Government (well, in reality, those who claim to be part of government) possesses nothing it did not steal or buy with stolen/counterfeited money. "Asset forfeiture" is just another twisted example.
I can't make up a rule- say, I declare you can't have any dogs that are a color other than black- and then claim that by violating my "rule" you forfeit your property rights and I get to take your "illegal" dogs and other property.
And it is no more "right" when goons calling themselves "government" do the same thing simply because you have bits of a plant or a gun or anything else that they decided you shouldn't have.
.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Slavers and thieves
If you ever want to help me out financially, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
If you ever want to hold a gun to someone else's head- in person or through "taxation"- to "help" me... don't bother.
It isn't compassion or generosity to give away other people's money. It is nice to help others and share when you can. It isn't "nice" at all to share what isn't yours to share.
I also don't wish to benefit from slavery.
If you want to force an expert to provide me with services against his will or without compensation based upon mutual consent, then you are advocating in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe it to be, or what you call it. The truth is the truth.
I was watching a video the other day that was ridiculing "conservatives" for their opposition to socialized medicine. The above points- which are indisputable if you value reality- were never considered.
The slavers and thieves are all around us. They are pretending they are the last bastions of compassion while carrying out the Old Evils.
.
If you ever want to hold a gun to someone else's head- in person or through "taxation"- to "help" me... don't bother.
It isn't compassion or generosity to give away other people's money. It is nice to help others and share when you can. It isn't "nice" at all to share what isn't yours to share.
I also don't wish to benefit from slavery.
If you want to force an expert to provide me with services against his will or without compensation based upon mutual consent, then you are advocating in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter how "necessary" you believe it to be, or what you call it. The truth is the truth.
I was watching a video the other day that was ridiculing "conservatives" for their opposition to socialized medicine. The above points- which are indisputable if you value reality- were never considered.
The slavers and thieves are all around us. They are pretending they are the last bastions of compassion while carrying out the Old Evils.
.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
"Coexist" doesn't mean you get to kill me
I can coexist with those who worship flags; who parrot "patriotic" utterances; who pretend a State can be anything other than a massive mafia.
Life is what it is.
What bothers me is that those people aren't honest about what they are supporting. They pretend they are The Good, and everyone else is The Evil. They pretend their favorite flavor of socialism, fascism, tyranny, and mass murder is none of the above.
Or, they are cryptostatists and pretend they aren't supporting statism at all, when they are.
Either way, I could let them go their own way if only they'd stop trying to force me to go along with them, and pretend that they aren't full of ... "humbug".
But that isn't the Way of the Statist. Misery loves company, and rabid statists hate to see anyone who isn't under the same delusions they enjoy. Their slavism is too wonderful to not be "shared"- with force. Funny, but if you have to force someone to join you, perhaps your path isn't as superior as you pretend.
I wouldn't force you to be free even if I could, but refusing to allow you to feed off of me isn't "forcing" you to do anything.
Statists wish to be left to the wolves, whom they see as their protectors. I simply don't wish to let them drag me along. Not without trying to defend myself. And, that, to a statist, is unforgivable.
.
Life is what it is.
What bothers me is that those people aren't honest about what they are supporting. They pretend they are The Good, and everyone else is The Evil. They pretend their favorite flavor of socialism, fascism, tyranny, and mass murder is none of the above.
Or, they are cryptostatists and pretend they aren't supporting statism at all, when they are.
Either way, I could let them go their own way if only they'd stop trying to force me to go along with them, and pretend that they aren't full of ... "humbug".
But that isn't the Way of the Statist. Misery loves company, and rabid statists hate to see anyone who isn't under the same delusions they enjoy. Their slavism is too wonderful to not be "shared"- with force. Funny, but if you have to force someone to join you, perhaps your path isn't as superior as you pretend.
I wouldn't force you to be free even if I could, but refusing to allow you to feed off of me isn't "forcing" you to do anything.
Statists wish to be left to the wolves, whom they see as their protectors. I simply don't wish to let them drag me along. Not without trying to defend myself. And, that, to a statist, is unforgivable.
.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Defense of Marriage...?
My marriages failed because of ME.
Before I had ever heard of gay marriage.
I probably could have saved at least one of my marriages by doing a lot of things different; by putting forth a lot more effort and sacrifice. But what uninvolved "others" were doing couldn't have saved them. My marriages would have failed regardless of what relationships or marriages other people- most of whom I don't know and will never meet- choose to engage in.
So, to claim you are "defending marriage" without addressing the reason mine failed- probably the same reason the vast majority of marriages that fail do so- is silly.
No one else's relationship status can threaten my relationships, or weaken them in any way, unless I let them. And that would probably mean I am focusing on the wrong thing.
.
Before I had ever heard of gay marriage.
I probably could have saved at least one of my marriages by doing a lot of things different; by putting forth a lot more effort and sacrifice. But what uninvolved "others" were doing couldn't have saved them. My marriages would have failed regardless of what relationships or marriages other people- most of whom I don't know and will never meet- choose to engage in.
So, to claim you are "defending marriage" without addressing the reason mine failed- probably the same reason the vast majority of marriages that fail do so- is silly.
No one else's relationship status can threaten my relationships, or weaken them in any way, unless I let them. And that would probably mean I am focusing on the wrong thing.
.
You are being played
Arbitrarily changing rules to benefit yourself isn't right- especially when those new rules violate someone. Even my young daughter has figured that out (it hasn't stopped her from trying to get away with it, though).
She was complaining that one of her playmates changes the rules as she goes in order to make sure she wins. I pointed out that when someone does that it makes makes others not want to play their game.
As I said it I suddenly thought of The State.
"Theft is wrong, unless we do it and call it 'taxation'."
"Here, change your clocks so that you can be forced to get up early and feel sick for a month or so."
"Stop for at least 4 seconds at this red metal octagon or we get to steal money from you so that we can afford to keep stealing money from others who fail to stop 'good enough' at this and other red metal octagons."
"This gun was OK here last year, but today if you are caught with it we get to kidnap you and murder you if you resist."
Some rules were changed to benefit the bad guys centuries ago, and some will be changed tomorrow. It makes no difference when the change occurred if the new rules go against liberty, and benefit those who want you to believe you owe them allegiance. You know what the rules should be- anything more is going backwards.
And on and on it goes. Smart people know they are being played. How do they respond to that knowledge?
.
She was complaining that one of her playmates changes the rules as she goes in order to make sure she wins. I pointed out that when someone does that it makes makes others not want to play their game.
As I said it I suddenly thought of The State.
"Theft is wrong, unless we do it and call it 'taxation'."
"Here, change your clocks so that you can be forced to get up early and feel sick for a month or so."
