Questions? Run away!!

Some time ago a very "liberal" person posted a "news" item on Facebook about how terrible a particular city was to live in, due to rampant violent crime.

He commented that this showed the state's new liberalized concealed carry laws didn't work as advertized by "the NRA" (LOL).

I very politely made the point that I would need to see more information, since the "crime data" in the article was actually all from before the new "laws" went into effect.

But, even with up-to-date data, if it showed a current dangerous crime rate, how does it compare to before concealed carry was liberalized? The same, better, or worse? I mentioned I have never seen a case of violent crime increasing after anti-gun "laws" were softened- and I have looked for cases like that over the years.

Although the above was enough to make him immediately "unfriend" me, I have still more questions, such as: how does it break down by neighborhood? Are those who "carry" victimized successfully at the same rate as those who choose to abdicate their responsibility? Is most of the violent crime between gangs, which are empowered by Prohibition?

But I never got the chance to pose the questions.

Funny how badly statists want to be protected from questions that might show the folly of their ideology. Even to the point of "unfriending" someone who frequently took his side in debates.

-

(Patches, patches, don't forget the Time's Up patches! )

.

Government's breeding program for terrorists

So, how's that "War on Terror" going for ya?

I see the "War on Terror" like a war on black footed ferrets.

Or maybe even Sasquatch.

Based on the actual number of attacks around here, or within thousands of miles, the government has declared war on a rare thing indeed.

Most of the "foiled plots" I suspect are more like government work-study programs for easily manipulated dumb guys, anyway. Dreamed up and put into motion by government employees who want to look relevant.

Maybe they should declare terrorists an endangered species. Oh wait, I think the invasion of the Middle East is a conservation program designed to "breed" more terrorists to keep them from going extinct, so I guess they've already addressed that concern.

.

Limited government Utopian dream

Limited government Utopian dream

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 27, 2014)

The siren songs of the next election season are already tickling your ears. One thing I notice a lot of people advocating is a "return to the Constitution" which they believe would bring back "limited government".

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it didn't work before, so how do you plan to make it work next time?

If the majority of people in the past weren't willing to force the State to operate strictly by the Constitution, what makes you believe "enough" people now or in the future will be willing- or able? Even Thomas Jefferson failed when given the choice to uphold the Constitution or go through with the Louisiana Purchase.

The attempt to "limit" government has failed every time it has been tried. It's like trying to decide how much cancer to leave in the patient, and telling the tumor to limit itself while hoping it will get no larger.

As has been observed throughout history, those who gain political power will do anything to hold on to it, and get more. They change the rules they can change; ignore the rules they can't. Since the only people given authority to stop or punish the miscreants belong to the same gang- the government- and have the same addiction, nothing substantive happens even when they get caught.

By promising to share the spoils with voters, they'll keep getting elected by people who don't want to take away their political power, or stop the over-reach, because they know it would end the goodies.

Both "liberals" and "conservatives" lure voters with treats, but of somewhat different flavors.

"Liberals", as a general rule, use things like free food, cell phones, free medical care, and disability entitlements to inspire voter loyalty, while "conservatives" use military jobs, protection from foreigners, farm subsidies, and "law and order" to bribe their constituents. Both sides encourage fears of the other side, and both promise to keep the Social Security pyramid scheme propped up at all costs. In recent years there has been other "bipartisanship" working against you, too.

None of those things are constitutional, but no politician is willing to face the wrath of those who have become dependent on the State, or those who are scared to let the free market find solutions. Once anything is socialized, people assume only the State can handle it.

"Limited government" is a Utopian dream; completely divorced from reality.

Am I claiming a strictly constitutional government wouldn't be better than the runaway monstrosity America is suffocating under now? Of course not. But keeping it would require changing human nature, and it would still be only the beginning of any real, lasting, solution.

.

How do you deal with fear?

Thinking more about those who let fear control them makes me wonder- Why am I not ruled by fear? Why do I not ask the state to protect me from things?

I have never thought of myself as "brave". I don't like heights, or big aggressive dogs. There have been individuals who made me prickle with fear when they were near, and, obviously, I am afraid of power-crazed, testosterone junkie, tax addicts in state costumes who have proved time after time they think nothing of executing those who don't "comply" fast enough to suit them.

But why don't I let my life be controlled by those fears, and why don't I try to get "laws" to protect me from those things?

I have no answer for that.

I am not afraid of "terrorism". I am not afraid of foreign invaders, or strangers, or "immigrants". I am not afraid of "lack of order", or even the grid going down. So, government can't manipulate me into begging to be protected from those things.

I guess I am just not a good "citizen".

And I'm fine with that.

-
Don't forget the NEW Time's Up patches!

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

More with Coward Prime

I was recently back in the kingdom of the petty tyrant whose cowardice last year made me suddenly realize it is at the foundation of all statism. It is the cornerstone of "government".

Since he was the first of many cowards I really noticed, I kind of think of him as Coward Prime.

He is a petty tyrant over his tiny kingdom. He enforces arbitrary and ridiculous rules. It is what government consists of.

He is the Ruler of the splash pad. I prefer to not go there, but my daughter has other ideas. Since last year's encounter, where he made it pretty clear I am not welcome, I stay outside his fence- daughter's mom goes in with her, I sit in the shade and read.

He kept hollering through the chain link to me, asking if I wouldn't be more comfortable "in" the splash pad fence. I just shake my head and think "what, does he want me to come inside so he can get scared of what I might be carrying?"

He has artificial arms ending in hooks/claws, so I realize a gun would do him no good- at least unless it were being wielded by someone like me, in his defense. So, I partially understand his wariness about guns, and those who might have and could use them. But to believe that being afraid of people who are obviously not intending harm somehow makes him and the kids "safer"... just sad.

Anyway...

