"Tax"-addict trolls?

A few days ago I got into a discussion with someone online.  Shocking!  I know.  Anyway, the subject was originally "border control" and "immigration", but when I asked a couple of test questions about that I got a bizarre response that went on about tariffs and such.  I suggested the person was talking about slavery (importing people) rather than about immigration control.  And then I got the response I reproduce here, along with my replies.

"You are taxed based upon the annual value of your work (just as a simple example). You, I, and everyone are nothing more than a commodity." To whom? Those who believe they are owed something for nothing- a "piece of the action" for their protection racket. When forced to do work, where someone else takes a percentage between 0% and 100% of your labor/time/money, you are a slave. It's not a matter of not being a slave to someone else until the percentage stolen from you reaches some magical percentage. And, yes, "taxation" IS theft. Nothing else.

"Human Labor is a commodity." Yes. And it belongs to the person who labors, no one else.

"You mistake that for slavery." I'm not the one making the mistake here.

"I assure you that is not the case." You can "assure" me all day. You are wrong, either unwittingly, or you are lying.

 "Anytime you work for money, you are selling yourself for a set time at a certain price." Yes. And that is fine as long as it is mutually consensual. 

 "Looking at the movement of people between nations is just as taxable and prohibit-able as the importing of certain goods and services." Just because thieves and thugs can get away with committing an act doesn't make it right. It's like claiming that babies are just as rapable as grown women. Theft is theft; slavery is slavery; wrong is wrong- and dressing them up in fancy StateSpeak doesn't change the foundational truth of the acts you are advocating.
  

I have heard that "government" agencies employ trolls to try to attempt to put a positive spin on the disgusting things done by various "government" goons. Hmmm.

Seriously, don't you think this guy sounds like a paid shill for The State?

.

72+ Types of terrorists

So, supposedly the morons who call themselves "government" have a list of 72 types of people they consider to be "terrorists".  Isn't that special.

"We are surrounded by TERRORISTS!!"

Of course, being able to read and remember for more than a few seconds, unlike the fearmongering collectivists of The State, I notice there are a lot of repeats and overlaps on that list.  Gotta pad the numbers and make sure no one feels left out, ya know.

The sad thing is they left off whole categories of terrorists.  I feel the need to help.

73. Those who feel a "law" can make it OK to rob, kidnap, torture, murder, or otherwise harm people who have done nothing aggressive to anyone else.

74. Those who kill people over a plant or two.

75. Those who gather in groups designated with letters.  Examples are BATFE, IRS, CIA, NSA, FBI, SCOTUS, CONUS, etc.

76. Anyone who is so afraid of those around them that they feel it is necessary to spy on them, and then lie about it or otherwise try to make their terroristic actions seem "legal" or "legitimate".


(H/T)

The disease of "Compliance"

People are just too compliant.  I include myself in that criticism.

The first time some pervert insisted on a urine test in exchange for a job offer, he should have been laughed at, and if he laid a hand on the person in his insistence- punched.  Now that too many people comply in order to have a job, those who would refuse will end up unemployable (in many cases, in their chosen career).

The first time some coward told someone to leave the gun at home, or with the sheriff, in order to go about your business he should have been ignored.  And shot if he tried to take the gun.  Now, in many locations, there is almost nowhere you can go off your own property without violating someone's slaughter-enabling zone.

The first time some police department set up a "sobriety checkpoint", the offending officers should have never made it home alive.  Now the slightest hesitation to submit is seen as a threat to "officer safety" and can be dealt with in a lethal manner, and your death will be "within departmental policy".  Oh, and your murderers will be rewarded and promoted, and your neighbors will think of you as the bad guy.

Normal people have enabled the death of liberty by being too polite and too compliant to unreasonable demands, and now we are ALL paying for it- while still being too compliant, so that our kids will have it worse than we do.

When will enough be enough?

.

Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy

Libertarianism strictly individual philosophy

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 26, 2013)

Commentator Michael Lind called it "The question libertarians just can’t answer": "If [the libertarian] approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? Why are there no libertarian countries?"

It seems Mr. Lind doesn't understand what he's asking; he certainly doesn't understand libertarianism. That's a common problem with criticisms of libertarianism.

