Cops are such crybabies.
I am now expected to structure my life around the demands of these most broken, twisted, violent, and terrified individuals. When society is fashioned for the convenience of the police, you have a police state- even before the brutality reaches a crescendo.
I have to remember they can do anything to me their paranoid little minds justify in the name of "officer safety".
I am expected to comply with their prying demands to know who I am, where I am going, and what my business is once I get there.
I am expected to switch lanes if I see one robbing a traveler on the side of the road, so as not to "endanger" the life of the distracted thief.
I am told to not carry a gun- or if I do, to drop it at the first fearful whimper of a LEO- because I "might want to kill the cop". And why wouldn't I, under these conditions?
I am tired of being told I have to accommodate these broken, perverted individuals, and then fawn over their "service" and "sacrifice" to "society".
Screw that.
.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Peace
I find myself more at peace recently- with regards to non-libertarians. Maybe I have more pressing things on my mind. Or maybe I have matured a little. Or maybe it is a temporary thing and will soon pass.
That doesn't mean I don't speak up, it just means I'm not going to get too worked up by those who continue to reject liberty in favor of slavery- unless they come to me. They are wrong, obviously, but my telling them so probably won't make them accept it. Sometimes when I start to respond to someone, on someone else's blog, or on a news story somewhere else, I take a moment and decide it's not worth it.
Of course, this only applies to "other" places, statist places- not "my own territory" (such as this blog), or friendly spaces around the internet. And, if you come to me defending statism and other forms of slavery, I'll probably not spare my keyboard.
.
That doesn't mean I don't speak up, it just means I'm not going to get too worked up by those who continue to reject liberty in favor of slavery- unless they come to me. They are wrong, obviously, but my telling them so probably won't make them accept it. Sometimes when I start to respond to someone, on someone else's blog, or on a news story somewhere else, I take a moment and decide it's not worth it.
Of course, this only applies to "other" places, statist places- not "my own territory" (such as this blog), or friendly spaces around the internet. And, if you come to me defending statism and other forms of slavery, I'll probably not spare my keyboard.
.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Self-reliance not such a bad idea
Self-reliance not such a bad idea
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 26, 2013)
Throughout most of American history, interference in an individual's life by government employees, even under the worst administrations, was rare. Government and its regulations were practically invisible, like a ghost, and most people never noticed government because its laws didn't affect their lives or normal behavior in ordinary circumstances. The regulations that did exist were generally consistent with Natural Law; "don't steal", "don't attack the innocent", and "don't trespass". The rest of the rules, like "give the taxman his cut", were easily complied with (or ignored).
Now it seems almost unnatural to go about your day without being confronted with some sort of State interference.
Now how often do you find your course of action impeded by a law, fee, permit, license, tax, etc? How many times every week are you forced to interact with a government employee to satisfy some bureaucratic edict? Even once per week would have been too often to a person just a generation or two ago.
Yet, it only gets worse as government gets in our faces more every day.
We are watched by cameras so that any infraction can be fined. We are tracked in our cars and on our cell phones and computers. We must go through a gauntlet of groping hands, or worse, to get from Point A to Point B in many cases. We are told to pay for the privilege of exercising our fundamental rights. In short, we are ordered to submit to treatment worse than that which spawned a revolution. We are fast approaching the condition where everything not forbidden is mandatory. And we are always deceived and told it is for our own good or for "security".
Benjamin Franklin knew the score: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He understood that tyrants claim you must give up essential liberty for the illusion of security- for that is all security ever is when you allow liberty to be diminished even the smallest amount: an illusion.
So, does all this government intrusion make your life better? Are you better off when you are not permitted to make vital decisions for yourself? Do you need a Big Brother watching your every move so that you don't hurt yourself or others? Or so Big Brother can make sure you don't defy his commands?
I can handle my own life, and I know you can too. Neither of us needs to be treated like a stupid or naughty child. Big Brother can go jump off a cliff.
Throughout most of American history, interference in an individual's life by government employees, even under the worst administrations, was rare. Government and its regulations were practically invisible, like a ghost, and most people never noticed government because its laws didn't affect their lives or normal behavior in ordinary circumstances. The regulations that did exist were generally consistent with Natural Law; "don't steal", "don't attack the innocent", and "don't trespass". The rest of the rules, like "give the taxman his cut", were easily complied with (or ignored).
Now it seems almost unnatural to go about your day without being confronted with some sort of State interference.
Now how often do you find your course of action impeded by a law, fee, permit, license, tax, etc? How many times every week are you forced to interact with a government employee to satisfy some bureaucratic edict? Even once per week would have been too often to a person just a generation or two ago.
Yet, it only gets worse as government gets in our faces more every day.
We are watched by cameras so that any infraction can be fined. We are tracked in our cars and on our cell phones and computers. We must go through a gauntlet of groping hands, or worse, to get from Point A to Point B in many cases. We are told to pay for the privilege of exercising our fundamental rights. In short, we are ordered to submit to treatment worse than that which spawned a revolution. We are fast approaching the condition where everything not forbidden is mandatory. And we are always deceived and told it is for our own good or for "security".
Benjamin Franklin knew the score: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He understood that tyrants claim you must give up essential liberty for the illusion of security- for that is all security ever is when you allow liberty to be diminished even the smallest amount: an illusion.
So, does all this government intrusion make your life better? Are you better off when you are not permitted to make vital decisions for yourself? Do you need a Big Brother watching your every move so that you don't hurt yourself or others? Or so Big Brother can make sure you don't defy his commands?
I can handle my own life, and I know you can too. Neither of us needs to be treated like a stupid or naughty child. Big Brother can go jump off a cliff.
.
Slavery is wrong, whatever you call it
Yesterday, on my "Death-by-Government Day" post, blogger "Bonnie Gadsden" asked a very pertinent question:
Do we revile those three women in Cleveland who recently escaped after a decade of captivity as sex slaves? What about those who foil a kidnapping attempt?
Runaway slaves, those who hid to avoid being enslaved, and those who escape or avoid a kidnapping. I'd say "draft dodgers" are in honorable company. They are the ones who actually sacrificed for freedom.
.
"Kent, what do you think about draft dodgers?"
I responded:
"You might as well ask what I think about the slaves who escaped their captivity up until the 1860s- or those in Africa who escaped being captured and enslaved in the first place. Because conscription IS slavery.
It isn't cowardice to keep your freedom, especially when you know the price will be high, it is bravery."
Do we revile those three women in Cleveland who recently escaped after a decade of captivity as sex slaves? What about those who foil a kidnapping attempt?
Runaway slaves, those who hid to avoid being enslaved, and those who escape or avoid a kidnapping. I'd say "draft dodgers" are in honorable company. They are the ones who actually sacrificed for freedom.
.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Happy Death-by-Government Day
Or, should it be called "Dead Government-paid Murderer Day"?
I know that many people who were in the employ of the US government truly believed they were doing the right thing. I know that a lot of people actually fall for the "they fought for our freedom" propaganda, and have a powerful desire to honor the dead for that reason. I know I come off as a heartless monster for seeing it differently.
But, if you are in the military you are only fighting for one "cause": the power (and wealth) of those who run the mafia called the US government. You are their pawn; their tool. That you get angry at that revelation is proof of how effectively you have been brainwashed.
Your scars, your death, and your murders don't protect one single act of liberty. No one is free to write even one anti-State phrase on the "government's invention" because of your sacrifice. No one is able to carry a fully functional M16 onto a flight from Texas to DC because of your "service". No one is allowed to drive across the country without having to possess a plastic national ID card because of those you killed. No one is allowed to buy morphine for their cancer-stricken grandmother, over-the-counter in Walmart, because you were blown to bits in Iraq. Your lost leg, shattered and bleeding in the hot sun beside some nameless dirt road in Afghanistan, doesn't buy the liberty to do one single thing. Your dead "brothers" didn't accomplish anything that was worth losing their life for The State.
