Who's more angry?

Are libertarians "angry"?

Some are.  Are they more angry than statists?  Hardly.

Everyone has their own temperament.  Some people are naturally more stressed or relaxed or angry or happy or sad than others.  Everyone has their own personal level of angst (which probably contributes a lot to anger) that probably isn't going to change much with their external circumstances.  It seems people have a "pre-set" for that sort of thing.

I would guess I have about the same level of angst inside me now that I have always had- however, in general I am less angry at the "political world".  Back when I considered myself "conservative" I had a lot more "political anger" and frustration.  Now, I am more able to go with the flow and laugh at the silly antics of "politics".

I don't expect thugs and thieves to act like anything except what they are.  I get mad if I see them victimizing someone (or experience it myself) but I'm not surprised or shocked by their actions.  They are what they are.  That they justify their abuses through politics is irrelevant to me.

I suppose my anger has shifted to new targets.  I am working on that, too.

But, whichever direction I look I see people angry over "politics".  Their ideology doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the amount of anger.  But statists only seem to see the anger of "the other side"- however they define that at the moment- and it just usually means whoever disagrees with them and their plan to "fix" it all through coercion and theft.

I would say the most angry people I see would classify themselves as "liberal" or "conservative", because most people I see, angry or not, label themselves that way- but they apparently see it differently.  Either way, I'm not going to get angry over it.

.

Cells and "Nations"

Recently I saw someone try to defend the idea of "borders" by comparing them to a cell's membrane.

Nice try, but...

If "borders" have any legitimacy at all (which they don't) it would be to define the boundary between the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on one area, and the body of counterfeit "laws" that are imposed on an adjacent area. That boundary should never be applied to people.

A cell is a real, physical thing. A "nation" is a glitch of the mind. It doesn't exist in reality, although people who believe in it will kill for their delusion.

The believers in "borders" try to make the case that one thing that is "right" over here, is "wrong" over here. (That's what I mean by counterfeit "laws".) Murder and rape are wrong everywhere and are pretty much recognized as wrong by the "Law"- even when people wearing the silly hat of "government" try to use euphemisms to excuse murder and rape as long as they are committed by agents of The State acting in their "official capacity". But carrying a gun is said to be "wrong" on one side of an imaginary line, and said to be "OK" on the other side. Same with smoking pot. An imaginary line can't make wrong right or right wrong. But that's all those "borders" are said to do. 

"Borders" are just lines in the sand devised to establish which group of thieving thugs are "legally" allowed to rob the people on either side. The trick of brainwashing the livestock into revering that imaginary line was quite a coup for the thieves. It made their "job" so much easier when the victims began to do most of the work for them.

.

Don't ignore the warning signs

In a recent discussion with someone, I finally had an awakening about their beliefs and asked "So, you don't believe in 'right' or 'wrong'?"

And the response I got was "Correct. I believe in like and do not like(.)  I believe in 'failed to produce the desired results'".

If that's the case, wouldn't that make the person a psychopath?  Yeah, I think people call that "utilitarianism", but what evil couldn't be justified under that notion?  Only those that "failed"?

He went on to say he believes in right and wrong only where science and math are concerned.  So, I take that to mean things like: 5 is the right answer to "2 + 3 = ?", or this rope is the wrong length to reach from here to there, or it's wrong to use up all your water right now, since it means you will die of thirst later and things of that nature, but not with regards to other questions?

Where do I go from there?

If right and wrong are meaningless to you with regards to human interactions, why would you ever debate something like this with a person like me?  And why would I ever voluntarily associate with you?  You might decide you would like to kill me, and feel your plan wouldn't fail.  That's all it would take for you to murder me.

Even if someone believes it is right to initiate force or to steal, they are easier for me to deal with, and more predictable to deal with safely, than the person who thinks such concepts are meaningless.  In my opinion.

.

"Stop & Rob"

I know someone who refers to convenience stores as the "Stop and Rob".

I think that name also applies equally well to cops on "traffic patrol".  It's all they do- they "stop" and "rob" travelers.

Don't fool yourself into believing that a traffic stop is anything other than an armed robbery.  You might like the results, but when you see the local "Stop & Rob" in action, you are witnessing a violation of fundamental human rights.

So, support your local individual Stop & Rob if it makes you happy, but don't pretend he's something other than what he is.

.

"Freedom isn't free"

Freedom isn't free. You have to earn it by giving up your addiction to "government".