Usually his Big Issue is "Don't run!" If you build a place for kids, and you are too stupid to realize that kids are going to run, so you'd better design the place with that reality in mind, then don't be surprised when they run. It's how kids move, naturally. I know he didn't design or build the place, and he is only a tiny cog- but he is the one who enforces the dumb rules. And he seems to relish his "authority".

But the other day he kept yelling for some kid to "Stand up! Stand up! Stand up!" Finally the kid's mom said "He can't stand up."

So Coward Prime, in a much quieter voice, mumbled something about how the kid needed to get out from under the [thing that dumps a large bucket of water]. I was thinking "nice, he should understand a person with a disability..."

Actually, it may have shamed him a little, because he was pretty scarce after that.

-

Yesterday was a really stressful day, for a lot of reasons. I got the "opportunity" to feel awkward and out of place for a few hours. And had to make a decision I didn't want to make and don't really like. And, as usual, to top it all off... well, you know...

Rattle, rattle...

Government, like a gun, is "only a tool"

Sometimes, when I point out how evil The State is, someone will come along and make the claim that "government is just a tool, like a gun. Tools like government can't be evil, or guns could be evil, too".

Well, let's think about that a little.

If The State is "just a tool, like a gun", let's design a gun that works like The State.

You'd need to make the gun so that it can't be aimed. When fired, it sprays bullets all over the place with each shot. And, pulling the trigger results in it firing multiple times, without any real pattern or warning, firing randomly in unexpected directions when you don't expect it to. Also, this gun only fires stolen ammo.

So, if you try to shoot the possum that keeps tipping over your trash can every night, you pull the trigger once and the possum may or may not be killed, but some bullets hit your neighbor's house. Your kid standing behind you also gets one between the eyes. You go to put the gun down and it quickly fires off another fragmented round, once again going in unpredictable directions. Did that one hit anyone? Who knows, you are kneeling over your kid's body. BANG! There it goes again, without anyone even touching it.

A gun like that would be too dangerous to use except in a laboratory. Anyone using one in public would be personally liable for any and all harm that came from it.

So, yeah, just like that particular gun, government is "only a tool"- too dangerous to be used out in the world.

.

Facebook discussion thread

A recent blog post has gotten some interesting (?) discussion going where I shared it on Facebook. If you are on Facebook you might enjoy following along- or joining in.

(I accept any and all requests, but am nearing the "5,000 friends limit")

-

Rattle, rattle...

Important Readings

These may not be "The Most Important" to you, but for me, these are the sort of things that can make people see Liberty in a whole new light. Read them and share them with those who might need them.

Abstain from beans

Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse

"But wouldn't warlords take over?"

The Criminality of the State

FREEDOM! by Adam Kokesh (or here)

Isaiah's job

John Taylor Gatto

The Libertarian Enterprise

The Market for Liberty

The Most Dangerous Superstition

The Myth of the "Rule of "Law".

The On Line Freedom Academy (TOLFA)

Our Enemy, the State

The Penalty is always death

The Philosophy of Liberty (OK, video reading)

"Political means" vs "Economic means"

The Practicality of Libertarianism

Roads unfit for people and Roads FIT for people (not reading)

Somali “Anarchy” Is More Orderly than Somali Government

.

Breaking news: Beware NM plate# G-48335

This State of New Mexico "Environment Department" vehicle, license plate G-48335, pulled right out in front of me less than an hour ago.

I hit the brakes and had to swerve to avoid hitting her. She never even seemed to notice. 

.

Geography, imaginary lines, and gangs

People are very confused.

North America is a continent.

America is a country (which also includes some territory not on that map) on that continent.

The US is a government- a gang of thieving thugs- who steal and attack people who live in the America part of North America- although those thugs have not limited themselves quite that much in reality. They seem to feel they have some "right" to do the same to people all over the globe.

Added: If you have facebook you might enjoy following the discussion on this post: here

-

Rattle, rattle...

Just between us...

Shhhh!

They're coming soon.

A brand new Time's Up product that you'll want.

I'm not saying what yet- keep watching and as soon as they are up for sale I'll announce it on this blog and at Dull 'Hawk's Shop.

Personally, I can't wait!

Added: and here it is!

.

A light goes on in my head- "immigration"

I just had a revelation. It's so obvious that I'm ashamed at how slow I was to see it.

There is not only no such thing as "illegal immigration"... in fact, there's no such thing as "immigration" at all!

For "immigration" to be a real thing you'd be claiming that borders and the "tax" farms they surround have legitimacy. You'd be claiming there is something "above" private property to "immigrate" to.

All there is with regards to this is migration and trespassing. Each individual who is moving on the surface of the planet is either within their rights to be where they are, or they are trespassing on private property.

If property is privately owned, you either get permission to enter, or you are a trespasser if you enter it anyway.

Government- the State- can own no property or anything else, since it possesses nothing it did not either steal or "buy" with stolen money, and thieves don't own the stolen property they possess. Government has zero "authority" to control who you let on your property.

So, "immigration" is a non-issue. You either trespass or you don't.

I am against trespassing. I am also against government pretending it has authority over other people's property (which is theft). I might choose to allow people to enter my property. I might not. Where they were born doesn't figure into that at all, and certainly not whether they have State permission.

If private property rights prevent individuals from going where they want to be, that is just too bad. (That also applies if your private property is surrounded by private property whose owners refuse to let you cross to get things you need to survive. I see that as very unneighborly, but it's just the way it is. UPDATE: I was wrong about this. There is the natural concept of "right-of-way" to keep you from being imprisoned by unpleasant neighbors. This doesn't include the "right" to damage the property you cross.) If private property rights prevent government goons from stopping "immigration", that is also just too bad.

I'll need to remember that next time the topic of "immigration" comes up.

-

Imposing law violates others’ rights

Imposing law violates others’ rights

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 20, 2014)

Not a day goes by I don't witness a complaint by someone saying their freedoms are being trampled on and legislated away. Almost everyone can point to something they enjoy which has been regulated into illegality- or severely restricted- by government edict.