"Stop for at least 4 seconds at this red metal octagon or we get to steal money from you so that we can afford to keep stealing money from others who fail to stop 'good enough' at this and other red metal octagons."
"This gun was OK here last year, but today if you are caught with it we get to kidnap you and murder you if you resist."
Some rules were changed to benefit the bad guys centuries ago, and some will be changed tomorrow. It makes no difference when the change occurred if the new rules go against liberty, and benefit those who want you to believe you owe them allegiance. You know what the rules should be- anything more is going backwards.
And on and on it goes. Smart people know they are being played. How do they respond to that knowledge?
.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Judges shouldn't have final say
Judges shouldn't have final say (and they don't!)
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)
I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.
The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.
Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.
Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".
The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.
Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.
Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.
You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.
And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.
I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.
The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.
Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.
Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".
The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.
Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.
Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.
You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.
And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.
--
Bonus video:
.
Equality... in what?
There are some "imperial entanglements" in my life I have avoided, and others I have gotten dragged (unwillingly) in to.
I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty. I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.
The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.
If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them. But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture. Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.
So I posted this status on Facebook:
Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people. People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.
Here is part of what was said:
So, without the State, there can be no contracts. Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread. And, so, I finally "blocked" him.
Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:
.
I don't want everyone to be violated equally- I want everyone to enjoy full liberty. I also support anyone who manages to keep their own property out of the hands of the thieves, in whatever manner they manage that.
The entanglements I have thus far managed to avoid, I don't want extended to me, and I don't wish for others to be caught up in those I haven't escaped.
If someone wants to beg The State's employees for "recognition", I won't stop them. But I will suggest that- just perhaps- they aren't seeing the big picture. Freedom is never enhanced by begging for government permission.
So I posted this status on Facebook:
I support getting The State out of ALL marriages (and the rest of life). Equal interference isn't a very smart goal. Don't beg for leprosy just because your neighbor is infected.
Yet, this position is called "hypocritical" and more by some people. People who claim "The State" equals "freedom", in at least some areas.
Here is part of what was said:
This 'state out of marriage' thing is just the latest 'argument Du Jour' thing that does not hold water because the proponents of it can't live by the implications of it when they think it through. If really believed, they would be forced to repudiate *all* state recognized contacts, never marry, never own property and never own a license. They don't do that. It's just a convenient way to deny freedoms to others and think they are moral for doing so.
In this, you are no different than a bible thumping conservative. I leave you to your hypocrisy. Have a fine day.
So, without the State, there can be no contracts. Yes, he actually admitted he believes this earlier in the thread. And, so, I finally "blocked" him.
Then his sockpuppet sent me a message saying:
Thank you sir! There is no greater compliment than to be blocked by someone who has such a weak position it can't hold up to examination.I really need to remember that it's only the internet. I can laugh and walk away at any time.
You are a fraud and a coward sir. I am just a little happier in the knowledge that I exposed it.
You will reply with some smarmy comment and then block this Nic too. Don't bother - I won't read it. I just keep this account to chuckle at those who are so easily outwitted they have no choice but to flee. Tata sunshine!
.
The mall adventure
A couple of days ago I was at the local mall- a very small and slow mall by "mall standards"- so my daughter could see the Easter Wolverine... umm, Bunny.
Anyway, while trying to convince her that the scary costumed critter wouldn't eat her, we were sitting on a bench and this group of people walked by. I noticed that one had a nice, modern semi-auto pistol on his hip, and was obviously not "law enforcement". I thought "Good job!" and wanted to thank him, but I was in the middle of an explanation to my traumatized daughter about how most people in Easter Bunny costumes don't want to hurt her, and even if this one wanted to, I wouldn't let it happen.
A few minutes later I noticed an obviously excited- but reservedly so- mall cop pacing around. I wondered if he had just encountered the armed patron, or if someone had "reported" the guy, but mall cop hadn't been able to find him. Or, if he was just always one to act testosterone-pumped and the one thing had nothing to do with the other. Although, I had seen mall cop just a few minutes earlier and he seemed much more relaxed as he sauntered along in a daze at that time.
I watched but never saw "open carry guy" stroll through again. Too bad because I wanted to shake his hand and give him my card. I was also willing to say something in his defense if mall cop got out of hand.
I have never noticed any "No guns (unless you plan to massacre)" signs anywhere in the mall, and New Mexico is an "open carry" state. But it is a rare sight around here, indeed. I would love for it to become a lot more common. (Of course, living as I do between two states, and Texas being one of the shameful states on that map, I'd have problems.)
One thing I know is that I feel much more endangered by cops (not the unarmed mall cop) than I do armed residents. Any mall cop ought to be glad to see armed patrons, since they are most likely on the same side. Unless mall cop decides to come down on the wrong side, that is.
.
Anyway, while trying to convince her that the scary costumed critter wouldn't eat her, we were sitting on a bench and this group of people walked by. I noticed that one had a nice, modern semi-auto pistol on his hip, and was obviously not "law enforcement". I thought "Good job!" and wanted to thank him, but I was in the middle of an explanation to my traumatized daughter about how most people in Easter Bunny costumes don't want to hurt her, and even if this one wanted to, I wouldn't let it happen.
A few minutes later I noticed an obviously excited- but reservedly so- mall cop pacing around. I wondered if he had just encountered the armed patron, or if someone had "reported" the guy, but mall cop hadn't been able to find him. Or, if he was just always one to act testosterone-pumped and the one thing had nothing to do with the other. Although, I had seen mall cop just a few minutes earlier and he seemed much more relaxed as he sauntered along in a daze at that time.
I watched but never saw "open carry guy" stroll through again. Too bad because I wanted to shake his hand and give him my card. I was also willing to say something in his defense if mall cop got out of hand.
I have never noticed any "No guns (unless you plan to massacre)" signs anywhere in the mall, and New Mexico is an "open carry" state. But it is a rare sight around here, indeed. I would love for it to become a lot more common. (Of course, living as I do between two states, and Texas being one of the shameful states on that map, I'd have problems.)
One thing I know is that I feel much more endangered by cops (not the unarmed mall cop) than I do armed residents. Any mall cop ought to be glad to see armed patrons, since they are most likely on the same side. Unless mall cop decides to come down on the wrong side, that is.
.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Two wrongs don't make a right
"Two wrongs don't make a right." True, and forgotten far too often.
However, defending yourself or your property from those who seek to attack or steal is not ever "wrong". No matter who those attackers are, or what justifications they may grasp at. It may not be smart- depending on the situation- and you may not be able to do it without "collateral damage" [sic] which is NEVER right (no matter what certain thugs may claim), but defense against a thief or aggressor is not wrong. It doesn't figure into the "Two wrongs don't make a right" equation at all, but is a separate thing altogether. Don't let anyone fool you by claiming otherwise.