Not just the parts of "government" you will admit kill freedom, but also the parts you like, which you pretend somehow "protect" freedom.  You know, the parts that only impact someone else's freedom- as far as you know.

Freedom and government are mutually exclusive.  Every bit of governing kills a bit of freedom.  Not only that, but every bit of government that is allowed to persist always grows.  If you do nothing freedom will automatically be replaced piece by piece by "government".  You must continually chop away at government to keep from losing ground, unless you manage to just get rid of the entire tumor of "government" once and for all.

I read something the other day:
"Conservatives want to keep the federal government open—we just want to shut down Obamacare."

That's precisely why I am not a "conservative".  I think it's extremely dishonest to claim "Hey, we don't want to cut out the whole cancerous tumor, just this one little microscopic bit of it."

That is the excuse of someone not willing to pay the price of freedom.

.

Forced sharing isn’t sharing

Forced sharing isn’t sharing

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 23, 2013)

Recently, in this column, I have been trying to illustrate concrete ways libertarianism works in real life, each and every day, sometimes for people who don't even realize they are behaving as libertarians.

The common thread should be obvious: it's not difficult to act in a libertarian manner. It's how almost all of us were taught to behave from our very earliest experiences with other people.

"Don't start fights." "Don't take what isn't yours." Those are good lessons and are the foundation of being a decent person- of being libertarian.

One lesson almost universally imposed on small children, though, is less helpful. That is "You have to share."

If you are given no choice in how your property is used by another person, it isn't "sharing".

It can be a considerate thing to decide to let someone else use your property. Usually. It can't be done under coercion or it isn't "sharing", no matter what the parents may call it. It needs to be a choice freely made, or it is worthless.

I suspect that parents often make this demand to keep the "have-not" kid quiet, not thinking of the long-term consequences.

If you know the other person will refuse to give your property back, or will damage it while using it, then refusing to share is the wiser choice. To teach children that they have no say in how their property is used is not a good lesson. Your teachings will cause more trouble later on, particularly if the child takes the idea to its logical conclusion. If they do, and decide that what applies to them also applies to everyone else, then you have a likely vandal or thief on your hands who will believe if they want it, someone owes it to them.

There is a lesson in the value of things, and it doesn't come by undermining ownership. Teaching kids to respect other people's property begins with respecting theirs. The forced "sharing" does teach a lesson, however, but that lesson is perverted.

We see the danger of this lesson all around us today. People grow up to believe they can be "generous" with other people's money. In their attempt to "share" they implement taxes and distribute welfare. If you really want to share, do it. If you must take other people's money to put toward your goal, you are not sharing.

It's not complicated; it's life. Just like every other aspect of libertarianism.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Choosing libertarianism

I didn't choose libertarianism; it chose me.

For someone who came to libertarianism along some other path, this might seem a strange statement.  It's true, though.  I didn't set out to "become libertarian".  I am what I am, and what I am turns out to be libertarian.

Sure, after I discovered that libertarianism exists (as more than just the "drugs, guns, and sex" that I had heard mentioned as "what libertarianism is") I was able to refine my views- it's funny how reading what those who came before you wrote will help that happen.  But even before I read "Lever Action" by L. Neil Smith, I was already more libertarian than most of the nationally famous "libertarians" you'll encounter.  I just didn't have a name for it, yet.

As I mentioned above, I had heard the term "libertarian" a few times over the years, but it was always in a dismissive way.  "Those crazy 'sex, drugs, and rock & roll' libertarians".  It was a caricature that bore no resemblance to the reality, and one that didn't interest me, but I never thought about it long enough to take a look for myself.  Before the internet I'm not sure how I ever would have found out the truth, without making more of an effort than my level of interest would have fueled.

But, however it happened, I'm glad it did.

.

I am a pleasant guy. Honest.

By a strange coincidence, after my post yesterday morning, I found myself talking to the new (government) school superintendent yesterday afternoon.

He just recently (first of the "school year") moved to town, and bought the house next door to my parents', and while I was over there doing some work yesterday, he came over to ask some local lawn care advice.

Yes, I do take care of my parents' lawn, but if you knew me you would know how much of a "lawn person" I am not.  Hate the things.  I'd rather grow sand dunes and cactus, and edible "weeds".  But this year, for the first time in ages, my parents' lawn does look good (according to majority tastes).