Yet, if you question most of those same people you'll find they are enthusiastic about violating the liberty of others to do certain things.

That's how Americans find themselves in this current mess. People hate things others do- enough to call for government to step in- and before long everyone is violated in some way. Almost no one comes out unscathed.

I value my liberty enough to never seek to limit yours in any way. As long as you don't attack the innocent or violate private property I am content to live and let live. Completely. No matter how much I may despise the way you express your liberty.

When it comes to trampling others, religion seems to be a preferred tool to use against choices "the majority" dislikes.

People get upset when their own religious preferences are not imposed by law, and when someone else's are. That's how "Sharia Law" (Muslim or Christian) comes about, and it shows the weakness of your faith when you feel you must incorporate it into law applied to everyone across the board.

This is what I see as the basis of the opposition to a "gentleman's club" opening in the area.

If you feel it is wrong you are free to not go there. You are free to shun those who do, those who own the place, and those who work there. You are even free to shun me for my refusal to condemn it.

You are not at liberty to try to use the force of government to prevent it. You may choose to cross this line into the zone of what you have no right to do and wield government to prohibit such a business, anyway. If so, you are violating the liberty of those who want to have that choice, just as those who wish to violate your liberty might do to you.

Americans have forgotten Thomas Jefferson's wisdom: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

If you use government and its "laws" to try to prevent this business, you are not staying within the limits drawn around you by the equal rights of others. You are actively violating the rights of the individual.

.

Yay! I'm "absolutely incredible"!

Oh, wait... "an absolutely incredible idiot".

I observed:

If you claim to want liberty, and oppose a big, powerful central government, but you want the "borders" closed and the "illegals" deported, you need to decide which side you are on, because you are holding two contradictory beliefs in your head at the same time. You can't have both.

It created a lot of discussion. But it also drew this (fourth comment down):

Click to be able to read it

Missed it by that much.

-

Rattle, rattle...

Worshiping at the Churchstate... or is it the Statechurch?

Church and State. Ugh. What a combination.

The State- by which I mean the bad guys who try to control your life while claiming they are "government"- has used religion as a tool, a wedge, against people like you and me for as long as there has been both church and state.

Rulers figured out they could do all sorts of horrible things to individuals and, as long as the violations were what religious people thought their church and/or deity wanted, they faced no serious opposition. All sorts of anti-sex "laws" and prohibitions against ingestion are clear illustrations of this fact.

Of course, then religious people also figured out that they could become "government" and impose their religious notions on those who didn't share them- thus gaining even more power for the religion and for themselves- with the willing complicity of almost everyone of the same religion. The "conservative Christians" have gotten this tactic down to an art. But they don't have a monopoly on it, either. (It just seems that way where I live.)

-

Rattle, rattle...

Meddling meddlers

It is so stupid that two people can choose to do something and some third party can pretend to have a say in it.

This comes into play in so many different areas of life. Not only where "The State" is concerned.

This belief interferes in trade, relationships, "immigration", and so many other areas of life.

Mind your own business.

-

Rattle, rattle...

Desperation leads to pedestal monsters

Many people are so desperate for a leader they believe will "represent" their "values" they grasp at anyone who utters anything they can hold on to, and start promoting him (or her) as the Chosen One for the next election. I think that's really sad.

One case in point is the "conservatives", especially the deeply "Christian"/religious ones, I see pushing Dr. Ben Carson. As if he's a conservative.

He says the right religious things to appeal to a certain segment of the "Christian conservative" community, and he's apparently physically attractive to many v*ters, but he's an anti-liberty bigot. Specifically, and very tellingly, he's against guns in your hands. In some instances. Sure, he weasel-words his way around the issue, but at its core, that's his "belief".

As L. Neil Smith points out, the "gun issue" is like an X-ray right into the deepest, darkest recesses of a politician's mind. If he doesn't respect your absolute human right to own and to carry any gun you want, openly or concealed, everywhere you go, without ever asking anyone's permission, then he would rather you die than be able to defend himself from bad guys. Including cops and politicians. If he values a cop's or politician's life more than he values yours, which is what he is telling you when he has "reservations" about gun ownership and possession, then he is nothing but a government elitist. A pro-government extremist. He's not on your side.

Any comforting religious things he says should not make you ignore that fact. He doesn't care if you die for lack of adequate self defense tools, so he is not "pro-life".

I wish people would finally accept the fact that they don't "need" a political leader. All those you set up on a pedestal are monsters of one sort or another.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

America, the sociopathic

OK, a "country" can't be sociopathic. Not really. Because a "country" only exists in your mind. The society- meaning the aggregate of all the individuals- which prevails in that country can certainly display sociopathic traits. Yes, the below is simplistic, but it should be enough to show you some obvious things you may not have noticed before.

Psychopaths are fearless; sociopaths aren’t. Psychopaths don’t have a sense of right and wrong; sociopaths do. (From here)

Sociopaths experience fear. Like "most Americans"? Of foreigners, terrorists, people who don't go along with the status quo, of guns and knives and drugs and sex and a lack of a master? And then they get together and make up rules based on their fears- their cowardice.

Sociopaths - have a moral code, but it may be screwed up. Such as not following the ZAP, but some inconsistent code instead, and thinking that things they know to be wrong are right if done by government. If that's not a screwed up moral code...

So, yeah, if "America" were a person, that person would be a sociopath. I'd like to change that.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

Patrick J. Buchanan's "THE BRAZIL OF NORTH AMERICA"- my comments

Someone posted a link to this in the comments of a recent post. I said I'd make some comments on it- I realize this is way longer than I'd really want to read if I were you.

Buchanan is one of the most blind statists I ever encounter- not realizing he is a clone of Pelosi and Obama in the ways that actually matter. As long as Big Government is doing what he likes, he loves it. Only whining when it doesn't go his way. Kinda sickening to me.