I realize it is hard to accept this when you have been told the lie all your life, and when you want so badly for all those who have died in the past to have not died in vain (or worse, in service of evil).
I'm sorry.
(Also, check this out.)
I know that many people who were in the employ of the US government truly believed they were doing the right thing. I know that a lot of people actually fall for the "they fought for our freedom" propaganda, and have a powerful desire to honor the dead for that reason. I know I come off as a heartless monster for seeing it differently.
But, if you are in the military you are only fighting for one "cause": the power (and wealth) of those who run the mafia called the US government. You are their pawn; their tool. That you get angry at that revelation is proof of how effectively you have been brainwashed.
Your scars, your death, and your murders don't protect one single act of liberty. No one is free to write even one anti-State phrase on the "government's invention" because of your sacrifice. No one is able to carry a fully functional M16 onto a flight from Texas to DC because of your "service". No one is allowed to drive across the country without having to possess a plastic national ID card because of those you killed. No one is allowed to buy morphine for their cancer-stricken grandmother, over-the-counter in Walmart, because you were blown to bits in Iraq. Your lost leg, shattered and bleeding in the hot sun beside some nameless dirt road in Afghanistan, doesn't buy the liberty to do one single thing. Your dead "brothers" didn't accomplish anything that was worth losing their life for The State.
I realize it is hard to accept this when you have been told the lie all your life, and when you want so badly for all those who have died in the past to have not died in vain (or worse, in service of evil).
I'm sorry.
(Also, check this out.)
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Kokesh released- now what?
Now that Adam Kokesh has been released, and the most serious(ly fraudulent) charges against him have been dropped, there are a few thoughts I have.
First off, I would be careful around him. Maybe he is a great guy who would NEVER snitch, but I don't know what they might have done to him or threatened him with while he was held prisoner. I hate to admit I would think this way, but it's something to keep in mind. It has happened before with other activists- maybe Adam is a better, stronger person than the others, but how do you know?
Second, I see a lot of claims about how it has been revealed that he been working for Barry The Enemy all along. Supposedly, The Enemy needs an "Incident" in order to declare martial law across the country, and Adam's armed march on DC is just that incident. Well, I hate to say this, but Bring It On. If The Enemy wants to get the preliminaries out of the way, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Then we will know "It's Time".
Third, if this is going to be the standard way from now on to treat every activist who sticks his or her neck out, then why would anyone go to the trouble anymore? Whether you agree with their methods or not, not everyone who does something you don't agree with is working with The Enemies. They may simply be wrong. Or YOU may be wrong. (Hey, it's a possibility.)
As always, think for Yourself. Don't follow anyone unquestioningly. If your conscience or your rationality say "stop!", listen to them!! You have a brain for a reason. Even if something is a great idea, it may not be right for you. We each have our path to liberty. Don't initiate force; don't steal/defraud/damage property- but other than that find what works for you. No person is infallible or great enough to blindly follow.
And, don't let this Kokesh issue distract you from continuing to live in liberty as you seek even more.
.
First off, I would be careful around him. Maybe he is a great guy who would NEVER snitch, but I don't know what they might have done to him or threatened him with while he was held prisoner. I hate to admit I would think this way, but it's something to keep in mind. It has happened before with other activists- maybe Adam is a better, stronger person than the others, but how do you know?
Second, I see a lot of claims about how it has been revealed that he been working for Barry The Enemy all along. Supposedly, The Enemy needs an "Incident" in order to declare martial law across the country, and Adam's armed march on DC is just that incident. Well, I hate to say this, but Bring It On. If The Enemy wants to get the preliminaries out of the way, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Then we will know "It's Time".
Third, if this is going to be the standard way from now on to treat every activist who sticks his or her neck out, then why would anyone go to the trouble anymore? Whether you agree with their methods or not, not everyone who does something you don't agree with is working with The Enemies. They may simply be wrong. Or YOU may be wrong. (Hey, it's a possibility.)
As always, think for Yourself. Don't follow anyone unquestioningly. If your conscience or your rationality say "stop!", listen to them!! You have a brain for a reason. Even if something is a great idea, it may not be right for you. We each have our path to liberty. Don't initiate force; don't steal/defraud/damage property- but other than that find what works for you. No person is infallible or great enough to blindly follow.
And, don't let this Kokesh issue distract you from continuing to live in liberty as you seek even more.
.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Don't look! You might see something unpleasant!
Statists seem to have infinite capacity for denial. Just watch what they write.
"I don't break any laws!"
"It's wrong because it's illegal."
"It's wrong because it's illegal."
"Just one more law will fix it."
"Just elect the right people..."
"The Constitution was fine, it just needed us to keep the government in compliance."
It's almost cute the way they twist and turn trying to keep believing. It's like kids trying to convince you that their imaginary friend is "really real". The thing is, kids grow out of that (usually), while statists just get more adamant and angry when you point out how their imaginary friend keeps failing to deliver.
.
"The Constitution was fine, it just needed us to keep the government in compliance."
It's almost cute the way they twist and turn trying to keep believing. It's like kids trying to convince you that their imaginary friend is "really real". The thing is, kids grow out of that (usually), while statists just get more adamant and angry when you point out how their imaginary friend keeps failing to deliver.
.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Reward the bully- punish his victim
I recently saw a quote* that was intended to show the absurdity of supporting gun owners' rights. As you'll see, it utterly failed:
And, if that were the whole story, it might be true. But it isn't.
The truth of the matter is, that when you know there's a bully out there who intends to hit an innocent kid with a rock (or his fist, or a hammer, or a "law"), and you frisk the intended victim to make sure he has no rocks in his pocket, and then you threaten him with severe punishment if he dares to try to defend himself- well, then you are the bully's accomplice. You are a friend to the villain and an enemy to all that is good.
The answer may not be to "give" every child a rock (they can find them on their own just fine- just like the bully did and will continue to do), but that would still be a better answer than the anti-liberty bigot tactic of trying to disarm all the decent folk. The worst possible thing you can do is to try to take away the rocks the good kids have. Or punish those who fight back. When you do, you are only rewarding the bad guys and making it easier (and safer) to be a bad guy.
Anti-liberty bigots expose the festering evil in their hearts everytime they think they have come up with a clever new slogan.
I'll give my daughter some rocks, and expect her to abide by the ZAP. Count on it.
(*I apologize that I forgot where I saw this quote. I copied it, but neglected to copy the source.)
"When one child hits another with a rock, the answer isn't to give every child a rock."
And, if that were the whole story, it might be true. But it isn't.
The truth of the matter is, that when you know there's a bully out there who intends to hit an innocent kid with a rock (or his fist, or a hammer, or a "law"), and you frisk the intended victim to make sure he has no rocks in his pocket, and then you threaten him with severe punishment if he dares to try to defend himself- well, then you are the bully's accomplice. You are a friend to the villain and an enemy to all that is good.
The answer may not be to "give" every child a rock (they can find them on their own just fine- just like the bully did and will continue to do), but that would still be a better answer than the anti-liberty bigot tactic of trying to disarm all the decent folk. The worst possible thing you can do is to try to take away the rocks the good kids have. Or punish those who fight back. When you do, you are only rewarding the bad guys and making it easier (and safer) to be a bad guy.
Anti-liberty bigots expose the festering evil in their hearts everytime they think they have come up with a clever new slogan.
I'll give my daughter some rocks, and expect her to abide by the ZAP. Count on it.
(*I apologize that I forgot where I saw this quote. I copied it, but neglected to copy the source.)
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
The Red Pill: "Down With Power"
I just recently finished reading L. Neil Smith's "Down With Power". Excellent book!