The new superintendent moved here from a wetter region, and boy will he be surprised if this recent wet spell doesn't repeat next summer.  He was asking how much water my parents' lawn gets to look as good as it does, so I told him how I water it.

And, even knowing who the guy is, not ONCE did I mention that I think all government schools need to be burned to the ground, the ruins bulldozed, and salt spread on the ashes.  See how nice I am?

.

Don't "activist" yourself to death

I don't pick up bags full of trash every time I go to the park. Of course, I don't ever throw any trash down either.  Well, I almost always will pick up at least one piece of trash sometime during my stay- while my daughter plays.  But it's incidental, not "What I'm Doing".

Similarly, I don't say something libertarian every single time someone around me says some ridiculous thing in advocacy of The State or some other form of theft or coercion.  While not every moment is a mandatory time to consciously spread libertarianism, I still don't violate ZAP and I don't violate property rights.

I think of it as not littering the world with more statism- there's plenty clogging up the works already.

And, if asked, I don't hesitate to give my opinion (after a disclaimer/warning).

.

Stop making it illegal

"Legalize"?  "Decriminalize"?

Those words make me think of something that is wrong or shady being made sorta OK in the eyes of "the law".  Like the thugs of State are saying: "it's really still wrong, but we'll allow you to do it to a limited degree, with the proper oversight".

I don't care what "the law says", or rather what those silly beings who enforce it think.

Unillegalize it!  Whatever "it" may be.

(Of course, I realize the best thing is to just ignore the stupid "laws" and do what you want- as long as you harm no one else- but some people don't like the specter of "arrest" and a "criminal record" hanging over their heads.)

.

Feeeelings....

Dang it!  I must be human, and not some emotionless libertarian robot, after all!

From time to time someone will say something to me, or about me, that makes it all worthwhile.  Recently I have received a few of these.  The one below was posted publicly on Facebook by a "local", so I feel safe about sharing it with you.

"I didn't understand you for the longest time. I do now. Keep writing. Others will come to understand also."

I also have gotten a few more like that in private correspondence, so I won't share them.  I just got a really nice one in the mail.  They touch me deeply and always make me smile.  It brightens my day.  And it gives me a sign that I don't write in vain.  Thank you!

.

Non-libertarian conspiracy theorists

Libertarians get a bad rap where conspiracy theories are concerned.  But that's not very honest.  The entire political and philosophical landscape is filled with conspiracy theories.

People from the "left" and the "right" love to dismiss the views of libertarians by calling us "conspiracy theorists"- and some libertarians are- but I've noticed that libertarians aren't the only ones with their own brand of conspiracy theories.

"Conservatives" and "liberals" each have their own particular types of conspiracy theories they spread endlessly.

I'm sure that is you have a variety of people in your circles you have been exposed to some conservative conspiracy theories and some liberal conspiracy theories.

"Conservatives" love their theories about different religions taking over "Our Country", about "other races" being given special status that allows them to get away with crimes, and other things that threaten "traditional values".

"Liberals" love their theories about "The NRA", rich guys ("The Koch Brothers") influencing political policies, and "conservatives" rewinding science and the rights of "others" back to the Dark Ages.

And, yes, both fears have some basis in truth.  Which makes it stupid to "run" the world by the political method.

Yes, there ARE conspiracies in the world.  Anytime two or more people plot to gain power, "authority", or property by fooling or scaring people into giving them what they want (or when they simply steal it for themselves) you have a conspiracy.

.

How to facilitate education debate continues to grow

How to facilitate education debate continues to grow

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 16, 2013)

Sometimes the free market takes a bite out of the government's pie even though it means people are forced to pay for something twice: once for the government service they don't want and won't use, and once for the free market alternative they prefer.

Education is a prime example.

Almost everyone agrees education is critically important. Where people differ is in what they believe to be the best way to facilitate education.

Private schools are big business and provide the most mainstream educational alternative. However, most still use the same template and abide by the same standards set for government schools, and for a growing number of people that isn't good enough.

Therefore various methods of "home schooling" have arisen. Associating the word "schooling" with education is unfortunate, since they are unrelated, but it is an appropriate description for the majority of home education. Education can happen in a "school" environment, but it isn't the only way, and for many kids it is not a good way.

One of the fastest growing types of home education is called "unschooling". It recognizes that young humans are learning machines, until others manage to destroy that drive. Unschooling unhitches education from the "school" wagon.