There can't be a true "libertarian country" because libertarianism is strictly individual, just as is any philosophy or way of life. You can't have a libertarian country because a "country" has no mind, opinions, or philosophy- those things belong to the individual. A "country" is an intangible concept, not a physical entity. When you try to base a country upon any one philosophy, you are pigeonholing everyone who lives there into one cramped box, and your concept inevitably breaks down because a huge percentage of the residents are being forced to live in a way that they don't want. A way they may even find reprehensible, repugnant, and wrong.

Good or bad, there are only individuals. A country can not initiate force or commit theft. Only individuals can. Each individual makes that choice for himself, and blaming it on the abstract collective is a failed attempt to avoid responsibility.

A State, or rather those representing themselves as that State, can either leave individuals to live as libertarians, or can try to force them to behave as collectivists of one sort or another by regulating or prohibiting consensual, non-aggressive behavior, and by violating their right of association and property rights. Individuals who would prefer to live free will always find a way.

However, there have been countries where the State mostly stayed out of the way and let individuals live a libertarian life: early America and medieval Iceland are two popular examples.

Even today most people live a largely libertarian life in their daily interactions with others. Not only here, but all across the world. Most individuals seek to trade for what they want rather than steal it. Most people try to reach an agreement with others rather than to beat them into submission. Most people will "live and let live" as long as they don't see a "one-size-fits-all" order being imposed on them and on everyone around them.

Perhaps this means the world is mostly libertarian already, if you ignore the professional political realm. And, it is probably better for your mental health and happiness if you do ignore that realm as much as possible.

-

And please don't forget.

.

The powderkeg of "troops"

Are individuals in America better off that there are US troops all over the planet?  Do troops really help "the people"?

Think about it.

Was Germany better off by having and supporting the Nazi troops?  Or, in the long run was the normal, average German made less safe and less prosperous because of "the troops"?  (And don't bother trying to misuse Godwin's Law on me- I'm on to that game.)

The only ones helped by "the troops" are those who work for that gang of thugs called "government".  Everyone else is harmed.  They may think they are benefiting, but only until consequences catch up to them all.  At that time the veil is ripped away.

Abuses will have consequences.  It will be painful.  The longer those abuses and violations are allowed to continue, and the worse they are allowed to get, the more harsh those consequences will eventually be.  If you "support the troops" you are ensuring a dire and agonizing future for your kids or grandkids.  Those chickens WILL come to roost, sooner or later.  The future can't be held off forever.  And the later it is, the worse it will be for those who were seen to be complicit by "supporting the troops".  Or those who are mistakenly assumed to have done so, because of an accident of geography and birth.

If you really "support the troops", demand of the congressvermin they be brought home or ask them, individually, to quit.  Anything else is just stacking more black powder next to the campfire.

.

The heart of the matter

Here's a diamond from Kn@ppster:

Governments are nothing more or less than gigantic criminal conspiracies, overgrown street gangs with no claims whatsoever to legitimacy. They are funded by theft and the basis of all their operations is aggression. They're no more entitled to keep their activities secret than any other gaggle of murderers, rapists and thieves is.

Yep.  And the blame lies with each and every individual who tries to hide behind "the job".  It's not someone else's fault- if you have a government "job", don't point fingers.

.

Striving to be free-lance bully free, but enabling the rest

Seen on the animated sign at a local McDonald's: "Clovis... striving to be bully free" .

Really?

So, "Clovis" will be rewarding kids who stand up to bullies- even if they use violence in response to the bully's threats and violence?

"Clovis" will be firing every cop and the county commissioners and city council (or whatever they have)?

"Clovis" will stop fawning over the locally-stationed members of the US's aggressive, empire-building, foreign terrorism-committing military?

No?  Then "Clovis" isn't "striving" very hard at all.

In fact, I think bullies are just fine to "Clovis", as long as they aren't freelancing.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Like, the dumbest idea ever!

Continuity of government is like an emergency surgery to save the tumor and let the patient die.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Ouch.

If anyone would like to help me out financially, this would be an excellent time.  My bank account is in the red.  Thanks.

Update: Crisis averted, thanks to you.  Feel free to donate or subscribe anyway.  :)

.

Bradley Manning in Orwellistan

Heroism is criminal in the empire of cowardice.