Maybe not quite as excellent as "Lever Action", but I'm probably prejudiced since the latter book was the one that finally showed me where I fit in the scheme of the world. And pretty much made me who I am today. Whether you consider that a good thing or not being a separate issue altogether.
OK... maybe it is just as good. The only reason I might choose "Lever Action" is purely emotional.
I recommend you get yourself a copy of "Down With Power", read it, and then loan it to people who need to read it. If your "conservative" or "liberal" friends and family keep subjecting your to their vacuous statist opinions, invite them to get "the other side". I'll bet the conversations will get more interesting.
They won't realize you have handed them "The Red Pill" until it is (hopefully) too late.
.
Maybe not quite as excellent as "Lever Action", but I'm probably prejudiced since the latter book was the one that finally showed me where I fit in the scheme of the world. And pretty much made me who I am today. Whether you consider that a good thing or not being a separate issue altogether.
OK... maybe it is just as good. The only reason I might choose "Lever Action" is purely emotional.
I recommend you get yourself a copy of "Down With Power", read it, and then loan it to people who need to read it. If your "conservative" or "liberal" friends and family keep subjecting your to their vacuous statist opinions, invite them to get "the other side". I'll bet the conversations will get more interesting.
They won't realize you have handed them "The Red Pill" until it is (hopefully) too late.
.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Do what's right, not what's legal
Do what's right, not what's legal
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 19 [4-19!], 2013.)
When a law is silly, good people may break it; when a law is wrong, good people have to.
I wouldn't tell you what to do, beyond telling you that you probably already know the right thing to do. I will tell you that if I see you breaking silly laws without hurting anyone or their property, I will respect you. But if I see you breaking, or even openly defying, bad laws, I will consider you a true hero.
Look at how many heroes from the past are heroes because they broke and defied bad laws. Rosa Parks and Henry David Thoreau come to mind. How many heroes from the past do we look up to strictly because they obeyed laws? I can't think of any right now.
The law only deserves respect as long as it is respectable. "Laws" which attempt to control or regulate things other than theft, aggression, or damaging or trespassing on privately owned property do not deserve respect. In fact, they deserve contempt.
This also means that anyone I see enforcing silly laws is someone I have no respect for, and anyone I see enforcing bad laws I see as the enemy of everything America was supposed to be, and an enemy of liberty and decency.
No excuses involving "the will of the majority" or "just doing my job" hold any water. And any claims of "upholding my oath" are worse than pointless when your interpretation of your oath requires you to do wrong.
This doesn't mean it's always nice to break all silly "laws". Some behaviors are just not polite, regardless of the law. It isn't always smart to do everything you have a right to do. You need to look at unintended consequences that can result. Of course, this applies to proposing and enforcing "laws" too.
This profusion of "laws" has caused a condition I call "law pollution". It has been estimated by attorney Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties advocate who has researched the issue, that each and every one of us commits at least three felonies every day; usually without knowing it or having any ill-intent. That's hilarious.
When everyone is some sort of a criminal it means the laws are wrong; not that everyone is bad.
If I were inclined to give you advice I would say "do what's right, and don't worry about what's legal". Come to think of it, that's the same advice a retired deputy sheriff once gave me.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 19 [4-19!], 2013.)
When a law is silly, good people may break it; when a law is wrong, good people have to.
I wouldn't tell you what to do, beyond telling you that you probably already know the right thing to do. I will tell you that if I see you breaking silly laws without hurting anyone or their property, I will respect you. But if I see you breaking, or even openly defying, bad laws, I will consider you a true hero.
Look at how many heroes from the past are heroes because they broke and defied bad laws. Rosa Parks and Henry David Thoreau come to mind. How many heroes from the past do we look up to strictly because they obeyed laws? I can't think of any right now.
The law only deserves respect as long as it is respectable. "Laws" which attempt to control or regulate things other than theft, aggression, or damaging or trespassing on privately owned property do not deserve respect. In fact, they deserve contempt.
This also means that anyone I see enforcing silly laws is someone I have no respect for, and anyone I see enforcing bad laws I see as the enemy of everything America was supposed to be, and an enemy of liberty and decency.
No excuses involving "the will of the majority" or "just doing my job" hold any water. And any claims of "upholding my oath" are worse than pointless when your interpretation of your oath requires you to do wrong.
This doesn't mean it's always nice to break all silly "laws". Some behaviors are just not polite, regardless of the law. It isn't always smart to do everything you have a right to do. You need to look at unintended consequences that can result. Of course, this applies to proposing and enforcing "laws" too.
This profusion of "laws" has caused a condition I call "law pollution". It has been estimated by attorney Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties advocate who has researched the issue, that each and every one of us commits at least three felonies every day; usually without knowing it or having any ill-intent. That's hilarious.
When everyone is some sort of a criminal it means the laws are wrong; not that everyone is bad.
If I were inclined to give you advice I would say "do what's right, and don't worry about what's legal". Come to think of it, that's the same advice a retired deputy sheriff once gave me.
.
The "only purpose" for cars...
The next time some foamy-mouthed anti-liberty bigot makes the standard claim that guns should be banned because "they only have one purpose: to KILL people!" I think I'll claim that cars only have one purpose: getting food at the drive-through.
That is just as "true" as the other claim.
I have used guns a fair amount, and I have never killed anyone. Never even tried. Yet, I don't have any trouble finding a "purpose" for my guns.
Or I could say a car's only purpose is to be a get-away vehicle after a hold-up. Or as a teenager's motel room substitute. Or as something to watch bikini-clad cheerleaders wash.
Of course, the argument that the "only purpose" for guns is to kill people is only believed by stupid people anyway, so the humor of claiming an "only purpose" for cars- whatever it might be- would go right over their heads. It'll be fun to see the "mental" gymnastics performed by the anti-liberty bigot in response, though.
.
That is just as "true" as the other claim.
I have used guns a fair amount, and I have never killed anyone. Never even tried. Yet, I don't have any trouble finding a "purpose" for my guns.
Or I could say a car's only purpose is to be a get-away vehicle after a hold-up. Or as a teenager's motel room substitute. Or as something to watch bikini-clad cheerleaders wash.
Of course, the argument that the "only purpose" for guns is to kill people is only believed by stupid people anyway, so the humor of claiming an "only purpose" for cars- whatever it might be- would go right over their heads. It'll be fun to see the "mental" gymnastics performed by the anti-liberty bigot in response, though.
.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Lessons from Kokesh's kidnapping
If you can be kidnapped ("arrested") for- and charged with- "assaulting an officer" or for "resisting arrest" when you have clearly done neither, why not fight the cops like your very life depends on it?
Because it does, you know.
.
Because it does, you know.
.
Adam Kokesh's arrest
I am not an advocate of using institutionalized kidnapping- euphemistically called "arrest" when committed by people who work for "government"- to remove "undesirables" from society. But when that kidnapping is used against a person who wasn't doing anything wrong it is even more disgusting.
It doesn't matter if the kidnap victim was Adam Kokesh or that genocidal monster, Abraham Lincoln- if the victim isn't initiating force, stealing/defrauding, or trespassing on PRIVATELY owned property, the "arrest" is wrong. If you won't speak out against the unjust kidnapping of your worst enemy, then you need to reexamine your commitment to liberty.
I have been frankly horrified at the things I have seen written relating to his "arrest" at the Smokedown Prohibition V event. Gun owners, especially those who were not in favor of his planned armed march on DC, have been acting like statists.
The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War Against Gun Owners are not separate issues. They are both aspects of liberty, which can not be cherry picked to make you feel better. You don't have to smoke Cannabis or own guns to support the absolute human right of everyone to do either or both. Among other things. But if you claim to love (and understand) liberty, you don't look convincing when you seem willing to throw someone else to the wolves.