Anyway, here goes:

"...by faithfully following the tenets of liberalism, the West would embrace suicidal policies that would bring about the death of her civilization." 

It figures that he would see anything that he doesn't like as "liberalism". And, when anyone starts speaking of a country as "her"- personifying it- you know you're in for a wacky ride.

 "The crisis on our Southern border, where the left, and not only the left, is wailing that we cannot turn away desperate people fleeing wicked regimes and remain true to our liberal values, is a case in point."

"Our southern border"? I have borders all around my property, but none of them are shared by Patrick, so there are no borders he can call "ours".

Big Government caused a huge majority of the problem- through the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, and by propping up the notion of Statism around the world. You helped create those people's desperation through policies you support and advocate.

 It has nothing to do with "liberal values", which, just like "conservative values", I think are mostly imaginary anyway. It has to do with being a decent person. With being the "Good Samaritan". No, it doesn't mean give them welfare- it just means don't treat them as inhuman herd animals and drive them... where exactly, I don't know. Most of them probably have nowhere to go "back" to. Not your problem, I guess, but it is a reality you might need to eventually face.

If someone wishes to let them rent or live in a house consensually, accept that it is none of your business. If someone wishes to hire them; same deal. Liberty, not "laws".

 "To assert that we cannot take all these people in, that we must send them back and seal out border for our survival, is to be called a variety of names — racist, xenophobe, nativist — all of which translate into 'illiberal.'" 

 No, it's illegal. The Constitution gives government zero "authority" to seal the borders or tell people they can't move here. Zero. That authority ONLY lies with each and every individual who controls his own, personal, private property. Giving "government" the power to violate those property rights is a socialistic power-grab, and is unconstitutional. Once again, he wants to see things as "liberal" or not, and misses reality completely because of his blindness.

Then he goes off about "diversity", which isn't the point, but is something he apparently hates and fears.

"And after the terrible ethnic cleansing of Germans after World War II, most of Europe’s nations were ethnically homogeneous." 

What? Does he sound nostalgic for ethnic cleansing?

 "Several were not. Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the USSR. At the end of the Cold War, with freedom, all three came apart." 

Yes, freedom does that- it kills states and breaks them into manageable pieces. That's because states are centralized and inherently anti-freedom. Secession decentralizes, which is what is desperately needed after the MegaState-Building carnival of the 20th Century. The more states die in this way, the better off individual liberties- on the whole- will be.

 "Then there are the rising millions of Muslims in Europe who are not assimilating, as Catholic Irish and Catholic Germans did in a Protestant USA..." 

Which is only a problem when foolish people insist on keeping a State around, which invariably gets used against individual liberty. What do you care what religion the guy across town follows, unless he is able to use the power of the State to impose his beliefs on you? Guess what- it goes both ways, and you don't see that you have been using the state to impose your religious notions on others all along. That should wake people up... but it rarely does. Denial is powerful.

 "Thus, we take on the aspect of an empire. And empires fall apart." 

Pretty sure the fault for having an empire lies with the US government and the way it has been throwing its military around all over the world. But blame others if it makes you feel better.

 "The melting pot, rejected by our elites as an instrument of nativist bigots, is history." 

Why do you listen to "elites"? What are their "elite" credentials?

I see the "melting pot" still in operation among recent immigrants every day. But, if you try to force them to assimilate, you only make them balk. Invite them; don't shove them and make up "laws" to try to force them to assimilate in the ways you'd prefer. You'll just make them dig in their heels and fight your efforts. It's another way you're shooting yourself in the foot.

"Disintegration, separatism and secessionism, for racial, religious, and cultural causes, are a phenomenon common now to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Are we somehow immune?"

 Good! And I hope "we" aren't immune!

 "Why are we doing this? Why are we inviting the world into the USA?:" 

"We" aren't. Eliminate ALL forms of welfare for everyone, and you may not be "inviting" the ones who would be a problem. Stop criminalizing self defense and the effective weaponry to carry it out- no more "gun free zones" and no more "laws" against possession or anything else- and the rest of the problem- "the criminals"- goes away, too. Admitting that you can't ethically wall-in a "country" or enforce counterfeit "laws" against migrants isn't the same as inviting them in. And, of course, end the stupid and evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs and you'll solve a lot of the problems that make them want to leave their homes to begin with.

 "By 2042, Americans of European ancestry will be a minority in a country built by Europeans." 

So? Nothing ever stays the same. Adapt. Or find a new place to make how you want it. It's past time for a new frontier anyway. Ignore the "laws" that keep you on earth- and emigrate. Or build (or buy) a new country where you own the whole area and can screen out those whom you don't want there. If "everyone" is coming here, go where they left and buy up the land and start over from scratch and do it "better" this time- learning from past mistakes. You could even make up a constitution which allows you to close your "borders" if you want- just use the US Constitution with that added to it somewhere. 

"...that would mean the end of the United States as we know it."

Good. Since the war between the states there hasn't been much worth saving- ethically- anyway. 

"Americans are already deep in a culture war over morality — marijuana, abortion, same-sex marriage." 

That's just a war over who gets to control your life- you or everyone else (disguised as "government")? And Patrick is on the Evil side of that one, too.

 "We are already racially polarized over affirmative action and income inequality." 

Only because people pretend those are legitimate areas to meddle in and make up "laws" concerning. They aren't, but once you embrace statism for some things, this is what comes along for the ride.

 "And when we have ceased to be an English-speaking, Christian country and become instead an Asian-Hispanic-African-American-white nation, with large Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic and atheist minorities, and no defined borders, or common faith and culture, what holds us together?" 