Orwell would be unsurprised at this alternate version of his observation (if it was truly his to begin with).  It's just the other side of the coin.

How truly bizarre that when I went to search for the original Orwell quote, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies", almost every search result was from a "conservative" site- many of them "Tea Party" related.  Yet, who is most angry at Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for revealing truth?  "Conservatives" and those in positions of political power*.

-

*(Those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "conservatives", since they wish to "conserve" that power and keep those positions available to fill.  Just as those in positions of political power are ALWAYS "progressives" since they always push their new violations on the basis of it being positive "progress".  Both are evil.)

-

And please don't forget.

.

It's official: heroism is a punishable offense

So, heroism is now officially punishable by 35 years in a cage.  Vital information to know.

Maybe that's why complicit State vermin, such as cops, shy away from heroism as a matter of course.  It takes a special coward to be a part of that "system".

I wonder how many true heroes this knowledge will stop, though.  Most will just find another way.  The "law-flingers" and enforcers are tightening the noose around their own necks without seeing what they are doing.  Oh well.  You can't teach the truly stupid.

-

And please, don't forget.

.

Doing it for the love of the thing

If "government" doesn't do certain things, by forcing people to do them, or by funding those things through "taxation", they just won't get done.  Right?

Well, no.

One of the "things I do" is orphaned and/or injured animal rescue.  I have done it since I was a pre-teen.  It pays nothing, and in fact, sometimes costs considerably more (in food, medicine, supplies, and occasionally vet bills) than I can afford.  And those who find the animals that need to be rescued almost never think of helping defray the expense*- and I don't ask because I'd rather they not hesitate to call me for help when it's needed.  I'll find a way, somehow.

Because it matters to me, I do it anyway.

In fact, I just took on a new rescue Monday.

How it is possible that I do this without being coerced, or without seeking "government" subsidies?  I thought this was supposed to mean these necessary functions would go neglected.  I truly believe people are better than that.  Sure, as long as someone is willing to use theft and coercion to make something happen, there will be those doing it who otherwise wouldn't.  What good is that for anyone?

I'd rather see people filling a need because they want to, than because they see it as a way to get (stolen) money or (illegitimate) power.  But if they can get rich doing what they love, without theft or fraud (redundant, I know), and even if it affords them a certain amount of power, as long as it isn't based upon aggression or threats, then they can still fill a place in the world that I will not complain about.  I might even envy them a little on weak days.

I take pleasure knowing that art, charity, creativity, and all the other small good stuff will still be a part of the world even when there is no gun in the room forcing anyone to pursue it.  Don't you?

- 

*It has happened exactly twice in all the years.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Libertarians’ heroes all-too-human

Libertarians’ heroes all-too-human

My Clovis News Journal column for July 19, 2013.

Just like anyone else, most libertarians have heroes, both real and fictional, who inspire them through traits we share, or wish we shared.

Libertarians' heroes are also all-too-human. They are flawed and don't always manage to do the right thing- the libertarian thing. Very few people can always avoid initiating force. Most people will sometimes violate private property rights. Yet, there is something that can be learned from just about anyone.

Captain Malcolm Reynolds from the science fiction television series "Firefly", and its movie sequel "Serenity", is a particular favorite of mine. Yet he does throw the first punch on occasion, and he is an admitted thief. At least he usually seems to avoid stealing privately owned property. He keeps his word, rights the wrongs he is made aware of committing, and stands up for those who need help. Right and wrong matter more to him than legal or illegal.

The character "V" from "V for Vendetta" is an even more flawed hero- if he is a hero. He brings down a tyrannical regime, but admits he is a "monster". While he targeted for revenge mainly those (or the minions they sent) who were guilty of war crimes against their own subjects, he also kidnapped and caged an innocent person against her will "for her own good". She eventually makes peace with him over this, but it was still wrong for him to do so.

Han Solo from the "Star Wars" movies is possibly the most libertarian character in that series. He is called a smuggler by The Empire, which is just another name for a free market supplier. Unless you count the "Han shot first" revision in one of the latest re-releases, he always fought in defense.  (I have been corrected- "Han shot first" was the original, and the revision changed that.  But Greedo was holding Han at gun-point, so it was still self defense.  Greedo had it coming ...) 