Maybe Kokesh was seeking to be arrested. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe the feds wanted to get him out of the way so they wouldn't have to face the armed march in July. Maybe it isn't smart to put yourself in a position to invite being kidnapped when you are planning something "bigger" for the near future. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
You can always second-guess anyone's actions. You can even disagree with what they are doing. But if a person is not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't ever support their abuse at the hands of government employees. I can't support the abuse of anyone by government employees at any time, but that's just me.
Free Adam!
.
It doesn't matter if the kidnap victim was Adam Kokesh or that genocidal monster, Abraham Lincoln- if the victim isn't initiating force, stealing/defrauding, or trespassing on PRIVATELY owned property, the "arrest" is wrong. If you won't speak out against the unjust kidnapping of your worst enemy, then you need to reexamine your commitment to liberty.
I have been frankly horrified at the things I have seen written relating to his "arrest" at the Smokedown Prohibition V event. Gun owners, especially those who were not in favor of his planned armed march on DC, have been acting like statists.
The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and The War Against Gun Owners are not separate issues. They are both aspects of liberty, which can not be cherry picked to make you feel better. You don't have to smoke Cannabis or own guns to support the absolute human right of everyone to do either or both. Among other things. But if you claim to love (and understand) liberty, you don't look convincing when you seem willing to throw someone else to the wolves.
Maybe Kokesh was seeking to be arrested. Maybe he wasn't. Maybe the feds wanted to get him out of the way so they wouldn't have to face the armed march in July. Maybe it isn't smart to put yourself in a position to invite being kidnapped when you are planning something "bigger" for the near future. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
You can always second-guess anyone's actions. You can even disagree with what they are doing. But if a person is not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't ever support their abuse at the hands of government employees. I can't support the abuse of anyone by government employees at any time, but that's just me.
Free Adam!
.
Why fear "falling" when you can fly?
(Previously published in The Libertarian Enterprise, May 19, 2013)
Sitting outside, watching some birds swooping around in the sky, gave me some insight recently.
I try to put myself in their place- high above the ground with nothing but air holding me up- but I get vertigo just thinking about it. I try to imagine what it would be like to naturally exist in that environment- without fear. It's hard for me to do.
Yet the birds are no more afraid of heights than I am of horizontal distances. That is because they have the inborn ability to navigate that vertical space. They are in no more danger of falling than I am of "falling" across a field and bumping into the side of a house.
You don't fear that which you naturally navigate.
Which birthed a revelation: Statists are afraid of liberty because they haven't discovered their natural abilities. On the other hand, I'm not afraid of liberty because I can navigate it with confidence- I can't "fall".
Sure, someone can shoot down a bird, and sometimes circumstances shoot down a libertarian, too. That's no reason to sit hunkered over in fear. It's a reason to stay alert and learn to swerve and swoop. And accept that sometimes bad stuff will happen anyway.
Everyone has the potential to "fly" in liberty just as well as you and I do. They just have to try their wings. When you see a statist trying to convince you that you can't fly in liberty, or that he can't, or that too few people could for it to "work", have pity on him. He's just scared, more than anything, of his own untested abilities.
Don't let him convince you that it is impossible to do what you have been doing all along.
.
Sitting outside, watching some birds swooping around in the sky, gave me some insight recently.
I try to put myself in their place- high above the ground with nothing but air holding me up- but I get vertigo just thinking about it. I try to imagine what it would be like to naturally exist in that environment- without fear. It's hard for me to do.
Yet the birds are no more afraid of heights than I am of horizontal distances. That is because they have the inborn ability to navigate that vertical space. They are in no more danger of falling than I am of "falling" across a field and bumping into the side of a house.
You don't fear that which you naturally navigate.
Which birthed a revelation: Statists are afraid of liberty because they haven't discovered their natural abilities. On the other hand, I'm not afraid of liberty because I can navigate it with confidence- I can't "fall".
Sure, someone can shoot down a bird, and sometimes circumstances shoot down a libertarian, too. That's no reason to sit hunkered over in fear. It's a reason to stay alert and learn to swerve and swoop. And accept that sometimes bad stuff will happen anyway.
Everyone has the potential to "fly" in liberty just as well as you and I do. They just have to try their wings. When you see a statist trying to convince you that you can't fly in liberty, or that he can't, or that too few people could for it to "work", have pity on him. He's just scared, more than anything, of his own untested abilities.
Don't let him convince you that it is impossible to do what you have been doing all along.
.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The Kokesh armed march
(Note- Because I write almost everything at least a day in advance, so that I can have it post early for you to read with your morning coffee, I wrote this before his "arrest" [kidnapping] at the Smoke Down Prohibition V event. The "arrest" changes nothing about what I've written below.)
It seems everyone is talking about Adam Kokesh, and his peaceful armed march on DC. And it seems everyone who is talking about it is casting stones at those who take a position different than their own. I'll try to not do that.
So, what would I do?
I wouldn't go.
But maybe not for the reasons you might think.
Is what he's planning to do wrong? No!
Will it draw negative attention to gun owners, make the anti-liberty bigots say bad things about us, and might it lead to more "laws" and crackdowns from hoplophobic bigots with political power? Probably, but who cares?
I hate to tell you this but the enemies of liberty aren't impressed when you try to make them like you. Or when you try to not offend them, or when you play by their rules; when you obey their counterfeit "laws". They will be offended by anything you do, short of turning in ALL your guns, and then politely dying to remove yourself from the gene pool. Do you really want to appease people like this?
Personally, I make an effort to stay away from places where political scum pools. Courthouses, city hall, police stations, state capitols, and especially DC. I don't want to be in that toxic environment, armed or not. Those who congregate there don't care what you or I have to say unless it is in line with what they are already planning to do. Contrary (peaceful) voices are ignored, and there's nothing you can do to change that. If you show up to petition them they assume you still consent to their Rule, if you show up armed they assume you are dangerous/crazy and should be caged- and killed if you resist.
I think it's mostly better to stop acting like these are people you need to influence and just let them play their little rigged game while you prepare to deal with the inevitable results of their tyranny.
I have had my differences with Adam Kokesh in the past, but he has done things that changed my opinion of him since then. He may be more of a showman than I am generally comfortable with, but that's just his way. Will I put Kokesh down for his planned march? Not at this time. I think there are lots of ways to exercise your liberty- his way, or yours, might not be mine (and vice versa). But I don't think this event is any more harmful in the long run than voting or writing congresscritters. Anything that pretends that politicians' opinions or "law tantrums" are valid just doesn't seem to be the best use of talents and energy to me. You may think differently.
I don't understand those who object to his march on the basis of it being "illegal". I have no intention of ever being "law abiding" when those "laws" are wrong, or even when they are null and void. And I don't have much respect for people who make being a "law abiding citizen" their goal. But if you are talking "legality", then his march is perfectly legal. No legitimate law can violate the Constitution, which was amended by the Bill of Rights to say that the right to own and to carry guns "shall not be infringed". Any "law" to the contrary is null and void. His march couldn't possibly be more legal. That doesn't mean the badged thug/criminals of DC won't murder people for doing the right thing, though.
I have my doubts that anyone actually plans to go through with the march, but I could be wrong. From the first I suspected it might be more of a shot across the bow to get some attention. If it happens, I hope no violence occurs- but I also hope any initiation of force, if it happens, is met with appropriate self defense. I do not believe I can be armed and yet stand by and watch "law enforcement" violate peaceful people without doing something to stop the violation. Sorry, but I am NOT a pacifist. And that is another reason for me to stay away from such events. I do not want to intentionally put myself into a position where I either need to kill someone or make myself a part of the problem by not killing someone.
That's just my take on it.
.
It seems everyone is talking about Adam Kokesh, and his peaceful armed march on DC. And it seems everyone who is talking about it is casting stones at those who take a position different than their own. I'll try to not do that.
So, what would I do?
I wouldn't go.
But maybe not for the reasons you might think.
Is what he's planning to do wrong? No!