You can't teach if no one is learning. It is up to the student whether to learn or not. If you stop to think about it you should realize teachers are cheerleaders at best, and roadblocks at worst. The best "teachers" simply let people learn.

It has been shown, for example, that kids will learn to read on their own when they decide to do so. All it takes is some incentive- such as being able to read instructions for video games or to be able to navigate the Internet. They learn when it is necessary for their life.

The same goes for anything else a person needs to know- the best time to learn something is when you need (or want) to know it, not when someone else decides you should. Things you learn on your own schedule, in your own way, will stay with you for the rest of your life, not just until your next test.

This isn't to say one way is wrong and another way is right- it's about allowing people to choose the path which makes the most sense for them, and not forcing them to subsidize anyone else's choice.

Competition is good. For now, alternative methods for education will keep having to compete with each other and with the government service. And free market alternatives will keep being chosen and keep outperforming.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Anti-liberty bigots and their growing body count

Perhaps insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, but pure evil is trying to force others to accept your insanity as "common sense".

Never forget and never let the anti-liberty bigots distract you from the truth: "gun free zone" = slaughterhouse.

.

Pull together, don't shove

Everyone has their own magic theory they believe will lead to a freer future. And most of those theories have some merit. Science, psychology, natural law, whatever. Maybe even "working within the system".

Not every idea is a good fit for every individual.

I think it's best to try all the theories out simultaneously- each person working from their own favorite angle. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Don't obsess over trashing the ideas of others.

If your idea is better, PROVE it!  Not with words, but with results.

.

Watching inside your house with infrared and reading your emails

A while back, on Claire Wolfe's blog, the discussion was about privacy.  I agreed with those who said that, while irritating, I (and my property) had no right to not be looked at or photographed while outdoors, or in public.

I added: "Now, if they use infrared (or anything else) to see inside my house, that’s another issue. It’s the difference between what I have in the open and clearly visible, and what I have concealed on my property." (link to full comment)
Then, Thomas Knapp said: "I have to disagree with Kent on infra-red. My ability to generate heat does not in any way create an obligation on the part of others not to look at the heat I generate."

I realized where he was coming from and decided I had been wrong initially.

But... I keep thinking about something else connected to this and it keeps nagging me... and I hope Thomas Knapp weighs in on this again.

What's the difference between being watched inside your home with an infrared camera, and having your emails, phone calls, and internet usage watched and analyzed?  It seems to me to be different manifestations of the same kind of behavior.  If it's OK to watch people inside their homes with infrared, then wouldn't it be OK to read their emails and other "private" communications?  And if it is wrong to read your neighbors' private emails, wouldn't it also be wrong to watch them inside their homes?

There seems to be a connection there.  If I am wrong about that, I would like to know why.

.

Malcolm Reynolds, whistle-blower

Captain Malcolm Reynolds, in the movie "Serenity", is Edward Snowden. He is Chelsea/Bradley Manning.

Consider this quote from Mal, which sets the stage for the epic battle the movie centers around:

"I know the secret. The truth that burned up River Tam's brain. The rest of the 'verse is gonna know it too. Cuz they need to."

That's the same thing all the Edward Snowdens and Chelsea/Bradley Mannings have said about the incriminating evidence they uncovered.  And, just like Mal, they are on the right side.

.

Liberty Lines 9-12-2013

(Published in The State Line Tribune, Farwell TX/Texico NM)

Until people stop looking for answers in all the wrong places, they will continue to be led astray.  Or worse.

I saw a news story out of Albuquerque that mentioned that "several organizations are asking how the (mayoral) candidates plan to keep people safe".

Sorry, but no mayor can "keep people safe".  Nor can their employees or co-workers.  That is YOUR job.

In a similar vein, some people beg politicians to show "leadership" on one issue or another.

Looking to politicians for leadership is like fishing for bluefin tuna in your kid's wading pool.  You're going to either come up empty, or someone is pulling a fast one on you.  Leadership from politicians?  You might as well beg a newborn to rebuild your transmission.

Any leadership you imagine you see from politicians will lead to the wrong place.  And why would you want to follow them anywhere?  This group of people is notoriously incapable of running their own personal lives.  Why would you want them "helping" you with yours?

Don't look for politicians to "help" the middle class, or families, or taxpayers, or anyone else.  They are not capable of doing anything to help anyone but themselves.  Even if they give the appearance of helping you, it is an illusion that will end up doing more harm in the long run.