.
However, defending yourself or your property from those who seek to attack or steal is not ever "wrong". No matter who those attackers are, or what justifications they may grasp at. It may not be smart- depending on the situation- and you may not be able to do it without "collateral damage" [sic] which is NEVER right (no matter what certain thugs may claim), but defense against a thief or aggressor is not wrong. It doesn't figure into the "Two wrongs don't make a right" equation at all, but is a separate thing altogether. Don't let anyone fool you by claiming otherwise.
.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Don't forget yourself
What to DO? I feel the need to do something "important" for my personal liberty. I realize that the urge to "do something" is a dangerous thing. It leads people astray.
I'd do better to focus on my life and the things I can immediately affect, rather than concerning myself with what goons calling themselves "government" are doing to someone over a thousand miles away.
But I can't help caring. I like people- until certain individuals do things to make me dislike them. If I didn't like people I wouldn't care if they were being violated- or even if they were destroying their own lives by being the violators.
But, still, if I don't focus on my own life, who will? I am no one's responsibility but my own. I can't really affect the "laws" that the thugs who call themselves "government" impose- no matter how often I am told I can. Every time in the distant past I tried, I eventually "lost" and the advocates of "more rules" won. Yet, those rules only affect my life if I let them. Sure, I might get kidnapped, robbed, and caged for violating some of the "rules", but that is always a possibility no matter what you do. I'd rather deserve it.
So, I suppose I will keep "prepping" and learning skills, keep trying to sharpen my observational skills, keep meditating on liberty, and do the best I can in this world in which we exist. If you have other ideas I'd love to hear them.
.
I'd do better to focus on my life and the things I can immediately affect, rather than concerning myself with what goons calling themselves "government" are doing to someone over a thousand miles away.
But I can't help caring. I like people- until certain individuals do things to make me dislike them. If I didn't like people I wouldn't care if they were being violated- or even if they were destroying their own lives by being the violators.
But, still, if I don't focus on my own life, who will? I am no one's responsibility but my own. I can't really affect the "laws" that the thugs who call themselves "government" impose- no matter how often I am told I can. Every time in the distant past I tried, I eventually "lost" and the advocates of "more rules" won. Yet, those rules only affect my life if I let them. Sure, I might get kidnapped, robbed, and caged for violating some of the "rules", but that is always a possibility no matter what you do. I'd rather deserve it.
So, I suppose I will keep "prepping" and learning skills, keep trying to sharpen my observational skills, keep meditating on liberty, and do the best I can in this world in which we exist. If you have other ideas I'd love to hear them.
.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Who should be ashamed?
Some people act as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed for expressing my support for liberty. Isn't that backwards?
I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name. I think "Don't they understand what they are saying? Don't they see what they are really supporting?"
No, most of them don't. And they don't want to. It would be inconvenient or even painful.
But, I realize I am in the minority. When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one. No one completely agrees with me on anything. And that's fine. It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.
That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting. I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing. I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.
Nope. I'll shout it from the mountaintops. Or rooftops. Depending on where I find myself standing.
.
I am embarrassed for people who I see blindly parroting support for The State, it's agents, and the various programs done in its name. I think "Don't they understand what they are saying? Don't they see what they are really supporting?"
No, most of them don't. And they don't want to. It would be inconvenient or even painful.
But, I realize I am in the minority. When it comes down to it, each of us is a minority of one. No one completely agrees with me on anything. And that's fine. It's what liberty is all about- you do your thing and I'll do mine- as long as neither of us attacks or steals or trespasses on private property.
That's not a stance I can be ashamed for promoting. I can't be embarrassed for doing the right thing. I can't act as though it is a horrible skeleton in my closet.
Nope. I'll shout it from the mountaintops. Or rooftops. Depending on where I find myself standing.
.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Through the meat grinder
Those who believe in government might as well be feeding us all, and turning us all into, Soylent Green. Because the truth of the matter is that their actions grind up individuals to feed others.
Your life is worth only what it can do for "society". You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey. Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes". And I could go on and on with examples.
The government extremists may claim innocence. They lie.
Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good". They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.
No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation. If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators. And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences. I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.
No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem. Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do. But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt. How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin? I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again. I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf. Not even if it makes me look like a kook.
.
Your life is worth only what it can do for "society". You are not worth defending if it means "allowing" you to have an effective gun, and you can be destroyed for daring to disobey. Your property is only yours until it can be taken and given to someone who is better connected, or who will "produce" more in the form of "taxes". And I could go on and on with examples.
The government extremists may claim innocence. They lie.
Each and every individual who believes in The State is showing a willingness to sacrifice YOU for the "common good". They are showing that they value "society" over any individual; not realizing that there are only individuals.
No, this isn't me being "collectivist" in my condemnation. If you support The State with words or deeds, then you share tangible guilt with the worst of the perpetrators. And by "deeds" I don't mean that you fork over money because there is a gun to your head- although we could debate how credible the threat actually is right now, and whether you could refuse to hand it over without any consequences. I'll just say you do what you think is best in that situation.
No, I'm condemning those who say "there oughta be a law", or who think more "government" is a solution for any real-world problem. Or even those who believe that there are some "necessary" things that only government can do. But, I used to believe some of the same things, so I share in the guilt. How many lives did my small bit of support for collectivist coercion ruin? I will never know, but I will spend my life making sure I never fall into that pit again. I want no more individuals put through the grinder on my behalf. Not even if it makes me look like a kook.
.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Eustace vs. The Thieves
A few years ago- maybe more than I thought, now that I think about it- I read a book about a guy named Eustace Conway. The person who loaned me the book thought I would enjoy it, sensing a sort of kindred spirit I might share with Eustace. And I did enjoy it.
Now Eustace needs help. I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.
Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from. Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property. It's value to you is being diminished. Theft has occurred.
I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest. And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter. I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.
Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.
.
Now Eustace needs help. I'm not going to recap the whole thing- you can get some details here.
Make no mistake, when someone comes along and tells you that you are not "allowed" to use your own property as you see fit, you are being stolen from. Even if they "generously allow" you to keep the property. It's value to you is being diminished. Theft has occurred.
I am in no financial condition to help Eustace, but I will spread the word and might even write the thieves if I can compose a letter that doesn't become too honest. And if I can keep from referring to the thieves as thieves in such a letter. I did sign the petition- I doubt such things make any difference at all, though.
Look over the details of his current struggle and see if you think it's worth your time to lend a little support.
.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Rights don't change, even if details do
Rights don't change, even if details do
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)
Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.