Paladin from "Have Gun, Will Travel" was generally on the side of human rights, and only a time or two worked for the local protection racket. He usually sought the libertarian solution rather than the more expedient, and expected, coercive short cut. And he was chivalrous.

The real life heroes to many libertarians could include Clint Eastwood, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, or Robert A. Heinlein. Each has good and bad points, while being mostly libertarian. One danger with real people is that they tend to be less predictable than fictional characters (thus not as easily pigeonholed), and more likely to disappoint if you place their pedestal too high.

Fortunately, you aren't trapped by what others do. Try to mimic the good, learn from the failures, don't idolize, and always think for yourself.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"I submitted- so should you"

"I was raped, so you need to just shut up and cooperate with your rapist, too!"

That's what I hear when immigrants who jumped through all the "legal hoops" to get into the former America claim that "illegal immigrants" should have done the same.

That's what I hear when gun owners, who have begged permission from The State to be "allowed" to carry their gun, jump on a gun owner who recognizes there is no legitimate authority to violate his rights in any way.

It's what I hear when "drivers" refuse to support a person caught for "driving without a license".

It's what I hear anytime someone supports the violation of another person because that person didn't submit to the same abuses that others submitted to.

You would never do this... right?

Seems a cowardly way to live, if you asked me.

-

And please don't forget.

"It's a choice"?

Is libertarianism a choice?  Why would anyone choose to embrace peaceful anarchism after observing how the statists prosper?

I never chose to be an anarchist. I must have had some predisposition to it, at least.

It was just who I always was and there was nothing to "choose" about it. It was the natural progression of my "self" as I matured.

I often look at the statists* around me- including the members of my own immediate family- and wonder why I had to be different. They prosper and have no qualms about getting their "paychecks" through theft. Why would I have "chosen" to be an anarchist, seeing how being a statist is so much easier and economically more rewarding?  Why would I have chosen to be a pariah?

-

*Yes, I realize this means most of them probably did not choose to be statist.  However, once they see that statism can not be separated from initiation of force and theft, at that point they have no choice but to make a choice: Either continue to be aggressive thieves, or be decent people.  That's why, I suspect, so few of them allow themselves to see.

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Pardon me... could you spare a quoyne?"

If I ever manage to have my Silver Dubloons minted, I  think I shall call the thing which they are, a "quoyne", pronounced /koin/.

Only an absolute moron with a government "job" could mistake that for any other word which is spelled completely differently.  Right?

-

I am looking into financing the project on Kickstarter, but that's not looking too hopeful at the moment.  Too many different "issues", there.  Perhaps I can overcome them all; perhaps I shan't.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Shove 'em ALL off the edge

Those pictures of the Egyptians tossing an armored car full of enforcers right off the side of a bridge is very interesting to me.  It just goes to show that no matter the technological disparity between The State and regular people, it is still a fact that "we" outnumber them by a huge margin.

Thugs can do all sorts of things to try to domesticate the rest of us, but as soon as the illusion is broken- or the anger gets piqued enough- their technology becomes a death trap.

I wonder if the domestic US enforcer thugs in their armored vehicles will learn that lesson before their time comes.  Low IQ + cowardice + paycheck = not likely.

-

And please don't forget.

Selecting for Bad Guys and parasites

Let's say you live in a town that a great many people want desperately to live in due to its reputation for opportunities.  You have a few gates where new prospective residents (and visitors) are expected to enter.

At those gates you put the people through a lot of abuse- you treat them as suspects, demand they give up all sorts of rights and property, and expect them to voluntarily become property of the city.  And you have quotas so that a lot of people who want to get in are denied entry for no reason other than because of where they were born.

Yes, a lot of people want in bad enough to try to do it your way, but many times that number of people know they haven't got a shot at being allowed in if they do it by the book, so they find other routes in.

And, obviously, really bad guys don't even bother with your silly screening process; they just find a way to sneak in.

So, is it any wonder that by limiting the number of good guys coming in under your "system" you select for a glut of bad guys among the new residents?  And then you whine and say you will enclose your town inside a fence, not realizing a fence will change nothing- nothing good, anyway.  It will weed out more of the good people and even further select for the bad.  When you notice this unfortunate trend, you'll do more of the same- harder and harsher, and be "surprised" when the results get even worse.