The only positive effect any politician or bureaucrat can have is by getting out of the way.  But that isn't rewarded with votes; it looks too much like "doing nothing".  In truth, "nothing" is the best thing they can do.

Don't waste your precious life waiting for help to come from someone else.  Life is built from the bottom up, not handed down to you from Washington DC or Austin.

That doesn't mean it's completely pointless to pay attention to what the Keystone Kongress or the current president are doing.  If you like Three Stooges movies you may get a laugh from watching the elected buffoons, too.  Everyone needs a hobby.  Just don't take them too seriously, and never look to them to provide leadership of any sort.  That's a futile, and counterproductive, wish.

.

9/11: "Liberty's Memorial"

On this date in 2001, liberty died.  Killed not by "terrorists" or a false flag event, but by the reactions of normal people like you and me.  People who allowed a gang of thugs, calling themselves "government", to destroy the concept of liberty and replace it with some sort of carefully rationed privilege- all because of a very public tragedy.

A privilege that exists only at the whim of those thugs, and is subservient to their wishes.

I came across an older newspaper the other day, from Memorial Day, and one of the ads in it spoke of "Freedom's Memorial".  They were talking about a memorial to dead soldiers, but they spoke more truth than they know.  You only memorialize something dead.  And, government-employed soldiers, whatever their intentions might be, have always helped kill freedom.

So, if a carved monument to dead soldiers is "Freedom's Memorial", September 11, 2001 is Liberty's Memorial.

I remain saddened by the events of that morning, but not for the reasons most people seem to be.  I am saddened because the "event" is ongoing, and accelerating.  It stacks up more victims every day, and will continue to do so until each and every one of us says "Enough!" and means it and backs it up with decisive action.  Unfortunately, I am not sure what that action should be.  But I know it would be "illegal".  The bad guys can't have liberty defeat their schemes.

.

Read beyond your comfort zone

Read beyond your comfort zone

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 9, 2013.)

Just about anytime you bring up the subject of libertarian books and authors, someone will mention Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". That's OK, and I do enjoy the book- even the infamous monologue- while pointing out that it is not specifically libertarian. I will admit it has inspired a lot of people to shift their world-view in a more libertarian direction, though.

Most people seem to think "Atlas Shrugged" is too preachy, and many like to focus on Rand's personal shortcomings rather than stay focused on the book. For those people, and the rest of us, it's a good thing there are so many other libertarian books that are a lot more fun to read.

If fiction is your preference, you might like "Hope" by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, which looks at what might happen if a real libertarian ever found himself elected president. It's a fun story!

If you are a younger reader you might enjoy "Out of the Gray Zone" by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman which follows the adventures of a young escapee from a totalitarian society.

Many books by science fiction authors H. Beam Piper and Robert A. Heinlein have a strong libertarian streak. In fact, most science fiction either tends to be either highly collectivist in nature or very libertarian. Perhaps because science fiction explores the extremes.

Lying between fiction and non-fiction is "A Vision of Liberty" by Jim Davies. Mr. Davies lays out his vision of a free society looking back at the end of government.

For non-fiction readers there are also plenty of options.

In "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne, this liberty activist and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate describes his personal experiences living a free life while surrounded by people who don't appreciate freedom.

If Browne's ideas inspire you, you might like "The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook" by Claire Wolfe. In it you'll find 179 things you can do to protect and increase your individual liberty now, and have fun, while confounding those who would prefer to see you enslaved to one degree or another.

Of course you shouldn't limit your reading to only things that you agree with. See what the other side has to say. It is fun to read random fiction and, for example, see where the characters went wrong and how they could have avoided problems by not initiating force. Or think of ways you could have solved their Big Problem without violating the rights of any of the other characters. As always, worthwhile reading exercises the mind.

-

And please don't forget.

.

Toss away the training wheels!

A couple of nights ago I was trying to help my daughter learn how to ride a bike without training wheels.  It's a difficult thing to explain to another person- it's mostly instinctive when you've been doing it for decades.

I tried to tell her how to turn the wheel, and to keep her speed up, but in the end it's just a matter of doing it.

As a way to help her gain confidence, I first took off the training wheels (at her request) and then told her to just have fun coasting back and forth on the sidewalk.  My thought was that in coasting she might get the feel for balancing.  And, I think that helped.  I saw her coast better and better.  So, as I mentioned yesterday, we went to a parking lot a block from the house for a bigger practice arena.  On our way down the street, she was sitting and coasting and I got a little tired of the slow walk, so I asked if I could push her to go faster.  She said "OK, but don't let go!"

