stance, but it led to the same place: these government rules are harmful to individuals. That we can agree on.
I gave her a copy of one of my books; perhaps it will make an impact.
Now, to get her to talk about that repulsive ritual they engage in each day.
_
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Sniper Chris Kyle: Live by the sword...
...Die by the sword.
A murderous parasitic puppet of The State, who enjoyed murdering people and profited from his offenses, has paid the piper. Unfortunately, others were also also destroyed simply by associating with him too closely. That is the tragedy. The lesson is to shun murderers.
And I notice his death shines a light on the "liberty" movement that exposes a huge rift.
Those who love liberty, yet find it comforting to worship liberty's greatest enemy- the government's military- are upset that those who don't maintain that particular inconsistency are not mourning the death of Kyle.
What this supposed "man" did was wrong on every level. He was an invader, murdering legitimate defenders in defense of his "brother" invaders. He wasn't "fighting for freedom"- not for you and not for me. He was only fighting to advance the goals of an illegitimate Empire on the other side of the planet. He was an enemy of liberty and ALL that is decent. He was not "brave". He deserved no thanks or admiration. He was a compliant and enthusiastic hired murderer.
I'm sorry if you are a military worshiper who is uncomfortable with the truth, but the truth is if Kyle were fighting for freedom, he would have turned his skills against the real threats to America, almost all of whom operate out of Washington DC or other "capitols", and governmental buildings all across America.
Without its armed goons- military and police- to carry out its wishes and edicts, government would be as dangerous as a 2 year-old throwing a temper tantrum. It is those willing to carry out the tantrum that cause the tyranny.
Good riddance, Chris Kyle. One less monster in the world.
PS: Someone was telling me there is something about this death that makes him very sad.
I responded:
Would I have shot Kyle at that moment? No. At that particular moment he wasn't doing anything that deserved being shot. That time was back when he was murdering defenders from himself and his fellow invaders.
However, he reaped the seeds he had sown. He was trying to help a fellow broken soldier, broken by the system he supported and was part of, who just happened to snap and result in his death. None of it would have ever happened had he stayed home and gotten an honest job. Sure, he might have died for some other reason by now, but this death is directly traceable to the life he had led up to that moment.
Several years ago a fellow libertarian cut off contact with me because I was glad Ted Kennedy was dying. I just thought of all the potential harm that was prevented by his death, and I couldn't feel bad.
I saw someone this morning saying that the "rule of civilized people" is that "you don't talk bad about the deceased". Really? I haven't noticed that rule being followed over the deaths of Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, or anyone else that the "majority" says it is OK to speak ill of.
PSS: It keeps bringing them out of the woodwork. I'll have more to say about those who honor a "person" for following orders.
.
A murderous parasitic puppet of The State, who enjoyed murdering people and profited from his offenses, has paid the piper. Unfortunately, others were also also destroyed simply by associating with him too closely. That is the tragedy. The lesson is to shun murderers.
And I notice his death shines a light on the "liberty" movement that exposes a huge rift.
Those who love liberty, yet find it comforting to worship liberty's greatest enemy- the government's military- are upset that those who don't maintain that particular inconsistency are not mourning the death of Kyle.
What this supposed "man" did was wrong on every level. He was an invader, murdering legitimate defenders in defense of his "brother" invaders. He wasn't "fighting for freedom"- not for you and not for me. He was only fighting to advance the goals of an illegitimate Empire on the other side of the planet. He was an enemy of liberty and ALL that is decent. He was not "brave". He deserved no thanks or admiration. He was a compliant and enthusiastic hired murderer.
I'm sorry if you are a military worshiper who is uncomfortable with the truth, but the truth is if Kyle were fighting for freedom, he would have turned his skills against the real threats to America, almost all of whom operate out of Washington DC or other "capitols", and governmental buildings all across America.
Without its armed goons- military and police- to carry out its wishes and edicts, government would be as dangerous as a 2 year-old throwing a temper tantrum. It is those willing to carry out the tantrum that cause the tyranny.
Good riddance, Chris Kyle. One less monster in the world.
-
PS: Someone was telling me there is something about this death that makes him very sad.
I responded:
Would I have shot Kyle at that moment? No. At that particular moment he wasn't doing anything that deserved being shot. That time was back when he was murdering defenders from himself and his fellow invaders.
However, he reaped the seeds he had sown. He was trying to help a fellow broken soldier, broken by the system he supported and was part of, who just happened to snap and result in his death. None of it would have ever happened had he stayed home and gotten an honest job. Sure, he might have died for some other reason by now, but this death is directly traceable to the life he had led up to that moment.
Several years ago a fellow libertarian cut off contact with me because I was glad Ted Kennedy was dying. I just thought of all the potential harm that was prevented by his death, and I couldn't feel bad.
I saw someone this morning saying that the "rule of civilized people" is that "you don't talk bad about the deceased". Really? I haven't noticed that rule being followed over the deaths of Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Timothy McVeigh, Stalin, or anyone else that the "majority" says it is OK to speak ill of.