The smart thing to do is to make it easy for everyone to make a living honestly (don't allow regulations, licenses, and "taxes"), and make it hard to survive being a thug or parasite.  That means don't offer freebies (which are never free) to anyone, and don't do anything to discourage everyone from being adequately armed at all times.

Don't fret over credentials, but only concern yourself with actions.  If someone tries to steal from you (or anyone), deal with it.  Nothing like "where he was born" or "what hoops he jumped through to get into your town" has any bearing on his actions.  None at all.

Until more people accept this truth, silly things like (unconstitutional and unethical) "border control" will keep making America into a worse and worse cage, to the detriment of everyone on both sides of the "border".

-

And please, don't forget.

.

"The Elites"

Are you concerned about the "elites" who "control everything"?

Good news.

There are no "elites".

There are some rich people who use the political method to get richer and to order you around.  But that "political power" only exists if you pretend it does.  Even their wealth depends on your cooperation.  Stop pretending that FRNs have value and those "rich people" will not be so rich anymore.

Sure, they may have some actual money (gold, silver, property) in their possession, but without the FRNs they accumulated having value, they would have to start spending their real money.  They might not be starting from the same place as you or me, but they would not be quite as advantaged.  They wouldn't be able to be "elite" unless you gave them that status.

Come to think of it, that's where they stand now.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Nit-picking ‘fairness’ only leaves you bitter 

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 12, 2013.)

A "free rider" is someone who uses a service that someone else paid for. In a free society, where everything is financed voluntarily, a person who uses the road, firefighters, or a tornado warning siren without paying towards funding those services could be described as a free rider.

Just how important a stumbling block do you consider this to be?

When a local shopkeeper helps fund the road, he does so in order to make it easier for people to get to his store. Everyone wins.

If a local shopkeeper who refused to help fund the road gets the business of a customer who also refused to contribute toward the road, then do those who paid for the road lose? Who does the "selfish" shopkeeper trade with locally and with whom does he spend the money he got from the "selfish" customer? Does he exist in a vacuum? If you still don't like the fact that he didn't contribute, you would be free to refuse to do business with him in any way.

Don't you think a road that's "worth it" would be built and maintained?

Firefighting is a similar situation. If your house is on fire your neighbor benefits when the fire department you contract with puts out the blaze. And if his house is on fire, but your fire department puts out the flames in order to save your house, he also gets a free ride. In that case he might get a bill for "services rendered", and if he doesn't pay, everyone in town will know who to refuse service to. But aren't you still getting all you paid for? Might nit-picking over whether someone else benefits unfairly just make you bitter?

Is it even possible for everyone to pay equally for every service they use? Not even under communism. However, that's only a problem if you insist on keeping a running tab to make sure everything is "fair". Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame says fairness is just a concept invented so dumb people could participate in discussions. When I observe the world, I think he's on to something.

Why not accept that you will be someone else's "free rider" in some circumstances, and the roles will constantly change?

Besides, in a free society you'd have enough money that you would never have to live with the guilt of not paying what you feel you owe, nor would anyone force you to associate with anyone else for any reason.

Is the free rider really important enough for you to give up your liberty to foil him?

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Taxes", welfare, theft, and the rest

First off, let me emphasize I am not advocating anything here, and my numbers are totally made up and meaningless, other than to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Larry makes $100 at his job.  He is "taxed" $30 even before he gets his money.  (If he manages to get a "refund" from the IRS of all or part of this money, then that amount drops out of the figuring.)  Everything he buys is "taxed" so that he actually only gets $50 worth of buying power in exchange for the life he has traded to his employer.

Now, if he gets food stamps and "free" medical services that amount to anything under $50, I can understand how he could be considered to not be stealing from other people.  If, on the other hand, he is getting "free stuff" in the amount of $55 I think it's pretty reasonable to say he is stealing (or at least "receiving stolen property") at least $5.

Of course, you also have to consider that the price of everything he buys is grossly inflated due to "taxation" at every step of the way.  No one EVER pays "taxes", fees, or any other governmentally-added expense except for the final purchaser.  (That's the "consumer"; you and me.)  This could give him some extra wiggle room.