I told her I wouldn't let go until she asked me to.

So, as we turned into the parking lot she said I could let go.  I did, and she actually rode for about 20 feet.  She was very thrilled and wanted to do that again.  So I did, and that time she rode about twice as far.  And the next time she almost went into a fence... but the very next time she took off and rode completely across the whole parking lot.  In minutes she was riding around all over the lot and smiling from ear to ear.

She has the riding down, and is now working on starting without me pushing, and on braking.

It reminds me of trying to help people enjoy liberty.  To those of us who
just do it" it's instinctive- but until a person just does it, how do you explain it to them?

It seems scary.  They are sure they will fall and get hurt.  They are used to the training wheels- which actually make them less safe, but give false confidence.  You can give them a little push, but if you break their trust they'll blame liberty for your betrayal.  In the end, they just have to do it for themselves to see how easy and exhilarating it is.  You can't do it for anyone else- the best you can do is to show them by example that it is possible (and fun!).

Cheer them on and we can all ride together into a better tomorrow.

.

Excitement in the neighborhood

Ah, the "joys" of living in town.

We have some fairly new neighbors.  When they moved in I went over and introduced myself, and immediately sensed "something wrong" with the husband.  I was neighborly and loaned him a shovel, and asked if their kids could play with my daughter, and things went OK.  Mostly.  But there was still something wrong with the guy.

The weeks have gone by and my opinions of him have continued to plummet.  He is frequently sitting on his porch drinking beer and screaming and cussing at his kids.  He seems to be the typical "Low IQ- no impulse control" sort of person who causes so many problems.  For weeks now I have not allowed my daughter to go play in their yard if the dad is home, and she is to leave immediately if he comes home.  And I stay outside to keep an eye on things while she is there.

Unfortunately, his young son is on track to be a clone of the dad, and frequently hits and tackles my daughter, even though he is a lot younger than she is.  His older sister seems fairly normal, considering, and my daughter likes to play with her, but they really aren't allowed to play without the aggressive boy.

Tonight (September 8, 2013), my daughter and I were down the block on a parking lot and she was learning (successfully!) to ride her bike.  The "problem neighbor's" house was between us and home.  I heard some metal banging and tried to see the source, but could see nothing.  Then I heard a woman yelling the guy's name.  I hear a lot of yelling coming from that house every day, so I took it in stride.

Soon my daughter's mom came to the parking lot and told us avoid going past that house when returning home.  She told me of the domestic fight- the husband was yelling, punching the house, the grill, the street sign pole, kicking stuff around the yard, and making animalistic grunts of anger- and that the woman was yelling for someone to call the cops (Hubby Dearest had apparently thrown her phone across the street), and was afraid I would get involved if I saw the guy hit his wife (which didn't happen as far as I know).

Now, when I am out with my daughter, SHE is my first priority.  I am not going to do anything to endanger her- even if it means not stopping a murder.  Sorry, but that's just the way it is.  But, if I could have dropped her off at home first...

Anyway, we started home, going the long way around the block.  When we were still a block away, the cop cars showed up.

I don't approve of the existence of cops, and really think the violent dumb guy should be allowed to face undiluted consequences for his behavior- some people just need to be shot in the act if they initiate force.  As it turned out, no one was hauled off, the cops eventually left, and everyone went back inside.  I'm betting that's not the end of it.  I just hope when he tries to kill the family, they manage to put him down first.  And I'll be watching just as closely as I have been- maybe a bit closer.

And my daughter isn't going to be playing in their yard anymore.

Added: at 11:45PM, after lots more screaming, the cops showed up again and were there for 20 minutes or so.

.

Chocolate, the kitten

A while back I mentioned that I had taken in a new orphan.  Well, she has now made her Facebook debut.

Meet Chocolate- the (Formerly) Orphaned Kitten.  You can get her story by going to her Facebook page.  Or by asking questions in the comments below if you (understandably) avoid self-incrimination sites like Facebook.

This is one of the few times I will publicly talk about one of my orphans.  The goons of The State have a bad habit of killing the "wild orphans" and punishing their rescuers, so I won't endanger them by exposing them (or me) to the notice of the "authorities".  Fortunately I haven't yet heard of rescuers of domesticated animals getting brutalized for the crime of saving kittens or puppies.  Give 'em time...