Will it draw negative attention to gun owners, make the anti-liberty bigots say bad things about us, and might it lead to more "laws" and crackdowns from hoplophobic bigots with political power? Probably, but who cares?
I hate to tell you this but the enemies of liberty aren't impressed when you try to make them like you. Or when you try to not offend them, or when you play by their rules; when you obey their counterfeit "laws". They will be offended by anything you do, short of turning in ALL your guns, and then politely dying to remove yourself from the gene pool. Do you really want to appease people like this?
Personally, I make an effort to stay away from places where political scum pools. Courthouses, city hall, police stations, state capitols, and especially DC. I don't want to be in that toxic environment, armed or not. Those who congregate there don't care what you or I have to say unless it is in line with what they are already planning to do. Contrary (peaceful) voices are ignored, and there's nothing you can do to change that. If you show up to petition them they assume you still consent to their Rule, if you show up armed they assume you are dangerous/crazy and should be caged- and killed if you resist.
I think it's mostly better to stop acting like these are people you need to influence and just let them play their little rigged game while you prepare to deal with the inevitable results of their tyranny.
I have had my differences with Adam Kokesh in the past, but he has done things that changed my opinion of him since then. He may be more of a showman than I am generally comfortable with, but that's just his way. Will I put Kokesh down for his planned march? Not at this time. I think there are lots of ways to exercise your liberty- his way, or yours, might not be mine (and vice versa). But I don't think this event is any more harmful in the long run than voting or writing congresscritters. Anything that pretends that politicians' opinions or "law tantrums" are valid just doesn't seem to be the best use of talents and energy to me. You may think differently.
I don't understand those who object to his march on the basis of it being "illegal". I have no intention of ever being "law abiding" when those "laws" are wrong, or even when they are null and void. And I don't have much respect for people who make being a "law abiding citizen" their goal. But if you are talking "legality", then his march is perfectly legal. No legitimate law can violate the Constitution, which was amended by the Bill of Rights to say that the right to own and to carry guns "shall not be infringed". Any "law" to the contrary is null and void. His march couldn't possibly be more legal. That doesn't mean the badged thug/criminals of DC won't murder people for doing the right thing, though.
I have my doubts that anyone actually plans to go through with the march, but I could be wrong. From the first I suspected it might be more of a shot across the bow to get some attention. If it happens, I hope no violence occurs- but I also hope any initiation of force, if it happens, is met with appropriate self defense. I do not believe I can be armed and yet stand by and watch "law enforcement" violate peaceful people without doing something to stop the violation. Sorry, but I am NOT a pacifist. And that is another reason for me to stay away from such events. I do not want to intentionally put myself into a position where I either need to kill someone or make myself a part of the problem by not killing someone.
That's just my take on it.
.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Considering conspiracies
Chem trails, fluoridation, vaccines, GMOs- these are some of the conspiracy theories that I am highly doubtful about.
I'm not saying that those in government/corporations wouldn't harm people for their own evil purposes- just that I'm not convinced that these are examples of that being put into action.
I don't denigrate those who pursue the exposure of their particular conspiracy- it's just that I wonder if more important things are being ignored while focusing on these.
I can't go through life terrified that everything I eat, breathe, drink, or do is killing me, and trying desperately to avoid exposure to all those things. That doesn't mean the theories aren't true, of course. Life is a fatal condition, and people do seem to be living longer today than they did 100 years ago before any of those things were around. Maybe that trend will reverse because of all the conspiracy issues listed above. Maybe that trend will reverse due more to socialized medicine.
If the evidence is ever sufficient to convince me... well... I'm not sure what I'd do because those things are things I am not in a position to do anything about other than complain or get completely stress-ridden over. And I don't need to stress myself out over things I am not convinced are real, or are a real problem. There are too many other things I can do something about.
.
I'm not saying that those in government/corporations wouldn't harm people for their own evil purposes- just that I'm not convinced that these are examples of that being put into action.
I don't denigrate those who pursue the exposure of their particular conspiracy- it's just that I wonder if more important things are being ignored while focusing on these.
I can't go through life terrified that everything I eat, breathe, drink, or do is killing me, and trying desperately to avoid exposure to all those things. That doesn't mean the theories aren't true, of course. Life is a fatal condition, and people do seem to be living longer today than they did 100 years ago before any of those things were around. Maybe that trend will reverse because of all the conspiracy issues listed above. Maybe that trend will reverse due more to socialized medicine.
If the evidence is ever sufficient to convince me... well... I'm not sure what I'd do because those things are things I am not in a position to do anything about other than complain or get completely stress-ridden over. And I don't need to stress myself out over things I am not convinced are real, or are a real problem. There are too many other things I can do something about.
.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Crime- the solution is ready and waiting
I was just reading something I found on Rational Review News (you do get their daily email digest, right?):
That is so true. And you and I have witnessed that fact play out in the real world over and over again. The anti-liberty bigots have also witnessed the same thing. Which means "safety" can't be the goal of the anti-liberty bigots who keep advocating anti-gun "laws".
I want to see people all around me with a gun on their hip. Not "law enforcement"; people. This is because I prefer civilization to whatever passes for "civilization" now. An armed society is a polite society- and I have been a part of polite societies before and would like to see them spread over the globe so that police states become the exception rather than the rule.
Anyone who doesn't want you armed- right now, wherever you are- is saying he doesn't trust you, doesn't like you, and doesn't care if you are harmed. That's sick.
.
"Within reason, you can have any violent crime rate you want by manipulating the gun laws. Absolute gun bans result in violent crime rates as bad as Venezuela. Or worse.
Semi-absolute gun bans with large quantities of forbidden weapons coming in from the outside results in Chicago."
That is so true. And you and I have witnessed that fact play out in the real world over and over again. The anti-liberty bigots have also witnessed the same thing. Which means "safety" can't be the goal of the anti-liberty bigots who keep advocating anti-gun "laws".
I want to see people all around me with a gun on their hip. Not "law enforcement"; people. This is because I prefer civilization to whatever passes for "civilization" now. An armed society is a polite society- and I have been a part of polite societies before and would like to see them spread over the globe so that police states become the exception rather than the rule.
Anyone who doesn't want you armed- right now, wherever you are- is saying he doesn't trust you, doesn't like you, and doesn't care if you are harmed. That's sick.
.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Control freaks show their nature
Control freaks feel the need to keep nagging and "reminding", and then- if given the power- forcing.
I think part of that comes from insecurity. They fear they can't get things done themselves, so they seek to force others to do things on their behalf. Instead of developing skills and talents, they try to co-opt the skills and talents of others to their own ends. They see others as existing only to satisfy their whims. Then they consider this behavioral problem to be their particular "skill".
Perhaps they suffer from delusions that if they don't act like that, the things they want to happen won't get done.
The problem is, if what you want done has to be accomplished by coercing other people, it probably shouldn't be done at all.
Sadly, those who nag and coerce will probably never learn that the right way to get people pulling with you is to convince them to join voluntarily and then lead them by your example. If your goal can't get enough voluntary support, then it should probably die on the vine.
.
I think part of that comes from insecurity. They fear they can't get things done themselves, so they seek to force others to do things on their behalf. Instead of developing skills and talents, they try to co-opt the skills and talents of others to their own ends. They see others as existing only to satisfy their whims. Then they consider this behavioral problem to be their particular "skill".
Perhaps they suffer from delusions that if they don't act like that, the things they want to happen won't get done.
The problem is, if what you want done has to be accomplished by coercing other people, it probably shouldn't be done at all.
Sadly, those who nag and coerce will probably never learn that the right way to get people pulling with you is to convince them to join voluntarily and then lead them by your example. If your goal can't get enough voluntary support, then it should probably die on the vine.
.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Radical change needed in America
Radical change needed in America
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 12, 2013.)