So, I no longer really fault those who get some of their own money back- or believe they are doing so.  Plus, I suspect that it's all just an accounting trick and every dime of welfare is actually paid with Fed-counterfeited "money" rather than coming from "tax" money stolen from other productive humans.

Now, if you get your paycheck by working directly for "government", then all this goes right out the window.  You pay no "taxes"; it is just a game of smoke and mirrors (and more accounting tricks) to give the illusion of you paying.  If you do a "tax"-supported "job" that shouldn't be done by "government"*, such as a "public" school teacher, a cop, a DMV drone, military, a licensing bureaucrat, etc. then you are doubly wrong if you get additional "free stuff" from your employer in the form of "welfare".

But, assuming you are doing something that actually needs to be done, and would still need to be done even if no one were coerced to finance it, I don't think your are ethically wrong to take some of your money back from the thief- however much you can get.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea or won't hurt you, though.

Remember that there is a grave danger of becoming dependent upon handouts.  Think about how you'd react if the handouts suddenly stopped.  Or, worse, if you were told they would stop unless you did something you know to be wrong, to appease those who control the handouts.  Don't get yourself into that compromised position.

You'd be better off to only use any handouts to undercut The State and its agents in some way.  Use the "welfare" to buy silver, bullets, extra food, and things like that rather than the latest computer game or fancy "athletic" shoes.  But, it's your life and your choice.  Do with this information as you see fit.

*(Notice I am not saying that there would be no similar positions in a free society, but in that case, those who didn't want your "services" wouldn't be forced to pay for them.  But obviously, some of those "jobs" couldn't exist in a free society.)

-

And please don't forget.

The "government-owned word"

A group of psychopathic control freaks decided they "own" a particular word, and people try to accommodate them by tip-toeing around the truth.  The word is "coin".

I like the idea of these "Commodity discs".  And, I fully understand why they try to protect themselves from those aforementioned psychopaths by saying "Misrepresenting Commodity Discs as coins or legal tender is prohibited."  (And, why anyone would want to call real money "legal tender" is beyond me.  Let the counterfeit crap distributed by those who call themselves "government" suffer under that debility.)  But let's face it; they are coins, as the word is used commonly: a metal disc used as a store of trade value.

And trying to accommodate the psychopaths didn't protect Bernard von NotHaus from their vindictive attacks.

That the psychopaths have managed to steal the word "coin" to mean only those metal discs stamped out by people who have their permission and work for the same gang is irrelevant.  It's like saying "a gun isn't a gun unless it is one belonging to some individual who calls himself a government employee.  Otherwise it's a 'propulsion tube'!"  It's ridiculous.

I know a coin when I see one, and so do you.  It's just another one of those "laws" that is designed to make everyone an outlaw.  Well, fine.

They may not be "coin", but they are coins.

And so is every other "silver round" or "disc" out there.  Whether the control freaks like it or not.

-

I'd still love to be able to have my Silver Dubloons minted.  So if you have the desire and resources, talk to me.  Maybe we can work out a deal.  And I'll try to refrain from using the "government's word" when speaking of them.  Just so we both don't end up kidnapped by the psychopaths.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Don't be embarrassed to be different in a good way

To those who are uncomfortable with a "Security State" or a "Nanny State":  Go ahead and speak up.

It's OK to not want to be "safe"- to not want to be a controlled pet. To be different. Don't be shamed into silence.

If you feel that tingling in the back of your head when you hear some human drone yammering about the latest "terror threat", or worshiping cops, or praising some congressvermin, or agreeing with some anti-liberty "law"- gather your thoughts and respond.  YOU are the reasonable one.  THEY are the one who ought to be ashamed.

So speak up.

Don't cut them off or interrupt.  Let them trap themselves more completely by finishing their thought and letting you know just how deeply their denial runs.  Let them give you more ammo.  Let your silence unnerve them.

Then speak up.

You don't have to say a lot- you certainly don't have to go into a Randian monologue.  Just a well-placed snort can sometimes be enough to let the speaker know that they are pathetic in their love of their enslavement.  That they are a reprehensible coward.  And that you find their enthusiasm for such things disgusting.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Failure to communicate

It's easy to speak about liberty to those who understand the words- those who are, or are almost, in agreement.

It's harder to talk about liberty to statists who use similar words to mean opposite concepts.