I have discovered that even before I made this kitten public, she had damaged my reputation locally, with the few people who knew about the situation.  I wasn't aware I had a reputation, or that it could be damaged by showing my soft side, but life is what it is.

.

It's about choice and liberty

If "government" took over all food distribution and decided we all would be supplied (at "taxpayer expense") with a monthly ration of a perfectly adequate food pellet, would you hate me if I wanted to opt out?  Would you throw a fit, asking if I want "the liberty to starve to death"?

You could rant and rave that by rejecting my rations I obviously don't want to eat.

Just like statists do when I say I don't want government's schools, police, fire departments, roads, libraries, or whatever.

And, you'd be wrong.

The government food pellets may have all the vitamins, minerals, supplements, and fiber I need, and they may even be delicious, but that's not good enough for me.  I prefer to use my money, in my own way, to purchase what I would prefer to eat.  Even if it isn't as good for me.

Well, the same goes for all the things your government now "provides" with stolen money.  I would rather keep my money (and leave your money in your pockets, as well) and make my own food decisions and mistakes.  And I don't wish to pay twice- once for the government "service" I don't want, and once for the food I do want.

But for statists, such an assertion is like a declaration of war against all they hold dear.

.

2800

This is blog post #2800.  And about seven years worth of writing.

My very first post to this blog was made on September 3, 2006, and my first "real" post was written on September 5, 2006 (the previous posts were mostly attempts to figure out how to use the blog set-up).  Wow!  Never did I think I'd keep blogging this long.

The origins of this blog probably seem silly to most of you.  After all, it was in connection with my presidential campaign.  I've grown beyond such things since then.  Although, some people might have considered my admonition "Don't vote- but if you still feel the need to vote for someone, vote for me rather than throwing it away on someone else" to be a "not serious" campaign strategy from the first.

I almost ended the blog when I stopped actively campaigning (mostly due to conflicts and lack of familial support, and the potential for someone "at home" being a source of embarrassment- I've never really explained the reasons, and I'm not going to now beyond that).   I actually passed several "finish lines" over the years.  At one point I thought I'd probably stop after 100 posts.  (What more could I say after that?)  Then I thought I'd stop after one year.  Or two.  Or when I hit 1000 posts.  Now I realize I will keep on writing this blog until I have nothing more to say, or until no one reads it anymore.  Or until economic reality requires me to shut up about things that might make me unemployable.

Looking back over the years I see a lot of changes in my personal attitudes.  I hope that all the changes have been for the better, and toward a more complete understanding and acceptance of liberty.  I hope I am a better person because of this journey.

I am also reminded of some good times and some terrible times in my personal life.  When I read the things I wrote during those times, even when I never publicly spoke about them, the memories are triggered.  I remember what I was thinking and feeling.  I remember some times of despair and some times of great hope.

And, through it all, I understand that liberty is the right course.  Not only for myself, but for whoever might consider me their worst enemy.  I only get the liberty I am willing to respect in others- if even that.  But it's a path that is worth it.  It has proved that to me in so many ways, time after time.

I hope you experience that as well.

-

I also wish to send out a big "Thank you so much!" to all of you who have sent donations to help me continue this blog for this long!  I seriously wouldn't have been able to do this if not for your help and support.  Your donations are not only a huge financial help, but a powerful psychological boost as well.  Thanks again!

.

A libertarian I just met...

In case you missed the news, I just got back from a weekend camping trip.  (Isn't it nice to be able to have blog posts automatically show up during an absence?)

As I was taking down the tent, this little scorpion was disturbed from his hiding place.  Apparently he had been taking shelter under the floor of the tent.  I didn't mind- and was glad he didn't choose a boot or shoe to hide in, as they like to do.

It made me wish more people were like that scorpion.  As long as I didn't attack him, he didn't attack me.  We each went on about our lives unharmed by the other.

Kind of sad to think a scorpion is better company than some people.

.

An armed society is a polite society

An armed society is a polite society

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 2, 2013.)

Those who want to do more to violate the right of every human to carry whatever kind of weapon they choose, openly or concealed as they see fit, everywhere they go, without ever asking permission of anyone, have all manner of emotional pleas at their disposal. And their scenarios always fail when exposed to reality.