Who knows? Something might, or might not. And it doesn't matter. Forcing people "together" who don't want to be together is a bad idea. I have nothing in common with the Rulers of places like Chicago or New York, or those who want to impose Christian Sharia Law around here, and yet I'm told I am part of the same culture because "we are all Americans". Bull Pucky. Voluntary association works, pretending that I have anything in common with anti-liberty bigot voters in Big Cities or in this area doesn't. And it never will. There is no "America", there are individuals- some of whom don't appreciate having anti-liberty rules imposed on them just because "One Size Fits All" as long as "we're all America!"

 "And when did we vote for this future?" 

When? LOL! Every single time you voted, that's when. That's where statism inevitably leads.

That article was just one gigantic celebration of Statism, wallowing in denial about where it always leads, and what the solution is. He is so afraid of liberty he can't see the solution is some of the very things he was decrying.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

Suicide and guns

Yes, it's an unpleasant topic.

Is suicide by gun a "misuse" of a gun?

You have every right to end your own life. In some cases- very few- I can even imagine it being the best thing to do.

You have a right to use your own tools to do what you do, as long as you don't violate anyone else. So, don't commit suicide on other people's property and be aware of what's beyond your target. And make sure the gun is unlikely to be picked up and used by an irresponsible person after you are done with it. No, don't consider this a lesson in "how to".

But, to say using a gun to do what you have a right to do, and even to kill someone who is a credible threat to your person or property- which you could be- is a "misuse" of a gun... I'm not sure about that. It seems like that's a case of using it in a way it is designed to be used.

The people who don't want you to kill yourself might disagree, of course. Your death would probably make them extremely sad. Do they own you? Does the State own you? Who has a prior claim* on your life?

In any case, I don't think anti-gun "statistics" should count suicide as a "misuse of a gun". But I know they will continue to do so. Dishonestly.

-

*Sure, some religions would claim a deity owns you, but if that's the case that deity has a responsibility to keep its property well cared for- even if the property does stupid things and causes its own problems. If your dog gets tangled up in its collar through its own stupidity, it's still your responsibility to rescue it and fix its injuries, isn't it. I know- it's standard procedure to excuse the deity for anything and put the responsibility for the problems back on the human. Which kinda brings us back to the beginning of this circle. And anything which just takes you in a circle can probably be safely ignored in this current case.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

One chance only

I've known ex bad guys who are now good guys. Even some ex cops.

It's why I'm willing to forgive as long as a bad guy reforms and never again initiates force or theft. I'm not in favor of spending my time tracking down former bad guys- especially if the former State has collapsed and there's a free society. They lost- move on and enjoy the freedom, and don't dwell on the past.

I roll my eyes at those hunting down geriatric old former Nazis. I am not in favor of revenge or vigilantism.

That doesn't mean that if a former bad guy falls back into his old ways he gets a pass. Use whatever force is necessary to stop him- even if he dies. Wipe the slate clean, but don't ignore new violations.

-

Rattle, rattle...

.

Society exists in spite of the state

Society exists in spite of the state

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 13, 2014)

Power, organization, and direction. Many people seem to feel these are good attributes to always be encouraged, but they miss the destructive potential these very same qualities possess in many situations.

Think of tornadoes, for example.

Tornadoes have plenty of power, organization, and direction, but are lacking both wisdom and ethics based on the fundamental principle of never harming the innocent or their property.

The same can be said for the state. Running roughshod over people and their property, without their explicit consent, no matter what force is doing it, is never good.

When people face the choice of whether or not to join a powerful, organized, and directed force- and choose to do it without an absolute commitment to never use that force to violate the rightful liberty of any other person- they are worse than a tornado. While the tornado is a mindless, amoral force of nature, the person has consciously chosen to be actively promoting evil.

As Albert Jay Nock pointed out in "Our enemy, the State", the aforementioned state- what many people equate with government- is the polar opposite of society. The two sit on opposite sides of a delicate balance and are mutually exclusive. The more of a state you tolerate, the less of your society survives. Society and civilization don't exist because of the state, but in spite of it.

States are estimated to have killed over 170 million non-military individuals in the 20th Century alone- and that's the low-end estimate. Just imagine how many tornadoes it would take to equal government's body count. It's a legacy of death and destruction no other group of terrorists or individual murderers could ever dream of approaching, even if they all managed to have free reign with little chance of being stopped. That kind of destruction requires the power, organization, and direction of states. And it's not civilized.

All states have power; too much of it by any rational measure. They are organized- against individual liberty. And they have direction- even if some parts appear to be pulling against other parts, the main thrust is always toward more power and more organization for the state, and toward unifying the direction of the pull.

Individuals must choose to never, under any pretext or justified by any job, use force against those who are not physically attacking them nor violating their property, in order to make power, organization, and direction work for good. It makes all the difference in the world, and is something anyone can choose.

Just because tornadoes have always existed, and probably always will, it is no reason to embrace them, defend them, or try to unleash more of them.

.

Importing new Democrats? Or creating them?

"Conservatives" yapping about "illegals" sound just as dumb as "liberals" droning on about guns.

But consider this: "Conservatives" say they oppose the independent migrants because they are being imported (or allowed to enter) to become "new Democratic voters". Well, who do you think they'd vote for? The people who are "welcoming" them with hatred, calling them "illegals", and waving the Federal flag in their faces?

Sure, it would be better if they refused to play the political game at all. It would also be better if there were no welfare for anyone to become dependent upon, and no "offices" to vote any parasites and tyrants into.

But consider who immigrants are inevitably going to see as the ones on their side. Consider who they'll end up being exposed to in a positive way. It's not going to be the "conservatives".

If you want new immigrants to become more like you, treat them with respect. If you don't want them to slip into the arms of your ideological enemies, then don't drive them there. Give them a chance. Encourage them to be independent and self-reliant. Lead by example and kindness.

Treating them like scum is guaranteeing the outcome you claim to fear. A self-fulfilling prediction. And unless you are as deeply in denial as those you rail against, you have to see how much of the responsibility is yours.

.