It doesn't matter.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 15, 2013)
Recently a lot of anti-liberty advocates have tried to justify their opposition to the Second Amendment with the claim that it is "outdated"; that back when the Bill of Rights was written, the founders couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic rifles (erroneously called "assault rifles"). That may or may not be true, but even then advances were being made, and these men weren't stupid. You can't convince me that scientists such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson weren't smart enough to see where the technology was leading, but let's pretend for just a moment that the supposition is correct.
It doesn't matter.
Do you enjoy First Amendment protection of your religion or denomination only if it existed in it's present form in the late Eighteenth Century?
Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?
This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.
Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.
The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".
The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.
.
Does your right to free speech only apply to your voice, or to the words you write with a quill pen or disseminate from an Eighteenth Century printing press? Are electronic communications not protected from government interference because those are forms of speech and "press" the Bill of Rights' writers hadn't experienced?
This is why it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights doesn't "give us rights". We retain all our rights whether or not they are respected by law. The Bill of Rights only lists a few of those things the government isn't empowered to do, and therefore can't do without committing serious crimes.
Let's say that you recognize there is a right to not be murdered by government- and pretend that instead of being included (along with the right to drive and everything else a free human can do without government permission) in the Ninth Amendment, it got its own mention: the Second-and-a-Half Amendment. Our lives are different today. Do we claim that the Right to Not Be Murdered only protects an Eighteenth Century life-style and forbids only the methods of murder that currently existed at the adoption of the amendment? No! The right exists, the details are irrelevant.
The Second Amendment makes it a serious crime for anyone acting on behalf of government to violate, in even the tiniest way, the right to own and to carry weaponry. It says nothing about what kinds of weapons it applies to, who may carry them, or where or in what way they may be carried, because it doesn't apply to the weapons or the people carrying them at all- it only prohibits all anti-gun "laws".
The "conversation" about guns is over. The anti-liberty advocates lost. Now their only hope is to abandon "conversation" and use aggressive force, ironically backed with guns, to attempt to violate your fundamental human rights.
.
Don't just accept- weigh it all.
I can be wrong. That realization keeps me from ever simply saying "this is how it is and I will never change my mind". Well, I might say it, but I don't really believe it.
Everything I believe has gone through the wringer. Usually more than once.
I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life. "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?" "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?" "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"
The questions lead to a couple of different actions. I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind. Deeply and constantly. And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter. Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.
I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past. It may happen again.
The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit. I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.
Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people. I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted. Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.
If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist. Oh, wait...
.
Everything I believe has gone through the wringer. Usually more than once.
I have even questioned gun ownership several times in my life. "What if 'they' are right, and it's a bad idea for 'regular people' to own and to carry guns?" "What if wanting a gun is a sign of mental instability?" "What if the presence of a gun really does put the innocent in more danger?"
The questions lead to a couple of different actions. I begin to consider the possibilities in my own mind. Deeply and constantly. And, I read more about what other people have to say about the matter. Then I take that new information and incorporate it into the mix and think about it all some more.
I have changed my mind, or at least opened myself up to other possibilities, on some big questions in the past. It may happen again.
The thing is, each time I change my mind on something, I move toward more liberty- a stronger respect for individuals to live their lives as they see fit. I have never yet moved away from that toward more control by some over the lives of others.
Each time I go through this process I come to realize even more strongly that respecting liberty really is the best way to deal with other people. I realize that any "system" that ignores this, or fears liberty, is perverted. Even if I might have once found some value in what I now reject.
If this keeps up I'll wind up an anarchist. Oh, wait...
.
Monday, March 18, 2013
I care nothing for nations...
You just never know where something to make you smile will crop up.
I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix. A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment. Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals." Awesome.
My thoughts exactly. "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything. It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil. And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong. Anti-gun "laws" are wrong. "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong. Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.
I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.
.
I was watching an episode of "Poirot" on Netflix. A bankster had murdered a few people, but when found out, was claiming he was too important to "the nation" to face punishment. Hercule Poirot said something to the effect of "Poirot is not concerned with nations. Poirot is concerned with private individuals." Awesome.
My thoughts exactly. "Nations" are nothing; individuals are everything. It's why every "law" imposed to protect any "nation" at the expense of the individual's liberty is evil. And it doesn't matter which "nation" claims the individual- murder by drone is wrong. Anti-gun "laws" are wrong. "National security"- which invariably comes by violating individual liberty- is wrong. Any "law" that seems to pretend that the "nation" is more important than any individual anywhere in the world is disgusting and wrong.
I care about "nations" to the identical extent they care about me.
.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Truth vs. "truth"
In "Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau said "The lawyer's truth is not the Truth..."
That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.
A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking. But sink it will. And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.
The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.
And keep respecting the Truth.
.
That is the heart of the matter, because The State, what most people call "government", is built entirely upon "lawyer truth" rather than the Truth.
A gigantic pyramid has been constructed on a squishy swamp with nothing to give it stability, except those desperately trying to prop it up and keep it from capsizing or sinking. But sink it will. And it will crush and drag down those who don't give it space.
The wise thing to do seems to be to see the Truth, laugh at "lawyer truth", and get as far away from the top-heavy edifice that so many look to with admiration even as it dooms them.
And keep respecting the Truth.
.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Grab it when you can
I have this habit as I walk along a trail (or a non-trail). I see a bit of dried inner bark, or a nice chunk of chert, and I pick it up, knowing it is something I may need later on down the trail. I don't worry that I might not need it later, or that I might find some later that is even better. I am glad for what I found and take advantage of the opportunity.
Why pass up something of value to you when you have the opportunity to pick it up? People who worry that the price of gold or silver might fall after they bought it seem to be doing this.
Don't worry that you have traded FRNs for it, and that the price might be lower tomorrow; be glad you now have it. If the price falls later, get more and be glad you got a good deal.
And, if you don't want to have silver or gold on hand, don't feel I am telling you that you must. It is a part of the survival strategy, not the whole picture. I prefer to cover as many bases as I can- you do what you want.
.
Why pass up something of value to you when you have the opportunity to pick it up? People who worry that the price of gold or silver might fall after they bought it seem to be doing this.
Don't worry that you have traded FRNs for it, and that the price might be lower tomorrow; be glad you now have it. If the price falls later, get more and be glad you got a good deal.
And, if you don't want to have silver or gold on hand, don't feel I am telling you that you must. It is a part of the survival strategy, not the whole picture. I prefer to cover as many bases as I can- you do what you want.
.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
A lesson in aggression and property rights
...taught* at the park.
A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park. It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...
Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids. There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so. One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.
I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends. The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.