Just before Christmas last year, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) reacted to the suggestion of having armed guards in government schools by whining “Is this the answer; that America should become an armed camp?”

I admit it- I laughed. Obviously she has never spent time in an armed camp- other than being surrounded by her automatic-weapons-bearing security detail, I mean.

But I have. Many times. And it was wonderful and peaceful. If you have never been to a mountain man rendezvous or some similar event, you wouldn't know what I'm talking about. Everyone is armed with multiple "historical" (and still lethal) firearms, and it's probable everyone also has weapons of modern design either hidden on their person or in camp.

People there are friendly. Strangers are openly welcomed, without fear. Disputes are cordial, or at least resolved before they get out of control. No one stole from anyone at any of the events I attended, even though valuables were left unattended in plain sight. No one attacked anyone.

All rules are by unanimous consent, as are all fees, and agreed to beforehand and not changed. While there are those whose "job" it is to arbitrate disputes, prevent fights, and make sure the rules are followed, I almost never saw them doing anything "official". If someone does break a rule, they are asked to either stop or leave. No one uses force on them nor cages them. The knowledge that if they caused a real problem they would not be able to recruit a helpless victim takes the bluster away.

Author Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying "An armed society is a polite society", and he is right.

I only wish every American could experience living for a while in a universally armed camp. All it would take is a week of such an experience and almost no one- other than anti-liberty, ideology driven politicians and citizen disarmament advocates like Feinstein and her gang- would ever again want to give up such a life.

No one would ever be able to propose or enforce another anti-gun "law" without being sent packing to North Korea where their ideas are politically correct (while still wrong).

.

Intra-gang violence- The Hasan death penalty

So, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was given the "death penalty" for the Ft. Hood murders.  As I have said before, I am against such a punishment, for several reasons.  But, unlike most cases, this one doesn't pluck at my heartstrings too much.  I see this case strictly as an internal affair.  A gang member turned on others in his gang, and the gang "leadership" is dealing with it in a violent manner.  Gang members kill each other all the time, and my main concern is that they don't start killing people outside their gangs.  Why should I be surprised or outraged?  I am not involved with that gang, nor do I support it in any real way.

And, no, I am not just referring to the "military" as the gang- the entire idea of "government" is the gang; the "military" is simply one part of it.

One thing I find ironic is that those gang leaders aren't accepting their share of guilt in the murders.  Whoever the evil idiot was who decided that members of the military, on a military base, "needed" to be unarmed is at least 50% responsible for every murder after the first one.  Sure, a psycho could kill one person before a universally armed populace could react and stop him, but he could not likely kill 13.  Nope, he had lots of help.

I would hope that such overwhelming stupidity is limited to government militaries, and would find no support among militias.  

.

Too hard on cops?

You probably think I am too hard on cops.  I assure you, I'm not nearly hard enough.  They are where the rubber meets the road, where tyranny is concerned.  No one else on the side of The State matters- there is no other meaningful enemy of liberty.

You can live in an area "Ruled" by Hitler's crueler brother, filled with counterfeit "laws" until the law pollution is so bad that everything you want to do is forbidden, and everything you'd rather not do is mandatory, but unless there are thugs willing to enforce those "laws" against you, it doesn't matter.  You still could be free and never even care what any of those "laws" say.

Tyranny and oppression begins and ends with enforcers.

.

Magic words and enforcers

I am not one of those who believes you can memorize some magical script to use against cops; an incantation which will banish them back into the shadows of Hell faster than a vampire faced with a cross made of garlic raised on holy water.  But it can be educational to think about things you could say to a cop to show the true nature of "law enforcement".

Imagine being stopped for going faster than the arbitrary "speed limit", or not "stopping sufficiently" at a stop sign, with no harm done to anyone.  Imagine saying to the enforcer:

"Who is the individual you are alleging I have harmed?  And where is this individual, and how has he been harmed?  (wait for ridiculous response)  If you have no answer, yet you insist on continuing this encounter, you are the bad guy.  You have become nothing more than an armed robber."

No, I don't imagine that would have the effect it should.  Still, it cuts right to the heart of the matter.  No victim- no foul.  Where is your accuser?  Is it the cop?  If so, does this mean he is the one you are accused of victimizing?  Is it "The State"?  Then I want to face The State and have him (her?) accuse me in person.  Not through a representative, but one to one.

Magic words don't normally "work", unless by "work" you mean to get you to consider the truth.

.