I don't really like using words like "government", "laws", "patriot", or "America" when I write.  But those who need to hear about liberty the most have to read those words to even begin to understand where to begin- to have a starting point.  Or, at least I have come to believe that's the case.

That's why I try to link to what I mean when I use the words I use.  It doesn't help when someone is one of those who suffer from (or, perhaps enjoy) obstinate ignorance, but it's not my responsibility to fix them.

-

And please don't forget.

The "child porn" attacks

If you follow the news in the world of liberty activism you are probably aware that "someone" is trying to infect the computers of liberty activists with "child pornography".

I am hopeful that spreading the news of this will make the tactic ineffective and "they" will stop bothering.

From Oath Keepers (and from Claire) comes a lawyer's advice on what to do if you are targeted.

However, I think this lawyer is ignoring the reality that the culprit is probably someone associated with the FBI or other feds to begin with.  No one else really has any motive.

I have always been highly suspicious of any attempt to pin "child pornography" charges on those who are against the "government", or have made enemies in some local hive of enforcers, bureaucrats, or puppeticians.  It's just too convenient and silences just about any support for the person.  It makes their (former) friends turn their backs and join the witchhunt.

Use the information as you wish.  Being informed should help protect you from such an attack.

-

And please don't forget.

.

We are not all Mannings

Bradley Manning is a hero.

However, what he did is so incredibly costly to a person that there is no way I expect every employee of the military or other government branch to do the same thing.  It takes a bravery that is rare.

However, I DO expect every person who has principles worth anything to support Mr. Manning's brave and heroic actions.  Anything less is cowardly and just plain wrong.
-

And please don't forget.

.

Plan could save us from socialism pit

Plan could save us from socialism pit

(My Clovis News Journal column for July 5, 2013.  Also here: link)

There are a lot of libertarian books and authors out there. Most of the older examples can be rather dry and difficult for modern readers to wade through. As enlightening a book as Albert Jay Nock's 1935 work "Our Enemy, the State" is, it can't be considered light or leisurely reading. And it will upset a rosy view of government just as surely as any modern writing.

On the other hand, some of the more modern writers can be very entertaining while getting the uncompromising message across.

One such writer is L. Neil Smith, with his book "Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis".

Smith is best known as a science fiction writer, but there's no fiction in "Down With Power". The book is a series of no-holds-barred essays dealing with different, mostly State-created, problems and issues, and with his liberty-respecting solutions.

Smith is more hopeful of using the processes and mechanisms of "government" to affect the changes and correct the problems than am I, but it wouldn't bother me one bit to be wrong on this account. He could also be said to lean a bit more to the "conservative" side of the aisle, although that could just be an illusion due to his strong support of gun rights and his opposition to the modern religion of "Environmentalism".

He spans issues from "animal rights", to government-sanctioned marriage, to the indispensable Zero Aggression Principle, and just about everything in between. If you have a gripe, and it somehow involves people running and ruining the lives of others, he probably has something to say about it. You may not automatically agree with what he has to say, but it will do you good to be exposed to- and consider- his ideas, which are expressed in his own lively and passionate style.

His book wraps up with a chapter called "The Plan", where he lays out what could be done to rescue America from this current (and long in the making) cesspool of Democrat and Republican socialism. If put into action, he claims his plan would turn the country around and put it back on course in six months.

I have to agree that his plan would work spectacularly well, and I would love to see more people have the courage to implement it.

"Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis" runs about 300 pages and is available from Amazon.com for $14.99 or $9.99 for the Kindle version.

.

A bad trade

To all those who object to totally getting rid of "taxes" I have this to say:

If you can't have roads/military/schools/cops/whatever without theft/coercion then "perhaps" you are better off without them. It's not a good trade. Count me out.

-

And please don't forget..

"Don't trust 'em" isn't new

Back about 13 years ago I had just been dropped off in a strange city in a distant state because I had foolishly followed my new (and now long-since ex) wife to her hometownish region.  (Happy birthday to her, by the way.)

I was staying in a motel for a while, without any transportation (yes, to get there I flew on a commercial plane- with knives and a straggler bullet that I found later) and having nothing much to do, I walked around the area.