The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike. The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".
OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike. At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.
As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear. OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.
My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared. Not sure which.
I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB. He turned and looked at me.
He said "I'm not messing with him".
I said "Yes, you are. Now stop."
YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear. He said OB hit him. OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.
OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything". I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.
So OB changed tactics. He said that he only wanted to ride the bike. I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that. OB said that he bought the bike for YB. I asked "Did you give it to him?" He said he had. So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to. OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it. I said "not unless he wants you to".
So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing. No personal responsibility for his own actions.
OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance. OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching. Finally YB said he was going home. OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".
I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me. I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing. Social standing needed to be recovered. I'm fine with that.
(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)
.
A couple of days ago I took my daughter to the park. It was really too cold and windy, but she wanted to go, and since I am such a wonderful dad... but, never mind...
Anyway, as she was running around and playing I noticed a group of kids. There was one who was probably 9 or 10 years old, and three who were in their mid-teens or so. One of the older kids was the young one's older brother.
I had heard the older one threatening to break the younger one's bike, and generally being a bully- in front of his friends. The younger one was protesting and finally went back to sit on his bike, and I thought he was going to leave, when the older one came over and held him in place.
The older brother ("OB") began demanding to ride the younger brother's bike. The younger brother ("YB") was saying "no", and giving the reasons as "you broke my other one" and "I promised her that only I would ride it".
OB was getting pushier and pushier, and holding YB closer until he was holding his arms to his side, talking right into his ear, and still demanding to ride the bike. At this point I decided the line had been crossed and I'd had enough.
As I approached them (neither had noticed me yet as they were facing the other direction) YB began crying and holding his ear. OB just pulled him in tighter and was muttering something in his ear.
My adrenaline was flowing and I was either really angry or a little scared. Not sure which.
I stopped, without getting too close, and told OB that it was time to back off and "stop messing with" YB. He turned and looked at me.
He said "I'm not messing with him".
I said "Yes, you are. Now stop."
YB was really bawling by now and still holding his ear. He said OB hit him. OB denied doing so, and I couldn't really see exactly what was going on as I walked over to them, since OB was wrapped around YB so closely before I intervened.
OB finally admitted hitting YB and claimed it was accidental, and said that YB "over-exaggerates everything". I said that I had seen him getting rough and that was enough for me.
So OB changed tactics. He said that he only wanted to ride the bike. I told him that YB had told him "no", and that was that. OB said that he bought the bike for YB. I asked "Did you give it to him?" He said he had. So I told him that means the bike is YB's property and he doesn't have to let anyone else ride it if he doesn't want to. OB just kept complaining that he only wanted to ride it. I said "not unless he wants you to".
So OB turned to YB and gave him dirty looks and started in with "see what you started?" and that sort of thing. No personal responsibility for his own actions.
OB went back to his friends and YB followed at a safe distance. OB kept scolding and lecturing him, and crowding him, while still looking to see if I was watching. Finally YB said he was going home. OB asked why, and YB said "To get away from you".
I stayed at the park for quite a while, and OB and friends kept looking over at me, and later I heard them (I think) making fun of me. I suppose the bruised ego needed some help healing. Social standing needed to be recovered. I'm fine with that.
(* I should say "offered" since I doubt anything was learned)
.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Law tantrums from spoiled brat Bloomberg
LawGiver Bloomberg may (or may not) be smart, but if he has a high IQ then he is a high IQ idiot.
His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot. He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child. (I like Joel's take on it.)
Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization. I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now. In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now. They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared. They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better. They count on you not seeing them as they really are.
That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life. I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings. But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.
.
His tantrums over his anti-sugary drink edict have made him look even more ridiculous than all his other "law tantrums" combined- and that's saying a lot. He's nothing but a big, very spoiled, child. (I like Joel's take on it.)
Bloomie's long history of anti-gun "law tantrums" didn't bring me to this realization. I don't know why, since it seems so obvious to me now. In fact I see all the anti-gun advocates clearly now. They are all spoiled "grown" children- brats- with guns who don't want anyone else to have guns because they are scared. They'll keep throwing their law tantrums to try to make themselves feel better. They count on you not seeing them as they really are.
That's all any of these "laws" represent- the tantrums of spoiled brats who think they should run your life. I think it's past time for some "time outs" or spankings. But it is certainly NEVER time to act like these spoiled brats have any authority over your life.
.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Don’t wait to stand up for rights
Don’t wait to stand up for rights
How many times have you thought to yourself that you wish others would "wake up" and realize how important some issue is? Probably as many times as I have.
Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.
People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".
It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".
The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.
Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.
These are disaster-level "awakening events".
Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 8, 2013)
Libertarian author L. Neil Smith points out that people are already "awake", otherwise nothing would get done. They are awake to the things they need to do to get through their day. Taking care of the kids; getting the job done, so that the paycheck will keep coming, so that the house payment gets made, the groceries get bought, and the electricity doesn't get shut off takes a lot of awareness. Often, it doesn't leave a lot of room for other things that don't seem as pressing.
People only think about philosophical issues when those issues get in the way of the things that matter to their day-to-day survival. By the time it matters, it is no longer "philosophical".
It is hard to get people to realize that The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs is negatively impacting their lives when they are spoon fed only one side of the issue, almost subconsciously, every day of their life. Anti-drug "laws" are just fine... until your wife is dying of cancer and the doctor is too scared of the DEA to prescribe the level of pain relief she really needs. Until you get caught up in the consequences- mistakenly or not- it just isn't on your radar. It only affects "those people".
The same goes for so many other liberty-related issues.
Anti-gun "laws" don't matter as long as your heirloom single-shot 12 gauge isn't targeted. Anti-immigration "laws" are justified until your best friend- who just happens to have been born on the other side of some imaginary line- finds himself being arbitrarily kicked out of the country. Business regulations are good until your big idea dies before it gets off the ground because of all the red tape and licenses, or until your family business has to close because you can't navigate, or afford, all the "reasonable requirements" anymore. "Taxation" is obviously "necessary" until you lose everything because you can't prove you paid everything the IRS claims you owe.
These are disaster-level "awakening events".
Don't wait until the problem kicks you in the face to start standing up for liberty and noticing its enemies. Have the courage and conviction to stand up now, while it doesn't cost too much. Later may be too late.
.
Nutty for Liberty?
One of my fellow CNJ/PNT columnists wrote something about secession the other day.
He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway. But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions." I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land? Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner? But we'll pretend for a moment.
His vision for my future? Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:
"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic] bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic] criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."
Sounds pretty good to me! I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.