Being predictable

Do you imagine me to be a difficult, grouchy person? Sometimes I wonder if I come across that way.
I don't think I am... with some exceptions.

I'm very nice and friendly to people who are not trying to violate me- or arguing that violating me is good.

However, I won't stay silent when someone is happily relating some exciting new scheme for violating me or others. And, there does seem to be a lot of that around.

I know some people around me roll their eyes and think (or say) "there he goes again" when they have casually mentioned some new "law" or a victim of some "law"- and they aren't condemning that "law". Well, keep your "laws" to yourself and I'll never find a reason to mention liberty or say your "laws" are evil and stupid.

I really would prefer to never think about, much less speak of, "government", politicians, "laws", or things of that sort. And, I usually don't on my own. But, don't bring it up in my presence and insist I not point out the evil of that which you support. It ain't gonna happen.

Although, I would like to try the opposite approach sometime. When someone advocates a new "law" or expresses support for some current "law", I should enthusiastically suggest enforcing it with an immediate death penalty. "Close the borders? Yes! And forget the border wall- let's build a nuclear bomb booby trap mine field all along the border! That'll show 'em! I'll bet Brewer and Perry could buy plenty of nukes from former Soviet serfdoms! They can charge a big tax on Mexican food to finance the program!"

I wonder what they'd think of that sort of reaction.

.

Shaneen Allen: Innocent by virtue of "Shall NOT be infringed"

I was asked to share this blog post, and I'm happy to do so.

New Jersey’s Gun Laws: Taking Innocent Single Mothers Away From Their Children

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession"- of anything, and especially not guns. This woman is being made a political prisoner. She did nothing wrong as far as I can tell from this case. "Routine traffic stops" are a gross violation of the human right to travel without molestation, so the cop was the bad guy right from the start. Then he chose to escalate his evil to a new level.

This is what happens when you expect cops to do the right thing. NEVER trust cops. NEVER offer any information- or even speak to them. And in every way possible, shun them completely in your personal life.

I wish Ms. Allen the best, but I fear for her safety in the hands (and cages) of the bad guys who call themselves The State.

.

Selective outrage

If you support any "victimless crime laws" then your support inevitably leads to people being kidnapped and jailed for things like collecting their own rain runoff.

You can't have the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, or anti-sex "laws", or "drivers licenses" without making it "OK" to violate people for other things that are none of anyone else's business.

So, next time you get infuriated over someone being "arrested" and punished for something you know is absolutely ridiculous, take a moment to remember and consider the victims of the counterfeit "laws" you still support.

.

Admiration is earned. Or not.

From time to time I get a comment that asks this question: "Isn't there any country or government anywhere in the world you admire?"

What an odd question.

Not long ago I countered by asking the commenter "Is there any rapist you admire?"

Because, for me, the answer is obvious. How can you admire something that is not admirable? Something which has no admirable qualities at all? If, by "country", you mean a political region.

If you mean the individuals, the land, the natural wonders, my friends and family who live there- then, sure, I love and admire America. Because I know the place. Nationalists would be shocked, but I am sure I would feel the same no matter where I had been born and raised. (So I am not surprised, jealous, or angry when others express the same about their "country".)

My admiration is reserved for those people and things which have earned it.

But, if you mean the political region, then NO. There is nothing to admire.

Same with all governments. Government is based on theft and aggression, so how can I admire one?

.

Why bother with the ceremony, then?

I recently attended a wedding. I was dismayed at how much weight the preacher who was performing it placed upon the licensing and other "official" recognitions. Even going so far as to talk about them during the ceremony- something I have never heard done before. Is this a new thing?

Sure, he talked about how the couple desired more than just the "legal" recognition, and that's why they chose the religious ceremony (and the associated fortune spent), but he kept emphasizing the "license" and "legal" aspects as if the ceremony were a mere show, and the actual marriage only hinged upon the State's blessing.

I guess that's why some make such a huge deal out of the gay marriage thing. After all, if the religious ceremony is that unimportant to the reality of the marriage, even to the religious, then what is left? Only the State's blessing.

If you tell me you are married, that is all the confirmation I need. If you choose to make it any of my business. I will never ask to see your permits. What sort of idiot would?

Never invite The State into your marriage! That's a threesome you really don't need.

.

Cops are certainly "committed" to the "job"...

When people do something wrong, they are often said to have "committed" an act. A person can "commit murder", "commit an armed robbery" or "commit a kidnapping", but I've never heard anyone say "commit a rescue" or "commit a birthday party".

Which makes me think I will specify that all acts of cop are "committed". Cops will "commit an arrest", "commit enforcement", or "commit a traffic stop" because those acts are bad, and cops are bad guys. It makes perfect sense to me.

.

The "Thin Blue Line" vs Liberty

Liberty will eventually need to tear through the "Thin Blue Line" if it is to survive and thrive. Accept it. There is no other enemy capable of doing so much to violate Rightful Liberty, and at some point that enemy will have to be faced and dealt with- it would be nice to believe they could be reasoned out of their evil.

Illustration and idea by George Tirebiter. Commentary by me.

.

Pageant winners

The time is coming when you will be encouraged to add your tiny, insignificant vote to an avalanche of other insignificant votes so a new crop of rulers can be selected to meddle in your private affairs and find new and exciting ways to steal from you- and decide they need to steal more and more.

Yep, elections are coming.

Maybe instead of calling this nasty ritual an "election", we should call it something more accurate. Something like a pageant of slavery.

The control freaks would call you crazy for calling it that.

.

Ideals didn’t change, Americans did

Ideals didn’t change, Americans did

(My Clovis News Journal column for June 6, 2014)

How did the ideals America was founded upon- even if they were always imperfectly implemented- become so misunderstood and reviled by the majority of Americans? How did these principles become "radical", "extreme", and frightening? Or even "terrorism"?

How did false safety and socialistic collectivism become the default position of both the left and the right, and how did self reliance become suspicious?