Imagine a few years into the future- you are returning home from a family visit over the Thanksgiving holiday when a deer runs into the road in front of you. You slam on the brakes, but it is too late. You hit the deer and lose control of your car which runs off the road, flips, and in spite of your seat belt, you die in the crash.
Your worries are over. For your survivors, the tragedy is just beginning.
In this hypothetical future, the growth of government has continued on its present course. Do you think your death was punishment enough? The State doesn't think so.
After all the applicable estate taxes have been charged, and automatically deducted from your bank accounts and forfeited property, the real frenzy begins.
Your family gets a bill from the police who wrote up the accident report, along with surcharges for "emotional distress" due to seeing your tattered remains, and an "ObamaCare" fine on behalf of all "first responders" involved because they were exposed to potentially hazardous fumes and bodily fluids.
Your survivors are ticketed for the deer you killed without a license, and your family's hunting weapon- one black powder rifle per family being the only thing still legal- is confiscated for "poaching".
Your car's "black box" indicates you were over the speed limit by a tiny amount, so your estate is charged a fine for your speeding, as well, plus the fine is doubled because a couple of years ago when self-driving cars were made available, at great expense, you chose to forgo that new technology and keep doing the driving.
The EPA charges your loved ones the standard fee for the gasoline spill clean-up, even though your tank was almost empty and nothing spilled. Also, since there was a small fire, a fine for polluting the air is levied, as well as a fine for the bio-hazard created as your life-blood seeped into the soil, and one for littering due to all the car parts scattered around the crash site.
It gets worse. The autopsy confirms the presence of tryptophan, due to the recent turkey dinner, so your life insurance won't pay out- it's the law. You were "driving under the influence". Did you really think the zero tolerance and ever-tightening DWI laws would remain where they stood in 2013?
You may think this scenario is far-fetched. "It can't happen here." It is already happening. Americans have a choice: radically change the path that is being followed, or "stay the course" to see where it leads.
.
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 12, 2013.)
Imagine a few years into the future- you are returning home from a family visit over the Thanksgiving holiday when a deer runs into the road in front of you. You slam on the brakes, but it is too late. You hit the deer and lose control of your car which runs off the road, flips, and in spite of your seat belt, you die in the crash.
Your worries are over. For your survivors, the tragedy is just beginning.
In this hypothetical future, the growth of government has continued on its present course. Do you think your death was punishment enough? The State doesn't think so.
After all the applicable estate taxes have been charged, and automatically deducted from your bank accounts and forfeited property, the real frenzy begins.
Your family gets a bill from the police who wrote up the accident report, along with surcharges for "emotional distress" due to seeing your tattered remains, and an "ObamaCare" fine on behalf of all "first responders" involved because they were exposed to potentially hazardous fumes and bodily fluids.
Your survivors are ticketed for the deer you killed without a license, and your family's hunting weapon- one black powder rifle per family being the only thing still legal- is confiscated for "poaching".
Your car's "black box" indicates you were over the speed limit by a tiny amount, so your estate is charged a fine for your speeding, as well, plus the fine is doubled because a couple of years ago when self-driving cars were made available, at great expense, you chose to forgo that new technology and keep doing the driving.
The EPA charges your loved ones the standard fee for the gasoline spill clean-up, even though your tank was almost empty and nothing spilled. Also, since there was a small fire, a fine for polluting the air is levied, as well as a fine for the bio-hazard created as your life-blood seeped into the soil, and one for littering due to all the car parts scattered around the crash site.
It gets worse. The autopsy confirms the presence of tryptophan, due to the recent turkey dinner, so your life insurance won't pay out- it's the law. You were "driving under the influence". Did you really think the zero tolerance and ever-tightening DWI laws would remain where they stood in 2013?
You may think this scenario is far-fetched. "It can't happen here." It is already happening. Americans have a choice: radically change the path that is being followed, or "stay the course" to see where it leads.
.
"The Theorist"
Here's a film called "The Theorist" that was made for the "Operation Paul Revere" film contest (infowars.com).
If you have been reading this blog for long you probably know I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, and this is probably the very first time you have ever seen me mention anything connected with Alex Jones- anywhere. The guy just isn't to my taste. However, even a blind pig finds a nut sometimes, so I don't automatically write anyone off.
So I watched the film.
I am SO not the guy in the film. I am not nearly as tweaked. I don't imagine my lone voice will change the world- not sure I'd want that responsibility if I thought it could. My life doesn't revolve around my blog and writings- except when I have nothing else to do (which, I admit, is more often than I'd like). My lack of a "real job" is due more to my parenting responsibilities than to anything else- and I don't fight about it. Or much of anything (you do NOT want to really get me mad, though).
Still, the film is interesting and made me think. I agree with some of the points brought up in this fictional account of the life of this one very vocal conspiracy theorist. I'd rather not end up like him, but I don't think the risk of that happening would be enough to make me shut up. I'm just too stubborn.
So, give it a watch and see what you think.
If you have been reading this blog for long you probably know I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, and this is probably the very first time you have ever seen me mention anything connected with Alex Jones- anywhere. The guy just isn't to my taste. However, even a blind pig finds a nut sometimes, so I don't automatically write anyone off.
So I watched the film.
I am SO not the guy in the film. I am not nearly as tweaked. I don't imagine my lone voice will change the world- not sure I'd want that responsibility if I thought it could. My life doesn't revolve around my blog and writings- except when I have nothing else to do (which, I admit, is more often than I'd like). My lack of a "real job" is due more to my parenting responsibilities than to anything else- and I don't fight about it. Or much of anything (you do NOT want to really get me mad, though).
Still, the film is interesting and made me think. I agree with some of the points brought up in this fictional account of the life of this one very vocal conspiracy theorist. I'd rather not end up like him, but I don't think the risk of that happening would be enough to make me shut up. I'm just too stubborn.
So, give it a watch and see what you think.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
The REAL mother of invention
Happy Mother's Day!
Don't forget to be appreciative to the mother of all human achievement: Liberty.
It is said "necessity is the mother of invention", but without the liberty to actually solve the problems, nothing can ever be accomplished, no matter how necessary it might be.
Remember that those who would violate your liberty are doing their best to force a return to the Dark Ages (at least for everyone but themselves).
Resist and refuse to cooperate. Honor your other mother.
.
Don't forget to be appreciative to the mother of all human achievement: Liberty.
It is said "necessity is the mother of invention", but without the liberty to actually solve the problems, nothing can ever be accomplished, no matter how necessary it might be.
Remember that those who would violate your liberty are doing their best to force a return to the Dark Ages (at least for everyone but themselves).
Resist and refuse to cooperate. Honor your other mother.
.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
"Who are you? Why are you shooting at me?"
If someone is shooting at you, it's not your responsibility or obligation to figure out why they are shooting, or who they are- you just need to shoot back. Killing them is a good thing. Unless you are the one trespassing or stealing. But you wouldn't be doing that, would you?
Anyone wanting to prevent that by "law" or in any other way is NOT a friend of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. They are a murderous monster. Treat them as such.
.
Anyone wanting to prevent that by "law" or in any other way is NOT a friend of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. They are a murderous monster. Treat them as such.
.
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Doing the opposite of what's called for- "the government way"
If I am wandering lost in a raging blizzard, and I get cold, does it make any sense to douse myself all over with ice water? Judging by the actions of government employees the world over, but especially in DC, the answer must be "yes!"
Assuming that the "official version" of 9/11 is the true story, Atta and his fellow suicide murderers would be very pleased with the results of their "sacrifice". The US government was goaded into doing the bulk of the terrorists' work for them. The terrorists' plan succeeded more thoroughly than they could have hoped in their wildest delusions.
Their act was like opening a supercooled Coke and watching it freeze solid in fractions of a second. The US police state was beyond ready to "react", and was waiting for any excuse to crystallize. Any act would have sufficed, but that one was just too convenient.