He's against it- well, he thinks it's nutty, anyway. But he suggests all the secessionists be "given" "a fenced-in section of Arizona desert — free from prickly government intrusions." I don't think a section would be near enough room since I'd feel hemmed in by that limited amount of land even if I were alone- and how does he plan to acquire this land? Steal it or buy it from the rightful owner? But we'll pretend for a moment.
His vision for my future? Well, here's what he believes life would be like inside that fence:
"...unshackled from such Big-Brother meddling as public [sic] education [sic] bank deposit guarantees, Social Security, mail deliveries, band-width regulations, safe food, water and medicine, police and military protection [sic] criminal laws and the pesky justice [sic] system, highways, licensed doctors and nursing homes, air traffic controllers, firefighters..."
Sounds pretty good to me! I'd go for it! Who says only Big Brother can provide those things? If they are really needed and wanted, someone will provide them. If they are provided consensually, subject to market forces, they will be better. They certainly can't be any worse. Most of those "services", when provided by government monopoly, have just about been driven into the ground and have failed so thoroughly that only the constant threat of "the gun in the room", and the coercive prohibition on opting out to find a better way, keeps them hanging on.
And, I seriously doubt that such a free society (even if we left the fence standing) would permit "police and military protection" at all. Self defense and militia- of course. But not professional "Only Ones" who are paid through theft and allowed to initiate force and get away scot free.
He assumes that inside the "escape-proof, tumbleweed-lined fence would truly be a government-free, man-eat-dog, shoot-Big-Birds, survival-of-the-nuttiest nirvana" for folks like me. Sounds like a concentration camp, or one of those FEMA camps we hear about. Which brings up just about the only flaw.
The only problem with his suggestion is that there is no such thing as "a" secession advocate. Some want secession for anti-liberty purposes, or just because they happen to hate a particular person who calls himself "president", but would be fine with some other idiot occupying the same chair. Me? I've already seceded and laugh at the whole circus act. I need no "government" or any of its parts and pieces. It's believers may surround me, but they are the problem, not their imaginary "frienemy".
I'd be willing to move to Mars or any other survivable (with the right technology) planet (or whatever) for just the sort of chance he's denigrating and ridiculing. That's how sure I am that liberty really works in the real world we inhabit, and is vastly better than any other "system".
.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Sure, I'll help... LOL
All you Nigerian princes, widowed diplomat's wives, orphaned African bank president's adult children, dying heiresses, lottery winners, and US soldiers "serving" in Muslim countries who have multi-millions of dollars you desperately want to send me so that I can help you sneak it out of wherever... go ahead. Send it to me. You can trust me. My Paypal donation button is right over there on the side. Or you can change the money into Bitcoins and send it to me that way. Just attach a note saying who you are and how much my cut is, and give me a hint when you'll want yours.
I promise I will split it with you however you want. Later. After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.
But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).
Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.
Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".
Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.
.
I promise I will split it with you however you want. Later. After everything clears and I spend a little- never any of your cut- to make sure the money is spendable.
But you might as well stop sending me the emails because they go to my junk folder and I quickly delete them (yeah, I do read one occasionally for a laugh).
Just a little advice, though... To make your emails more believable (besides the whole thing about wanting to send strangers, who don't even appear as the email recipient, vast sums of money), you might consider learning how names "work" in this part of the world, and realize that I have never seen an actual "barrister" in my whole life.
Oh, and one more thing... I am not your "Dearly Beloved in God".
Ah, the joys of automation in the scamming arts.
.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Now THAT hurts!
Well, maybe just a little.
I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."
Someone is more radical than me? Where have I gone wrong?
OK, so I'm mostly kidding. My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right. It's just that being right has become such a radical position. I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am. I suppose I still have a lot to learn.
.
I am referring to someone saying this about me: "He’s just not quite as radical as I am."
Someone is more radical than me? Where have I gone wrong?
OK, so I'm mostly kidding. My goal in life isn't to be "radical", it is to be right. It's just that being right has become such a radical position. I just can't imagine anyone being "more radical" than I am. I suppose I still have a lot to learn.
.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
Ground Zero!
Do you know what the above is? It's an environmental disaster- according to the feds. Mercury contamination! Sharp edges! Plastic! Yet, it wouldn't have happened if not for the feds and their silly meddling in the market.
As I was biking around town I happened to see this broken CFL (compact fluorescent light) beside the curb. No HAZMAT team was scurrying around trying to cordon off the area. I was in such horrific danger but no one came to rescue me. So I stopped to take a picture. Should I have sent this to MSNBC so they could send a team to interview the survivors? I neeeed to tell them how I feeeel about it.
I assume this is still there, if anyone wants to come save us. Or, I might use my mighty grabber tool and pick it up and illegally put it in a dumpster- if it's still there- next time I pass by.
.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
You wouldn't be wrong...
No one has a right to deprive you of life, liberty, or your pursuit of happiness- as long as your pursuit doesn't violate the identical rights of others.
You are not wrong if you kill a person who is attempting to murder you.
The same goes for anyone who is attempting to violate your liberty or pursuit of happiness. For instance: no one has a right to insist on their right to molest or license you as your "price" of being allowed to travel.
You are not wrong if you kill someone who is trying to violate your liberty in any way. The burden lies with the aggressor.
That doesn't mean that it is smart to do so when those who most commonly violate your liberty and pursuit of happiness belong to a huge gang, who are somehow permitted to decide that you are never to be allowed to defend yourself from members of their gang, and who have claimed they get to "arbitrate" disputes that involve themselves.
But you wouldn't be wrong.
Someone trying to kidnap you? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt. Someone making up rules that violate your property rights? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them for their attempt. Someone trying to enforce some rule that violates your rightful liberty in some way? You wouldn't be wrong to kill them in trying to stop them.
I'm not saying you "must", I am saying you wouldn't be wrong. You will be killed by the gangbangers for defending yourself from their "brother" gangsters- that is just a given. That's why it probably isn't a smart thing to do in the current situation in which we find ourselves. But never make the mistake of thinking someone is wrong for killing anyone who is trying to violate their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If I were on a jury and you were "on trial" for killing a liberty-violator, I wouldn't convict you no matter how much I personally didn't like you if I saw that you were only defending your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness from someone trying to violate you.
I would hope to be given the same respect, but I wouldn't expect it.
.
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Better than that?
I'm better than that- I'm libertarian.
So why don't I always act better than that?
I am on the right side. There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty. No, not one.
So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line? Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds. Yet, I let them get to me. How can I let that happen?
Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses. It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it. I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive. That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.
I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that. Liberty is better than that. And I am libertarian.
.
So why don't I always act better than that?
I am on the right side. There is no argument for The State or legitimized coercion and theft that can stand up against arguments for individual liberty. No, not one.