PSS: It keeps bringing them out of the woodwork. I'll have more to say about those who honor a "person" for following orders.
.
"A well-regulated militia..."
Wow, I get so tired of reading comments by anti-liberty bigots (and other idiots) who grasp at the words "A well-regulated militia" as their excuse to criminalize tools of self defense.
It has been explained- I'm guessing- thousands of times. They don't understand because understanding doesn't fit their agenda.
But, I'll explain again so that there will be yet another place to read it.
"Well regulated" doesn't mean what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. It means "fine-tuned". "Practiced".
And, of course, "militia" meant all males between the ages of... well, that doesn't matter since I hope America is past the ageism and sexism of the past. Now, the militia is EVERYONE capable (not necessarily enthusiastic about) holding a gun and using it in defense. It is NOT the "National Guard", or the Marines. It is YOU and ME.
So, get out there and fine-tune your skills, because YOU are the one the Second Amendment is talking about being well-practiced in the skill of tyrant shooting.
And, it doesn't matter at all whether the Second Amendment gets repealed or legislated away (which happened way back in 1934)- the right to own and to carry defensive weaponry existed long before the first government was dreamed up by the first control-crazy pervert, and it can not be abolished by any State, ever. Not now, and not in the distant future. Suck it, anti-liberty bigots.
.
It has been explained- I'm guessing- thousands of times. They don't understand because understanding doesn't fit their agenda.
But, I'll explain again so that there will be yet another place to read it.
"Well regulated" doesn't mean what anti-liberty bigots want it to mean. It means "fine-tuned". "Practiced".
And, of course, "militia" meant all males between the ages of... well, that doesn't matter since I hope America is past the ageism and sexism of the past. Now, the militia is EVERYONE capable (not necessarily enthusiastic about) holding a gun and using it in defense. It is NOT the "National Guard", or the Marines. It is YOU and ME.
So, get out there and fine-tune your skills, because YOU are the one the Second Amendment is talking about being well-practiced in the skill of tyrant shooting.
And, it doesn't matter at all whether the Second Amendment gets repealed or legislated away (which happened way back in 1934)- the right to own and to carry defensive weaponry existed long before the first government was dreamed up by the first control-crazy pervert, and it can not be abolished by any State, ever. Not now, and not in the distant future. Suck it, anti-liberty bigots.
.
Saturday, February 02, 2013
Libertarianarchist
Libertarianarchist. That's me. But it is also redundant since an anarchist is just a libertarian with all the inconsistencies stripped away. A libertarian in full bloom.
The "libertarians" who dispute that always have a big "but". They are libertarian, but... there is some "service" The State provides- through coercion and theft- that they just don't believe can be provided voluntarily. Maybe "justice"/"courts", or "copyright", or roads, or "security" or "national defense". But there's always something.
Get rid of that "something" by realizing that if it needs to be provided, there is always a better way than by allowing a government monopoly to provide it through theft and coercion. And get over your fear of the word "anarchy".
You'll be happier in the long run.
.
The "libertarians" who dispute that always have a big "but". They are libertarian, but... there is some "service" The State provides- through coercion and theft- that they just don't believe can be provided voluntarily. Maybe "justice"/"courts", or "copyright", or roads, or "security" or "national defense". But there's always something.
Get rid of that "something" by realizing that if it needs to be provided, there is always a better way than by allowing a government monopoly to provide it through theft and coercion. And get over your fear of the word "anarchy".
You'll be happier in the long run.
.
Friday, February 01, 2013
This ain't your father's AK-47 (re-run)
(With all the recent hysteria over "assault weapons", I figured it was time to dust off this old post from August 10, 2009.)
My most recent crazy idea can be found in a letter to The Libertarian Enterprise. After reading the short description, browse around for a while. You will learn something.
.jpg)
Briefly, my idea is for a flintlock "AK-47". Would it be better to have a REAL, fully functional, AK-47? Of course it would. The psychological value alone is quite high, since few other guns upset the hoplophobes as much. There is no logic to their reaction, of course, but it can be fun to watch.
My most recent crazy idea can be found in a letter to The Libertarian Enterprise. After reading the short description, browse around for a while. You will learn something.
.jpg)
Briefly, my idea is for a flintlock "AK-47". Would it be better to have a REAL, fully functional, AK-47? Of course it would. The psychological value alone is quite high, since few other guns upset the hoplophobes as much. There is no logic to their reaction, of course, but it can be fun to watch.
Still, if you live in one of those freedom-destroying cities and don't wish to break even counterfeit "laws", this could be a fun option for you. A way of flipping the authoriturds your "digitus impudicus". I'm sure that the localities which try to forbid toy guns would frown on a flintlock of any kind as well, as the recent incident in Bloomberg's own private prison demonstrates. Find your freedom where you can and, as long as you don't harm the innocent, have fun with it.
.