Most of the time I spent exploring the woods in the area, following bear sign, hiding from ATVs, and finding strange relics and ruins, but I also discovered a gun store down the street.

I had looked around inside for a while and then left and started walking back to the motel.  Suddenly a cloudburst occurred.

An older man who had also just left the gun store stopped and asked if I would like a ride, and I accepted.  And then he gave me a warning.  He told me that the gun store's owner was a former cop and that a lot of the customers who frequented the store were cops or former cops, so I should be very careful what I said in the store.  A warning?  And I hadn't spoken a word to anyone while in there, other than a "no thanks... I'm just looking"

This was back when I still believed there were probably some "good cops" out there.  Back before I was "online" and before I ever really spoke up about anything.

I thanked him for the warning, and never went in that store again.  Even back then I knew the type I didn't need to risk being around.

-

And please don't forget.

Libertarians protecting people from themselves?

"In a libertarian society, prisons would likely be privatized, but the system would bear little resemblance to today’s prisons; the only people in prison would be violent criminals likely to strike again and people who refused to compensate their victims." ~ Dr. Mary Ruwart (From this newsletter)

In a free society there would likely be no "laws" prohibiting people from being adequately armed, nor from defending themselves (and others) and their property.  

The "repeat offender" would not be expected to have a long career.  Or life.  You can only beat the odds for so long, and when the odds are stacked against you so massively, "for so long" turns out to be very short, indeed.

The only real excuse for a prison in a free society would be to protect unrepentant thieves and thugs from their next victim.  That translates into actually protecting them from themselves.

But wait.  Most of us accept that it is wrong to protect people from themselves, in just about every instance.  So that would mean a free society has no place for prisons.

-

And please don't forget.

Kent's Top Ten List of Cat Names

#10 Fluffy der Litterslinger

#9 Rip Climbcurtain

#8 Whiskers Handbiter

#7 Sleepy Dotchaser

#6 Pukey McHackenbarf

#5 Thing Tut

#4 Fuzzy Lickbottom

#3 Claws McShredder

#2 Hissy Nosetickle

And the #1 cat name that I will never be permitted to give to one of my cats:

                  Spastic O'Speedbump

(Dogs, too)

-

And please don't forget.

Ariel Castro promises Amanda Berry a "fair trial"

The next time some flag-waving "patriot" gets red in the face over Edward Snowden or his Russian asylum, ask them this question:  Why isn't Amanda Berry being pursued by US authorities and being forced to seek temporary asylum in Russia?

After all, Berry did the exact same thing that Snowden did: she reported the crimes of a criminal.  But in her case, only one criminal (or is it two?).  Snowden reported the crimes of thousands of criminals.  Shouldn't the "White House" have offered to give Berry a "fair trial" like it offered Snowden?  Or, would it have been more similar to have Ariel Castro be the one offering Berry the deal?  Why did Castro end up the one sentenced to prison instead of the whistleblower who reported him?

Supporting the prosecution and persecution of Snowden is the moral equivalent of seeking the same treatment for every other crime victim.  Because yes, Edward Snowden is also a victim of the crimes he reported, just as Amanda Berry was a victim with the other 2 women who were enslaved alongside her.

So why isn't Ariel Castro- the criminal- offering Amanda Berry- his whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial", just like the various and sundry spokesvermin of the US Fedgov- the criminals- are offering Edward Snowden- the whistle-blowing victim- a "fair trial"?

Oops. I forgot.  The difference is just who the criminal happens to be.

Double standards disgust me, and this is a big one.  Victims should never be the ones put through the ringer of the so-called "justice system".

-

And please don't forget.

.

"Thinking is too hard!"

It is so much easier to be an emotionally-driven "patriot" waving that federal flag, squealing about "The USA!", and hating everyone who seems to show a hint of the "Man behind the Curtain" than it is to actually think things through.

Yes, I've known this for a very long time, and was guilty of it myself years ago.  But the recent events of the Bradley Manning injustice and the Edward Snowden fiasco really brought it home.  Well, it was the reactions of so many "patriots" that really brought it home.

It reminds me of a bunch of angry baboons- ruled by their aggressive emotions, and loyal to the troop "leaders" no matter what they are doing.  It's really sad.  Humans should be smarter than this.  We have brains.  Use them.

-

And please don't forget.

.