So why do I let myself get irritated by imbeciles who parrot the statist line? Their words are as ridiculous as anything ever uttered by the most brain-damaged cockatoo that ever managed to repeat human-like sounds. Yet, I let them get to me. How can I let that happen?
Because I am human, and I am flawed and subject to emotional responses. It's one reason I rarely write a blog post and immediately publish it. I like to be able to consider what I have written to see if I am being unreasonable and impulsive. That may disturb you even more- to know that most of what I have written has passed my review a few times before you ever read it.
I need to keep reminding myself that I am better than that. Liberty is better than that. And I am libertarian.
.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Selfishness not necessarily evil act
Selfishness not necessarily evil act
If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.
Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.
Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.
Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.
Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.
Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.
Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.
(My Clovis News Journal column for February 1, 2013)
One of the self-evident tenets of libertarianism is that of self ownership. You own your life, and the products of your life.If you didn't own yourself, you couldn't give your life to someone else since it wouldn't be yours to give. That has implications in every aspect of life, from the interpersonal to the religious.
Just as no one else can claim to own your life, no one else has any claim on the products of your life without your explicit agreement. Being born in a place, and choosing to not leave, is not an explicit agreement, taxation apologists to the contrary. To be required to hand over the products of your life without your consent is slavery. To be forced to buy products or services you don't want is theft. Both violate self ownership.
Just as you can't belong to any individual, you can't belong to society. Your obligation to society is expressed by your obligation to not attack or steal from any individual. That's it. Everyone else has the identical obligation toward one another, and when it is violated, defensive actions are a proper response.
Self ownership means that it can be proper to act selfishly. It also means that if there are consequences from acting selfishly, you accept them rather than trying to use force against others to avoid the consequences you set in motion.
Selfishness is not the automatic evil that some would try to make you believe it is- as long as you don't violate anyone else or their property. Selfishness can lead you to donate to charity if it makes you feel good. Selfishness can convince you to help a friend so that you can strengthen that friendship bond. Selfishness can cause you to be a good neighbor so that others will be good neighbors to you. That is as it should be. Even the most apparently selfless person wouldn't be if there were no benefit- physical or spiritual- for them. Sacrificing others or their property to make yourself feel good is not selflessness.
Since you own your life, it is your responsibility to maintain that life. No one has an obligation to help you, although they may want to if you have been a good friend or neighbor. Or, if it makes them feel good about themselves.
Owning your life is an awesome responsibility. It is one you can't avoid by pretending it doesn't exist, nor by trying to delegate it to someone else. It is your responsibility whether you accept it or not.
.
Fans of "Joe"
What's your favorite justification for The State? Roads? "Drunk" driving? The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs? "National defense" [sic]?
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Apparently, for a lot of "liberty-lovers", it is "borders" and "protecting us from illegal immigrants".
That's just sickening.
There is no such thing as an "illegal" person. Rights don't depend on where you were born. Governments can't "own" anyone. Private property lines are legitimate; "borders" violate those property lines and the property rights of the real owners.
How can a person claim to value liberty with one breath, and then hop on the Joe Arpaio fan bus with the next breath? The two are mutually exclusive. But tell that to those who have been sucked into his cult of personality.
Sorry, but if you think of some people as "less than" because of where they were born, or because of the counterfeit "laws" they violate, then you are NOT a supporter of liberty. At least not in that particular case. If you grasp at all the "statistics" that attempt to prove how horrible "illegal immigrants" are to the economy (ignoring the free market solution of getting rid of ALL welfare, minimum wage "laws", and violations of the right of association), or if you blame them all for the aggressive acts of a few, then you are advocating a bigger, stronger State, and rejecting liberty. Own it.
.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Stand up!
Recently I had read several things which spoke of how unhealthy sitting really is. Whether or not this is just another health fad, I knew it was something I had been wanting to change for a while now. Just from my own experience I knew sitting made me feel sluggish and Jabba-like. I have never been much of a sitter, but in the past few years all my writing has tied me to the computer more than I liked.
So, on New Year's Day I decided to do something about it. Something concrete. I didn't just "decide" to sit less; resolutions don't work well enough for me. I made it impossible for me to find the time to sit as much as I had been. I took my (disabled, formerly) "laptop" computer off of my desk and put it on a shelf I installed especially for it- one that I had to stand in order to use.
This is a picture of my work space as I write this. (Yes, I probably should have cleaned up before making it public, but I didn't. I just shut off my monitor, stepped back, and took a picture. Feel free to analyze me by what you see.)
Anyway... For the first couple of weeks I really noticed the difference in my legs and feet. I ached. I have gotten used to it now and it doesn't bother me.
I am more able to do "drive-by writing" and respond quickly to the urge to be in another part of the house. Funny how even the simple act of having to stand up from a chair made me hesitate to go do something I thought of. I also lost all the extra weight I had put on in the past few years, even though this is the fat time of the year. Who would have thought I would feel better by making one simple change? Well, Dogbert, apparently.
So, it's just something you might want to consider doing. I know I'm liking it.
.
So, on New Year's Day I decided to do something about it. Something concrete. I didn't just "decide" to sit less; resolutions don't work well enough for me. I made it impossible for me to find the time to sit as much as I had been. I took my (disabled, formerly) "laptop" computer off of my desk and put it on a shelf I installed especially for it- one that I had to stand in order to use.
This is a picture of my work space as I write this. (Yes, I probably should have cleaned up before making it public, but I didn't. I just shut off my monitor, stepped back, and took a picture. Feel free to analyze me by what you see.)
Anyway... For the first couple of weeks I really noticed the difference in my legs and feet. I ached. I have gotten used to it now and it doesn't bother me.
I am more able to do "drive-by writing" and respond quickly to the urge to be in another part of the house. Funny how even the simple act of having to stand up from a chair made me hesitate to go do something I thought of. I also lost all the extra weight I had put on in the past few years, even though this is the fat time of the year. Who would have thought I would feel better by making one simple change? Well, Dogbert, apparently.
.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Yes, I want YOU to carry a gun
This has nothing to do with "should" or "should not". This is just my personal opinion. But I want you to carry a gun with you everywhere you go.
I'm not ordering you to do so, so don't get bent out of shape over my wish.
I doesn't matter to me if you are a "felon" or if some local gang says it can tell you not to carry. Those are things you must settle inside yourself. It doesn't even depend on whether your intent is to go out and harm the innocent. If everyone carried you wouldn't survive long enough to pursue your career. In the long run more innocent lives would be saved. The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, so any general increase in the number of guns being carried will arm a lot more good guys.
It isn't "wrong" to carry a gun. It can be wrong to use it in certain ways.