The ideals didn't change; Americans did. One individual at a time. Through intentional mis-education, fear mongering, scapegoating, and more.

There isn't anything libertarians advocate which would have been foreign or antithetical to Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin, yet people who believe themselves to be honoring the memories of those men recoil in horror at some of the ideas and opinions presented. Does that not seem strange?

The root of those horrifying ideas is that identical human rights abide in every single person, everywhere on the planet, from birth. Those rights did not come from government, but pre-existed even the very first government ever imagined, and are independent of government approval, citizenship, or culture. Those rights trump any rules, ordinances, or "laws" ever made up. Legislation- the name for those made up "laws"- is not Law, but is often in direct opposition to Natural Law.

No official position or "job" can grant extra rights, carve out exceptions to the fundamental human rights of any opponent, nor grant a license to violate even the most "minor" right of the "least important" person you may encounter.

A demand or a requirement that violates those rights is null and void. You may still find it safer to comply in the face of armed enforcers, but the demand is never legitimate; you have been violated by common thugs with uncommon immunity from consequences.

As have we all.

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden recently said something that could have come straight from the writings of any of the most heroic of America's founders: "Sometimes to do the right thing, you have to break a law." He's right, and unfortunately, it's getting even more true with every passing day. Yet, those who pretend to revere the founders of America are those most likely to want to see Snowden's head on a pike. He exposed those who are the real enemies of liberty, but has become a Rorschach test to winnow the collectivists and nationalists from the lovers of liberty.

My only complaint is that he, like so many others, worked for the wrong side before realizing it was a mistake and turning around.

America's founders would approve of his actions, since they did similarly "illegal", but right, things in pursuit of liberty and in opposition to tyrants. Does that frighten you?
.

Well-meaning thieves

Some people I love have government "jobs". It saddens me that they are thieves.

Even if they work for the money and do nothing wrong as part of their "job"- they aren't passing or enforcing counterfeit rules, nor directly violating anyone's Rightful Liberty- the money they are paid is still stolen property.

I have had people argue that they aren't thieves because they work for their money... they don't believe it is work to mug people in the park, or to break into houses and carry out all the valuables? Not only is it "work", it is dangerous "work". Do they believe those thieves should be compensated for the hard work they do?

Well, a mugger's "job" isn't wanted by me- and neither is the government school teacher's position, nor the cop's, nor the bureaucrat's. I willingly pay for what I want, but when I am forced to pay for what I don't want and would prefer to do without, I am being robbed. And so are you.

Please, if you work for government in any capacity, stop being dishonest and quit your government "job"*.

-

*The one exception I would make is if you use your government "job" to monkeywrench and foul up government's plans and save its victims. And still, unless you are able to do a huge amount of damage, internally, to government schemes, and save a huge number of people from its clutches, it's probably not worth it. You can't have 10 victims for every person saved and think you are doing good.

.

Look past deceptive labels

I have a chunk of granite and a block of marble. Unless you aren't too bright you'll recognize that neither is suitable as food. I might decide to call the granite "cheese" and the marble "horse manure", but that doesn't make the granite more edible. It's just a trick of mislabeling.

Well, the same goes for politicians.

You see this most often with "conservatives" and Libertarians (LP), where someone is only viewed as a particular thing because of the label they have chosen- but they have none of the attributes of that thing which they are claimed to be.

And, neither is suitable for running your life anyway.

.

"Proportional response"

The rather dangerous concept of "proportional response" keeps raising its ugly head.

"Proportional response" is nonsense. Once someone has aggressed or stolen, the burden is on them for "starting it", not on you to make sure you only defend yourself or your property "just enough".

Does that mean I would shoot a kid for cutting across the corner of my yard? No. I haven't done it, and kids cut across my corner lot every single day- and have even damaged stuff.

Instead of being so worried that a response might be unproportional, pay more attention to not doing anything which will cause a response in the first place. As I have seen expressed so "eloquently": Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'. But if you do start it, don't whine when it doesn't go how you have visualized it going.

.

Don't be scared; be prepared.

Those who carry a gun don't need to be afraid of the bad guys.

Those who have a Bug Out Bag don't need to be scared of emergencies.

Those who have prepped their homes don't need to be scared of natural or man-made disasters.

Those who know "government" is an illusion don't need to fear anarchy.

It doesn't mean things will always go well for you- it means you have done all you can to increase the odds in your favor. No one can do more.

Don't be scared. Prepare.

.

Solve a mystery

1t
2J
3n

The above are 3 text messages which I got last night/this morning at 12:01 from "Unknown. They all arrived within about a half second, in numerical order.

Even stranger, when I actually open the texts, the letters aren't there, only the numbers.
There is no way to reply to the texts, not that I would anyway.

Does anyone have a clue what this might be, or has anyone ever gotten something like this?

.

Happy Secession Day!

Or, maybe Liberty Day. Because you're independent every day, right?

I refuse to celebrate a day which was originally set aside to celebrate independence from a tyrannical State by worshiping the growing abuses of a tyrannical State which is in the process of building a planet-wide Mega-Empire of aggression, spying, and theft.

Nope. I'll celebrate the spirit of secession- as it should be.

And, when I encourage secession I don't just mean an independent nation of Texas or something like that- although that would be fine too, as a first step of smashing Leviathan into manageable-sized chunks- but secession all the way to the level of the individual. Not isolated islands of one person each, but a sea of equal individuals. No slaves; no masters. Just sovereign individuals living their lives, not under any false "authority".

That is Liberty, and secession is a necessary step on the path to get there.

Happy Secession Day!

-

I see this as the antidote to the fictional Unification Day from "Firefly". Yesterday I was shocked and disappointed to see a supposed Browncoat on Facebook defending and praising the real life Reavers... I mean PurpleBellies.  Oops, Alliance... uh... cops. Whichever... the real life bad guys. The cognitive dissonance seems like it would painful. Can't much figure out how copsuckers survive such high levels of it.