The same could be said of the Boston Marathon bombers, whoever they might really be. Their terrorism was like a pinprick compared to the samurai sword stab wound immediately administered by the "law enforcers" who responded. I'm not saying the bombs weren't evil and didn't destroy many lives, I am saying that history will show the subsequent acts of State to be even more harmful in the long run.
The same goes for any and all of the mass-murdering "gun free zone" shooters. They are only a minor catalyst, and the State is the one who does the majority of the resulting harm, by proposing and enacting anti-gun "laws" which only disarm those inclined to obey "laws".
The right way to respond to terrorist attacks is to increase liberty- you know, that principle the terrorists supposedly hate so badly they are willing to kill and die to oppose. The right way to respond to massacres is to make it easier for more guns to be in the right hands and stop encouraging "gun free" killing zones.
The State always does the opposite of what should be done in these cases, which makes me think that prevention is NOT the goal.
.
Assuming that the "official version" of 9/11 is the true story, Atta and his fellow suicide murderers would be very pleased with the results of their "sacrifice". The US government was goaded into doing the bulk of the terrorists' work for them. The terrorists' plan succeeded more thoroughly than they could have hoped in their wildest delusions.
Their act was like opening a supercooled Coke and watching it freeze solid in fractions of a second. The US police state was beyond ready to "react", and was waiting for any excuse to crystallize. Any act would have sufficed, but that one was just too convenient.
The same could be said of the Boston Marathon bombers, whoever they might really be. Their terrorism was like a pinprick compared to the samurai sword stab wound immediately administered by the "law enforcers" who responded. I'm not saying the bombs weren't evil and didn't destroy many lives, I am saying that history will show the subsequent acts of State to be even more harmful in the long run.
The same goes for any and all of the mass-murdering "gun free zone" shooters. They are only a minor catalyst, and the State is the one who does the majority of the resulting harm, by proposing and enacting anti-gun "laws" which only disarm those inclined to obey "laws".
The right way to respond to terrorist attacks is to increase liberty- you know, that principle the terrorists supposedly hate so badly they are willing to kill and die to oppose. The right way to respond to massacres is to make it easier for more guns to be in the right hands and stop encouraging "gun free" killing zones.
The State always does the opposite of what should be done in these cases, which makes me think that prevention is NOT the goal.
.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Laws do not determine right and wrong
Laws do not determine right and wrong
(My Clovis News Journal column for April 5, 2013)
Should "wrong" be illegal? Telling lies is generally acknowledged to be wrong, so should it be illegal to tell your wife she doesn't look fat in that dress when she does? Should it be illegal to tell kids Santa Claus visits them?
When you criminalize everything you make it all subject to ridicule and increase the likelihood that your "laws" will be ignored.
When you do something wrong, there are often automatic consequences. No law or enforcement is necessary. If there are no consequences, then normally that means no one was harmed by your actions. That, or you are well-connected with those in power.
Should things that aren't even wrong, but are criminalized due to some people believing you are hurting yourself by engaging in them, be illegal?
Is not wearing a seat belt wrong? Of course not. It is certainly illegal. Just like driving without a "license" or going one mile-per-hour over some arbitrary speed limit.
Having and using marijuana isn't wrong, yet look how many lives have been destroyed on the altar of The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs for this non-offensive "offense".
Tattooing your body probably does more physical harm than smoking pot, yet it is legal. As it should be.
Sitting around watching TV certainly does lasting physical and mental harm, yet only the most enthusiastic Nanny State advocates would propose putting you in jail for wasting your life in front of the screen.
Carrying a gun without official permission isn't wrong. Robbing a bank, with a weapon or without one, is wrong. The fact that both are often looked upon by "the law" in the same light is ridiculous.
Everything was legal until someone wrote down words to forbid or regulate it. It isn't that certain things should be "made legal" again, it's that it was wrong to have ever made them "illegal" to begin with. Without "laws" to forbid them, physical attacks such as murder, kidnapping, and rape, and economic attacks like theft and fraud are still wrong. Just about everything else is none of your business, regardless of what the "law" says or what "majority opinion" may be. Even if something is wrong, it isn't the business of "the law" as long as no third party is harmed.
It is sad that people seem to have decided that anything they don't approve of, and consider "wrong", needs to be forbidden, and every prohibition must be enforced by people, with guns or offices, who are largely unaccountable.
Should "wrong" be illegal? Telling lies is generally acknowledged to be wrong, so should it be illegal to tell your wife she doesn't look fat in that dress when she does? Should it be illegal to tell kids Santa Claus visits them?
When you criminalize everything you make it all subject to ridicule and increase the likelihood that your "laws" will be ignored.
When you do something wrong, there are often automatic consequences. No law or enforcement is necessary. If there are no consequences, then normally that means no one was harmed by your actions. That, or you are well-connected with those in power.
Should things that aren't even wrong, but are criminalized due to some people believing you are hurting yourself by engaging in them, be illegal?
Is not wearing a seat belt wrong? Of course not. It is certainly illegal. Just like driving without a "license" or going one mile-per-hour over some arbitrary speed limit.
Having and using marijuana isn't wrong, yet look how many lives have been destroyed on the altar of The War on Politically Incorrect Drugs for this non-offensive "offense".
Tattooing your body probably does more physical harm than smoking pot, yet it is legal. As it should be.
Sitting around watching TV certainly does lasting physical and mental harm, yet only the most enthusiastic Nanny State advocates would propose putting you in jail for wasting your life in front of the screen.
Carrying a gun without official permission isn't wrong. Robbing a bank, with a weapon or without one, is wrong. The fact that both are often looked upon by "the law" in the same light is ridiculous.
Everything was legal until someone wrote down words to forbid or regulate it. It isn't that certain things should be "made legal" again, it's that it was wrong to have ever made them "illegal" to begin with. Without "laws" to forbid them, physical attacks such as murder, kidnapping, and rape, and economic attacks like theft and fraud are still wrong. Just about everything else is none of your business, regardless of what the "law" says or what "majority opinion" may be. Even if something is wrong, it isn't the business of "the law" as long as no third party is harmed.
It is sad that people seem to have decided that anything they don't approve of, and consider "wrong", needs to be forbidden, and every prohibition must be enforced by people, with guns or offices, who are largely unaccountable.
.
"Laws" don't trump reality
Why do I have a tendency to ignore "laws"? I am not a disagreeable person. The problem is that I can't ignore reality in order to obey "laws".
Your "laws" can't override my knowledge and common sense.
"Fire ban"? It just rained a huge amount- everything is drenched.
"No guns"? Do you really think murderers and robbers will obey that?
Sorry, but my need to look to someone as "authority" goes away as soon as that "authority" demands I do something that goes against what I know is the right thing to do. I defer to (actual) authority, and I tend to ignore "authority". You can tell the difference by the way they act.
Authority gives advice, helps you if you ask, and isn't stupid. These are the leaders.
"Authority" makes demands, shoves you around, and is so stupid you wonder how they remember to breathe. These are the Rulers. You know, like Bloomie.
That means their "laws" make no sense, and obeying them makes even less. Why do something that goes against reality?
.
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Print a new generation Liberator!
Here, have a gun. Or at least download the CAD file and save/share it.
The new Liberator pistol can serve the same purpose the original Liberator was intended to serve. Funny how the tables have turned, though. Now the tyrants most in fear of Liberators work for the same organization that was responsible for the originals. The fear comes from knowing they are on the wrong side.
.
The new Liberator pistol can serve the same purpose the original Liberator was intended to serve. Funny how the tables have turned, though. Now the tyrants most in fear of Liberators work for the same organization that was responsible for the originals. The fear comes from knowing they are on the wrong side.
.