Yes, there is a political aspect to this. The more people who carry a gun (or even a sword, or???) the less likely it is that the thugs will dare try to tell everyone that such is not "allowed". There is safety in numbers, because there is power in numbers. It's part of the reason that no large-scale gang of thugs has yet completely criminalized tobacco. It is too common. Call it "collectivism" if you want, but people coming together, voluntarily, to fight off a common threat is part of the benefit of being human.
How many cops would be willing to tackle and kick pregnant women in a public place if they could see, or just knew, that everyone around was armed? How many peaceable people who happen to be "open carrying" would be attacked by cops if almost everyone around was known or suspected to be armed?
But, just like the way tobacco is being incrementally demonized, possibly on the way to prohibition, guns are becoming an "oddity" in some places. Incrementalism has made the sight of a gun on the hip rare in far too many places. It has made it unlikely that a mugger will face a target who is carrying concealed. By seeming to agree, through your actions, that carrying a weapon is "extreme" you fall right into the hands of the anti-liberty bigots. That would bother me. By allowing guns to be incrementally pushed out of sight it is making it easier for the thugs to make up more severe rules, and get away with it, which will make the sight of guns even less common. You may not care about this political action, but it is affecting real people and costing lives.
The non-political side of this is that I have lived in armed camps, and they are wonderfully peaceful. (I'm not talking about an armed camp in a time of war; during a time of war the "camp" will be armed whether you like it or not, but the arms may be mostly in the hands of the bad guys.) I am talking about the peace that comes from a "society" that doesn't beg for someone else to protect the individuals who are a part of it, and the peace that comes from being prepared to deal with the problems that might arise. Self responsibility.
You say you don't "need" to carry. OK. I'm glad you can see the future, but I can't. There are a few things that I think separate humans from other critters: the ability (and physical need) to make and use weapons, the ability to make fire, and our reasoning ability. I believe you should exercise those at all times. Those are the things that you can't really improvise to get around the lack of- when you need one of those things you get no second chance. None of those things is a magical cure-all, and there will be situations that you aren't prepared for no matter what, but why handicap yourself voluntarily right from the beginning? It just makes no sense to me.
Now, if you don't want to carry for whatever reason, don't. It's your choice. I wish you'd reconsider, since I want to live in a polite society again. And more guns makes us all- except the thugs- more safe. But don't complain that because I wish you would carry, and you don't, I am being extreme or not respecting your views. The complaints I get from this make me think that the objectors feel guilty for their choice. If you feel guilty maybe you need to change something.
.
I'm not ordering you to do so, so don't get bent out of shape over my wish.
I doesn't matter to me if you are a "felon" or if some local gang says it can tell you not to carry. Those are things you must settle inside yourself. It doesn't even depend on whether your intent is to go out and harm the innocent. If everyone carried you wouldn't survive long enough to pursue your career. In the long run more innocent lives would be saved. The good guys vastly outnumber the bad guys, so any general increase in the number of guns being carried will arm a lot more good guys.
It isn't "wrong" to carry a gun. It can be wrong to use it in certain ways.
Yes, there is a political aspect to this. The more people who carry a gun (or even a sword, or???) the less likely it is that the thugs will dare try to tell everyone that such is not "allowed". There is safety in numbers, because there is power in numbers. It's part of the reason that no large-scale gang of thugs has yet completely criminalized tobacco. It is too common. Call it "collectivism" if you want, but people coming together, voluntarily, to fight off a common threat is part of the benefit of being human.
How many cops would be willing to tackle and kick pregnant women in a public place if they could see, or just knew, that everyone around was armed? How many peaceable people who happen to be "open carrying" would be attacked by cops if almost everyone around was known or suspected to be armed?
But, just like the way tobacco is being incrementally demonized, possibly on the way to prohibition, guns are becoming an "oddity" in some places. Incrementalism has made the sight of a gun on the hip rare in far too many places. It has made it unlikely that a mugger will face a target who is carrying concealed. By seeming to agree, through your actions, that carrying a weapon is "extreme" you fall right into the hands of the anti-liberty bigots. That would bother me. By allowing guns to be incrementally pushed out of sight it is making it easier for the thugs to make up more severe rules, and get away with it, which will make the sight of guns even less common. You may not care about this political action, but it is affecting real people and costing lives.
The non-political side of this is that I have lived in armed camps, and they are wonderfully peaceful. (I'm not talking about an armed camp in a time of war; during a time of war the "camp" will be armed whether you like it or not, but the arms may be mostly in the hands of the bad guys.) I am talking about the peace that comes from a "society" that doesn't beg for someone else to protect the individuals who are a part of it, and the peace that comes from being prepared to deal with the problems that might arise. Self responsibility.
You say you don't "need" to carry. OK. I'm glad you can see the future, but I can't. There are a few things that I think separate humans from other critters: the ability (and physical need) to make and use weapons, the ability to make fire, and our reasoning ability. I believe you should exercise those at all times. Those are the things that you can't really improvise to get around the lack of- when you need one of those things you get no second chance. None of those things is a magical cure-all, and there will be situations that you aren't prepared for no matter what, but why handicap yourself voluntarily right from the beginning? It just makes no sense to me.
Now, if you don't want to carry for whatever reason, don't. It's your choice. I wish you'd reconsider, since I want to live in a polite society again. And more guns makes us all- except the thugs- more safe. But don't complain that because I wish you would carry, and you don't, I am being extreme or not respecting your views. The complaints I get from this make me think that the objectors feel guilty for their choice. If you feel guilty maybe you need to change something.
.
Saturday, March 02, 2013
A cop's duty is to die for the innocent
If we are to pretend for a moment that the ridiculous notion of having people be cops is not ridiculous, then the ultimate (in every sense of the word) responsibility of a cop is to die in place of an innocent person.
"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.
It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop. Or under a thugscrum.
If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".
No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State. The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.
Cops make it safe to be a bad guy. They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized. Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft. Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.
.
"Officer safety", including the "no more hesitation" targets, doesn't serve that purpose in any way. Neither does huddling outside while an evil loser murders the innocent at his leisure.
It is better that a hundred cops die than for even one innocent person to die at the hands of a cop. Or under a thugscrum.
If you want to be (or are) a cop, but you are not clear on where your responsibility lies, then you are not fit to hold the "job".
No one "needs" cops, except for the corrupt State. The reavers serve The State at the expense of the people.
Cops make it safe to be a bad guy. They remove most of the risk of facing the real-world consequences of choosing to aggress and steal, by punishing the good people who get victimized. Cops are the point of the spear used to impose counterfeit "laws" and theft. Cop-suckers love them- until they end up as the target.
.