.

Restricting liberty inevitably tragic

Restricting liberty inevitably tragic

(My Clovis News Journal column for May 30, 2014. Sorry, I was late posting the whole thing to the blog this time!)

As soon as I heard about the Santa Barbara, California, murders I held my breath and waited for the anti-gun advocates to start dancing in the blood- I didn't need to wait long.

Six innocent people died- three of those shot to death. All because one person (who came from a home of confessed anti-gun advocates, by the way) felt rejected and inferior. He was seething with homicidal racial hatred, against "white people" and "black" men, which he blamed on blonde women who wouldn't date him.

His rants showed no hint of self responsibility for his situation, nor any awareness that perhaps women- all women- rejected him because he was exhibiting violent tendencies, socially awkward behavior, and harboring violent fantasies.

I'm sure if he had survived his murder spree he would claim no responsibility for those who died at his hands, but would blame his victims in some way.

Many other people will choose to place the blame elsewhere, as he did, but on one tool he used, instead. He blamed blonde women; most observers with an anti-liberty bias will blame the gun. In their minds it couldn't be entirely his fault.

Might as well pretend the stabbing deaths didn't happen, or find a way to blame them on the gun, too. It's the standard drill after these tragedies occur.

California already has some of the most onerous anti-gun laws in the country- the same kind we are told will keep us safe. How is that working out?

Gun haters believe if you just keep kids away from guns, and keep them ignorant about how guns work, the kids will be safe.

Let's try the same with water safety and see how refusing to teach kids to swim, or sensible behavior in and around water, pans out. Don't act shocked and angered- and don't blame water- when kids drown due to enforced ignorance.

Kids and guns do mix. It's the best way to teach them the proper way to use the tools, and the consequences of mishandling them, early enough for the lessons to stick. In addition, the libertarian principle of never "initiating force" will go a long way toward avoiding intentional aggression, with or without a gun.

Some people find it easier to blame inanimate objects, or claim other people made them do bad things. Plus, as long as people keep seeking excuses to justify aggression, while at the same time demonizing defensive violence, more tragedies will result.

Restricting liberty is never the solution, and inevitably leads to a tragic destination. It's long past time to start respecting the Rightful Liberty of every person, whoever and wherever they may be.
.

Liberty Lines, July 3, 2014

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

I can't believe the arrogance of those who decide to give themselves more power over the lives of people they previously had no "authority" over.

Some people choose to live beyond city limits in order to enjoy a little extra freedom from the intrusive and meddlesome rules that towns are known to make up out of thin air (usually "justified" by "health and safety") and enforce.

Extending a town's jurisdiction in this way is a betrayal, no matter what "state law" may allow. It's really no different than Canada suddenly deciding to control what people in Montana can do on their own property. Sure, governments jealously guard their own tax cows, and Montanans are already claimed, and well milked, by several different levels of government, but people choose to not live under more government than they want for a reason. This status quo is like a truce- live and let live. This proposed expansion of "jurisdiction" is a violation of that implicit truce.

Take a hard look at those pushing for this expansion of government intrusion. Never believe them if they claim to be for "limited government" while seeking to expand government control in such a large way. You now know exactly what they are and how they see you.

Does this mean the Farwell police department is admitting there isn't enough actual, real trouble in Farwell proper to keep them busy, so they feel a need to extend their territory? If so, cut back on employees, put the remainder on part time, and refund the savings to the residents. I can "police" myself- as can almost every other person in town. And together, without any "official help", we can keep the actual aggressors and property violators in line- apparently unless they hold political office or draw their pay from the tax loot.

_

Mike Pomper- In last week's Border Banter you wrote "us homies cannot do a blasted thing about" all the new federal regulations which will be imposed on us in the near future. Sure we can! We choose whether to obey or not. I realize you may not want to be an outlaw, but you had better get over it. Soon, all the decent people will be outlaws. Maybe "soon" is already here.

In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand wrote "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." That time is upon us. It's interesting how applicable that quote is to the first part of my column as well.

.

Don't crawl in bed with the bad guys and it won't rub off on you

Government is strictly forbidden by the Second Amendment from making up rules regarding guns. Period. That's what "shall not be infringed" means, even though government employees lie about it.

That means courthouses, post offices, cities, and Washington, District of Creeps can't legitimately (or legally) regulate guns in any way. Not without becoming criminals (yeah, I mean in even more ways).

But I think it also means that anyone who gets in bed with government can't either. And, by that I mean those who give up their private business to become a corporation, with government perks and benefits, have given up more than they realize. Those "benefits" have a downside.

(That may even have implications for Hobby Lobby's latest win. Are they really private property, or are they in bed with government/incorporated and therefore seeking to have their cake and eat it, too? And, no, I don't believe anyone is "entitled" to have anyone else pay for their healthcare.)

There's a simple way to avoid this and make up all the anti-liberty rules your little heart longs for: don't prostitute yourself (and not in a good, honest way) and your business by becoming a corporation. Yes, that has drawbacks, but you can't have it both ways. Either you are a free market business and make up all your own rules, or you become a quasi-governmental corporation and have to abide by the rules you willingly signed on for. What? You didn't think that was part of the deal?

.

Great minds think alike

So many times I'll be writing something and run across someone else's writings that parallel what I have been thinking and writing.

Or, I will publish something only to have someone else tell me they have been writing about the same topic.

I'm sure events probably trigger thoughts that tend to lead in similar directions to people who reject the institutionalization of theft and aggression. But maybe it's more than that.

Maybe "great minds" just tend to think alike.

We are all endlessly repeating and exploring- and discovering- the same concepts over and over. And that's OK. In fact, it's probably essential. To get an idea into your brain it helps to hear it over and over, and hearing it from multiple sources probably helps even more. Universal truth doesn't get diluted by being presented by lots of people. It gets reinforced.

.