Monday, May 06, 2013
Bussjaeger's "Bargaining Position" is another great book
I just read Carl Bussjaeger's sequel to Net Assets, called Bargaining Position, and it is also a very fun book.
It is a sequel of sorts- set in the future from the perspective of Net Assets, but has none of the same characters. In this book, people have moved into space and are living and working there.
I really enjoyed the (to me) realistic descriptions of life in the space habitats and of the liberty the people had. There are still bad guys, but no melodramatic villains- just the sorts of bad guys you might experience in everyday life, but in a decidedly not everyday circumstance.
Go over and download the PDF (or some of his others) and send him $5 or so in exchange for a few hours of enjoyment. Value for value. It's like prostitution, but cheaper, and you won't catch anything this way.
And, thanks, Carl. I wish your writing had made you rich so you'd keep writing more.
.
It is a sequel of sorts- set in the future from the perspective of Net Assets, but has none of the same characters. In this book, people have moved into space and are living and working there.
I really enjoyed the (to me) realistic descriptions of life in the space habitats and of the liberty the people had. There are still bad guys, but no melodramatic villains- just the sorts of bad guys you might experience in everyday life, but in a decidedly not everyday circumstance.
Go over and download the PDF (or some of his others) and send him $5 or so in exchange for a few hours of enjoyment. Value for value. It's like prostitution, but cheaper, and you won't catch anything this way.
And, thanks, Carl. I wish your writing had made you rich so you'd keep writing more.
.
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Prefer government to the mob? Why?
Over and over again, when discussing a free society with statists, they object that without "government" there would be freelance mobs forming that would still steal from and attack the innocent, and that these mobs would be worse than government- which is supposedly restrained by the laws. To me it is a very weak, and bizarre, justification. It's grasping at straws.
I don't doubt that freelance thugs would arise. There will ALWAYS be bad guys. The freelancers might even be more openly brutal than the tax parasites that infest society now. (Although, I am beginning to doubt that, after seeing how many people are killed mistakenly (?) by reavers and other Registered Liberty Offenders every week. Dead is dead- what do the dead care who it was that murdered them?)
Even so, I would prefer the honesty of a mob to the lie of government.
Plus, if I shoot a mob goon who is threatening or robbing me, few people would pretend I had done wrong. If I shoot a puppetician or an IRS mugger I can count on being tried, convicted, and executed by a brainwashed "majority", and probably in reality by the perforated government employee's gang.
Even if the dead freelance mobster's associates came after me, I could keep shooting them. I could hire people to help me shoot them, or even invite people with a grudge against the mob to shoot with me. They'd probably jump at the opportunity. No one would pretend I didn't have the absolute right to do so. Well, no one but the mobsters, themselves.
With government it is different due to the fact that even people who recognize how corrupt, evil, and broken the "system" is have been brainwashed into believing there is some sort of nebulous "legitimacy" in the theft and aggression committed by government goons. So not only do you have to face The State's wrath if you justifiably kill some of its employees in self defense or defense of property (really, the same thing), but you have to face condemnation and betrayal by your neighbors who support the bad guys.
If the same sorts of people will always find some gang to join so that they can attack and steal, why not remove the veil of legitimacy and make them at least be open about what they really are? Since cops and criminals have virtually identical personality traits, why let any of them practice their craft openly? Good people still outnumber the bad- we don't need them. I don't need them.
Mob or government... why pretend a difference, beyond indoctrinated perception, exists? Cast off your indoctrination and see things as they really are.
.
.
I don't doubt that freelance thugs would arise. There will ALWAYS be bad guys. The freelancers might even be more openly brutal than the tax parasites that infest society now. (Although, I am beginning to doubt that, after seeing how many people are killed mistakenly (?) by reavers and other Registered Liberty Offenders every week. Dead is dead- what do the dead care who it was that murdered them?)
Even so, I would prefer the honesty of a mob to the lie of government.
Plus, if I shoot a mob goon who is threatening or robbing me, few people would pretend I had done wrong. If I shoot a puppetician or an IRS mugger I can count on being tried, convicted, and executed by a brainwashed "majority", and probably in reality by the perforated government employee's gang.
Even if the dead freelance mobster's associates came after me, I could keep shooting them. I could hire people to help me shoot them, or even invite people with a grudge against the mob to shoot with me. They'd probably jump at the opportunity. No one would pretend I didn't have the absolute right to do so. Well, no one but the mobsters, themselves.
With government it is different due to the fact that even people who recognize how corrupt, evil, and broken the "system" is have been brainwashed into believing there is some sort of nebulous "legitimacy" in the theft and aggression committed by government goons. So not only do you have to face The State's wrath if you justifiably kill some of its employees in self defense or defense of property (really, the same thing), but you have to face condemnation and betrayal by your neighbors who support the bad guys.
If the same sorts of people will always find some gang to join so that they can attack and steal, why not remove the veil of legitimacy and make them at least be open about what they really are? Since cops and criminals have virtually identical personality traits, why let any of them practice their craft openly? Good people still outnumber the bad- we don't need them. I don't need them.
Mob or government... why pretend a difference, beyond indoctrinated perception, exists? Cast off your indoctrination and see things as they really are.
.
.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Exercising the libertarian brain cells
There is a conversation taking place between me and another person over on my Dispatches from Libertopia blog.
It is a very typical "libertarian vs statist" conversation.
He thinks I am simplistic and I think he is blindly Utopian about The State (and buying trouble for himself).
I try to keep in mind that this is really how a lot of statists think: they are scared or suspicious. Of other people, of liberty, and- seemingly- of themselves if no one is looking over their shoulder. They believe in the worst case scenario when it comes to liberty, but think The State can work out just fine "if we get the right people running things" or "if we hold those in government accountable". They will grasp at any straw to keep believing government can be "good", and will desperately search out any potential problem they can imagine to keep from just being free.
But the comments over the years really are like a broken record. It's the same old things again and again- even in the same thread. Nothing new.
But I shouldn't complain. It's good exercise to get these same old questions again and again, and be able to deal with them without getting frustrated, because these are the same objections to liberty you'll face in "the real world" if anyone knows you don't buy the statist propaganda. And if you can't answer them there, are you sure you know what you claim to know? And the person asking the questions today has no way of knowing you have answered the same thing innumerable times in the past.
.
It is a very typical "libertarian vs statist" conversation.
He thinks I am simplistic and I think he is blindly Utopian about The State (and buying trouble for himself).
I try to keep in mind that this is really how a lot of statists think: they are scared or suspicious. Of other people, of liberty, and- seemingly- of themselves if no one is looking over their shoulder. They believe in the worst case scenario when it comes to liberty, but think The State can work out just fine "if we get the right people running things" or "if we hold those in government accountable". They will grasp at any straw to keep believing government can be "good", and will desperately search out any potential problem they can imagine to keep from just being free.
But the comments over the years really are like a broken record. It's the same old things again and again- even in the same thread. Nothing new.
But I shouldn't complain. It's good exercise to get these same old questions again and again, and be able to deal with them without getting frustrated, because these are the same objections to liberty you'll face in "the real world" if anyone knows you don't buy the statist propaganda. And if you can't answer them there, are you sure you know what you claim to know? And the person asking the questions today has no way of knowing you have answered the same thing innumerable times in the past.
.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Your brain- use it.
"Conservatives" and "progressives" are both blind.
Some things should not be "conserved" and some things should not be "progressed" beyond.
You've got to use your brain instead of digging in your heels and hanging on to whatever bizarre notion sets up housekeeping in your head. If you are trying to justify theft or aggression for your cause, you lose. Go back to "Start". Try again.
.
Some things should not be "conserved" and some things should not be "progressed" beyond.
You've got to use your brain instead of digging in your heels and hanging on to whatever bizarre notion sets up housekeeping in your head. If you are trying to justify theft or aggression for your cause, you lose. Go back to "Start". Try again.
.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)